About : standard furniture portland oregon
Title : standard furniture portland oregon
standard furniture portland oregon
good evening, everyone. welcome to the edwardm. kennedy institute for the united states senate. i'm jean mccormack,and i have the honor of being the presidentof the institute. this is our first public programof the fall, and we're incredibly excitedto kick off a busy season by partnering with wgbh to convene a distinguished panelof experts
to discuss this important topic. you know, when senator kennedyconceived of the institute, he envisioned a placewhere visitors would learn about the important roleof the u.s. senate. but more important,he wanted them to be able to actually experiencedemocracy. and he wanted the instituteto be a center for civic engagement, a place that would, as a resultof your visiting here,
inspire visitorsto take a proactive and a meaningful rolein their own communities. what does that mean? obviously, we want peopleto vote. it's the heart of a democracy. we don't tell you how to vote,but to vote. certainly we want youto be informed in that voting. and we want you to takeinitiative. certainly ballot initiatives are just that--
a way of the peoplespeaking about an issue that's important to them. but i thinksenator kennedy's goal was that everyonewould understand that you can make a differencein a big way, and even in small ways. so i want to thank our panelistsfor being here, and, of course, we're thrilledto welcome back jim braude from wgbh to moderatethis discussion.
it will make it livelyas always. as the host of wgbh tv's"greater boston" and cohost of "jim and margery," he has been closely coveringthe evolution of the four ballot questions that will be facing votersthis fall, and is an expert to guide usthrough the nuances surrounding the campaignsand the ideas behind the initiative.
so thank you to jimand the entire team from wgbh for working with usin this partnership. but before i turn the programover to jim... (applause) ...i have the honor to introduce state representativejonathan hecht of watertown to speak about his work with massachusetts citizens'initiative review pilot project. representative hecht has beenserving the commonwealth's
29th middlesex districtsince 2008, and he recently has been leading the effortsof the review project to make ballot questions andthe information surrounding them more accessibleand understandable to massachusetts voters. representative hechtand the pilot project aim to bring clarityto the often confusing ballot questions voters facein the election booth each year, and we're honored to have himhere to talk about his efforts.
so representative hecht,thank you for being with us, and please join meat the podium. thank you very much,dr. mccormack. first, i want to congratulateand thank the edward m. kennedy instituteand wgbh for bringing together this veryimpressive group of experts to talk about question four. and i also want to thank themfor the opportunity that they've given me
to talk briefly hereat the outset about an experimentthat's currently underway in massachusettswith an innovative approach to informing votersabout ballot questions, and to invite youto learn more about it and to give your feedback. it's called citizens'initiative review, or cir, and it's based on a modelthat's been in use in oregon for a number of years
and is now being triedin several other states. and let me explain to youhow it works. a panel of 20 citizens, representative of the votingpopulation as a whole, is brought togetherfor four days of intensive deliberationson a ballot question. they hear from the campaigns,pro and con, they pose questionsto independent policy experts, and they deliberateamong themselves,
drawing on their own differentbackgrounds and viewpoints. with the helpof trained facilitators, they ultimately producea one-page, 250-word statement calleda citizen statement that summarizes what they feelto be the key facts that voters should understandabout the ballot question, as well as the strongestand most credible arguments for and against. in essence, then, this isa voter education effort
that is drivenby voters themselves, working on behalfof their fellow voters who ideally might want to diginto a ballot question, but don't have four daysout of their busy lives to devote to it. their citizen statementis different from the partisan positionspresented by the campaigns. the statement doesn't takea position pro or con. it presents informationon both sides that
the citizen panelists believeother voters would want to have. it's also differentfrom the official summary prepared by the attorney general and containedin the red voter guide that the secretary of statesends to all voters. coincidentally, that red guidearrived at my house today. maybe it arrived at your housetoday as well. the citizen statement is short--as i said, 250 words. it is written in lay language,
and it reflects the perspectiveof regular citizens, not government lawyers. we are currently doing a pilotof cir in massachusetts using question four, the question we're going to behearing about tonight, as the test case. this is a non-governmentalproject organized by my office, working together with the tisch college of civiclife at tufts university,
and healthy democracy, the organization that pioneeredcir out in oregon. the citizen panelists were drawn from a random sampleof 10,000 massachusetts voters, balanced to reflect themassachusetts voting population in terms of age, gender,party affiliation, race and ethnicity,place of residence, and level of education. at the end of august,they came together
in watertown, of course,for four days of very hard work. we had excellent participationfrom both the campaigns for and against question four. senator lewis,one of the panelists tonight, presented twice on behalfof the "no" campaign. in fact, he jumped off a planefrom overseas and came straight over to talkto our citizen panelists, which we really appreciated. and dr. sabet also spokefor the "no" campaign.
the citizen panelistsalso had an opportunity to pose questions to experts on drug use, medicine,brain science, public health, regulation of industries,and law enforcement, and also one of mr. freedman'scolleagues from colorado on the experience in that state since it legalized marijuanain 2012. and then they spentthe better part of two days reflecting together and writingtheir citizens' statement.
it was really a remarkableand an inspiring thing to see. 20 people who had nevermet before-- a 91-year-old great grandmotherfrom springfield alongside a 20-year-old collegestudent from brockton-- working collaborativelyand conscientiously to produce a statementcontaining what they felt their fellow voters would wantto know about the varied and complicated issues relatedto marijuana legalization. many of the citizen panelistsafterwards described it
as the most meaningful,empowering political experience of their lives. the citizens' statementthat they produced, the citizens' statementon question four, is availableon the project website. and the website addressis cir-- citizens' initiative review--cirmass2016.org. cirmass2016.org. an independent research teamout of penn state
is holding focus groupsthis week to hear from voterswhether they find it useful. i invite you to lookat the statement on the website and to give your feedback, too. in light of what we learn, we will consider filinglegislation next year to institutionalize cirin massachusetts, as they have done in oregon, where the citizens' statementis included
in the official voter guide. i want to closewith a brief reflection on why i think the cirexperiment is important. we are in an era nowin massachusetts of very active useof ballot questions to make law. and from a historicalperspective, this is a very strikingdevelopment. there are four questions,as you know, on the statewide ballotthis year,
and this marks the 12th time in the last 16 biennial stateelections dating back to 1986 that there have been at leastthree questions on the ballot. by way of contrast,for the first 65 years that massachusetts had a processfor making laws via the ballot, what's known as theinitiative petition system, there were only three electionsout of 32-- three out of 32over those 65 years-- when voters faced three or moreinitiative petitions.
now, you know, perhaps wgbhand the emk institute could convene another program to discusswhy this has happened. for now, we can just note that this is the erathat we are living in-- an era in which the ideaof direct democracy, which inspired massachusettsback in 1918 to make the initiativepetition system part of its constitution,
is now being put into actionwith increasing frequency, and with respectto such momentous matters as assisted suicide,paid sick leave, casinos, farm animal confinement,charter schools, and, of course, marijuana. as the title of this forumtonight puts it, these are now mattersfor the citizens' choice. given that,i believe it's very important and very appropriateto be thinking
about how we can amplifythe citizens' voice in the informationthat is presented to voters as they makethese vital decisions about the future of our state. and that is what the ciris all about. so i thank you again,dr. mccormack, for the opportunity to talk about the citizens' initiativereview pilot project, and please again goto the website--
i feel like the presidentialcandidates at this point; there should be somethingdown here that has the website showing--cirmass2016.org. i'm not asking for youto contribute money; just asking for youto take a look at the citizens' statementand contribute your feedback. thank you very much. jim braude:good evening, everyone. i am jim braude.
by the way,that's an applause line. (cheers and applause) thank you, we do that. thank you. those are my people. and we're here to discuss whether marijuanashould be legalized. i just heard the representativesay that one of the participantsin the cir said
it was the most meaningfuland empowering political experienceof their life. this will not bethe most meaningful and empowering politicalexperience of your life, but hopefullyyou'll learn something and go homewith greater understanding of what's at stakeon november 8. i'm going to do abouta minute's worth of background for people who aren't awareof what the history has been
in this country,where we currently are. i'll introduce the panelists,and then we'll get started. most of you know this. four states have alreadylegalized marijuana-- washington, oregon,alaska, and colorado, and, of course,the district of columbia. two of those statesare represented here. on november 8,massachusetts will not be alone. there will be four other statesvoting on the issue as well,
including california and maine. ours would-- i'm giving youthe short version-- legalize marijuana for peopleat least 21 years old, apply an excise tax of 3.75%on top of the state sales tax. a little bit of history,because it's rich in this state. in 2008 and 2012, we votedon marijuana-related questions: decriminalization in 2008,2012 was medical marijuana. you probably remember two thingswere very similar in both campaigns.
public officials wereoverwhelmingly opposed to both, and the public overwhelminglyembraced both questions, in the 60%-plus range. this year, some thingsare similar, some are different. most public officials,not all, are still opposedto the question, but if you see recent polls, this marijuana question,legalization, is neck and neck in the polls,
and the assumption isit's going to stay that way as we approachthe last 48 days. tonight you'll have proponents,opponents, and i think one agnostic. you're supposed to pretendlike you're agnostic anyway. you'll understand whyin a minute. there are no rules, except we have so much to coverin, what, 75 minutes? no filibusters.
brevity is the coinof the realm. if you can't control yourselfand you've got to say something, just say it. that is perfectly fine. and in an effortto speed this along, in the spirt of matt lauer, i promise you i will askno important follow-up questions to any of the panelists. so that should help us move.
kevin applauded that thing. what i'm doing here,and i'm almost done, i'm just gonna run down the listof the most powerful arguments for and againstthat we've heard. i've incorporated many of yourquestions that you submitted-- hundreds of questions, actually. they're integratedinto what we are doing tonight. now, before we start,just to get a lay of the land, how many people in this room--and no lying--
how many people in this roomhave ever smoked marijuana? i would say...you don't have to applaud. i just said how... (laughter) maybe 70%, 75%. how many people,before they've heard this panel, and obviously the next 48 days, how many people,as of tonight, intend to vote yeson this question?
i'd say that's a majority. you can see the handthat is the highest is my radio co-hostmargery eagan from boston public radio. she's not hiding anything. hi, margery--it's nice to see you. how many peopleplanning to vote no? i'd say maybe a little lessthan a third, maybe a quarter, maybe a little bit lessthan that.
and how many people, honestly, not one of thesefrank luntz focus groups where you lie and sayyou're uncommitted so you can stay on televisionfor the whole campaign, how many people are reallyuncommitted as of tonight? that's, i don't know,maybe a sixth, a seventh, something like that. okay, so we've got a senseof where we are, and we may visit that laterin the night
and see if you've changedyour position. let me introduce these people. known as the marijuana czar-- it doesn't get much betterthan that, does it?-- andrew freedman is colorado's first director of marijuanacoordination, which... colorado, you know, legalizedrecreational marijuana in 2014. went to school here,tufts and harvard law school. moved back to colorado.
he joined john hickenlooper'scampaign for governor, he's workedfor the administration since. dr. kevin hill on the endis an addiction psychiatrist, director of the substance abuseconsultation service at the great mclean hospital, and assistant professorof psychiatry at harvard medical school. he's the author of "marijuana:the unbiased truth about the world'smost popular weed."
state senator jason lewis. he would be there,standing... next to dr. hill. he's a democrat from winchester,chair of the joint committee on public healthin the legislature. he also chairs the nine-member senate special committeeon marijuana, which, by the way,was a one-member committee for a long period of time, which maybe you can explainlater.
they traveled to coloradothis past january to investigate the impactof the legislation there and published their findingsback in march. he'll describe them. madeline martinez openedthe country's first cannabis cafe in 2009in portland, oregon. and it's, you know,a gathering place for the medical marijuanacommunity. obviously oregon was also...
well, obviously, the first stateto decriminalize marijuana. she is also the executivedirector of the oregon chapter of the national organization forthe reform of marijuana laws, it's called norml,and it advocates for legalizationaround the country. dr. kevin sabet is an assistantprofessor of psychiatry, director of the drug policyinstitute of the university of florida. in 2013, he and formerrhode island congressman
patrick kennedy founded theanti-legalization organization. it's called sam--smart approaches to marijuana. he has served asa senior advisor to the white house officeof national drug control policy, worked for three presidents-- obama, clinton, and bush,correct? did i get them right?okay. and has authored the book"reefer sanity"-- not my favorite movie,by the way--
"reefer sanity: seven greatmyths about marijuana." so that's it, that's the setup,that's the context. here are your panelists. let's get started. i'm gonna just go down the line,30 to 45 seconds each, and i really mean30 to 45 seconds, where you are on the wholelegalization question, and just citethe one major reason that you holdthe position you do,
even if there are a multitudeof reasons you're there. let's start with you,kevin sabet. sabet: well, thanks, everyone,for coming. i think it's incrediblethat here we are at the edward kennedy institute, and i want to thank themfor putting this on. named after a senator who was fighting big tobaccofor decades. and patrick and i hadthis conversation,
how interesting it wasthat we were going to be discussing what essentially isthe next big tobacco. and this was a... you know,big tobacco, of course, was an industry that liedto the american people for a century, that saidtobacco wasn't addictive, it didn't cause harm,it didn't cause lung cancer, all the while just simplytrying to profit off of other people's addiction. this is no differentwith marijuana.
i don't really care if you'rean adult in massachusetts and you want to smoke marijuanain the privacy of your own home. this is aboutthe commercialization, this is about pot candiestargeting kids, advertisements. this is about money,not marijuana, and this is whyi'm opposed to it. braude: fair enough--madeline, you're next. martinez:i'm a proponent for marijuana. i'm on the...
braude: kevin's a no,by the way, if it wasn't clearfrom that statement. i'm sorry, madeline. i'm on the boardof national norml, the national organization forthe reform of marijuana laws, and the norml'swomen's alliance. and i am encouragedby what's going on across the countrywith all these initiatives that are coming out.
and i believein personal privacy, and i'm really saddened to seehow much we've ruined and... just ruined people's lives by sending them to prisonfor marijuana. no one's ever diedof a lethal dose of marijuana. and i believe that, as myself,i am a good citizen, i'm... i pay my taxes,i go on with life, and all i want to dois be able to live the way i want privately.
and i don't believe thatthere's any harm in marijuana. i believe that it'sa useful part of life. for me, it is. braude: marijuana czar. he does have a name--andrew freedman. andrew, go ahead. well, i'm here mainly...the way i got this job is that i am actuallya marijuana agnostic. not because i didn't havean opinion one way or the other.
i didn't think to weigh inin those ways. i cared about early childhoodeducation. when the governor'schief of staff pushed me to take this job,she told me, "it's one of the placesin the world where good government matters." and the reason i like to cometo forums like this, which i think is a wonderfulexperience, is i think you're going to heara lot of pro and con,
anti-, pro- debate going on thatyou probably have heard before. and i think what's reallyimportant is to realize how this happened mattersjust as much as if it happens. and so thinking throughwhy it is that you care about marijuana legalization,what sort of metrics are going to be your standardsfor success, and what are you going to doif things go right or wrong? how are you going to changeas a state in order to accommodatethose things?
and those are the things i hopeto help you think through. braude:what's your great line? "we're making the planeas we're flying it." is that the line? freedman:i wish i had said, "we're building the planeas we're flying it," but yes. braude: it's a great linenevertheless-- senator lewis? lewis: thank you, jim. and i want to also thankthe emk institute and wgbh
for bringing us together. i know that many people are open to legalization of marijuanafor recreational use. i went to colorado, i spenta year studying this issue. i know pot is here to stay. but what we are voting onin november is not the conceptof legalization. it is a very specific24-page ballot question, and i believe it goes too fartoo fast for massachusetts,
because, fundamentally,what it does is it introduces the commercialbillion-dollar marijuana industryinto massachusetts. it's an industry that, we'veseen in colorado and elsewhere, puts their own profitsahead of the health and safety of our kids and our communities. that's because they're pushinghigh-potency edibles like candy, gummy bears,cookies that are particularly appealingto kids.
they have no solutionfor drugged driving, which is a growing problem. in fact, it doubledin washington. and they're also, in thisparticular ballot question, tying the handsof our cities and towns so that there will be pot shops in virtually every communityacross our state. it's the wrong thingfor massachusetts. braude: i wasn't going to aska follow-up question here,
but let me just do itvery quickly. you said it's notan abstract notion, it's this questionwe're voting on here. obviously some of you peopleare not going to be voting. if you could draft the questionfor legalization, could you imagine supporting it? lewis: absolutely.braude: you could? i could draft a question that does not commercializethe product...
braude:that legalizes marijuana. that would legalize itwithout commercialization. in other words,there's no profit motive to be made selling it,but you have a product that's safe and labeledand legal, so you protect public healthand safety. that's the key, that's the waywe should be having this. braude: are you nodding yourhead in agreement there, too? i'm going to get to you.
sabet: you've alreadydecriminalized in massachusetts. adults aren't going to prisonalready. they can already use withoutfearing criminal penalties. you could imagine maybereforming that a little bit more. that's so differentthan the idea of pot advertising and marijuana stores. braude: dr. hill? hill: so i'm just tryingto stick
to the science and the evidence in an effortto try to bridge the gap. braude: that's so old school. bridge the gapbetween what the science is and what public perception...for the benefit of the voters. as people have talked about, i think conceptually,legalization is fine. i think the ballot initiativehas a few weaknesses. but i think one thing thatwe really haven't done
in this stateand around the country is really think moreabout sensible policy. so what should happenif this gets voted? i think people should be ableto have what they want if we can limit the risk. braude: by the way, he did a terrific piecein the "globe" yesterday. if you didn't see it,google it. it's the best, i've seen,graphic of the primary issues,
the pros and the cons, and wherehe thinks the truth lies. it was really terrific. let's start with someof the arguments. i want to start with you, because we've interviewed youa couple times, margery and i. you've beenon my television show. you talk a lotabout the impact on kids, and i have to say,of the opponents, that's the argumenti've heard the most.
it's fine if the law saysyou've got to be at least 21. let's deal with the real world. it's going to be moreaccessible. all these kinds of things. what's your major concernabout the impact on under 21-year-olds,on children? make the case, please, senator. the case is simply that if you legalize itand commercialize it,
and you have businessesthat are pushing pot edibles that are very enticing,you're pushing advertising on tv, radio, billboards,all over social media, celebrity sponsorships, you have pot shops springing upall across our state, and people growingtens of thousands of dollars in their homes, what that says to our teensand young adults is there's no riskin using marijuana,
so the perception of harmgoes down. it also makes it more availableand more accessible, not less, because the black market,by the way, doesn't go away. it's still thrivingin colorado. and it also will bring downthe price as well, because that's what will happenwhen you get scaled economies, making it even cheaperfor kids and teens to... braude:what's the colorado... common sense tells usteen use will go up.
braude: what's the coloradoexperience been with teen use? freedman:well, so far in our statistics, teen use has not gone up.braude: has not gone up? has not gone up. and that's our big survey,about 17,000 kids. and even if you want to usethe nsduh data, which is not as good asthe healthy kids colorado data, it's that there's no statisticalsignificantly change since legalization.
now, that's not supposedto show up in two years. i think that people who are...if you're a 13-year-old, and you were an 11-year-oldwhen legalization happened, you still haveall of the mores, all of the social constructs, the same parenting that you hadbefore that moment. i'm more interested in whatthe two-year-old looks like when he's 15 than what the 11-year-oldlooks like when they're 13.
but the good news is,i think we were fearful of a big spike in teen use,but consumption in general, we just have not seenmore smokers of marijuana, youth, adult. actually, the only statisticallysignificant increase have been 65 years and plus. braude: you hear that? martinez:and in oregon... braude: kevin sabethad his hand up first.
kevin, and then we'll getto you, madeline, yes. colorado's now the number onestate in the country-- it never was--for youth marijuana use. freedman: that's not true--2009 in the same data... the nsduh data,since legalization, since legalization,colorado is now number one. and the only state survey,which you all did, and i commend you for tryingto do it, but it was... you left out someof the biggest school districts.
you also left out kidsthat had dropped out of school and weren't in school. look, at the endof the day, jim... and i brought some props,if that's okay. i think parentsshould ask themselves whether they can tellwhich bag of candy here is marijuanaand which one isn't. braude: you're not goingto do the skittles thing? well, you can try themif you want, jim,
but maybe afterwards. if you can tell... if you can't tell,which you probably can't, i bet your your kidcan't tell, either. when these things arelying around, the reason the emergency roomadmissions in colorado for kids under five-- and i don't think andrewwould dispute this-- has gone up significantly,you know, doubled,
is because these kinds of thingsare lying around. they're marketed... of course they're marketedto young people, and young peopleare ingesting them. they are essentially... again, one of them is real,one of them isn't. they are the real candy here,simply sprayed with thc. and there's no wayto tell the difference. and that's what massachusettsvoters are voting on.
i don't care if an adultwants to smoke marijuana. they shouldn't go to prisonfor it, either. but do you really wantto legalize these? i'm not even sure normalwants to do that. i mean, this is for people who want to make a ton of moneyin massachusetts. they don't make itby selling joints to baby boomers,or 65 and older, i hate to break it to you.
they make itby making these candies and making them availableto young people. braude:you were shaking your head, disagreeing with someof the facts that kevin sabet was puttingon the table. i mean, some of the factsare true. listen, the youth consumptiondata is... it's a question stillin progress. but the truth is that
there is not a statisticallysignificant difference between before legalizationand now. and i think people getso tired of facts when we exaggerate them. nobody was arguingthat healthy kids colorado wasn't the best surveyin colorado before it came out. the second it came out, there were suddenlya whole bunch of arguments. braude:madeline, a minute ago,
kevin sabet said even normal, your organization, wouldn't wantthat sort of stuff marketed. is he speaking for you? martinez: well, i think thatif it's well packaged, and carefully... you know,and people are responsible, that it's not a problem. i haven't seen any increasein oregon, and teen use is down in oregon. sabet:well, it just started.
but andrew, didn't emergencyroom admissions go up for... freedman: we had about 20emergency room admissions from the ingestion of edibles. and listen, it's a... it does,it looks like gummy bears. now, starting in october,it won't be gummy bears. that's a very specific thing that we've startedto regulate away from. but edibles arean attractive thing for kids, and there's not going to bea way around that.
braude: dr. kevin hill,if you want to speak to this, it's fine, but i wantto continue to advance the kid discussion here.hill: sure. braude: the other argumentwe hear a lot from the critics of this is that brain developmentfor a kid is more susceptible to problemswhen marijuana... even if harmless for an adult,not harmless for a kid. you're the science guy.
where is the science? it's absolutely true. i think for that group... you know, we're talking25 and below, so believe it or not, your brain developsinto your mid-20s. so for some of us, it's over. but if you're in that group, certainly regularmarijuana use...
so it matters how much you use. as i like to say,the dose matters. but if you're using marijuanaregularly at a young age, there are a host of problems-- cognitive difficulties,you can have iq decline, worsening anxiety,worsening depression. so, again, if statesare considering this type of policy,you need to think about how you can protectthat group, absolutely.
braude: by the way, oneof the things in the summary i'm assuming most of the peoplehere know, a commission would be created, not unlike the alcohol and...what's it called? the alcohol and beveragecommission of massachusetts. it would overseeimplementation here. you know... sabet:guess who's on that commission? who's appointed that commission
is the marijuana industryitself, because this has been writtenby the pot industry. braude: i want to getto the commercialization issue in a minute. one of the primary things you'veseen in the ballot question, it says regulate marijuanalike alcohol. does anybody here thinkthat marijuana is more harmful than alcoholto the population? martinez: oh, i think it'smuch safer than alcohol
to our population. braude: does anybodythink it's more harmful? do you? sabet: i do on certain,you know, outcomes. you can't just say...you know, because the issue is, like, is tobacco more harmfulthan heroin? well, tobacco's actuallymore addictive than heroin. now, you wouldn't say, though,necessarily, that overall, it would bemore harmful for other issues.
braude:for the general population, the question is...sabet: they're different. braude: so you don't... sabet: i think they'redifferent, and in many ways, marijuana is more harmfulwhen you look at... when you lookat brain development for learning and cognition. alcohol, in and outof your system in a day. marijuana stays in your systemmuch longer.
it can affect you for longer. and that is vulnerable... the adolescent brainis vulnerable to that. braude: is marijuanamore harmful than alcohol? hill: no, absolutely not. and, i mean, i think that type of argumentis a problem, right? braude:could you move your mic up, if you don't mind, kevin,
a little bit,just a little higher? hill: sure. so, you know,as i like to talk about, i mean, there are different... braude:that's good, that's good. different degrees of danger. so i like to thinkabout a continuum-- marijuana, alcohol, opioids. obviously opioids are killers.
they're ravagingthe commonwealth, and really the country. so there definitelyare problems associated with marijuana,but not on the same scale. braude: is it more harmfulthan alcohol? lewis: i don't thinkthat's the right question. braude: why isn't it?alcohol is legal. lewis:because we're not debating whether we are going to passa ballot question
to legalize alcohol. alcohol is legal,it's not going away. braude: i didn't hearwhat your answer was. if you don't believethat marijuana is more harmful than alcohol, then why are younot moving to ban alcohol? lewis:i agree with dr. sabet. obviously marijuanadoesn't kill you with an overdosethe way alcohol does. it doesn't causethe same degree of violence.
but there are many serious harmsthat marijuana causes, as dr. hill said,for our young people. and what we are debating, and what the votersare voting on, is whether we increase accessin commercialized marijuana, not alcohol. so we should stay focused,i believe, on the question of marijuanaand not alcohol. it's a red herringto make this about alcohol.
sabet:alcohol has a long history of widespread accepted use by the majorityof the western population for the last 4,000 years. if we were talkingabout marijuana having 70% adults usingfor thousands of years, then we'd have to really... okay, we'd have to be talkingabout regulation. braude: well, yeah,we are talking about it, kevin.
sabet: but the experience ofalcohol has been a disaster. the public health experience,the marketing... the marketing to young people,the marketing, the special... i've worked for three presidentsin different parties, republican or democrat. the winding...the revolving door of special interests for alcoholis a national disgrace. the taxes, the advertising, thetargeting of college students... braude: the samecommercialization
you're talking about. sabet: so that's the issuewith marijuana. we're in america. we're not in, you know,finland or el salvador, where they don't havethat history. braude: in english, you two particularly,fix the commercialization. then i want you to tell me,you two, whether this commercializationissue is a problem
in your two states. fix it in 15 seconds. sabet: you would havelow level use being legal. you would maybe doa grow-your-own kind of thing. you would havea decriminalization, the way massachusetts has. but the problem is this initiative has been writtenby and for the pot industry to be able to advertisethese edibles, these candies,
to be able to, you know,have all of these... take away local control. in colorado, they at leastare able to opt out. two-thirds of the localitiesin colorado have decided they don't wantpot shops in their community. they don't mind home...sort of decriminalization. but they've said,"you know what? we just don't think it's goodfor our community." braude: the proponentshave said, and i don't know...
lewis: can i speak to that?braude: one second. the proponents i've heard say,and i'm not-- i am a lawyer,but not much of one, but at least not as relatesto this-- they said the commissionthat's created would have the power to,for example, ban those edibles. if the edibles were banned,if that... you've mentioned the ediblesseveral times. would that go a long waytowards allaying your concerns?
why are we speakingin abstract, jim? this commission appoints...nine out of the 15 people get to be directly or indirectlyfrom the pot industry. so yeah, great,let's speak in abstract. it took colorado i don'tknow how many years, andrew. finally in october,like you said, they are banningthe gummy bears. they're not banningthe other candies, by the way. but... i don't think.
but the commissionin massachusetts is going to be riggedfrom the start, because those are the folks... who is paying for thisballot initiative? look at the board of directors of the largestprivate equity companies of marijuana based in seattle,silicon valley, and wall street. they are writing whatmassachusetts will be voting. braude: can i talkto the two states
that have a real experience? what is...the commercialization issue, both the senatorand kevin sabet have mentioned, has that been an issuein your states? first andrew. freedman: yeah, i mean,it's a double-edged sword. so, large-scale regulatedcompanies can meet a lot of public healthand safety standards that can't be met by home grows.
i actually think home grows is probably the worst problemthat we have in colorado. braude: is the worst problem. yes, and the regulated industry is able to keep upwith pesticide management, with tracking every marijuanaplant from seed to sale. they have over 90% success rate with stings forunder 21-year-olds. so there's a very good side
to having a highly regulatedindustry. sabet: but how many recalls werethere last year in colorado? braude: let him finish. on the other side, you know, at the point, one of the thingswe do worry about is the gearing upof actual commercialization, and the gearing upof advertising. at the point where somebodyfinally has $15 million in the game to throwinto advertising,
we worry about whatthat's going to... braude: what are yougoing to do about it? freedman: well,we've crosswalked everything that exists in the tobacco lawsthat we're able to that are legal for usto crosswalk onto marijuana. but the day is going to comewhere those will be big fights. braude: commercializationbeen a big problem there? martinez:no, it hasn't, not in oregon. we're still a very younglegalization program,
so no, it's not out there, commercialized like it isin colorado. braude: you know,since we've talked a lot in ten minutes here aboutedibles, you're a legislator. this is a law, if it passes. if you think ediblesare the biggest problem, rather than relyingon a commission that kevin sabet doesn't trust, why don't you say that you'regoing to sponsor an amendment
the second this passes,which you have the power to do, which will ban edibles,remove edibles, regardless of what the public... and then you're puttingthe public on fair notice. lewis:jim, i wish i had that power. but unfortunately,i'm not the emperor. you know, i'm oneof 200 lawmakers. we have a governor. braude: would you filesuch an amendment
if this thing passed? lewis: i don't even want to gowith the hypothetical, because i am working hardto make sure that this does not become the lawin november. the fact is, there's many problemsin this ballot question. braude: but senator,shouldn't you prepare... we've had thisdiscussion before. it may become the law.
one of the problemswith the medical marijuana law is nobody in governmentprepared for this thing. the people spoke loudly,almost two to one, and the statewas totally unprepared to implement the popular will. lewis: let me assure youand others who are listening, we obviously have beenworking hard on this issue. that's whythe state senate formed a special senate committeeon marijuana 18 months ago.
that's why we've been studyingthis issue, that's why you've seenour 118-page report laying outall the policy issues. so we've been doinga lot of thinking on this. and as a resultof that work we've done, and looking at colorado, oregon,and washington, is why i've cometo the conclusion that this specific ballotquestion is the wrong question. what i think we should dois vote this down,
and then let's go backto the drawing board and get this right. braude:kevin hill, one of the most... opioids have been mentioneda couple of times. depends on what dayyou read the paper. on some days,it's a gateway drug. on some days, even if it's nota gateway to another drug, you're going to becomeaddicted to marijuana. and then you read the study--
was it out of columbiathe other day?-- saying that accessto medical marijuana has cut the use of opioids in those statesthat have passed that. where does the truth lie here? with gateway... well, i think when people talkabout gateway, they thinkabout a causal relationship-- if you use marijuanaat a young age,
then this certainlywill happen to you. that is not the case. but what we do seewhen people are using opioids, addicted to opioids,they've usually started to use marijuana or nicotineor alcohol at a young age. in terms of the relationshipbetween opioids and marijuana, there's absolutely a connection. we need to do more work on that. braude:connection meaning what?
well, so there'sa relationship there. you know,certain common pathways that both of these drugsof abuse use. and i think that speaks to why we've seen some of thesepapers come out-- the one that you referred to,one a couple of years back-- that showed in the medicalmarijuana states, fewer opioid-related deaths,so... and, clearly,if you talk to patients,
they'll tell you that if they're prescribedpowerful opioids and they start to usemedical cannabis, they often will usefewer opioids. so there's something there,absolutely. braude: senator? lewis:i just wanted to address that, because i think it's veryunfortunate and misleading that the proponentsof this ballot question
are trying to make this argument that we should have more accessto marijuana, that's going to solveour opioid epidemic. the fact is that we havea medical marijuana program, and we're working hardto make it more accessible and affordable to those whohave a legitimate health reason. and right now, there isabsolutely no medical consensus that marijuana is a solutionto the opioid epidemic. and, in fact, that's whythe mass. medical society,
the hospitals,addiction experts, and counselorshave all come out publicly in oppositionto this ballot question. braude: by the way,the study, as i recall-- please correct me if i'm wrong--didn't say it was a solution. they said in those statesthat they studied that had medical marijuana laws,it reduced opioid use, including prescriptionpainkillers. they didn't sayit was a solution.
the proponentsof this ballot question have been making that argument. and we... there was a letter signed by 45 healthcareproviders and parents who have lostchildren to an opioid overdose, a number of whom are with usin the audience tonight, who wrote to say thatthey were so upset that the campaign was arguing that marijuana is the solutionto opioid overdoses.
and the proponentsresponded to that by calling them propsof the opposition campaign, which i think was disgraceful. braude: what do you sayto those families that senator lewisis talking about? hill:well, there's no question marijuana is not the answerto the opioid epidemic. there are several things thatwe can do to fight that battle. but i do think that you needto understand
that there is data that says that there's a little lessopioid use for those who areprescribed opioids if they use medical marijuana. braude: where are youon the gateway issues? martinez: it's my experiencethat many of the people that i've worked with,hundreds of patients across the state of oregon, and many of themhave used marijuana
as a bridge to recovery, not only from opioids,but from alcohol as well. and, i mean, i'm encouragedby that every single day. anybody who can get offany of these, i think it's wonderful. lewis: again, jim,we have a medical program. this ballot question is notabout medical marijuana. that already is legalizedin massachusetts. braude: did you want to saysomething about this?
sabet: well, i think kevin'sright on that, in terms of the gateway. but it's exactly right-- this is notabout medical marijuana. and the reason the proponentskeep going back to it is because it's true--medical marijuana, when you ask somebody,should somebody, you know, with six months to live,or sick and dying, get access to anything,let alone marijuana,
everyone, myself included,would say, "yes, if somebody isin that dire situation, give them whatever helps them." this is not about that. this is about masscommercialization and advertising, and it's alsonot even about these joints that, you know, baby boomerssort of remember. it's not even onlyabout the edibles. it's about... i'd love to hearmore of the experience
that andrew's had about these 98% potent thc waxesthat are legal, these oils. and look, i think andrewand the governor, they have a hell of a job. i mean, the governorwas opposed to this. i mean, even in a recent debate, he said the whole thingwas reckless. he had to latersort of correct himself. braude:i've heard him say recently--
we can have andrew say it-- that he's moved dramaticallyfrom that... sabet:well, and i think that lately, when he's asked for it, because it's under his watch,and i understand in government, you know, that's importantto do, defending your legacy, i sympathize with himabout why he might say that. braude: can i ask youa question here? before we find out what thegovernor actually says himself,
since the governor's personis here, you said, "let's not talkabout medical marijuana," then you talkedabout medical marijuana. you mentioned if you're sick,if you're close to death, i understand you dowhat you've got to do. what if you're notclose to death, since you brought it up? do you support medicalmarijuana for people if a doctor in his or herrelationship with a patient
says, "i think the best thingfor you is marijuana?" do you support that? if there's a prescribablemedication. but if there... if it'sa 21-year-old with a backache that finds some doctorwho's doing this on skype, which is what is happening,and goes into a pot shop and says, "ooh, my back hurts,"i mean, i think... braude: so the state shouldget in between the doctor... no, i think... no, the scienceshould lead with this.
and we need to havemore research. that's why we've pushedfor more cbd research and more other research. but it's importantto separate these issues. i was simply bridging becauseyou had brought up the issue. braude: andrew,if i can just for a second, governor hickenlooper,he did say "reckless" early on. i think he moved to riskyfrom reckless. where is he now,and why is he where he is now?
- so i think whatyou probably hear afterwards is the fact thathe's been surprised that the short-term consequenceshave not been, i think, the things that heworried about. and he really did not wantto be the first state to do something, especiallywhile it remained a felony on the federal level,to try to make this... to try to go down this road. he's been cautiously optimisticthat there are 80% fewer filings
for marijuana-related crimesin colorado. there does seem to be a criminaljustice aspect to this. and i think he would say that isthe greatest bright spot. and he would say that if itcontinues in this trajectory, then it's something that shouldbe a national conversation. he would say, however, these are ten-year questionsand not two-year questions. and so public healthconsequences of what happens to youth may notbe answered in two years.
the idea of whether or notit's a complement or a supplement for prescriptiondrugs, alcohol, tobacco, that's going to take ten yearsto figure out. braude: madeline,did you have your hand up? did you want to say something,or did you not? martinez: no. braude: okay, fine,jason lewis-- we'll get to you. lewis: didn't governorhickenlooper say back in june, his advice to other statesis go slow, wait,
learn from colorado? and i think that'sterrific advice. that's what we should do--continue to learn. braude: can we talkabout race for a minute, and how much this matters? the mayor in this city,as you know, is a powerful opponentof this question. he said he's willing... mayor walsh said he's willingto campaign for it.
two city councilors of color, tito jackson and michelle wu,who's the chair of the city-- president of the city council,excuse me-- the other day came out in favor. here's what she said--this is michelle wu. "it just seems ridiculousthat kids at harvard "can smoke pot and haveincredibly successful careers "while blacks and latinos,particularly men and boys who are using the samesubstance, are sent to jail."
let me just finish... "a year..." if i may... you can respond in a second. "a year after decriminalization,a black person"-- in massachusetts-- "a blackperson was 3.9 times more likely "to be arrestedthan a white person, "even thoughthe federal research shows that the usage is comparable." you want to speak to that,senator?
lewis: this is a myththat is just not true. we dug... the specialsenate committee dug into all the dataon any arrests, never mind convictions,for marijuana possession or use, and it is in the single digitsin massachusetts. we have the lowest rateof any state. we have, remember,decriminalized since 2008, which means up to an ounce... by the way,an ounce of marijuana
is, like, 50 joints. it's not a small amount. up to an ounce you can possess. the worst thingthat will happen to you is you can get a civil ticket, and the police don't even botherto do that. we are not arresting peopletoday in massachusetts for simple possession. if you are traffickinglarge quantities,
or if you perhaps get arrestedfor assault and battery or breaking and entering,the da might add on a possession chargeif you had more than an ounce. braude: so you don't thinkthere's any racially discriminatory aspect? you know what i doworry about, jim? braude:you do or you don't? lewis: is the industry,once they take root, they will be targeting poorand minority neighborhoods.
braude: you do or you don'tsee a racial... lewis: i do not see that today,as a maj... i see a criminal justice, major criminal justice issuewe have in our state. we need to reformour mandatory minimum laws, we need to reformour bail laws. there is absolutely a racialjustice component to that. but that's nota marijuana issue. braude: does race play outat all in your work?
hill: nationwide, i thinkif you look at that data, i mean, i think that... i've seen jason's data,and i think they did a great job with that118-page report. you should take it outand take a deep dive. but i think overall, when you look at the variousexperiences around the country, there seems to bemore than one study that suggests that there isa racial factor.
but we're not debatingother states. we're debating massachusetts,right? it's a massachusetts-specificballot question. braude: we're debatingother states if colorado works and we're not debatingother states if it doesn't? lewis:if there's racial disparities in arrests in mississippi,that's not a reason for us to commercialize marijuanain massachusetts. braude: madeline,you had your hand up.
martinez:there's racial disparities in the criminal justice systemacross the nation. and as a person of color,i'm very concerned about my six grandchildrendriving while brown and getting pulled over. and if they happento have a joint on them, they can lose their scholarshipsto go to college, they can lose their livelihood,they can lose so much. and i think that michellealexander had it correct.
it's the new jim crow. braude: kevin? sabet:jim, we have a race problem... we have a race problemin this country. i don't think we're goingto deny it. we have a problemwith community relations. we have a problemwith police practices. we have a criminal justiceproblem that incarcerates more people in the world
than five timesour historical average and four times the averagein europe. so we're not blind to the factthat there's a race problem. the idea that the legalizationof marijuana can solve that... one statistic that i'm surprisedthat andrew didn't bring up, because i know he is tryinghis best under very dire circumstanceswith a... no, with an industrythat lobbies his office... it's not his fault.
with an industry that isspecial interest groups that are outnumberingthe anti-pot... and andrew, we've had these discussionsabout how much they outnumber the anti-pot folksby ten to one, because it's in their interestto make money. the issue is, in colorado,kids being arrested for pot has gone up from 2014versus 2012. guess where that increase was,if you divide it by race? more blacks and latino kidsunder 18,
and few whites being arrestedunder legalization. and the "denver post," which receives ad revenuefrom the pot industry, so this was a miracleto see this article, the "denver post" hadan investigation. they found that there were morepot shops in colorado in poorer neighborhoodsthan there were in upper-class neighborhoods. there was... so it's just likethe alcohol.
where are the liquor storesin massachusetts? i used to live here. has it changed? are they in the upper-classcommunities, or are they out in the lower-class communities of color and communities of poverty? that's why, actually,michelle alexander, our friend, actually was againstlegalization in ohio, the person who wrote"the new jim crow."
this is bad for race relations. more black kids in coloradoarrested. braude: is he accuratelyreflecting the situation? freedman: yeah, actually, it'seven slightly worse than that, because the raw rateof post... of over 21 that were receivingcourt filings before went down for everybody. so everybody, the raw rate. but the rate for minorities,particularly hispanics
and african americans,the rate's actually worse than it was before legalization. braude: how about the personalfreedom issue that madeline mentioned? margery eagan and iwere talking about it on the radio years ago,long before this came up. and there was a calleron the phone. we were saying, you know,does anybody in congress actually... who... and there'vegot to be some who believe
we should legalize marijuana. do they have the courage...i can't think of anybody except representative paul. our phone rang, and who wason the phone but congressman barney frank,who said, "this is totally an issue of personal freedom." if you're doing harm to me--you know the whole argument-- then there's another issue. if you're not doing harm tome...
sabet: but you've takencare of that. braude: let me just finishthe thought, please. it's exactly what madeline said,and barney frank would agree with her. it's an issue of personalfreedom, starting... how much should that matter,kevin hill, or is science more important than my rightto do what i want to do, if it doesn't hurt you? hill: i think personal freedomis incredibly important here.
when you look at the science,again, people who are using in a significant way, regularuse, that's where the harm is. so if we're talkingabout adults... and we have to understandthat in this country, there are a lot of adultswho use cannabis like they do alcohol. so for those people,it's really not an issue. they should be, i think,allowed to do what they want if they're not hurtingother people.
braude: why should you tell mewhat to do? lewis: i think that'sthe one argument that really has merit,personal freedom. the other argumentsthe proponents make, that it's going to generatetax revenues, that this is going to get ridof the black market, that it's going to endracial disparities in arrests, all of thoseare false arguments. i do agree in personal freedom.
but, again, that doesn't meanwe have to commercialize it. doesn't mean we have to createa pot industry, advertise it on tv,push high-potency edibles. let adults have that option,to have a safe, labeled product, but don't commercialize it. braude: can i just stay with youjust for a second? i asked you earlier,senator lewis, if you could draft a bill that dealtwith the commercialization issue that both of you have mentionedquite a few times,
and then you could support it,and you said yes. why haven't you? rather than the publicgoing through a multimillion dollar exercise, and despiteforums like this... i said to you in the room,i've done a number of ballot questions myself. one of the unfortunate things,despite wonderful efforts by people to makethe public more aware,
the history of ballot campaigns,at least in this state, and i'm guessing the other twodozen that have them, if one side dramaticallyoutspends the other side, the merits really don't matter. nine times out of ten,if not more, the side with much more moneyis going to... so rather than even letting itgo to the ballot... and i've been involvedin situations where legislatorspass something,
and we've polleda ballot question. why haven't you drafteda question that deals with your commercialization concern,go to the proponents and say, "i know it's not exactly "what you want, but it addressesmy major concern. "let's make a deal,and we can legalize it here, and keep constraints regulated"? why haven't you done that? well, i think we are working onthat, which is why...
(applause continues) which is again why we created,18 months ago, a special senate committee, why we're having theseconversations. but we cannot do that nowwith the threat of this bad ballot questionhanging over us. and we need to firstdeal with that, and we need to, i believe, you know, vote no,and then let's all sit down around the table withall the stakeholders.
when this ballot questionwas written, you know, the industry and somepot activists wrote it. who should be at the table? law enforcement, healthproviders, municipal officials. they should all be at the table.braude: kevin, yeah? you're forgetting a primarypoint here, i hate to say it. the industry doesn't careif you wrote something that is about home growand non commercialization. this is about making money.
they will stop at nothingat making money. you have decriminalizedin massachusetts. i agree with kevinand the others, and i think madelineand i would agree, personal freedomis very important. you have decriminalizedmarijuana here. can you decriminalize it maybebetter and tinker with it? sure, and the legislature...that's a good question. we should tinker with it.
the industry doesn't makemoney, though, when my parents smoke a joint. and mom, i didn't out you. you don't actuallysmoke a joint. but, you know, if they did, you know, once a month, that'snot where they make money. they make money from marketingthese edibles and other thingsto young people. that doesn'thappen under decrim.
you don't have pot gummy bearsin massachusetts yet, because you already havedecriminalization. so you could come up with... and, you know, god bless,the legislature and the governor could work on this forever, and spend a lotof taxpayer money. it wouldn't matter. you'd still have thisballot initiative, because folks need to makemoney...
braude: but as you know,the law with ballot initiatives, unless the constitutionalamendment, he and 199 of his colleagueshave the ability to amend it, to repeal it. i've done ballot questionsthat have been repealed an hour after... not an hour. a few days after the publicendorsed them. they can amend them,and the governor can sign them. so is your contention...i know you're not...
well, you used to be from here. sabet: yeah. braude: is you contentionthat essentially they're so owned by the industrythat they can't... no, my contention is thatthe industry would simply just come back, back, back,and do the amendment. they're pouring millions ofdollars from washington, d.c., right here in massachusetts,that money, in order to pass this.
so this is about money for them.braude: speaking of money, can we talk about moneyfor a second? originally, i heardyou're raising a ton of dough. then i heard you're raisinga ton of dough, but it barely covers the cost of administeringthe implementation of this law. so settle it-- where are things,and what's the projection? freedman: i am a huge wetblanket when it comes to taxes. braude: you are a wet blanket. well, then, let's move on.
kidding, go ahead. freedman: from taxesfrom medical marijuana, recreational marijuana, andfees, we've gotten $135 million last fiscal year. and that sounds likea lot of money... braude: how many peoplein your state? roughly the same as ours,six million? yeah. braude: so roughlythe same size.
it's a $27 billion budgetin colorado. braude: well, ours is $40. and i think what is probablythe most pernicious thing about the tax revenueis that people think it can do a lot morethan it ends up... it can do. and so my job before thiswas actually trying to raise everybody's income taxto go to education reform. it was goingat the exact same time as marijuana legalizationwas going.
and we got back in the polling,"we'll just tax marijuana." i do want to say, it is notenough money to significantly changeeducation, to significantly changetransportation and healthcare costs. it's money that will...marijuana will pay for its own regulatory stuff, and that's about a fourthof the money. braude: and let me just be clear
before senator lewis weighs in. is your contention, as theperson who's sort of in charge there, that even oncethe infrastructure is firmly in place,it's still not going to be... it's basically going to coverits own cost of implementation? it does more thancover its own cost. we have $100 million of moneythat we can spend. we put $40 million intoschool construction right now. we pay for youth programming,we pay for substance abuse.
braude: with the current tax. freedman: with the current tax. braude: you mean it's just notsome bonanza, like was projected. freedman:it's that when $40 million goes into school construction,people think that they're going to geta new gym in their backyard, and that covers, like,ten new roofs being redone. and so i do try to say, you haveto keep a sense of scale
with this money. it's not that it'strivial amounts of money. it's that, compared toa $27 billion budget, you're not going to seethe sort of differences that i think people have. braude: well, thank god we don't need $40 millionhere, by the way. lewis: and jim, i wish we couldget $100 or even $130, $150 million dollarsin massachusetts,
because we desperately need itto fix the t, we desperately need it forbetter mental health and substance abuse treatment. but the fact is, we won'tsee anything near that in massachusetts,for two reasons. first, the tax rate in thisballot question is so irresponsibly low. it's about a third of whatthe total rate is in colorado when you add instate and local taxes.
so we'll see nothing close. and number two, that numberin colorado includes taxes on medical marijuana as well. and we don't tax medicalin massachusetts, and i don't think we're goingto change that. so two big reasons whywe wouldn't see anything close to that money in massachusetts. braude: senator, i know you hateto deal with hypotheticals. should this thing pass,despite your opposition,
would you proposeraising the tax? lewis: well, i'm a liberaldemocrat. i don't have a problemraising taxes. but we have... you know, we have a republican governorwho has pledged not to raise taxes and feesin massachusetts. so i don't see how we wouldovercome that. it would be a major challenge,as it would be to fix any of the problemsin this ballot question.
nobody should be underthe illusion that, pass this warts and all,and the legislature and the governor will fix it. that's wishful thinking. braude: yes, kevin? sabet: you have an alcohol taxin massachusetts. do you have alcoholtreatment on demand? you have a tobacco tax. does everybody addicted totobacco get treatment on demand?
and the last time i checked,when i lived here, there was a lottery. schools number onein the country yet? how many new schools... braude: they actually arenumber one. sabet: but from the lottery,from the lottery? i mean, the issue is... braude: i hate the lottery. cities and towns geta billion dollars a year
from the lottery, and we dohave the number-one rated schools and test scoresin the country. but how many schoolshave been constructed, either from marijuana incolorado, or from the lottery in this state? freedman: i do think that this does not fall into anythingdifferent than what it normally is,which is that sin taxes-- and that's what you wouldconsider this--
can't be a structural partof your... braude: by the way, it's muchmore romantic, though, i should say. lewis: just to be clear, jim,there will be way, way less than what we do getfrom cigarette taxes, or from the lottery. so even again... braude: we're not allowedto talk about cigarette taxes or the lottery-- you're the onethat told me that.
so since you violatedyour own proscription, why should we taxcigarettes, alcohol, thelottery, which is arguably the mostregressive tax of them all? it's like robin hood in reverse. but we shouldn't tax...we shouldn't legalize and tax marijuanaeven if it only means $40 million additional,only, for school roofs, ten school roofs,why shouldn't we? all i'm saying is thatthe proponents make the argument
that we should legalize itand tax it, because we're going to have thiswindfall of tax revenue to take care of problems withthe t and our schools, and that's just not goingto happen. braude: don't you havea ton of priorities that you could use $40 millionfor? i'll tell you wherethe $40 million will go, jim. the new cannabis controlcommission, the new cannabis advisory board,millions of dollars
to the department of safetyto do training for our police officers,millions of dollars to the departmentof public health, who now has to do a publichealth campaign, millions of dollars to thedepartment of agriculture, who now has the jobto regulate pesticides, because the epa won't do it, because this is illegalunder federal law. $40 million will be gone, poof.
sabet: and there's another issuehere. what about... there's the issueabout why wouldn't the taxes matter. what about the costs? i mean, you could talk aboutthe money. what about the costto our roadways? look at the drugged drivingissue in colorado and washington state--aaa just did their study. and in aaa... and you can---you know, if you trust them
to tow your car at 3:00in the morning, i also trust them to dopretty unbiased studies-- found that in washington state, drugged driving crashesamong recent marijuana users, not those who smoked a monthago, doubled after legalization. colorado has seen an increasein fatal car crashes among those with recentmarijuana use. so what are the coststhat comes with... what are the costs?
you can't just talkabout the benefits. freedman: we have no idea what'sgoing on with drugged driving. braude: so where does thatcome from, kevin? if they have no idea,and he's the czar, where does that fact come from? sabet: it comes from the...wait, it comes from the department oftransportation. so we have statistics. i mean, i'm not pulling theseout of a hat.
friedman: so two years ago,we made a completely new driving while high rule,and then we trained... we spent $2 million trainingofficers in what to do. we don't have statisticsthat aren't widely new. what we have is a new baseline. we don't have aprior to legalization and post legalization whatthe world looks like. sabet: the transportationdepartment does, and in colorado...
freedman: now, that is mytransportation... sabet: the federal departmentof transportation. braude: i think you should bethe marijuana czar in colorado. lewis: i think... sorry to... but i think we're missingthe issue on drugged driving. we can argue over whetherit increased or not. the real issue is we havenothing equivalent to a breathalyzer testthat is on the market today, so there's no wayfor our police officers
to identify someonewhen they pull them over. and number two, we haveno legal standard that can be held up in a courtof law, like we do... you know, the .08 for alcohol, that doesn't existscientifically with a, you know, sound basis for marijuana today. we need to figurethat out first. braude: kevin, i want to getto the point that was raised aboutgovernor hickenlooper saying...
and you said, andrew,a few minutes ago, two years is not enough,ten years is what you need, and whether or notwe need to wait. on the flip side, are therescience... i mean, you brought up that wordin the beginning. are there other science issuesthat i'm ignoring tonight that you think are centralto this debate? hill: i don't. i mean, i do think it's earlyto look at the evidence.
i think that some ofthe medical marijuana evidence is relevant here. for example, when peopletalk about youth access, and the concerns there,i think it's definitely a concern, but the samepeople who would say that legalized recreationalmarijuana would increase youth access probably wouldhave said that medical marijuanawould do that. braude: what happened?
it clearly does not. braude: does not? it does not. so marijuana useis up everywhere, but when you comparethe medical marijuana states to the non medical marijuanastates, there's no change there. braude: how do you respondto that, senator? you're the one that's primarilyconcerned about youth access. lewis: oh, comparing applesto oranges, jim.
braude: why?lewis: apples to oranges. medical marijuana dispensaries,we have seven of them. in colorado there's more than700 pot shops. more than starbucksand mcdonald's combined. medical marijuana dispensariesare not advertising on tv, radio, they don't havebillboards, they're not all over socialmedia, they're not com... it's not commercializing. it's non-profit,they are non-profit.
it's a completely differentmodel in massachusetts, and that's exactly whywe're not seeing this. freedman: so we do have a muchmore robust medical model, and our public health servicealso did not have it show up within the publichealth service. i will tell youwhat did happen, was that suspension rates did goup that were drug related. so we don't pull outspecifically for medical, but in 2009 we did see a bump,
which was when we commercializedmedical marijuana. we did see a bumpin high school suspension rates. we didn't see it show upin our public health survey. and so there's a little bitof tension there between us. braude: are you texting? sabet: no, i'm gettingthe drugged driving rate. because the obama administrationactually funded part of the study,which is interesting, given their position.
so i just want to look at thosedriving stats again, and talk about them. but the issue about medicalmarijuana that's interesting is that when you look withinthe states that have the more liberal medialmarijuana laws that resemble legalization,like andrew just said, you see the increase. when you look at studies,though, that look at 25 different states
that are all completelydifferent programs... i mean, maine'smedical marijuana program can't be the equivalentof california's, or nevada's, right? they're all different. yes, when you mix and mash upall of those together in some of these studies,you say, "oh, my gosh, we see no difference beforeand after." but when you look atthe individual states
that are the states thatwe're looking to model after in massachusetts,you see the problem. i think that's a very importantacademic distinction. braude: can we stay withbarack obama for a second? there was a tweet that wassent to margery eagen today, but she doesn't read themthat regularly. i read them to her. it said, essentially, to her,and me, but primarily to margery, since she's beenopen about her support for this,
how can you support a drugthat the federal government classifies exactlyas it classifies heroin? explain to me why in 2016,even if it turns out that, like some of you think,this legalization is a bad idea, why is it stilla schedule 1 drug? sabet: because it's a completemisunderstanding of what... braude: she didn't say it. sabet: because it's a completemisunderstanding of what scheduling is.
it doesn't mean that--and i'm not saying, i don't think anybody is-- that marijuana is heroin. that's not what that means. it means that they're classifiedunder a certain way the government's tendedto classify, similar to, if there was a snack food aisle,and the snack food aisle there was ruffles potato chipsand an apple, you don't say that,"oh, my gosh, we're now saying
"that the apple andthe ruffles potato chips are the exact same thing." that's ridiculous. one is more greasy, one's afruit, one's good for you, one's bad for you. of course that would beridiculous to say. but in that aislethat that grocer labeled as snack food,they're both in aisle three. that's the issue of marijuanaas a schedule 1.
it means that they both... under that definitionof no accepted medical use. the fda, the ama, no majormedical association has said that smoking the leavesof marijuana, the flowering tops,is a medicine. they have said there are pills,there are other things that... and that's why thosearen't schedule 1. braude:no accepted medical use. hill: i published a paperin jama that says otherwise.
you know, so i think when wetalk about scheduling... i do the researchwith marijuana. i use cannabinoidsin our clinical trials. and i really believe that itshould not be schedule 1. i mean, when you talk about,is it addictive, yes. does it have medical value? i think when you look atthe totality of the evidence, you can understand thatthere is some medical value. obviously, as kevin said,we need more research there.
but the researchis clearly impeded by that schedule 1 status. freedman: it's notjust aisle three. it's, "hey, and specificallydown aisle three, scientists can't go downthat aisle." there are hundreds of scientiststhat are researching marijuana. i did thisat the federal government. but this was my job. braude: wait, wait, wait, wait.
i know you think it's notrelevant, i think it's relevant. lewis: i didn't sayit wasn't relevant. sabet: this was my jobat the federal government, to review the researchpetitions rather than some of the stuff in colorado. and what we saw was that there was over 300researchers... there should be, by the way, more research. we're all in agreement.
but there were hundreds,and are currently hundreds of researchers. are they impeded by some of theschedule 1 restrictions? yes. and that's why the deahas said, last month, "we want to have more sitesthat grow marijuana, we want to do more researchon cbd..." braude: but they didn'treclassify it last month. but that's a different issue.
the reclassifying is almosta red herring. the more difficult part of itisn't reclassifying. anybody could do that. the more difficult part of itwas, what are the certain things that need to be increasedin order to facilitate the research? and that is what we looked atwhen i was working for president obama, that is whatthe fda and the dea are currently looking at.
are there some impediments?yes. you know, dr. hill...but, you know, many, obviously, of the colleagues at harvardand others completely disagree with your assessment. they not only disagreedwith your op ed in the "boston globe," they disagree with yourassessment about scheduling. and the fda was the onewho told the dea. it was not the deathat said it.
the fda did an eight-factoranalysis, and they said, "you know what? "because marijuana is grownin so many different ways, "because there are so manydifferent kinds, "we can't reclassify it. what we can do is do moreresearch on the components." and kevin and i would agreethat the components of marijuana show promise. the natural plantshows promise, too.
we should do more research. hill: the componentsare schedule 1, too. so cannabidiol,which kevin would say has a lot of promise,and i totally agree, that's schedule 1. so that's... it's hardto do that research, too. so, you know, when youtalk about that, you have to understand that the componentsare also difficult to study, because of the scheduling issue.
sabet: but the question was,should marijuana be rescheduled, not the components. braude: you mentionedbarack obama. a question that we ordinarilyget when we're talking about this on the radiois a pretty successful guy not only used marijuana,but he used cocaine. and he turned outrelatively well, i think. 58% of the people thinkhe's doing a pretty good job. what do you say to a kid who...or an adult who's listening
to this debate, when barackobama at least experimented, and then some? he wrote it himself,for those who don't know. what do you say to that... sabet: and many other smartpeople have used... not just barack obama haveused marijuana, and, frankly, other drugs. braude: charlie baker,maura healey, both of whom oppose thequestion...
although it's interesting--both presidential candidates for the first time in 20 yearshave both said they have not used marijuana,which is interesting. braude: first time they've everlied-- it's unbelievable. you're right,maybe you're right. no, the answer is this. a lot of successful people have. and i agree with kevin again. we seem to be agreeing a lot.
most people who use marijuanawill not have the problems. and, frankly, most peoplewho try any drug will not go on to be addicted. the issue is that riskgoes up for your problem. so it's the same thingas smoking and lung cancer, jim. most people who smoke regularlydo not get lung cancer. most people who... if you wenthome and drove home without a seat belt, your chances of dyingin a car crash go up.
you're not guaranteed to diein a car crash. the same thing with helmets,the same thing with sugary foods, the samething with a lot of things. our point isn't that,oh, my god, if you use marijuana you're going to be... you know,you try it once, you're definitely going to failat life. the risk goes upfor dropping out of school. the risk goes upfor an iq loss. the risk goes up for truancy.
the risk goes upfor absenteeism. just like when you smoke,the risk goes up. not guaranteed, i know. my neighbor smoked cigarettesfor 80 years. he died of old age--that's the issue. braude: andrew wantsto speak to this. freedman: i think that there'san important point there that i hope that thoselistening don't miss here, which is that the youthprevention campaign
has to look different thanthey've looked in the past. it turns out, as somebodywho's tried to run a few of these youth preventioncampaigns, kids don't trust the waythat we talk to them about marijuana anymore. they don't trust, and theyhaven't trusted it because i think we've overstatedit for a very long time, and that puts us in a bad place. but the good news is
that even as perception of riskis going down in many, many states, youthconsumption is not going up. and i do think they'lllisten to a conversation that says, "hey, you haveimmediate goals in your future. "you want to geta driver's license, "you want to godo well on your test, you want to goget a girlfriend." that one i liked the most. "you want to makea sports team,"
which i didn't like as much. and, "is marijuanapart of that picture for you?" and i actually thinkthat there are better ways of having conversationswith kids right now than just trying to pretendthat marijuana doesn't exist, and then if it exists,it's going to be doing a lot of negative harmto yourself. that's the conversation... braude: madeline, you wanted tosay something about that.
lewis: i think we're all singing"kum-bay-ya"-- we agree. i mean, we absolutelyhave to talk to our kids differently about it,and this is a big issue today, without even legalizingfor personal use. and, you know, the realityis, not withstanding the best intentions of andrewand everyone in colorado, the first campaignthey rolled out from the department ofpublic health failed miserably. freedman: i wasn't there,that wasn't me.
that's the challenge here. we have to learn. so again, my argument would be,let's learn from colorado, let's let them figure outthe best way to talk to teens, and a campaign that'svery successful. because these campaignscost millions and millions of dollars. you know, and then let'simplement it here. braude: let me doa variation,
if i can, on what you and ihave been talking about, about let's do somethingthat... well, the discussion we've been having. seth moulton, congressmanmoulton, was one the few public officials with whomwe've spoken who actually says he's votingyes on this thing. new congresspersonfrom the north shore. "there are legitimate concerns,"he told us, "from the other side,but there's the reality.
"let's not kid ourselves. "people are using marijuana,kids are using marijuana, "and we have an obligationto regulate it and make it as safe as possible." i call this the "train has leftthe station" notion. i want to start with youin a second. 54, i think, to 41-- you maycorrect me, i have a feeling-- is the most recent polli've seen nationally. let me finish.
millennials overwhelmingly...and that's generally what happens with major change in society, whether it'sgay marriage or marijuana. young people are much moreopen minded and tolerant. they're going to grow older,they're going to become more of the population. the train is leavingthe station, isn't it? and let's assume you prevailin this round come november 8. i assume you would agreethat you won't prevail
four years later,or four years later. ultimately, i guess,is the question-- we're going to have legalized recreationalmarijuana in massachusetts. is that... would you not agree? that's... maybe, i don't know. that's a hypothetical. but at the same timethat congressman moulton came out and said that,what you didn't mention is that at the same,congressmans kennedy,
tsongas, lynch, and keatingall came out and said it's bad formassachusetts. braude: the governor's againstit, the mayor's against it... lewis: but if we're goingto cherry pick one, we should mention the others. and, again, what i find is,when i talk to groups-- and i've been doing this nowfor about six months, since i did takea public position-- almost every single time,people say,
"wow, i didn't knowthat's what this was about. "i thought, 'what's the big dealif an adult wants to smoke a joint, they're here,what's the big deal?'" as soon as they learnwhat this ballot question is really about, that thisis the marijuana industry, pot shops opening upin every community, marijuana edibles beingaggressively promoted, that's when they say,"wow, i don't know... " braude: kevin, are you worriedabout this?
lewis: i don't think anything isa foregone conclusion here, jim. braude: you just heard him.is it a for... whether... forget what happenson november 8 here or in these other four states. you don't think your battlehas been lost? sabet: not at all. look, in 1970s, it wasthe same thing. we had millennials... andobviously it's a little different now in terms ofthe numbers.
but you had the samerate of increase, where millennials in 1970and the late '60s were absolutely in favor of pot. i mean, it was the time of...i mean, we're seeing a lot of nodding heads here,people who were teens in the '70s. this was seen asa foregone conclusion. and then a lot of thingshappened that quickly reversed course.
i actually take issuewith the comparison. i know you were doing itin terms of politically, but others try and comparethis with same sex marriage. it is very, very, very differentthan an issue like same sex marriage. no matter where you standon same sex marriage, same sex marriage is notan issue of public health and public safety. if my kid is being drivenin a bus by somebody
in a same sex marriage,whether i find that wonderful or repugnant, that does notaffect their driving, that does not affectthe safety. braude: that is not at allwhat i was saying. but that's what people...other people say that, though. braude: what i was saying isthe polling is very comparable. sabet: but let me finishmy point. braude:let me finish my point, so it's clear what i'mtalking about.
the polling suggestswhile the general public is leaning slightly in favor,as happened with gay marriage, same sex marriage, millennials, young people,overwhelmingly support it. and most of them are going to grow up and be older people... sabet: let me just finish mypoint about the... thank you, i appreciate it. no, i know that you weren't,jim, i know that you weren't. braude: wait, wait, wait.go ahead.
sabet: what i'm saying is,though, the issue why that analogyof the bus driver matters is because millennials are goingto start to have children, and they're going... this has apublic health and safety impact. their attitudes when they havekids are not your attitude when you're a sophomore at bu. your attitudes aboutmarijuana change, because this is as publichealth... edibles and driving while stonedare a public health
and safety issue. braude: 54 to 41 nationally,kevin, for adults. sabet:i think that'll change. braude: no, but 54 to 41is not... excuse me, are not millennials. 54 to 41 is the most recentpoll i've seen, i think in july, of all peopleacross the united states... wait, wait. but some of them are adultswith children.
most of them are adultswith children. i assume they're smart enoughto figure out what the consequences... sabet: the increase is drivenby the lawyers. lewis: it's much closer here,right? and also, i think again,what people are learning is that the details matter. this isn't just conceptually,should we legalize? the details matter.
you know, governor peter shumlinin vermont, a strong proponent of legalization, trying hardto push through a bill in his state, came outand said, "this ballot question is a bad pot bill." those are his words--"bad pot bill." so the details matterin public policy. you know, people's healthand safety matters. and we need to do this right. braude: that's whyi suggested you should
consider drafting a better one, by the way,considering... wait, say that again,please. i think that's a great point,and i hope it's not lost. saying... this is nota generic democrat and a generic republican. braude: oh, of course it's not. this is...how really does matter. and i do... and senator lewisand i now have
a two-year relationship-- it'sone of the longest relationships in my life.(laughter) and he really does... he thinksvery hard about how in this one, and he's not a knee-jerkreaction, just... just no. and so i would say...i would throw, he's genuinely searchingfor deep answers here. you know, i actually subscribeto the "train is leaving the station," despitewhat you're saying. however, however, you mentioneda bit ago... and i think
you may have touchedon this too, the flip side of that is even ifthe train has left the station, you said this too, maybe itshould be slowed down. do we have enough evidence...i want to go through the whole list here. do we have enough evidenceto make an informed decision in your estim... i know wemake a lot of uninformed decisions in this country. do you think the peopleof massachusetts and california
and maine and whateverthe other two states are, do they know enough basedupon the experience you've had in d.c. and the other...alaska, and i can't remember what the last one is. do we know enoughto make an informed decision? no, but you'll neverknow enough. and so there's...the question is... i want it to bethe right question. it should be a questionabout criminal justice
and the values of regulation versus the evils of possiblecommercialization and availability, and whatthat will do towards abuse and youth use. to me, that's the cruxof the entire argument. some of these thingsare just going to be ongoing. i mean, the criminal justiceaspect of it will continue to exist for the extent to whichyou don't do something. and so you're going to...you're never going to have
the perfect amountof information. now, i think we havemuch better information in ten years than we do, and it's significantlybetter information eight years from nowthan we have right now. braude: you know, i wantto get back for a second... you used the word regulatea minute ago, which i meantto mention earlier. couldn't read my writing,so i didn't get to it.
you lived in cambridge,you lived in cambridge. i live in cambridge. we have a great high school,cambridge rindge and latin. as much as i love it,i have driven past more than once to see a kidwho isn't 21 years old either grabbing a jointfrom a friend, or handing a joint to a friend. i want to start there,and then come down the line. regardless of the strengthof your position
if you're against this thing,it's currently unregulated. that kid has absolutelyno idea what he or she is getting, can't possibly know. if this were to become law,as imperfect as you consider it to be, senator,there would be regulation. we would knowwhat the content was. is that not a hugelyimportant factor, particularly vis-a-vis children? sabet: not the... not if youlook at the practical reality.
well, because this is stillillegal for those under 21. there's still a thrivingunderground market in legal states... braude: as seth moulton said,they're smoking. but wait a minute. yeah, they are, but they'restill going to be... in colorado, even ina legal market, last year they had over 60 recallsbecause of pesticides and banned sort of substancesthat were in
the supposedly regulatedmarijuana. and there's still a black market selling illegal marijuanato kids who don't have a fake id. and so that's notgoing to go away. braude: regulation would notmake it safer for kids? no, no, absolutely not. braude: would it make itsafer for kids? lewis: not really, on balance.
i suppose if they got it from... you know,someone went in a store and bought it for them,maybe that product is a little safer. again, we have problemswith testing right now, detecting the pesticides. braude: why would... lewis: but to what kevin said... braude: why is it not better
to know that a governmentappointed commission deci... let me just finishthe thought, please. how it was regulated,so that there's some ability to know what you're taking? how is that just a little... lewis: because that is a benefitfor those who are purchasing the product, i agree,in the legal market. but the fact is,the black market is... or the illegal market,i should say, is alive and well
and thriving in colorado. and with the very permissivehome growing written into this ballot question, peoplecan grow up to 12 plants. that's tens of thousandsof dollars. it's going to be everywhere. so kids are still going to begetting it, essentially, through the illegal market. braude: madeline, you wantedto speak to that. madeline: well, i wanted to saythat we failed our children
in this country by lying to them about marijuana and saying that it's equivalentor on the same... well, having it on the sameschedule as heroin. and then kids go out there,and they smoke marijuana, and they realize,"this can't be heroin. "this is very nice. i'm euphoric." and who doesn't want to beeuphoric? and i think that we needto start being honest
with our children. i've been smoking--the train left the station a long time ago with me--since i was 16. i worked in a women's prison. and as i walked down the hallsin a maximum security prison, i could smell marijuanawafting down the halls. if we can't keep itout of prison, if we can't keep it away from our kids,and we stand a better chance of having a regulated marketwhere you ask for id--
drug dealers don't ask for id,and they don't just sell marijuana. braude: what's the value ofregulation? so i do think 80/20, it is a positive for the healthof the product itself, meaning there are really badpesticides being sprayed on marijuana, some of them whichcleave off hydrogen cyanide, we've discovered. and we are able to shut thatkind of stuff down.
we're also able to createedibles that are homogenously placed with thc, they have onlyten milligrams of thc rather than 80 milligramsof thc. it is overall a public health,public safety thing, and i would say for the internalblack market-- and this is a much too big conversation--we are shutting down the internal black market. there is evidence of many fewerdrug dealers. and so overall, there isa positive towards
what ends up in kids' hands. now, what i will say isthe other side of it is there are now more and morepotent products, and there are innovationsin the marijuana world which probably wouldn't beas available to kids, such as shatter, that are worsefor kids in that way. and so it'sa complicated answer. braude: how about the regulationissue, kevin hill? hill: i agree with andrew.
i think that good policy shouldmake it somewhat safer. but i also want to mentionthe black market piece. in massachusetts right now,we're talking probably 95% of the cannabis that's purchasedis black market cannabis. so if you were to vote this inand then you have regulated cannabis available,you're gonna dramatically curb, although not eliminate,the black market. i do think that's a step towardsimproved safety. braude: you know,in all these kinds of debates,
as someone who used to,as i said, do ballot questions for a living, the thing thatdrove me nuts were the myths that grew up around certaincampaigns that became fact-- not really fact, but becamede facto fact, for lack of a better expression. anybody want to speak towhat you think the most, regardless of your position,what the most dangerous myth in this debate... i don't mean just here, but inany of these states has been
that needs to be exploded? anybody, is there somethingthat drives you as nuts as i used to be driven nuts? any of you, senator? lewis: well, the three we'vetalked about, that this is all about, you know, reducing arrestsand keeping people out of jail, which it's not. we've already decriminalized.
second, there's all this revenuewe're gonna be bringing in to solve our budget woes. that's fool's gold;that will not. and then third, what we've justbeen talking about here, which is this will clean upthe illegal market. the fact is, colorado,it's thriving. when i talked to law enforcementout there, they said there are gangs and cartelsthat are relocating to colorado because now they manufacturethe product there
and then they smuggle itacross state lines. remember, still illegal underfederal law, so there's this hugeprofit motive to now smuggle to other states. braude: andrew, what's the storyon that? yeah, i would spend the entiretime talking about our home grow laws and saythat's the single biggest mistake colorado hasmade. it's not our licensees who doliterally track every marijuana
plant with a radio frequencyidentifier tag from seed to sale. it's our very loose home growlaws that have created an incentive to grow insidecolorado and ship lewis: and it would be morepermissive here under this ballot, so... so then... because havingthe loose system in the nation really doesattract people there. braude: is there a myth?
is it the science here thattroubles you the most? hill: well, i thinkwhen you talk about this particular ballot question,i think both sides tend to distort the black marketpiece, right? i think the pro-marijuana peoplewill say that, "hey, you're gonna eliminatethe black market." you're not going to do that. but as i did point out,you know, jason's saying that it's thriving in colorado.
you're definitely going toput a dent in it here, so i think it is a step towardsbringing it into the light. freedman: and i do want to sayjust one more time internally to colorado,this has been a bite out of the black market,a very significant one. braude: has been.freedman: yes. it is the out-of-state diversionthat we have seen... lewis: i would agree with that,jim. if this was made legalat the federal level,
then you would clean this upnationwide, right? then you'd have the same problemyou have with cigarettes. it's a very small black market. but because it's illegalunder federal law, you create this incentiveto smuggle. braude: madeline, is there amyth, particularly in your neck of the woods out there,that's most troubling? well, i think the myth is thatprohibition has stopped the use of marijuana, and what it's doneis it's empowered cartels
and the black market. when you create a medicalmarijuana program, and you hand people a cardand they pay for it, and you have nowhere for themto go to get that marijuana or any facilities, you know,to afford them, then of course the cartelsand the black market get stronger because that'swhere they have to go. braude: how about you, kevin? sabet: the cartels are makingtheir money from immigration,
sex slavery, meth,and cocaine mainly, so once we're goinglegalize all of those, then we have to talk aboutcartels. the biggest myth in my mindwould be the one that says this is about adults beingallowed to smoke a few joints rather than about a small numberof people making a ton of money, and that this isn't aboutjoe camel. you know, in colorado, even though they triedto implement rules,
and the governor was suedby the pot industry because he tried to make it sothere was a restriction on magazines and advertising, and the other side won, becauseit was a first amendment thing. the billboards that werein colorado, even though they weren'tsupposed to be... freedman: no, we won that one. sabet: yeah, but they were stillup there, there were still ones they were there.
they violated the law,is my point, right? they still did the billboards,they still did the ads. anybody going to coloradoreading the newspaper can see, you know, free samplesand coupons targeting kids. the myth that this isn't aboutcommercialization and money i think is the biggest mythabout marijuana at this time. braude: we only havea minute left. 15 seconds each,what's the single most-- 15 seconds-- what's the singlemost important message?
because you've allmentioned many that you want peopleto take home as they're thinking about thisfor the remaining 48 days in this campaign. one, what is it? this is about pot candyand pot shops in your community, not about adultsbeing able to smoke marijuana. braude: madeleine. madeline: prohibition does notwork.
it's a failed system. braude: andrew. freedman: what are youtrying to accomplish, and how are you gonnameasure that, and what are you gonna do if it doesn't go right? braude: senator. lewis: this is a ballot questionthat goes too far too fast. it puts the profits of thecommercial billion dollar marijuana industry ahead ofthe health and safety
of our children. braude: dr. hill. weigh the evidence... (scattered applause) weigh the evidence,make an educated decision. braude: i like that a lot. let's thank our panelists here. kevin sabet, madeline martinez,jason lewis, kevin hill, and andrew freedman.
whoa, don't go, don't go. one second. i polled youat the beginning here. is there anybody who is... i'm not gonna ask if you changedyour position. is anybody who came here aseither a yes or a no have some doubtabout the position they embraced when they came here? is there anybody in that,or you're as certain as you were
when you showed up? that's one, two, three... well, that's actuallypretty horrible. in any case...no it's not, it's about ten... thank you all very much forcoming. jean is going to send you home. kevin, thank you,pleasure to meet you. madeline, pleasure.