me. >> host: let me say up front this is your personal story as well as the work or the result of your work in science. by the heart and soul of it i would say can and hope if i'm wrong to tell me i'm wrong, is that you were saying, you know what, i think you estimate there are 20 plus million americans who do illegal drugs. >> guest: i don't estimate. the national government conducts a survey every year, and this is been known for some time. there's 20 plus million americans who use drugs on the record basis. >> host: and then you also say that over the generations, over time, people have always used drugs. >> guest: people have always used drugs and people always will use drugs. that's effective birds fly and then get high. >> host: i didn't know that one. but your point in writing this book as a scientist is that given these realities, the impact that drugs have on social policy, on race, on our culture and is oftentimes distorted by lack of evidence-based thinking. that is a people rely on anecdotes or on fears rather than on the facts. so is that the heart and soul of this book? has been it's the heart and soul of the book. one things that up and coming from you is drugs have been used as scapegoats. whenever our social problems and so forth, we use drugs as scapegoats. the problem for me is that people who look like me are often scapegoated more so than other folks, and as a scientist who knows the facts about drugs, that's very disturbing. >> host: okay. i would think as a black person it would be very disturbing. >> guest: that's exactly what any. >> host: let's stop for a second then and try to understand something that is race related industry card, which you say is just an outrage, which is the fact that when you look at something-1980s and crack cocaine use, you say people identified as at a black committee problem. but, in fact, more whites used crack than blacks. and similarly, more blacks went to jail, arrested for crack use, than whites even though more whites were using the drug. how do you explain that? >> guest: i explain it by, it's kind of simple. the short answer is racism. and this isn't new. when i say racism i mean that what we do is we put our police resources and committees of colors, black communities, and you can easily get people, catch people doing something illegal. no matter what, i drive my car, for example, i sometimes passed the speed limit. that's an illegal activity. now, if they want they can give me a ticket. but that doesn't happen because the resources are not where i'm at most of the time. i hang out on the upper west side. but if you want to catch people doing crimes, you put your police resources in those communities. that's what's happened. this isn't new but one of the things, like the crack cocaine thing, it's important to know that in the early 1900s cocaine was used by a wide number of americans. it wasn't coca-cola for example. it was in a number of products. now, there was concern to black people started to use cocaine. for example, "the new york times" wrote an article in 1914 about black folks being new southern miss but black cocaine seen as being a new seven minutes, and the way that cocaine was talked about or black people being under the influence was taught, under the influence of cocaine was talked about it cause them to be more murderous. it cause them to rape white women to it cause them to be unaffected by bullets. all of this nonsense. this is going on then and it's going on now. although the language has been tempered, but drugs are such easy scapegoats because most of the population don't use drugs. you can't say these things about alcohol. even though alcohol is pharmacologically active and just like any other drug like cocaine and the rest of these things, but you can't say he's crazy things about alcohol because many people drink alcohol and they know the effects of our goal. fewer people use cocaine and so you can tell these incredible stories about cocaine. >> host: but you think that it's still the case today that you could credibly, c-span anywhere else, but so you're not here and say oh, yeah, people who use cocaine gained supreme strength, or as that "new york times" article said, if you shoot me and my late i will feel, i think everyone would say you're crazy. >> guest: was go back a couple years ago. there was an incident in miami where the second i think they called him a zombie incident where he chewed off the face of another guy. do you recall that? and originally and said, the report was that the person was on bath salts, a new drug. so whenever there's a new drug or new form of drug, you can see these incredible stories about the drug can be believed. and certainly it was believed that bath salts caused this guy to choose this guys face off. now, when the toxicology, which had to see was was in this person's system, there was a vassal to do anything in the person system with marijuana. enough that marijuana was even in the system, not to get recently smoked marijuana. we just know that marijuana was in his system. now, so with crack cocaine, the things that we said about crack cocaine in the 1980s, we said that it cause this incredible amount of violence. now, we couldn't have said that about powder cocaine. we could have said that about powder cocaine because the number of americans were using powder cocaine, particularly americans who were middle-class. and so we had to have a new route smoking it, not powder cocaine but the crack cocaine caused these incredible effects. and we believed it as a country. in part because we got was something he. when if fact they are the same drug. >> host: you were saying something to oftentimes leads to this kind of hysterically actions? >> but there is anything new to you on any new drugs on the scene. that's just a myth for the most part. many of these drugs have been with us for ever. >> i hear about new drugs, club drugs. i love all the names people take and there are more chemical compounds i believe in marijuana. >> guest: let's just think about. let's think about methamphetamine. people act like that's a new drug. that's been around since the early 1900. we think about ecstasy, one of the club drugs in the early 2000 people discovered that they thought this was something new. it was an. it's been with us since 1912. so many of these have been with us, it's just that they get a new group of users and then with a new group of users is a group that we despise, that's a recipe for the hysteria that we see. >> host: let's come back to i think the point of it which is lots of americans use illegal drugs. and your argument is not for drug legalization. by the way, among the americans you point out good use illegal drugs, president obama, president bush, george h. w. bush, and also bill clinton. and you say these are people who have acknowledged drug use but have gone on to do great things. and you point out as you just did that they weren't caught up in the network of police arrest, that can oftentimes derail success in america. now, when you look at the use of illegal drugs, and your point, again, not for legalization%, but for education. can you talk about the idea that people should know what's in a psychoactive drug before they get involved? and one of your arguments that i thought with us and is most people use the legal drugs are not addicts, by your definition doesn't interfere with parenting, with work or with relationships. i think most americans, if they heard this they would say but, dr. hart, you're taking away all of the hype and fear that we want our children to hear, that it might be better to say to children, don't do drugs. even if your argument is true, there are people who do illegal drugs and don't suffer consequences. wifebeating it better given what you said about the police and networks and the crime that is attached? why wouldn't you say, it's better to say decades, don't do drugs? >> guest: well, for one i'm a professor, right? so one of the things that i think is more important is to teach people how to think. and so when you say don't do drugs, or just say no, there's no sort of thinking going on there. now, if you have a curious kid, what you would hope you would have, your kid will be curious to find out for themselves but and so my issue is that why not give the kid the proper education? so if they choose to indulge, many will not, but if they do choose to indulge, they will be safe. that's number one. so i enjoyed myself but i have a 12 year-old an 18 year-old and a 30 euro. but my 12 and 18 euros, there in that age group where you worry. but my kids, i worry far more about the environment which we created, the history but because that environment allows police officers to look at my kids like they fit the description of a drug user. and so i fear that interaction with my kids interaction with the police a hell of a lot more than a good interaction from my kid with drugs. because i can teach them about drugs because i know that drug effects are predictable. but his interaction with black boys and police, that's not predictable. >> host: but both could be avoided by avoiding drug use. >> guest: certainly. and my kids might avoid but the point is is that there are kids who won't. and so if they do not avoid it, at least you're keeping them safe by having them have the education, giving them the correct information. not only that, not on teaching them about drugs which are teaching them how to think critically. are teaching them how to evaluate information. that's what we valley. that's what i got as a professor. >> host: you talked about legalization people to think i want to make clear is that yeah, i'm not encouraging legalization. i am for decriminalization. decriminalization is like this but what you did is the drugs are still illegal, but when people are caught, instead of having a criminal record, they receive a civil fine just like they would it have a driving violation. in that way you get rid of this notion or this impact on their futures. if they get caught they don't have a criminal record, they can go on, they can get a job. they can maybe become president. but as long as we these things illegal, that is less likely. >> host: so, in this book you talk about your own expenses. and to talk about smoking marijuana and doing cocaine. and look at you, you become extraordinarily successful by any measure. and you say, again, that most drug users are not going to be involved in crime, although you say addiction and crime are related. you say that most drug users are not going to get involved with criminal activity. most have jobs. you say most have full-time jobs. so what's the difference then, if you're talking to your son, not to me, you say, what's the difference between the smart way to use illegal drugs and a dumb way? >> guest: so one of the things that you have to do come and people are using illegal drugs, or any drugs, even drugs from the physician, they should know what the effects are. for example, if you take an amphetamine, one thing is good at doing is keeping you awake. now, sleep is a central sort of function for human behavior and physiology. if your sleep is disrupted too much, you can have all kinds of problems, psychological problems, health problems, a wide range of disorders have been associated with sleep disruption. you want to make sure every taking amphetamines yet taking it near bedtime but if you take amphetamine you want to make sure you're getting the proper amount of sleep, that's when. ever think about something like everyone, one of the things that we has failed as a country is to properly educate people about say, heroin overdose. the country thinks that it's relatively easy to od from heroin. that's just not true. is not supported by evidence that the problem becomes when heroin is mixed with another sedative, like alcohol. so 75% of the heroin overdose deaths occur in combination with something like alcohol. now, given that that's the case, the public health message is clear. don't use heroin in combination with another sedative. if you just simply blasted that message out to the public, we could save a number of lives, and we have and. so that's another story. let's think about other drug. let's think about cocaine. one of the things that we know is that cocaine is cut off and with these, cut with a drug with an annual -- with side effects is that it decreases white blood cells but that means that it decreases the body's ability to fight off infection. people can get sick and extreme cases die. so given that that's the case and what to make sure people understand that, hey, if you're using cocaine, a large percentage of it nowadays is cut. you might want to stay away from that. that should be one of those, stay away from the cocaine on the street because of what he is being cut with you or you might want to want to do is think it would. because they are often many cases more problematic than actual drug itself. but the public health message isn't getting out there with the real problems are, instead we're too busy trying to fill five are typical drugs, cocaine, heroin, marijuana, as opposed to making sure that we educate. >> host: well, i think that, again, we've gone back to this idea to nancy reagan words come to, just say no to drugs, or the war on drugs but to point out in the book is simply more than 3000% increase in the amount of spending on the war on drugs between 1970-2011, with very little consequence in terms of depressing to use of marijuana, heroin or cocaine. so by that measure not much difference. but again, from a parent's point of view, i really want my children to take the risk and say well, you know, don't use this drug withou with a drug orw that this drug is cut with this question really want to educate them in this way if there's the risk that a mic and say to them while you know what? is okay to use drugs? >> guest: if your parenting, focused around on drug education, you're in trouble as a parent. you should educating your kids about responsibility, about the future, about a wide range of things. if your parenting is focus on drug use, you already in trouble. my parenting rarely focus on drug use but my parenting is making sure that my kids get into the proper cause. make sure that they understand responsibility to make sure that they know how to write and communicate. those sorts of things but if your parenting is focus on drugs, you're in trouble. because all of these things that i just described, that is the best drug prevention. not this whole just say no sort of thing. and if the kids come if they are curious and want to know about drugs, teach it. because if they do in college, they will at least be safe because we know, i mean, my research myself, my research, in my research i've given over 2000 doses of these drugs but so i know these drugs can be given safely and i know they administered safely. i mean, you don't have to look at my research. you can ask americans. asked the guy in the white house to ask the guy before. asked the guy before him. if we think about even president kennedy, he used amphetamines. throughout his administration city. we reviewing the we think he is my contribution to so this notion of drugs being so dangerous, it's misguided and it's very limited, that focus. >> host: is a possible people who are like weekend users of heroin or cocaine, and you say this doesn't message of into fear with their ambition, with their discipline. is that right? it seems to me almost counterintuitive that if someone is using such strong psychoactive drugs, that they are a fully functioning member of the community gets back when we say strong psychoactive drugs, one of the strongest is nicotine but we don't make that statement that you may. switches requires a small amount of nicotine to have its effect. i think every secret there's like one milligram. one milligram of cocaine wouldn't do anything. so the notion that these drugs are strong, that's a myth. >> host: it's a myth. so you think that we talk about our call and tobacco, that they may be more deleterious to my well being than cocaine or heroin? >> guest: certainly. the thing that we have to understand is that with education we can enhance the positive effects of all of these drugs, including alcohol, including cocaine, including heroin. and with education we can decrease the negative effects. so the first thing we have to understand is that yes, there are people who can use cocaine on the weekends. hare went on the weekend, go to work and pay their taxes. the question that you asked about heroin and cocaine, just think about asking the same question for alcohol. are the people who can drink alcohol on the weekend and then go to work on monday and be responsible as individuals? not yet -- not yes, but hell yes. the same is true. >> host: even though in the american public's mind those two drugs are far more powerful? >> guest: yes. the things that are in the american public's mind, sometimes are not right, to be nice. the public as i said has just been miseducated about drugs. >> host: here we are in hoosier book, again the book is called "high price: a neuroscientist's journey of self-discovery that challenges everything you know about drugs and society." tell us, what would you say? here you are. you have this platform on c-span. what is it that we should know? >> guest: what we were talking about what we should know, i mean, a notion that drugs that most of the people who use drugs for example, are addicted, just nonot too. mostly people use drugs, they do so, they go to work. if you're going to use any drugs, you should understand that you should respect the fact that they have powerful, potentially powerful psychoactive substances. if you don't use drugs with that respect, you run the risk of getting in trouble. so if you know about the effects of the drugs that you're taking, then you increase the likelihood that you'll be safe. >> host: where to go for such information transferred my book for one. there is can one of the things we think that in a, then it contains a lot of information. there is no quality control. that's a major concern. there are other books that have been written on this subject, like we talked about earlier. i have a textbook on the subject in which we talked mainly about the biological effects of the drugs on peoples behavior, on people. those kind of books are very dry, and the public gets bored. so i think this book, "high price," is a start. >> host: just explain can for the viewer, this book is not a textbook in any way. it's largely your personal story. and then talking of drug use in your life, and then about your research in combination. so we were taught about drug use, for example, you mentioned that you've done cocaine and done over the tatanka i think you said you're doing it like twice a month with a girlfriend, but it's not the case if you ran out of cocaine, you felt any compunction to go get more or you are somehow unable to function because you're using cocaine. instead, you talk about larger motivational forces in your life. your desire to succeed, your desire to earn money, your desire to have a lover. that these were other forces. so let's transfer that now to the lab. you are working with rats. working with rats to use it in this book can you've got to take rats out of his cage to isolate and fiber composite in a more social environment, and then you see that they make choices about drug use that doesn't lead them to kill themselves by constantly pushing the lever. so what you're saying to americans is, you have to see drugs as part of a normal life? >> guest: so when we think about the lab, many of us have heard about the stories where if you allow an animal to self administer a drug like cocaine, it will do so until they kill themselves. but many of us have heard that, but what we do here is that those rats or those animals were so isolated, the only thing that they could do was take cocaine. and certainly if your life consisted of you being in his cage and the only thing available is cocaine, that's what you'll do. now, if you put another animal in the cage, for example, an animal of the opposite sex, cocaine is no longer as attractive but if you put sweetwater in the cage, cocaine is no longer attractive. if you put a running wheel and the cage, cocaine is a longer attractive. so we have these alternatives in our lives, and many of us do, it decreases the impact or the attractiveness of cocaine, or other drugs. and we know this as parents, as citizens. we all know this. if we have jobs we know that we have to go to our jobs in order to get some respect, the regard and all the rest of these things. because if we don't then we have nothing. and so sometimes drug use interferes with your ability to do your job, to get the positive regard and these sorts of things. so the cocaine may have to go. that certainly was the case in my life. >> host: tell us. >> guest: tell us about -- with cocaine as you pointed out, it was just something i was experiment in with, with a girlfriend. that was fine but it didn't interfere with my work. i had a job at something like ups but they didn't interfere with my work, but if it had i wouldn't have done. because i know i was going somewhere, i had a future. and and i wanted to go somewhere else. because they knew that if cocaine would have disrupted my ability to make money in that situation, i would no longer have a girlfriend. >> host: hold on. this is an interesting point to let's say ubs had a drug testing policy, and that would've cost you your job. and all you felt you were doing was experimenting with a girlfriend. but, in fact, it had this higher consequence for your future. much as we were talking about young men, especially young black men, marijuana, crack, whatever, high rates of arrest than once, even if whites do more of the drug. but it has this terrible consequence for their future. so in terms of public policy, are you against drug testing try to guess. i'm against drug testing the fifth amendment, i'm against drug testing. i think drug testing conference welcome it tells you nothing about the level of intoxication of a person at the moment. so the thing that we are concerned about, particularly in some sensitive jobs, we don't want people to be intoxicated on those jobs. the best way to see if someone is intoxicated is to look at their behavior, not the urine. because their urine osha absolute nothing. for example, if you had a beer or alcohol in the past couple days or so, i contest your sweat and see whether or not you have alcohol metabolites, but it tells nothing about your ability to conduct this interview. cops and nothing. that's essentially what we can with drug testing. so someone could have smoked marijuana a week ago, test their urine, their positive. tells us nothing about their behavior currently. >> host: how would you can determine if i was a pilot or a driver of the vehicle or, even a schoolteacher, how do you determine if this person is, in fact, abusing drugs or it is anything with a capacity to perform the function your paint them to perform? >> guest: you watch the performance, just like when you're on tv or you write your books, you look at her performance. pay-for-performance is not up to par, you don't keep your job. it's kind of simple. the thing with drug testing, it provides this false sense of security like you're doing something. when, in fact, you're not. it tells you nothing about the area of interest. i want to make sure people are performed at that they're doing their job. but drug testing doesn't tell you anything about that. >> host: one of the interesting points that you make in the book in response to my argument about, well, shouldn't we just tell kids don't do drugs, you say when you say that to a child, a child who is curious and tries drugs, and then says, well, my dad lied to me because i do drugs and it did make me go crazy and it doesn't ruin my performance in school. so the question then becomes one of honesty. if you want a child to be able to believe you, okay but at the same time the child they think i'm okay, but maybe as you are concerned about when you were a young person, if, in fact, it decreases the level of your performance whether it's on the basketball court or in a classroom. how do you deal with that problem? >> guest: so if a child is using drugs -- >> host: basic i feel fine. the next giunta okay. but a fact which is the child gets up later. not interested in school, not performing as well as school. how do you respond? >> guest: you respond as a pair to obviously. that is your job and your child is not handling his or her responsibilities, there should be consequences to the. that's what we do as parents. whether the child is not handling the responsibility as a result of drugs or as a result of some of the behavior or activity, there are consequences. it's kind of simple. drugs are not special in that way. .. >> go to this area where the young kids are in new york city. there are not any young kids there. we know that. >> host: again, everything you know about society by doctor karl barth. the book is called "high price." now, you saw your sister get shot, and this is drug-related. you understand the consequences that come from those who think that they can handle drugs. is not contradictory to what you're saying? >> guest: that was an adolescent beef. but the white guy being shot, he was simply there to buy some marijuana. but that there was an incident that happened earlier in the day between some other white guys in the black guys in my neighborhood. so this guy just happened to be buying marijuana in the neighborhood. the major problem here is that it would be race. that is the issue. that is the racial tension of the area in 1980. >> host: of course it leads to the shooting of your sister. drugs and seem to be part of this. this emphasizes the larger social structure and attentions, poverty ,-com,-com ma the abandonment, all of these issues when drugs come into it. they connect in terms of a catalyst. >> guest: or they can exacerbate problems. certainly. >> host: is that where you came up with your phrase? >> guest: yes, nancy reagan's phrase, just say no to drugs. >> host: and then they don't have to worry so much about the consequences of the environment we have set up by just saying no. >> guest: you act as if the drug itself is causing the problem. police forces play a part in this. but the people that were paying the consequences are the people built like you and me primarily. so no, i cannot accept that as a black person, as an educated black person. and as a teacher from, it is not consistent with teaching people. >> host: people are curious and they will try things. >> guest: they will curious they will try things. >> host: so if you are a white person it might make sense to say no to drugs, bye-bye do not make sense as a black person? >> guest: my point is that that single approach, if you take that and you can be done with it, when you take that single approach, their other actions that occur. this is all i was suggesting is that it's the stereotypical beliefs. but no, i am not suggesting this >> host: in this he referred to nicotine, cigarettes, alcohol and drugs. >> guest: yes, yes. >> host: we don't have much discussion about it in this book. but the question occurs. so what would you tell somebody, given there are so many americans who smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, heroin committee put it together. what would you say then about the intelligence and the use of them? >> guest: it has been associated, moderate drinking, with improvement of health, moderate drinking. decreased heart rate. there are effects of alcohol. it is when people overindulge, that is when they get in trouble. every society needs some intoxicants. if you tried to ban alcohol, good luck. because every society needs an intoxicant. >> host: we did try that. and we no longer have that. >> guest: in terms of tobacco, it also has some positive effects. enhances memory and alertness and keeps the weight off for some folks. so that product is -- that's a little bit more problematic for me because of the potential for cancers and those sorts of things. but we still have to be mindful about the vast majority of people who smoke tobacco cigarettes. they do not get cancer, they don't get those awful diseases. so i don't want to be crazy about that either. i just want people to understand that there are potential consequences, and there are benefits. people make these calculations where they weigh the risk-benefit ratio. whether it's living in new york city or elsewhere. we make these decisions all the time. >> host: so you seem to be counseling moderation in knowing what you're doing. >> guest: yes,. >> host: is that a similar what we have deemed to be illegal drugs, marijuana, heroin, cocaine? >> guest: that is a difficult question. on one hand it is illegal activities. so the short answer is absolutely. if you're going to be using these drugs, know what they're doing to you. now, this is a different conversation we have been having in the country about drugs. when we talk about drugs, we are cognitively adolescent in this country. especially when we talk about drugs. a make sure that we treat people like they are intellectual adults. that's how we need to have a conversation. so yes, if people are going to use those drugs, know what they do. they should also know about the dose, the amount of drug you are using, the amount of drugs that you use, how to function with moderation, negative effects, all of these drugs have side effects. they should know everything about the bill. if they do their research, no only will they be improving their skills in this area, but they will also be improving their critical thinking skills. >> host: which is, as you say, an absolute requirement for them. so when you are looking at this, which would you say is the most interesting dangerous? >> guest: wow, it all depends. for example, if you are an older person and you have cardiovascular blood pressure issues, you probably want to stay away from the amphetamines or those types of drugs. so it really depends on who you're talking about and what conditions we are talking about. there are a number of young people in the country before taking amphetamines for attention deficit attention deficit disorder up with a number of people are doing so safely so we would not encourage older people to take that same drug. so what might be safe from one group may not be safe for another group. >> guest: so it doesn't interfere with parenting or work or relationships it is also the definition from the american psychiatric association. >> host: when we are talking about addiction and people who become addicted, can you give me a description of who is at risk and why they are at risk? >> that's a difficult one. when we think about addiction, one of the things that americans have done that is inappropriate when they think about addiction, we act as if the drug itself is special. it has less to do the pharmacology of the drug. it has a lot to do with whether or not people are functionifunctioni ng as a society, whether they are responsible, a wide range of social factors play an important role. what we have done is paid less attention to those things. because it is less sexy to talk about the fact that this person was irresponsible before they started using drugs. this person was overindulging and wide range of behavior before drugs. so instead, what we have chosen to focus on is the biology of the individual. can we tell if someone is addicted by looking at their brain. there is no evidence that would suggest the sort of thing. but that has a disproportionate amount of attention rather than the things that we know of. let's look at the person's environment. let's look at this as a person. >> okay, so if you are dealing with an attic, let's not simply in prison or punish the person, but let's look at how we can restructure the environment. i think in the book you talk about a drug user and the setting in which the drugs are used. here we are talking about the terms of trying to conduct mediation fanatic and we are saying look at the larger society, look at that for the individual. >> guest: that is right. >> host: you can give them good parents are a good school, they are highly frustrated, they're not succeeding in the workforce. what you do that person who finds that they indulge in drugs to the point of addiction? >> guest: we can't control everyone's environment. we have to decide as a society, and i believe that we have decided as a society, we just prefer to lock them up. that situation is one that we have made. how about we see we can give the person some job skills. how about we see if we can give the person some sort of responsibility so they feel better about themselves. doing these kinds of things, at least we will be trying to sell. they are contributing to the society. >> host: when we talk about our policy in the united states there is a number of states that are legalizing marijuana. a debate about whether it should be nationally legalized. what possession do you as a neuroscientist have on marijuana legalization? >> guest: there only two states, washington and colorado that have demonstrated is important to understand something. how i feel about marijuana legalization were legalization in general, i think that we should decriminalize all drugs first. because we need to have a corresponding amount of education goes along with that before we make these things more widely available. without corresponding education, i would predict that we are setting ourselves up for more problems. so if we're ultimately going to legalize, and society -- i'm not saying that society should not, but what we need to do is increase our education. that means that we need to stop having police officers provide drug education or politicians provide drug education. we need to make sure that when people talk about drugs that they can ask the question about the facts and the information. >> host: so you're saying that you don't want the politicians and the police talking about drug use and saying their drug educators for the one that scientists talking about it as drug educators. >> guest: i don't know if i really want all of the scientists. they have a narrow focus on what they do. what i want, i want the public. i want people to be able to say to these folks that the information you are going to me has foundations in evidence. not an anecdote of evidence. >> host: i did understand what you said. >> that is something different like drug legalization. >> we are worried about this, right? >> host: i think there are people who want to use marijuana without fear. >> okay, so the fear that is pushing this is the large numbers of marijuana arrests and racial disparity. for example, there's a new report that just came out today about the aclu and they show nationwide the black people are four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana even though they used a drug at the same rate as white folks. so much of this is being racial disparity. i'm saying that even though that is the case, the the states in which their are large populations of black people, there are no movements. i don't think that will happen in states where there are large numbers of black people. >> and there is something missing here. for example, most of the states that you're talking that are in the southern part of the country, overwhelmingly dominated on the national level by conservative politicians who are less likely to be open to the idea of drug legalization. so are you suggesting is black politicians? >> guest: no, no, no. the point is that i have a prediction in the states that because white people are afraid that blacks would get intoxicated enact that. -- actually, you know, i just don't know. i don't know that plane. let's move on. >> host: do you support or oppose marijuana legalization is we are seeing in washington state and colorado? >> guest: i support whatever the voters vote for. i think it's a good move by the state and colorado and washington and i'm so happy to see that they are pushing the envelope postmarked he said what you are in favor of is the decriminalization. >> i am saying that i support the voters and i am happy they pushed the envelope. if you ask me what you think we should do as a country, i think we should legalize drugs, that is different. but i support washington and colorado. >> but this is a movement to legalize the use of cocaine. would you feel the same way? >> yes, i would. but i would encourage the american people to please get some proper education on these drugs. >> host: okay. when you hear about public instances and like the celebrated case of trayvon martin down in florida. there is an argument there about a young man, i think he is 15 or 16 when he died, he had used some marijuana, should it be allowed into the court proceedings when it comes to evaluating who he was? >> guest: this goes back to the early articles written about the negro culture. so one of the reasons that the defense is so adamant about the drug use history is because they are playing on the perceptions of drug users. perceptions, by the way, they are wrong. they are wanted people to see trayvon martin is less than human and then they conjure up images that are incorrect. it infuriates me. it infuriates me that this becomes an issue. >> host: especially for young men of color. >> guest: yes, a young black man. >> host: if you think he was with keynote have less damage? >> guest: no, it is not that. it's just that the conspicuous characteristic is race. whether they are black. latino is a misnomer. a black latino. it's the cutest character is race and not so much what they speak. you understand what i'm saying? >> host: okay, okay. you think it's color, but it's black. >> guest: yes, i think that is important. all of those things, they play into this. honestly new york city we arrest a lot of hispanic and black folks. >> i must need is to be specific about trayvon martin, who is black. you can talk about this, there was an individual who is killed because he was black because he thought that he had marijuana on him. so i'm just asking you to be specific. like a person of color. it's okay, but we are talking about trayvon martin. >> host: in the history of the united states, do you think about the chinese being caricatured as open users and preys on drugs. right? and you think about the latino community, cocaine, but it is sort of, you know, completely ruining that community where they are selling it or something >> host: you can even think of scarface the movie. >> guest: when we think about things like scarface, we didn't pass any laws as a result of that. in the 1980s maigret -- we did pass laws about crack and cocaine only saw the images of black people. scarface was a cuban immigrant they came here. in the 1980s there was no new laws. >> your argument is so many laws are directed against black people. >> guest: it's only my argument. but the evidence is there. >> when you talk about the despair is disparity in sentencing about crack cocaine, again, the point being that i'm going to try to hold to your part of this, it is not just poor people that black people versus powder cocaine use by white people. >> guest: so why people use more than black people. that is a fact. but there is a conception that black people were using crack cocaine at greater rates. so the perception drove law-enforcement efforts and where they were placed. >> host: going back to your argument, if you are introducing cocaine at a law firm among people who have prominent status, family income, versus you are introducing it into a community where there is large-scale dysfunction in terms of poverty, racism, oppression. i could go on and on. it seems to me that there is going to be a different result. >> guest: yes. absolutely. we talked about this earlier. were drugs or any other of the legal activity can exacerbate the problems he just mentioned. >> host: by the sake of the society that you are wrong to try to crack down and what will have a more devastating impact. >> guest: i would say you are wrong to crack down in terms of policy. singling out drugs, like drugs is the reason for the problems. well, they are probably less of a problem than employment and education and all these other things. >> host: let me argue with you on this. i know living here in washington dc in the black community, if you have suddenly, you know, people popping up in crack houses in the community, it depresses the value of real estate it makes the community less attractive and suddenly this is how you see that community in this way. maybe i should move on. but those are very negative effects and so i would rather not see drugs come into my community full-scale. >> guest: but who would? that would not happen. that's not what we want. that is not what i think. >> host: in terms of social policy, he said that it shouldn't be directed at the poor black neighborhoods. and i am saying that i think that they are more vulnerable. when you get drug dealers trying to plant their flags in those communities may become the most prominent personalities. >> guest: if you make sure that people have jobs and people have meaningful employment, drug village not most prominent people in the community. >> host: but if you go into poor black neighborhoods, there is a number of jobs and economic opportunity and then there are things like drugs as well. >> guest: i think that is overly simplistic or you just characterize the mess. but when you say that we still have to do our job as police officers, we still have to do all that stuff. make sure the people are not breaking the law. you still do that. the consequences of getting people shouldn't be so dire that their lives are ruined in this way. all this undercover activity that we do, we don't need that. dc police officer, you slow down. as opposed to something else. so you have police officers do their jobs. when you make sure that people have an opportunity for meaningful employment. >> host: but what i am saying to you is if you are a drug dealer and you are looking for vulnerable populations to exploit drugs to, you are looking for places where you can establish dominance, i would think that you would go to a vulnerable or poor community to do that. >> guest: this whole thing is a myth. that is not always help works. we thought these kids, my friends, me included, i thought that they were making all of this money. this notion that they are the most appealing folks in the community. they are only appealing if there is no other alternative that is more attractive. >> host: that is true. they have the most money, the one that is providing us. >> guest: point is that those communities have no money. so drug dealers cannot survive this in that way. >> host: they are looking for something. they feel at times they have been marginalized. >> guest: i assure you that there are white folks that are eyeing those drugs. and that is where they are. you don't see the drive-by shootings, the kind of drug dealer rivalries even though there is tremendous activity in those communities. >> guest: in the early '80s we certainly did in miami. >> host: in white communities? >> guest: well, it extended beyond the black communities. you raise the scarface example or sell. what i'm saying is that i think most of these incidents took place in poor black communities. >> guest: particularly when the markets are new. new markets, that settles down and you don't see this sort of thing anymore. but i think that's a minor sort of issue. >> host: do you? >> guest: i don't want to downplay the fact that people are being killed. obviously that is awful. but i think that that has been the sole point on one of the major points driving what we do with drug policy. >> host: the book is called "high price" a journey of self-discovery and it challenges everything you know. our guest has been dr. carl hart. he is not only an author, but he is an associate professor of psychology at cornell university and a member of the national advisory council on drug abuse rate a board member of the college on problems of drug dependency. he has some 22 years of research in neuropsychopharmacology and dr. carl hart, it has been a real pleasure to learn about you. this is a large part autobiography as well as about drugs in society and race. thank you for coming on the show. >> guest: thank you for having