The Drug Czar Shows Weakness in the Marijuana Legalization Debate

There’s been much discussion recently about the Drug Czar’s request to meet with the Seattle Times editorial board in an apparent response to this editorial endorsement of marijuana legalization.

You can read here about how that meeting went, but I think this video more perfectly captures the absurdity of the situation:

If anyone thought he had the ability to intimidate the press and chill the debate, just watch as he instantly loses control of the discussion by insisting pathetically that the timing of his meeting with the Seattle Times was a mere coincidence. Disoriented and defensive, the Drug Czar can scarcely even explain what he’s doing in Seattle, let alone offer a spirited rebuttal to the stinging editorial that initiated this series of events.

Kerlikowske is crippled by the distracting strategic necessity of having to avoid admitting that everything he does is just a response to the movement for legalization. He can’t admit that we’re setting the pace in the debate, so instead he must claim preposterously that his request to meet with the Seattle Times two days after their pro-legalization editorial actually had nothing to do with it. That is actually less humiliating than acknowledging that his real job is just to wag his finger at us.

The whole episode has descended into an embarrassing exhibit in impotence and confusion, as the Drug Czar deploys damage control to the best of his ability and accomplishes nothing other than to legitimize and empower the argument for reform.

– Article originally published at

This article is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution license.



  1. David762 on

    Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske is getting paid at least $150,000 USD at taxpayers’ expense. Not only is he unconvincing in his “starring role” due to his regurgitation of the same old tired line of nonsensical propaganda, he doesn’t even seem to have a “fire in his belly” regarding the War on (Some) Drugs. Martin Sheen did far better in his role as Drug Czar in the movie “Traffic”, and I’m pretty sure that he is against the War on Drugs.

    Gil Kerlikowske needs to be fired or, better yet, eliminate the cabinet position of Drug Czar. And while we are at it, let’s defund and dismantle the DEA — they can all be re-drafted into fighting our other nonsensical unending war, the War on (Some) Terror. No doubt that a couple of regiments of National Guard would be happy to come home from our illegal and immoral overseas occupations, to spend some quality time with their families. IMHO, the “warriors” of the DEA have earned no such rewards …

  2. Kelly l. White on

    It will be repeated over and over and over until reason reigns and this stupid Drug War is stopped. The truth about injustice can’t be repeated often enough.

  3. Anonymous on

    Who ever wrote this article is way off base, and should find a new job… I’m pro -legalization of every substance, but this was a well thought out and well articulated Q&A. Everything wrote in this article is a misinterpretation or flat out lie. The author of this article is the reason nobody takes us seriously… This rag is getting as bad as Hightimes…

    I’m a stoner shaking my head in shame…

  4. Kada on

    It is important that these things keep being repeated and people continue to pass the word on. We are not here to entertain you.

  5. Anonymous on

    You’re boring…correct, but boring. No need to regurgitate all the little truths you’ve picked up, everyone here has heard the above speech a million times.

  6. Anonymous on

    Intellectual weakness was shown, but on a more superficial note, those constant arched eye-brows are contrived & only fools fools. It’s a sign which is meant to mean, “I care” while the reality is that it is says, “I want you to think I’m ethical”, hence the contrivance of the posture.
    The views are pathetic: it is very important to compare drugs to one another, especially regarding danger!
    “Why would you want to introduce another drug (cannabis)?” he asks… the best answer is that because it’s non-toxic, it’s non-addictive & has multiple beneficial uses. That is the primary reason. It’s potential to curb hard-drug use is also important, taking away cartel/gang money is important (although to be clear, Pfizer is also a homicidal drug cartel) & regulation is important.
    Gil is not the issue: drug prohibition & especially cannabis prohibition is immensely tyrannical because of what good cannabis in particular does (can/should do).

  7. Anonymous on

    It is entirely clear that the stance against cannabis legalisation is deeply unethical & usually massively misinformed. Ethics is up against a century, at least, of falsehoods about cannabis being fed to the bourgeois corporate-controlled culture(s). Progress is being made here & there but it is hard work to stop the brain-washed from inflicting further tyranny against cannabis & the users of the glorious plant. Did I mention it prevents cancer? That’s sort of a huge deal at this point…