This is really a follow-up to the previous post, and I already added the link as an update there, but I can’t resist commenting on these points, reported quite well from El Paso by Sito Negron at Newspaper Tree.
Talk about pathetic…
When asked whether there was a difference between hard drugs like cocaine and marijuana he said it was a question for the attorney general, and when pressed on the question he said “I’d wait and ask the attorney, I’ve had only one meeting with the attorney general so far and I’m pretty new in my tenure so I think I’d just defer until we go further down the road.”
He doesn’t know what he’s supposed to say. Wow.
Then, about medical marijuana (remember, this is the guy who very recently said “Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit.” Now:
As for medical marijuana, he said: “I think the medical marijuana, we’re reserving that question for the medical community. The decision on whether marijuana actually has a medicinal benefit within its chemical compound is a question we’re going to let science answer.”
Finally, and here’s a real kicker, he’s asked about alcohol prohibition.
Finally, he was asked about whether the end of Prohibition reduced violence in Chicago, and whether that was a possible model for legalizing marijuana.
“I’m not sure I’d liken what we’re talking about to Prohibition, but I don’t think anybody thought after Prohibition was lifted crime ended as a result,” Kerlikowske said.
Classic nirvana fallacy. Of course, crime didn’t end. But it was dramatically reduced, and the structures for organized crime related to the black market of alcohol were weakened fatally. That’s the exact same situation that we face with prohibition of drugs.
OK, Kerlikowske is a tool, and he’s making the office look silly. But there’s something else happening. Everywhere he goes, he’s being asked the legalization question. And now he’s being asked the Chicago prohibition question. The press is waking up, or becoming emboldened, or something.
Additionally, note in Negron’s article…
But Kerlikowske, who by the rules governing his office cannot say anything else — “The statute says we have to absolutely resist (legalization” — said that the administration is working on a “different approach” to the Drug War.
More and more, the Drug Czar’s statements are prefaced with the disclaimer that what he has to say does not include all the options. (And by the way, I take full credit for that. It’s taken a couple of years to catch on, but my article is having an effect.)
This is fabulous stuff. People are commenting on what the Drug Czar has to say, but no longer accepting it. Kaptinemo in comments may have it right:
I keep thinking that Iâ€™m witnessing the â€˜end of daysâ€™ when it comes to the ONDCP. And Mr. Kerlikowske has been chosen (and probably knows that he has) to preside over itsâ€™ dissolution.