edition of "washington journal." ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] natalie andrews previous the week ahead in congress. and the group good party discusses the organization's role in supporting nonpartisan and third-party candidates. c-span's "washington journal." join in the conversation live at 7:00 eastern on monday morning on c-span, c-span now or online at c-span.org.

♪ host: good morning. sunday, may 5, 2024. the u.s. deferment of justice is discussing a change to shift

marijuana from any schedule one drug to a schedule 13 schedule -- schedule three drug. do you think marijuana should be legalized? if yes, call (202) 748-8000. if no, call (202) 748-8001. if you are not sure, call (202) 748-8002. if you would like to text us, that number is (202) 748-8003. you can also reach us on social media at facebook.com/c-span and on x @cspanwj. please be sure to include your name and where you are writing in from. this story was covered on all the major news organizations. here is a story about it saying the biden administration aims to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug. the biden administration is seeking to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug, and

historic move that can make it much easier to buy and sell pot and make the multibillion-dollar industry more profitable. attorney general merrick garland on tuesday submitted a proposal for white house review that would remove marijuana out of the government's most restrictive drug classification. marijuana has been designated as a schedule one drug since 1970 alongside lsd and heroin. a justice department sports woman -- spokeswoman said it would down good marijuana to schedule three, making it obtainable with a prescription. and that proposed change comes after president biden in 2022 pardoned thousands of people convicted of marijuana possession under federal law and called upon federal regulators to review whether the drug should be reclassified, saying it does not make sense the government controls pot more tightly than cocaine or fentanyl. last week on "washington journal ," kevin of the anti-legalization group as well

as paul of the national organization for the reform of marijuana laws spoke about this here on "washington journal," discussing those dea plans to reclassify marijuana as a lower risk drug. here is paul explaining why he thinks that the dea decision was a wise one. [video clip] >> this opinion by the dea represents an about-face for an agency that historically has maintained a flat earth position when it comes to cannabis. both symbolically and tangibly, it is significant to have the federal government and these agencies in particular for the first time publicly acknowledge what tens of millions of americans have known for decades, and that is that cannabis possesses legitimate therapeutic efficacy and that it does not belong categorized in the same schedule, the same

class as drugs like heroin under the federal law. host: in response to that kevin of the anti-legalization group smart approaches to marijuana explains his opposition to the dea move. [video clip] >> the reality is the reason it is scheduled one is because it has a high risk for -- 3% thc stuff, not that, but up to 99% concentrate, the gummy's muscle does -- the gummies, ice cream. it is not represented. it is not paul i have the issue with. the issue is there is a multibillion dollar industry mimicking big tobacco, commercializing and promoting this across the country and they just want to make money. it is about profit, not public health. what that would do is essentially give tax breaks to the industry.

that is the main thing of schedule three. i think we can agree that it would not legalize marijuana but it will send a message this is less harmful than we once thought, which is actually the opposite. about flat earth, scientists are in unison about what we are saying, that it is much more harmful and much stronger than we once thought. this would give them tax breaks and send a message this is less harmful. and the reality is, and i would like paul's opinion on this to hear his perspective, we might agree on some things, which is this is really political. this was a campaign promise the president made when he was on the campaign trail, saying we will reclassify marijuana. he did not want to say we will legalized it -- legalize it. host: after the dea

announcement, there was a move in congress to introduce new legislation to legalize marijuana. senate democrats introduced legislation to legalize marijuana. senate democrats reintroduced brought legislation on wednesday to legalize cannabis on a federal level, a major policy shift with wide public support, but it is unlikely to be enacted this year ahead of november's election and in a divided government. the bill amounts to a democratic wish list would end the federal prohibition on marijuana by removing it from the controlled substances list. the government currently classifies the drug as among the most dangerous and addictive substances. the legislation would create a new framework regulating cannabis and taxing the burgeoning cannabis industry, expunge certain marijuana related -- and devote federal money to help communities and

individuals affected by the war on drugs. new jersey senator cory booker was part of that coalition reintroducing that legislation and spoke about what it would mean for criminal justice reform. [video clip] >> what is extraordinary is that this enforcement of our marijuana laws does not make americans safer. if anything, it makes us less safe. when you drive large portions of a population into poverty because of those criminal convictions, when you see that our precious law enforcement resources are being used to go after nonviolent marijuana users that in years like 2019 there were more marijuana arrests than all criminal violent crimes combined. you see this is a waste of law enforcement resources that is hurting our communities. our laws do not make sense. just in the last two weeks, i

have talked to people who feel like criminals because they are accessing medical marijuana in places that still don't have that legalized. whether it is people that are using it to fight ptsd or to fight having seizures or even just the only thing they can find to help them have a good night sleep and deal with their insomnia. the hypocrisy to walk around in an institution where colleagues of mine have admitted openly about their marijuana use, and meanwhile, young people in this country, african-americans, latinos cannot get jobs for doing the same things that presidents and senators and congresspeople have done, it is the height of hypocrisy. so i think it is a great step that the biden administration is moving in the direction of not making this a schedule one drug.

certainly, that is outrageous, but honestly, the bill we are reintroducing today is the solution to this long agonizing, hypocritical, frankly unequally enforced set of bad laws. host: once again, we are looking for your opinions this morning on whether or not marijuana should be legalized. our number if you think yes, (202) 748-8000. if no, (202) 748-8001. if you are not sure, (202) 748-8002. and then once again if you want to reach us on social media, we are @cspanwj on or facebook.com/c-span -- on x or facebook.com/c-span. we received a comment on facebook that says, note, the u.s. in particular has a serious -- no, the u.s. in particular has a serious mental health problem and it plays a role.

lou is on the line from highland park, illinois. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am 100 percent against legalizing marijuana. i have seen friends of mine smoke. they all talk slowly, do poorly in school. they can't concentrate. that links marijuana with other drugs. i think it is a disaster. and if you listen to the wording, less dangerous actually means it is dangerous. why don't we come to our senses? we don't need this stuff in our minds interacting with the neurons in our brain. what else can i say? i'm against it. host: ok, thank you for your call. tony on facebook says he believes that marijuana should be -- yes, or at least decriminalized.

i have yet to meet a dangerous pothead. we also heard from derek friday. the better question is, should all the people serving jail time for small amounts marijuana be releasedsa and moses says, take 20 tablets at once and you will end up in the er. while the deffects of marijuana are hunger, sleep, and happiness. therefore, it needs to be legalized. and eugene battle says we is so -- wee isd so mild in comparison to opioid painkillers or alcohol, i don't understand the big deal. all right, and then let's go back to your calls. chris is in georgia and says yes. go ahead, chris. caller: yes, i believe it should be legalized. host: why is that? caller: well, i have pancreatic

problems. it helps me eat. it helps me sleep. it just helps me in all the ways it should. i don't think it should be illegal. host: what are the laws like where you are when it comes to marijuana? caller: well, i live in georgia, and it is illegal. we do have medical. but it is illegal. if you could cut with a small amount, you go to jail -- if you get caught with a small amount, you go to jail. host: thank you, chris. let's now hear from paul from florida on our yes line. caller: it should be legal. i have been using it since the 1980's and never had any problems with it. is not addictive -- it is not addictive like they show on tv. and think about alcohol. how many deaths do we have a day

from people drunk driving? you don't see people using marijuana crashing and speeding and killing people every day. has anyone ever even died from a marijuana overdose? it is ridiculous. it should have been legalized decades ago. it is just silly. host: ok. caller: it is all a political thing. that is all i have to say. host: thank you, paul. next up, george is on our no line from pennsylvania. caller: yes, good morning, thank you. as far as i am concerned, we have already let alcohol out of the bag and we cannot undo that. once lee legalize marijuana, we cannot -- once we legalize marijuana, we cannot undo that. i know someone that was on marijuana and ended up on heavy drugs and shot himself, killed himself. as far as i am concerned, it is

a gateway drug. if we open it up, yes, i am sure there are people that can take it because people that drink alcohol don't have a problem, but pennsylvania for sure as a major opiate problem. your broker, senator booker -- booker, senator booker mentioned enforcing the laws. it will be worse when they have to enforce other drugs, ok. they are robbing places, doing all kinds of things because they need money to buy drugs. i just think it is a bill we should leave un-rung. host: thank you. next up is steve in pennsylvania says yes. go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span. good morning, america. i am a government approved medical doper. i believe that marijuana should

be at the very least decriminalized. it was put in place for political reasons. not for medical reasons. i would also like to talk about this fear of medical marijuana potency. yes, it is a lot more potent than it was back in the 1970's when i smoked it illegally for chronic pain. i still use it for chronic pain. i use very small amounts. it is adult use. that is about all i have to say about it. it is just a political football that should not be there. thank you. host: thank you, steve. i just want to highlight some definitions. steve mentioned at least decriminalization versus legalization. here is a breakdown of those

terms from the aclu. what is drug decriminalization? it is the act of removing criminal sanctions against certain activities including possession of drugs for personal use. the substance is still prohibited generally, but the repercussions are being found -- of being found in possession of the drug are no longer criminal. instead of incarceration, there is a redirection of services. the production and the sale of the drug is illegal. legalization is the act of permitting by law the use of a substance. the term legalization gets used in different ways. generally, it implies some type of legal supply from prescriptions to regulated cannabis shops. people can use the substance without worry of being convicted or fined. limits can still be set on its use. for instance, the law can require you to be a certain age to use the substance, and the

government can still limit the amount a person can carry or possess, such as is the case with prescription drugs. now let's go to alberta in boston, who says no. go ahead, alberta. caller: yes, good morning. this is my first time calling. i am calling because i think it should not be legalized because it can lead to something else like cocaine, crack, all of these different kinds of drugs. and for the children. i have nine grandchildren -- i mean 13 grandchildren, six children. two of them got caught up in drugs, and it started for marijuana. i don't believe in it, first of all. we don't have that type of stuff. we have god in our lives. i think we all need god instead of marijuana. these things that can lead to other things. that is all i have to say. thank you for answering my call. have a great day.

host: thanks for being a first-time caller. randy is in michigan and says yes to legalization. go ahead. caller: yes, this is me. i would just like to say if everybody knew that marijuana was made illegal in 1930 something when we were fighting a war against mexico over money and land, we made it illegal because mexico made money on marijuana. we made money on hemp, and hemp was not worth anything. t we startedhen -- then we started recruiting the churches, and then it became the devil drug. from now on, why can't we start taking hair samples? then we will know if it was a gateway drug, if it is alcohol or pot that drove them to cocaine. so we can take a here simple for people like me and say if there has ever been coke in my system or heroin or any of these drugs and this is a gateway drug. no, it has not been a gateway

drug. the reason why they made it illegal is they knew they could not compete against a pothead for nothing at alcohol. host: ok. i think we got the idea, randy. let's go to steve in maryland, who is not sure. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call, and happy cinco de mayo. i have two points. my first one, i graduated high school in the 1960's. now, even when i was in elementary school, you would see kids in the seventh and eighth grade, fifth grade even meeting and what was called the butthole. i did not smoke cigarettes but the rejection i have with marijuana as opposed alcohol is it is very portable. children, they imitate their parents. and if they see their parents smoking, same thing with cigarettes, they will smoke marijuana. so i have a problem with actually making it -- i know

this argument has been made but the potential is there, and the way we get rid of cigarettes is demonizing it. now it is a pariah in society. to my second part is the libertarian part of me. i see this as a money grab. everybody uses the excuse is a vice like alcohol or tobacco, if you want to make that comparison . as a libertarian, i should be able if i want to smoke, to grow as much marijuana as i want if it is not that dangerous. i should be able to grow 100 parts 100 plants -- 100 pots , 100 plants in my backyard. if it is illegal, grow it like tomatoes, cucumbers, etc. i know that is out there, but these are things to be looked at. that is why i am not sure. as far as decriminalization, i

don't think somebody in their 20's or 30's should be in jail for having marijuana. give them amnesty. i am a republican, but i am with somebody like cory booker who says this is ridiculous. we have these problems in our society. and thank you so much. host: thank you for your call. jessica is in arlington, virginia, and says no. go ahead, jessica. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. a lot of the folks that have called in this morning have made some good points. i am for decriminalization of marijuana. particularly for small amounts. it is ridiculous to do that to people. however, across-the-board -- across the board, i don't think it should be legal for the following reasons. number one, people talked about it being a gateway drug. it is for some people.

not everybody has the inclination to have addiction issues. but a decent number of people do. i had a family member who smoked a lot apart and -- of pot and he moved onto to other things. i am concerned about women that may smoke it and not know they are pregnant. we don't know yet about the impact on the unborn. we are still studying it. host: ok. caller: number three, a lot of the pot that you buying today is very, very, very potent -- buy today is very, very, very potent, not like the pot 30 or 40 years ago. i have heard many stories of people getting very sick from smoking the stuff that is out there now. finally, on a more positive note, i do think we should

approve it medically. host: ok. caller: apparently -- host: we got those points. let's hear from tony in new jersey who says it should be legalized. go ahead, tony. caller: good morning. hey, just want to talk about it being a gateway drug. a lot of people caught up and say it is a gateway drug that leads to these other things. one of the reasons it leads to those other things is because it puts you in the position where you are getting something from someone who is doing something illegal. so they are already on the other seven of the fence. there is not much more of a step for them to bring in coke or math or any -- meth or any of the other stuff and try to sell you that. that is why it is a gateway drug. host: rachel's in amherst, massachusetts. go ahead. caller: i say no to legalization but yes to total repeal of the

legal prohibition of cannabis. i say we have to decriminalize totally. it is not a crime. i say we have to abolish the dea. it was set up almost a century ago on racist basis -- on a racist basis. it is completely unscientific and racist. i say look at the dreher study if you want to know about the effects of marijuana on pregnant women. and one last thing, people get sick because of bad practices in the dispensaries. the dispensaries need to be unionized. if you make it legal again or make it criminal, you continue making a racist criminal class. thank you very much for your time. host: thank you for your call, rachel.

we have a couple more comments we received via text message. donald in centerville, virginia, says i am thinking marijuana is a dangerous dr a will lead young people for improper session and will cause them to take cocaine and other drugs. next up, dave in charlotte, north carolina, says if using marijuana can help our nation chill out and settle our differences ormibly, then let's all light up. tony in florida says, my only concn that the decision to changelaification be made on the siof science and not the politics. most people are unable to make that level of medical decision. thanks for everyone who wrote in via text. click's in oklahoma and is not sure about legalization -- cliff is in oklahoma and is not sure about legalization. go ahead. caller: am i on?

host: yes. what do you think -- yes, what do you think? caller: i think it should be sold as a prescription drug only. that a prescription could be received through your medical doctor with your individual situation, whatever medical problems you have, with a woman that is pregnant that should have it, and it should be only sold at the drugstore from a prescription. more research should be done so that what the effects are and what it is good for and what it is not good for, so that doctors can be better educated on its use. and i guess that is all i have to say. but as far as just being sold willy-nilly everywhere, i don't think it is good. i don't think it is good for individuals, and i don't think it is good for the nation to

have that. host: gene is in taylorville, illinois, and says yes to legalization. go ahead. caller: yes, good morning, c-span. host: morning. caller: ok, it should be legalized. i will make a few points. first just talk about your work. so you get drug tested at a job, you fail a drug test for marijuana, you lose your job, you end up having to go to rehab. you can lose your marriage to your home, everything all because you smoked -- marriage your home everything -- marriage, your home, everything all because you smoked a month ago. the only way could be considered a gateway drug is because it is illegal. you had to go to a drug dealer to get it. once you are at the drug dealer, you would get prompted to -- oh, here, let's try this, let's try

this. that is the only way. if it is legal, it would be in the stores. it would be taken out of the drug dealers' hands. and then you would not have to worry about the gateway part of it because the only way it is going to be a gateway like that is people's addictions. that is the same way with everything. host: ok, thank you. jim is in north dakota and says no to legalization. good morning. caller: yes, hi. good morning. host: good morning. why do you say no? caller: what is great about c-span is the guy from illinois who was just on made an incredibly great point. changed my mind. what is so great about c-span. because i understand what he said about the gateway. when it was legal for me, you are around those kinds of

people. at the end i think he was trying to say that addiction is addictive, not things. if you have a predisposition for addiction genetically, you can be addicted to chocolate, sex, beer, anything. so it is the person, the brain. there is a lot of people like that. with me, i started smoking pot in the late 1970's, early 1980's. it was about $20 for a half ounce, $45 for one ounce. i started off with a little levity and then we'll get to heavy things in a second. one of the reasons i don't like to make it legal was that it was so fun, it was taboo, going on a mission to find it. you meet a lot of losers and weird people. smoked pot that you smoke -- you

smoke pot on the train tracks and get a doughnut and watch people. host: you were saying the previous caller change your mind. do you think it should or should not be legalized today? caller: was being funny about the fun part of it. but to me, it was a gateway into methamphetamine. i grew up outside of philadelphia, and methamphetamine was everywhere in the 1980's, at every party, and every has, working-class white factory towns. methamphetamine did a number on me for years and about destroyed me. marijuana, i believe it led me to other things. like the guy from illinois, he made a good point. maybe if it was legal, you would not have to go to different people and find and get exposed to other things.

that is why c-span is great, for having different people's opinions, and i learn something every day. host: it is nice to hear a new perspective. tyrone is in newark, new jersey, and thinks wee should be legalizedd. go ahead. caller: how are you doing? thank you for taking my call. you are doing a good job, by the way. marijuana should be legalized. the brutality against us that took place against people of color. surely we should legalize marijuana. the sentences have been handed down, harsh sentences against people of color. it has been long overdue. the time is now. in jersey, they legalized it in a sense, but only the big fish. the ones in the back room getting the licenses that benefit from it. in response to why consider legalizing it -- i'm sorry. in response to why they should

consider legalizing it, they should consider allowing individuals who have been oppressed and demonized and who have seen the wrong end of the stick on this marijuana deal to be compensated and individuals be reintegrated back into society to benefit from this billion dollar industry that is taking place. thanks for taking my call. continue doing a good job. host: thanks for your call. on x, andrea says if legal it should to do the same with -- it should be treated the same as alcohol. another text messag scott in massachusetts who says marijuana should not be legalized but should be decriminalized. there is a dnce. decriminalization ishe act of removing criminal sanctions against certain activities. legalization is the act of permitting bylaw the use of the

substance -- by law the use of the substance. now let's go back to your calls with vicki. caller: yes, i believe it should not be legalized because i also have friends who are smoking and they end up going to harder drugs. i think the government wants the income tax initiative. i don't think we should have that legalized. thank you for taking my call. host: thanks for calling in. some research from pew that came out in march finds that most americans favor legalizing marijuana for medical and recreational use. legalizing recreational marijuana is good for local economies, makes an impact on community drug use and safety. here is a chart showing what they found.

88% of adults say marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational use. nearly six in 10 americans say marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational purposes. roughly a third say marijuana should be legal for medical use only. just 11% of americans say the drug should not be legal at all. opinions about marijuana legalization have changed little over the past five years. according to the pew research center survey, which was conducted in january of 2024. back to your calls. david is in cincinnati, ohio, and is on the yes line. go ahead. caller: good morning. your show is very interesting. and all of the different calls you are hearing are just unbelievable in the way they are describing why it should be legal and why it should be illegal. i really don't understand very well but the difference between legality and just allowing the use of it, decriminalizing.

i don't see what the difference is there to be honest with you. host: i can give you a little more information on that. i will go back to that aclu description. the key difference is declining as a means a person walk -- decriminalization means a person will not face it, no penalty for being in possession of it but there is no structure in place to provide legal regulated supply. legalization means people can now acquire and possess the drug freely under state or federal law, although it can still be regulated. does that help, david? caller: yeah, it helps, but it leaves too many holes for people to squeeze through either to make profits or to push it on other people. it is one thing to desire to get high or to use it medically, which is the way i use it. i use it because i was being

treated for a possible -- i forget what the disease is that all people get when they get shaky. parkinson's. they diagnosed me with parkinson's. and i took all the medicine they gave me. i was on extreme doses of medicine to treat it. and finally, i changed my approach. this was back in about 2017 or 2018 when it became medically available here in ohio. and i started getting it after it became medically available. i did not do it right away. host: did it help? caller: what the issue was, i was not able to walk very well. i was falling over all the time. i was losing my balance. my balance was critical.

and i fell on my head several times. i can show you but i am not with you so i can't. as soon as i started taking the pot, it is like -- it comes in a little bottle and you drop it under your tongue. it cured my balance. it was the most incredible experience. i don't want to make it sound like more than it is, but it was a miracle. host: and that is why you think it should be legalized? caller: well, it should be at the bare minimum decriminalized. host: ok, thank you for sharing your story, david. jim is in michigan and is not sure. go ahead, jim. caller: hi thanks. -- hi. thanks for taking my call. the reason i am not sure is i do not trust my politicians to set the right standard for

legalization. because it should be legalized, i believe. but i am just not sure how they are going to do it so we get rid of the black market of weed. if we get rid of that, we will then get rid of the gateway issue as well. because if it is regulated and it is this, this, and this, everybody knows what they are getting, where it is coming from, and it is no longer coming over our borders, into our cities and countries and everything else. host: all right, thank you, jim. carson is in colorado and says no to legalization. go ahead, carson. caller: good morning. thank you so much for taking my call. yeah, i say no. i have been in colorado for pretty much my whole life and we

made it legal years ago. i don't see that it is a good thing. there is now more dispensaries than there are mcdonald's. as far as the callers saying you get rid of the gateway portion of it, i don't believe that at all. the middle school where my kids go to has had an issue with adults that give edibles to children, and then that starts the ability to get the gateway, i believe. as far as medical use, absolutely, i 100% agree with the medical use portion of it. i really do. as far as making it legal for recreational use, there needs to be more to it. there needs to be. i am not a fan of regulations, believe me, but there needs to be something more to it as far as control of it, the dispensaries, the grow houses.

you cannot drive through denver, colorado, without your windows down and not smelling it all the time. i am sure for some people that is amazing, but for me, not so much. i don't have a whole lot, but i do agree with making an illegal but taking away the criminalization of it. i believe putting people in prison for possession, that is insane. but intent to distribute, absolutely they should be in prison. host: thank you, carson. paul is in louisiana and is on our yes line. go ahead, paul. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to weigh in. if you track the origin of a lot of anti-drug policy, they have roots in racism. there are issues of flirting with white females when supposedly high on marijuana and

there were police officers afraid if a black man took cocaine that he could not shoot and kill him while on drugs. i think that should be mentioned. the bottom line is, do you not see the harm in drugs such as marijuana? it helps some very serious pediatric seizure cases were nothing else was available. marijuana was used and dispensed and administrated in the problem was solved. and i think that needs to be mentioned. thank you for taking my call. host: mike is in north carolina and is not sure. go ahead, mike. caller: yeah. two points i will kind of bring up. i will compare it with like alcohol. some people may have a few drinks and they are fine. some people start drinking and they become alcoholics. they can kinda be compared to people who smoke pot. you know, if they go home after

work and have a few tokes, they are chilling and fine, but some people want to smoke it all the time and get the high-end have it again and again and again -- high and have it again and again and again. it can affect the brain. it is about the individual freedom. the plant was put here naturally. it was not manufactured. it is natural. should people have the freedom to be able to do what they want without being regulated? so that is why i am not sure. the bottom line is there are benefits. there are also distractions or bad benefits if you will so that is why i am not sure. thank you. host: thank you, mike. the "wall street journal" had additional coverage on the attempts by the department of justice to reclassify marijuana and said some counterparts within tg enforcement administration are resistant, saying the drus medicinal

benefits remain unproven and that it has a high potential for abuse, people familiar with the matter said. officials with the dea, which the final say on the designation, remain concerned about modern cannabis strains that can b times as potent as those that were common years ago. some agency officials also think more research is needed about marijuana's long-term health effects. that was in the "wall street journal." our next caller is in connecticut and is on the no line. go ahead, laura. caller: good morning. how are you today? host: good, thank you. caller: i don't believe marijuana should be legal at all. my thing is that marijuana i believe is not physically addictive. i think it is more psychologically. because i started using when i was 14. and i am 56 now.

along with the marijuana went alcohol. it was kind of like -- i picked it up in junior high and it was not until i went to jail that i gave it up. i was forced to give it up. and then i got out of jail. i went back to jail. and i am in a state psychiatric hospital. and i am happy i don't use marijuana. that led me to cocaine, other drugs. i used meth. i have been here 11 years. and i feel great. i don't need marijuana. i don't need other drugs. i feel it should be criminalized. one tiny little thing, but i believe that it is psychologically and physiologically addictive

because of the changes when you smoke marijuana. it could be placed with something else andyou don't want that-- lace -- it could be laced with something else and you don't want that because people are dying. host: susan is on our yes line. caller: good morning, kimberly. i want to put some input as far as first of all the history with the criminalization is based on brown and black people, which is absolutely disgusting. and so that is the top reason this needs to be changed. secondly, i would like to speak from a little experience. as a teenager, i tried marijuana. i tried liquor. and of course, you come upon other serious drugs. but most people realize after trying more serious drugs that they don't want to be out of their mind and not knowing what

is going on. marijuana allows you to be still very aware of your surroundings and what is going on. and i just find it so interesting that we live in communities that have small bars on every corner and you can watch every night the cars racked up and you know -- rack up and you know they are not just playing cards inside but they are drinking and they all drive away. wine is regular for people and we think nothing of this. we need to make sure the marijuana people are using, because they are using it legally or illegally. it is not laced. it is not coming from a dealer but from a marijuana shop where they take pride in what they are selling. i think all the politicians that are against this are the same

ones against everything else good we are trying to do in this country, and i guess i will wrap it up with that. host: thank you for your call, susan. speaking of politicians, marijuana legalization may be on the ballot in several states coming up later this year. here is a story about it in "usa today" showing it has been more than a decade since colorado and washington state made recreational marijuana legal. in the years since, 24 states in washington, d.c. -- and washington, d.c., have followed. varying exceptions in each state's law. four more states may soon join the growing list. advocates are hoping to get a referendum on the november election ballots so voters can choose if they want to legalize the use of recreational or medicinal marijuana. to get a sense of what the math looks like in the united states,

this looks at different marijuana legislation or laws on the books in various states with this color in green representing adults and marijuana use regulated programs. and in this yellow, comprehensive medical cannabis program. and in the orient, a cbd low thc program -- four-inch -- orange, a cbd low thc program. back to your calls. walt, go ahead. caller: yes, this is an article out of local paper -- a local paper saying marijuana is linked to heart issues. they have seen heart attacks and strokes from using marijuana even as little as once promote. the more marijuana when used, the higher the risk. heart issues the hospital found.

at a routine medical examination in my mid 60's, i am in my mid 80's now, my doctor discovered i had an irregular heartbeat. it is what they call a favorite -- a-fib. ok? i am at a specialist appointment and talking to the nurses, is it the norm for 65-year-old guys to come up with a-fib. they looked at me and said we have people in our offices in their 20's and 30's with a-fib. i said, really, why is that? because they are using illegal drugs. i never smoked. i have never used illegal drugs. i was a very mild social drinker until i discovered i had high blood pressure and had to start taking medicine. alcohol affects things like that, so i stopped completely.

i had a general practitioner in illinois. she was a smart young woman. illinois at the time legalized the medical use of marijuana. i asked her, how are you going to respond to that? are you going to prescribe it to your patients? absolutely not. marijuana has not been subject to the same testing. why would i subscribe something that does not meet the standards of other medications? host: i want to pick on a point you made earlier about the study. i was able to find a reference to it here from the national institutes of health talking about the study related to heart attack and stroke. this is from february of this year. smoking cannabis associated with increased risk of heart attack, stroke, nih says. the observational study showed risk group sharply with every

use. frequent cannabis smoking may significantly increase a person's risk for heart attack and stroke according to an observational study supported by the national institutes of health. the study published in the journal uses data from 435,000 american adults and is among the largest to ever explore the relationship between cannabis and cardiovascular events. the study funded by the national heart, lung, and blood institute, part of nih, i that daily use of cannabis, predominantly smoking, was associated with a 25% increase in likelihood of heart attacks and a 42% increased likelihood of stroke when compared to nonuse of the drug. less frequent use was also associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. weekly users showed a 3% increased likelihood of a heart attack and a 5% increased likelihood of stroke. joshua is in michigan on our yes

line. good morning, joshua. caller: good morning. hi. i am calling as a person who has worked as a counselor, have eight years of experience. host: what is the -- that type of counselor? caller: a background in substance abuse counselor. i worked eight years in opiate specific treatment. what i can say is all of these anomaly data about heart and stroke is very interesting. however, to dovetail on that, in order to stop using opiates, you have to go on something else. that is the only option other than the 12 step program that

exists in our communities of substance abuse and spiritual pathways to recovery. we all know that but nobody has really explored the data of the ability of marijuana to help people to stop using alcohol or cigarettes as an alternative pathway to recovery. cannabis can be used to help people stop other substances and improve their lives. i have seen methadone ruined more lives -- ruin more lives as a counselor. people get addicted. the only thing it helps people is pulling them out and gain the spirituality and confidence to overcome their addiction. it is absolutely frustrating as a person who has worked in human services to see how systems have completely leveled our communities, displaced wealth in our communities, completely ruined and created diasporas in

our communities. host: do you think legalization would address some of those issues? caller: absolutely. absolutely. i think we would have more justice in our communities, more freedom more liberty -- freedom, more liberty. when we involve ourselves in people's sexuality, their individual decisions as human beings, we overextended our influence and involvement in their lives and become un-american. something other than american, and that is what is wrong with this country today. host: ok. jim is in missouri on our yes line. caller: howdy. missouri went recreational two years ago. i paper a license so i can grow -- i pay for a license so i can grow some of my own. i would point out that making something illegal has never put an end to it. i would point to the marijuana tax act of 1913.

i would say that the wave of legalization across the nation has killed the marijuana drug smuggling business. i lived in south florida in the 1970's and 1980's. that was the heyday of speedboats ringing in tons of pot. -- bringing in tons of pot. i would go so far as to say that the fentanyl crisis we have -- nobody takes fentanyl on purpose. if it was regulated and dispensed, we would not have people dying from overdoses because they are buying things they don't know about. you want to kill the cartels? regulate things. legalized it -- legalize it.

yeah. i am a fan. i waited 50 years to smoke marijuana legally. the one thing legalization did was it cured my paranoia. thanks, america. host: thanks. hector is in new york i never yes line. go ahead. caller: hi, yes, absolutely, i believe as far as controlling it, is a better fix -- it is a better fix. i know people that take it. there can be people that abuse it. the morning, noon, night people. there are doctors that deal with that. the first thing with those people is they like the outcome of their treatment with anxiety. i know somebody that does the morning, noon, and night. they have a lot of anxiety. smoking cigarettes, i guess they

have to have that. as long as you have self-control, like anything, it is pretty harmless i believe other than the health issues i am hearing. just self-control. host: ok. thank you, hector. mark is in california and is not sure. go ahead, mark. caller: hi. thanks for taking my call. i think it is important that society understands the neurobiology of thc. i am quite concerned about many of the mass murders and the general crimes connected to people who are using a lot of marijuana such as the boston marathon bombing or oklahoma city bombing or even 9/11. there are indications they probably used marijuana. neurobiology says thc stimulates the pre-floral cortex -- it increases a lot of anger.

and reduces inhibitions -- it reduces inhibitions and has a connection to psychosis. there are a lot of reasons everybody should understand the neurobiology of a drug before we proceed one step further. host: thank you for your call, mark. thank you to everyone who called in for this segment and answered our question this morning. but in our next segment this morning, we will get two other aspects of politics because it has been a very busy week in the world of politics and we will unpack it all with republican poster jim hobart as well as democratic pollster nancy zdunkewicz. and later, will creeley discusses the legal and free-speech issues surrounding the campus protests that have been happening around the country. all of that and more when we come back. we will be right back. ♪

>> this week on the c-span networks, the house and senate are in session. the house will consider legislation requiring a citizenship question on the u.s. census. and marjorie taylor greene plans to offer a motion to vacate the chair to remove mike johnson as house speaker. the senate continues legislation on the authorization bill to extend programs past the friday deadline. on tuesday, miguel cardona testifies before the house education and workforce committee examining his department's policies and last year's financial audit failure. president biden will deliver the keynote address for the holocaust days of remembrance. the national public radio president and ceo appears in front of a subcommittee on accusations of bias on npr. and c. mayor muriel bowser and

-- appear before the house oversight committee concerning d.c.'s response to unlawful activity and anti-semitism at george washington university. watch this live on the c-span networks or on c-span now. also, go to c-span.org for scheduling information or to watch live or on-demand any time. >> the c-span bookshelf podcast makes it easy to listen to all of seized -- listen to all of c-span's podcasts that involve nonfiction books. each week we are making it convenient for you to listen to multiple episodes with critic lien claimed off it -- authors discussing history, biographies, current events and culture, from our signature programs. listen to c-span's bookshelf podcast feed today. you can find it on the free

c-span now mobile video app or wherever you get your podcasts and on our website, c-span.org/podcasts. >> explore the wonderful array of mother's day gifts waiting for you at c-spanshop.org. apparel, home decor and accessories, there is something for every c-span mom. every purchase you make helps suppt our nonprofit operations. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. to discuss what has been happening this week in politics, i'm joined by our two guests this morning, jim hobart, a partner at public opinion strategies, and also joined via zoom by nancy zdunkewicz.

welcome. nancy, let's start with you and these campus protests of the last few weeks. does either party or trump or biden specifically benefit from these protests? nancy: i don't think anyone benefits from this because it is a really mixed picture. there are a lot of people who don't really know exact we what is going on. if you look at the survey research, lots of people aren't sure if they support or oppose these protests. a lot of people aren't sure if the way the administrator has been responding to these campus protests has been too harsh or not harsh enough. not many people are paying that much attention to it and there are a lot of people who are just kind of confused. there are people talking about the actual issues, there are people talking about just the

way the administrators are addressing the protests. host: nancy is a democratic pollster and strategist. you are a republican strategist and pollster, jim. what do you thick of these protests? jim: if there is anyone that benefits, it is republicans and donald trump not because of the specific nature of the protests but it has taken attention off of trump's trial. the biggest thing in new york was going to be trump's trial and instead there has been much more focus out -- on what is going on in columbia and nyu. the fact that you have video and visuals of these protests in a way that you do not of the trial means people who are panko's attention to the news are paying much more attention to these protests than trump's trial. host: i want to play some responses from both trump and biden, when it comes to what has been happening with these

protests. former president trump has accused president biden of not speaking out more forcefully about these campus protests. here is what he said in wisconsin on wednesday. [video clip] >> think of it. he hasn't been heard from. when you have a problem like that, you should go out and talk about it and talk to the people, but there is a big problem, a big fever in our country and he is not talking about it. i think it would actually make it worse. many of them aren't even students. many of them come from foreign countries. thousands and thousands are from foreign countries. where did these people come from? average collet -- every college president, i say remove the encampments, vanquish the radicals and take back our campuses for all the normal students who want a safe place from which to learn. host: and here is president biden, thursday at the white

house addressing the protests for the first time in nearly two weeks. he says they have not changed his thinking on the u.s. middle east policy. [video clip] >> there should be no place in any campus, no place in america for anti-semitism or threats of violence against jewish students. there is no place for hate speech or violence of any kind whether it is anti-semitism, islamophobia or discrimination against arab-americans or palestinian americans. it is simply wrong. there is no place for racism in america. it is all wrong and an american. i understand people have strong feelings and deep convictions. in america, we respect the right for them to express that. but it does not mean anything goes. it needs to be done without violence, without destruction, without hate, and within the law. make no mistake. as president i will always defend free speech. i will always be just as strong

and standing up for the rule of law. that is my responsibility to you, the american people. my obligation to the constitution. thank you very much. >> do you think the national guard should intervene? >> no. host: so jim, trump links the protests to dangerous outsiders and foreigners. biden calls for tolerance. how do you think these different approaches will appeal or not to their prospective bases? jim: it shows the differences between our two candidates. it is a very trump response and a very biden response. trump has an easier task in terms of appealing to his base. this jives very much with some of the rhetoric he has had since

running for president in 2015. provide an, it is more tricky because if you look at the polling, there is a sharp split between what 18-33-year-olds feel on the situation and what seniors feel. it is one of the biggest generational splits we have seen on an issue like this in some time. biden has to tread more carefully because he depends more on the votes of those 18-34-year-olds then donald trump does. host: and nancy, what was your take on that response by the two candidates? especially in terms of biden and what jim was saying about how he is relating to younger voters? nancy: i agree with jim. that was so classically donald trump and classically joe biden. if you think about what biden was saying, it seems a lot like what he was saying in response to the protests happening after george floyd's murder, which was

four years ago, also in the wake of january 6. i think we do have a problem with our base, democrats do. the biggest problem is just joe biden's age. it is something that does speak to younger voters. this would have been an opportunity to acknowledge that he heard them, that he is paying attention, even to acknowledge the excessive use of force. these are students protesting what they believe is excessive use of force against innocent civilians in a different country, and there was an opportunity to also acknowledge the courage of the students and to encourage these been a straighter -- these

administrators. i think it was a missed opportunity but does stay consistent with what he has said in other occasions where a lot of people were taking to the streets or protesting on campus. host: nancy, i want to talk about younger voters. in 2020, voters 18-29 supported biden, 60% to 30% over trump. now youth polling margins are quite varied and different. i want to point to this new york times essay about this. young men are far less likely to support biden than young women. a huge gender gap is emerging among young voters and this

year, biden cannot count on winning gen z by such a large margin. there is a substantial variance in the poll data. young voter loyalty to the democratic party has been betrayed by two distinct actors. frustration with the economy and opposition with the methods israel is using in gaza. what is happening? nancy: you are so right. this is a huge problem. it is really driven by white men in particular, but really all men. it is also a polling problem. some of these polls, you see a large drop off of support for biden. i don't trust the polls that

show a majority of 18-34-year-olds are supporting donald trump for example. if you are to look at how they voted in 2020, some of this is about poor survey design. when it looks like what you would expect it to look like, when it comes to 2020, you'll see it is not that donald trump is making a lot of gains so much as joe biden is really falling behind. there are a lot of people who are saying they won't vote or they are not sure are they are considering a third-party candidate. i will just remind you that he always did. he was not someone that young voters cared to support in 2020 primary. he was one of the last choices. they eventually came to support him because the other option was

so untenable. once bernie sanders had out of the race, he began to do better with this group. he was never the first choice and it is always the place where he has the hardest left and partly it is because of his age. host: i want to bring in jim because it is this delicate dance he is trying to do with voters. what is the trump campaign going to do? are they going to pick up these voters? jim: i don't think it is realistic to say donald trump is going to win 18-29-year-olds. i do think where biden could have some challenges that could benefit republicans down ticket is the two things nancy mentioned. there is some real reason to wonder what turnout levels are going to be among these younger

voters. you can see them essentially making their choice by not voting. not voting is a choice as well. maybe they can't bring themselves to vote for donald trump but they choose just not to vote at all or they choose to vote third-party. you look at the subgroups that robert kennedy jr. is pulling the best with, it tends to be 18-29-year-olds. i don't think robert kennedy jr. is going to get double digit support but if he is at that 6% level, and he is pulling a lot from these younger voters, that is going to be more of a detriment to joe biden and democrats than to donald trump and republicans. host: nancy, some polling has shown that trump is leading biden in several battleground states. there is a story about it in the hell from just a couple days ago. trump leads biden in major

battleground states according to polls and news surveys but those margins are slim. single-digit advantages in arizona, georgia, nevada, north carolina, pennsylvania and wisconsin. how much of a concern is that over in the biden camp? nancy: i imagine they are very concerned. he was leading in the polls in these battleground states four years ago. in some ways, it is harder when you are the incumbent. it is easy to get the anti-incumbent sentiment. i would think that trump's numbers are not good. he is in the low to mid 40's. it is just that joe biden is also quite low. a lot of voters are holding back. joe biden won the states, where are the voters? i think that is what they're

going to be focused on when they are looking at these surveys. where are they going? are they going to trump? they don't really see that much. it is because they are holding back, they are undecided, maybe they are thinking about third-party. when i'm looking at these numbers as a pollster, i am concerned but i am also thinking about the voters who voted in one of the highest turnouts we have had recently. i know who they are. now i know -- now i need to go and find them. donald trump is not above 50, it is not in any of these polls. i can still close that gap. and it's early. jim and i do this for a living, but most people start to pay

attention a couple months, around the time we get the conventions. host: let's go to new york and the trial that has been going on. we just wrapped up week three of the trump trial involving stormy daniels. is there any effect that you are seeing that have on voters or people caring? is it showing up in the polling? jim: since the trial started, we have not seen any shift in the polling. it has continued to be pretty consistent. a pretty consistent lead in battleground states. from a different perspective, the two resources that are most important to any campaign our time and money. this is taking up a good chunk of donald trump's time and

costing him in the campaign a good chunk of money and those things work together because it is also time that he can't go and raise money. that right now is the biggest challenge for him. we have not seen in the polling, any shifts but it is costing him valuable time on the campaign trail and valuable time spent raising money in fundraisers and things like that. host: there is a story in the washington post that his legal bills are draining millions from his political committees as his legal bills account for more than a quarter of the spending by his political committees in march, new campaign-finance filings show and he is picking up his fundraising even as he fights criminal charges in four cases and appeals in the nearly half $1 billion fraud charge in new york. it is posing a significant burden on the campaign,

accounting for 26% of the spending in march by his political committees. is there any kind of hesitation by republican donors, to fund these legal cases? jim: what we have seen is that since trump became the official nominee, his fundraising has picked up. i believe it was about six to $7 million in march and he just announced an rnc meeting in -- yesterday that it was 76 plan dollars in april. he's not had much trouble raising money recently but the flipside is the biden campaign is raising even more and they aren't having to spend 26% on legal bills. trump is raising money but he isn't able to direct all of that money to electoral aims and benefits. host: nancy, how is democratic fundraising looking so far? nancy: very strong and there are a lot of people who are small

number first-time donors. that is something that is betrayed by the survey data. we would expect to see the opposite. i found that to be surprising. i don't know that the person who raises the most money is going to be the president. trump was outspent in 2016 so i don't know that it is as important but both of these campaigns are going to raise and spend obnoxious amounts of money, but i don't know if that is necessarily the thing that is going to be the most determinant. the point that was made earlier about time being really important, and also the inability to make a message. donald trump, every time he is

in court, not only is he not raising money or spending money on court cases, he is not using that money to spread a message about what he would do. in 2016, donald trump had a message that was about the economy and trade and jobs and the border and that he was a different kind of person, that he was a businessman and could take on powerful interests in washington and clean the place up. i don't know what the message is now. i don't know what that message is. i'm sure there is something that people can put together for an ad for him that would be about america first and the economy. the problem is that if you don't have enough money to spread that message, people are going to hear it and if you are spending all of your earned media

defending yourself from these allegations, you're not getting heard on what it is you would do. host: we are taking your calls as well for our two guests. democrats can call in at (202)-748-8000. republicans at (202)-748-8001. independents, at (202)-748-8002. of course you can text us at (202)-748-8003. jim, you mentioned that donors conference this weekend that trump is attending. also attending quite a few of the potential picks for his vice presidential candidates. is there any consensus on what kind of vp would help trump the most? jim: i think it's been a long time since a vice president has really helped any candidate or made a meaningful difference at the provincial level. the general thought is that the last time was in 1960 when kennedy picked lbj. there are a lot of people in the party who are like, given some

of the gains we have seen, to a lesser extent, african-american voters, why not pick a hispanic or african-american candidate? why not pick a candidate who is female? there is some push to pick someone who isn't another white man, but trump's advisers point this out pretty frequently, there is only one person making the decision and that is going to be donald trump and he is going to be focused on someone who he is comfortable with. host: it was all over the news this week about kristi noem and her book, where she mentioned killing a puppy. is this really something that can doom someone's political hopes? jim: yes. that's an easy one. i would say bipartisan agreement on that one. nancy: absolutely. host: yeah, ok. i do want to talk about abortion as well and nancy, arizona just

repealed its 1864 abortion ban. it took effect, cutting off access and quite a bit of the south. the biting campaign is really campaigning hard on this and i wonder how strong of an issue you think this is going to be in the race? nancy: the number one issue in the race is going to be the economy and number two is going to be abortion. abortion may trump the economy for people who are worried about it the most. it is an incredibly important issue. i cannot stress enough how much people are paying attention to this, the way they weren't four years ago. this is a salient issue. it is the reason democrats over performed in the 2022 midterms and what should have been a red wave. weighted up flipping the

legislature -- we ended up flipping the legislature. we saw unprecedented democrat performance in places where people knew they had to stand up for abortion rights. it is where people thought republicans have extreme views. it is not just that people think this is important. they saw candidates who are really extreme on these issues and that meant you couldn't trust their judgment. we saw this in race after race where people were punishing candidates for their positions on abortion. it was often in our polling, the number one negative mentioned -- without exceptions. what we are seeing in states like texas and florida is that

these exceptions aren't really exceptions at all when it comes to the health of the mother. in texas, the way the supreme court ruled was a woman wasn't almost dead enough. she should be a little closer to death, and then she can be given access to that exception. people don't want politicians and judges to be the ones deciding what women do with their bodies. they want tent -- they want them to be out of those choices. host: the biden campaign released a new ad on abortion, saying that trump would prosecute women who choose to have an abortion. let's play that [video clip] >> donald trump's new comments on abortion, saying some states might choose to monitor women's pregnancies to possibly prosecute women who violate abortion bands.

-- abortion bans. >> two years ago, i became pregnant with a baby i desperately wanted. i learned of the fetus would have a fatal condition and never survive. because of the new laws in texas, i had to flee my own state to receive treatment. if donald trump is elected, that is the end of a woman's right to choose. there would be no place to turn. we could lose our right in every state, even the ones where abortion is currently legal. that means every woman in every state is at risk. donald trump took away our freedom. we need leaders that will protect our rights and not take them away. that is joe biden and kamala harris. >> i'm joe biden and i approve this message. host: jim, will the intensity over the abortion issue last all the way up until the election? how do you think trump is handling it with his "let states

decide" stance? jim: what keeps republicans up at night about november is thinking about the abortion issue. in 2022, the primary reason republicans did not have the night they expected is the abortion issue. why it is so challenging is what i call a bright line issue. the economy is very important to voters right now but if you ask a voter, -- a swing voter, what is the republican position on the economy or the democrat position on the economy, it is hard to different -- hard to differentiate between the two. on abortion, they would say i'm pro-choice, republicans are antiabortion, and democrats are pro-choice, so i would vote for the pro-choice democrat because i can tell a real difference between them. i think that is why it is such a challenging issue for republicans, one that is not

going to go away because you're going to continue to see ads like the one we just watched. people are focused on it personally as well, not just because of television ads. republicans are going to do their best to say this is a state issue, democrats are extreme because they want what republicans term as abortion on demand and all the way up to pregnancy. the advantage republicans have right now on the economy, the advantage they have right now on immigration, you would think this is a slamdunk election, but i think abortion is one of the reasons why it is not quite that at this point. host: speaking of immigration, there is a study out from gallup showing that immigration is the top u.s. problem for the third straight month, and immigration has been the most politically polarizing issue mentioned in the past 25 years, if you look at that gallup chart,

immigration remains the most important u.s. problem among americans in an open ended question they asked. that beats out the economy in general. president -- trump and republicans have been hammering president biden on the immigration issue. a trump super pac release an ad attacking biden on border security and public safety. [video clip] >> a defenseless young girl was brutally raped and killed by illegal aliens and no member of the violent -- and a known member of the violent ms 13 gang. it could have been prevented. the killer was detained at the border, but was released onto the streets by biden's weak border policies. we have to stop joe biden to close our border. host: nancy, can i get your

response to that ad and how you think biden and the campaign are handling the immigration issue? nancy: are you sure that wasn't an ad from 2016 or 2018 or 2020 or 2022? it sounds like what they've been saying for the past 10 years. this is a very important issue to republicans. they are the ones driving the intense concern about immigration. it is not really immigration that they are concerned about. it is the border they are concerned about. republicans are highly concentrated around this. when you ask people what their number one issue is, you'll see that number be so high in those gallup surveys. they only ask about the number one issue. if you ask about the top few issues, then you will see it is the economy and inflation and

abortion and immigration. that is because immigration and the border -- it is really important to a lot of republicans, even before the economy. there was a lot of shared concern for the economy across the spectrum. there is a lot of concern about abortion rights across the spectrum as well. i do think immigration and the border are going to be the biggest vulnerabilities for the biden administration. it is up to them to call republicans on their bluff when they shut down the immigration bill that gave them everything they asked for. immigrants are an important part of this country, valuable parts of their community, valuable contributors to the economy.

right now we are not really hearing that. instead we are just hearing this focus on the idea that the border is out of control and a war zone. that does not resonate when you go to those communities in texas, where they have been used as political pawns. right now, i feel like we we are -- i feel like we are on the back foot and we have not begun to engage in a meaningful way in these conversations. host: let's open up this conversation, starting with alex in delaware on our line for

republicans. go ahead. are you there? caller: yeah. host: go ahead. caller: i would like to know why when biden had his fundraiser, they got $20 million plus and then brag about it. trump had his and it was $50 million and they don't even want to talk about that. they act like he can't get no money. he's getting ready to have another gigantic one down in florida again. he's going to have plenty of money for this. the other thing about the immigration is, most people want these people deported in this country by far, and that is what's going to happen when trump gets in. he's going to get them out of here, the ones that ain't allowed. host: i will let you respond to that, jim. jim: i think alex touches on what nancy was saying.

immigration for a lot of republican voters is a very animating issue. the one thing i would also say is that you are starting to see it percolating more with independents and swing voters is a security issue. that is why you saw that commercial the trump super pac is airing because in much the same way that democrats are able to put republicans on the defensive by making abortion such a personal issue, and a similar way, republicans are able to do that when they say here is a crime committed, often very violent, up to murder, by illegal immigrants and they can use that to really personalize the issue and make it more of a safety and security issue. host: let's hear from nina in florida on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i had two comments. i am literally one of the undecideds, still left in the

country. neither president likes animals or dogs. you can clearly see that. i'm basing my vote on that which means i'm not going to vote for either one of them. host: does that mean you are planning to stay home in november? caller: i don't want to stay home. i have robert kennedy jr., cornell west. i'm not a fan of jill stein. i am literally undecided. that is my problem. my second comment is this abortion stuff. if the states have the right to make the laws, the people in the states need to boot out the ones they don't like. the laws that they don't like, they can vote those people out and do it as a majority within the state. i think it is an issue that shouldn't be a federal government. that's not taking either side. there are so many problems in this country. homelessness and all of that

stuff. we need to concentrate on things like that instead of abortion, because that has been an ongoing thing for years and years, since i was a young girl. thank you and have a good day. host: nancy, nina called in on the democratic line. how does that make you feel? nancy: she didn't really want to vote for either candidate because they didn't like animals? i was just happy to see another cat owner, president biden had a cat in the white house. maybe she will change her mind now. to the point about the states, i think a lot of people are voting on this in states, abortion. we see that when even in red states, voters have an

opportunity to weigh in on this issue, that they are voting to give women reproductive freedom. we saw that in kansas and ohio. we are going to see this on the ballot in many other states in the future. i would remind her that there are states where there is heavy gerrymandering, where you cannot have ballot initiatives like the ones we've seen in ohio, where enough citizens can put something on the ballot. in those places, you are just out of luck, because you have one party that has been in power and has control over the maps and has no interest in taking up this issue and only has an interest in making it worse and will do everything they can to hold onto power so they don't ever have to have accountability for their positions on this.

it would be one thing to say that that is not that important of an issue but when you are talking about millions of people , there are millions of people whose lives are being changed every day by these laws so i want to have some compassion for those women and those families who are making these tough decisions where they don't have the ability to change the law because they don't have lawmakers who have to change them. host: next up is richard in tennessee on our line for independents. caller: good morning. all i can say is this when it comes to abortion. i've got a daughter and i don't agree with abortion, but i understand. i was raised by a single mom. i have seen it throughout my lifetime. there are some bad people in this world and women are put in

precarious situations when they do get pregnant and the man leaves them. i've also seen a situation where i've worked with women who go out here and get pregnant by different men all the time and they expect the taxpayer to pay for their abortions. i believe in a woman's reproductive rights because they go to the doctor every day, every month, every year. i've happily haven't been to the doctor in three years. my wife goes every year for all of her checkups and my daughter does the same. here's the point. i know a lot of people can't afford to do it, but if you can't afford to have an abortion, then you can't afford to even do anything. what i'm saying is i'm asking you is we need to help women, young girls in high school, we need to talk about these things. i work in a situation where all i see is people who work in my business, and little boys, all they are trying to do is get with the girls. that is all they think about.

we have to do something and educate people. paying for abortions. a girl i worked with has had six different girls with six different men and all she is doing is looking for a check. the only reason she works now is because nashville, tennessee made her get a job. god bless women. host: did you have a question you wanted to direct to either of our panelists? caller: why do i have to pay for other people's abortions when they are just going out here having sex and decide they can't afford it? host: i will let jim talk about this. jim: i think perhaps one way to frame what richard is saying, one way republicans have pushed back or have tried to go on the offense when it comes to the abortion issue is talking about expanding access to contraception. that that is something that we as a party can be for whether it is selling birth-control, or even going back to 2014 when

cory gardner -- cory gardner ran for senate, that is a way he was able to inoculate himself against -- when it came to abortion. i do think that is something that resonates with someone like richard. they see that as something that is important, limiting the number of pregnancies in the country, in a safer and more humane way. host: i do think nancy, it is worth pointing out that very rarely are taxpayers paying for people's abortions. nancy: right. even in the south, the caller was from tennessee. i've done work in other states in the south, and those are states where you cannot have medicaid or taxpayer-funded health care paying for the cost of an abortion, so when we ask people how they feel about abortion care, even in these

very republican states, a majority believe it should be legal and when you asked them if you think, we should be able to have taxpayer-funded, medicaid for example or state employee programs cover the cost of abortion care, a majority believe that is a good idea, because abortion is health care. if you can't afford to raise a child, -- if you can't afford to get an abortion, you definitely cannot afford to raise a child. if you need abortion care because maybe you have a miscarriage or a complication with your pregnancy, it doesn't have to be because you just don't want to continue fleet -- just don't want to continue your pregnancy. you should absolutely been able -- you should absolutely be able to use your health care benefits. there are confrontations about why women need abortion care. no one-woman's circumstances are

going to be the exact same, and that is why it should be treated like every health care issue. that is why we see a majority of people believing that not only should it be legal but it should be a choice made by women and their health care providers and it should be covered like all other health care procedures or treatments, by your insurer. host: let's go to kenneth on our line for democrats in georgia. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. the only thing i have is on donald trump. i have this saying about cookie jars. it basically says this. we have video evidence, we have his signature, we have his fingerprints. the cookie jar is empty, and there are crumbs on his mouth and his hands, but he says he didn't do it.

so why do we trust him? my basic thing is, donald trump is untrustworthy, he is a problem in this world. i don't understand why so many people are putting their trust in a man that has that many problems. that's all i have to say. host: jim? do you want to respond? jim: there is an old joke in 2016 is that when donald trump and hillary clinton were running against each other, they were each running against the only person they could beat. the hopes of the biden campaign is that this is true, this time around. i think if you are looking at other presidents whose approval ratings were consistently in the 40's.

earlier in our conversation, we thought how concerned is the biden campaign? i think they are certainly concerned about the polling but -- and you can tell this by their behavior, the fact that they have not changed course on many issues -- they are still of the belief that ultimately you will have voters who choose or aren't able to bring themselves to vote for donald trump again. that is a calculus that the biden campaign is making and it is one of the reasons the caller had said. host: dennis on our line for republicans. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to go back to what the commentators were saying about the alvin bragg trial, denying trump time and money and point out, that's the whole point of this case, because bragg and everyone else knows that this whole accusation is a sham and it's going to get laughed out of court on appeal but that'll

happen after the election. the whole point is to deny trump time and money because what they have not thought through is the potential consequences of that because if trump loses, that's going to give republicans a real basis for saying that this was a fraud election. host: ok, thank you. nancy, how big of a concern is that? nancy: i think they were going to say it is a fraud election if he loses no matter what, with or without these trials. donald trump has done that since the first time he ever ran for anything, whether it was the first time he was on the ballot in the iowa primary. he did not win the caucuses, and in 2016, he immediately said there was fraud. that would not be surprising at all. in some ways, you could argue that by keeping donald trump

wrapped up, he is keeping his foot out of his mouth. as an earlier caller was saying, this guy is problematic. every time he is caught up in the courtroom, he's not saying something that is going to remind everyone, of what was so exhausting for the american people for four years. in some ways you could argue that the trial is actually a blessing in disguise for him. more importantly, most voters do not believe that this is about keeping him from campaigning. it is perceived to be a little more political because it is on someone who was a political actor and because there is not the same national security bent

as we saw with the january 6 cases or the classified document cases, but most voters understand the idea that no one is above the law, especially not people who are very rich. they should be held to the same standard as everyone else. that at the end of the day is what this trial is about. host: jim, i saw you nodding when she said the case might be a blessing in disguise. jim: when you go back to 2016, when the focus was on donald trump, that was the time when hillary clinton would be pulling the best. when the focus was on her, that was when donald trump was pulling the best. a lot of people continue to think that that comey letter put the spotlight on hillary clinton and that is what ultimately propelled donald trump to the electoral college victory. whether it be in focus groups or within the revoking consultants, what are used to hear a lot about them if trump is a like a lot of things about the guy but

i sure wish he wouldn't tweet and that is kind of the point nancy was making. when he isn't in the spotlight, when he isn't doing as many rallies, perhaps it does ultimately benefit him. the reality is that come fall, he's going to be out on the campaign trail plenty, so if that is a benefit to him, to not be on the trail, it won't matter in the fall and a lot of other people say there is no better vote motivator for republicans than donald trump. a lot of people who didn't vote in 2022 and did not vote in 2018 but do come out when trump is on the ballot. the case that would make is we want him out there as much as possible because he can get voters to the polls. host: stephen is in oregon on our line for independents. caller: hello. i'm calling in -- host: can you turned on your tv -- turn down the volume on your tv? go ahead. caller: i'm calling in reference

to these protests on college campuses and each side has people who hate the jews. representative to leave wishes for extermination of the jews. i would like to hear from each one of them, what do you think about that? host: nancy, i will let you take that first. nancy: what i would like to see from these student protests, this is the most multicultural generation of students ever and it would be really wonderful to see them live those values and experiences in a way that they are actually able to show some clarity and more commonsense than the generations before them in the way that these protests are carried out.

perhaps it already exists but it is not what the media is covering. that is what i would hope to see from this generation, that they can do better than we did. host: jim? jim: one of the frustrations you are seeing on the part of a lot of voters is that this antisemitism that exists in some of the campus protests is not being covered in the same way that it might be if it was about other races or ethnicities and that is why you are seeing that, at this is the type of language and some of these protesters are using against other minority groups, the reaction will be much different. that is a concern for members of both parties, that there haven't been as consistent of a rejection of some of the anti-semitic rhetoric by these protesters as what they see would likely happen in other cases. nancy: i think most people, most

lawmakers, most americans believe that protests should be generally peaceful, that anti-semitism is bad and so is islamophobia. when we are having these conversations and we are talking about certain loud voices, but in general, most of the american people are in agreement on these things. host: let's hear from mark in new york on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i was wondering if the guests could respond on the -- if they really believe the republicans want to do something about the border. host: i will give that one to jim. jim: pretty effectively in the special election in new york, a couple months ago for the infamous george santos eat, that was an argument the democrats used effectively, republicans had an opportunity to do something and they didn't.

if you elect me, i will go to washington and get things done. a lot of republicans are still frustrated by that. they started from we have a border bill that gets everything we want but then they said but we don't want to vote for it because it includes ukraine funding and then what happened at the end of the day? got nothing they wanted on the border bill and then the ukraine funding still past. there is a lot of frustration on the part of republican officeholders that they had an opportunity to really have something that they could run on, on immigration and because of some of the loud voices in the party, along with donald trump, they weren't able to get that passed. there were a lot of republicans frustrated that they don't have that to run on coming up this fall. host: debbie is in florida on our line for republicans. caller: hi. i do have some questions werner

the guests. i want to correct the young lady for the democrats party. a state level is not a federal level. she said that was because of trump. host: which issue are you talking about? caller: the abortion issue. for the young lady that is on there as a democrat, speaking to everyone. i am a republican and she doesn't understand between the federal and the state. it is not trump's fault because roe v. wade was overturned by the supreme court. it's at the state level. she needs to get with her governors, her mayors and all the other people that run each state. stop blaming trump at the state level. understand what levels there are. host: do you have another question? caller: i have another one. host: what's the other one. caller: the other one is, they

don't want to talk about biden's issues. it goes back to trump. why don't they speak about how biden is incompetent? how biden won't come out and speak about the protests because he is scared of losing the independent votes? my question is, the democrats need to stop the illegals coming into our country and destroying everything with the fires and the riots. host: we have a couple issues that you have raised. let's let nancy -- you can take abortion, immigration, the protests. nancy: gosh. i think that the point that was raised was a good one about how there is some space in between donald trump doing anything -- donald trump selection and roe

v. wade being overturned. it requires a little bit of education. luckily donald trump set it for us. he nominated all of the supreme court justices and that is how roe v. wade was overturned. something he has said himself and you will definitely see ads about him touting that, because he does believe that was one of his great accomplishments. nominating these conservative justices and getting roe v. wade overturned. at the same time, trump does not seem like he has strong opinions about abortion. you can imagine someone like donald trump has paid for an abortion. it is interesting to me that it is one of very few places where

he is willing to give up power, where he is going to say we will let the states decide on any other issue, he is the person who wants to lead on it. it is not seem like he has any strong opinions on it, he is more transactional when it comes to this and i think about danger. even if people perceive there is some daylight between donald trump and roe v. wade being overturned and what is happening in the states, consider this. this is someone who is going to change his opinion on abortion to become the relic and nomination. . -- nominee he nominated conservative justices to overturn roe v. wade and he does not actually have very strong opinions, so if he felt like it was within his -- something that was going to be political good for him to sign a national abortion ban, he would and he won't say that he won't and this past week even said he thought it was probably a good idea for states to be able to investigate these women and what he do

anything to protect women from investigations about their pregnancy outcomes? absolutely not. i understand her point, but we have to have that conversation in a way that does connect him. as democrats we will be having a conversation in a way that connects him to all of the things you are seeing in the states. host: we have a couple minutes left but i want to get to this question we received from jimbo in california, indepennt voter. can you guess desk can you think of any behaviors evident trump would indulge him that would lose support from voters? jim: the short answer is no. i think there has been so many times over the last eight years that this is going to be the end for donald trump, this is where the bottom falls out. that has not happened. 46% of voters nationally are going to be with donald trump no

matter what. the challenge for him is, to be confident that he is going to win, he's got to do a little bit better than that. he's got to get up into the high 40's and a lot of these swing states. i think -- do i see a situation where he loses a bunch of supporters? absolutely not, especially considering the low numbers for biden. but i think the question that the trump campaign is spending a majority of their time focusing on is how do we grow that share? host: one last caller for this segment. let's hear from kimberly from virginia on our line for independents. caller: i had a couple comments and a question for nancy. i wonder how many people who talk about donald trump's character actually voted for bill clinton, if you want to talk about the idea of immorality and decisions that took place. how many of them voted for him?

we are never what happened with monica lewinsky. my second continent -- comment is abortion, migration and -- the word credibility. and the marijuana. there's a difference between a public recreational use of marijuana and medically used marijuana. there's a difference between illegal -- did you have a question? caller: does she really not agree the increased number of illegal migrants coming in makes -- she does not agree that makes our country less safe? host: a response from you quickly before we wrap up our segment. guest: i think everyone would like to have a process -- a better process. we would like to be able to vet

-- i can tell you what i think people should before and that is expended legal immigration that allows people to come here after they have passed background checks and apply for visas in their home country might be able to come here legally, as immigrants or documented workers and all that would be possible if we would change our immigration process. we would have a better sense of who was coming here, making sure they were paying taxes and have jobs, all those things, if we were to change our immigration process. because we keep insisting on having border security problem to an immigration problem but we keep ending up in this place because so many people want to come here to have a better life got to work hard, to be valuable

members of the community, and we keep insisting there is something un-american about those people. this is what all of our ancestors did, so i do not know i would endorse the idea of on medically coming here and wanting to pursue that. they are leaving these countries because they do not feel safe or like they have opportunities. host: we will have to end it there. nancy zdunkewicz, the founder at z to a research, is a democratic strategist and pollster. thank you so much. we also had jim hobart, a partner at public opinion strategies and a republican pollster. thank you for your time this morning. in about 15 minutes, we will be joined by will creeley from the foundation for we will talk about the legal and free-speech

issues surrounding campus protests around the country. first, we will be in open forum, your chance to weigh in on any political topic on your mind this morning. we will get your calls right after the break. >> tonight on q&a, patrick kennedy talks about americans who struggle with mental illness and the role family members play in their care. >> in my case with my mother met my brother and sister and i had to get guardianship over my mother. we saved her life so she could be around with my kids. my kids never met my father, who died before they were born, but they got to meet my mom. 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 was not happy, but she ended up being so grateful that she was able to make it to the other side because we intervened. >> patrick kennedy tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on our free app. c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington live and on-demand. keep up with events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, campaigns, and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips. you can stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and schedule information for c-span.

scan the qr code to download it for free today or visit our website. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. we are ready to hear your thoughts about the news and politics of the week. here is our line for democrats. >> how are you doing this morning? get some information. why do democrats -- i am calling as a democrat. why do democrats not go back to the time that biden took office that this country was in a depression and people were dying and people have forgotten about that.

donald trump took away security from the border when he went into office and obama had a 50 year low at that border when he left office. donald trump destroyed that by putting kids in cages. why do we not talk about it? that is what i would like to now. host: let's hear from joe in connecticut. caller: good morning. it is amazing to me that you keep bringing the same guests on the show, especially that giggling girl you keep bringing on. she reminds me of a woman that wrecks but her husband. -- brags about her husband. host: fred, can you hear me? go ahead. caller: i want to know -- i

learned as a kid -- host: your line is breaking up. we will see if we can get you again later. next is gail on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i want to say i do not understand what has happened to our country and nation, what happens to integrity and character when you have all these people that support trump they do not care that he is a criminal. they do not care that he was charged with sexual assault. they do not care that he committed fraud for years. they do not care that the only reason he is running for president is so he can dodge going to prison. that shows you there are so many people out there that do not care about character.

donald trump could not get a job working at a school. he could not a job working at a city or county office with his track record and criminal record. i just think this country needs to wake up but it is not helping that you have all these right wing laces praising trump. he believes -- believe putin instead of his own intelligence. look how many people that were in his administration that were high up in the administration that will not vote for him. his own vice president will not vote for him. so i just want to say god bless america. joe biden has decency, and that is the reason why he will get my vote, because he has character

and cares about children. donald trump does not care about children. he does not care about people of caller. all he cares about is himself, getting himself back into the white house. host: let's go to rose on our line for republicans. caller: i am going to talk about marijuana. it should be legalized and you should be able to grow it in your own backyard like any other herb. aspirin should be banned. it has the following side effects, ulcers of the stomach, and it causes bleeding in the brain. we'd -- weed benefits those in pain, with glaucoma, it fights cancer, it reduces anxiety, it eliminates for those with ms and it has -- keep in mind people take drugs daily prescribed by

the holy grail fda that says on the bottle do not drive or operate heavy machinery. do you mean to tell me you are going to go into every person's home and handhold them and make sure they do not misuse their fda approved drugs? people who need to be suckled and protected from themselves are a small minority. they are the same ones who rushed out into covid without thinking or questioning the side effects. so now they are worried about weed and it is being used for those in chronic pain. give me a break. host: raymond is in colorado. caller: i am an independent. i believe joe biden is too old and donald trump is going to be

-- says there's going to be retribution for republicans. this is the fear i have. we are at the crossroads. i think joe biden is going to lose to donald trump and donald trump be the first president of the united states to launch a nuclear weapon and it is not going to destroy the planet but it is going to be the end of humanity and i believe this wholeheartedly. i have dreams about it. i am sorry that we are in a pickle. the only way to save the world is if joe biden steps down and not allow donald trump to become president. thank you, america. have a great day. host: teresa is in michigan on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: i am very afraid of donald trump getting in office.

i do not know how he is able to run. why is everybody so afraid to stand up to this mob boss? thank you. host: patricia is on our line for republicans. please turn down your tv. caller: am i supposed to talk about donald trump? host: open forum. whatever you want to talk about. host: -- caller: all that is going on in this country, i would like to know what these people are calling in here about donald trump. these people have to look and see what is going on around them. and i would like to see a lot

log deportation going on. we have a lot of importation and i think vista biden is at the foot of all the trouble going on. he is in cahoots with the people from universities. he cannot decide whether he wants israel to be a free country or dead and, as i say, i want to see some deportation taking place and i do not care where they go. host: henry is on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: yes. i believe a representative from israel and the united states and a few other democratic countries should sit around and work out

these problems. this is not anti-semitic, but we should tell israel that, if they continue bombing civilians, we will cut their -- to simply -- not offensive but direct protection only. host: thank you, henry. tomorrow -- caller: how much do i love c-span? immensely. three quick points. first, i am not a victim. i am not a victim. i was once brainwashed by the propaganda of the media -- of

the american media and so many citizens of the nation are. the examples are racism, white supremacy, police brutality -- by the american media complex. point number two, donald trump defeated 14 career politicians in the 2016 campaign. that is a strike against mr. trump. they are still out there. mr. trump defeated hillary clinton in the 2016 presidential election campaign. that is strike two against him. that spawned trump arrangement -- derangement syndrome. trump criticized the american media complex, fake news. strike three against president donald j. trump. before i get into the last point, i would like to bring up something that was brought to

the viewers. it is about donations to c-span. in my last call, i pledged i would donate and i have done that. if you look at the facebook post, i have put that up. the producers said they could not get that up, but feel free to go to facebook and look at my post and see what i did for our wonderful organization. if you guys could come and go to c-span.org, hit the donation button, make a small donation and keep c-span funded. keep it solvent and keep it liquid. my third point, if i could. host: very quickly. caller: i do not hate that scrappy guy from scranton, pennsylvania, president biden. i just do not agree with his policies, globalization, inflation. host: that is all the time we

have for open forum. next, we are going to be joined by will creeley from the group foundation for individual rights and expression to talk about legal and free-speech issues surrounding campus protests around the country. we will be right back. >> c-span has been delivering unfiltered congressional coverage for 45 years. here is a highlight from a key moment. >> i stand here with my colleagues from the arizona delegation, both senate and house. we are close friends of gabrielle giffords cannot remember a tragic event that took place three years ago today. on january 8, 2011, at 10:10 a.m., in just 19.6 seconds, 19

people, including congresswoman giffords and myself, were shot 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, my go to guy. >> c-span, powered by cable. weekends bring a book tv, featuring leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. former supreme court justice stephen breyer explains his approach to the u.s. constitution with his book

"reading the constitution." then david sankar shares his book, which looks at the rise of china, russia's invasion of ukraine, and america's role on the world. watch book tv every weekend on c-span two and find the full program at booktv.org. >> "washington journal" continues. guest: welcome back. we are joined by will creeley, the legal director at the foundation for individual rights and expression, here to talk to us about the campus protests. welcome to "washington journal." guest: thanks so much. host: can you tell us about f.i.r.e.? your mission and where you get

your funding from? guest: f.i.r.e. is nonpartisan, funded -- founded in 1999. we have been defending free speech across the ideological spectrum until two years ago we focused on defending student and faculty rights. expanded our mission because there is a big need for defending free speech nationwide , not just on campuses, although this morning's topics make clear our work on campuses has to continue unabated. we have been awfully busy. we accept funding from individual donors, foundations, and folks across the ideological spectrum. we are proud of our record and the way i would put it is any question you can imagine, whether abortion, partisan politics, israel, gaza, we have defended speakers on both sides of every issue. host: speaking of this issue,

israel and gaza, what is your group's position on the protests happening on campuses? guest: the vast majority are peaceful, but we have seen -- it is like a law exam question. we have a lot of peaceful protest and we have protests that can be regulated as long as that regulation is done without regard to the viewpoint expressed by the protests. that is, you cannot have some protests cracked down upon because in ministry or law enforcement do not like the protesters are saying. we have seen some civil disobedience and violence as well. happily, incidents of violence have been relatively isolated, but violence is never protected by the first amendment. that part is easy. host: your group has provided a q&a on your website about what rights students have on campus. you have it broken down here

about ability to distinguish between peaceful protests and genuine misconduct. you have options for students to reach out. what are some of the distinctions that you highlight here about what students can and cannot do? guest: students can gather with folks who agree and disagree with them. we want free-speech to achieve its aim of allowing dialogue across differences so everybody is smarter and better informed as a result. students can gather together peacefully and express their views. where we run into trouble is when students physically occupy spaces on campus and do not permit other students to get into the library. that is blocking access and not protected by the first amendment. likewise, taking over spaces on

campus and occupying it is not protected. that is a form of civil disobedience and students who engage in that conduct should expect to be punished. there are other kinds of conduct on campus that we have seen that i would also say are not protected. at cornell university, we saw a student post what we would call a true threat, a statement designed to leave its intended target in fear of serious violence. a student said he would shoot up an area frequented by jewish students. he was arrested, properly so. true threats are not protected. incitement to violence, saying something intended to and likely to result in imminent unlawful action, also not protected by the first amendment. it has been a wide range of

conduct that we have seen on campus recently. host: your group has issued guidance for administrators trying to balance student right to protest versus the rights of other students to go to class or feel safe on university property. which universities are doing this while now and which ones are not? host: -- guest: good question. the university of chicago released a statement making clear students are allowed to come together and protest peacefully without regard to viewpoints but also make clear students who block access or attempt to take over inversely buildings should expect punishment for violating reasonable time, place, and meta-regulations on speech. that was useful. some schools who distinguish themselves and how they have responded to encampments on campus. brown university negotiated with

students who were occupying the campus and reached a peaceful settlement that stands in contrast to places where riot cops have come in. we have seen heavy-handed shows of law enforcement at the university texas austin, where the texas division of public safety came in, resulting in mass arrests and the jailing of a cameraman for a local tv station, allegedly for assaulting a police officer. we do not believe the evidence bears out those charges and arresting the press is at odds with our tradition of freedom of the press in this country, so there have been varying responses. some places have done it better than others. host: the house passed a bill that would require the department of education to use the international holocaust remembrance alliance working definition of anti-semitism when

enforcing federal antidiscrimination laws, called the antisemitism awareness act, and that definition includes denying the jewish people their right to self-determination and drawing comparisons of contemporary israeli policies to that of the nazis as examplesf anti-semitism. this piece of legislation was sponsored by republican mike lawler. here he is on the house floor wednesday pushing back on arguments that this bill is anti-free speech. >> some opponents may try to make the argument that this imposes restrictions on constitutional rights to free speech. it is not true. first, a constitutional protection is in the bill. it 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. when the speech turns into harassment or other prohibited actions and the action is motivated by anti-semitism, that is when it becomes illegal conduct. right now, without a clear definition of anti-semitism, the departments are having trouble discerning whether conduct is anti-semitic. whether the activity we are seeing crosses the line to anti-semitic harassment. host: f.i.r.e. has come out in opposition to the legislation. guest: we have opposed the act since 20 it has been introduced a number of times and we have opposed its use as a measuring stick. there is a savings clause in the bill, but that cannot escape the fact that the bill lists as examples of actual discrimination clearly protected

instances of protected speech. for example, you have the right in this country under the first of may to say the united states is like nazi germany. you can also say the state of israel is like nazi germany. that is protected political speech. by listing that as an example of what might be actionable, the act strays from its admirable goal of combating anti-semitism into restricting protected speech. we have grave concerns that this legislation would chill protected speech where it is supposed to be most free, on college campuses. we urge members to vote against the bill and will continue to do so. host: we are getting ready to take your calls on this topic. if you have questions about these protests and free-speech, our number if you support the protests is (202) 748-8000. if you are opposed to the protests, that is host:.

-- that is (202) 748-8001. if you happen to be a current college student or administrator, the number for you is (202) 748-8002. let's start with jason in pennsylvania. are you supporting or opposing the protests? caller: could you ask again? host: how do you feel about the student protests? >> caller: i am with my sons on the way to church. what i am upset about is not just the antisemitism. it is the anti-americanism. when a group of people who are protesting peacefully or not, are taking down the american flag, which is where we live, the country people flee to because it is a free country, and then they trees initially

take down the flag, our one and only american flag, and they put up a palestinian flag, obviously when people are hate speeching other people, as christ said, we should love our enemies. my son is going to read this. >> people who are listening, love your enemies. do good. host: did you have a question for will? caller: i want to know from will come and you see this as just anti-semitic or do you see this as -- in certain cases as anti-american? go ahead. host: do you want to answer

that? guest: i will put it like this. whether it is anti-semitic or anti-american to fly a palestinian flag, either way it is protected in the first amendment. i would summit to jason, who i imagine does not like that answer, that that is what makes this country the beacon of freedom and the home of liberty that it is. i'm standing here in our philadelphia office just on the road from independence hall and one of the distinction factors about the first amendment is that it is viewpoint and content neutral. it does not matter what the message is, if it offends some or many or even most americans. it is still protected under the first amendment and that is what separates the united states from repressive regimes where speech that criticizes the government is dangerous and might get you thrown in jail. we can in this country and have

committed to a different path. there is famous supreme court opinion. it might be required reading these days cut texas v johnson, or the supreme court wrestled with this question, whether laws that ban defacement or burning of the american flag are constitutional. the court said they are not, that you have a right to interact in that conduct even when it involves the revered symbol of the american flag. i know this is a challenging question, of all the thousands of questions i get this one comes up frequently, so i understand the intensity of emotion here. the beauty of the first amendment is it allows us to express disagreement even about the most important things, even about things that matter the most, to find understanding. host: michael is in florida and

supports the protests. caller: when, as an attorney, is there a way to contact to organization to offer support? specifically, our textbooks lead -- leave out swaths of science and i think that has led to a number of divisions we have. what i mean is what we consider natural law is not natural law. evolution does not optimize and it does not -- it is not synonymous with competition. cooperation actually rules, but they, i mean us, our culture has tried to use science to justify slavery. host: can you bring it back to the issue on the campuses? caller: a lot of that free speech -- that is the thing. it does have an effect. our inability to see things as middle -- we see things as black

or white because we are raised from birth to believe that natural law is competition. that is false. that is not what evolution is. it is in every one of our textbooks. host: i am going to stop you there and allow will to respond at least to the first point about how to reach you and offer support. guest: check out our website. i am obligated to mention our website as many times as i can. if you would like to be involved, if you are a student or faculty want to know more about your rights or sign up for our mailings and other activities, you can check out our website, www.thefire.org. host: charlie is in arkansas and opposed to the protests. caller: i would like to ask a question about the designated

protest areas. it seems to me, if i member right, there were protests against antiabortion or something and they had to stay in these little places way away from the -- any action. i guess these rules and stuff, who do they apply to? i am ever the protests in north carolina where they got a permit to protest that day and they said some racist things, possibly. i do not know. i did not watch all of it. i remember when i was a kid there were people saying racist stuff. i do not hear that anymore. freedom of speech, i don't know what that means. i remember stuff at the capitol happening where greenpeace people or women's rights activist switching them selves together. remind me if i'm wrong, i remember much worse stuff happening at the capitol then what was on january 6, if i remember right. i would like some reference.

that is all i had to say. the way i see freedom of speech is -- help me out. host: charlie raised the issue of protest areas on campuses as well as how these protests and their severity compared to the past along with the january 6 attack on the capital as a protest. guest: thanks for the question. for years, fire mac -- f.i.r.e. has fought against campus free speech zones. we think of them as little free-speech quarantine areas where you will have students designated and relegated to a small area on campus, as charlie was describing. two have been struck down by courts repeatedly. we think all of campus should be a free speech zone. when campuses push students into small come out-of-the-way

spaces, we have a big first amendment problem. in these latest instances, charlie asked for a historic perspective. we have been reminded that 40 years ago at cornell students set up shantytowns to protest apartheid in south africa and in the spring of 1985, over thousand students were arrested, so there is historical precedent for this kind of activity and i reminded it was 54 years ago yesterday when four students were shot dead by the national guard in ohio, so there is a definite challenging tradition of campus protests. regarding january 6, the breaching of the capitol does call to mind in some ways some of the occupation videos we have

seen. there is video of a window being broken, which i know folks online and others have drawn that comparison and it illustrates the difference between free speech, peaceful protest, and unlawful misconduct , which can and should be subject to law-enforcement response, including arrest. when you break into a building, whether that is the capitol or hamilton hall, you can and should expect to be arrested. you are no longer engage in free speech. you have crossed the line into actionable, unlawful activity. guest: -- host: once again, we have special phone numbers for this segment. if you are in support of the protests, that number is (202) 748-8000. for folks who propose -- oppose the protests, (202) 748-8001.

current students and administrators can call in at (202) 748-8002. let's hear from larry, who is an administrator. caller: i work here at the college campus in st. louis and i see everything going on on tv. i do not understand it. why would they be protesting something that we have no control over? course the kids that are of jewish descent, those kids are just like any of us. they have no -- it is not their problem that israel is attacking civilians. i do not understand it. i guess with these thoughts in mind, i see it on the news and cannot get no answers. maybe with your help i could. i appreciate your time. thank you.

guest: it is a good question. this is one thing free speech is good for. you get to find out why people are protesting. you can ask or listen to them. new york magazine has an issue out this week written by a reporter who provided excellent coverage during the unrest at columbia and they are interviewing their fellow students and asking those questions. why are you at your protesting? what is your personal emotional involvement here? students likely have a wide range of answers. they may think what is happening in israel and gaza is unjust. they may be protesting the october 7 attacks. they may feel they have a moral duty to comment. people bring a lot of different reasons to bear when they speak their minds. here at f.i.r.e., we do not take a position on whether speech is

good or bad. if it is protected, we will defend it. it does not matter why someone is protesting. if you are speaking your mind and punished for doing so, we are there to protect you. host: joe is in support of the protests. caller: thank you for taking my call. i support the protesters manly because they are not protesting the existence of israel or jews. if you listen to cnn but they will say they are anti-semites. if you listen to fox news, they are pro-hamas courts so you see the back-and-forth when the truth is they are protesting the slaughter and starvation of a bunch of people that have nothing to do with the attack on israel. i want everyone to pay attention. sometimes things are distractions. if you look at israel's actions

after october 7, less than three weeks later they were signing contracts with italy's big oil company, which has just bought noble energy out of israel. do you ever look past the protests and the split between against and for the protests and look at maybe the underlying cause of why israel would be doing such a mass slaughter, because it gives them rights to oil and gas they do not own? everyone needs to look up is royal oil and gas. host: i am going to stop you because i want to see if will has anything to add. guest: the bulk of that i do not know and is beyond f.i.r.e.'s purview. one thing freedom of expression is good for is it allows folks

to speak their minds. you can get a better sense of the complexity of any given issue. i do think too often in this country we are bound to binary yes or no, good or bad interpretations. i think the protests and responses to them have been an example of the way that public dialogue is sometimes messy. there is no blackett answer. these protests are not all alike. some of them resolved peacefully. some of them have not been. each involves its own considerations and we try to analyze each case on its own merits, without putting it in one box or the other based on popular conception, so that is a feature of free speech. it allows you to capture nuance and complicity. host: elise is opposed to the protests.

go ahead with your question. caller: i have listened to previous callers and you touched on flags and a flag associated with a palestinian group but is actually a representation of hamas. we got a question -- these are not organic protests. these are orchestrated, well-funded, and organized with instructions similar tents on campuses. we have the media that is putting out a message that ignores the real reality on the ground and when you talk about free speech it is not free speech when you create a narrative which is actually a lie.

i have heard that with people who have called. they are talking about innocent civilians in gaza who did not do anything, supposedly, but they supported and cheered and celebrated after hamas -- and iran's proxies attacked israel and slaughtered people and kidnapped people. host: to keep it focused on what will can address, i will ask him to speak to her first point about outside influence on these protests and if you all have any thoughts on that or involvement there. guest: i do not. put it like this, even if there was a well-funded and carefully orchestrated attempt to get out a certain message on campus, that would not mean it loses first minute protection. the first minute products organic, grassroots, everybody just thought at the same time let's go outside protests and also would protect carefully

orchestrated protests that are funded or supported by outside groups. i will maybe move things over a little bit. there has been suggestion that some of these protests have provided material support to hamas in violation of federal law. those allegations so far have not been shown to be supported by evidence and are baseless. the governor of florida issued a warning letter warning that student groups voicing pro-palestinian messages might be violating federal law and the commissioner -- the education commission declined to enforce the order to kick those groups off campus, knowing that he did not have evidence to back it up and that he would incur personal liability for violating the first women right for kicking those groups off campus just because of an official dislike

for their message. i get this is a hard issue. of all the issues we do, israel and gaza even before october 7 has been perhaps the most intensely felt and hard-fought and bitter, so this is a challenging topic for folks across the country and i think protests are showing that. the beauty of the first men meant is it protects speech that anyone of us might find gravely offensive so our own speech, if someone else find it offensive, would be likewise protected. that is the way the system works. the government does not get to decide what messages we do and do not hear and can and cannot say. we decide that. if you do not like media coverage of a protest, i recommend changing the channel. host: naomi is in support of the protests. caller: please enlighten me. claudine gay was on the panel

with congress and other college chancellors. she was only one that got fired. it appeared to me she was fired for free speech. where does it start and where does it end? and harvard -- those colleges should have made one statement from the university when they went before congress. guest: that is a great question. claudine gay and liz mcgill also lost her position as a result of that questioning at the congressional hearing, or the leaders of harvard and m.i.t. were questioned about responses to anti-semitism on campus in the wake of october 7. you have free speech rights as a private citizen to speak her mind.

you may or may not have that right in your professional life. we have -- if claudine gay were to take a stand and say actually harvard is a terrible school, she would be exercising -- expressing herself, but she could still be fired for doing so and there are also allegations of plagiarism, which i think forced her resignation, but i want to be clear about the distinction between speaking as a private citizen and as a employee. you have different free-speech rights in different contexts. i hope that is helpful. there is more about this on our website. thanks for the good question. guest: we have equipped -- host: we have a question we receive via text. does free-speech cover the george washington statue being defaced? guest: free speech does not

cover vandalism. if you spray paint or defaced something, you can be punished. if you were to stand next to the george washington statue with a sign saying this man is a hero or a tyrant or whatever, that would be protected. but permit leader facing or even impermanent leader facing a statue crosses that line. host: pam is in chicago and opposed to the protests. caller: i am against the protests. i do not agree with the speaker. i believe a good percentage of the protests are chanting blood libel incitement against jews and this is not respected under freedom of expression. it is illegal and physical destruction is not freedom. i also believe these are well

orchestrated attacks, students for justice for palestine, it is a hamas terrorist organization and we need to uncover the masks that stand behind all of this, including american muslims for palestine and the students for justice for palestine are being sued by americans due to material support to hamas. i believe they are behind what we would -- what i would call an uprising in america. would the speaker support chants of death to black and brown people? would this be allowable under free-speech? guest: great question. thanks for the call. i think the relevant legal theory here is harassment. federal antidiscrimination law requires colleges and universities to accept federal

funding, which is the majority of institutions, to take action against discriminatory harassment on campus. if i say death to all black and brown people, if i say that and i'm having a protest, that is protected local speech. if i say that and i directed to my roommate who happens to be black, then that starts looking more like discriminatory harassment. the standard is that the speech has to be so severe, pervasive gun and objectively -- pervasive, and objectively -- if i'm saying that in my dorm room chanting for genocide in my dorm room, then my roommate may feel freaked out and like he can no longer be safely in his dorm room. at that point, that starts looking like discriminatory harassment. if i am at a political rally,

the first amendment protects a great deal of racist or bigoted speech. the answer is to hold a counter protest, to ignore it, to allow it to collapse under its own weight and reveal the racism of a movement in your eyes. we get to make up our own minds and folks decide what these folks are chanting for his blood libel, well, one can expect them to lose popular support. that is the revealing nature of free speech. we do not have to get people to tell us themselves what they think and then we can make up our own minds. discriminatory harassment is not protected by the first amendment and colleges do take action against it and are required under federal law to do so. it is a context specific, case-by-case determination, so the fact do matter. host: bobby sayprerty damage

does not justify police attacks on protesters and faculty when those people are not actively being violent. is there a uniform set of rules of engagement for law enforcement when it comes to campus protests? under what circumstances are they allowed to remove protesters? guest: the show of force has to be a last resort. people who are occupying campus or defacing property are engaged in unlawful activity and can and should be subject to arrest, but when you have a peaceful protest and bring in law enforcement, you can expect things to get choppy. i do not think a big show of force soothes a situation. it puts people on edge and begins to increase rather than decrease the likelihood of unlawful violence. it is a tricky question.

i am not a law-enforcement officer, so i cannot speak with any expertise here, but there has to be a goldilocks response where it is not too much law enforcement so unrest occurs as a result of this appearance of warrior cops but it also cannot be too little, in which case violence is more likely as opposing groups spark discord and eventually get into pushing and shoving and the rest of it. colleges have to be clear about violence. they cannot allow anybody on campus to expect to be able to engage in violence without consequence. it is a tricky line to walk, but i know our colleges and universities are capable of walking in -- walking it in a way that punishes violence. as for the property damage question, i think if you are engaged in property damage or blocking access to a university building you should expect to be

arrested. that is prohibiting other students from getting their education, from walking safely around campus, and universities serve as a marketplace of ideas. if one group tries to say only these ideas are acceptable, as we have seen in some of these encampments, that is a problem. host: matthew is in michigan in support of the protests. caller: i do not mind the people protesting. i do not necessarily agree with what they have to say. i think they are misinformed. the constitution affords you the right to peacefully assemble. the democratic convention is a peaceful assembly. the republican convention is a peaceful assembly. when you go to church, that is a peaceful assembly. as far as free-speech goes, it is pretty much the right to say anything. people put their foot in their mouth all the time. let them put their foot in their mouth and we will sort it out.

host: we will get one more person in, show in florida, who is opposed to the protests. caller: i am opposed to the way these protests have unfolded, not to people expressing their feelings and ideas. but when people appropriate other people's problems and suffering for themselves and then act that out, that is psychiatric, so these kids could have done something a lot more useful by expressing their feelings by having food drives, money drives, clothing drives and sending things to the people. and to something useful, not something destructive. this is a big problem.

the other thing is that the jewish students and parents could have simply taken their children out of school and said you are not going to have this. just watch what happens when all the support of jewish money in all our institutions goes away and the jewish students walk off of campus. one of the biggest hits is absence from something. so i think we have a world and country that is out of control. they do not know how to handle themselves. guest: i would say that, with regard to students leaving campus, federal anti-discrimination law wants to require schools to step in before it gets to that point. schools have to make sure students are not denied access to campus or educational

opportunities because of their race, caller, national origin, hailing from a place with the dominant religious identity, including antisemitism. so the trick is to protect expressive rights for students but also shield students from that kind of targeted, discriminatory harassment. there is a way to do it. i'm confident our colleges and universities can get it right moving forward. host: thank you, will creeley, legal director at the foundation for individual rights and expression. thank you for your time this morning. in q2 all of our callers and textures -- thank you to all of our callers and texter. please come back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern for another edition of "washington journal." ♪ [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

ttack. this is about two hours and 15