Rolling Stone

  • by Allen St. Pierre, Former NORML Executive Director April 25, 2012

    From Politico:

    President Obama clarified his position on medical marijuana in an interview with Rolling Stone, telling publisher Jann Wenner that he can’t “nullify congressional law.”

    “What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana. I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana – and the reason is, because it’s against federal law. I can’t nullify congressional law,” Obama said.

    “I can’t ask the Justice Department to say, ‘Ignore completely a federal law that’s on the books.’ What I can say is, ‘Use your prosecutorial discretion and properly prioritize your resources to go after things that are really doing folks damage.’ As a consequence, there haven’t been prosecutions of users of marijuana for medical purposes,” Obama said.

    Obama also said in a late night TV appearance Tuesday on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, that he didn’t expect Congress to change that law: “We’re not going to be legalizing weed … anytime soon.”

  • by Allen St. Pierre, Former NORML Executive Director July 25, 2009

    Kerlikowske Finds Ideology

    7/24/09, 12:34 am EST
    This is a major disappointment:

    Obama’s drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske hit the road this week to rail against the perils of pot:

    “Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit,” he said at an appearance in Fresno, California.

    This is a striking departure from what Kerlikowske told me in an interview in May.

    Because of the restrictive terms the Vice President’s office imposed on our interview, I’m not at liberty to quote the drug czar directly.

    But when I asked Kerlikowske for an example of how he hoped to bring sound science back to Office of National Drug Control Policy, he told me that science would answer whether smoked marijuana has any medical benefit.

    That’s a question that science answers, he told me, not ideology.

    From this week’s comments, it appears it took just two more months on the job for Kerlikowske’s openness to scientific uncertainty to snap shut in a fit of ideological conviction.

    Tim Dickinson