tv Tea Party Rally in Iowa CSPAN September 4, 2011 12:25am-1:10am EDT
>> i have worked for drug courts for years. [unintelligible] >> i have been on these panels for a long time and it is almost humorous to me that a legalization proponents used the site great britain, what a wonderful situation appeared in the talk about switzerland. then they talk about hollen. now we're to portugal. lows, there is a lot of counter- information out there. >> i can bring three of those, they're much better than what you're doing here. [unintelligible] >> it could be increases and honesty. >> they have your people with hiv, that your people involved with criminality. all of those people are doing much better than we are doing. >> every single category of drug use in portugal as risen since 2007. >> over does is down.
hiv and hepatitis is down. you can show that drug levels are more less than stable, but the negative consequences of drug use are down. >> that cato institute took a snapshot in 2007 based on a three-week visit. >> a much more academic, professional effort in 2010, and you'll see the evidence without the cato institute. >> care is a lot of reformation on both sides. -- there is a lot of information on both sides. >> i appreciate the passions. this is directed toward the attorney general. is -- is this a question of the protection of the individual or of society? it is a question of protection of society, what we now have
strong -- why do we not have moore's stronger drug driving laws? >> it is a matter protection of society, and we do have strong from driving laws. i started out when the penalty for drunk driving was $150. when the public pressure increase the consequences and involve jail time, we reduced in a very short period of time our fatal accidents do that alcohol in colorado in half. that is one of the things that these folks would never like to a knowledge, the extent of the number of americans, particularly young americans, who will say that the legal status of a substance is important to them. if it is illegal, they are inclined not to use it. there is significant number of young americans who believe that. >> it is illegal for them to drink. it does not stop them from
drinking illegally. >> if it does. it does. >> if is a big problem. >> eric holder directed by federal prosecutors to back away. pursuing medical marijuana cases. however, areas in that this is a turn on -- attorney general's have sent letters to various governors suggesting a potential change in policy. is there in fact a change in policy? if there is not, what is behind this? if so, what prompted it? >> i would say it is a federal shift in policy. the 2009 memorandum opened up a lot of room for it said that the state -- if it is operating illegally under state law, we will not get involved. in a couple of months, i
thought it'd gone a little far. they propose setting up a huge growth facility. that is just too much. i think the obama administration said do not take this too far. it depends on the local political situation. colorado, when it comes to responsible regulation, you are at the forefront. it is important for the people and the medical marijuana industry to act responsibly. elected montano. approval effort on the part of u.s. attorneys there to do something every in new jersey, with the republican darling resisting implementing the medical marijuana law, and last month he announced i am implementing it and i am going to interpret the justice debarment memo in a way to allow me to implement this law. i'm not worried about state officials getting busted. and rhode island and arizona were under pressure to implement
their losses well. -- their laws as well. it depends on the good faith and the intelligence of the people involved, but with law enforcement and the industry and the doctors in the patient. >> i want to observe that this was more than a shot across the ball. the letter from john walsh from colorado opposite said that public officials could also be prosecuted for supporting medical marijuana. >> i have a bird's-eye view on this. you're pretty close to what happened here. the initial memo came of as a lot of discussion in the campaign. the president agreed that if people are strictly complying with state medical marijuana laws, it should not be at federal enforcement priority. the problem was the most merkel -- medical marijuana laws at
that time was what we had in colorado, the grow your own caretaker model. others have contemplated moving to it and i tell you what is going on, they are nervous his the teenage use of marijuana, the only thing that came to the market is the medical marijuana all phenomena. the teenage use of marijuana is increasing significantly. i know for a fact they do not want to be responsible for a return to 1979 levels of marijuana use in this country. that is what is going on and the justice department said, with a minute, retrenching a bit. they're trying -- they're trying to keep other states from adopting a model like colorado has.
>> in vermont, you have the governor say, i do not care what the letter as saying. i will implement the law and the state. in arizona, you have a governor making one specious argument with illegal art -- immigration and an entirely different argument for marijuana. there really is a lot of spending on all local situation. this justice department is not going to be going into places where local authorities are regulating and operating. >> is more political discussion than a legal discussion. i do not see the political will for any type of mass enforcement action. nor the capability. there is not the ability or the political will for a mass enforcement action. >> having gone above kindergarten and law school, i understand the confusion.
>> how to pick up on something that mr. coulson runabout on his commentary. -- wrote about in his commentary. it is accepted that a war on drugs, going on in the range of 40 years now, has been a failure. and the interesting question that you raising your commentary, has that failed because we have not yet done enough? >> yes, we have not committed in society to changing, one, drug use, substance abuse from a law- enforcement issued to a public health issue. that is a big issue. that issue is about investing in getting the message, making our children resilience to drug use, to providing those who of fallen into the addition cycle a place
to go, to those who are incarcerated and looking for treatment, an avenue for treatment. if someone wants help, they need to have help. in terms of a drug war, we have not had a comprehensive -- i know president nixon calling to that phrase. i could never understand the term drug war because we never really went to war against drugs. we struggled for long periods of time with bringing domains together, bringing a law enforcement together with prevention and treatment and working hand-in-hand to help the community heal. sometimes helping a community hill means putting somebody in jail. >> putting someone in jail. >> someone who is a drug trafficker, so that they have time to heal. but we never invested in fixing people.
warse've gone through two and we have returning veterans who are not getting the assistance that they need. we have people who need help who are not getting a. unfortunately the people that need help is in our community is most impacted by crime, which is drug-related. if we invest in a generation or so, there will not be in need for a drug enforcement agent. that is the ideal situation. dr. nadelmann pointed out that we will always have drugs here. i can never subscribe to that. it means that there is no hope. >> if it may not make for good theater, but this question is not often ask and we have about five minutes left in this segment. kuehl round the circle or the core issue and ask, what can each of you agree on in about a minute each? >> i agree with the attorney
general the legalization makes more sense than the medical is asian. -- medicalization. it's hard to say that marijuana is good for you. it does not help for chronic pain or side effects or certain conditions, but marijuana is in general very bad for you. it is not helpful or medical although have some use. given this choices, i'm going to go for the non-medical. i agree with him on that. i also agree with a couple of people mentioning treatment and help. that has to be there. one of the things in an era of declining resources is have dedicated tax revenue that goes
to helping treatment and avocation and prevention. -- assocation -- effication intervention. >> the law enforcement is not the answer to the problem. clearly is not. we have to increase our efforts at prevention and a heckuva lot better in treatment. our differences are significant whether there should be any role for law enforcement and i think there should be. but it is a health issue. i just think it is also a social problem that implicates our crime problem and all those sorts of things. it is the involvement of our law enforcement, but it is not going to be solved by law enforcement. >> i think what john said about, -- the chair and said, in the
netherlands, where anyone over the age of 18 can go to a coffee shop and get marijuana, they still have a distribution system. it is produced carefully to produce no mold, sanitary environment, and covered by the national health insurance i think we can agree on than. drug courts may be the appropriate people of all been predatory crimes against others. -- the appropriate place for people involved in predatory crimes against others. relying on interdiction at the border is, given the inevitable forces, it is probably a few tall strategy. utile strategy. >> i like to agree on the fact of any more independent study is
not funded by either of the pro- legalization of the pro-medical marijuana side, or the government, but more independent studies like the columbia university work. we need more data. we need more information. before we pull down the fence, we have to understand why the fence was put up to begin with. and we just do not have that information. and i cannot see selling the next generation of kids down the street because we think it is the right thing to do. >> let's open this up to the audience. this will be more like can the garden that law school. those with their hands just politely of will be called on for spiritless car with this general man in the center here. -- will be called on first. let's start with this gentleman in the center here. >> i am hispanic, from mexico,
and very offended by that comment you made about are headed for it last month we had over 2 million mexicans peacefully protesting the atrocities happening in mexico over the drug war. the cartels to not get stronger because it inherited what ever you said, that spain treated as badly and therefore we're 5 for the cartels that strong for two recent united states stop immigration and started and forced harder places. so the cartels got rich from charging people and forcing them to become across the river. and that treated use showed his in the united states. if you want to stop those rate -- and that tree you showed is in the united states.
the guns killing people camp from the united states. the officer that sat late died in mexico couple months ago was killed by weapons supplied by the u.s. government to the cartels. please do not blame my country for the u.s. use of the drug. your appetite for drugs is killing my country. please illegalize this said that the deaths in my country stop. -- please legalize this so that the deaths in my country stop. [applause] >> i mean no disrespect but i'm glad you are offended because you need to stand up and speak up. more country in -- more people in your country need to stand up and speak up. they are being victimized. i am not saying that this was inherited from the colonial masters. this came from one of the major politicians in your country, who
stated that in a public forum seminar in phoenix, arizona. he is one of the wealthy to wondered families. it was at candidate for the presidency of mexico. and he said that. that is his statement that he made. i want you to stand up. i am waiting for the people of mexico to be tired of what is going on. when it happens, we're going have a different dynamic in this drug situation. >> i spent a lot of time with mexican prosecutors. 15 western states have a usaid grant over five years to train prosecutors and investigators in mexico, because to their credit, they are trying to move an adversary system of government from the current system, mostly corrupt. i'm spending a lot of time of mexican prosecutors. they are incredibly frustrated
that the number of nguns coming from the united states. i personally believe this atf program, which i understand they're trying to get to higher levels, not well thought out program, but i have asked all the state attorney generals and the federal attorneys general where they think legalization of marijuana or even other drugs would bring a significant and it to the violence raging -- a significant end to the violence in mexico when the drug market dries up, they kidnap people. when they have a level of corruption, until we get meaningful changes in the mexican criminal justice system, it is a non-fire down there. they are in charge of the country and they will do whatever they needed it to make money. >> people oftentimes say that if
you legalize drugs, the gangsters will go to other businesses. but the fact of the matter is, they go to other businesses anyway. the number one thing you need to go into other businesses is capital. the number one source of capital in mexican cannes is the illegal drug business. -- and mexican -- in mexican cartels is the illegal drug business. the former president has said the legalization is the only way to go. its predecessor just joined the global commission on drug policy last month with the former ombia, and wecolumbia i ex need another way. the legalization of marijuana needs to be on the table.
a prosecutor in office may not agree with us. but privately you may hear a different story. >> is the gentleman will apply hack, can you come down here -- the gentle man with the white hat, can you come down here, please? >> this is for the enforcement officers here. >> i am retired. to get the retired enforcement officer, mime policy -- my apology barrett and me give you some personal and affirmation. and in his jerry. i am 39 and when i was 18 and had my entire colon removed. they gave me such high doses of prednisone, i became a diabetic.
they discovered a liver problem which would require transplants when i was older predella back in 1990. i think i smoked marijuana the first time in 1987, when i was 13. only did it a couple of things -- a couple of times per after 1990 -- couple of times after 1990. i did not like the pills that they gave me for the intestinal diseases that i had. the pain in the nausea and all that. and i had my liver transplant when i was 25. that was my first liver transplant. by then i learned that these pills are making the deathly sick if i can send them. whereas the marijuana as slim motivated me to get out of bed and get down the -- it actually
motivated me to get out of bed and ride my bicycle. then i had my second liver transplant two years ago. that was in 2009. the disease that i have this genetic and kids impacting deliveries of will probably need another one. -- and keeps impacting my liver. will probably need another one. since i was a team, i had been pressured by people like you guys, telling me i am bad and i am wrong and that i am not court to be successful because of the marijuana use. i managed to get through college. i worked in different professions. i had my college degree. i work for local outfit here. it is a luxury hotel.
at one time his international company, i get there best rating and i was stoned when i got everything. i'm trying to figure out where i might successful and where i am a failure and where marijuana drove me wrong. and other than being on my andrcycle when i'm sober, the negative things that have made me a degenerate. i did not start using my degree in biology and chemistry, and now i'm steading this marriage thing -- marijuana thing a lot more intensely. i am really finding success at finding the healing response in the body accelerating enormously
when i consider a massive amounts of after surgery's and illnesses. no one is articulating on this and the marijuana industry. there these cancer patients and they're not saying, it is getting rid of cancer quickly than the people that are not smoking it when they take chemotherapy. i just -- i wonder when we're going to stop our fear of what is going on so that we can listen to people like me and how this is helping. i do not see -- i see a lot of people dying from things around the country, whether big guns or drugs. >> forgive me, i appreciate your story and the passion. let's give the panel a chance. >> how we deal with this in our culture? >> it sounds like you're dealing
with that. you are a medical marijuana patient. >> but i'm being told it is a bad idea. >> i think it is a bad idea because the vast majority are staying in the system. i did not think it was a bad idea when we had the system set up where you could grow your own or care for error -- or a care giver to grow it for you. i did not want the bad message to children about the assess stability of the drug. i am not going to judge your success or anything else. as you know, it is clear that thc has some medical qualities to it. there is one prescription drug on the market and two coming out -space.
people say that smoking does something for me that the prescription drug does not. i would be shocked if there is any legitimate medical conclusion at any point and that smoking as a means of investing thc as a palliative agent is a healthy thing to do. i think the medical profession will not come to that. >> marinal as just one drug senate and marijuana has 650. >> you can put those in prescription form. >> peoples should have a choice between the pill or the whole version that can be smoker put in debate products. the onset is quicker if you're dealing with nauseam painter that is not true for marinal.
it is likely to get too high. and quite frankly, if you smoking to a vaporizer or you're not consuming a lot amount, the harms are relatively modest. and beyond that, it is a matter of choice. who should ultimately get to say what medicine you take? the doctor should be there to recommend and advise but ultimately it should be my choice, what i want to take, or what my child is committed to. if you ask where the prohibition laws came from in the first place, it said been some early institute of medicine that listed all the drugs and said these one should be legal and these illegal. it did not happen. if you look at the state level and the federal level, criminalizing marijuana, they did not do and injected -- an
objective study. it was almost entirely about racism. the initial prohibition laws in the midwest and southwest in the early 1930's. almost entirely about targeting mexican-americans and migrants. that fear of the dark past and people coming to take our jobs and what will they do with our women. that is how we got those laws, the yellow journalism. these laws are illegitimate today and illegitimate in their origin. >> dr. neman, you made an amazing statement. you said that the government should not interfere with his choice and medicine. >> i think that the government should play an advisor role. >> the fda should not have advisory powers? >> i should have a right. when people are struggling with
aids and other governments were approving drugs before we were, they were importing them illegally and they allowed it happen legally. looking at switzerland and other countries where they allow heroin addicts to go to the clinic, that is the right policy. the scientific evidence is there. >> you would do away what drug certifications by the dea. >> i don't think the d.a. should be certified in drugs. -- the dea should decertifying drugs. >> i'll like to see the institute of medicine at assessing the quality of trucks. i like to see them give a warning about these things. but i do not think people should be arrested and incarcerated for putting a substance in their body that they think is helping them. >> by all standards, if someone is taking marijuana instead of
more famer something like that, it is far more mild than the very strong and addictive products. something milder like marijuana works, it is far less-health consequences far l-- far less negative health consequences. >> the fda is waiting for someone to come in and say that marijuana is a legitimate madison. -- madison. >> let's go out to the questions. >> i do not know if you're familiar with "freakanomics." they make a compelling argument that the decrease in crime was
the results of the availability of the right to terminate one pregnancy they came the past 20 years before that. in terms of the stronger marijuana, marijuana had become more potent because of the war on drugs. it makes the producers wanting to make it stronger medicine. in terms of the effects on adolescent friends, i have adult friends who have used cocaine and recently try adderol. that thought it was like time- released cocaine. we're giving that madison to children. -- medicine to children. we have a 28-day program and for everyone in recovery, that is
based on insurance companies saying that is what we will pay for. until people say, in reality if you want to drink, alcohol or drug addition, you need up to 120 days of treatment. until then, we are kidding ourselves. i thought that i go into treatment for 28 days, but i understand that would not be effective. if i had a problem. the 28-day model does not work. to talk about making treatment available, the average person who has not been arrested and being forced into treatment, what are their options in this country available and affordable? >> you are absolutely right. the protocols for treatment for different drugs, methamphetamines is far longer than some of the other prescribed treatment regimens. but you're absolutely right -- we have insurance companies, we
have all -- a host of different entities involved in deciding what someone is entitled to in terms of treatment. and it is not based on in this case the science of what treatment should be. above all we go down the road, again, of turning on -- opening the floodgates, we have to solve those problems. we have to solve those issues. we cannot even get to the debate of legalization until we solve the treatment is you. we cannot get there. we have to solve that first. you cannot afford to do this at risk. >> we need to deal with drug addiction, you're right. but locking up people at a rate that we are and a voting tens of billions of dollars to the drug war, we need to move to a how bleak -- a public health approach and sensible
prevention. >> that money being spent for law enforcement will naturally diminish if you invest properly in the treatment and prevention areas first. if you do not pick someone, york returning them back to the street. the reason the cost for law enforcement is there is because they have to deal with the outcomes of addiction. did in the burglaries, robberies, rapes, the fortress, we have to deal with us. i've only predicted in the past that as we lowered drug possession and use rates in colorado, we would not have a significant impact on our -- impact on our incarceration rate. that has proven true. >> one of the things happening here is that inflation of drug use -- conflation of drug use with marijuana use. john, you met up flawed argument
in your presentation. in 1979, hu said, drug use was at a high in america. 40 million americans were using grid by 1918, down to 20 million. therefore that was when nancy reagan and the drug war was a success. we cut drug use and have. it was using in 1979? high-school kids >> in 1979, no one had heard of crack cocaine. in 1979, no one had heard of drug-related hiv or aids. 1979, 50,000 people behind bars. all the way to a half million today. 1989, $40 million and upward. when i looked at those years
since they give me a choice between 1970 and 1979, no crack, no aides, i will say 1979 is the best of all years. >> i hate to intercede on such an impassioned point, but we are out of time. within the interesting topic, we could go on for hours, but unfortunately, we are up against time. i would like to thank each of you for being here and the audience for being here and i would like to thank all of you for letting me participate with you. >> former bryant -- vice- presidential nominees sarah palin speaking at a tea party rally in iowa. house minority leader nancy pelosi speaks at the american legion convention. i newsmakers, ohio's republican leader discusses the economy and jobs and ohio's economic issues
as well as his view of the obama administration's economic initiatives in advance of the president's jobs speech. newsmakers sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> 2008 republican vice- presidential nominee and former alaska and the governor, sarah palin, was the keynote speaker at a tea party of america rally in iowa. she criticized president obama's handling of the economy and offered her own plan for recovery. this event is about one hour and 25 minutes. >> thank you. thank you. what an honor. thank you, iowa. thank you so much. thank you. the sign that says "thank you sarah," no, i can thank you.
your love of country keeps us going. iowa, you are good people thank you. it is an honor to be in the heartland sharing this labor day weekend with you. i thank you for the invitation. the organizers put so much work into this. it is great to see you here today. last night was fun, getting to run into some of you at the restaurants. to see so many demographics represented and so many different states all across our great nation, we got to gather together last night. different political parties represented. todd reminded me as we walked out of that room last night, "we are not celebrating red america or blue america, we are celebrating red white and blue america.
[applause] what brought us here today out in this field? why are we not watching the hawkeyes or grilling up some venison or corn on the cob on this labor day weekend? what brought us together is a love of country. we see that america is hurting. we are not willing to sit back and watch the demise through some fundamental transformation of the greatest country on earth, we are here to stop that transformation and to begin the restoration of the country that we love. [applause] we are here because america is at a tipping point. we are here because america is at a tipping point. america is facing a crisis.
it is not a crisis like a midwest summer storm -- it moves in and then it moves on -- this kind will relentlessly rage until we restore all that is free, good, and writebout america. he -- right abt america. [applause] it is not fear of a double-dip recession or a credit downgrade, it is deeper than that. this is a spit -- systemic crisis due to failed policies and incompetent leadership. we are going to speak truth today because we need to start talking about what has not worked and we are going to start talking about what will work for america. we will talk truth. some of us saw this day coming. it was three years ago on this
very day that i spoke at the gop convention. [applause] was honored to accept the nomination for vice president that night. in my speech, i asked america when the cloud of rhetoric has passedwhen the roar of the crowd fades away, what exactly is barack obama's plan? what does he seek to accomplish after he is done turning back the waters and healing the planet. the answer is to make government bigger. to take more of your money. to give more of it to others and to take more orders from washington. to reduce the strength of america in a dangerous world. i spoke of this, but backhen,
it was only my words you had t go by. now you have seen the proof yourself. and it obama d not have a record while he was in office -- candidate obama did not have a record while he was in office, but president obama does and that is why we are here today. candidate obama pledged to transform america andor all the failures and broken promises, that is the one thing he delivered on. we transformed from a country of hope to one of anxiety. one in five of working age men are out of work. one in seven americans are on food stamps. our mortgages are under water. in places like michigan and california, they are suffering from unemployment numbers that arereater than during the depths of the great depression.
barack obama promise to cut the deficit in half. instead, he tripled it. now our national debt is growing at $3 million a minute. that is $4.25 billion a day. president obama, this what you call winning the future? i call it losing -- losing our country, and with it, the american dream. these americans feel that fierce urgency of now, but you feel it, sir? the tea party was born of this urgency. it ithe same sense of urgency that propelled the sons of liberty during the revolution. [applause] it is the same sense of urgency that propelled the abolitionist before the civil war and the
civil ghts movement during the 20th century. the tea party movement is part of this noble american tradition. this movement is not simply a political awakening, it is an american awakening. [applause] it is coming from ordinary americans, not the politicos in the beltway. you, who grow our food, you run our small businesses, you teach our children, you fight our wars. we are always proud of america. we love our country in good times and bad and we never apologize for america. [applause] you know, that is why the far left's irresponsible and a radical policies have awakened radical policies have awakened