>> coming up on "washington journal," your calls and comments live. then kevin sabet of smart approaches to marijuana and paul armentano from the national organization for the reform of marinol a loss -- of marijuana laws. and axios tech policy reporter maria curi talks about the possible u.s. ban on tiktok. "washington journal" starts now. [video clip] >> on this note, the yeas are 320, nays are 91.

the bill is passed. host: "washington journal" for may 2. a bill that wicked -- would expand the definition of anti-semitism, prohibiting discrimination against students. the legislation comes as demonstrations at some college campuses with administrators authorizing force in cases to dismantle those demonstrations. as we start, you can comment on this house legislative effort to combat anti-semitism on college campuses and those related topics by calling these lines -- democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you are a college student or work at a college and want to give your thoughts, (202) 748-8003. you can use that same number to text us.

you can also post to facebook and on our x feed. you can see the whole debate on our website and our app. the hill reporting that the house approving wednesday a bill that seeks to crackdown on anti-semitism in college campuses, a measure that in the floor as pro-palestinian protesters were on universities across the country. the chamber approves the bipartisan legislation titled the antisemitism awareness act in a 320-91 vote, sending it to the senate for consideration. here is a little bit more from that bill that was passed in house yesterday. itou require the department of edution to u international holocaust remembrance alliances definition of anti-semitism in enforcing

federal statutes prohibiting discrimination against students you're the definition includes denying the jewish people their right to self-determination and drawing comparisons of contemporary israeli policy to that of the nazis as examples of anti-semitism. more about that definition, ich comes from the international holocaus remembrance alliance here and here is their definition. anti-semis a certain perception of jews whies best in -- -- may show hatred toward jews. rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-semitism are directed toward jewish or non-jewish individuals and/or the property. if you want to comment on this legislative effort i the house, especially as the protests on some college campusesnue, again, the numbers are,

democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. indepe, (202) 748-8002. if you are a college student or work at a college and want to give your thoughts, (202) 748-8003. this measure was sponsored by new york republican representative michael lawler. on the house for yesterday, he introduced it and saying why the house should pass it. [video clip] >> codifying a single definition of anti-semitism will help the department of education administrators who have been feckless, clearly identify instances of anti-semitism, and protect the safety of all students, including jewish students are that some opponents may try to make the argument that this imposes restrictions on constitutional rights to free speech, it is not true. first about, constitutional protection is in the bill and clearly states nothing in this act shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any

right protected under the first amendment to the constitution of the united states. speech is already protected under the civil rights act, but when the speech transit to harassment or other prohibited actions and the action is motivated by anti-semitism, that is when it becomes illegal conduct. and right now, without a clear definition of anti-semitism, the department of ed and college administrators are having trouble discerning whether conduct is anti-semitic or not, whether the activity we are seeing crosses the line to anti-semitic harassment. other opponent -- opponents said they would rather see a different bill tackling this. >> gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. >> that no reason and no political cover to vote against another measure is helpful. i asked my colleagues who would prefer other solutions, consider the good it will do for the jewish students, yes, keep pushing for more change in the future. we need to hold these institutions accountable.

my bill has bipartisan support, 59 cosponsors, dozens of jewish advocacy groups, including adl, ajc, and it is absurd to oppose us on the grounds that it somehow limits free speech. calling for death to jews is not protected speech. it is anti-semitic. and the fact that we have some of the highest ranking jewish officials in america refusing to defend the jewish community because of politics is a disgrace. it is shameful, and it is pathetic. and anyone who votes against this bill because they would rather put political expediency and electoral politics ahead of anything else -- >> additional 30 seconds -- >> has no business being a member of congress. never again is now.

and we must act. that is our responsibility. host: representative michael lawler on the house floor yesterday about this legislation which passed in the house. you can give your comments on the phone lines. f yo posting on febook this morning. gary says i fully supported this and'm not jewish. i remember learning abouth holocaust when i was in school. people have the first amendment right and freedom of religion, and there should be no place for jewish hate here in america. jim on facebook thing you do not need bill for every crisis that comes up. just do your job to begin with and stop the nonsense. jeff saying good, but he had said too many of legislators voted no. the house vote was 320-91 yesterday. 21 republicans and 70 democrats voting no against this piece of legislation. let's hear from rochelle in virginia, line for democrats.

caller: good morning. ok, so it is just funny how this came up now, when they had a chance to do something like this with charlottesville and no one did anything. i think it is good, but i do think we are dealing with politics. i do not think it is sincere, i think it is just politics. host: ok. why just a political move, in your mind? caller: because if this was that strong to them, to the house republicans, then they would have done it a long time ago. people in charlottesville saying jews will not replace us, no one did anything, no one said anything.

so i really feel like, because it is students and students tend to be democratic, i believe they are pushing that, saying, ok, we have got to do something about it. but when it was charlottesville, no one said anything. i feel like it is all politics. post: this is scott in richmond, independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i would like to talk about vladimir putin and how this incident that took place when hamas attack israel could be directly linked with putin trying to deflect the world's attention on ukraine and all of the sudden create chaos, and knowing the divisions in the united states and looking back at past events, unit social media -- using social needed to

manipulate americans. the current demonstrations are directly linked to an ability of russian operatives to use social media to radicalize students and play all sides. host: how did you come to that belief? caller: if you look at vladimir putin and see the connection between russia and iran, iran supplying drones to russia for the ukraine war, who is really benefiting from this? host: kansas is next, we will hear from scott, independent line. caller: hi, good morning. my thoughts on it are pretty varied. my sister lived in singapore for a while, and on their news media they showed some of the israeli brutality, some of the bad cops

pushing a woman down, hitting a kid. and from a world perspective, we see what we see and other places see what they see. to back it up, the west bank settlers have pushed people out that have lived there for generations. my fear is criticizing israeli actions, or let's say you have a brutal cop and you could a size that cop, you are automatically viewed as anti-police when you are not. host: how this relates to the legislation that was passed yesterday, how do you make that connection? caller: well, if it does interfere with free speech, honest criticism of a policy, honest criticism of a government doing something, and then to say, no, they should not be doing it and then be accused of anti-semitism, i think that is a danger.

and people should be able to honestly address problems without being labeled antiracist, anti-semite, anti-whatever it is. within that group, there might be a criticism. host: ok, scott there in kansas. one of the people that voted against the legislation, the hill story says a handful of progressive democrats and conservative republicans opposed it, one of them being matt gaetz of florida, calling the legislation a ridiculous hate speech bill. he said anti-semitism is wrong but the legislation is written without regard to the constitution, common sense, or even the common understanding of the meaning of words. those are just some of his comments from yesterday. that's a from kathy in michigan, democrats line. caller: morning, pedro, c-span. i am not understanding how all of this is suddenly becoming part of the world of education.

having graduated from high school in 1975 and the bussing that took place we went from all white schools in certain part of town, generally the north and the west, or rather, the south -- doesn't matter what direction, but i clearly remember come up but it was not the white people who had to be best, it was the black families who had to get on the bus in the morning and come to flint northern. -- it was not the white people who had to be bussed. half the teachers were black, have the student population was black. host: how does that relate to the events of yesterday and college campuses? caller: the community around where i lived, there was a very significant jewish population. i had friends whose parents when i went to high school were in the holocaust, they were death camp survivor's. and in this one section of flint, it was strong lebanese

and jewish people living one house after another, side-by-side. there were never any problems. i don't understand how, suddenly, we are at this point in history where people cannot understand that people are people, your religion is your religion. and learned that we do not need to be labeling each other and holding some people to different standards. in terms of liking each other. host: all right, this is allen in rockaway park, new york, independent line. caller: thank you. i want to say that it is a very good thing that the house passed this antisemitic bill. and throughout history, this is the most indecipherable puzzle.

why people are against israel who have never attacked anybody. i mean, it is just a thing where it does not make any sense. i just don't understand it. host: as far as the bill itself, why do you think it was a good thing for the house to pass? caller: because the people are blind. they do not remember what happened on october 6, people raped and killed. that means nothing to them. but now that israel wants to retaliate, they think that is the worst thing in the world. what happened when osama bin laden messed us up? did we go from retaliation? so why shouldn't israel? host: the anti-semitism awareness act would require the department of education to use a standard set by the international holocaust remembrance alliance, definition ofnti-semitism, in enforcing

federal statutes prohibiting discrimination against students. it says that definitn includes denying the jewish people the right to self-determation, drawing comparisons of contemporary israeli policy to that of the nazis as examples of anti-semitism. this past on the background of those college campus protests that have been taking place across the united states, including the university of southern california. even as of this morning, police helicopters, according to some reporting there, are heard overhead, the sound of flashbangs which produce a bright light and loud voice and disorient and stuns people as police move in. chants of "where were you last night?" could be heard. there was an opening towards dozens of demonstrators, and police began to pull down canopies and tense. demonstrators were holding umbrellas like shields as they

faced off with dozens of officers. protesters worn fellow demonstrators to be ready with water in case police release tear gas or other irritants. videos from usc. like other videos of demonstrations across the united states. that is the background for this legislation being passed in the house. one of the people speaking out against it was the top democrat on the judiciary committee, representative jerrold nadler. he explains his opposition. [video clip] >> i oppose this bill because it infringes on freedom of speech, and there are jewish groups such as reconstruction judaism and trua that oppose this bill for the same reason, and they are not antisemitic. they are jewish groups that support -- and there are jewish groups and support the bill, jewish groups that oppose the bill. i have been in support of israel

and zionism and an opponent of anti-semitism all my life. i have been active in zionist organizations ever since i was in high school. and to say anyone who votes against this bill is supporting anti-semitism is a disgrace. there are differences of opinion that occur on this floor from time to time, honest differences. someone who opposes this bill may think it infringes on freedom of speech. not someone who opposes this bill may note that the author of the definition this bill would enshrined in law said do not codify it. the author, kenneth stern, said this is a good working definition that may indicate anti-semitism. so are the other two. but it should not be codified into law because that could

make, depending on the circumstances, free speech illegal. the author of the ira definition said that. so there may be legitimate differences of opinion between those who support this bill and those who oppose this bill. but to say that anyone who opposes this bill supports anti-semitism is a disgraceful slander. host: that was on the house floor yesterday. if you want to comment on this legislative effort you can do so on the lines. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. and that video was not usc but ucla were that took place. we go to robin in california. hello caller: caller:, good morning. caller: hello, good morning. i support the bill, and i am a progressive and a democrat. if this bill were about the

black community or an indigenous community, there would be no debate as to whether or not this bill was needed, especially when you see the anti-semitism that has taken place, that has overtly taken place, because it is always there. so there would be no debate about whether that should be a bill, but i believe because it is built upon anti-semitism, all of this that we are debating -- i think the bill should pass. there is another thing i want to tell you, i was lecturing in jerusalem, and what surprised me is there are a lot of palestinian youth there. i did not expect it. i asked the organizers why it was all palestinian and israeli gays, and they say the israeli gay youth protect the

palestinian gay youth because they had to leave their homes because a lot of them would be killed by their parents just for being gay. when we look at a problem, sometimes it is not so overtly easy to look at it without diagnosing the structural interests in that religion. host: ok. robin in california, thank you. let's hear from brian in maryland, independent line. caller: yes, hi, going off of what i caller said a few calls ago, this is a giant global war being placed upon us. if anybody realizes the significance of the date of october 7, that was vladimir putin's birthday. that was not by coincidence or that have it on purpose. we are basically fighting a global war and a big masterful

piece of reflective control was placed upon the american people by vladimir putin, his russian allies. host: so you say about the house effort yesterday, what you think about that? caller: i agree about the effort to do what they are doing, but there should be amendments to allowed to make sure free speech is guaranteed, as in the constitution. however, this is basically a masterful reflection -- host: we got that point. let's hear from maria in new york, independent line. caller: yes, what i feel about what is going on right now is that free speech will go down the drain. you cannot put a bill or a law into place like that because you do not like what someone is saying. i have not seen any proof, ok, of jewish students getting hurt,

bruises, hospitals, any of that. i have not seen it. i know there was actually, going to the buildings and things, that was wrong. and whoever should be arrested for it. but actually, when you talk about putting something like that into law, you cannot do it, because for one thing, you are leaving the other minorities out. because what i am seeing right now is all about jewish. you cannot do that. because it has to be a minority. this bill right here actually is discriminating. it is discriminating because you are just putting one group of people. you cannot do that. that is a lawsuit to me. host: that is maria in new york giving us her thoughts.

you can do the same. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. that ihra that we used in the expanded definition, if you go to their website, holocaustremembrance.com, they have that definition. it is the only organization that focuses and addresses genocide, and we foster education, remembrance, and research about what happened in the past to build a world without genocide in the future. if you want to learn more about that organization, their influence of the legislation passed yesterday, holocaustremembrance.com, the website, if you want to go there to find out more. kimberly is next in illinois, democrat. caller: i think the definition we need to be posting is the definition of fascism. centralized hypocrisy,

militarism, suppression of opposition, belief in an actual social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of a nation and/or race, and strong representation of a society. they are truly weaponizing anti-semitism. i agree with the earlier callers, you know, we was the interest in having anti-semitism fills when white supremacists were walking through charlottesville saying -- with tiki torches saying jews will not replace us, killing black people, running a woman over? where was our interestingly and anti-semitism bill there? they are truly just weaponizing it. i look at these protests and see the militarism of the police going after students who are peacefully protesting -- again, i do not believe in taking over buildings. no, things like that.

but, no, there weaponizing anti-semitism. we are just really slow walking into fascism. i do not think people recognize it. the police are on television are talking about how, you know, they need to knock heads and get these students out. people are bragging, where are their parents? it is so ridiculous. this is just frustrating. i think we need to work on -- they are so concerned about anti-semitism. they are really more concerned about weaponizing it, by the way. they need to looking at civil rights law's more. that this is definitely unconstitutional and an assault on free speech and the right to protest. host: ok. kimberly in illinois. the new york times this morning has a piece, what first amendment means on campus, asking questions and giving some responses as far as what it

actually means. one of the points system first amendment does not automatically apply a private schools, saying public universities as arms of government must yield to the first amendment and how the court interprets it, thou shall be no law interpreting freedom of speech. private universities have federal standards of speech and protest. the policies and approaches are driven by principles like academic freedom of the market place of ideas, not constitutional law. they also talk about encampments. question, are encampments covered by the first amendment? they go on to report, though some campus protesters consider their encampments to be a form of speech, the birds upheld restrictions on overnight camping and the like can meet the time, place, and manner test on public property -- the courts upheld restrictions.

the regulations for bidding sleeping meets the requirements for a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction of expression. that was a judge's opinion. that was in the new york times, if you want to look at that. this is from jordan and georgia, republican line. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i would say the hate speech bill, i understand matt gaetz wanted to uphold respect for the constitution. but we also have to update our interpretation of the constitution. i would like to see the bill updated. jewish people should not be the only group included, in my opinion. jewish people and other minority groups, like blacks and asians, we both have --

host: maryland, independent line. good morning. caller: hi, i just wanted to comment on the student protesters who i support completely. i think they have been completely misrepresented, as was pointed out earlier, as antisemitic when they are just against zionism, which is recognized by the u.n. as a form of hate ideology. i think that should be made clear. and that is all i really wanted to mention. host: scott in florida next, democrats line. caller: it is not about anti-semitism. it is about anti-zionism. clearly, you can see what the representatives in congress are being supported by, the lobbyist money that supports israel.

my other thought is nobody is defining what semitism is. i cannot understand how you can say, as to the jewish, how can being a jew be both a religion and a race? i just do not understand it. the whole concept of being anti-semitic is made up. that is all i have to say. host: this is from sydney, independent line, in louisiana. caller: did you put me on? host: yes, go ahead. caller: the zionist people do not like the regular jewish people. the jewish people don't like the zionists because they don't believe in the torah and all, and if you go read " rise up and

kill first," it says all the things that the zionists did, even going so far as killing a rabbi, regular jewish -- host: how does that relate to the legislation that was passed yesterday? caller: because, why do they not talk about both sides of the problem? they had a jewish lady on a free-speech tv and not a single abc, cbs, fox, or any covered her. host: ok, one of the people speaking out for the legislation yesterday, especially inlet of the protest on college emphasis, a california republican representative talking about what is going on on those campuses and how it relates to the action by the house yesterday. [video clip] >> speaker johnson, chairwoman fox, and republican members of the new york delegation went to columbia university last week. while addressing the campus,

they were greeted by anti-israel chance, from the river to the sea, palestine will be free. that calls for the eradication of the jewish people. we all know that expression is abhorrent in our society, and it is going on it seems now hourly on our college campuses. the surge in the ancient bigotry and anti-semitism over the years, but especially since october 7, must not continue. it is long past time congress act to protect jewish americans from the scourge of anti-semitism on campuses around our country. the anti-semitism awareness act expresses the sense of congress that discrimination against jews may violate title vi of the civil rights act of 1964 based on race, color, or national origin, which can include discrimination based on actual or perceived shared ancestry other characteristics. the bill requires the department

of education to take into account the 2016 international holocaust remembrance act upon definition of anti-semitism as part of its assessment ever anti-semitic discrimination has occurred. the ihra definition provides a consistent framework for the department of education, schools, colleges, and universities to apply to police anti-semitic discrimination and harassment. that definition is widely accepted and a vital tool for identifying and addressing discriminatory conduct motivated by anti-semitism. it has been adopted by at least 31 states. this bill is the type of legislation needed to protect jewish americans from harassments and attacks for being who they are. host: that is the debate that took place yesterday. you can see that at c-span.org. you can if you would at our app at c-span now. the wall street journal looks at the college administrator approach, or at least their perspective in dealing with the

protests taking place on certain campuses across the united states. this says that schools are taking such different approaches to protesters, partly because there operating in a legal gray area that falls at the intersection of two sets of student rights, right to speak freely and the right to pursue an education free of harassment. the dean of a law school at the university of california berkeley, students enjoy free-speech protections that universities are obligated to step in, but were to draw the line is not always clear. it quotes the president and chief executive the organization for individual rights and expression, a free-speech advocacy group, saying universities have not stood up for spree -- for free-speech pacifically and says the school fails to make appropriate sanctions for protected speech versus protests. and there are more egregious actions like violence or the

threat of violence. more on the administrator's perspective there at the wall street journal, if you want to read it on their website this morning. this legislation passing the house. of the 91 opposing it, it is 21 republicans, 70 democrats who voted no on the legislation. you can comment on that. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. in florida, democrats line, this is robert. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i had one thing to say in the beginning, but then i stayed online for so long, i got a lot to say now. the bill will be good and bad for both parties, for everybody involved. i think i agree with a lot of points from both republicans, independents, and democrats

talking on the phone. i think the subject needs to stay on this war is between hamas and the idf. both representations of palestine and israel. i think we need to take focus and put it on those two groups. host: the focus was on those who protested on the large aspect of it yesterday what do you think about the house stepping in there? caller: i think the lines are getting blurred. if we're going to talk about palestine and israel, that is one subject. if we talk about idf and hamas, that is a different subject. that we are going to talk about the bill. i think we need to do more than just the verbiage era the campuses failed by not having police presence at the beginning. ok? peaceful protest or not, they needed to have that presence there. and i agree with the statement

from the senator or whoever was just talking about freedom of speech and freedom for education and everything. listen, if there is a group protesting in the middle of a college and the students have to get from one class to another, there's more ways than just having to go through the protests. ok, on a big campus, especially here in new york, you can walk from one campus to another. there's multiple ways of getting around. and you do not paintbrush everybody in a political group. just because one outside agitator points out a jewish person and says i want to hurt you, ok, that one individual needs to get arrested, whatever the penalty is. but do not paint the whole group as that, because if we did, we could paint a lot of groups by what one person says. so we have to be clear on what we are trying to do.

again, there's a lot more that we can do to protect everybody involved. but everybody needs to step up. the schools, the police force command these protest groups the more organization. host: let's hear from richard in north carolina, independent line. caller: thank you, pedro. i am generally pretty libertarian, but on this one i do support the bill 100%. there are two basic reasons why. one is there are times in history and we can look at, for example, the antebellum period in the issue with slavery or the periods of mccarthyism or other times in our history where the grown-ups just had to take a stand and just say here are the values that we believe in. yes, there may be conflicting values at stake, but this is

what we believe in as a country. this is not a matter of free speech. free-speech should be wide-ranging. this is a matter of behavior, and behavior has crossed the line and the grown-ups need to say something about it. the second reason i support the bill is the fact there was a roll call vote, and it allows everyone to see where people are, both on the far left and on the far right. and it just unmasks everything. and i am hearing the comments, so the comments you played from jerrold nadler, and i think it is ridiculous how people -- some on the far left and on the far right, they twist themselves into pretzels trying to justify what is clearly behavior that should not be tolerated. one last point, as i was listening, people were saying it is not about being jewish or semitic or this or that, it is about zionism. it was the president of france who said a couple years ago when

this was rising in europe and now it is rising in the america that the new antisemitism is anti-zionism, the denial of the people of israel to the land of israel, which they have had for thousands of years. i am all for free speech, but i am glad this vote was taken and am glad the way it came out. host: we will hear next up from our republican line, larry from maryland. caller: hey, man, how you doing? host: fine, you are on. caller: you played congressman nader, and i am disappointed at the process that we continue to have people elected into office with their own personal agendas, and this is using too much old rhetoric that has nothing to do with this. first and foremost, american

politics, why are we even so invested in this? israel, palestine, this or that, needs to be handled there. we do not need to put ourselves in everybody's war. we are spending trillions of dollars all around the world, and it is not helping the american economy. with the kids on campus, it is free-speech.however they choose to regulate that situation on the campus, i think the colleges can handle that. it does not need to be elevated. but it only becomes news because the same people -- host: i apologize, you are fading in and out, but we got the main point of yours as you are driving along. thank you for calling. the washington post this morning gives you a map, looking at some of the points of demonstrations that are taking place on campuses across the united states, the presence of a dark

circle around it saying that there is a police presence there, the golden circle saying there is no police presence there, and it highlights the columbia protests. this is the university of michigan, berkeley, and stanford, as well. there is more data there when it comes to where these protests are taking place and if police are part of that. that is the washington post this morning at washingtonpost.com. bethesda, maryland, paulina, independent line. caller: thank you so much for taking my call. i wanted to quickly say a couple of things. i think people do not realize that more than half of the population that are targeted by hate crimes in america are jewish ethnicity. society, at large, is doing everything we can to deny this. suddenly it is ok to commit hate

crimes and we are weaponizing hate crimes. the truth is that almost every pro-palestinian protest, which i do not believe the protests care about palestinians at all, have been openly hateful and anti-semitic and very violent. to say the college campus protests are peaceful when these protesters chant "bomb tel aviv," and a jewish student got stabbed in the eye with the palestinian flag, this is a peaceful protest? this is the peaceful cease-fire crowd? if you do not want to be called anti-semitic, than get rid of the anti-semites in your group. caller: paulina in marilyn's giving us her thoughts. yesterday, new jersey democrat josh gottheimer, the democratic sponsor of the antisemitic and test antisemitism awareness act, speaking in favor of the bill. [video clip] >> i am a huge champion of free

speech. this bill protects the first amendment. it allows criticism of israel. i ensured that. it was critical to me. it does not allow calls for the destruction or elimination of the jewish state. but it certainly allows criticism of israel. even more, it reminds us that our universities have a title vi obligation to stamp out harassment on the basis of race, color, or national origin. we cannot stand idly by as protesters call for the deaths of jews on college camps is across the country. this bill would require the department of education to use international holocaust remembrance alliance definition of anti-semitism in the investigations of the definition is the most widely recognized in the world, used by 36 states. it condemns -- countries my should say. it condemns traditional hatred and the ugly modern antisemitism

that we are seeing on college campuses. there should not be anything controversial about this bill. as was mentioned when it was introduced in 2018, 50 democrats and republicans cosponsored this legislation, including members who are still in this body. host: just some of the people you can see, in that debate is on our website, c-span.org, and on our app at now. usa today this morning looking at some of the protests taking place in high schools across the united states. a story saying it was monday afternoon at about, about 100 high school students in austin, texas, walked out of class and protest. high school students in seattle filled out excused absence forms ahead of a walk out last week. in chicago at a preparatory school, students had a plan sit in for yesterday. in new jersey, high school students canceled a

pro-palestinian walkout for last tuesday -- thursday after commissioners demanded the superintendent cancel the event to protect jewish students. this goes on to say, the student walkout, an intentional effort to create a hostile and isolating environment for jewish students, the majority of whom support israel, and it is part of their identity. again, some of the high schools that have now taken up protesting across the united states. more there at that story online. david in richmond, virginia, democrat. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i think the antisemitism bill, i do not think it will have as much effect on what is happening as a previous bill passed, and that is the bill forcing tiktok to sell. if you look at the number of

things being posted on tiktok, it is so heavily pushing these sorts of agendas, and there are no surprises happening in high school and colleges, their consumers of tiktok. i think that if we can fix that, then we're going to be able to -- i won't say control the information, not the best way to put it, but prevent the spread of news that maybe other foreign agents want americans to care about. in terms of the protests themselves, i think it is a mix. i think most of the general -- most of the people support palestinians and really feel for what they are going through. but there's also antisemitic people thrown in there, as well. you do not get chance like "from the river to the sea" without antisemitism. i think tiktok is pushing these sorts of things. host: ok, you got that point

out. at 9:00 today, we will talk about the potential ban of tiktok in the united states due to legislation passed and signed by the president. we will talk through that and the implications for the company itself but also users of the app. you can join us at 9:00 for the discussion. benjamin in alabama, independent line. caller: hello. my name is benjamin, and i am against that bill because i see it as dangerous and stifling to anyone who studies history and sees the parallels between the behavior of the israeli government and the nazi government of 1933 through 1942 in germany. and to stifle anyone who compares israeli behavior or the

is really -- israeli's government behavior towards the palestinians, anyone who stifles the truth about that and calls it for what it is, for them to be considered as breaking a law is totally wrong. host: steve is next, mississippi, republican line. caller: yes, sir. there is no bill that can be passed that is going to stop jewish hate. no bill be passed to stop black hate, white hate, anything hated in the world. only the gospel of jesus christ can stop all of this, and that is all i have to say. host: bobby is from north carolina, democrats line. caller: i would like to agree with the previous caller. we are all pink on the inside.

host: it was yesterday at the white house, where the press secretary asked about the demonstrations taking place in the united states and the administration's stance on what is going on. here is some of that from yesterday. [video clip] >> police operations like in new york -- >> we have been very clear on that, americans have the right to peacefully protest. they have the right to peacefully protest. as long as it is within the law and that it is peaceful. forcibly taking over buildings is not peaceful. it is just not. students have the right to feel safe, the have the right to learn, have the right to do this without disruption, and they have a right to feel safe on campuses. they have a right to attend their commencement without feeling unsafe. and we are seeing a small percentage of students, and that is what we are seeing, they

should not be able to disturb or disrupt the academic experience at schools. so that is how we see things. it is important that the students and communities feel safe here. and at the same time, we're going to be really forceful here and continue to underscore how antisemitism's hateful speech. just go wrong, a boar and, and we will call it out. host: that yesterday as news comes from the white house, that president biden will deliver a speech next we get a holocaust memorial ceremony on capitol hill. the speech comes as chaotic anti-israel tests are on college campuses. a real moment for mr. biden to enter the fray. he has been relatively silent on the growing anti-israel demonstrations. he will deliver that keynote address on the annual day of remembrance. the president will talk about our moral duty to compact the

rice -- combat the rising scourge of antisemitism. that is according to the washington times. glen in detroit, michigan, democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am in support of the bill. i am a democrat and i am in support of the bill. they have to set down some guidelines. i think that free speech must be protected, because free speech is like picketing. that is the only way you can speak out against injustice. and people talk about the phrase, from the river to the sea, but that is a phrase. it is not saying jews will not replace us. we get no backlash on that. also in that bill, should have been in there about white

supremacy. thank you, pedro. host: ron is from pennsylvania, republican line. caller: yes, i just want to make a comment about all these protests and stuff. i would like to know who is funding all these people. you see all the tenants and everything, they are the same color and everything that you see the tenst -- you see the tents and everything, they're the same color, and you see the signs. i think there are agitators, followers, and those funding all this stuff. i think they should take the people that are getting arrested. most do not even belong to the college campus. why don't they arrest them and find out what they are doing, where they are from? how many are not from this country that are in their agitating, causing all this? i just think it is ridiculous. half of them do not even know

what is going on, they just out there for the opportunity to get their face on tv or tell their friends, look, i was there. that is all it is. followers. host: sherry in dallas, texas, democrats line. caller: i just wanted to say the bill is really busy, and i blame trump and putin for this hateful division. as far as the bill is concerned, i agree with it in one sense and not in another. but the simple fact, people, they confusing freedom of speech . people should not -- for how they feel and how they think. host: ok. philip is in tennessee,

independent line. caller: yeah, good morning, pedro. i agree with your last three callers. what i am calling about is i do not know nothing about israel and hamas, but what i am saying is when you bring the cops in to run these kids out, whatever happened to the fire department? have you ever hung onto a three inch firehose? that disperses a lot of people real quick? host: philip there in tennessee. it was on college campuses were several members of the house, republicans, going to the campus. this was highlighted in the washington post this morning, saying republicans have summoned d.c.'s mayor and police chief to testify about their decision not

to clear a pro-palestinian encampment at george washington university. federal lawmakers spoke from the and cap meant wednesday, saying they will use the hearing to compel more police action and demonstrations unfolding five blocks from the white house. one of the people addressing the crowd there, a republican representative of colorado. [video clip] [chants of boo] >> this is what the students here at gw university are facing every day. their finals are being disruptive. quite learning times, even at the facilities, the law school students are the only ones permitted on campus during finals. their learning and study time has been completely disrupted by this 2024 summer of love, and it is very disrespectful. we have jewish students, many whom have approached me today, who fear for the safety of their lives by the comments being

made. seven students have been suspended for trespassing. and it is time that mayor bowser get aggressive in keeping safety here on this campus and the surrounding parameter. this is something that must be addressed. at this time, there have been -- >> [chanting] >> we stand with israel, our greatest ally in the middle east. that is who we stand for, and these folks who are sounding -- shouting "free palestine," let's see, i see signs today that say "gays for gaza," "from the river to the sea, palestine will be free," "lesbians for

palestine," and "chinese for palestine." this is not only disgusting -- not only is this disgusting, but let me be clear, almost every single person in this so-called liberated zone would be eviscerated by the parents who are standing here supporting. we stand for israel. we stand for peace in washington, d.c., and the mayor must step up and do something to clear this. this is not the summer of love, and we are not bowing down to the terrorists who cause riots and chaos in our city anymore. and i had people proudly saying that their faculty and not wanting to remove the palestinian sign from the george washington statue, and they

don't want to do something to address this? kiss your federal spending goodbye. host: other republican legislators spoke yesterday at the campus of george washington university about the events there and the larger events. you can see that on the app and website. robert in virginia, republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. paying quick attention to people talking about history, and i am seeing a lot of parallels with the tents, encampments of the natives when policy overseers came here to emigrate this country or when they nazis got the jews out of the ghettos in germany, even the school buses in montgomery when police officers came over to separate those people, just to separate people. i do not think it is fair that the palestinians are being

-- being bombed and rated. they are being bombed, surveyed, and reduced to having resources. i think it is ok for the students to protest. i think it is right for some people to say something. this is america. we are not to be impacted or intimidated by the right of free speech because once people start speaking or communicating, it is going to start more problems. host: one more call in washington, d.c., independent line, anwar. caller: hello. first of all, i do not agree with the bill. as it was said earlier, they did not do anything when they killed that girl down in charlottesville. secondly, i would ask, how many of these people that are speaking that are republicans, how much money have they gotten from the jewish lobbyists?

and while the sudden are they willing to stand up and speak so forcefully? third, gw should have their own police force, just like when i went to the university of maryland. they had their own force. if they wanted to clear their campus, why doesn't george washington hire their own police, and if they do, why don't they use them? i don't understand why washington, d.c., is doing what they are supposed to do. i'm not a fan of mayor bowser, but i think she is correct, if they would like something done, they should do it. we are not there to kick poor children out of their rights to speak, and the last, israel and the united states always voted for apartheid south africa when it came up before the un, when it came out to stop apartheid, israel always voted against the minority in south africa, and they never cared anything about human rights.

host: we will leave it there. and anwar in washington finishing off the calls. if you would like to see more of the legislation and debate yesterday, go to our website and app. coming up, we will talk about the latest when it comes to marijuana. now that the drug enforcement agency has reclassified or is about to reclassify marijuana as a lower risk drug, we will talk to kevin sabet of the anti-legalization group smart approaches to marijuana, and paul armentano, the deputy director for the international organization for the reform of marijuana law, next. later in the program, axios' reporter maria curi discusses the future of tiktok in the u.s. following the passage of legislation that could potentially ban it. those discussions coming up on "washington journal." ♪ >> c-span has been delivering

unfiltered congressional coverage for 45 years. he was a highlight from a key moment. [video clip] >> i stand here with my colleagues on the arizona delegation, senate and house, and with close friends to remember a tragic event that took place three years ago today. on january 8, 2011, at 10:10 a.m., and just 19.6 seconds, 19 people, including congressman giffords and myself were shot during a congress event in tucson, arizona. this event was democracy in action. a member of this body, the people's house, was meeting one-on-one with constituents. , six wonderful people died that day, including my friend gabe

zimmerman, my go to guy on the staff. >> c-span, powered by cable. book tv every sunday on c-span2 featur leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, stephen breyer explains e judicial philosophy and approach to the u.s. constitution with "reading theonstitution: white itunes pragmatism not textualism." and then on afterwards, new york times correspondent david sankar shares his book "the new cold war's," which looks at america's role the world and the 21st century. he is interviewed by a harvard senior center fellow. watch every sunday on c-span2 and fi the full schedule on

your program guide or watch anytime online at booktv.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: a discussion of policy concerning marijuana. we have kevin sabet joining us of the smart approaches to marijuana, who serves as president and ceo, and is the author of "smoke screen: what the marijuana industry does not want you to know," and paul armentano, with the organization for the reform of their deputy director. both of you, thank you for giving us your time today. if we could start both of you, about your organizations, the perspectives you bring when it comes to marijuana and legalization, and how the organizations are funding. mr. sabet? guest: smart approaches to marijuana was founded a year or two after i left the obama

administration. i served on many administrations because it is nonpartisan. we started with patrick kennedy, and it is also funded by scientists and researchers around the country to talk about marijuana in a sensible, science-based way, and rejecting the false dichotomy between legalization and commercialization, and on the one side, criminalization on the other. paul and i would agree that we don't think people should be criminalized, arrested, or given criminal records for low-level possession of marijuana or something you plant in your backyard or whatever. the the answer does not have to be commercialization with promotion. we have a scientific advisory board of top researchers who are researching marijuana, and our

policy is focused on that. host: mr. armentano. guest: we were founded many years ago to represent the right and interest of responsible adult cannabis consumers. we do not represent the commercial industry. in fact, normally founded way before there was such a thing as a commercial cannabis industry. we do not believe that cannabis is in oculus. we believe that cannabis are to be regulated and that any risk sues by the risk of cannabis are best mitigated by legalization, elation and education. by contrast, we believe the current policy only exacerbates the potential risks associated with the use of cannabis. host: pick up there because as you talk about from a user perspective, now we are at a

point where the drug enforcement agency is set to reclassified were cannabis falls on that. could you talk a little bit about exactly what the classification does and how does it impact the user? guest: sure, absolutely. this represents an about-face for an agency that historically has maintained a position when it comes to cannabis that symbolically and tangibly is significant to have the federal government. and these agencies, in particular, fda, dea, for the first time, publicly acknowledged what tends and millions of americans have known for decades, and that is that cannabis, that is it has therapeutic efficacy, and it does not belong categorized in the same class as drugs like heroin under the federal law.

host: mr. sabet, if you would pick up, because in that classification it would move from one to three. what does that mean? guest: it would move from one to three after it goes through a formal period and they will probably be legal challenges, so we are farther than that, but the reason it is scheduled is because it has a high potential for abuse, which it is not just 3% thc but this could be up to 99% concentration, the grammys, the candy, all things put forth the sensory and i agree and believe them. the issue i have is that there is a multibillion dollar industry that is mimicking big tobacco that is commercializing and promoting this across the country, and they just would like to make money. it is about profit. what that would do is

essentially give tax incentives to the industry. i think paul would agree that it will not legalize marijuana, but what it will do is send a message that this is less time for than we once thought. it is funny to hear about flat earth because scientists are in unison in agreement with what we are saying, which is it is much more harmful than what we once thought, and this is going to send a message, and the reality is, i would actually like paul to give his perspective, and we might agree on another thing, which is that this is really a political decision. this was a campaign promise that the president made when he was on the campaign trail, saying we will reclassify marijuana. he did not want to say we will legalize it. so this was sort of i think seeing by the white house and

political establishment as a middle ground between not doing anything and legalizing marijuana. let's reschedule it. you can have our cake and eat it, too. most people think it will be legalized, and that's good from a young voter perspective, but come on the other hand, we are not actually legalizing it. by the way, legalizing it will do nothing to get anybody out of jail, and it will not even do anything to get rid of the traffickers imprisoned or do anything to get rid of expungement for records, criminal records. it doesn't do anything with regards to criminal justice, so this idea that we have heard that it is an issue, well, they have written the wrong remedy, and rescheduling it is just going to help the industry. one thing i will say is that this is a predetermined outcome. i hate to say that. when i worked with president obama, obviously, vice president biden was a key player in the

director of national birth policy where i served, but this was predetermined, and they are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole doing gymnastics to basically get this and to justify it scientifically on paper and make it defensible, which i don't think that they do, and there were a lot of flaws in the so-called scientific analysis. host: if you would like to comment on the reported reclassification and if you support it, (202)-748-8000. oppose it, (202)-748-8001. text s at -- text us at (202)-748-8003. mr. armentano? guest: there are a couple of points that kevin may that i agree with. mainly, where does the decision fall short? kevin mentioned it is like eight

square peg in a round hole. -- like getting a square peg in a round hole. i tend to agree. this decision, if it goes through, it really fails to rectify the divide that exists right now between federal marijuana policy and that cannabis legalization laws that currently exist in the majority of things in this country. right now, most things regulate marijuana, either as a medicine or for adult use, and they do so in a manner that entirely is consistent with the federal pacification of cannabis as a schedule one controlled substance. unfortunately, if cannabis is moved to three, that does nothing to address this conflict. because the policies that are already in place now that are regulating cannabis that do not

comply with marijuana schedule one status will also be out of compliance with cannabis as a schedule three substance, so i think that is going to create a lot more confusion than is necessary, and i think what will probably happen is regulators, and eventually lawmakers, when the dust settles, are going to realize that they have not addressed the core problem. they have not addressed the elephant in the room. ultimately, this issue will be punted at congress, and you will have the fda and other agencies say, look, we need u.s. lawmakers to create a unique pathway for the regulation of cannabis so that these states can continue to engage in these activities and do so in a way that does not run foul of federal law. host: what is the ideal pathway in your mind? guest: we already know. look. this isn't rocket science. almost a century ago, the federal government repealed

alcohol prohibition. they got out of the marijuana enforcement business, leaving the decision of how alcohol ought to be regulated, largely out to be to individual states. some states continue to prohibit alcohol for many years after the federal government lifted the federal prohibition of alcohol. some states do believe in regulating alcohol right away. that is like today in 2024, we have a 50-state patchwork system when it comes to how alcohol was regulated. the way two states regulate alcohol is very different. that is because alcohol is not in the controlled substances act , like tobacco, alcohol has been de-scheduled. thereby, allowing state governments to decide largely what policies and regulations

are best for their individual space with some limited oversight by the federal government when it comes to things like interstate. failed advertising, marketing, tax collection, and though sort of issues. that is what i wish that -- that is really what i wish the result of this administrative petition had been, not to move to schedule three, but a move to take cannabis out of the area and treated more like alcohol. host: before we take calls, mr. sabet, your opinion of the pathway? guest: number one, i think it is a total unknown what schedule three even means for marijuana. most schedule three drugs are prescribed mobile medication, whether it is certain depressants, anabolic steroids, ketamine, but marijuana is not a prescribed mobile medication. we have no idea what this even means for dispensaries, let

alone people who use it medically. but i would like to make some sort of clarification, the reason i do not just from a conceptual point to view think alcohol is the wrong analogy for a couple of reasons, number one, alcohol is not legal because it is good for you. it is legal because it has been used by 80% of civilization since before the old testament, used by most people in western civilization. alcohol prohibition was not going to work because, number one, there was no enforcement. really, the real issue is because when you have 75% to 80% of americans drinking it on a regular basis, there was no way you could have prohibition, so it is a very different thing. marijuana had been used for thousands of years, but not by the majority of western civilization. i would want to say that is the last analogy we would like to

look at for any marijuana regulation. alcohol is the number one drug for criminal justice issues, violence, car crashes, on and on. if your headlights are broken, you don't break your taillights to be complicit. if anything, i would much rather look at the tobacco model. marijuana is not a drug that we can regulate that is tied to the five-time increase of psychosis. it is a plant that grows quickly, anywhere and everywhere. it is very cheap to produce. if we ever have federal legalization, 49 states would not be able to grow. it would have to be exported from one state. the industry would consolidate. and we would basically be repeating the addiction profit history we have in our country that really does not end well from a public health perspective. so i think we should slow down. we can look at decriminalization, which is removing terminal penalties. i agree -- removing criminal polities. i agree on that part, but we

really also, bottom line, we need to educate the american people on the fact that this is not woodstock weed. this is a harmful drug, genetically bred, different from what you smoked with your buddies at college a couple of decades ago. i think that message is lost in this whole conversation. host: let's hear from our collar, luke. go ahead. caller: i live here in colorado and we have recreational and medical marirecently, a neighbot me know that her son died by suicide after legally using medical marijuana here in colorado. i was curious that she said he had a psychotic break and that is what led to it. i was curious, what are we saying science on marijuana and schizophrenic psychosis, and did the biden administration consider this as it relates to the decision to move to marijuana to schedule three? was that in the rationale?

i just wanted to learn more about that. host: and we will let our guests respond. guest: sure, the leader on mental health, on psychosis, schizophrenia, and suicide, it is really, really upsetting, so far in that marijuana, because of its potency, is leading to outcomes that are surprising researchers. there are such dramatic land outcomes. it is five times more likely for psychosis, three times if you are a regular, non-daily user, but in terms of your risk, what does that mean? it means complete dissociation from reality. it means violence, just something you never thought about with marijuana 30 years ago, but that is because it is a different drug. and the suicide issue, i'm glad the caller brought that up, in colorado when you look at young people who died by suicide, marijuana is the number one drug in their system. it is not because it has always

been popular and was the number one drug. no, it has been the number one drug since the legalization, which was the commercialization. states are rushing to try and get tax revenue and promote this with new york state, and even in new york, there are daily infomercials for marijuana. they are desperate, it seems like, for people to use weed. the issue is, why? number one, they think they will displace the underground market. the underground market is thriving, bigger than ever, and number two, they are not getting the tax revenue that they thought they were. it is lower than they thought they were. it is not paying for the cost, and lease costs of until illness out of marijuana, i think that stains our current policy was something very few issues would like to address or talk about. i think we would agree that young people should not be getting "medical marijuana" for stress due to homework because it is leading to some that outcomes.

host: mr. armentano. guest: two for giving me a chance to respond. to set the record straight, that caller was the deputy director of kevin's organization, so that was a planted called. but i'm happy to address the issue the caller brought up. guest: it was a valid question. guest: it is, and i will answer it. first of all, this notion that marijuana today is generally different than marijuana in the past is simply an updated version of an age-old canard. i'm looking at a headline from 1978 in "the new york times" and the name of the story is -- "a moral debate on marijuana is generate a fresh debate," from 1978, claiming that the marijuana then was 10 times potent from the marijuana of the decade before. in 1995, it was said that

"marijuana today is 40 times more potent than the marijuana was of the 1980's." literally every generation, people like kevin, say that the marijuana today is exponentially stronger -- host: please let him respond. guest: this is simply a way to try and persuade people that have personal experience with cannabis during their youth, that the experience they had, their first experience is no longer relevant because somehow the marijuana today is an entirely new drug. second, when it comes to the issue of marijuana and psychosis, we have plenty of data. dr. stephanie zeller and her team at university of minnesota, looked at a 30-year longitudinal study had over 4000 twins, one used marijuana, the other did not. she found no difference in rates

of psychosis or mental illness among those different twins. we had a study published last year in "the journal of the medical americans association", over 16 million over 14 years, they found no greater rates of psychosis or mental illness in states where marijuana was legal versus where it wasn't. stanford university did a similar study and found no higher rate of schizophrenia, bipolar, mental illness, in states where cannabis was legal versus where it wasn't. this idea that marijuana is driving or spiking large rates in mental illness or psychosis of the general population level simply is not substantiated by facts. finally, if we are concerned about high potency thc, if we are concerned about people who may have a predisposition to mental illness or suffering from it and having that condition

exacerbated by cannabis, then the answer is not criminalization. it is not driving this market underground. it is regulation and education. host: ok. let's hear from oleg from brooklyn, new york. go ahead. you are on our support line. hello? caller: thank you for having us. thank you for having this important discussion on c-span. really appreciate it. a couple of things, about to graduate from the university of maryland school of pharmacy with a degree. and in this program, we deep dived into potential benefits and harms associated with cannabis use. dr. sabet, aren't you seeing that most of the harms currently poised are from the unregulated market? and researchers are rejoicing on the ability for this job, and

you mentioned education is important here, so wouldn't this help spread the word of the potential harms and uses of cannabis? guest: well, it certainly did not do that for alcohol. we know it was legalized and promoted ruthlessly, so i don't necessarily think that you need to legalize something in order to research it. we would not do that for heroin or other drugs. we would not legalize it when you would like to research it when it is harmful. and this goes with what paul was saying, which goes with cherry picking, it was opposite of what the academy of sciences said when they did they review in 2017, when prominent researchers around the world have done reviews in various countries. psychosis research was done in london, and it was published in the most prominent medical journal in the world "the lancet." i can understand that

we would disagree on the policy prescription. you could argue, yes, i agree it is harmful, but even what the caller said, we can mitigate the harms by legalizing and regulating it, i don't agree. the idea that that i think that is a really dangerous path reminds me of the big tobacco executives of the 1950's when they denied every single harm. this is the same movie. i will be a broken record because it is a broken record. this is exactly what we south big tobacco in the 1950's when they try to protect their profits and their own right to smoke. i understand a lot of people would like to use marijuana, but the reality is, the fact is that -- and this goes back to what paul was saying, whatever grounds were set in 1993, he did not have 99% potent thc concentrate. that just did not exist. it exists because of legalization. because of so-called american ingenuity and profit driving and motive, you come up with good products and you would like to

make money. that is capitalism. i just don't think that capitalism and addiction are a great combination. wen yu you also take these edibles -- when you also take these edibles, sold by your buddy's friend, thc is highly concentrated. all of these are products of the legal book -- "legal market." and that is what happens when you legitimize and normalize the substance. you get these concentrates. i don't know what was said in 1978 about potency. maybe there was an increase at that time. not sure it was 40 times in 1993. it did increase from the 1960's to the 1990's -- maybe not that much. but the reality is, today, when you look at the products, they are purely a result of this "legal market," which is driven by business and profit motives. nothing to do with public health or safety. host: mr. armentano, so what

degree has the federal government study potency or the impact of cannabis? guest: first, we have had a variety of potent cannabis products going back many years, in fact, a 100% purified thc has been approved by the fda since 1985. in 1999, it was rescheduled from schedule two to three because it was relatively mild safety protocol, so we do have experience with more concentrated thc products. they have been studied read like i said, they have fda approved 100% thc product's going back some 30 odd years. look, what we know, when people encounter more potent cannabis products, in general, they tend to use smaller doses. that is known as excel try tatian. this is not a novel experience. human being engaging in this

happens all the time. when we look at alcohol, it comes in a variety of potency. low potency products like wine or beer, and then high potency products like the cardi 151 or everclear -- bacardi 151 or everclear. when people consume those products, they don't consume them the same way. people do not drink liquor in the same volume or in the same manner they drink beer. people make the same decisions when it comes to cannabis, as well. guest: paul, that is not true. host: we are going to take a call. guest: i wish they were making those same decisions. the average marijuana user today is consuming different levels of thc than they did 20 years ago. you can look at research. there is a really good analogy, like looking at caffeine. the average user with 20 years ago, drinking a 20 ounce bottle of coke with caffeine and then

you think about thc, the average user, and then today, it is 33 star but cappuccino's. that is the analogy forguest: tt sold on the market is cannabis a, not concentrate. guest: in raw numbers, then non-smoked products is having companies want to hook people with non-smoking products and doing a very good job at it. host: to guest -- two guests joining us. on our support line. go ahead. caller: businesses have struggled for years in the market with prohibition and

outright dangerous laws. we have been the proprietor of marijuana sales for years. we sell it and grow it and are the ones affected the most to unfair laws. because of that, the anti-marijuana angle confuses me because cough medicine can kill you, tylenol will give you liver and kidney disease and viagra will give you a heart attack. all of those are regulated but the only reason they are is they were allowed in the open market in the first place to be regulated. guest: they are regulated because they have an accepted

medical use. they have a widely understood safety protocol that has gone through decades and billions of dollars of research. no one is against marijuana products that go to the fda process. what puzzles me and i would like to know, were you surprised about this like i was? when the government did the scheduling review they changed the game in the way they had looked at, they had judged whether something should be rescheduled. they looked at accepted medical use and parsed the word excepted from approved. it doesn't have approved uses but marijuana is not an approved product but they say it has accepted medical use and they found three studies and because

a lot of people essentially use it so that means it has accepted medical use and that was their justification for rescheduling. that tells me if you can get any drug through sort of a popularity contest you will have a rescheduled drug because it has accepted medical use. there is a reason for that. in the terms of the war on drugs, people shouldn't be arrested and giving records. you will not be the one making money from the illegal marijuana industry, fortunately. you will not be the one. it will be guys that look like me with context in silicon valley and wall street that are turning this into a profit based enterprise. with the capitalistic principles and products highly addictive and dangerous and you put those

two together and you have history repeating like we did with big tobacco. guest: i am not quite sure where to begin. kevin raises a lot of points. in an ideal world, we would actually be working together on things like rating in the level of corporatism and advertising that likely is going to be associated with the legal market. i do think as a society we have learned a lot of lessons. over commercialization of products like alcohol in the past tobacco and opioids. i hope we don't follow those same lessons and pathways when it comes to cannabis. what motivated me to do this work wasn't so some grade b celebrity could open up their

own cannabis business in a cell a gummy product, it was about justice and fairness and intellectual honesty is not just to be targeting and arresting and targeting individuals for the responsible use of cannabis. it is intellectually dishonest to claim that cannabis poses harm similar to those of heroin. we are finally seeing a change in these narratives taking place now and we are seeing states leading the way. one thing i want to emphasize, although kevin wants to portray this narrative, the reality is, we have had 24 states in the last decade legalize and regulate the adult use of marijuana. not a single one of those states have ever repealed or rolled back those policies and in concert with those changes and

laws, we have seen record support among the public for legalization. now 70% of the american public say it marijuana should be legal. that represents the fact that these policies aren't working largely as intended by voters and politicians and that the public prefers a policy of legalization, regulation and education over a policy of criminalization, incarceration and stigmatization. guest 1: a quick response. that represents the fact that millions of dollars were spent to change public opinion and to repealed something you would need more money because the industry that is gaining money from enterprises is pouring tens of millions of dollars. that represents we don't have deep pockets. in on polling, emerson, one of

the best -- guest 2: you pay for that. guest 1: of course we did because they weren't doing polling to ask whether legalization, decriminalization, medical marijuana and what we found with the poll that we got together it was the fact that people actually had differentiations between decriminalization and legalization when they were asked that question. when you ask yes or no should be able to legalize marijuana for personal use, then you get the majority saying yes. but a lot of those people want decriminalization which is about personal possession not the corporate stuff going on. it is versus the commercialization. there are different differentiations. gallup doesn't do it because they don't want to change the

question and there are reasons why questions are asked and you better believe we asked the best poster to look into it and they found legalization split. guest 2: record numbers of people said marijuana said it should be criminalized. guest 1: congratulations, you have moved the goalpost on that. host: gentlemen, if both of you could hold those thoughts. edward, go ahead. caller: i know that we don't want to criminalize the use of marijuana for the user, but i think we should consider criminalizing the companies that designed and make it this way

because it is so much stronger and they should be held accountable for that. i feel we are turning the country into a bunch of potheads. i'm sorry. that is my opinion. guest 2: the caller is asking for regulation. in an unregulated market you have a variety of potencies and user doesn't have to know the potency of the product they are getting. in a regulated market, they are tested for purity and potency and is on the label and the consumer can make an educated choice. if lawmakers believe or don't want high potency products in their legal market they can set potency caps. i don't have to tell kevin that some states like vermont and montana have already done that.

they have capped potency of certain products guest 1: guest 1:. -- certain products. guest 1: if you go to a pot shop, buyer beware. the labels are regularly misrepresented. it is pesticides, bacteria. states are not able to regulate this and they are not. they do a horrible job of regulating it. you don't know what you're getting in the legal market. going to colorado and other states that have massive deep-pocketed interest in doing eight potency cap, the fact that it is legal in colorado, i get it. i would love to partner with you. let's go there. we tried to pass a band of kid friendly products and it was vetoed by the governor. we tried to get a potency cap in colorado which had support from

the governor and it has gone nowhere. guest 2: give got a potency report from the legislature in task force as a result. guest 1: we did. guest 2: it did not recommend a potency cap. guest 1: because it was rigged by the industry. even though norma was -- normal was not about it. i get that you want to smoke your dope in private but the hippies have turned into the wall street profiteers and the irony is that they unknowingly opened this up to this corporate free-for-all which is resulting in no real regulation. tell me one business that said i want to be regulated. you want it to be but the businesses do not. host: lets hear from tyler in

brooklyn, new york, support line. caller: on kids products, we could go into vapes but i will start with that. think about gummy's and stuff but the most classic form of edibles is cookies and brownies. how is that not kid friendly? on the stories either of them accidentally eating their own cookies or brownies? cannabis is ultimately pretty much legally federally under a loophole of cannabinoids that you can market -- walk into a smoke shop in get a variety of cannabinoids that auntie is specific to nine. -- cannabinoids that are not specific.

if you want to modify cannabis, that is true a modification and not making stronger thc. that is what we should be focusing on. i purchased from shops that either grow themselves or farmers or growers that i know myself because i want to be safe with it. personally, i have used cannabis for some time. i have adhd and some post-traumatic stress and it helps with both of those. i will lay in bed for hours in morning before i smoke and then i will get up in smoke and do a bunch of things. it works differently for different people. the way you are talking about it, you are saying basically that you want everyone to use it a specific way like it works for you. different people operate differently. host: we got the point.

thank you for the call. guest 1: people do operate differently. some people regularly drive over the speed limit and haven't gotten into a car crash. it doesn't mean that speeding doesn't lead to car crashes. the largest study of ptsd at yale university and others looked at this and found it exacerbated long-term ptsd even though it they thought it was helping in the short term. the caller mentioned the issue of he only likes to buy it from people he knows. if it is federally legalized, good luck with that. this is a product like bottled water that is free to get and it is cheap. you are paying for labeling and a marketing and the bottle. if marijuana is legalized, it will be grown in a few massive

facilities, whether outdoor or indoor in one or two states. it will beat mail order exported. i think the pot shops will close down because it will be mail order and you wouldn't need to pay for the overhead. the economics on a large scale is so different than it is now. the other caller mentioned delta eight which is synthetic. we are trying to get does eight band because where it has been legalized through a loophole we have seen enormous problems in these states, the sort of guest efficient marijuana that is extremely dangerous. it actually shows that when something is just out there and self regulated by businesses, you have all these problems as a result. we are trying to remove delta eight. they are very dangerous cannabinoids on the market that should not have been legalized and was basically done so almost

inadvertently through a loophole when we were trying to legalize help -- hemp. guest 2: kevin and i are largely in agreement when it comes to the hemp loophole. it was not the intent of congress to bring these unregulated synthesized products to market. it is the market itself that is totally unregulated. we don't know who is producing the products in the potency and how they are being manufactured. when third-party labs tested they find heavy metals and all sorts of things that consumers would not want to be ingesting and can cause harm. this points to normal and should

principal and that is that an unregulated market mitigates potential risks -- exacerbates potential risks while a regulated controlled market mitigates those risks. host: dunn is in maryland is in maryland -- don is in maryland on our opposed line. one more time for don. let's go to marcus. caller: yesterday i just celebrated nine months free from marijuana. millions of americans are going through marijuana addiction. and look what happened recently with rescheduling and my fear is that there will be thousands to

millions of americans that will go through what i went through. my question to both of you is, how can we help save human lives and ensure that they don't get addicted to this kind of substance? host: that is marcus in maryland. guest 2: i think it is really important that we have evidenced-based messaging and public education when it comes to informing the public that they can make responsible choices. i would dare to say we have an obligation as an organization that advocated for the change in policy. this is not as simple as flipping a switch and expecting the public to then have all the information they need at their fingertips to make smart choices. we have to give them that information. i think the industry, commercial industry have moved forward with

bringing products to market and are not educating consumers about the pros and cons of those . i think public health is an issue where they have largely been either silent on the issue or have failed to keep up with the changing culture and policy. so i agree that the best way to do this is to a policy of regulation and education and that education needs to be evidence-based. guest 1: changing culture and policy does not change science and does not change the fact that almost every single large-scale review from the who down to the nih and national academy of medicine have been unequivocal about the dangers of marijuana. i hope that means we are not going to see that thc doesn't impair more than caffeine which i have heard. guest 2: you have not heard that from me.

guest 1: we will try to dig it out and i am glad we agree that it impairs more than caffeine, much more. the big tobacco analogy is a very good because tobacco was used for thousands of years without deaths in what we're seeing today i'm almost 450,000 deaths a year still from tobacco. what happened 100 years ago that tobacco which had been used forever became deadly? it became commercialized, promoted and normalized. industry invented the cigarette which was not a part of what tobacco was. nicotine had all kinds of stuff in it to get you addictive. this was purposeful and to make money. why you have a business is to make money. they are not nonprofit entities. some people said we should but that is not realistic.

they had marketing and this is what i am worried about. what the industry is producing the commercial industry is producing is much more harmful products than we have ever had and is addictive in nature. that is why marijuana anonymous has unfortunately rapidly expanded in the last 10 or 20 years, because marijuana we are seeing addictive rates for young people higher than for alcohol and to. they compared alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs and thc, they found thc among various groups was the number one drug addiction. the average american, thanks to propaganda, thinks that marijuana is not addictive. we have a long way to go. host: park in florida, support line. -- mark in florida, support

line. caller: i am glad we have this subject and i was getting sick of listening to the protests because they were really getting me down. i am a medical marijuana user. if it was not for medical marijuana i don't know where i would be. i had a terrible back and i could get all of the pills i want probably but i don't want to take notes because we have seen how bad those things are over the past 20 years. when they started medical marijuana, it enables me to get through the day and reduces my pain dramatically. and as such i am very thankful for it. i am con from florida and there is a bill on the ballot this time around for recreational

marijuana and i will vote in favor of it because we have seen here. i want to thank mr. armentano and the information he has been given. the fact of the matter is, he has displayed no intellectual honesty when he talks to you. at the beginning of the show he had a chronic call in shows that he is not honest. whenever it is time for him to ask a question or respond, he starts his fire hose spew of information, changing the subject from subject to the subject and adding and subtracting. that is not an intellectually honest person making their point. i hate to use the term lies

because it is not a good term but call it gas lighting, talking about under the new regime. it is scheduled he will have tons of unregulated products. host: you put a lot out there. guest 1: i don't know what to say. anybody can call in. we are big fans of the show. so that was out of bounds. and you can read or not read and it doesn't matter. people can have different opinions on this. the facts and the signs are clear. i don't think people should take my word for it but take every major medical association and look into what the journals are saying and not not want her cherry picked studies. it should be left up to them. this industry is duping our people into thinking their product is safe and effective.

this gentleman wants to use it for medical purposes and that is great but the whole medical thing was a way to legitimize and normalize and legalize marijuana. in fact we were told that medical marijuana will be a red herring to give marijuana a good name. that was literally at the quote in 1979 and has been a very effective strategy from a pr point of view. i worry about the human suffering this is going to cause and i worry about how we are going to be paying for these decisions. it is one thing to allow people to use it in the privacy of their home and not make it a huge commercialized industry. but it is so different when we start finding politicians and brainwashing the american people and doing so at the end of the day for benefit. host: if this does go to

reclassification and continues on, what do you think the legal challenges are and will you be part of those legal affairs? it guest 2: the biggest --guest 2: the biggest change is it will change the conversation going forward and it will become increasingly difficult for people to deny the legitimacy of patient's experiences with medical cannabis when the fda has said cannabis is in fact a medicine. it is going to be very difficult for folks to argue in favor of continuing to keep cannabis criminalized and therefore targeting, prosecuting and arresting and incarcerating people use it. in a reality work cannabis is no longer a schedule one. i am hopeful that the nation will go forward and this will ultimately change how we talk about in think about cannabis

and ultimately how we legislate cannabis. those number stations are going to get more sophisticated and better at today. guest 1: number one, if it doesn't go through, we are looking at all of the options and have been assessing them since the fda put out this ruling was an incredible game of international gymnastics to get where they needed to get to. there is a huge issue with the international conventions. the human international convention which said marijuana has to stay in schedule one or two. all kinds of issues we are looking at. i will say the fda did not say this was a medicine. they said it has accepted medical use which they define it because people like to use it. they were clear in saying it is not an approved medication. it doesn't make sense but that

is an important distinction. in terms of what results it could have, politicians sort of checked the box, did the marijuana reform think and are moving on. this is not a top issue for a lot of politicians. when you survey even young people, not doesn't register as a salient issue. marijuana legalization support is said to be a mile wide and not very deep and i agree. the politicians say we did this and we will take a victory lap and checked the box and are moving on. maybe this could participate what paul is saying and be a slippery slope and that is the worry of mine. you could find this coming out a different way in the near future. we were told that we would have legalization five years ago federally. and we don't.

i think this is still a long and winding road. this is a detour to legalization and maybe it takes us down a different path than the one a lot of people thought. kevin sabet is the president and ceo to smart approaches to marijuana. paul armentano the deputy director of the national organization for the reform of marijuana laws. to both of you gentlemen, thanks for giving us your time. coming up, a discussion about the future of tiktok in the united states after legislation passed and signed by the president. joining us is the axios tech policy reporter, maria curi, when washington journal continues.

>> sunday on q and a, former rhode island democratic congressman patrick kennedy, offers of profile in mental courage, talk about americans who struggled with mental illness and the role family members play in their care. >> with my mother, i other and sisters and i had to get guardianship over our mother and we saved her life so she could be around for my kids. my kids never met my father who died before they were born. they got to meet my mom and they got to meet my mom because my brother and sister and i went to court to get guardianship over our mother to keep her from killing herself. she was so happy. at the time she wasn't happy but she ended up being so grateful that she was able to make it because we intervened. >> with his book profiles in mental health courage, sunday

night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to q&a on our free c-span now app. >> explore mother's day fts waiting for you at c-spanshop.org, discover books, apparel, home to core and accessories, something for every c-span mom. plus every purchase you make goes to supporting our nonprofit operations. starthopping now by scanning the qr code or visit us on line at cspanshop.org. >> will you soundly swear that the testimony you are about to give would be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> watch american history's tv congress investigates as we explore major investigations by

the u.s. and senate. authors and historian will tell stories and show footage from that in key congressional hearings. the senate committee hearings led by senator frank church examining alleged abuses within the u.s. intelligence committee. watch congress investigates saturdays at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: the future of tiktok in the united states and are discussion with axios tech policy reporter maria curi. welcome. guest: thank you. host: what was at the issue and the core? guest: this started a year ago when energy and commerce committee chairman rogers brought tiktok ceo to testify. two issues were spoke, there

were national security concerns and data privacy concerns with the app and specifically with its owner, bytedance, having ties to the chinese government. this started a year ago. shortly afterwards a bill was introduced and that is now that we have law which directs the divestment or ban of tiktok. host: would it be a technical ban if it goes through? guest: depends on who you ask. this is not necessarily a bill to ban the app. it gives tiktok the option of finding a different owner, a u.s. owner that isn't a national security threat. because that sale could be so complicated and politically precarious, you could actually ask at this was a man ultimately. host: what timeframe doesn't give tiktok to make the decisions? guest: it gives them nine months

and the president could extended three months, so your total. host: the parent company, what is it and what are the concerns about those ties to the chinese government? guest: it is called bytedance and has operations in china and engineers in china and the concern is that the chinese government ever wanted to have that company had over u.s. data it can do so. that is what is concerning for u.s. lawmakers. if you ask tiktok, it will say all u.s. data is housed in the united states and they wouldn't forced to turn that data over to the chinese government. but that did not convince any lawmakers on capitol hill from either side of the aisle. host: is a national security and data privacy concerns. where does national security come in? guest: the national security concern comes in is that you can do foreign influenced campaigns.

there are young americans using this application and if the chinese government wanted to spring -- spread propaganda, the fear is that they could do so in influenced american politics in that way. host: our guest here to talk about the future of tiktok in the u.s.. if you want to ask questions, democrats (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. you can text (202) 748-8003. is this a partisan issue? guest: it is not. it has unified democrats and republicans on capitol hill. we saw this first during the hearing when the tiktok ceo came and he was grilled by both sides of the aisle. when it cleared committee it was unanimous. when it cleared the house and senate it had broad support. this is shared by both parties. host: the tiktok ceo got on the

platform after the passage of the legislation and responding to president biden signing it. here is a portion of what he had to say. [video clip] >> the show here, congress passed a bill that the president signed into law that is designed to ban tiktok in the united states. that would take tiktok away from you and 170 million americans who find community and connection in all platforms. this is a man on tiktok -- ban on tiktok and you and your voice. politicians who say otherwise, many who sponsor the bill admit that a tiktok band is the ultimate goal. -- ban is the ultimate goal. the freedom of expression on tiktok reflects the same american values as a beacon of freedom. tiktok gives everyday americans a powerful way to be seen and heard and that is why so many people have made tiktok part of their daily lives.

rest assured we aren't going anywhere. we are confident we will fight for your rights in the court. the facts and the constitution are on our side. our community is filled with people who found acceptance and compassion encouragement and increasing awareness into broader perspectives, ultimately adding more joy to their lives. our community is also filled with 7 million business owners. we will make our case in court and you can still enjoy it tiktok like you always have. in fact, if you have a story about how tiktok impacts your life, we would love you to share to showcase what we are fighting for. we will invest and innovate to keep our community vibrant, exciting and safe. through our data security efforts we have built safeguards that no other company has made. we have invested billions of

dollars to secure your data keep our platform free from outside manipulation. i can't say this enough. this extraordinarily diverse community is what makes tiktok so special, make it matter and make it meaningful. i will keep working to ensure you always have the opportunity, safety, and freedom to enjoy all tiktok has to offer. thank you. host: a long response from the ceo of tiktok. we are not going away, very emphatic on his part. what is that based on? guest: he is driving the confidence from the fact that this country is strong on first amendment protections and he certainly plans to bring this to court. it will probably end in the supreme court and his main argument will probably be this is the first amendment violation on the millions of users that use the app. host: use of the constitution is on our side. guest: correct. host: let's hear from jeff in

arkansas, a democrat for our guest. caller: good morning. a quick question. you are talking about american companies buying into tiktok, has there been established and a list of companies that are lining up to buy tiktok? guest: that is a great question. it is a very expensive company so that narrows down the pool of buyers significantly. some potential companies that would be able to afford it art meta or google but they have major platforms like instagram and facebook and youtube and that could run into some monopoly concerns, too much social media power in the hands of just one parent company. some other companies might be able to come in and purchase the app. microsoft has been floated but

no one has come out and said we are interested in buying this app. host: whoever decides, what scrutiny goes by the federal government if there is interest to buy it? guest: it might run into antitrust issues with the department of justice or the ftc, but it will definitely be better than a chinese based company for a lot of regulators. host: i think early on, president trump's treasury secretary steven mnuchin expressed interest in gathering a collection of people to buy it. guest: i don't think it has gone anywhere. it was in the news cycle and haven't heard from it, but who knows? host: you heard from a ceo, but as far as influencers and those who use tiktok for business, what have they said and how they -- have it address the regulators? guest: a lot of anger. it provided a lot of americans

an opportunity not just to express themselves but to build businesses and make money off of products and businesses. a lot of people are upset right now. one of the tactics, because the bill sprung onto tiktok and they didn't see it coming. one of the tactics the company used as having pop-ups show on -- up when they come on and say this is your congressman number and call them. we saw people calling offices on capitol hill and inundating them to reject the bill and that had the opposite effect and that convinced lawmakers to vote in favor of the bill because they saw it as evidence that this could really be used to mobilize large groups of people in politics in the u.s. host: we saw the president signed the bill, but what were the concerns over the concerns that congress has about the company and tiktok itself? guest: president biden is

supportive of this measure. he obviously signed it into law but with so many other issues going on, it hasn't been the main focus for the white house. there has been support and it went through. host: the president still plans to use the platform for his campaign plans? guest: that is right. they will be adamant to say that the presidency is different from the campaign and public officials, known in the federal government or on the hill is allowed to use tiktok. that has already been banned for a while. there is a little bit of a disconnect there and the president has faced criticism for his campaign using the app. host: viewers (202) 748-8000 for democrats, republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002 to ask questions.

we will hear from roy, austin texas, republican. caller: the statement i would like to make is the fact that we keep hearing about everyone saying the first amendment right is being violated. the problem is if tiktok was the only show in town, they may be right. but since tiktok is not the only show in town, there are other apps that do the same exact theme, they can easily migrate to those apps. nobody's rights are being violated. i don't know why they keep promoting that hype. guest: i hear you and i think one of the concerns from first amendment scholars might raise that would set a precedent for other apps to be banned. that is one of the fears that right now it is just tiktok but others could depending on who the president is, come under scrutiny and before you know it maybe we have a more fragmented internet, not just globally

where the internet looks very different in china versus the united states, but within the united states uses and creators having less options. it really is a matter to be watched. host: you talk about other companies. is there a sense of waiting in the wings should there be a band and they are waiting to fill the gap? guest: absolutely. i think it is 190 minutes i think that americans are spending on tiktok every day. that is definitely an opportunity for other apps to come in and take advantage. host: david is next from atlanta, independent line. caller: good morning. i have two questions. the first one is on national security. do you think the chinese government is actually gathering information on american citizens? do you actually think the

chinese government would allow an american company to purchase tiktok? guest: to the first question whether the chinese government is actually gathering information on americans, in 2022 forbes did an investigation that showed american journalists were being spied on and tracked by the app. beyond that, we know that the app tracks our movements, videos we watch, for how long we watch them. we don't know whether or not the chinese government at this point is using that information for anything, but the fear that they could. that is really what was the impetus for lawmakers to act. to your second question, with the chinese allow another american company to buy tiktok? no, i very highly doubt that. and even if tiktok did decide to

find a different parent company, the algorithm which is what makes the app so powerful and useful for other people is probably not going to be sold because the chinese government would intervene in that sense. the algorithm is what makes the app, what recommends video and keeps us on the app because it is learning what we enjoy watching. it so a sale of tiktok without the algorithm would not be attractive to any buyer. host: viewers that the company operates businesses based on u.s. models, so why not go further about x or facebook? guest: tiktok is abiding by u.s. laws. the parent company is in beijing -based and the argument is the chinese government could just force the company to hand over data regardless of where it is stored whenever it wants.

what was the second question? host: why not make the same kind of analogies for x or facebook? guest: we live in a company that -- country that does not have a federal privacy law like many countries around the world. one of the criticisms lawmakers faced when they work pushing this forward and getting it through congress, which they are very rarely passed, was that we still haven't addressed the root of the issue which is the lack of a privacy law. one other bill that has not gotten as much attention as the tiktok band is actually this law that would championed by lawmakers that would ban data brokers from selling our sensitive information to any foreign country that we deem adversaries. that is also another important measure. american companies are also

using our data in selling it. host: are there other countries as concerned about national security or privacy when it comes to tiktok like the united states? guest: yes there aren't many countries that have banned the app for federal employees in users, government employees. as far as a band for all people of that particular country, it is much rarer. india has that but not many others. host: maria curi is joining us from axios about the tiktok man. let's go to north carolina, independent line. caller: my question is more or less on a national security but more on use and addiction. i understand most people are concerned about the youth and

how it is affecting mental health. guest: you are cutting out but i think i got the gist of it is what is being done about the addiction aspect and youth mental health? this will not address this issue, because we know once tiktok does not prevail in court and is eventually removed from the u.s. market, there are many social media companies out there. another issue that congress is working toward is passing laws that would address this mental health issue and giving parents more controls and putting more responsibility on the shoulders of companies to be responsible in the products they are pushing on minors. we will see if that clears congress. host: stephen, connecticut, independent line. caller: a couple things. one is there is data collection. in the one is algorithmic

intelligence to drive events subtly. there are classic operations and they drove certain events to tip the scales in subtle events. and of course collect -- not to influence how we say or think for sales. chinese intelligence is not to sell me a car or something. guest: the difference between data collection and algorithmic intelligence? host: can you clarify what you want our guest to answer? caller: how do you think chinese

intelligence would use tiktok on the american population because there are laws that they can collect what they want in china. guest: if you speak with lawmakers, they say the algorithm is so powerful it sucks you into a feedback loop of the content you are already engaging with and then you are in this loop perpetually. i mentioned the amount of minutes americans are spending on average, that is a lot of time and that will create echo chambers and reinforce beliefs that you already have and make discourse on the others. i think this is one of the concerns that lawmakers had in the context of the israel-hamas war, where they felt that the app was suppressing pro-israeli speech. on the other side of that, you have people saying that was just a reflection of the actual discourse happening among young people in the united states right now and that is what the

conversations were reflecting. but the algorithm is very powerful and it is not unlike other algorithms and other apps. it is very unique for tiktok but you also have powerful algorithms and other apps that influence the way we think. host: the legislation was said to be put forth from disinformation and misinformation. guest: another concern was more americans than ever are getting their news from social media, and that includes tiktok, and that is an issue not just with companies that have business in china but al ithe u.s.. host: a question, why shouldn't they be treated like publishers? guest: that is a great question. it comes down to the content and who is moderating that content. platforms moderate their own content but it is the users that

are deciding what goes on there and they are not necessarily liable for that and so that is online publishers that are liable for content they decide to publish. one of the biggest debates has always been, should we make these platforms liable for what is on their platforms? the idea has bed that we shouldn't -- been that we shouldn't because that can lead to companies deciding what we see and don't see and it would be better to be left to the hands of americans. that is another active debate on capitol hill is how to handle the liability question read -- question. host: kevin, independent line. caller: i remember this going on when president trump said he would ban tiktok unless they gave us $10 million -- $10 billion in the treasury. what happened with that? guest: the tiktok efforts under former president trump didn't really go anywhere.

they were held up in court. we know now that he made some statements on the campaign trail that he would not move forward with a ban on tiktok. that would just be wins for the other big tech. he flip-flopped on that issue. host: from ian in d.c.. caller: i am wondering if this legislation was too narrow. should be -- we be worried that the company could change names or be sold to another foreign institute and the legislation wouldn't cover it? guest: this has really been reported out of a tiktok ban or divest that the language would target any company that is deemed owned or controlled by a foreign rat. not even just -- foreign threat, and not just china but north

korea, iran and other countries that we don't have clear information that apps are coming from them but the bill writers were looking to the future if there was an app like that in the future. host: is there a way to understand how tiktok became so popular? guest: i think it gave a lot of creators and young people a platform to express themselves. i think the algorithm itself, the short form video, was unique and revolutionary and different from you to where you had longer videos and people could spend hours on just one rabbit hole of videos as we have all done at one point or the other. with tiktok, it was quick, easy hits and before you know it more than an hour has passed and it gained popularity. host: tom joins us in georgia, independent line. caller: i was going to say that

this is not like this is unusual. we have a platform that is owned by an adversary and there are issues involving espionage, foreign infiltration, who knows what. these are the problems, really. but this is an opportunity for brighton to show his -- four biden -- for a biden to show his colors. and for the chinese to help him get elected. guest: propaganda isn't illegal in the united states, but to

spread its in a more limited publication that only reaches a certain amount of people versus on a social media platform that millions are on for long periods during the day is a question that is one of the things the court will have to grapple with. it is interesting about the way technology has changed the freedom of speech and first amendment conversations. host: has issues from china and what degree does it further issues with china? guest: it exacerbates the issues. the u.s.-china relations are more tense than ever and the united states government directly going after one of china's most successful social media applications. we have seen the chinese already asking apple to remove some of the united states platforms from the market including instagram threads and what's up. this will -- what'sapp.

this could lead to where we are not as freely communicating with others around the world. right now it is just the u.s. and china but first amendment scholars have concerns it will lead to less communication and a less open information ecosystem. host: walk us what to expect over the next couple of months. guest: we can expect tiktok to sue and this will go to the courts and they are going to make first amendment arguments against the bill. you can expect the government to make national security arguments. we will see what the court decides but during that time usually what happens is the law would not move forward until the court proceedings are done and that could take months. afterwards, then it would be nine months for bytedance to divest from tiktok and then the president could give them an additional three months.

so more than a year at this point before americans really start to feel any impact. afterwards, i think what would happen is the app stores would have to stop carrying the apps and then americans would stop being able to use it. host: this is from michelle in illinois, democrats line. caller: just a quick question. i was wondering, what about the millions of jobs and businesses that have been created off of this platform? has congress said anything about those businesses that will have to shutter after a year? should this not go the way they are planning? guest: that is a legitimate concern and you have a lot of small business owners and creators raising this concern. i think lawmakers would say try

moving to a different platform. ultimately national security concerns are more important and there are other options for small business owners, although it is disruptive and is definitely going to impact a lot of people relying on this app right now. host: the website is axios.com. maria curi serves as a tech policy reporter and you can find her work there. first time on the progm. hope you come back. we are going to go to open forum and if you want to put dissipate on anything you have heard this morning or anything in politics, 202-748-8000 for democrats, 202-748-8001 for republicans, independents 202-748-8002. we will take those open forum calls when washington journal continues.

>> explore the array of mother's day gifts at c-spanshop.org. books, apparel, home decor, and accessories. there is something for every c-span mom, plus every purchase supports our nonprofit operations. start shopping by scanning the code on the right or visiting us online at c-spanshop.org. book tv, every sunday on c-span two, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 8:00 p.m., stephen breyer explains his judicial philosophy and approach to the constitution with his book "reading the constitution: whi ose pragmatism, not textualism at 10:0p., new york times correspondent david sanger shares his boothe new cold war's, which looks at the rise of china, russia's invasion of

ukraine, and america's role in the world in the 21st century. he is interviewed by paula dobransky. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 and find a full schedule in your program guide or at book tv.org. >> do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? saturday, watch american history tv's congress investigates as we explore major investigations by the house and senate. each week authors and historians will tell these stories, we see historic footage, and examine the impact of congressional hearings. this week, the 1975 senate committee hearing led by idaho democratic senator frank church

examining alleged abuses within the intelligence community. watch congress investigates, saturdays at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: petbuttigieg, transportation secretary, appears on capitol hill to talk about his 2025 budget request and other matters before the senate appropriations subcommittee. c-span is where u can see that at 10:00. c-span now is the app and c-span.org, thereto. also this mning, the interior cretary on the president's 2025 budget for the interior will be before the senate energy d natural resources committee on c-span3, c-span now, and c-span.org. and a listf hearings on the 2025 budteqst for the veterans affairs. you can see that at 10:30. you can follow along on c-span

now. first up on this open forum, in georgia, republican mine. caller: what i want to talk about is what president biden is suggesting is he wants to stop the trump tax cuts, then he wants to raise on the rich. i know how the tax code works. when you raise taxes on the rich, you have to raise it on every -- it's a graduated code. everybody would have to pay more money. he can't just tax the rich, that's not the way it works. and he is lying to the people and he wants you to vote for him so that once he gets in there, he will just do whatever he wants. i am just morning everybody -- by the way, the people that said that the trump tax cuts only

went to the rich are people that don't have a job. i got $1800 off my taxes from the tax, i'm not rich. host: ok. kevin in washington, d.c., democrats line. caller: i want to talk about the censorship that mr. berliner from npr talked about. there was a hearing yesterday that didn't get much coverage. the guy kept repeating there is no evidence. at the end he said because of international relations -- i think that's like national security -- the chinese president doesn't want to talk about covid coming from a lab, neither does the u.s. president. c-span didn't cover it. that's the biggest story since

before the ethnic cleansing in gaza. people are using propaganda to suppress speech. the trump administration classified the lab origin and president biden's administration -- the biden administration helped get the vaccine because they had connections with just happy and norway. -- with giuseppe and norway. they are co-conspirators in covering up. host: republican line. you are on, go ahead. caller: good morning. i have been listening to all this stuff about abortion all my life. i am 77 years old and i don't think abortion should be birth

control, and that's what people are doing with it. millions of millions of people don't have problems having babies, they just use it for birth control and more and more things. they need to take the gag order off of trump. it's not constitutional. host: when it comes to abortion, two stories of note in the last day. state senators in tucson voted wednesday to repeal the 1864 abortion law, sending it to the governor for her anticipated signature. the 16-14 vote came after all democrats and two republicans if various procedural motions. the measure was approved a week earlier by the house. one of two republicans who voted for repeal had her own three pregnancies, including one that ended with a need for medical abortion.

she said her point was to explain not all pregnancies are the same. at jacksonville.com, their story saying hours after florida enacted a strict six-week week abortion ban, kamala harris spoke against it and against similar efforts to restrict the procedure. she tied the bands to former president donald trump, who she said has bragged about adding national abortion protections to his appointments of three conservative supreme court judges. those stories yesterday on the topic of abortion. you can bring that into the mix and other things in this open forum. 202-748-8000 democrats, 202-748-8001 republicans, and independents 202-748-8002. yesterday jerome powell talking about the current state and the future of interest rates, saying officials held the benchmark federal funds rate study wednesday at a range between 5.25% and five point 5%.

the highest in decades and a level it released -- it reached in july. the fed chair indicated the bar to cut interest rates has gone up and the bar to increase rates is even higher. here is more from the federal reserve chair. >> my colleagues and i remain focused on our dual mandate to promote maximum employment and stable prices. the economy has made progress toward our dual mandate objectives. inflation has eased substantially over the past year while the labor market has remained strong, and that's very good news. but inflation is still too high. further progress bringing it down is not assured and the path forward is uncertain. we are fully committed to returning inflation to our 2% goal. restoring priced ability is essential to achieve a sustainably strong labor market

that benefits all. today the fomc decided to leave our policy interest rate unchanged and to continue to reduce securities holdings, though at a slower pace. our restrictive stance to monetary policy has been putting downward pressure on monetary activity and inflation and the risks to achieving our employment and inflation goals have moved toward better balance over the past year. however, in recent months inflation has shown a lack of further progress toward our 2% objective and we remain highly attentive to inflation risks. host: more on the website and app. let's hear from ben in washington, d.c., independent line. caller: good morning. the issue i have to talk about this morning is tiktok. i don't think for right now the government has been able to come

out with any concrete evidence as to what tiktok is doing that is wrong or whether the company is actually sharing any information with the chinese government. there are companies all over the world. should we be worried that american companies will be sharing information data with the american government as well? as reports have it from the anti-defamation league, it is because of gaza. that is my summary. it is because of gaza that we are not able to control the message, the propaganda from gaza, the lies from gaza. tiktok is short and simple video experience.

people gather information from al jazeera, from democracy now, and other alternative media because cnn and the rest of them -- that is the thing for me. it is not about whether tiktok is doing this or doing that. they are not able to control the lies from gaza. the world is able to see what israel is doing in gaza. host: let's hear from louis in new jersey, republican line. caller: hello, how are you? just to open up the forum, whoever invented halogen lights on automobiles -- you can't even go to a shoe store anymore, they don't exist. we are getting crippled with the jump we -- the junk we are

wearing. i would like discussion about that if possible. host: those are two different topics. why do you think they are important? let's start with the shoes. caller: they are binding us. the eye department is very busy with glare from halogen headlights. halogen headlights on a vehicle are not needed. the shoe store, we used to go to the shoe store to get fitted. you could get wide, narrow. now you got to order on amazon. that's not right i don't think. host: ok. in new jersey, bringing them to the new topic to this open forum and you can follow-up if you wish. let's go to victor, independent line. caller: i want to talk about when the thing about marijuana was on earlier. i've been smoking pot for over 50 years.

the thing about the more potency they have now, that's bull. i can't tell the difference from what i smoked in the late 1960's, 70's to what i go down to the pot store. they say it is 35% or something. i can't tell the difference. it is still good pot, there is no difference. at times i have not been able to get any pot and there is no bad experience with me not having it like people who go through that with heroin or booze. i am ok. sometime later i will get the pot and smoke again. a lot of what that one guy's habit, it must be his own reasoning or his people who are

saying what they are saying. thank you. host: victor in california giving us his thoughts. if you want to see this segment we had on marijuana, go to c-span.org or the app to see that segment or other segments concerning any topic. one of the topics as of late in washington, d.c., an effort by marjorie taylor greene to put forward a motion to vacate speaker johnson over issues over the last couple of months. she made that call again yesterday. here is a portion of her reasoning. rep. greene: nobody wants to rock the boat in washington, d.c.. that would be uncomfortable, marjorie, we don't want to face the issues, marjorie. let's just get through the election, marjorie. we will take that next congress, marjorie. i'm sorry, how many more

americans have to die? how many more bodies have to pileup before the house of representatives paid for by american tax dollars actually does something about it? i want to know when this town is going to give a dam about americans. that's what this is really about. there is one thing i know. if we get president trump back in the white house in january 2025 and we are lucky enough to earn the trust again from voters in america to have a republican majority in the house, then we have a job to do. we cannot let people down again. we cannot fail president trump. this cannot happen, the maga agenda that i support and americans support and the whole reason why republicans are going to turn out and vote in

november, because they support president trump. we need leaders in the house of representatives that are going to get this done, not working for hakeem jeffries, not working for joe biden, and not going to be twisted into continuing the disgusting practices of washington, d.c. mike johnson is not capable of that job, he has proven it over and over. host: representative marjorie taylor greene outside the capitol building. if you want to see the full press conference with her and others, go to the website and the app. usa today followed up yesterday by reporting that her move is unlikely to succeed but still certain to royal internal gop tension as she continues to target johnson, the most powerful republican in the country. he has been defiant in the face of the existential threat to his speakership, saying he has no intention to resign from his post.

democrats on tuesday promised to kill any effort from greene to oust him. minneapolis, independent line. caller: i would just like to bring up the fact that the ruling by the supreme court, it absolutely blew me away. they went everywhere around it, tiptoed around the actual case in front of them, and instead used hyper theories all around them and nothing was really done. now they are going to send this back to the district court. once they get it up from the supreme court, and by that time the election will be over. host: i don't mean to interrupt, do you talk about the immunity hearing that took place recently? caller: exactly. host: sorry about that, go ahead. caller: i was really upset about that. i have a lot of high regard for

the supreme court, but it is really turning out to be quite political. they never brought up the case on trump as far as the immunity went. they to -- tippy toed all around it and are now going to send it down to the district court. my question is, how in the hell are we going to get justice on anyone in this country, democrat or republican or independent, when they don't actually rule on the facts of the case? host: let's hear from robert in texas, democrat line. caller: good morning, good morning. i'm just calling to say that marjorie taylor greene has a whole lot of hate in her, and anybody like her.

we know in the political realm, you have pros and cons. people can come together and discuss things. but some people just have pure hate in their heart. i recommend she asked jesus christ to come into her life, her and everybody like her. anybody that doesn't want to sit down and talk things through and see the other person's side, my way or the highway, is wrong. the bible says what you reap you will also sow. the old parable, when you did one hole, you better dig another one because you are going in there yourself. i just want to tell everybody to pray to god to do what needs to be done. i want to say this too before i get off. donald trump is a liar. we done heard him lying and he, right back and say, i didn't say that.

everybody that is hollering about voting for trump and trump is a good man, let their daughter or wife spend a night in a hotel with him and see what they say. host: another robert in indianapolis, democrat line. caller: i have a lot to say but when i get on here a lot of times i lose it. thinking about the supreme court and dictatorship, you think we need a supreme court when we have a dictator? the job is not going to be that permanent because when he gets in he will do it my way and we won't need a supreme court. we better think about that before we go and vote. the justices won't have a job. that's what i'm just trying to say. this is bob. that's all. host: robert calling from indianapolis.

the house coming for a pro forma session in about eight minutes. we will take your calls until then. 202-748-8000 democrats, 202-748-8001 republicans, and independents 202-748-8002. this is from new york, james, independent line. caller: yes, is this james? host: this is james, we can hear you. caller: hello, pedro, i know this is a happy day for you on c-span and the rest of the media controlled by the jews -- host: i won't allow that. those kind of statements are going to end you right there. tom in florida, republican line. caller: hello. are we talking about marijuana? host: yeah, we did for an hour earlier on. caller: that's what i wanted to call out for. i used to smoke marijuana and almost got in an accident.

i know my mind was somewhere else when i almost pulled out in front of a car and got into a wreck. if we legalize marijuana, these beer drinkers, you are going to have guys going down the road drunk and smoking a doobie and we are going to have a lot more accidents if we legalize marijuana. host: several states have gone that route. florida is considering it this year. where do you think your state stands on it? caller: oh i don't know. more and more people are in favor of legalizing marijuana but they don't think about the accidents it causes. i worked for this one guy. he just wanted me to drive his truck because he was legally blind. the first day he picks me up and i said, don't you want me to drive? he said, i will drive. he is going down the road smoking a doobie with a beer between his legs and he is

legally blind. we are going to have a lot more traffic accidents if we legalize pot. host: alan is next in new york, independent line. caller: are you talking to me? host: yes i am. caller: i have two things to say, actually three. we will get to what this gentleman was just saying. pot is stronger than it was. they purposely made hybrids. if you are in the car with a guy with a beer between his legs, called the police or get out, don't stay there. second, there was a gentleman talking about this woman who is insane from congress. i don't even can remember her name because she is out of her mind and doesn't know what she's talking about. the next thing happens to be the

ex president who is a crook and has been for years. he has done horrible things and people no way, from new jersey to florida. he grew up in that world and he enjoys it. we are only the people. the supreme court has a responsibility to the people of this country, not to the politicians. are they doing their job? everyone can call that on their own. what was it you actually wanted a question about? host: open forum so anything is up for grabs. we will go on to misty in clearwater, florida, democrats line. caller: my name is misty, they usually call me the illusion.

i call it the confusion. i am calling about the marijuana issue in florida. i heard the guy earlier talking about how people drive down the street with beer and smoking duties. -- smoking doobies. can americans take some accountability? the natives grew marijuana, used it as a medical device to help them, and they sustained themselves until we took it away from them. allow us, the consumer, to grow our own marijuana. you won't have to worry about potency because we will be growing it as we grow other herbs. the problem is the corporations now know that it is a medical substance. they also know we like it recreationally so they are going to capitalize on it. although you have african-american men selling marijuana for centuries and now they are in prison forever, but

now we allow these corporations to do it. allow us, the consumer, to grow it ourselves and we won't have this problem. host: the washington post reporting about new information from the fda concerning bird flu when it comes to milk supplies, saying regulators announced yesterday that the testing of dairy products sold in grocery stores showed pasteurization killed a strain of bird flu. the finding reaffirms the assessment that the milk supply is safe even as the disease has been spreading among dairy cattle. that is the washington post. the house of representatives coming for the pro forma session shortly. bill in florida, republican line. caller: hello? host: bill in florida, hello. caller: i would like to start by saying when joe biden took office and we left all the weapons in afghanistan, now we

got to buy weapons for ukraine. why don't we take those weapons and give them to ukraine? the general who left those weapons ought to be court-martialed. as far as everything else, biden record speaks for itself. we got 58% rise in crime, people coming across the border. if you look at the world, we have an ocean on either side of us. we need to protect the south america-north america border. we have people coming from all over the world. we have people coming to canada from all over the world. there is no border security at all. crime is rampant and these people are not being vetted. we are letting criminals in. they are selling fentanyl to indian reservations out west and nobody is doing nothing about it. host: leticia in louisiana, independent line, about a minute

left before we go to the house. caller: i just wanted to say people, please don't be fooled. this marjorie trader hater greene saying this all is orchestrated by trump. he wants mike johnson out because mike johnson isn't doing anything to try to get these court cases off of his butt. he wants all that to go away. mike johnson, i think he would do it because he is a maggot, he would do it. the news reporter asked him the other day, how does he feel about mike johnson? do he want mike johnson to leave? he said no, mike johnson is good. he is lying, he wants mike johnson gone because everybody in the republican line falls in line with what donald trump said. marjorie trader hater