Return to Transcripts main page


Marijuana Mom; Interview with Glenn Greenwald; Interview with Congressman Steve King; Gun Violence in Chicago

Aired July 27, 2013 - 21:00   ET


ANNOUNCER: Who broke the NSA leaker story, Glenn Greenwald.

ANNOUNCER: Tonight Morgan Spurlock. You loved him when he supersized fast food. Look how big their French fry is. Now CNN's own "INSIDE MAN" Morgan Spurlock guest-hosts for Piers.

Tonight he's talking to the man who broke the NSA leaker story, Glenn Greenwald.

SPURLOCK: What information does he have to reveal?

GLENN GREENWALD, COLUMNIST, THE GUARDIAN: There's definitely more stories to be reported.

ANNOUNCER: Also the tragic story of the Chicago 6-year-old shot at a memorial service for another shooting victim. What her pastor says about gun violence.

And the congressman who says this about immigration reform.

STEVE KING (R), IOWA: They've got calves the size of cantaloupes because they're hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.

ANNOUNCER: Plus, what Morgan Spurlock learned when he went to work for a medical marijuana distributor.

SPURLOCK: Now I have the ability to grow marijuana in the state of California. In San Francisco, I can grow up to 24 plants in my backyard.


SPURLOCK: Hi, I'm Morgan Spurlock in for that other Morgan. And that was from my CNN series "INSIDE MAN."

I learned a lot about pot in this country. But not as much as my next guests.

Joining me now, Cheryl Shuman, the leader of the candidates for Cannabis Reform Movement, who runs the members only Beverly Hills Cannabis Club and her daughter, Aimee Shuman, who's executive vice president of the club. Also, Howard Samuels, CEO and founder of the Hills Treatment Center.

Thanks for being here, guys. CHERYL SHUMAN, FOUNDER, BEVERLY HILLS CANNABIS CLUB: Thank you for having us.


SPURLOCK: Cheryl, why was it important for you to start the Beverly Hills Cannabis Club and become known as the Martha Stewart of marijuana?

C. SHUMAN: Well, I had a health crisis that led me to the cannabis industry. And when I realized that it worked for me as a corporate woman, I felt it was very important to redefine the space because there's such a negative image and stereotype assigned to the modern cannabis consumers.

So I was approached by William Morris Endeavor, who is representing me in film, television and whatnot. And we are developing reality series programmings, as well as film projects and all sorts of things. So very, very important, I think, especially with us being at a -- tipping point on legalization for mainstream to take a serious look at this, because the truth is, the modern-day cannabis consumer are people like you and me.

They're doctors. They're lawyers. They're attorneys, producers, actors. They're everywhere. And we are inspiring and empowering people to come out of the closet and be open about the fact that cannabis works for them.

SPURLOCK: So not -- so you're going to go from pop mom to movie star and TV star? That's next?




From your lips to God. That's what my agent is saying, so --

SPURLOCK: So -- and so how has it made you a better mother? I've heard you say that. How has that happened?

C. SHUMAN: Well, in 1996, when Prop 215 was just passed in Los Angeles, my therapist, who, at that time, had me on anti-depressants and anxiety pills and sleeping pills, he actually suggested it to me. I was in a session with him. It was 1996. Prop 215 had just passed. And he and I had developed a rapport where he felt comfortable telling me that he used cannabis himself.

He found it to be an excellent mood stabilizer. And so I tried it. And I was able to get rid of all the pharmaceuticals that I was using. And cannabis worked much better for me. Then, 10 years later or -- in 2006, I was diagnosed with cancer and it saved my life. So in my particular case, it gave my life back to me, for my children, so that I could be there for them. And now my daughter is my executive vice president and we're building the company together. SPURLOCK: Aimee, is she right? Did it transform her as a mother? Did it change her as a person?

A. SHUMAN: Absolutely. I'm so proud of my mom. She is the modern- day Pauline Sabin, the woman that overturned alcohol prohibition. Now she's going to overturn marijuana prohibition. So it's amazing to have her as a mother.

SPURLOCK: Dr. Samuels, as a recovering addict, what is your reaction to the pop moms?

HOWARD SAMUELS, CEO AND FOUNDER, THE HILLS TREATMENT CENTER: I really find it frightening because there's really a lot of ignorance that is going on here. You know, I started smoking weed at 14. I didn't get sober until I was 32. It took me years to rehabilitate my emotions. And what we're talking about is marijuana is a very dangerous drug when it comes to your emotions, especially for the 15- to 25-year-old individuals who are just starting to learn how to deal with feelings in a healthy way. Not to medicate your feelings just because you have a little anxiety.


SPURLOCK: Aimee, you disagree? Aimee, you're shaking your head. You disagree?

A. SHUMAN: I -- I disagree. We were on the "Katie Couric Show" recently with Dr. Sanjay Gupta. And he had a lot to say about this. I'm not a medical professional. I wish we had a medical professional, but a medical professional would disagree.

SPURLOCK: So, Doctor, back to you. So --

C. SHUMAN: Well, I'd like -- I would like to add something to that.

SPURLOCK: Just want to head to Dr. Samuels. So, Doctor, why don't you think pot should be legalized?

SAMUELS: OK. Let -- let's get something straight, all right. These people, their specialty is PR. It is not addiction. I've been involved in the addiction field for almost 25, 30 years, based on also me being an addict. OK, I deal with this day in and day out. How dare they tell me what I'm saying is not true when I treat individuals who have panic attacks, just -- you know, anxiety attacks, who cannot sleep, who have major impulse control issues because they've been smoking pot every day for five years, three years, 10 years? Lack of motivation. These are facts.

So, please, don't tell me when that I'm wrong when I deal with this issue on a daily basis. That is irresponsible.

SPURLOCK: Ladies, what are -- what are your thoughts?

C. SHUMAN: As a mother here's what I find very interesting. First of all, I'm not advocating for a 14-year-old to go out and use cannabis as a mood stabilizer. I was 36 years old. My daughter is a grown woman at 32 years old. And I'm saying as a responsible adult, this works for me much better than Prozac or anti-depressants.

Now let's address the addiction issue. There are many people that feel that cannabis is a gateway drug. I completely disagree. I feel that if someone is going to be an addict, they most likely started with tobacco or beer. And, of course, pot was probably the third one that they tried. And if a person is going to be addicted to anything and they have an addictive personality, they're going to be addicted to almost anything.

So I completely disagree with the gentleman. And I've seen a number of cases, quite frankly, where people have had other addictions and -- and they've never had an issue with pot whatsoever. So I'm talking about the medicinal use of cannabis as a grown woman, as a 53-year-old woman in the privacy of my home. And I'm also speaking about people who use cannabis responsibly.

I am not referring to people who have addiction issues. And I do not support a 14-year-old using cannabis period.

SPURLOCK: Doctor, Cheryl brings up an interesting point here, which we live in a country where we really do jump to medicate people very quickly with prescription drugs, whether that be like Oxycontin, Oxycodone, Ritalin for children.

How is that different or OK versus using this as some sort of a medicinal treatment?

SAMUELS: None of it is OK, OK? The anti-depressant issue is different. I'm on Lexapro. It is not a mood-changing drug. It helps me with my OCD issues, OK? Now marijuana is a very dangerous drug because it medicates the emotional system. So what you're doing here is that these people are telling me that marijuana is as safe as aspirin or as toothpaste. B.S. Please, get a life. So this is a dangerous drug.

SPURLOCK: So there's -- no doubt to you, there's no doubt to you that marijuana is a gateway drug?

SAMUELS: No, not only is it a gateway drug, because if you were really in the field that I am, people are using marijuana at 14 years old because of people like this I'm debating. They're telling people -- and kids are listening to their show -- that marijuana is safe and a -- and it's totally causes no harm to the body and the emotional system whatsoever. That is totally false.


SPURLOCK: Is today's pot --


C. SHUMAN: Now I -- I --

SPURLOCK: How is today's pot different from our parents' pot? How is it different from like the pot that you and I grew up around versus what's around today? (CROSSTALK)

SAMUELS: Well, today, it's extremely powerful today.

C. SHUMAN: I completely disagree.

SAMUELS: I mean, the chemicals that they put in it, plus when we talk about cigarettes, we're talking about smoking pot. What's the difference? If you're inhaling horrible chemicals and issues like that, then that's also where the throat cancer comes from and other physical ailments.

C. SHUMAN: Well --

SAMUELS: So, to me, what's really -- and excuse me, but why aren't we getting high on life anymore? That's the issue.

SPURLOCK: I'm high on life.

SAMUELS: Why do we have to talk about --

SPURLOCK: I'm high on life right now.

SAMUELS: Well, so am I.

C. SHUMAN: Well, there's something very important here that you guys are not --

SAMUELS: And I'm loving it.

C. SHUMAN: You're not addressing. Number one, cannabis is far safer than alcohol, tobacco or pharmaceuticals. It was legal in our pharmacies until 1937. And not only that, alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceuticals, people are dying at the rate -- women specifically, are dying at a rate of one woman every nine minutes from overdoses from alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceuticals.

Do you know how many overdoses there have been from marijuana? Zero. Zero in the history of this plant. It's a plant that can heal a multitude of illnesses. It is a superior mood stabilizer. And it works. And the revenue and the tax regulation of this plant can heal our economy, period.

SPURLOCK: Cheryl, do you see any benefit to the place where I worked, Harborside Health Center? What's the benefit of a place like that?

C. SHUMAN: Well, first of all, I loved CBD. I just got off the phone with Andrew before I got on here. And I have to say that one of their philosophies of coming out of the shadows and into the light is a very, I think it was an enlightening and empowering feeling for me when I first had cancer.

Harbor Side was the very first center I went into. I think they're excellent role models, as you know, Morgan. There are real patients there. It is not people getting high. And cannabis works far superior over any drug, any pharmaceutical. I don't have any addiction issues. None of the people I know have any addiction issues. But if you're an addict, Howard, you're going to be addicted to anything, including chocolate.

SPURLOCK: Doctor --

C. SHUMAN: And I'm sorry it is safer than aspirin.

SPURLOCK: Howard, any benefit --

C. SHUMAN: It is safer than (INAUDIBLE).

SPURLOCK: Any benefit to the place where I work? Any benefit to a place like Harborside?

SAMUELS: The only benefit is with people with serious, you know, cancer issues and some pain issues. That I agree with. But the whole medical California issue here is a farce. It's a sham. You know, most of the people are addicts that get cards. I mean I treat people that walk in there, they can get a card like that, like you did, Morgan. I mean it is totally unregulated. And it's a joke. And that's part of the issue.

But -- but what -- what I really irresponsible here is that there doesn't seem to be many advocates of trying to protect our young people from this very dangerous emotional drug. And I'm sorry, but I think that the two of you are totally being very irresponsible here to our nation's youth.

SPURLOCK: Cheryl, Aimee, and Dr. Samuels, thank you for your time. We appreciate you being on the show.

We'll be right back.

C. SHUMAN: Thank you.



KEITH ALEXANDER, NSA DIRECTOR: We have concrete proof that they have already, terrorist groups and others are taking action, making changes and it's going to make our job tougher.

The purpose of these programs and the reason we use secrecy is not to hide it from the American people, not to hide it from you, but to hide it from those who walk among you who are trying to kill you.


SPURLOCK: I'm Morgan Spurlock, guest hosting for Piers Morgan tonight. And that was NSA director Keith Alexander. He says leaks about the American government surveillance programs put the American people at risk.

My next guest does not agree. He's Glenn Greenwald, the man who broke the NSA leaker story for "The Guardian." Glenn, how are you?

GREENWALD: Doing well. Thanks.

SPURLOCK: Thanks for joining us tonight. What is your reaction to what Director Keith Alexander said?

GREENWALD: Every single time government officials try and do things and hide it from the American people and then get caught doing what they're doing, they do the same thing, they scream the word terrorism over and over in the hope that people will get scared. It's just pure fear-mongering and agree that they should be able to do whatever they want.

The reality is that nothing we exposed informed the terrorists of anything. The spying we exposed had nothing to do with terrorism. It was bulk collecting phone records, chats, e-mails of Americans -- the American people indiscriminately.

The only thing that we informed anybody of was not the terrorists, but the American people, that this spying apparatus built in the dark is aimed at them.

SPURLOCK: Well, why did he leave the U.S. in the first place? Why not stay here and fight? If he was really a hero, wouldn't he have just, you know, be seen a little differently if he had just stuck around and kind of stood his ground?

GREENWALD: I don't think so. If you look at what Bradley Manning, for example, did, who leaked thousands of pages showing serious war crimes on the part of the United States, he didn't run and yet most people in the media and lots of people in the United States viewed him as somehow an odious person, even a traitor. He's been locked away in a cage for many years and we haven't heard from him.

There's an op-ed by Daniel Ellsberg, who most people consider to be a heroic whistleblower, in "The Washington Post" from two weeks ago who said that Snowden was right to flee, because unlike when Daniel Ellsberg was charged with leaking, he was able to be free during the trial, he was able to speak publicly.

If -- in this country now, whistleblowers under the Obama administration are treated very harshly. If Mr. Snowden came back, he would be stuck in prison. He wouldn't be allowed to participate in the debate that he helped provoke. And it'd be very unlikely that he would get a fair trial. That's from Daniel Ellsberg in "The Washington Post," who said that Snowden was right to leave the country.

SPURLOCK: In an interview with an Argentinean newspaper, you stated that Snowden had more to reveal. Your quote is, "The U.S. government should be on their knees every day praying that nothing happens to Snowden because if something happens, all information will be revealed and that would be their worst nightmare."

GREENWALD: Right. That was, you know, before I began reporting this story, I wrote an article about how anybody who exposes what the U.S. government is doing is the target of smear campaigns and demonization. And that was the perfect example of how Reuters took that quote completely out of context.

I made the exact opposite point as the one that Reuters and government defenders tried to claim that I made that. That answer was in response to a question which was, do you think the United States government will try and kill Mr. Snowden? And I said that would make no sense. He has with him extremely sensitive documents that he has been insistent not be disclosed, because his goal is not to harm the United States, but to shed light to his fellow citizens on what the government is doing.

And if he were killed, there'd be no telling how those documents would then get released, probably more irresponsibly. If I were the U.S. government, I would be praying for his health, not trying to kill him, because of how responsible of a whistleblower he's been in insisting that these stories be reported judiciously.

SPURLOCK: Sources have told CNN's Barbara Starr that Snowden doesn't have the crown jewels of the NSA, the extremely compartmentalized information. It seems that you guys differ on this. Why is that?

GREENWALD: Well, you know, Barbara Starr is very good at going to government officials and having them whisper in her ear and then repeating what they say and calling that reporting. The way that I like to do reporting is by going and looking at actual documents, not listening to what government officials tell me in secret and then passing it on.

And I've seen the documents. And what I know about these documents is that some of them, by necessity, are very sensitive, because he needed to have documents to prove that what he was saying was true. And some of the documents that he took to show that what he was saying was true contain sensitive material, very technical information and the like.

And he -- when he came to us said, I do not want any of this sensitive information revealed. I don't want to harm the United States, I simply want to shine light on what government -- on what government officials are doing in the dark that American citizens should know about. So I know these documents that he took are sensitive. And he -- that's why he instructed us to be very careful on how we reported them.

SPURLOCK: What more information does he have to reveal?

GREENWALD: Well, it isn't that he has more to reveal. He has given us all the documents that I believe he intends to leak. You know, there is -- there are in excess of 10,000. He gave those to us six or seven weeks ago when I was in Hong Kong. And so we've been in the process of reporting it, vetting it.

And there's definitely more stories to be reported that we're in the process now of writing about things that the United States government is doing to American citizens in terms of collecting very invasive information about them, the lack of oversight that NSA analysts have as they sit at their terminals and can read anyone's e-mail they want or listen to whatever calls they want, the deals that the United States government strikes with Internet companies and telecoms to have the data about their customers turned over to the United States en masse.

Really just a worldwide, ubiquitous spying system that is being constructed without any oversight or real checks. And there's still lots of programs within that apparatus that are still to be reported.

SPURLOCK: Nicaragua, Venezuela and Bolivia have all offered Snowden asylum. Do you know where he would like to go, what his preference is?

GREENWALD: I think his -- his really -- his only goal is to make sure that he can continue to participate in the debate over surveillance, that was his main goal to help provoke. I think where he ends up is really secondary. The problem is, there aren't that many countries in the world who are both able and willing to apply the law rather than simply capitulate to U.S. dictates. His choices are limited.

SPURLOCK: It's been reported that in order to apply for asylum in Russia, he's agreed not to divulge any more information about the U.S. government. What can you tell me about that?

GREENWALD: Well, like I said, his -- as far as I know, he never -- even before he got to Russia, he doesn't have any intention of disclosing more information. He vetted all the documents that he took with him very carefully. He turned over the ones to us that he thought we should report on. He kept the ones, presumably, that he didn't think should be.

So the condition that the Russians have imposed on him for staying there, which is don't leak any more documents, is one that I think is very easily complied with since he's already turned over to us all of the documents that he wants us to have.

SPURLOCK: You touched on it earlier, but I'd love to kind of have you talk about it a little bit more. How difficult is it going to be for him, as he's working with the governments, trying to figure out a way to seek asylum, to create a travel plan since ultimately he is going to be flying through restricted airspace?

GREENWALD: Well, there are ways to get from Moscow to Latin America without having to fly over airspace that is controlled by the United States or its allies. It takes a lot of money. It takes a lot of resources. It takes a lot of planning. But there certainly are ways to do it.

It's just that if you have the most powerful state on the earth, which has proven that legal constraints and the norms of international relationships are no barrier to engaging in behavior, something the United States has proven throughout the entire war on terror and has proven recently in this case, it becomes a lot more difficult.

But he believes it's feasible. He's going to stay in Russia until he's able to do that, is my understanding. And what he's most interested in doing is making sure that light continues to be shined on what the NSA and our government officials are doing when spying on Americans. That's really what he cares about most.

SPURLOCK: What is Snowden's relationship with WikiLeaks? Does he continue to be in contact with the organization and Julian Assange?

GREENWALD: I don't think he had any relationship with WikiLeaks, not -- at least not to my knowledge until WikiLeaks provided him with assistance in leaving Hong Kong at the request of the -- or at the invitation or with the permission of the government of Hong Kong and then seeking asylum. So as far as I know, his relationship has always been and still is, limited in the sense that WikiLeaks has helped him apply for asylum and to leave Hong Kong.

SPURLOCK: South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham is proposing that the United States boycott the Winter Olympics in Sochi in February if Snowden is granted asylum. Your reaction?

GREENWALD: Well, it's really interesting because the United States grants asylum all the time to people who are fleeing places like China or Russia or other places around the world and I never hear any U.S. official or politician or member of the U.S. media ever say something like, isn't it strange that this person would seek asylum in a country that created a worldwide torture regime and continues to imprison people without charges in Guantanamo and drones children to death, persecutes whistleblowers, has had all kinds of abuse reports filed by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch?

The idea of asylum is not that you try and declare the country that you're seeking it from to be the perfect bastion of civil liberties. The idea is that you are seeking protection from persecution at home. And so if Russia grants him asylum, what they're doing is something countries all over the world do, which is applying this universally recognized right.

I mean Lindsey Graham is somebody who wants to go to war with every country that he can find on the globe, practically. So the idea that he's threatening Russia shouldn't come as any surprise. But all Russia is doing in this case is protecting Mr. Snowden's human rights from a government, the United States, that wants to prosecute him.

SPURLOCK: Do Snowden have any regrets giving up his life here in the United States?

GREENWALD: It's amazing. He -- that's, to me, the most surprising thing about this case from the beginning. I mean here's a 29-year-old kid. He had a life that most people would envy, a -- a long time girlfriend, living in Hawaii, a stable career, a lucrative paycheck, and he said to me from the beginning that he understood that he was he was risking prison for the rest of his life but felt compelled, that he couldn't, in good conscience, allow this to be done to the privacy rights of his fellow Americans without them at least knowing that it's being done so they can take action.

And I've never seen him wavier from that resolve, even as he's undergone a very intense and high pressured situation over the last month. He's still very tranquil and at peace with the decision he made, especially as he watches within the United States, Republicans and Democrats join together because of what he disclosed and work to reform these surveillance abuses.

SPURLOCK: Glenn, thank you for your time.

GREENWALD: Thank you. Appreciate it.

SPURLOCK: Coming up, who should be an American? I'll talk to a congressman who said that for every young documented -- undocumented immigrant who is a school valedictorian, 100 more are -- and I'm quoting here -- "hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert."

Congressman Steve King joins me next.



SPURLOCK: We got to carry it about -- I don't know. A quarter mile, half mile to where I'm picking today. This is my line of trees right here so I'll work down until I meet over there is where the other end somewhere in the middle. It's around 950 per tub. So my goal is to get at least six. If I was going to really make a living wage, I need to have that first tub filled in an hour.


SPURLOCK: Hi. I'm Morgan Spurlock, in for Piers Morgan tonight.

On my CNN's series "INSIDE MAN" I've seen the real face of immigration. I've worked side by side with some migrant farm workers in Florida. I've got tell you, they're pretty tough jobs.

So when I heard that Congressman Steve King of Iowa gave an interview last week and when she talked about undocumented immigrants, quote, "hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert, I knew I wanted to talk to him. And Congressman Steve King joins me now.

Congressman, how are you?

KING: I'm doing fine. Thanks for having me on, Morgan.

SPURLOCK: Thanks. Thanks for joining me tonight. So that was me working in the film -- in the field as the citrus workers, the migrant farm workers. Have you ever worked as a migrant farm worker, Congressman?

KING: You know, I've done a lot of work that's worse than picking oranges. And I didn't have to be a migrant person to do that, but I spent my life in the construction business. I started out on the pipeline. And, you know, when you get out of the ditch and you get a chance to run alongside it on a side boom, that's a pretty good day.

So I know what it's like to work up through this. We have worked in temperatures, heat indexes of 126 above and 60 below zero. And my sons will all tell you that. And we're in the second generation of the construction business. So, a lot of times they'd like to pick some oranges compared to what they might have been doing.

SPURLOCK: You know, my experience when I was there was probably one of the toughest jobs I've ever done. I've even mined coal in West Virginia. I mean, this was a pretty grueling, you know, backbreaking job. Do you think Americans are lining up for jobs like this?

KING: I think there are 100 million Americans that are of working age that are simply not in the workforce. One of the reasons that they're not lining up is because we have 80 different means-tested federal welfare programs and if you add that all up together, it almost is a guarantee of a cradle-to-grave middle class standard of living. That's a big mistake to have a policy like that that would have that many people not necessarily in the shadows, but people that are not in the workforce that should be.

SPURLOCK: Yes. So, from your point of view, like when I went to Florida, there were thousands of these jobs up for grabs. Anybody could come get them. And of Americans like myself who actually go, become a part of this workforce, I was the only one who showed up.

Why do you think that is?

KING: Well, I think it's because just as I've said, that the magnet that keeps people there and in their homes is a large cradle-to-grave welfare system.

There was a study that was done I read in "The Des Moines Register" back in the '90s some time, they went into the city of Milwaukee and they surveyed 36 square blocks, residential areas, six blocks by six blocks and in that, they found that these are people that had migrated up to Milwaukee from the Gulf Coast at the end of prohibition. And these are children and grandchildren of those folks that live there now.

They didn't find a single male employed head of household in all 36 square blocks. That tells you a little something about what's going on in this country. I want to do some things to encourage this workforce that we can develop to get into the workforce and contribute to the gross domestic product and I understand why migrant workers do what they do. I also understand they're more mobile than the people in Milwaukee and other cities.


KING: They can move to the job, they'll go to work quickly. And, by the way, one person can communicate so you can bring a whole group of people together at once. We've had that as crews that walk means in my neighborhood in years past.

SPURLOCK: When you look at this immigration reform, what's being proposed at the moment, can you tell me about your thoughts on the whole gang of eight immigration reform bill?

KING: Well, I read through the bill, and I look at what they're trying to do. First, I'd say to you that the universe of young people who are brought here without knowledge that they were breaking the law by their parents, that's the most sympathetic group. The gang of eight's bill broadens this thing out and really says this.

Other than those who have committed felonies, and those who have committed these three mysterious misdemeanors, other than that when you set those off to the side, everyone else that's in the United States illegally gets to stay, and anybody that comes in the future, it's a promise that they will not have the law applied against them either. And it sends an invitation to those out who were deported in past which is we really didn't mean it, reapply, you can come back to the United States if you didn't commit the felonies.

And so, it is a perpetual and retroactive amnesty which destroys rule of law in America, at least with regard to immigration. It's a very high price to pay for a piece of sympathy in our heart that we all have.

SPURLOCK: I want to talk about the interview you gave to Newsmax last week. Let's take a listen.


KING: For everyone who's a valedictorian, there's another 100 out there that they weigh 130 pounds and they've got calves the size of cantaloupes because they're hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert. Those people would be legalized with the same act.


SPURLOCK: Do you stand by these statements, Congressman?

KING: Of course I do. It's utterly true, and I haven't found anybody that came up with a competing number. Certainly I pulled 100 out of a hat, but I think that's probably a low number and I've been to the border multiple times.


KING: I've sat down there in the crossing at night and put myself at risk to see what's going on.

SPURLOCK: But that's when you're comparing them just with valedictorians, that's just when you're comparing them with the one valedictorian in the country. What about -- what about the vast number of young people who are actually going to school, who are earning a living, who are giving to society? Should those people not have a chance to try and stay in our country?

KING: But here's the point. In almost -- we had witnesses before the judiciary committee and two of the four witnesses mentioned, talked about valedictorians. They're making this the case. Not me. And I'm simply rebutting that, yes, there are some valedictorians throughout all this, but you identified a universe of people that goes next to that but not included as valedictorians. So, I just wanted to make the point if we're going to waive the rule of law because some of them are valedictorians, we ought to also understand those who are smuggling drugs into the country would also have the law waived on them and we would be legalizing a lot of folks that are regular drug smugglers.

By the way, that physical description wasn't mine. That's the physical description of a group of Border Patrol agents I sat with way into the night and had a long conversation about what they're enforcing the law against.

SPURLOCK: What about the brain drain that's already happening in America? Of these incredibly brilliant people that are graduating from Yale, from Harvard, from MIT that are going back to their home countries with this knowledge. Shouldn't we be giving them visas to stay in America?

KING: I have supported some of that STEM policy that's there, in two different times. But here's the situation they we have. I don't think we should be increasing the legal immigration in America. The last STEM bill to come through the Judiciary Committee increased legal immigration by 650,000. These were not, by the way, STEM students, just increased that number into a more catch-all phrase.

So I think we should be capturing some of that talent that comes in. We should rearrange our immigration policy so that we can have a policy that supports the economic, social and cultural wellbeing of the United States of America. We should do that for our country and build our country with all the talent that we can bring into here that can fit in an earnest way so it's not a burden on our welfare state.

SPURLOCK: If we suddenly let these people go out of our country, if we suddenly say we're not going to let you be part of the workforce, how will that damage the company? How will that damage the companies that are relying on them to get cheap orange juice, cheap fruit, affordable vegetables? How will that affect all of us?

KING: Well, I think that when you do this incrementally, you start moving people into the workforce that aren't there now. Yes, you have to pay a little more in wages. You might have to offer a benefits package. I've had to do that all my life in the construction company that I founded in 1975. We're doing it today in the second generation at King Construction.

You have to compete in the marketplace. And so supply and demand sets those wages as it does the value of commodities. We cannot be compatible -- our cradle-to-grave welfare state is not compatible with open borders. So we have to tighten both of those down, do this incrementally. And over time, we restore the respect for the rule of law. If we can get all that done, then I think it's time to have the discussion about those that are here illegally that do tug at our heart strings.

SPURLOCK: Congressman King, thanks so much for your time. We appreciate it.

KING: Thanks for having me on, Morgan. Thanks for picking some oranges. I think that was good for us both.


SPURLOCK: We'll be right back.


SPURLOCK: Hi. I'm Morgan Spurlock, guest hosting for Piers tonight.

On my CNN show "INSIDE MAN" I learned a lot about guns in America.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm arming myself against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Who, I cannot tell you because it hasn't happened. But if it happens, I'm going to be ready.


SPURLOCK (voice-over): Dylan was approved, and easy as that, he was able to just walk out the door with his brand new weapon -- a gun capable of shooting up to 45 rounds of ammunition per minute.

(on camera): Zombie bullets.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You can use them on anything, not just zombies.

SPURLOCK (voice-over): I have to say I'm a little conflicted. Should it be that easy for someone to get a gun?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, man, thank you.

SPURLOCK: Dylan didn't have to undergo a mental health assessment before he purchased his weapon or view gun safety demonstrations. He didn't even have to get an eye exam, but he passed the background check, so he got his gun.

(on camera): Now you go, I just hope he's not crazy.


SPURLOCK: That's how easy it is to get a gun. But what's the real cost?

Joining me now, a man who knows the tragic toll of gun violence in this country. He's the counselor to a family of a 6-year-old girl who was shot and critically wounded at a memorial for another victim of gun violence.

Pastor Corey Brooks is with The New Beginnings Church of Chicago.

He is also the founder of Project Hood, a program that focuses on ending gun violence.

Pastor Brooks, thanks for being here.

PASTOR COREY BROOKS: Thanks, Morgan. Thanks for having me on the show tonight.

SPURLOCK: It seems like we can't turn on the television without hearing about some sort of gun violence in Chicago. What, in your opinion, could be done to change the gun culture there?

BROOKS: Well, we have to collaborate and work together. And, you know, I tell everybody all the time that we have to gang up on the problem and stop ganging up on each other.

A lot of times in Chicago, we do a lot of bickering and fighting with one another, but what really needs to happen is there has to be a total collaboration, all hands on deck, whether it's politicians, preachers, parents, teachers, all of us are going to have to work really extremely hard to make sure that we eradicate the gun violence that we see on a daily basis here in Chicago.

SPURLOCK: Murders in Chicago were down 29 percent for the first six months of 2013. But with deaths like Hadiya Pendleton in January and the shooting of this little girl, the tragedies -- the tragedies aren't being reduced.

Why is that?

BROOKS: Well, whenever you have so much economic deprivation in a certain area, you have educational problems, economic problems, social ills with the breakdown in the structure of family and then you add to that the lack of any spirituality, and you have all of that in one neighborhood, it's going to breed a lot of hopelessness, a lot of frustration.

And what we see on a daily basis are a lot of young men who -- who have all of the -- a merit of issues going on and that has given birth to a lot of violence here in Chicago.

And we have to do everything we can to make sure that we continue to keep pressure on, uh, to make sure that we can eradicate it.

SPURLOCK: How strict are the gun laws in Chicago?

BROOKS: Well, you know, compared to the rest of America, they're -- they're pretty strict. We -- I think we can do a -- a little better as far as enforcing the gun laws. It's one thing to have gun laws, but it's another thing to enforce the gun laws.

And I think we have to work really hard to make sure that when people have guns and they break the law that we do everything that we can to make sure that we hit them, uh, with -- with the full blunt of the law to make sure that they pay for the crimes.

And I think a lot of times in the city of Chicago, there have been individuals who have gotten off on gun charges, minor gun charges, that some would call minor, and -- and gotten away with things that they probably should have been in jail for.

SPURLOCK: Some of the states around Illinois also have, uh, less stringent gun laws. Does that lead to an influx of guns in the city? BROOKS: We do have an influx of guns in the city. You know, there's a lot of, uh, criminal activity as far as it relates to the inner city and people bringing those guns in. They're -- they're transported from other places. We don't have gun manufacturing places here in the city of Chicago. So it's no doubt that these guns are coming from without.

And so we have to do even though that we can to cut off the transportation of the guns and the nightwalker guns, because I tell people all the time that as far as it relates to the inner city, we know without a shadow of a doubt that these young men are bringing guns in and that they're being fed to them.

From what source, we don't actually know. But we know that we don't have manufacturing facilities in Chicago, so they have to be coming from outside.

SPURLOCK: Two teenagers have now been charged with the shooting at the memorial. What does this say, that there are these kind of children shooting children problems?

BROOKS: You know, here in Chicago, we have to start -- and not just Chicago, but, inner cities across America, whether it's New York, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, inner cities across America. One of the things that we're going to have to realize is that we can no longer sweep under the table that -- under the carpet, excuse me -- that we are experiencing a lot of black-on-black crime. And a lot of our young black men are -- are -- are committing these crimes against our community.

And I think, we have to take more of a stand and we have to be just as passionate as it relates to these type of individuals as it -- as we are for Trayvon Martin situations. I see a lot of us being very passionate, very outspoken -- and we should -- about Trayvon Martin. But we also should be very passionate, very outspoken, outraged and having outcries about what we see in the inner cities every single day.

SPURLOCK: Why is that?

Trayvon has made national headlines for months, yet the violence in Chicago rarely breaks through the national spotlight.

Why do you think that is?

BROOKS: I think, oftentimes, there are a lot of people who -- who may deem that black-on-black crime or young black boys killing young black boys is not as newsworthy, for one. And, two, I think that a lot of individuals, even in Chicago, we have become desensitized that we believe, that because this happens on a daily basis, that somehow, uh, the life is devalued.

And so I think there has to be a heightened sensitivity and heightened awareness to the issue -- to the situations that we're experiencing, because it's so critical and -- and so damaging to our community that we should not allow for one single second for these type of individuals to keep doing what they're doing and not do something about it.

The same way we're speaking out for Trayvon Martin, we have to speak out the same way against this black-on-black crime and violence that is being committed in our inner cities.

SPURLOCK: I completely agree.

Thank you so much, Pastor Brooks.

BROOKS: Thank you. And I appreciate it.

SPURLOCK: We'll be right back.



SPURLOCK (voice-over): Tootie still has an active life, even if it is maintained by her family. Every week someone helps her with her grocery shopping and drives her to her weekly appointment at the beauty parlor.

(on camera): Peggy (ph), how long has Tootie been coming here?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She started coming when I first opened the shop 41 years ago.

SPURLOCK (voice-over): But this week, Trudy has a monumental event. Her 74th high school reunion and get to be her date.

(on camera): One, two, three! Big smile, toots. That's a good one.


SPURLOCK: I'm Morgan Spurlock, in for Piers Morgan.

On my CNN series, "INSIDE MAN," I take on what may be my most challenging assignment yet. I'm moving in with my fiercely independent 91-year-old grandma, Tootie. She taught me that getting older doesn't have to mean slowing down.

Take a look.


SPURLOCK: You're already up and all over the place. (INAUDIBLE), Tootie?


SPURLOCK: Tootie, what time did you wake up?

TOOTIE: Five o'clock.

SPURLOCK: Five o'clock! I love that Tootie was up two hours before I was. She's a machine. You can't stop her. She's pretty independent, if you haven't noticed.

So, Tootie, do you do anything to get any exercise?

TOOTIE: Yes, I just do what I want to do.

SPURLOCK: You still get around pretty good?

TOOTIE: I'm grateful I can.


(voice-over): More than 70 percent of Americans over the age of 65 will need long-term care services at some point in their lives.

(on camera): Keep stirring this, right?

TOOTIE: Yes. (INAUDIBLE) Open it up.

SPURLOCK (voice-over): And even though Tootie is healthy enough to live on her own now, she's had six major surgeries. And like all families, we worry.


SPURLOCK: That's all for us tonight. I want to thank Piers Morgan for letting me sit in and I'll see you again on "INSIDE MAN", Sundays at 10:00 p.m. Right here on CNN. Be sure to tune in tomorrow night because it's Tootie's 92nd birthday. Thanks.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: One day, my daughter came to my door and she handed me three kids. She says here, mom, I'll call you later. It's seven years already. It changes your life.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Everything changed. At 60, wow. I have to raise this baby. How am I going to do it?

SILVIE DE TOLEDO, CNN HERO: Does anybody have a crisis they want to talk about?

For most grandparents who are taking in the children, it does wreak havoc because many are living on fixed incomes and they were not prepared to take on one or multiple children.

I've Silvia de Toledo, and I help grandparents who suddenly have to take in their grandchildren.

This is my sister and she was pregnant here.

When my sister was 27, she committed suicide and left an 8-year-old.

This is Kevin when he came to live with my parents

My parents were my inspiration. From a family tragedy, something wonderful has happened.

I know it may not feel like it but you are going to get passed this.

When a family calls whether it's help with the school, finding a pediatrician, resources, we will find a way to help you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All of a sudden, I had things coming, clothes, food. They're like my therapy.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She was able to walk me through everything. They helped me get on my feet where I could help myself.

DE TOLEDO: Everybody, I want to introduce you to a new mother.

It's the relatives that are doing this that deserve the recognition.

I have never gotten up once and said I can't do this anymore. I just love what I do.