Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Report: FBI Admits Years of Bad Testimony; Lessons Learned from Oklahoma City Bombing; One Year Later: No Sign of Girls Captured by Boko Haram; The Marijuana Revolution; Downside of Cannabis Capitalism; What's an E-Joint?; The Cannabis Cup Hits Denver. Aired 6-7a ET

Aired April 19, 2015 - 18:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[18:00:00] POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: And for you, Mery?

MERY DANIEL, BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING SURVIVOR: For me, the Boston marathon is more, although now we have the survivors and there's focus about the survivors because there are so many great organizations that raise money for cancer, heart disease and so many different areas of medicine that usually come together. For them, it's a day to really spend that time and effort to really raise the money and also support so many different areas of medicine.

I think this should bring the focus back. I'm not saying that the survivors and the victims are not important, but I think it's a day where the city actually bring all these organizations in the communities back together.

HARLOW: Guys, thank you so much. You're an inspiration to all of us. It's been my pleasure to get to know you and I look forward to seeing all you do ahead.

Thanks, Heather. Thanks, Mery.

DANIEL: Thank you, Poppy.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, Poppy.

HARLOW: See you later.

(MUSIC)

HARLOW: All right. Six o'clock Eastern. You're in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Poppy Harlow with you.

We begin with this shocking story: The FBI made a startling admission, it is about crime scene evidence and how some of it was used to send people to prison and to death row for more than 20 years. In a report published this weekend in "The Washington Post," the Justice Department admits that almost every FBI hair expert that took the stand in a courtroom over a long period of time maybe gave the wrong information, flawed forensic testimony that helped prosecutors, and some of those trials ended with the death penalty.

Take a look at this. This is a quote from "The Washington Post." it reads, "FBI experts systemically testified to the near certainty of matches of crime scene hairs to defendants, backing their claims by citing incomplete or misleading statistics drawn from their casework. In reality, there is no accepted research on how often hair from different people may appear the same."

Jonathan Gilliam, former FBI special agent joins me. Also with me in Los Angeles, criminal defense attorney, Brian Claypool, and Tom Fuentes, former FBI assistant Director.

This is an absolutely stunning report guys when you pore through it and when you look at the numbers.

Tom, let me just get your reaction. You know the laboratories that do this research well. Does this surprise you that they were banking on hair fiber evidence that it seems like large part of the time wasn't exactly a perfect match?

TOM FUENTES, FORMER FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR: No, Poppy, it does surprise me, but, you know, what happened is that this was -- this was determined that examinations from 1999 and before 1999 where hair examiners testified. They testified through microscopic analysis that matches where more certain, you know, when they made these matches.

Starting in 2000, they had mitochondrial DNA to do the examination to supplement microscopics so they no longer had to rely on it. So, this was a problem from 1999 and earlier. And shortly after it was discovered, the FBI teamed up with the Innocence Project to correct this, to notify every prosecutor in every case that this had come up, that some cases that were reported as matches were exaggerated basically. It was determined that no examiner deliberately gave false testimony or deliberately lied on their examination. That's what was believed at that time until later mitochondrial DNA analysis showed that the microscopic analysis was insufficient and in some case in error.

So they've been correcting this probable for a long time. The story recently coming out is basically an update report from the Innocence Project on where they stand on the efforts to clean up this whole situation.

HARLOW: Jonathan, you were with the FBI. I mean, you know, this happened before your time, but looking at this, what is your take on the current guidelines? What are the current guidelines? How have things changed so this doesn't happen again?

JONATHAN GILLIAM, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT: Well, I think whatever the current guidelines are, they're fixing to change most likely and it's interesting that you ask that question because that's the one thing I honed in on --

HARLOW: Right.

GILLIAM: -- in this report is that there was no written standards. As Mr. Fuentes can tell you, that to me is puzzling that there were no written standards exactly on how that, you know, you should be responding to this. I mean, that is really the thing that sets the bureau apart from everything else is that we like to standardize things and that is amazing that that was not the case.

HARLOW: Brian, you've said that most people don't realize that most scientific testing or forensics is subject to human bias. You're right. We don't. We think of DNA evidence. We think of a lot of this evidence as absolute and foolproof.

[18:05:00] When you look at some of these individuals who are now being notified that their case may be reassessed, you know, what do you think this is going to lead to? Overturning some of these convictions? Do you think that they're going to get another fair shot?

BRIAN CLAYPOOL, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Poppy, this is a colossal disaster. This is not a pothole in a street. This is a sinkhole. This is a systemic failure.

You just can't come and put some gravel and cover this up. This is a real problem because you have other issues such as preservation of evidence. Think about that. What if somebody was convicted 20, 30 years ago and now they want to try to get out and maybe the hair fiber's gone? Maybe it's been compromised.

And I think another issue you've got to look at, too, here, Poppy, is this failure of the FBI to have the hair fiber specialists testify based on accurate science was confined really to one hair fiber unit, and 26 out of those 28 hair analysts were at one of these units. That leads to another issue that I think needs to be looked at here. Was there -- was there some kind of marching order going on here to have these hair fibers specialists testify to favor the prosecution? Because remember, none of this evidence that they testified to favored a defendant.

HARLOW: Right.

CLAYPOOL: It never exculpated a defendant. So, I think there's something hidden here that needs to be looked at.

HARLOW: Let me ask Tom that. I mean, Tom Fuentes, as a former FBI assistant director, was there -- did you witness ever collusion between, you know, the department and prosecutors?

FUENTES: I never did, but I was not, you know, in the laboratory and, you know, seeing that, but in this situation when they're examining -- when they receive hairs, you know, two samples to compare and say whether it's from the same person, what was happening is that they were identifying matches that it may have come from two different people. Now, hairs can eliminate, so not every case was the person identified as a match, and some of the cases they were immediately said it was not a match.

But in cases where they did say it was a match, it may not still have always been true. It may have looked very close under a microscope, but later, the DNA analysis proved that it was not really a true match.

HARLOW: Jonathan, how encouraged are you that the FBI -- let me just read you the statement, part of what we got from the FBI. It's a long statement. I'm going to read two important parts.

They said, "The department and FBI are committed to ensuring that the defendants are notified of past errors and the justice is done in every instance." They went on to say, "The department own FBI devoted considerable resources to this effort and will continue to do so until all of these cases are addressed."

To you, Jonathan Gilliam, do you believe we're going to see ultimately justice done here?

GILLIAM: I think so. You know, despite what a lot of people may think, the bureau is really out to affirm your constitutional rights and we're there to protect and to serve, just like law enforcement on the street. And I think this is a good example, an incredible way that the director came out and made this admission.

It shows that they're pushing forward to make the right changes, and, but, you know, this is why its important to have a well-rounded case. You cannot just rely on one piece of evidence. And nothing beats good old-fashioned groundwork when it comes to an investigation.

HARLOW: That's true. Brian Claypool, final thought to you, sir.

CLAYPOOL: Well, I respectfully disagree. I don't think just fixing and finding justice for people that have been wrong is the solution here. You have to look back and figure out how 20 years of using the wrong methodology happened and how is it that these analysts went up --

GILLIAM: That's not what I said.

CLAYPOOL: -- there and told the truth.

GILLIAM: That's not what I said.

CLAYPOOL: Well, you have to do two things here. You have to investigate what we did wrong for 20 years, not just seek justice for the people that were wrong.

And I think we're on the right page, though, Poppy, as far as Patrick Leahy, one of the U.S. senators does have legislation pending, and Obama supports it, to set up a forensic unit in the U.S. Department of Justice to create standards for forensic testing because right now, we don't have reliable standards.

HARLOW: Jonathan, that a good idea?

GILLIAM: I think that's part of the thing, but I think the bureau have to come up with the right standards and the bureau is doing what they need to do in order to come up with those things. And I think that you can't just say that the bureau has a bad reputation because we do not. The bureau has a great reparation. And they're going to go forward and fix this.

But, you know, science is like this, and also when you teach people to go in and how to present themselves in court, if you don't set the standards out beforehand, then these things can happen. I think that's the greatest thing that can be done here is the bureau goes out and fixes these standards.

HARLOW: Jonathan Gilliam, Tom Fuentes, Brian Claypool -- gentlemen, thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Now, we're going to turn our attention to this. Twenty years ago today, 168 people including 19 children lost their lives in the Oklahoma City bombing.

[18:10:05] The anniversary marked by a ceremony at the memorial on the site where that truck bomb blew up outside the Murrah Federal Building. To this day, it's the deadliest homegrown terror attack in U.S. history and I beg this question, could something like Oklahoma City happen again?

Our Victor Blackwell was granted rare access to the ATF's Center for Explosives Training and Research. It's in Huntsville, Alabama, and he filed this report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): At this thousand- acre center, federal agents, police, and military are learning how to prevent future bombings and to more efficiently investigate attacks. We can't show you their faces due to the sensitivity of their work, but the ATF program starts with in-depth explosives training which has expanded exponentially since the Oklahoma City bombing.

BILL JOA, CHIEF OF EXPLOSIVES ENFORCEMENT: 1995, the certified explosive special consisted of a two-week school to certify the agents.

BLACKWELL: Now their training is stretched over two years including graduate-level engineering courses.

JOA: The agents have a better understanding now of kind of the scientific principles behind the post blast, or behind the blast.

BLACKWELL: And scientific testing has accelerated. Agents who collected evidence at the Murrah Building in 1995 --

(EXPLOSION)

BLACKWELL: -- or at Centennial Olympic Park after the bombing in 1996 had to ship items off to a lab for positive ID. Today, agents use handheld scanners to analyze bomb ingredients at the scene, as ATF scientist Tim Shelley demonstrates.

TIM SHELLEY, ATF SCIENTIST: Here's our answer, it's telling us that was sugar.

BLACKWELL (on camera): That's essentially 20 seconds.

SHELLEY: Roughly 20 seconds.

BLACKWELL: In a sample collected at the Murrah Building, how long would that have taken?

SHELLEY: Hour, maybe a day to get the analytical results back.

BLACKWELL (voice-over): Precious time that could mean the difference between losing a suspect and catching one.

Gone are days of simple scene mapping, developing and printing photos of scenes.

BILLY STAPLETON, ATF INVESTIGATOR: With this new technology, I mean, we are looking at light years beyond what we had just ten years ago.

BLACKWELL: Starting with this spherical camera purchased just months ago.

STAPLETON: These images are high-definition. It's 100 megapixel camera which allows us to get a 360-degree view.

BLACKWELL: Agents can embed lab test results, video, audio investigative reports, allowing prosecutors to lead a potential jury on a comprehensive virtual walk-through a scene, in the case of a trial, and there's a huge logistical benefit, too.

(on camera): How much space is this saving?

STAPLETON: Tremendous amount of space. From what used to be several binders, several feet of binders, we reduce this down to one CD or one thumb drive.

BLACKWELL (voice-over): The center's newest division, research and development, looks ahead to the next potential blast -- building and detonating bombs like testing recipes in a cookbook.

KEVIN MCNIELL, CHIEF OF EXPLOSIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: We went out and looked at what was available on the Internet and being published by organizations that want to do nefarious things in the U.S.

BLACKWELL: Like "Inspire" magazine?

MCNIELL: Correct, like "Inspire" magazine.

BLACKWELL (voice-over): That's the glossy al Qaeda publication in which the Tsarnaev brothers found instructions to build pressure cooker bombs, detonated during the 2013 Boston marathon.

MCNIELL: Allows us to look at one and go, that one is a real problem. And then we can start looking at supply chain stuff. We can start looking at investigative leads that when an event occurs like where would they have gotten materials, where would have they gotten supplies, and helps the investigators follow-up.

BLACKWELL (on camera): Agents say what maybe the greatest resource advancement of the last 20 years, the cell phone. Think back to 1995. A cell phone looked more like a cordless home phone with a green screen and antenna, really basic. Now, agents can take photos and shoot video and e-mail them back to a command post or lab for immediate analysis. They also use apps to identify components there at the scene and there are new phone-based resources currently in development -- Poppy.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HARLOW: Wow, fascinating look at it. Thanks so much, Victor. I appreciate it.

Coming up next, 20 years after that Oklahoma City bombing, we examine the new homegrown terrorists. What motivates them and what's the threat of someone striking again? We'll talk about it, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: Twenty years ago today, Americans were introduced to homegrown terrorism in a major way right here on U.S. soil. That is when 168 Americans died in the Oklahoma City bombing. Law enforcement officers were really forced to play catch-up, trying to figure out how something like this could happen in the heartland of America from an American.

Let's talk about this issue of homegrown terrorism. Let me bring back in Jonathan Gilliam, who's a former FBI special agent, also former police officer, former Navy SEAL.

Thank you for being with us. I appreciate.

GILLIAM: You got it.

HARLOW: When we look at today marking 20 years since Oklahoma City, what do you think changed in the way law enforcement in this country tries to prevent things like this?

GILLIAM: I think probably, the number one thing that changed from that point forward -- well, there's two things. One, they started looking at to domestic threats in a much greater way under a much more powerful microscope just really trying to concentrate on what groups could pose a problem in the future.

HARLOW: It's not even just groups when you look at Timothy McVeigh.

GILLIAM: Individuals. But he -- you know, he did subscribe to certain groups and had talked to certain groups. I think just the way they track people and the potential of what types of mindsets could do that. I think that changed a lot.

Then, also tracking the material that they used. That material is just a basic material that farmers use and -- to fertilize things. And so, the way they look at that now is much more stringent than they did before.

HARLOW: Do you believe that now there are more potential homegrown terrorists or we just know about them more because they voice their opinions on social media? When you go back to '95, you didn't have Twitter and you didn't have Facebook. GILLIAM: Right. Great point.

Are there more? I would say there probably is more because of social media. If you don't like something and I don't like something back in that day and age, we may never know each other. But if two people now can communicate their ideas, you know how to have a group of people together, and that's the way things grow.

HARLOW: And they can feel validated.

GILLIAM: They can feel validated. Any law enforcement officer who's worked in a town can tell you, you can take two people who have the same issue, same addiction who have never been to a town, put them on either side of the town and they will find each other within a week or two. Same thing with this.

HARLOW: When you look at September 11th and look at where the conversation went from there, right, this focused so much attention on Osama bin Laden and terrorists overseas. Do you think that that took a bit of attention away from terrorism here at home? Because we heard the head of Homeland Security saying recently what keeps him up at night is the lone wolf and homegrown terrorism.

[18:20:03] GILLIAM: Right. He's -- I just -- I'll tell you this. No, it didn't, because there are always squads that are going to look at domestic terror, or homegrown terror.

And in this case, you have to -- we did differentiate and we probably do still differentiate, people who have an ideology, born here and hate America, versus people of a certain ideology, such as fundamental Islam that are over in these areas that are sending their operatives over here inspiring people. Those are two different ideologies. So, you have to investigate them from two different angles.

HARLOW: Who's easier to turn? I mean, turn in a positive way to our side, right? Who's easier to bring back around that corner before they carry out an attack? Someone here who feels disenfranchised or a potential terrorist overseas?

GILLIAM: I think it depends on their ideologies. A lot of people who are threats here are people angry at the course the United States is going, and I would say that when if you gave them an opportunity to speak, it's more likely that you're going to get the truth from them versus somebody who wants to come over and destroy us for whatever reason.

HARLOW: For everything we stand for.

GILLIAM: That we stand for. Exactly.

HARLOW: That this country stands for.

GILLIAM: And, Poppy, let me say this to the people watching. When I was in the SEALs team, we go through explosive training. I made the same type of bomb when we were going through training with 50 pounds of that same explosive. I threw the turret off a tank over 200 yards. That's how powerful that was.

And every building was destroyed on that block that day, we have to forward think this. And people, the thing about the cell phone is absolutely true. No matter what technology they put out there, a bad guy can always think their way around technologies. People and their eyeballs are their greatest assets that we have.

HARLOW: Absolutely. See something, say something.

GILLIAM: See it, say it.

HARLOW: Works all the time here especially in New York City.

Thank you so much, Jonathan.

GILLIAM: You got it. Thank you.

HARLOW: Thanks for your service and for being with us. We appreciate it.

GILLIAM: Thank you.

HARLOW: Well, also this important story that doesn't always get the headlines it deserves. We want to bring your attention to it again because it's now been one year since nearly 300 schoolgirls in Nigeria were kidnapped by Boko Haram. There's still no sign of them. One CNN reporter, a great reporter, a good friend, has dedicated herself to covering this story and is calling on all of us to take action.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:25:57] HARLOW: It has now been a year since more than 200 Nigerian schoolgirls were kidnapped by Boko Haram terrorists. They still have not been rescued.

CNN digital producer, Stephanie Busari, who is from Nigeria, has been covering this story from day one.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

STEPHANIE BUSARI, CNN DIGITAL PRODUCER: What I remember, a raw feeling when I heard the schoolgirls were missing was shock because a school is supposed to be a safe haven and you don't really expect that schoolgirls waiting to sit an exam will be kidnapped and almost a year later still not found.

Nigerians started to get to organize protests and at this protest, someone made a speech crying out, "bring back our girls." And it was at that moment that that key hashtag was born. Everybody started tweeting it because I think everyone felt a collective sense of outrage about girls going missing and nothing being done about it.

I went to boarding school in Nigeria when I was younger, and this, you know, could easily have happened to me when I lived there, so I was keen to go down and really talk to people on the ground. One thing that really surprised me was the kind of political spin that

was being put on this story. A lot of people who were close to the government, to the Jonathan administration, were really spinning this line of it being a political stunt. They were actually being very disparaging to us perceived Western journalists saying we were being fooled by the government in the north who were trying to use this kidnapping as a political kind of football to kick the Jonathan administration.

And I was quite puzzled by this. I heard this many times from key people in government, from people on the street. Nobody seemed to believe it, and I was really shocked. When we started to interview parents who were heartbroken, quite rightly, there was no safety for them. They were running into the bushes at night terrified that Boko Haram would come back and attack. We reported these things.

As reports trickled out, I think people started to question the beliefs that they held about it being a political stunt. I think it's important to continue to cover this story because these girls are not only victims of Boko Haram. Since they were kidnapped, thousands of Nigerians have died, thousands of Nigerians have been taken.

It's largely seen in Nigeria as a northern problem, but it could very well escalate into other parts. It's a world issue. We need to contain it. We need to combat it fiercely and quickly.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HARLOW: Also, go to CNN.com and read this. Our anchor and correspondent Isha Sesay has been covering this from the beginning and wrote this op-ed on CNN.com saying, we should all be ashamed these girls have not been found, not been returned. Read her thoughts on CNN.com.

Also switching gears, marijuana and money. Just ahead, why banks don't want cannabis cash, not even from legitimate legal companies. How do those marijuana moguls do business without big banks? We'll talk about that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:32:20] POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Our Dr. Sanjay Gupta is back with his three-year investigation into medical marijuana. "WEED 3," the documentary looks at what Sanjay is calling a marijuana revolution. And despite his years of reporting on this issue, even he was surprised by some elected officials, some lawmakers who are now leading the charge to change what we know and what we think about medical marijuana.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SEN. CORY BOOKER (D), NEW JERSEY: This bill that we are introducing seeks to right decades of wrong and end unnecessary marijuana laws.

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): March, 2015. Democrats Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand, along with Republican Rand Paul, have just proposed the most audacious marijuana legislation in our lifetime. If it passes, it would create a fundamental change in the way the United States views and treats marijuana.

BOOKER: Our drug laws in this country as a whole need a revolution of common sense and compassion.

GUPTA: For starters, it would do something scientists have been begging for -- reschedule cannabis from Schedule I to a much less restrictive Schedule II controlled substance.

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D), NEW YORK: Once you make the class of drugs Schedule II, you can then research it and find out what are the medical impacts and when can you use it? When does it make sense? So that's what's necessary here. It's so simple.

GUPTA: The bill would also mandate more farms to grow research-grade marijuana and allow greater access to it for those in need, including veterans, who would, for the first time, be able to get a prescription for medicinal marijuana from the VA hospitals.

BOOKER: Let's stop the pot hypocrisy. We now had three presidents who have admitted to smoking marijuana. People, you know, in public office all throughout the Senate have said, hey, I've smoked marijuana recreationally. How much of a hypocrite do you have to be to say that I broke American laws using pot as a recreational thing and that I'm not going to support this idea that as a medicine for severely sick people that they shouldn't be able to access this drug?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HARLOW: So, Sanjay, it's hard to get lawmakers from -- you know, Democrats and Republicans in Washington to agree on something. This is a bipartisan effort to make a difference. You have said this is one of the most audacious pieces of marijuana legislation. Why?

GUPTA: Well, you know, first of all, you're absolutely right. I mean, I always thought that with regard to this particular issue, politicians were just going to play it safe and stay away because you're not going to win an election on this issue likely, but you could lose an election on this issue.

HARLOW: Right.

GUPTA: And I think that that's part of what, you know, we saw with the political system. I think what's so audacious about this is that, you know, in 50 years, we haven't seen something as sweeping as what they're proposing now. They want to reschedule marijuana from a Schedule 1 substance which is the highest schedule, so it's the highest likelihood of abuse, no medical benefits, to making it a Schedule II substance, saying it has accepted medicinal uses.

[18:35:16] That's a big deal. It's a big deal for patients, but it's also a big deal for scientists. They're finally going to be able to get their hands on the marijuana to do these studies. They also want to make it available to veterans, VA hospitals, so

doctors at VA hospitals could prescribe this as a medication. Again, like they would any other medication. They want to free up dollars for funding research.

It's very broadly sweeping and, look, I challenge them, Poppy. I said, you know, look, we've heard this all before. There have been people who have been saying this long before you and me, why is this going to be different? And I'll never forget Senator Booker sort of walked out of the room very -- and very confidently said to me at the time, he said, we are going to get this done. They're very, very bullish on this sort of legislation.

HARLOW: Is this, Sanjay, because the poll numbers are backing that? Because the polls have changed incredibly in just the past few years.

GUPTA: I think -- I think some of it is the polling probably. I mean, you know, certainly politicians can be guilty of following polling numbers, but, you know, if you look at the polling numbers overall, so now, you know, for the first time in 40 years, you do have a majority of people who support marijuana legalization across the board. I was focused on the sort of second number here which is 77 percent would be in favor of legalizing it for medicinal purposes. You know, more than three quarters of the country.

And just to give you a little bit of context, Poppy, back in 1969 the first time this question was asked only 12 percent of the nation favored legalization at that point.

HARLOW: Wow.

GUPTA: So it has come a long way. But I think also besides the polling numbers, they are starting to see the science. They are starting to see the data on this particular topic. They are looking, you know, the same places that we have looked over the last three years. Sometimes it's outside this country, but when you look at those -- that data, it's pretty compelling.

HARLOW: It is, and certainly before I saw this, I had no idea that something like PTSD or Alzheimer's could be treated with medical marijuana. I had always thought and met people who used it for, you know, really bad sort of stomach problems or feeling nauseous all the time but it extends far beyond that.

GUPTA: The idea that it somehow has this more broadly anti- inflammatory effect in the body is where scientists really seemed to be focusing their attention. So when it comes to Alzheimer's, for example, the idea that it could potentially prevent the plaques that are associated with Alzheimer's from forming in first place was really fascinating. It's early research, but there's an Alzheimer's institute in Florida that is focused on this particular issue.

You know, we also think about it just as something that harms your brain. I think that's been the perception. We now know that the Department of Health and Human Services has a patent using marijuana as something that protects your brain. Not harms it. So, you know, you're starting to see a shift in how we look at it. And not only is it maybe not harmful the way that we thought it was, but it could be beneficial.

Alzheimer's, as you mentioned, post-traumatic stress, various other neurodegenerative diseases including MS. This data, again, exists. People just need to dig down and find it.

HARLOW: You wrote this op-ed on CNN.com, Sanjay, "It's time for a medical marijuana revolution." OK. That's you. You're a doctor, you're a journalist. You've studied this in-depth. I'm wondering is there a significant generational divide here between those that agree with you and those who disagree with you?

GUPTA: I can only speak from my own experience. And I'll tell you, it's an interesting question, Poppy, because clearly it's a white-hot issue among young people I think for sure. That's the younger people are the more core demographic. But just from my own experience after doing this, you know, spending time with my own parents, spending time with their friends, spending time with the -- my kids' friends' parents as well, people take you aside and they say, you know, hey, look, you know, I was considering this for my own mother, my own self, somebody in my family, you know, what do you think?

These are people who would never have talked about this topic before. I've had policemen come up to me. I've had people who -- a judge in New York approached me to talk about this. It's amazing. I think generational divide reflects how willing people are to be open about it. But I think if you start looking at people's true sentiments, you're going to see that it's much more broadly relatable and it has an impact on I think just about everybody in some way, Poppy.

HARLOW: Yes, and it's a good thing we're talking about it and talking about it a lot. And clearly it's getting some action in Washington on a bipartisan bill that has been presented.

GUPTA: That's right.

HARLOW: Sanjay Gupta, thank you so much.

GUPTA: Thanks, Poppy.

HARLOW: You're going to want to see this "WEED 3: The Marijuana Revolution" premiering only here on CNN, Sunday night, 9:00 p.m. Eastern and Pacific. Also go to CNN.com, read Sanjay's op-ed on this.

But ahead of that we've got this for you. E-cigarettes meet marijuana. Up next, e-joints, a new discreet way some folks are getting high.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:43:42] HARLOW: All right. To legalize recreational marijuana is, indeed, making some folks very rich. But here's the thing. Most banks, they refuse to do business even with legitimate marijuana dispensaries. Why is that?

CNN Money's Jordan Malter explains why the banks do not want those profits.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RACHEL CRANE, CNN DIGITAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The country's 2,000 legal marijuana businesses spread across 23 states and the nation's capital generates an estimated $3 billion a year. But when it comes to banking, cana-businesses are often left high and dry. That's because banks are beholden to federal law and the feds still consider marijuana like heroin, a Schedule I narcotic.

So banks and credit unions have been turning away pot profits. Intimidated by the prospect of heavy fines and even prison time. Of the nearly 13,000 banks and credit unions in the country, the U.S. Treasury says only 185 have opened accounts for cana-businesses which means most legal marijuana companies are cash-only operations.

That's not just a buzz kill, it's also a major safety concern as expensive armored vehicles have to deliver cash payments to employees, vendors and even the IRS.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HARLOW: Our thanks to Rachel Crane and Jordan Malter for that.

[18:45:00] Also, yesterday on the program, I spoke with a Colorado pot dispensary owner about the difficulty of running his business in all cash.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRIAN RUDEN, OWNER, STARBUDS303 DISPENSARY: It really is a big challenge to being in the industry. One of the things that I've done is, you know, I pay most of my vendors in cash. I pay my net payroll in cash. And I've been buying some real estate and I found some sellers willing to accept cash. But it is an ongoing problem. I haven't pulled a credit card out of my pocket to pay for dinner in the last four years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: So he found a workaround. People are trying to figure out how do you move forward with these big businesses in all cash if the banks don't want that cash? He told me that this is his second job. He gave up practicing law to grow and sell marijuana. We're seeing a lot more of that lately.

All right. Well, there's a new trend in marijuana, it is called e- joints. It's like smoking pot without the smell and some of the paraphernalia you would expect.

Our Cristina Alesci took a look at this discreet new technique some folks are using to get high.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CRISTINA ALESCI, CNN MONEY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): You've probably heard of e-cigarettes. But what about e-joints?

MARCUS CHARLES, JUJU JOINTS CO-FOUNDER: You have so much more control with our product than you do with a flower-based joint.

ALESCI: There's weed oil in this little contraption and it vaporizes when you inhale.

CHARLES: There's a little atomizer inside this unit. There's about 150 puffs in each stick.

ALESCI: It's a growing trend in marijuana smoking circles especially in states where the drug is legal like here in Washington. But the company says the goal is not to attract the biggest pot heads.

Check out this YouTube ad from JuJu Joints.

CHARLES: What we try to market to you is that mass consumer who really wants to enjoy cannabis without having a bunch of other paraphernalia, smoke, smell. We have everyone from soccer moms to concertgoers.

ALESCI: You can barely smell the vapor but JuJu doesn't actually make the weed oil itself.

CHARLES: We have decided strategically to not actually be in the marijuana business but to sell the device around it.

ALESCI: And it's working as a business. They're expanding into Nevada and Oregon, other states where recreational or medical marijuana is legal.

As the movement grows marijuana oils are expected to be a big part of it so we wanted to see how the oil is made. Is it safe and what are the effects?

We traveled to Raymond, Washington, an old logging town, now home to the largest marijuana producer in the state, BMF.

SID WATTS, GENERAL MANAGER, BMF WASHINGTON: We have 13 grow rooms in different stages. We control the lighting, humidity, temperature. We're harvesting approximately once a week. About 80 percent goes into flour and 20 percent goes into oil products. I think the market is headed toward more marijuana oil.

ALESCI: And it's made in this room. The plant is ground up. And, yes, they use a blender. Then the oil gets extracted out of the plant using CO2 under high pressure. The result is an oil that is 30 percent to 70 percent THC. Psychoactive chemical that makes you feel high. That level is two to six times higher than you'd find in a traditional joint.

WATTS: JuJu then supplies us with the cartridges. We load the marijuana oil into those. We can fill over 1,000 pens a day. Basically we are selling it as fast as we can make them.

ALESCI: Selling them to retail stores like Green Fury in Belleview, Washington, which has a variety of e-joints or base pens.

KEVIN LABERGE: The joint, the pen, has a handy stylus on the end for business executors. They're becoming a much bigger part of our business every day actually. The fact that they're usually more potent than just straight marijuana and it doesn't notify people that you're using it. Obviously discretion is a great part of why people are using these.

ALESCI: And those two exact points, potency and discretion, worry addiction researchers like Meg Haney.

MEG HANEY, DRUG ADDICTION RESEARCH: Daily cannabis use can produce addiction. People who use it very regularly do have a very difficult time stopping. Lady Gaga came out and said she had an addiction to marijuana. And my phones started ringing off the hooks because nobody heard of such a thing before.

ALESCI: Haney says vaporizing high THC level oil is unchartered waters.

HANEY: It's unlike anything we've ever studied in the laboratory. And it's a much higher potency than most marijuana. Repeated use of very potent marijuana, it's an unknown.

ALESCI: And it's what many millennials are consuming.

LABERGE: It's the way of the future. Most of the younger people come in here in their 20s and 30s are familiar with these. They know how to use them and they want more.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:53:32] HARLOW: It is the world's leading marijuana trade show. It's known as the Cannabis Cup, and it's taking place in Colorado right now. Recreational marijuana in that state generating an estimated $700 million last year, alone, bringing in more than $50 million in tax revenue. And this is, folks, just the beginning.

Ana Cabrera is in Denver literally in the middle of all of it wearing her very fitting green jacket.

How's it going, Ana?

ANA CABRERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It's kind of wild out here, to be honest, Poppy. It's a big pot party. And you see people around me who are smoking pot, but all the booths here are not allowed to sell or give away the product itself. So we're hearing from people who are really here to market to the marijuana enthusiasts who are here. So here, Ed up here is one of the cannabis candy companies sells stuff like this. Again, you won't be able to actually pick that up here.

You can also see some booths like this, My 420 Tours, which does exactly what it sounds like. They give people tours of dispensaries from out of town to give them a sense of what the marijuana industry is really like. You also have companies selling T-shirts, you have people who are really trying to promote their pot products. These are Cannabis Cup Open Vape Pens so these are similar to the e-cigarettes. But you put THC-infused oils into this kind of a product.

And as you can see, people are here from all around the country to just explore what the marijuana industry is all about. It is a growing market. And, of course, we're seeing more and more states now legalize marijuana not just for medicinal use, but there are growing states who are planning to allow it for recreational use as well, and it's a multimillion dollar industry right here in Colorado -- Poppy.

[18:55:18] HARLOW: No contact high, right, Ana?

CABRERA: Hopefully not, but it's pretty hard to avoid around all of the people who are enjoying themselves out here today.

HARLOW: I bet. I bet.

Ana Cabrera, thanks so much. We appreciate it. Good to see exactly what's going on there at the Cannabis Cup.

Coming up tonight here on CNN, all three of Dr. Sanjay Gupta's "WEED" specials back-to-back episodes start next with the premiere of "WEED 3," that's at 9:00 Eastern followed by CNN's original series "HIGH PROFITS." That is tonight at 10:00 Eastern.

I'm Poppy Harlow. Thanks so much for spending part of your Sunday with me. Have a great week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)