 Well, good afternoon. Welcome to CSIS. I'm Steve Morrison. I'm Senior Vice President here at CSIS. We're delighted today to be able to host Michael Botticelli, Acting Director of the White House Office of National Drug Policy, and Ambassador William Brownfield, the Assistant Secretary in the INL Bureau at the Department of State, International Narcotics and Law Enforcement. Let me just say a few words here. This event, which is the first time that we've had the opportunity to welcome Michael Botticelli to CSIS, this event follows a couple of different opportunities we've had over the last year, year and a half to focus on policies around both domestic and international around drug policy. On March 31 of last year, we hosted Ambassador Brownfield along with Ruth Dreyfus, former head of state, Switzerland former health minister along with Michelle Kazakchin, both of them here representing the Global Commission on Drug Policy. And last September, September 11, we had the good fortune to host Richard Branson and Michelle Kazakchin also on the release of that commission's most recent report. I want to offer special thanks to a number of people who helped make this possible. Sahil Angelo, my colleague here from CSIS, was very instrumental in putting everything together. Will Jenkins from ONDCP, very helpful, as well as Eric Green from the State Department INL. Special thanks to them. We're here really to talk about drug policy at home and globally. And I think what we'll hear is that there's quite a bit of dynamism that intersects and crosses over among these two domains. The Obama administration's been quite active, as we'll hear. This is a period of quite energetic innovation and reform across a spectrum of different issues. President Obama just recently had an extended set of remarks, YouTube interview, in which he was speaking directly to the efforts underway in several states in this country in terms of legalization of cannabis and what that meant in terms of the power of referenda, what that meant in terms of states' rights and how to navigate the differences between federal government and Department of Justice equities in this issue and the states' rights issues. It was a very interesting, a very forward-leaning statement from the President and I think quite encouraging. We've also got the UN special session, the UN gas session scheduled for the early part of 2016 on global drug policy. This is the first occasion since 1998 when there's been such a gathering to review where we are in terms of the conventions and further refinement of the global approaches on that. And so it's a great opportunity as we move towards Vienna in March, the meetings in Vienna on drug policy, narcotic approaches to hear from Ambassador Brownfield about the preparations and what lies ahead in this period. What we're gonna do is we're gonna ask Michael and Bill to each open up with 16 minutes of top-line prepared remarks about their respective areas and the points that they wanna get out in terms of the major policy considerations at the moment and then we'll have a conversation across those lines among ourselves and then we'll open the floor to you all for your comments and questions. And so when we get to that point, we'll bundle together a number of interventions. Please put your hand up. We'll bring a microphone to you. Please identify yourself. Be very succinct to make a single intervention. We'll bundle those together and come back to our speakers. So I'm gonna ask Michael to open up if you wouldn't mind. I would not. And thank you so much for being with us today. Thank you. Thanks, Steve, for the invitation. And I relish this six to eight minutes because I love being with Ambassador Brownfield, but getting my interventions in place when we work together is always an interesting dynamic. I always defer to the Director of National Drug Control Policy. No, it's really a pleasure to be here and it actually is a pleasure to work with the Ambassador and with State. And so I wanna spend the majority of my time in terms of opening remarks is talking about where we are with drug policy in the United States because I think that under, not I think that under the Obama administration, we've really undertaken some significant reforms as it relates to drug policy in the United States. I think for a long time, we've relied on anecdote to guide policy. And under this administration, we've really focused on a science-based, evidence-based strategy to do that. And as a context for this, the vast majority of my career I spent in public health and I worked at the Massachusetts Public Health Department, pretty forward-leading state with a pretty forward-leading health department. And I remember being there when the inaugural policy was released. And I remember then Director Kurlikowski talking about the fact that we couldn't arrest and incarcerate our way out of this problem, that we needed to rely specifically on public health approaches to this disease that while law enforcement plays a key role in what we do, it was not going to be the solution to our problems. And I was like, whoa, this is not the ONDCP that I am used to. And really embracing some cutting edge, at least for the administration, kind of cutting edge activities like needle exchange programs, like overdose prevention programs with naloxone. And so from my perspective, I was really fortunate to have the opportunity to come to ONDCP in November 2012. So it really, I think, is important for us to understand kind of where we've tried to go, both in terms of policy and budget, as it focuses on that. You know, one of the areas that we have been really trying to focus on are public health strategies, really looking at from both a policy perspective and a budget perspective, focusing on things like prevention, treatment and recovery. And let me give you a couple examples of kind of what are some of the significant reforms that we've seen. You know, the other piece that I'll share with you is I'm actually recovering from my own addictive disorder. So the fact that, you know, I am the hopefully soon-to-be director if the Senate votes the way that I want them to on Monday, you know, is emblematic of where we are. So I am not a general. I am not a law enforcement person. I am a public health person. And, you know, I'm an openly gay man in recovery. And so if that's indicative of kind of who the president has chosen to lead drug policy, then, you know, I hope we have more reforms to come. So, you know, one of the areas that I think is particularly important is the Affordable Care Act as we talk about this issue. So if you think about substance use disorders, we have about 23 million people in the United States who meet criteria for a substance use disorder. And previous to the Affordable Care Act, only 10% of those got care at a specialty treatment program. And it's one of the reasons, like myself, that people with untreated addiction actually intersect with the criminal justice system is we don't do a good job at increasing and making sure that people have access to treatment. So the Affordable Care Act revolutionizes that in two ways. Basically, it makes substance use disorder treatment an essential health benefit of any of the expansion plans that we have, both in Medicaid and the exchange plans. The second piece that it does, it basically says that insurance companies have to offer these benefits at parity with other health benefits. For a long time and particularly in the private insurance world, they used a variety of mechanisms like lifetime limits, copays and deductibles to limit people's access. So that is a real profound change in how we think about drug policy and how we think about access to recovery. So I think it's really important that we talk about that. The other piece that I think this administration really needs some credit for is how we've looked at things, how we've approached sentencing reform activity. And it really is, I think, important to understand the track record of both the president and the attorney general, particularly as it relates to low level offenders who are coming in contact with the criminal justice system largely as a result of their own addictive disorders. And when we think of our policy, we look at it in three fundamental ways. One, how do we divert people away from the criminal justice system in the first place? So how do we enhance policy? How do we enhance practice? How do we do things like increasing the opportunity for police department to have a different intervention other than just arresting someone and incarcerating them? We know that the vast majority of people who are in our prison facilities are there largely because of their own substance use disorders and how do we make sure they get good care and treatment? And then how do we make sure people who are recovering from their addiction and particularly those with criminal records don't face lifelong barriers as a result of their criminal records because of their addictive disorders. Share with you a personal anecdote. It was really interesting as one of the highest level folks who are in recovery with my own criminal record going through an FBI vetting process and trying to explain those arrest records. But I think it provides an opportunity to that. The other piece that I wanna share with you is how we've begun to really work with law enforcement in a different way. And I think many of you have seen the reporting about the dramatic increase in opioid related deaths in the United States. So we now have 120 people dying every single day of a drug overdose in the United States that's largely driven by prescription drug and opioids. And through the work of our office, we are basically trying to have, making sure that law enforcement is equipped with naloxone, which is this remarkable antidote to reverse an overdose. And we've seen two things happen. One, this incredible uptake on with local law enforcement on saving people's lives. And so we now have law enforcement entities across the country doing it. And as well as state laws that provide immunity from people who are reporting an overdose from criminal prosecution. But the kind of the byproduct of that, and you'll hear we were actually just at a conference the other day, is that it dramatically changes the relationship of local law enforcement with the drug using community. And it has precipitated a conversation about how can the law enforcement community have a different response to people with substance use disorders, not only in saving their lives, but using that as an opportunity to get people into care and treatment. So I think that these are kind of pieces that we want to make sure that are part of the work that we do. It's very interesting to me, and I'll end here and turn it over to the ambassador, that I don't come from an international background, but one of the things that's really astounding to me is how drug policy in the United States just gets reverberated across the world. And it's really tremendous, and I see Ambassador Simons here who's been a huge part of that, of how many, many countries across this hemisphere are, and across the world, quite honestly are talking about and moving toward implementing public health strategies as it relates to their own issues. Now, I like to see them fund public health strategies, but also things like alternatives to incarceration. So, and this is not to a country, but it's really been heartening to me to think about how US drug policy has precipitated a conversation among many, many countries as they rethink their own policies. The last piece that I'll say that's really heartening to me is even within the international world, focusing on recovery and how we can lessen the stigma of addiction and people who have addiction in the international community. So, working with our State Department, we actually passed a resolution last year at UNODC focusing on recovery. I got to lead a panel discussion among countries about how we can continue to promote this concept of treating people with dignity and respect and diminishing the barrier. So, it's really been, I think, heartening. The last thing I know we'll spend some more time on this has been kind of our view of legalization. And I don't come at this from an ideological perspective. I come at this from a scientific perspective. And the American Academy of Pediatrics had an excellent policy piece that came out last week, not supporting legalization. And one of the things that they said that I think resonates with us about how we think about legalization efforts is that the most salient criteria as we think about drug policy in the United States should be about what are the harms as it relates to the youth of our country. And that really is the pivotal reason for us why we have not been supportive of legalization efforts. It doesn't mean, however, that we need, that we don't need to continue to think about how we reform our criminal justice system, how we deal with issues of disproportionality as it relates to arrest and incarceration. It doesn't mean that. It means that we believe that there's another way to move forward as we think about drug policy in the United States that is balanced. It's not about a war on drugs and it's not about legalization. I know we'll talk more about that, but I just wanted to put that out there as we thought about how we formulate drug policy in our position around marijuana. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you very much. Ambassador Brown. Shall I launch? By the way, thank you very much, Steve and CSIS for the opportunity and providing us this forum for this conversation and this discussion. Ladies and gentlemen, there's some logic to the fact that I am following in this presentation Michael Botticelli. It is not just because he has a more handsome set of green shoelaces than my somewhat dull and boring black shoelaces, but rather because what the director of national drug control policy has done for you and for me is to lay out the domestic realities of this issue here in the United States of America. And that to a very considerable extent is my starting point as I try to engage on behalf of the United States of America in the international community on this issue. I obviously cannot take positions, express views and offer a US position that does not take into account what we are doing here in the United States of America. But that is not the only set of realities that I must deal with as I prepare for the year 2015 in the international context. Another set of realities is we are going to have in about four weeks time a meeting on the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs that will establish for the United Nations drug policies, reform ideas, concepts, and lead on to a special session of the United Nations in the year 2016. Regardless of US domestic realities, those international meetings will occur. There are some other realities out there that some of us in this room obviously not including Ambassador Simon who's aware of everything that I have said, am saying, and will say at any point for the rest of my life, but some of the others among us may not be so much aware. First, there is a tremendous debate in the international community between those who wish to reform and those who wish to continue current policies, those who wish to change or completely alter the three international drug control conventions and those who wish to preserve them, those to make it as simplistic as possible, those who support legalization and those who support prohibition. This is not an exclusively US argument, ladies and gentlemen, and as I prepare to work through this set of challenges in this year and the year ahead, we have to take these into account and I'll offer you two more realities that while they may not sound overwhelming to you, they're major, major issues that we have to factor in from the United States foreign policy perspective. One, any change in the international legal architecture related to drugs requires by you and rules something in the vicinity of 120 member states to endorse before the change is enacted into treaty or convention. That's nearly, I think it's 60%, it is almost two thirds. In other words, there's going to be no major legal change unless a tremendous number of governments agree. And second reality for me, although it sounds domestic, it is definitely quite international as well. There's also going to be no change in the US position on any treaty or convention unless I or Mr. Botticelli can line up 67 United States senators to agree with that new treaty, that new convention, that new international obligation. I will leave to you far more expert than I am how easy it is to provide, to produce 67 senators in agreement on any major issue in the world today. And I'll not go any further down the road than that because while I may be dumb, I am not completely stupid. So my challenge I suggest to all of you is to try to find a way whereby the United States continues to exercise leadership in this field, which I hope most, not all, but most would agree is a helpful and positive thing. Leadership that in my opinion should be pragmatic, practical and realistic in terms of where we are trying to guide, nudge, prod or work with the larger international community representing the 7.5 billion inhabitants of planet Earth at this time. I would suggest, and I will right now, suggest that we should start with some sort of common understanding in terms of the legal architecture. Some of you and certainly Steve have heard this before because I rolled this out for the very first time I believe in this exact room about a year or so ago. When I suggested the world should be able to reach consensus on four basic principles. First principle, don't try dramatic change in the three international conventions. Not because they are perfect, because I acknowledge they like any written document are not perfect, but rather because getting something new probably is beyond the realm of the possible at this point. And something that is good but not perfect perhaps is better than having nothing at all. Principle number two, what I call the flexibility principle. But I wanna be clear on what I mean by flexibility. I do not mean that every government should be allowed to interpret the three conventions as it wishes. That would be rather a weak set of conventions, but rather within the conventions themselves. There is discretion and flexibility that is permitted by the text of the conventions. Why not take advantage of that discretion and flexibility to accomplish some things in terms of reforms, new ideas, new approaches. Third principle from my perspective is what I call tolerance of differing national policies. Let us accept that over the past 50 years, the international community's attempt to get all 190, I think it's 94 members of the United Nations to adopt exactly the same drug control policy has not been an overwhelming success. Let us assume, therefore, and accept that governments and nations responding to their own national conditions and realities will have somewhat differing policies. Let us have an international approach that accepts that reality, quite frankly, ladies and gentlemen, because it's going to happen whether we accept it or want it or not. And my fourth suggested principle is the principle that regardless of our position on legalization versus prohibitionism, on reform versus continuity, we all agree that the criminal organizations, those institutions that conduct activity for purpose of economic gain using violence and blood as their mechanisms for earning revenues in order to traffic and market an illicit product should in fact be resisted by all nations on the planet, regardless of what our individual national drug policies might be. Integrity of the conventions, accept some flexibility within the conventions, tolerance for differing national positions and a consensus against the criminal organizations. Now that's a framework, ladies and gents. Mr. Morrison would say a framework is not a policy, he is right, and I'll throw out some ideas that I think would constitute a policy and you're gonna hear more on these in the course of this year and the next. One, we have just heard from the director of national drug control policy. Public health, public health, public health. This is not a criminal justice problem. At least it is not exclusively a criminal justice problem. We should quite correctly focus more of our international attention on the health aspects of this issue. Second, let's say it right up front, criminal justice reform. We dance around the issue sometimes, sometimes we say it quite bluntly, sometimes we use simplistic expressions and sometimes people speak for 45 minutes trying to say the same thing, which is we should entertain reform of our criminal justice process, where it makes sense, what might make sense? Sentencing reform, I think we should be open to that. Alternatives to incarceration might not be a bad idea, certainly in some situations, drug courts rather than criminal justice courts to manage, process or adjudicate these sorts of issues. These are the sorts of ideas that smart men and women, I hope, will roll out into international dialogue in the course of 2015, 2016. A third concept that I'm pushing as hard as I can is let's find ways for greater international cooperation. We will have to accept, ladies and gentlemen, that the world is a complicated place. There are today some countries that have chosen to legalize entire categories of what in other places are prescribed drugs and other countries are executing people who traffic in those drugs. We've somehow got to find enough common ground that we can do some things together accepting that different countries will take different approaches. And the fourth of my so-called policy prescriptions since I've said it once, I'll say it again, is let's think of new ways to address the organized criminal side of this equation. Not the people who consume, not the people who are buying and selling in small quantities, but the people who constitute multibillion dollar multinational enterprises that are marketing the stuff. Ladies and gentlemen, I would close by suggesting optimistically that we've had some success in opening up this aperture of dialogue and having a useful conversation. Ambassador Simon, just in case you're not aware of who he is, he's sitting three rows back just to the left of the aisle as I'm looking at it. He had considerable success about four months ago in bringing together the nations of the organization of American states to address just these issues. And they came up with what I think, Paul was actually a pretty good declaration. I hope others will ask me about it in the course of the question and answer session. Ladies and gentlemen, my closing sentence is this. There is room for reform in this field. 2016 is not 1961. The world has changed. We're not idiots, all of us in this room. I think we acknowledge that reality, but let's acknowledge one other reality as well. As Mr. Botticelli mentioned in his own closing remarks, and that is there is a reason why 100 years ago, most of the governments in the world decided to control access to a certain number of drugs. It is because they were found to be harmful to those who used them. So as we address reform, as we think about change, as we discuss new ways of doing things, let's not forget that there was a reason why we paid particular attention to these drugs and make sure, if I can use the old saying of so many decades in the past, we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Thank you very much, Dr. Im. I relinquish the floor. Thank you so much. Thank you both. Michael, congratulations, and I wish you the best on both. Not yet. You're not confirmed yet. We're going to congratulate you in advance. Thank you. Knowing that that will raise your probabilities. I wanna ask you about the agenda that you've outlined and which is quite consistent with what Bill outlined. This reform agenda, this emphasis on public health, on human rights, on changing the law enforcement outlook and paradigm, this is all reflective at some level to changes in our society. Normatively, it reflects shifts that have happened across party lines. It's something that is tied to, as you point out, broad trends in terms of reform of US health systems and the like. Tell us a bit more about, as you are thinking about this, as you're talking to members of Congress, as you are out talking to the different constituencies within the United States, what do you see, how do you see this sea change that's underway, unfolded? Because it seems to me that it's created the space for you to carry forward. What is a true reform agenda? It's made that possible in a period when division in many other places has been quite deep and quite prohibitive. So what is it that permits you to feel so confident about your ability to move ahead? It's really interesting and I think if I have any probability of being confirmed, it's because we actually have folks who are coming at this, they're coming to the same place for sometimes different reasons. So if you think about judicial reform and criminal justice reform, there are some very conservative people in this country who are undertaking significant criminal justice reform, largely because of cost, right? So you think of Texas quite honestly as the incarceration capital of the world, I would like to think they came at it from a humanistic standpoint, but I think quite honestly, they came at it from a cost standpoint and said, we can't keep this up, right? So other than healthcare, I think criminal justice costs are the second leading expenditure at the state level. And so you have very, very conservative people and very, very conservative folks coming at this from a cost standpoint. And quite honestly, I think you have the healthcare system coming at this from the same angle and they know that quite honestly, untreated addiction has a significant level of cost as it relates to, so as we think of cost containment strategies to do that. I think the other piece and I hope I'm not being overly optimistic by this, as we've seen the evolution and policy change on a whole host of issues and I think of gay marriages being one of them, right? So how will we fundamentally change that policy? Not to be overly simplistic, but part of it was people's willingness to come out about who they were fundamentally changed the way that all of us think about gay folk. And it drove public policy. Someone gave me a bit of advice a long time ago and I believe this, science and data don't often drive public policy. People drive public policy. And so part of I think this movement around and this is, I'm not open about my recovery to be self-congratulatory. I'm open about my recovery because we need that kind of political movement, that kind of visibility to change public perception and to change the way that we think about this. So I do think that part of what draws very different folks from very different places along the political spectrum they come to the same place, but I think they come at it for different reasons. Bill, have you had a chance to get out to speak with different audiences here in the United States? Sure, I tried to do it. Comestically about the international agenda and what do people say to you? Well, before I say that, I do wish to protest most emphatically Mr. Botticelli's taunting of the state of Texas and suggesting anything negative about the state of Texas. Austin has a sense of exceptionalism. Enough said, I shall return to Dr. Morrison's perfectly valid and legitimate question. Look, I am not going to suggest that there's a monolithic set of views when I'm working around the country working this issue. I would suggest, as makes perfectly good sense, that most American citizens look at the drug issue through the prism of their own experiences, family, schools, communities, business and are not thinking necessarily in terms of the international aspects. When they are thinking of the international aspects, they tend to see the negative side of it. Gangs in their communities that are part of this process or the belief, sometimes erroneous, that the product comes in universally from overseas and from foreign countries. At the end of the day, the dialogue tends to be more than 50% on the impact of the drug issue, the international drug issue on their lives, their families, their communities, and considerably less than 50% in terms of what we are doing or can do overseas. Now, that's partly my responsibility. I mean, that's one of the things that I'm going around the country to do, to try to establish with them as well as with everyone in this room that there is a link between what we are doing or trying to do overseas and then what happens here on our own streets and in our own communities. Our success or failure in terms of addressing the root causes that generate drug production or transportation to the United States has an obvious impact on our lives here. That would be my long-winded response to your simple question. For those of you standing in the back, there are open seats up front. If you care to come and grab a seat, you don't need to stand up. If you care to get seated, there's a couple right here in front. There's one right there. There's a couple over here. So please come on down if you care to grab a seat. Let's stay on the domestic front for a moment. We know we have a heroin epidemic right now. It's a very serious epidemic. It's linked in with Oxycontin and other opioid drug abuse. Can you say a few words about how you understand that? What is driving that? And I know this is a top issue, a top preoccupation in the kind of strategy needed to roll that back. And it has affected innumerable communities across the country. And it's always quite surprising when you're in a bucolic setting and you see a billboard on heroin addiction. And people are talking about this in very new and compelling ways. Can you say a bit about the root causes and what you see as the strategy and the path? And actually this does have international implications. So if you look at where we are, particularly with heroin use, we know that the root cause has been the overprescribing of prescription pain medication by physician in the United States. So recent report by the CDC showed that we now, that physicians are prescribing enough pain medication to give every American a bottle of pain pills every day. And again, we want to make sure that people who need those medications for pain get them. And if you look at newer users to heroin, four fifths of them started by misusing prescription pain medication. And then as people progress in their chronicity and their acuity of opiate addiction, particularly on prescription drugs, what appears to be a small percentage of them are transitioning to heroin. And so why are they transitioning to heroin? Well, one of the causes is that we have been inundated, largely from Mexico and South America, by a very cheap, very pure supply of heroin. So if you're gonna pay a dollar or milligram on the street for a pill, for a 60 milligram pill, or you have the opportunity to spend $5 or $10 on a bag of heroin that has the very same effect, doesn't take an economist, a lot of math, to say, I'm gonna start using heroin. So we have seen this progression, and that's one of the areas that has been of significant concern. So while prescription drug overdoses still eclips heroin overdoses, we've seen significant increases in the number of heroin users. To get to the question you asked before, Steve, I think it's also why we've been able to have folks, a broad continuum of folks engaged with us on drug policy, because this is kind of, we've had heroin use for a long time. But this is a shared threat? But it's a shared threat, it's a different demographic, it's in more suburban and rural areas that we've seen before. So we have been engaged with just, about all of the governors in every state, as well as folks in Congress who historically, for whom drug policy has never been their top priority issue. So again, I think it's another area where we have been able to work with people who have historically not seen the drug policy issues as one of their top priorities. Now, one of the issues that surfaces often in both the domestic debate and the international debate is about improving access to palliative care for folks that are end of life or folks that are suffering from a severe medical condition and require that and trying to get greater flexibility, both domestically, but also globally, this is an issue under consideration to the unguess. How does that match up against what is kind of an emergency in a way, a heroin epidemic and the oxycontin, the abuse that predates and drives that? Well, it's interesting and this conversation has come up at UNODC a number of times. And when you look at many of the countries that have a prescription drug issue, United States, Canada, some European countries, it's about relative access to healthcare. And I think that part of what we have offered quite honestly to the rest of the countries thinking about how they get good medicines to people who really need them is to basically heed some lessons learned from us and say, we think that there are lessons that we have learned about how you can minimize some of the diversion and abuse issues as you think about how you implement public health practice, how you think about clinician guidelines and how you think about care to make sure that people do get really good access to good pain medications when they need them. So we have often offered some kind of opportunities and cautionary words for other countries as they think about and try to look at access, better access to healthcare and medications to do this in a way that doesn't replicate, I think, things that have happened here. Bill, is this an area where you think there's potential progress in the special session? Yes, although I'd want to qualify that pretty carefully. Do keep in mind prescription drugs are completely, absolutely and totally permitted under the three international drug control conventions as you would expect them to be. That is the one area where you would expect to be allowed to use these particular products. That is to say a trained and licensed physician who determines that this particular medication is required or called for or indicated for a particular medical condition. The problem, obviously, and what the conventions themselves as well as the bodies that provide the guidance to the United Nations system, as well as our own government are attempting to limit control and ideally eliminate is the abuse and diversion of those prescription drugs. Now, could the ungas come up with ideas in terms of how better to do that? I suppose so, but again, this is where I come back to you with my closing comment of let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater at the end of the day, I believe, I hope what we are all looking for is a solution and an outcome where qualified professional physicians are making the determination as to win certain products should be used as medication and not to take them out of this formula. And when we move into licensed physicians, we move into an area that for the last 60, 70, 80 years has very definitely fallen within national systems. One nation's physician licensing system may be very different from another. Is it an area for possible consideration? Yes, but it's not going to be a simple issue is what I would suggest to you. Let's talk a little bit about marijuana, cannabis. You mentioned your continued concern about harm. We're in a fragmented moment here. We've got states that are moving ahead with legalized recreational use. We've had a number of states that have already put in place the medical use. There's the existing federal law. There's the tension that exists between what's happening in Colorado or Washington or Oregon, Alaska, maybe DC. The tension between that versus the conventions. So it seems to be a somewhat mixed picture and one where you have the president saying, well, this is part of a criminal justice reform issue. This is one about nonviolent offenders. There's a racial dimension to this. It's about shifting to a public health approach. But there's a deep ambivalence running through all of these discussions around marijuana. Can you say a bit more about that and how do you navigate that as the leader in this area? You know, I think there are a couple of dimensions to this which are really important. I think when you look at many of the president's comments he really is talking about this from a criminal justice context, that we can continue down this path of arresting and incarcerating, and particularly young kids of color and the impact that we see here. And I completely agree with that as it relates to drug policy. But when you look at kind of what the impact of legalization might portend for us. And not just legalization, but I also have significant concern with the commercialization of marijuana. Having done public health for a long time, I think that we see quite honestly the industry being using some of the same tactics, quite honestly, that the tobacco industry has used as they thought about marketing their product, right? So basically, I think not full disclosure about the health harms associated with marijuana. I think that, you know, some sense that a tightly regulated market is not gonna increase access to youth. We now have more youth in this country that smoke marijuana than tobacco. And we clearly know the health harms associated with marijuana as it relates to youth. Of not quite honestly portraying this substance as addictive when clearly we know that it is. So I think there is significant, so two things, one is, you know, this is where we come from in terms of unanimity of policy. That said, he's also made clear that he, with the Department of Justice monitoring this, is keeping a close eye on what's happening in Colorado and Washington. And the Cole memo laid out eight criteria for Colorado and Washington, broad array of public health and public safety criteria that they need to be held accountable in terms of mitigating the harms with that. So the Cole memo was the Department of Justice. There was the Department of Justice memo that basically saying we're not preempting the referendum in Washington, Colorado, but we're reserving the right to take subsequent action based on our monitoring of eight criteria, again, public health, public safety criteria. And that we will continue to monitor the situation. And in essence, reserve the right to take subsequent action based on those criteria. So our office, you know, and again, I don't wanna speak out of both sides of my mouth. You know, if we say that we're science and data-driven, we need to be science and data-driven. And so part of what we're looking at, and these are largely publicly available data sets as well as work with the National Institute of Drug Abuse, is looking at, and in concert with Colorado and Washington, what has been the impact? What is the impact? I think, quite honestly, it's too soon to tell in terms of what those issues mean. I think Colorado, by its own acknowledgement, saying we have a problem here with edibles, and we need to really ratchet that back. So again, I think it's really important for us to continue to oppose legalization, to monitor what's happening in Colorado, and in subsequent states. So how soon do you think we'll be able, because my sense is a lot of states are sitting and waiting to see what happens. And there is an ambivalence among thoughtful people. People come down on this issue in a number of different ways. So how soon are people gonna be able to make judgments around the wisdom or merits of what's happening in Colorado and Washington? What are gonna be the key criteria? So our offices, we do not intend to issue some level of definitive report saying, oh, it worked, no, it didn't. But part of it is a commitment to continue to roll out public data. Largely, these are existing data sets that exist that look at things like youth use, that looks at things like treatment admissions, that look at things like drug driving episodes, that look at diversion of marijuana from one state to another. So part of what we feel a responsibility at ONDCP is to make available those data sets to allow people to make a determination on kind of what they think the impact is. So it's not our intention to again, to issue this definitive report saying, yes, it works, no, it doesn't. But Steve, I get to jump in on this because what Michael has laid out quite correctly is the United States of America's approach to marijuana and the larger legalization issue. And I believe that's exactly right and correct as I understand it. In 1776, we decided we'd govern ourselves, thank you very much. And sometime around 1788, we decided the system by which we would do it, we got states, we got a federal government, I've got no problem with this whatsoever. But bear with me on this, please. We have also ratified three international drug control conventions. In two of those conventions, marijuana is placed in the annex of a proscribed product which the national government is expected to control and to the extent possible prohibit except for in very limited examples. My task as your representative, what you pay me to do is to march out to those international organizations and explain to them how everything that Steve and Michael have just talked about still leave us in compliance with our international obligations. Now, this is a little bit tricky. I would remind all of you that most governments in the world continue to have fairly strong views on cannabis and that the oversight body is that the United Nations of which we are a member have set up, particularly the International Narcotics Control Board has been pretty clear, I would even say at times, severe with me in terms of not accepting the argument that we are in full and complete compliance. And this is what I was talking about earlier on in terms of saying we are an independent and sovereign nation. We will make our own decisions and determinations. We are governed by our constitution. Thank you very much, but please work with me, ladies and gentlemen, as we figure how to project those national realities into the international community. Sorry, I got carried away, but I just had to vent. Well, I know that that's probably one of the more difficult things for you to try and explain, right? Because it's not patently obvious as to how you reconcile those things and that's just the nature of the diplomatic predicament that we face, right? The Texans are very good at that sort of thing, despite the savage attacks by Mr. Botticelli, a man from Massachusetts. You're doing okay. Let's talk just for a second about harm reduction about substitution therapy, about needle and syringe exchange, all of which are highly sensitive and divisive issues, but ones which many are arguing need to be pushed forward as an element, both at the domestic and international context. Can you say a bit and then ask Bill to comment? Sure, for as long as I've been doing this work, I hate the phrase harm reduction because it means so many different things to so many different people. If we're talking about a wide variety of interventions for active users that minimize the health harms with their using all for it, right? So is it a semantic issue? It's something that we, culturally and politically, is uncomfortable, but the meaning of it is not uncomfortable? The meaning of it is not uncomfortable. I think what's hard from a policy perspective is where do we draw the line on those kinds of harm reduction policies that we support and those that we're continuing to look at. So again, we have always supported needle exchange programs, we continue to support overdose prevention, education programs, and a wide variety of other activities. It's interesting to me that in the international world, they look at medication assisted treatment as a harm reduction therapy, which doesn't quite square with me. We look at it as a valid treatment approach. And part of what we just laid out yesterday with the president's budget is even strengthening the United States efforts around access to medication assisted treatment. So these are the most highly evaluated medications that we have. So we do support a wide variety of interventions that diminish the health harms associated. And quite honestly, the mortality associated with, particularly with injection drug use. Yeah. I mean, I agree, not surprisingly, 100% with Michael. This entire area of discussion falls absolutely squarely in what I describe as the public health component, which we urge, accept, agree, support, plead with, and vote for enhanced consideration in the international context. This is a good area for discussion. I do not say we should agree with every single proposal that comes in under the label of harm reduction. I do say this is a valid issue for 194 member states of the United Nations to discuss in the context of the formal structure of the United Nations, in the context of their individual national drug control policies. This is an area where I do believe the nations of the world should be able to reach some useful conclusions. As I might add, Dr. Simon, the OAS states did in September of last year in Guatemala City, when they discussed public health in their final declaration, is it as an area where the 34 states of the Western Hemisphere agreed we should address and focus efforts as we addressed the drug issue. Thank you. So we can expect US leadership as we head towards the special session to put some special emphasis on this area. Sure. In terms of using US leadership, I mean, what you've described about David and about the OAS session suggests that there's proof already of some action in that area. Yeah, I mean, actually, we probably don't want to have a tactical discussion at this particular point in time. First, it would give half of the people in this room a headache and the other half would fall asleep. But I would suggest that the United States of America has placed itself more or less in a position where it can influence the dialogue in the future because it has associated itself with neither of the two extremes, neither those who espouse full prohibition. In other words, lock them up if they so much as think about it or if you think they might think about it or the other extreme, those who say, let's just legalize everything and the entire problem would go away. We have placed ourselves in a position where we can influence and I would like to think help produce at least a majority, if not consensus in this area. And this would be an area where I would hope it is. So in that sweet middle ground where we're going to put all of our energies, looking ahead, what are the three or four things you want to take away from the special session? In terms of practical advances in that middle zone, what are the concrete things that where you make use of the existing flexibilities to push the rest of the world to see things more in the way we want to see it? Well, first, I don't want to say people should see things the way we want to see them. I do believe the way we describe this is we should find some common ground that all 194 member states of the United Nations can accept. I'll start, smarty pants, with at least two of the things that I said at the very beginning and that is, let's keep the basic architecture that we have, the three international drug control conventions and let's keep a consensus in terms of resisting the large transnational criminal organizations. Then, what are we actually trying to accomplish within those two parameters? I do believe public health and we can, my guess is with 10 people and an hour, we could come up with 50 different proposals on public health, some of which we've already talked or talked around in the course of our discussion here. Second would be criminal justice reform. In what I would describe as a logical, coherent way that is not going to require governments at either extreme to have to change their fundamental positions because ladies and gentlemen, the United Nations system for good or for ill has developed over the last 70 years a tradition to operate by consensus. And what does consensus mean? It means that any individual government can basically stop an initiative if it feels strongly about it. What this says to a person like me who must operate in and within that system is I've got to find proposals, ideas, concepts that will be acceptable to some governments that are still executing drug traffickers and other governments who have completely legalized entire categories of products. I have come up with and suggested some of those ideas earlier today. Sentencing reform in terms of how many life sentences do you have to serve for this purpose? Alternatives to incarceration, adjudication processes that are different or separate from the criminal justice system. These are the sorts of areas where I would like to think we could find and develop some degree of consensus. But I do wanna make it clear to everyone here this is not going to be easy. If it were just us, the brilliant 100 people or so that are sitting in this room right now by five o'clock this afternoon, we could have a perfect document to come out of the special session of the United Nations in 2016. Might take more than an hour, but we truly could. But we are operating under a very different set of rules. And that, sadly, is part of the reality that I was trying to describe. If you think Michael's got a complicated situation from time to time, trying to keep some coherence among 50 states of the union, plus the District of Columbia, ladies and gentlemen, may I repeat, 196 individual member states of the United Nations that operate by consensus. Boy, under those circumstances, I'd trade jobs with Dr. Botticelli any day of the week. Thank you. I wanna come back to Michael with one big question and then I wanna open the floor for comments and questions. So please think a bit about what you might wanna say. Michael, my question to you is, what more do you need, do you believe, in terms of tools or capacities to carry forward the mission of your office? Which is so expansive in a way and it has very high ambitions attached to it. And you're in the process of multiple transitions of outlook and paradigms and partnerships. I mean, it's striking reading through all the policy materials that you generated. It's a very dynamic environment that you're trying to shape in multiple places around this country. So where you sit, what more, if you were to wish for an additional set of capacities and tools, what would those be? I've been in government so long, no one's really kind of given me a blank check before and say, what would you do? You know, I think a couple things. And one, I'll start with continuing to change public perception, I think is a really big area. One of the areas that we know why people don't seek treatment is it's still riddled with shame and stigma. So one is, if I had my magic wand, it'd be really changing how people with addiction are viewed. Being able to communicate and mobilize, is that your opinion? I would love to see a more vibrant, politically active recovery movement in the same way that we've had movements in other areas that have changed public policy. So we, you know, people in, and I think that's changing and I think people are beginning to come together and really having a vibrant political movement around this because I do think that that becomes really helpful. You know, the second piece, and I do believe this, you know, one of the things that we have here in the United States and, you know, we've shared that resource across the country, you know, we lead the world in research as it relates to good evidence-based programming. And I think we need to continue to focus on good evidence-based programs, particularly as it relates to this criminal justice healthcare intervention. I think we have, you know, emerging models, I think we have a good few things out there, but we need a better armamentarium. To make the case. To make the case, and also I think to hand to our law enforcement folks and say, here are some good things. You know, we have a few of those out there, you know, drug courts are great, but you know, we don't want people having criminal records with that. Drug market interventions are promising. I think we have some other promising practices out there that are building, but we need a better armamentarium, I think, of how can we have a different criminal justice response to this issue. So those, I think, would be two things. You know, resources are always important. And the other piece that I'll say, having done this work for a long time, the vast majority of treatment, quite honestly, has come from the public dollar. And private insurance needs to step up dramatically in terms of how they provide a good benefit package for people with substance use disorders. Thank you. Bill, what would make your job easier in terms of additional capacities and tools? Yeah, I'm tripling my budget for operations programs and activities overseas and having a single coherent and consensus position by the United States of America in terms of our drug policy. Since neither one of those is very likely in the course, perhaps, of my entire lifetime, I would say at the end of the day, what would be most useful for me in this area would be an approach where there is some degree of consensus within the United States of America. That so long as we stay within these basic parameters, we will be allowed and permitted to reach understandings and agreements, to cooperate and engage bilaterally, regionally, and universally in drug control issues around the world. I'm not sure we're going to get that either, but this is what I'm trying to do when I testify and before Congress and meet with individual members, is to try to clarify as much as possible the general direction in which we are trying to go so that this issue does not get caught up in the sort of political dialogue that does make it very difficult for us to get things done internationally. Thank you. Thank you. Let's open up for some comments and questions and we'll bundle these together. There's two gentlemen right in the middle here. We'll do, I guarantee you, we'll get to everyone. Just be patient. Yes, please. Please identify yourself and be very succinct. Dan Riffle, Marijuana Policy Project. Question for Mr. Botticelli. First of all, congratulations again on your nomination. It's exciting to see someone from the treatment world heading that office instead of the military of the law enforcement world. You've talked a lot about in advance, congratulations in advance. You've talked a lot about the administration's position on marijuana and its continued opposition to legalization. Nevertheless, the president has also said that it's important that Washington and Colorado and other states that choose to regulate marijuana are allowed to implement their laws and move forward with their laws. And in fact, the Department of Justice has issued guidance to those states, alluding to what the ambassador mentioned about operating within parameters, saying that as long as these eight enforcement priorities aren't being implicated, then the Department of Justice will not intervene. And to this point, they have not been implicated. CDC data shows that teen use has gone down actually in Colorado. So my question is, do you agree with the administration's position there that states should be permitted to determine their own marijuana laws? Or would you prefer to see the federal government sort of impose federal law on all states, prohibition of marijuana, even in states that would prefer a new approach? Hold on this for one moment. What I'd like to do is just bundle together three or four interventions. That's OK. Yes? David Borden with stopthedrugwar.org and the Drug War Chronicle newsletter. There's an issue that lies at the intersection of our cooperation internationally with other countries in drug enforcement on the one hand and human rights and criminal justice on the other hand. Not every country shares our human rights standards in criminal justice. We, for example, do not have the death penalty for drug offenses that don't involve violence. Some countries do. There are international tensions right now following the execution in Indonesia of six convicted drug traffickers with dozens more such executions by Indonesia on the way. A number of countries have recalled their ambassadors from there. The DEA opened a branch office in Jakarta in 2011, one of many such offices around the world. We cooperate with Indonesia, with China, with many countries that have the death penalty for drug offenses. And so my question is, as we move forward on criminal justice reform in the US and seek to export that philosophy in our diplomatic relations, is reform also going to be operational in how we do enforcement and share intelligence? Or is it only going to be at the policy level? For example, are we asking countries that we work with on drug enforcement to give us assurances what we contribute to them won't indirectly lead to executions for nonviolent offenses and other such issues? Thank you. Are there other hands in the back here, folks? Why don't we come up here and take these two gentlemen right here? Please. Yeah. Detective Howard Wildridge from LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, Mr. Benicelli. You said earlier in your remarks that law enforcement plays a key component. I started police work in 1974, and I've seen tsunamis of drugs come into this country, marijuana, LSD, then cocaine, then meth, ecstasy, and now heroin has doubled. And it is my experience as a police officer that we have been the mosquito in the butt of an elephant. As you know, drugs today are cheaper, they're stronger. And quoting the DEA, drugs are readily available to America's youth. So my question is, why do you continue to have faith that my profession can have any impact on the drug trade, either nationally or internationally? These DTOs, the drug trafficking organizations, are the Alcapones of the 21st century. And I know the only way we took down Alcapone and the rest is, obviously, to end prohibition. Thank you. Just hand over here, and then we'll hear from you, and then we'll come back to our speakers. Yes. Yes, sir. My name is Andre Sauvageau, and my company I worked for is not involved in this thing. But I'm also a partner of the President Obama's presidential partners and a member of the partner of the Human Rights Campaign. Now, my question is this, domestic, in getting the cooperation of the US Congress to do the things that to move towards that sweet spot you described or what would make his life easier, leaving aside the probability of getting 67 votes, is this an issue in which the cooperation could be relatively bipartisan rather than split along party lines? An example is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, where the President will certainly need Republican cooperation. Your question is, what is the probability? Is this an issue? Not probability. Is this an issue that lends itself to Republican, Democratic? Which issue are you talking about? The issue of getting a consensus on US drug policy to facilitate an effective approach to the international community through the United Nations. OK, thank you. Michael, you want to start with some of the domestic oriented questions, and we'll come to Bill. So I think to your question in terms of what's our response here as kind of other states think about doing this, I would say two things. I would agree I think that many states are very, very interested in terms of what's happening in Colorado and Washington as they think about how they're going to move forward with this. I think you know that the Department of Justice, as it relates to what they've issued with Colorado and Washington, have a same approach with Oregon and Alaska around this. And again, I think our response for this is to continue to monitor what happens in Colorado and Washington, and in subsequent states to see if there needs to be a different response from the Department of Justice and from this administration, or to see if there are and what that might be. So does it need tighter regulations? Or what are the possible options that the Department of Justice can take if it looks as if those criteria are not being met? So I think it's important to do that. The president, as it relates to the district, I think was very clear that the district should stick to its home rule as a resident of the district. I might not agree about legalization, but I do agree with our own ability to spend our own money the way that we want to do that. So I think it's going to be continually important as we go forward to watch what happens as this rolls out. I think to your question, it's been very interesting for me to, you know, I come from the public health side and the demand reduction world, and quite honestly, was not coming at this work from a kind of law-centric. But one of the things that I've come to appreciate, and particularly as it relates to the heroin issue here, there is a direct correlation between supply and demand that we can't ignore. And the heroin situation here we have is a good example. Part of the reason that we're in this situation, not only do we have untreated addiction and we have to do a better job, and we need to do a better job at intervention, but it's because we have such a plentiful supply. And so we do have to focus on strategies that focus on getting the supply out of the communities. If I think about effective public health strategies for a long time, if you think about tobacco, unfortunately, I'm still a smoker, but it's harder and harder to find a place to buy a pack of cigarettes these days, and it makes one think about using those drugs. So, you know, getting bad stuff out of the community has been an effective public health strategy for a long, long time. So I do think that law enforcement has a key role to play, not only in getting bad stuff out of our communities and working with the criminal organizations. You know, I think it will have, it does have a synergistic effect as it relates to demand reduction. You know, the other piece, and I think you know this is, you know, we do want to give law enforcement a different set of skills and practices to be able to not rely solely on arrest and incarceration as they approach people with addictive disorders. So I think it's really important for us to continue to focus on those kinds of interventions. Bill, can you talk about the issue that David raised with respect to death penalty and also the... The human rights intersection with counter-narcotics. Yeah, I mean, here's the way I would, I suppose I would frame the issue. International relations, foreign relations, foreign policy are the intersection of lots of different issues. Human rights and democracy issues, law enforcement or counter-narcotics issues, trade and commercial issues, economic issues, security issues, terrorism issues. At the end of the day, our relations with any individual country are a combination of all of those and we, from our perspective, as a government, as a nation, and as a people, try to develop some sort of balance in each individual case as to what is most important, what is not. And obviously, if all nations of the world were to determine not to have relations with a country that maintains a death penalty, well, actually my job would become much easier due to the fact that we would have relations with no other country in the world. At the end of the day, our job, again, is to figure what are the priorities among those. Is it right for us to have a liaison law enforcement relationship with a nation that in fact applies to death penalty in matters such as drug trafficking where we would not apply that penalty? From my perspective, I would address that question by saying, why do we want the liaison relationship? What do we get out of it in terms of are we protecting the American people? Is it accomplishing something? Is it getting a larger or feeding a larger objective? For example, having a relationship with the largest most populous Muslim country in the world, which does not have a significant extremist issue, how do we balance that against legitimate, proper and correct human rights concerns and considerations, and come up with a conclusion? And as is practically always the case in the hard issues, the conclusion will not be accepted or agreed to by everyone. It will at the end of the day be one that has perhaps the largest non-majority accepting or agreeing with it. And may I wrap up on the bipartisan issue? Brother, I would love to think that we could find something in this matter that in fact does generate a bipartisan support. My only comment, and I've been in this government business now for 36 years, this is a policy that is now under some degree of change and adjustment. And my own experience of the past 36 years is that is a time when it's rather difficult to find bipartisan agreement because things are changing and that is the most difficult time from my experience to get everyone to come together and agree. I hope I'm wrong, we'll find out. Great, let's get another round of quick comments and questions. We have a hand here, we have two hands here. Please be very succinct and we'll gather together three or four, come back and close. Yes, sir. Thanks so much. My name is Dr. Malik Brennan, I'm with the Drug Policy Alliance. My question actually is twofold, both for each of you. The first question is, as part of a group that would be deemed legalizers, it is somewhat erroneously concluded that we are not in concern for the wellbeing of the youth of our nation. And so as you were speaking, you were saying that you articulated somewhat of a third way or an alternative sort of path between prohibition and legalization. And I was wondering if you could expand on what that is. And then for the ambassador, as it relates to International Narcotics Control Board, given the fact that a large amount of the teeth in that organization is perpetuated by the ability of the United States to control monetary donations, what exactly are the ramifications of the United States as it changes its cannabis policy, being negatively impacted by being out of compliance, if you will, with the International Narcotics, or with the International Convention. Can you hand that? Yes, sir. Hi, I'll be Lashka Zula. My question is for both of you regarding the policy that Portugal passed in 2000. So with the legalization of most listed drugs, addiction rates have fallen by half, crime rates have fallen by a substantial amount, how do you see that impacting domestic policy in the United States, as well as reach a consensus on international policy at the UN? Can you just summarize that question? Slowly. Yeah, sorry. So how do you see the impact of what happened in Portugal over the past 15 years, impact domestic policy both in the United States and international policy and consensus at the UN special hearings? Thank you, Portugal. And a hand over here is Portugal, yes. David Holliday, Latin America Program of the Open Society of Foundations. The recent report, the policy report of the American Academy of Pediatrics also recommended that marijuana be rescheduled as a Schedule II drug. I won't ask your position on that, but what are the obstacles in the future of that and what would it mean from your perspective if marijuana was reclassified as a Schedule II drug? Thank you. Do we have any other comments? There's one in the back. And we'll come back to our speakers and we'll wrap up. Sort of as a follow up to that, Don Murphy with the Marijuana Policy Project. Mr. Botticelli, apparently yesterday morning you spoke before law enforcement officers where you suggested or you stated that marijuana would remain classified as a tightly regulated Schedule I drug. And to quote you, you said, the administration continues to oppose attempts to legalize marijuana and other drugs. This opposition was driven by medical science and research. Would you care to comment on the medical science and research that you think suggests that marijuana and heroin should be on the same schedule and do you believe that they are equally dangerous? Okay. Why don't we come to Bill first here and then to Michael and then we can close. Bill? Sure. I'll start with the INCB question. And by the way, INCB is the International Narcotics Control Board. It is that body which was established by the United Nations when they ratified the 1961 international first convention on control of narcotic and psychotropic drugs. And the INCB's role to a certain extent is to serve as referee assessing whether individual member states are in compliance with their treaty obligations and it has other more specific functions as well. I wish I could say we had a tremendous amount of influence on the INCB. There are, I believe, Dr. Green, 12 members of which one right now is an American citizen and I'm not sure there's ever been more than one. And we do provide whatever our proportional share is under the United Nations, whatever it is that we pay into the United Nations system, we do provide to them. I can offer you that over the last two years, I have not detected any evidence at all of a substantial amount of deference by the INCB to the United States government's presentations despite the brilliance with which those presentations have been made. Would you not agree, Mr. Green? That the presentations were made brilliantly. Your question goes beyond that, however, and it does say, so what would be the impact of the INCB finally making a definitive determination that the United States is out of compliance with its obligations under the three conventions? By the way, that's an excellent question and it's a question that I've been wrestling with for more than a year now. I mean, the world would not end, the sun will still rise in the morning and it will set in the evening and the Republic will still stand. Those are good things, so it's not an existential sort of issue. It does have an impact, I suppose, in terms of U.S. leadership, certainly in this issue, but perhaps in broader issues as well as we attempt to encourage other governments to abide by their rules under the Human Rights Convention for the United States. Under the Human Rights Convention, for example. Or under the trade agreements of the WTO or other such multinational conventions. We would have to factor that into our thinking, I would suggest. We also would obviously have to factor in the impact of this in terms of the three conventions themselves if, in fact, the nation that has exercised more leadership within the United Nations over the last 70 years than any other nation is in overt and admitted a non-compliance with its treaty obligations. I assume that would make it less likely that other governments would feel any sense of obligation to comply with their treaty obligations as well. I repeat, and on this I don't mean to overstate the case. It is not the end of the world, but there would be negative impacts. And my conclusion is it would be better if we could convince the INCB that our domestic posture and position leaves us in compliance with our treaty obligations than the reverse. And I will continue to make the argument that I have been making now for more than two years. That our federal system, our continued commitment to the fundamental objectives of the three conventions, and that is to discourage the abuse of these particular products and our discretionary authority as a sovereign state to determine how our limited law enforcement resources would be applied to this problem set leave us in compliance with our treaty obligations. I believe it is an argument worth making. I believe it is a correct argument, and I believe we are better off if we can get the INCB, convince the INCB to accept that argument. Portugal, Portugal has been rolled out as have a number of other nations in terms of experimentation with different approaches on drugs. The Netherlands, Switzerland at times, more recently, Uruguay. Look, my argument would be, I put Portugal in the same category with virtually any other nation, and to which I will now add the states of Colorado and Washington, in terms of providing us something that we can assess, monitor, and determine what the impact of their national experiment is, both in terms of positive and negative elements from that approach. I mean, I would not want a single Portugal out. I don't think they would want to be singled out in terms of standing as a single nation that the entire world looks to and determines whether this works or does not work. Portugal is a small nation. It is, for the most part, a very homogeneous nation. It is a nation that is both limited in terms of population and in terms of geography. They have a different problem set, I suppose, than you would find from a very large, populous nation, a nation that is particularly rural or particularly urban, a nation that is multicultural in terms of who is there, a nation that is located, say, in the crossroads of traditional smuggling patterns. My own view is Portugal is an additional data point as we, the people of the United States of America, and we, the 190, I think it's six, member states of the United Nations assess where we want to go with drug policy in the future. Thank you. Michael, there are a couple of questions on marijuana, but to you as well as the question that Mike posed around, how do you carve a third way? Sure, and let me just, because this might be a segue, I'll also talk about the Portugal piece because I think it's really interesting, even when you look at some of the evaluation, you know, even institutes in Portugal freely talk about the fact of, to the extent that they significantly increase their treatment resources, may really be a profound effect here, right? So this leads into the third way approach, right? Because what we're saying here is, you know, we're really concerned with what some attendant health harms might be about legalization. We don't want to lock folks up. Let's focus on those public health strategies like increasing access to treatment as a solution to this problem, right? So I do think that even some of the good things that might be coming out of Portugal, you know, and again, could be a significant result to the fact that they dramatically increased access to treatment, and they've used the criminal justice system as a way to leverage people into treatment. So I think that that's really important to do. Let me talk, we had a couple of questions about scheduling, which I think are important. And one of the things I always hear is, why is marijuana in the same category as heroin? And I think it's important for folks to know that drugs are not scheduled based on relative risk, right? So it's really important that you understand that, right? So this is basically, do they meet up or down criteria as it relates to the individual category? So I think we need to be careful when we start saying, well, why is marijuana in the same category as heroin? It's not a relative risk scale. I think the other piece that's really important, and I will say this too, you know, because I think in the past it was a pretty fair criticism that the USG, and particularly NIDA and others, were not doing an adequate job on investigating the potential therapeutics of marijuana as it relates to the work that we do. And NIDA has continually to amp up their efforts. They now have over 50 studies looking at the potential therapeutic value of the components of marijuana, right? So even the Institute of Medicine has come out and said smoking marijuana is probably not the most efficient or health-minded delivery device for marijuana. And I think we would all agree with that, that that's not the case. So this is where the scheduling comes into place, because how do we rely on good science, good data to dictate how drugs are scheduled? And there is a process that DEA, under HHS, really looks at the scientific evidence as it relates to this issue. So it's really important that I think we continue to support research and that looks at the potential therapeutic values of the components of marijuana. Thank you. We've gotten to the end of our time here. This has been extraordinarily rich and I wanna thank both of you for joining us this afternoon. I wanna thank all in our audience for sticking with us and putting forward some great questions and comments. And Michael, we wish you the best of luck on Monday. That's a wonderful moment approaching. And please join me in thanking our speakers. Thank you. It was fun. Thank you. I can't shoot. Oh, that's right.