tv Washington This Week CSPAN November 7, 2015 8:30pm-10:01pm EST
court says if you want to communicate with people, we are going to protect you. if you are ideas are bad, they are going to be censored. that is to say, it is a moment when the federal government really mobilizes a lot of levels containto actually american opinion. we see these trends continues. >> thank you for being with us. we appreciate you being here for our collars, and thanks to those of you at home for watching and contracting your questions and ideas to the discussion.
united states which upheld the removal of people of japanese descent during world war ii. aboutn also find out more the landmark cases series online going to www.c-span.org /landmarkcases. written by tony mauro and published by c-span, landmark 8.95s is available for $ plus shipping. a look at the impact of legalizing marijuana in colorado. hillary clinton at a town hall meeting in south carolina. then, a 2014 interview with
howard coble of north carolina who passed away this week at the age of 84. now, a debate on the impact of legalized marijuana, team use, crime, and accidents. looks at then also impact of politics in colorado and other states around the country from the annuals the boat institute -- a steamboat cotitute freedom nference. >> several states are looking at taxing marijuana as a source of revenue. that's typical of the government. trying to squeeze blood from a stoner? [laughter] >> you like that? yeah. [applause] >> i like to introduce the moderator. mary katharine ham, many of you know from her work.
[applause] >> she spars weekly with bill o'reilly. i think she does a good job. mary catherine is a fox news contributor. she appears regularly. she is very active on twitter. those of you who follow twitter, she is very active. she's a fourth-generation newspaper journalist, and i didn't know this, she did a stint covering nascar, high school football, and the befores largest lagoons embracing new media and heading to washington dc. has been tooal discover the formula for talking about politics without being a blowhard. i think she has succeeded. she created the heritage foundation's first ever blog in
2004. she has won several awards for her work in the fledgling online video world for her series "hamm nation." carolina, andrth she graduated from the university of georgia. she was raised on a perfect company should of tobacco road basketball and sec football. kilimanjaro onnt her honeymoon, and hopes to add more to the list. she lives in virginia with her husband and daughter and another little one on the way. we are very glad she could join us. mary katharine hamm and the marijuana debate panel. [applause] ♪ everybody is high ♪ rocky mount high
♪ rocky mountain high ♪ rocky mountain high [laughter] panelists tolet my their introductions. they know themselves better than i do. i am very catherine. -- mary catherine. i'll start with my position on the subject and make sure you know my biases. i am friendly to colorado's decision to experiment with new ins and ways of doing things the way we do with drugs. many fights with bill o'reilly on the subject. i am not an expert, but because of my fight with bill o'reilly, i am the "weed girl."
in addition to arguing with him with a baby at home, i now argue about this on stage while pregnant. [laughter] mary: i'm a bad influence all around. i will let these guys exhibit their expertise. we will see where things go. i'm excited to talk about it in a place going through this and actually sort of embracing federalism's concept of being a laboratory of democracy. that comes with ups and downs. with that, i shall handed over to wayne robinson of the colorado springs gazette. [applause] wayne: thank you. i'm no expert either. mason is an expert. i live in colorado. on the editorial page of the
colorado springs gazette. my wife, in the audience over boys, andi have six the seventh i took in because his parents were ducdryg ug addicts. we are here to address the grand pot experiment. the world is watching us. can assure you that the gazette is watching this experiment skeptically. i was initially skeptical of that skepticism. i have been in colorado for a long time, since 1993. years inthe first 15 boulder, of all places. "rocky meard the song ountain high." i love that song.
"friends around the campfire, everybody's high." onelways horrified me that of the friends around the campfire could end up in a colorado prison or jail because everybody was high. i think a lot of people share that feeling. i don't think the most reasonable individuals, whether they voted for or against amendment 16, want the casual marijuana user behind bars. on that basis, amendment 64, which legalized pot, had a lot of support right up front. you throw in that it might fund education and and a horrible black market, and that's a pretty enticing prospect. so, dr. ben carson was appear just a little while earlier today. his vision,ng about
his dream for a country in which everyone can climb the economic ladder, particularly young people, so they can get away from dependency and enjoy the american dream. audience,nservative regardless of where you are on the spectrum, that's a good thing. we all dislike dependency. we are conservative people. on another occasion this year, just a couple of months ago, i spoke to dr. carson in denver about marijuana, because he is a world-renowned brain surgeon and scientist, i wanted to know his opinion. he reminded me that reliable science has found that in young people, particularly marijuana use, not even talking about daily marijuana use, it can lower the iq by eight points. that concerned him greatly.
today, andr a lot probably in the future as this debate plays out, about marijuana versus alcohol. i think mason for bringing it up. he has written a book about it. he has shed a lot of light on the evils of alcohol in this country. we do pay a very high price for alcohol. i think it's a bit of a false dilemma to say that because alcohol may be worse in some circumstances, i don't know, i'm not a scientist, if we accept that assumption, we should oncern ourselves with marijuana, which is pushing it on to our youth. let's note saying concern ourselves with diabetes because at least it's not cancer. it may cost you your eyesight and arms and legs, but it will kill you. -- won't kill you.
not long ago, i had a conversation with dr. charles krauthammer. he is a harvard trained psychiatrist. i wanted to know his opinion, not just as a pundit at -- as a pundit, but a psychiatrist. said if we go back many years and do this and dan down the road with marijuana incident alcohol, i think we'd be better off. i don't know if i agree with that. i'm not a scientist. my opinion on that is not relevant. he said we cannot get alcohol out of society. he cannot do that. it is in society. bothuestion is, do we want ? in colorado, we have both. we need to ask, what does this do to the culture and what will it do 20 use from now, 30 years from now, and in the rest of the country. let's look at the costs of
having both in colorado. we have a higher marijuana use in colorado, substantially, than the national average. regularou think marijuana use is the ticket for kids to get into harvard and yale, or to cure diseases, or to invent things and start businesses, it is probably not a way to help us move away from dependence. than usualigher national average among teens. it is up since legalization. crime and homelessness are up. ask any police chief or sheriff and they will tell you that. gateway? i don't know. i remain skeptical of that. this tripling,en we have seen a tripling of heroin overdose deaths in the last four years. correlation means calls,
we need to do something about it. hospitalization for marijuana is up 128% since legalization. workplace accidents and absenteeism are up. the gazette did a special project. we interviewed a lot of executives, primarily executives of the major construction businesses throughout colorado. hire ine even want to colorado right now, there is too much of a liability. hireling -- hiring from oklahoma, utah. it is hurting the state. edibles have been a crisis. an absolute disaster. the state defines one serving as 10 milligrams. you can walk out of a store with a bar of hash that contains up to 2000, 800 servings. that's what the state says is a serving. this has led to all sorts of
edibles, the children consume. innocent looking gummy bears, gummy worms. you name it. they eat it, the end up in the hospital. the national children's hospital has seen a 610% increase in marijuana poisoning among beingen under six since legalized. dr. ben carson says that in a country of -- a 350 million individual needs to be exceptional, because 350 million people is not many compared to india and china, which each have more than a billion. they want to be more like the united states. i'm guessing that in china and india, where they are working hard to become more like what we have been for the past 200 plus years, they are not in a race to copy a social experiment that stands to lower an entire generation's iq by eight points. thank you. [applause]
we now have mason tibbett. he's from th [laughter] mary: it's hard to say his name. [applause] mason: thank you for having me here to talk about the issue. i guess the sky is calling everywhere in colorado. outeems to be pretty nice except for marijuana being legal. i codirected the amendment 624 campaign in 2012. i have been working on marijuana policy since 2005. authored a book called "marijuana is safer, so why do we drive people to drink?"
it's the more harmful to substances that of the two substances. marijuana prohibition is a failed government program. statesbeen pushed on the and has cost us billions of dollars, and it has failed to accomplish much of anything. marijuana is still incredibly available, anyone who wants it can get it in any state throughout the country. usage rates have not been going down. they have, in a lot of states, gone up,. ask ourselves not should marijuana be legal or illegal, but what are the potential costs and benefits of prohibition, and what are the potential costs and benefits of replacing that with a different system. colorado, voters have decided to create a system where marijuana will be regulated and taxed in a manner similar to
alcohol. that different than product, but the idea is that it is a product that adults 21 years of age and older can possess and consume and it is being sold by licensed businesses that are charging taxes, that are testing their labeling,ing proper using proper packaging, not selling to minors, and so on. ultimately, 50 5% of colorado voters in 2012 decided that this would be a more preferable system to prohibition. we have seen that support grow. in february, when the pack poll -- a quinnipiac poll found that support was 58%. another poll found it was at 62%. that it appears that most coloradans seem to be satisfied with where things are right now.
that's not to say that will be the case forever. i cannot say that. ultimately, things are going more or less how we intended them to go. when we ran this campaign, we never said we will anti-prisons and prevent people from going to jail. doesn't typically lands of the in jail. it does cost people jobs. it does cost people housing. mean something for can't get jobs. it does mean people can go to court. they have to pay fines. can you imagine if every time you were found to be drinking a glass of wine or having a beer, you are subjecting yourself to being fined $150 and a day in court? that seems crazy. marijuana is less harmful than our call based on every objective standard. it's less addictive. this is according to the federal government. they've made it abundantly clear that it is less toxic, less damaging to the body. it is less likely to contribute
to violent and aggressive behavior. this is not to say it is harmless. nothing is harmless. it does have potential harm for some people. that potential for harm is to by the potential for alcohol to harm. alcoholhere to say that is bad or wrong or that people should not use it. i think as a country, we have figured out what happens when you try to prohibit alcohol. it does not go well. it causes more problems than it solves, which is why our country decided to experiment with alcohol prohibition. it is known as a failed experiment. the great experiment. which we ended. instead regulate alcohol and do what we can to control and educate people about it. we wanted to take care of the with it without creating harm through an underground market, propping up organized crime, making sure the product is controlled. people going blind
by drinking random, distilled liquors that they don't even know what they are. until 2004, colorado was doing this with marijuana. it's not as if it wasn't in colorado until we passed this law. it was incredibly available. the rate of use has not changed since the law passed. high before as it is now up it it has not gone up. marijuana was here. people were using it. they could access it. the government refer to it as being "universally available." people who wanted it could get it, but the question is where? illegally, from people on the street. from friends. from whoever they might find it from. that poses problems. again, publics are not passed-- products are not tested. the people they are getting it from might have other illegal products.
you talk about this gateway fear he, the research shows that marijuana is only a gateway drug in that it is so popular that when people go to access it in the underground, they get exposed to other illegal substances. these are things they would not be exposed to. go to liquor store and buy a bottle of wine. you don't stumble across or get offered cocaine. if you buy marijuana illegally from someone who has access to the underground market, that happens. since colorado has decided to change the structure, we now have marijuana being sold in licensed stores that are being controlled, regulated, more so than casinos and liquor stores. that's another debate entirely. it's a group that has its skeptics. i think when it comes to something like marijuana, like with alcohol, we need to have a healthy balance where we ensure the product is controlled, but only the people that are supposed to get it get it.
week should not have relation that could force the sale back into the underground market because it is too burdensome on a legitimate business. in colorado, things are going well. we have hundreds of millions of dollars taking place in these licensed businesses instead of the underground market. we have strict requirements on packaging, labeling, restrictions on appetizing. you don't see commercials. you don't see that kind of stuff all over the place. you see that the adults who do want to go to a store can and those who don't, don't. that's how it should be, frankly. in terms of its impact on society, we heard this would cause a lot of problems. we were told this would result in teen use skyrocketing. but be clear. those who voted in favor of the initiative care just as much about the well-being of young people as those who voted against it. you don't have to be
anti-marijuana to be pro-use. the difference is that the people who voted for this thought there was a better way to protect young people. that's to regulate and control this product, to make sure people are asking friday. what we are saying is that teen use rates have not changed. according to the state of colorado, they have put out a report that says teen usage has remained stable since 2005. in the survey data, you see a downward trend. in 2009, 20 4.8% of colorado high school students said they'd used marijuana. that's down to 20%. it has not skyrocketed. we have not seen that huge increase in use. there are concerns regarding people, young people who accidentally ingest it. that's an issue we absolutely need to try to prevent.
we are sayinghat that that is happening with marijuana being illegal. it's not as if it only started happening now. of people are more likely to report it, because they're less fearful of being punished and the criminalized and facing consequences, but ultimately, we need to keep this in context. i don't want to minimize this problem. it's something we want to prevent. why we want childproof packaging, for these products to be labeled so people know what they are and don't ingest them. mr. larson referred to this 600% increase in child exposure to marijuana. many cases of people being accidentally exposed to showed up to the poison center in 2014?
145. 25 for people under the age of eight. let me pull the numbers are here to make sure i get it right. 2690 five years of age and younger called poison control for consuming cosmetics. there was 740 for vitamins. there were 1500 for cleaning products. this is not to say that we should not worry about it. this is not to claim that there's a massive epidemic. this is not a recent go back to prohibition. -- this is not a reason to go back to prohibition, not so soon. when it comes to crime, talk to police officers. they can say crime has gone up. i prefer to look at the statistics. look at the arrests and crimes that have been committed and what the state has put up.
stay crime has gone down, in a lot of ways. we have no increase in crime associated with marijuana. these businesses, according to the denver police department, are not attracting crime. gazette recently had an article about how it's medical marijuana businesses are not attracting crime. all they are really doing is generating tax revenue. as a result of this law, we no longer have 7000 adults in colorado being punished, sibley for using marijuana. -- simply for using marijuana. if you don't use it, that doesn't matter. a lot of adults enjoy it for the same reason adults is alcohol. it is relaxing, social, they come home from work, they want a drink, they want to use some. i think every drug should be treated based on its arms. we are talking about a substance
that is potentially less harmful than alcohol. say, "well, let's just treat o'kane this way, let's treat her when this way." -- cocaine this way, heroine this way." were not saying that. i know that there was, i heard some chuckles when we talked about the introduction, the tax revenue that would be generated. we made it very clear that the goal here was not to raise revenue. that's a bonus. to and prohibition and the problems associated with it and start treating marijuana more reasonably. but, it is a bonus. we generated a lot of tax revenue. the numbers keep growing.
we are on pace to raise more -- a 100% increase over last year in the state of colorado. is that the best way to raise it? no. but, if the product is legal, this is a way we can treat it. they want toaid tax it, and that's what we are doing. we are generating millions of dollars in revenue for the state, which is going towards education programs, regarding marijuana, regarding other things. it's going towards legislation and whatever others want. when it comes down to is this, marijuana is out there. we didn't vote to have marijuana in colorado. we voted to start controlling marijuana in colorado. right now come we're doing more to control marijuana than any other state in the country.
washington, which also passed a similar law, and send -- and soon, oregon. we expect to see anywhere between five to 15 states through the next two or three years passed and little laws. colorado is a leader when it comes to this, just like if you be somethingld it to be embarrassed about if your state was the first and alcohol prohibition. i think that would be viewed as a badge of honor. our population was smart enough to recognize how stupid this failed government program was early enough and put an end to it. that's what colorado has done. it seems to be going well. we hope to see how it continues to go over the next several years, at which point we can make better judgment regarding its full on impact. thank you very much. [applause] i can get full on bill
o'reilly on both of you. appearednorth airline we consume random -- from north carolina. alcohol is ourm passtime. [laughter] you are both disappointingly reasonable in your points of view. that requires me to like, go all povich appear. -- up here. you have moved past the original debate, whether this is a good or bad idea. you're asking about where we are. a lot of the discussion is going to be about competing data. it has not been that long since the law passed. how do you guys assess the data and figure out if this is
credible, is this significant, what does this mean for how we legislate? in this debate, you can find statistics and data to back any point of view, as you can with most things. you, there certainly must be a lot of parents and grandparents in the audience here. i think that if you ask any parent of teenagers in the state if things are the same as they were before legalization began, i'm guessing 90 percent of them will tell you it is not. anecdotally, i can tell you is nowhere near the same. i've raced a lot of children. -- raised a lot of children. gazette, i have spoken to a lot of parents and community organizations. it is not the same. or not we should have
legalize recreational marijuana is one discussion point. the other is are we accurately ?egulating it i believe the answer is no. it is much more available to children, young children and teenagers, than it ever was before. the risk-benefit equation that anyone runs in their head before they do something that they should be doing, like smoking cigarettes or sneaking off with a sixpack of beer or whatever it may be, the risk factor is obviously lower than it was before. the state is doing very little in terms of spending money to educate young people away from this drug and keep it away from them. the druga lot of education money that was promised from the revenues generated by marijuana sales
have gone into advertising the safe use of marijuana. to promote the sale. mary: this is a data point where you had a disagreement. whether these has gone up. a lot of it is, well, kids will have more access. but, they already had a lot of access. we do have to evaluate whether it goes up or down. you are focusing on some again it does -- some anecdotes. what's your argument? i'm referencing the colorado healthy kids survey, an annual survey of 15 or 20,000 or more colorado students from around the state. it is done by the department of education, the department of human services. it is done in conjunction with,
the other statistics that they look at are those from those from the center of disease control. that's been on an annual basis every other year. i'm referring to our state and federal government surveys, and let me be clear, i'm not suggesting that use appears to be going down because of this law. i'm not. i don't know. i'm just saying it clearly has not skyrocketed. the same with crime. i'm not saying the crime has barely gone down because of this law. maybe so, maybe not. all i'm saying is that crime has not skyrocketed, as was predicted. see a few need to more years of data when it comes to the situation with driving. the colorado state patrol came out and said that anyone that says they know the effects this has on driving is giving you a bunch of crap. they said they cannot provide a reasonable and educated assessment of the actual impact
of this law for at least a few years. i am fully ready to wait and see that. when it comes to the impact that has on young people, since 2000 10, colorado high school graduation rates have increased every year. since 2009, dropout rates have decreased. [laughter] that he isn't think being disingenuous. i hear from parents who think things are way better now. that's why we have elections now. what the voters wanted was to start regulating marijuana. wayne: they did. there was a survey, a scientific poll the came out of san diego that found waning support from them and 64.
-- amendment 64. sponsored by who? juanas an anti-mari organization. they oversampled conservatives and republicans voters, no offense to anyone here. [laughter] they took a sample that only had 9% between the ages of yet something like 60% was between the ages of 65 and 75. the quinnipiac polls have been none regularly over the last two years, and they are not being paid for by a group that is trying to keep marijuana illegal. wayne: if you look at the questions and the paul, that's
questions in the do if people are satisfied with the law. sampled, iow the don't think libertarian crowds tend to be more anti-marijuana than democratic crowds. i don't sense that to be the case. [laughter] as, you know, the national survey on drug use and health in 2014 found that high ,chool aged youth in colorado we have at 56% higher than the rest of the country. another statistic, 66% marijuana addiction treatment in
colorado. that's 2011 to 2014. before we have recreational legalization in colorado, we had medicinal marijuana. believe, the obama administration justice department came out with a memo that really changed everything in colorado. nobody wanted to invest in medicinal marijuana in colorado. you did not have all these retail outlets. you had very few. springs, they had won. and maybe a couple other little ones scattered around. as soon as that memo came out, they proliferated like crazy. every town had more marijuana retail shops than starbucks or 7-eleven spewed ash 7-eleven's. more marijuana retail shops
than starbucks or 7-eleven's. there's a higher rate of use according to the nsduh. but the usage rate has been going down in colorado and up nationwide. since 2009, when medical marijuana blew up and we saw the stores all over, it was up 24.8%. now it's down to 20%. nationwide, we saw an increase. that rate of marijuana use among high school students was occurring, even when it was illegal. 1975, the survey found that more than 80% of high school seniors say it is easy to get marijuana. that's since 1975. if the goal is to make it hard for young people to get marijuana by making it illegal
and almost 80% of them say it's easy, their ego. -- there you go. mary: let's talk about unintended consequences. ones, so let'sod not been anyone into a corner. what's an unintended consequence the concerns you? -- and that concerns you? mason: i think the situation with edible marijuana which wayne brought up is a good example. i don't think it's the question of, now is this an economic of people becoming zombies and dying. i think this is about how this has been rolled out and how this is working. what's interesting about edible marijuana and why the state did not see it coming is that edible marijuana affect the body differently.
when you eat marijuana, it takes up to an hour to take affect. it has a different effect on your body. a lot of people are not familiar with how much they are supposed to use. all these differences. a lot of people are familiar with them. -- are not familiar with them. during the medical marijuana years, the only people that were really able to buy these products from stores were people who had experience and knew what they were doing. all of a sudden, when you decide to start allowing adults who had no experience with them like likey endowed -- maureen dowd, her experience educates a lot of people. now, they can judge that. than to show up in denver and order meriting a thend order a martini and three whener
she didn't feel it. [laughter] mason: the state has done a lot now to change that, the start to do things like changing products toequiring be marked, changing the way the servings are handled so that it is broken into the individual servings. so that it is not one candy bar with 10 servings, it's actually 10 separate things that someone knows not to eat more than one of. this is something the state has learned and is doing. "has been a nightmare that the state has tried to deal with. packaging regulations and such. -- the edible thing has been a nightmare that the state has tried to deal with, packing regulations and such. do you deal with granola
taken out of the package and laced with pot? still the problem with people who put cookies and candy and brownies into bowls and leave it out and think, well, they don't have any children, or maybe they do. maybe they're just bad parents. i think that's a crisis that needs to be solved. i don't think anybody anticipated that one. secondarily, i would say the law attending to eliminate the black market, i'm a libertarian, and thinking in terms of libertarian economics all the time, it does seem that if you legalize something that is not legal, the black market manages to vantage -- the black market than us is the moment you do it. that hasn't been the case. our tells have bought up and
rented as warehouses all over the state. the rental market is through the roof. no one can rent a house. that's because a lot of growing operations renting rental houses and using them as grow operations. talk to any of the attorney generals from the states suing us, and they will assure you that the cartels are alive and well in colorado and exporting pot into their states. that's an unintended consequence i did not anticipate. i did not anticipate a commercialization to this extent. guy back to when i was the who had friends around the campfire. everybody's getting high. i didn't want to see any of them go to jail. this was a pretty good idea if you looked at it. while there may have been some things gained through this, a lot of promises were pretty
empty at this point. the black market. tell me about your take. i don't spend a lot of time in it. [laughter] mason: i don't know what data is being referred to or for anybody knows the extent of the black market. ofknow that $700 million marijuana sales to placed in license businesses -- took place in license businesses. where were those taking place before? underground. at least $700 million is no longer being exchanged for marijuana in the underground market. thinks that a legal market will get rid of an underground market in 18 months, i don't think so. if that's how you are judging our flaw, yes, we failed, because we did not eliminate and
80 -- an 80-year-old underground market in 18 months. maureen dowd is the classic example of someone who bought and consumed marijuana because it is legal. we don't know the numbers exactly, but we know a lot of them are taking place,. it costspeople saying too much in the stores, and that will result in the underground market maintaining. well, now it costs the same. stores, there are the where do adults want to go? and adult wants to ask is it silly to an adult that wants to use alcohol. do you want to find someone that hasn't and hope that they have what you want and that it is what they say this and that they are actually going to give it to you and you will be safe, or you just want to stop at the store? seeing is that they
started very low and have been getting higher and higher because people are becoming more accustomed to this system. that's the reason why more and more people are buying marijuana from the stores than the underground market. it is preferable in every way. if you're a producer in mexico or some other state, and you want the heat off of you, you want to lower the overhead by reducing the amount of security you need to operate underground, guess where you are going to come? colorado. we know it is happening because we now how much is being exported out of the state. another underground feature that i did not expect is that we have this parallel system in colorado. we have the medical marijuana stores. we have the recreational marijuana stores. if you live in colorado and your regular marijuana user, its pre-stupid not to go to a marijuana doctor.
this is a doctor who does this for a living. marijuana prescriptions or whatever they call them. $50 or $100 or whatever the going rate is and for a year, you can go buy medicinal pot. it is no different. it's the same marijuana. we can have a different debate over whether it has medicinal qualities. i'm not a doctor. taxese going to save doing it that way, so that's another underground market. we have interviewed multiple teenagers who have become adults, and we have interviewed them as teenagers, and as adults who used to be teenagers, who a red card to purchase this at a great discount and then sold it in parking lots and hallways in schools. whenno different to then schools for bid candy and soda. you always find some kid who will go to sam's club or cosco
and buy in bulk and then come around and start a business in the parking lot in the hallways. that's what's going on. system this ridiculous of two competing types of retail. the candy market is big in my school. that's gone down over the past few years. there has been less homicide, less violence. this has not grossly increased, as people have suggested it has. i believe in wyoming, a 50% decrease in the amount of marijuana they have seized in 2014 compared to 2013. the medical versus nonmedical thing, let's say that alcohol was being treated this way. the process of
finding a doctor to give you a recommendation which he would have to pay the doctor for and then submit an application to the state and pay a license fee in order to get this license so that when you went to buy up bottle of wine coming -- wine, his ended up being three dollars less? most wooden. -- wouldn't. localitiesng about banning adult sales, like colorado springs. the gazette was opposed to allowing adult sales. despite a majority of voters supporting amendment 64, they 4-3 toor-three to ban -- ban adult sales. buy marijuana in colorado springs is to a medical
marijuana store. can you blame someone for doing this legally inserted illegally? -- instead of the illegally? when people voted for that, they did not go for legalizing marijuana all of her colorado. they voted for a law that said the municipalities could decide. and's what colorado springs the only community and the pike's peak region that has regraded -- legalize mick regional -- recreational springs. is pueblo you buy $100 worth of marijuana, which is not a lot, from a medical store, you're not talking about a couple of dollars. do the math. 33%. -- 23%. mason: that's a made-up number.
you are paying these taxes either way. we're talking about the state's 10% special sales tax. there's a big difference. are talking about a 15% excise tax in colorado on wholesale transfers between the cultivation facilities and the store. when a cultivation facility produces a bunch of marijuana and transfers it to sell it, it taxes 15%. an ounce of marijuana is to $100.from $60 $350--tore, it is mary: we have to establish how pervasive that market is to begin with.
we know that we have 503 medical stores in colorado. the average age is 22 for the patients. it's 40, i hate to break it to you. wayne: we have an excess of 500 stores. are we sick? are all those people using the stores patients? [laughter] you are basically saying any place that produces products that grows marijuana is a store you can walk into and buy it. that's not the same. the number of stores is far fewer. problem isa, the they are looking at changing their law because people cannot access it. colorado has set up the system.
what we have seen is a dramatic migration away from the medical system. medical sales have gone down. people are no longer bothering going through the process of getting a recommendation. truly has ane significant medical need, they already can get a recommendation from a physician. they don't have to go out of their way. they have a doctor the already see. ok? mary: we're almost out of time. a quick political discussion of how this is playing for politicians in colorado, and more broadly, for 2016. we have to talk about that. many republican candidates have said, look, i'm ok with this. it is constitutional. it's what the founders intended. it's not my cup of tea. even ted cruz has said this. on the democratic side, oddly
enough, they are not super pro. even bernie sanders is not living it up enough to say he would be pro legalization. [laughter] mary: give me a little colorado take on whether this is hurting or helping people as far as politics go. the consensus in colorado is that legalization stems to hurt politicians on the right. i'm not sure that's true. it seemed the crowd was evenly split. it's a young crowd. the consensus that i hear from right of center pundits is that amendment 64 is going to take a purple state and make it permanently blue. i'm not sure that's true.
when reason it passed in colorado and we were the first to state to do this, and i don't think there are germany places in the world that have marijuana access as liberalized as we do here. we have the libertarian streak that runs the right of center politics in colorado and has for a long time. innow people interested appealing the amendment were adamant about keeping it off at 2016 ballot. they think it will be a rallying point for democrats. i don't know that that's true. that seems to be the conventional wisdom. the cautionary tale being told by political operatives on the right. only one colorado state legislature brought forward a proposal to repeal amendment 64, john morse. only one. he is one not a lot of people agree with him a lot of things, which is why he's no longer in office.
elected officials now recognize this is the direction in which the nation is going. obviously, it's a direction in which the states are going. but to -- a majority of americans believe it should be legal. regardless of whether it is legal or illegal, should the government let states decide? you get anywhere between 57 to 67% saying yes. that is what we are seeing among a lot of these presidential candidates and ted cruz -- candidates. ted cruz has said that. so has hillary clinton. you are seeing this on both sides. real anti-marijuana candidates are chris christie, dr. carson who has certainly not been friendly on the issue, and mike huckabee, who doesn't think alcohol should be legal.
so... candidates,r 23 nearly half of them have said something to the effect-- mary: i think it's interesting that democrats don't take a few more risks on that. jill biden is an old-school drug warrior. they will be the square party on marijuana. mason: this is a republican winning ticket. this is a way to mobilize younger people and make them want to listen to the rest of the republican agenda so that maybe they become interested in it. mary: short last question to but both of you. -- bug both of you. 18 months out, what was the other side's position that was most oversold? ande: revenue for schools regulated like alcohol. beon: that colorado would
hurt economically and that teen use would escalate and that we would see all sorts of problems as a result. mary: there you have it. i will be back another time. we will have more data. we can learn more things about this adventure we are on in colorado. >> next hillary clinton in south carolina. after that an interview with howard coble. he passed away this week at the age of 84.
then another chance to see a look at the impact of legal marijuana in colorado. on the next washington journal, politicalsupport -- correspondent jim he talks about his experiences covering presidential campaigns. former ambassador to morocco will discuss the president's mideast policy. israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu monday. bill theobald as detailed on a report that the pentagon has eight $9 million to sports teams for patriotic events. as always we will take calls. washington journal live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. about numeral unix right?
>> only one. on offer. book.rse i did write that i thought i'm going to be standing next to the president people. to 3500 they'll how i will feel in the moment? i thought maybe i will get in the book later? if i feel that it's the in the offnt to be able to pull the goofiness i will do it. >> this sunday night eric taxes on his writing career. and his crossover between religion and politics. >> i think anybody takes politics seriously needs to vote but never to make what we christians would call an idol of politics. there are people that have done that in his worship at that idol
rather than the god who would ask them to care for and injustices. i think it's a fine line. something i talk about. >> sunday night at a glock eastern. >> now democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton and town hall meeting in south carolina. changes to the criminal justice system charter schools, motor -- voter id laws and federal government's role in helping minority businesses. is just over an hour.
mrs. clinton: thank you. it is great to be here. mr. martin: we did not could donate our outfits, just to let you know. mrs. clinton: i told him, you look pretty sharp. mr. martin: you know, black coast, black show, black network. mrs. clinton: [laughter] you have to show me how you do that. mr. martin: my dad has taught me well. mrs. clinton: [laughter] mr. martin: let's jump right into it. the job report came out for october. do you -- is there a need for a new deal 2.0 and a marginal plan that targets those most in need, as opposed to folks who say you can't do anything race-based, but if you do it needs-based, it will impact african-americans and latinos more than anything else?
what is your plan for those who don't have the opportunities of others? mrs. clinton: first of all, i am really relieved and pleased that overall we are making progress. and i have gone across this country making the point that when president obama came into office, he inherited the worst financial crisis since the great depression. and he doesn't get the credit he deserves for baking -- digging us out of that big hole he was handed when he came in. >> [applause] mrs. clinton: so it has been a long, slow effort, which thanks to him and his leadership and many, many millions of americans, we are exactly where roland said we are, down to 5% employment -- unemployment. but incomes are not rising. we have two big problems. one, we had to get incomes to go back out. and number two, we have to get more good jobs. and we do have, in my opinion, a targeted effort at people and communities that have not had the benefits of the recovery us far -- thus far.
we need, once and for all, to have a very big infrastructure program on our roads, bridges, tunnels, airports, rail system where we can put millions of people to work. number two, we need to combat climate change by becoming the clean energy superpower of the 21st century. that means putting up wind turbines and installing solar panels and doing energy efficiency work and all the work that will enable us not only to have the economy grow, but move away from fossil fuels. number three -- >> [applause] mrs. clinton: we need to start investing in small business. my particular hope is i can be the small business president. i want to focus on women and minority owned small businesses in our country. all of those things i think will make a difference. mr. martin: i want to deal with what you said about infrastructure. you talked about crating those jobs. historically, those labor unions have frozen us out.
african-americans have not been able to get those construction jobs. so what would you say to those trade unions, stop freezing out black folks and other minorities from those opportunities? mrs. clinton: i think we have two problems. where people are frozen out, or equally importantly, not sought out. i want to make sure every training program is reflective of our population. i want to provide an apprenticeship credit to companies, to unions, to others to train young people, particularly, but not just young anymore, roland. we have a lot of people who have lost their jobs were middle age and older, and they knew to be given special attention. labor unions are not the problem in much of the south because they are right to work states. so we have to make sure that anywhere we do for structure -- we do infrastructure, at the federal government has money in it, they must be a program for recruiting and hiring and, where necessary, training people from less advantaged communities.
and that is going to be my -- mr. martin: you talked about the issue of small businesses. the "wall street journal," $29.9 billion handed out for small business loans. but in the last year of president bush, it was a .2% for african-americans. the housing crisis had a lot to do with that. they are trying to improve that, but that is a perfect example. you have 1.9 million black-owned businesses who cannot get access to capital. how will you lose allies -- how will you utilize the federal government to expand as opposed to, again, getting 1.7% of $23 billion? mrs. clinton: when i was a senator from new york, this is one of the big issues i had because the federal government has a lot of contracts, but sometimes it is difficult for small businesses to know how to apply for those contracts. so i used to run a procurement outreach program, and a big conference where we sought out small businesses. and again, with a special emphasis on minority and women owned businesses. i think we have to do that all the time. you've got to have a much more vigorous effort to reach out and help people, number one, apply for the contracts that are available. there is, and i agree with this, there is a preference and the
law for small businesses that are minority and women owned. i want to make sure that preference is translated into benefits and doesn't just sit on the books. mr. martin: but also have bureaucrats who make the job -- mrs. clinton: 100%. in my administration, what i want to do is set some goals and tell the people who work for me, this is what i want you to do. and if we really measure what we are doing, we can get results and we can change outcomes, i believe. mr. martin: 2010, i him eating at the treasury department with two officials who said that black and hispanic firms outperformed everyone out on the management of funds. my follow-up question was, did they get more money? the answer was no. what you have here, you have a good old boy situation largely white from the treasury department. is there a perfect example of if you are president, you will tell your treasury secretary, you are to do what jackson did, put economic power -- political power.
what harrison did was say, no, you are going to expand those opportunities. if they are outperforming everybody else, they should get more business. mrs. clinton: if someone tells you that a group or a person is outperforming everybody else, your question is the right question. are you going to reward that person or business? my answer is yes. i think that when you look at the economy, there are opportunities that we are not seizing on behalf of communities and individuals. and i don't think there is any doubt at all that we've got to do more to open doors and to rebuild those ladders of opportunity. when it comes to businesses, small business, minority and women owned, i am going to be vigilant and i'm going to drive people to get results. what i like about what you said is we are not doing this as charity, we are doing this as business. when they do well, we need to reward that. mr. martin: last seven years, 53% of black -- mrs. clinton: you talk so fast. am i talking too fast in response jack a razor -- response? raise your hand if you think we are talking too fast.
mr. martin: i've got other stuff to ask. mrs. clinton: i know, i know. mr. martin: 53% of black wealth was wiped out in the home foreclosure process. elizabeth ward -- warren said it will take two generations just for african-americans to recoup that money. one thing our government did not do -- and i will say this here -- one of the greatest failures of the obama administration has been there housing policy. will you, if you are president, forced the federal housing finance agency to write down the principle of underwater homeowners and will you modify -- push congress to modify the code so that the people who have homes can maintain those homes and not simply bail out banks and not bail out homeowners? mrs. clinton: i advocated that to back in 2007 and 2008, roland. in fact, i was very unhappy that we did not do enough to help people in their homes save their homes. i will look for ways to, number one, stop the damage so that we don't lose more homes because
people still haven't recovered. but number two, we've got to get back into the home ownership business. and a lot of financial institutions are reluctant to loan. and they are more reluctant to loan to african-american and latino -- mr. martin: -- now they are simply -- [indiscernible] mrs. clinton: and i don't agree with that. i think that is wrong. now we are starting to see some of the bad behavior coming from the folks who want to those homes. they are forcing people out. a big article today about misleading people and forcing them to turn over their home under false pretenses.
so, you are right, what happened in 2007, 2008 is just beyond horrible. 9 million people lost their jobs. 5 million lost their homes. and $13 trillion in family wealth was wiped out, most of it in homeownership, but also iras, 401(k)s, college funds. we have a lot of catching up to do, and it is not enough if just some people recover. i want to do it i can to help everybody recover. >> [applause] mr. martin: 1991, i graduated from college and i interviewed the birmingham news. all 16 editors there wanted to hire me. but to the hr department said,
no because of my credit report. there are an increasing number of people across the country to deny jobs for credit report. do you support the bill that deals with the issue of repairing the fair credit act? and -- and in most cases wiping out requirements to have folks go through credit checks when they are applying to jobs? mrs. clinton: you know, that is -- i generally agree with that. i don't know the specific of the legislation, but i will obviously look at it immediately. one, sometimes credit reports are wrong. but let's deal with that problem -- mr. martin: and her act deals with that. mrs. clinton: yes. and that is a serious problem
for a lot of people. secondly, i think a lot of credit problems, particularly for young people, have to do with student debt, have to do with credit cards that they had to use in order to stay in college, in order to be able to get their education. there are a lot of reasons why i don't think you should have credit reports following you around like some anchor that you have to carry with you. so, yeah, i want people to be responsible, but i also want to make sure you've got a second chance. and it shouldn't be that you are denied a job that has nothing to do, as i understand working for the birmingham newspaper would have with your credit score. so we need to take a hard look at that. mr. martin: last friday, you were in atlanta. there were people there interrupting your speech. some people chanted, "black lives matter." but do you fully understand the reticence of some folks when they say under your president he signed into law the crime deal that has contributed to the mass incarceration problem? he signed the welfare or bill -- the welfare bill. do you understand the sentiment to echo and why not roll out your entire criminal justice program at one time as opposed to individual speeches? mrs. clinton: first of all, i do
understand the sense of frustration and disappointment and even outrage that young people, like those that were in atlanta last week, feel because there are a lot of things that need to be fixed. and they are impatient, and they deserve to be impatient. and they deserve to hear answers from people like me running for office. i have had some very good, open, productive conversations with representatives of the black lives matter movement. i wish they had listened because a lot of what we have talked about together are part of the proposals we are making. and the reason we rolled them out -- and this is an interesting point to make to you as a leading member of the press -- as you get more attention paid to them. if you put them out one day, it is a one day story. so we have been rolling out, starting with the very first speech i gave in this campaign back in, i don't know, march or april about criminal justice reform, and we are going to keep doing that because i want people
to look at what i am proposing. we are going to reduce minimum mandatory sentences. we are finally going to reduce the difference between powder and crack cocaine, which has been a terrible, unfair burden. we are going to ban the box and let people apply for jobs. and only at the and come if they get to that at be end, if they get to that end, they can talk about whatever record they have. we have a very robust agenda, and i feel very committed to this trade and i particularly want young people who share the inpatients and the disappointment -- and, you know, i think we should talk about going forward, but i will say back in the 1990's, that bill was in response to a horrific decade of crime. and leaders of the communities of color and poor communities
were in the forefront saying, you must do something. and it was done. and it did have a lot of positive, but also negative unintended consequences. that is why we have to take another look. that is what a democracy should do. mr. martin: we are going to go to questions, but you mentioned mandatory minimums. why not get rid of all of them and allowed just is -- judges to have discretion to echo you have some folks -- discretion? mr. martin: well, we want to get rid -- mrs. clinton: well, we want to get rid of the nonviolent offenses as a way of going into jail. but this is like everything else. it cuts both ways. if you reduce the mandatory minimums, i believe then we can see does it reduce discrimination?
and discrimination can be on both sides because what happens right now is that african-american men are far more likely to be arrested, to be charged, to be convicted, to be incarcerated for doing the same things as white men. so we want to reduce those minimums, but we also don't want to open the door to a different form of discrimination. we are looking hard at how this would be a pride in the real world. mr. martin: questions? >> secretary clinton, thank you so much for being held this afternoon. i have elderly parents, a 16-year-old these and nephew preparing for college. but my main question is: what is the plan of accountability for companies for disparities in pay between men and women? and how can we as women in short that we are receiving equal pay for the same work?
mrs. clinton: amen. amen. you know, i have to tell you, i do not do a town hall anywhere in america without being asked this question. and for all those republicans who say this is not a real world problem, i wish they would come to my town halls because i don't know who they are talking to because it is. and i think -- i think there are several things we do. number one, just talking about it. making sure people can't ignore it or diminish it or pretend it is someone else's problem. but then we have to force the laws -- enforce the laws that are already on the books. this is not just a women's issue, this is a family issue. and the other thing is one of the things -- and you got right
to it -- one of the things that stands in the way of knowing how widespread this is is the fact that in many businesses you can be fired for asking somebody else in the business how much they are paid. so a lot of women don't know they are being paid less than the men that they are working beside, doing the same job. that is what happened to lily, the woman in alabama who had worked in a big factory for years. she got promoted ok. she became the first woman foreman, i guess, or woman forewoman, and it was only by accident that she learned although there were four or five men during the exact same job, she was being paid less. so i want to remove any doubt that transparency is acceptable, and if there needs to be changes in the rules or the laws about businesses so that they cannot retaliate, so that you can find out how mature are being paid so you can compare your pay to other workers in the same situation, i will tell you a really quick torry, a young man came up to me in new hampshire and said -- he was in his mid to late 20's -- he said his first real job was working at a cashier at the same store his mother worked in.
he was 17 and he was so proud because this was like his first job, and he got it because his mother introduced him to somebody. he comes home with his first paycheck. his mother looks at it and her face falls. she tells him you are making a dollar more an hour than i am and i have been there for years. so he went to find out. and the manager said, well, yeah, you are a young man. we think you have a lot of potential to go up in the business. so we are going to tackle this and we are going to end it once and for all. >> [applause] mr. martin: another question here. go ahead. >> roland, first of all, thank you for all you do. i appreciate it. madam president. >> [laughter]
mrs. clinton: your lips to god's years, right? -- ears, right? >> we have a problem here and most of the southern states and throughout the united states -- with guns. and we know the nra is just adamant about not doing anything to do away with these guns. but what we need to do is to find what will you do to get rid of all these guns that are on the streets that are in the homes that are inadvertently killing youngsters in their homes? what will you do to help us out with that? mrs. clinton: this is an issue that i just think we have got to address. i understand how politically challenging it is. 90 people a day die in our country from guns.
homicides, suicides, and avoidable accidents, like what the gentleman was referring to. and it is imperative that people make this a voting issue. i know we can balance the legitimate rights of gun owners with the right to be safe going to school are going to church. the right to have control over what happens in people going to stores to buy guns who shouldn't have them. so here is what i am proposing. number one, we need universal background checks for real. we need to close the gun show loophole. we need to close the online loophole because people are buying guns and ammunition online. you have no idea who they are, and we know some of the mass murderers, that is how they got what they used to kill people. we need to close what is called the charleston loophole. the charleston loophole is, unfortunately, what enabled that young man to get a gun he was not entitled to. he was a felon. he had a felony conviction.
but under the rules, three business days is all you get to find out. and the information hadn't been shared between two jurisdictions, so after three days, he went and he got that gone and he went to mother emmanuel and he murdered those nine wonderful people. and then we need to remove the immunity that gun makers and sellers have. they are the only industry in america that we give blanket immunity to. gun makers should be required to apply technology that currently exists so that guns owned by responsible adults cannot be operated by children, or if they are stolen, cannot be used by criminals.
and what i am just appalled at the numbers of young children -- i'm talking toddlers -- to go into a closet or go under a bad or open a drawer -- bed or open marriage or an there is a gun. and they kill themselves, they kill their siblings, they kill their friends, they injure people. that is crazy, my friends. i know the nra are powerful, but i think the american people are more powerful. and the right to life is the most powerful of all. mr. martin: we are on the campus of an historically black college. what is your hbcu plans? because we talk about black doctors and black lawyers and black engineers. and will you reverse the obama administration's loan change that led to 15,000 students not coming back to hbcu campuses, millions of dollars lost? will you reverse that policy and what is your plan to assist?
mrs. clinton: i have what is called, roland, my new college compact. it would affect both state and class in this way. if you are going to a public college or university, you will not have to borrow money to pay for tuition, and you will be able to use your power grant, if you -- pell grant, if you get one, for living expenses. we are going to make it possible or young people to go to college, finish college, and graduate without that that. that will help the public hbcu's because they will certainly be included. i have a special provision of a pot of $25 billion for hbcu's, including private institutions, the cousin i agree completely with what roland said.
these are the places that mrs. clinton: yes. first of all, my plan will mean that it is not necessary. but for those young people who dropped out, we have to figure out how to get them back in. we have to reverse the facts that led them to drop out. [applause] mr. martin: question. >> good afternoon, secretary clinton, and thank you so much for coming to south carolina and orangeburg. i have a two-part question for you. as you know, we have lost a lot of textile jobs here in south carolina over the past years, and my questions are: do you think your husband was right in signing nafta into law? and the second part of my question is what will your , administration do to bring back industrial base jobs to south carolina? mrs. clinton: i know how controversial trade has been in south carolina, and south carolina is a classic case of winners and losers because of trade.