"I agree with my colleagues, even the one who just preceded me, that marijuana is probably a dangerous drug, and I would not suggest that we do anything to encourage its use"
About this Quote
The line is a masterclass in congressional throat-clearing: a public-service announcement stapled to a political escape hatch. Rohrabacher opens with ritual deference to “my colleagues,” even nodding to “the one who just preceded me,” a small flourish that signals comity while quietly reminding listeners this is theater with a speaking order. It’s less agreement than inoculation. By affirming the most morally legible premise - marijuana is “probably” dangerous - he borrows the language of caution that has long dominated drug politics, then immediately adds the real payload: don’t think I’m “encouraging” anything.
That verb choice is doing heavy lifting. “Encourage” frames policy not as regulation, science, or civil liberties, but as cultural permission. The subtext: reformers aren’t just changing laws; they’re seducing the public. It’s a preemptive rebuttal to the classic attack line that legalization equals endorsement, turning any nuanced position into a character judgment.
The strategic hedge is “probably.” It keeps him aligned with prohibition-era anxieties without committing to a factual claim that might collapse under evidence. In an era when marijuana policy was becoming a bipartisan pressure point - medical use, states’ rights, libertarian skepticism of the drug war - this formulation lets a politician signal openness to reform while staying emotionally fluent in “tough on drugs” rhetoric.
Intent-wise, it’s permission to proceed with policy change while preserving the speaker’s moral posture: I’m not soft, I’m responsible. The power of the sentence lies in how it seeks to control interpretation before the debate even begins.
That verb choice is doing heavy lifting. “Encourage” frames policy not as regulation, science, or civil liberties, but as cultural permission. The subtext: reformers aren’t just changing laws; they’re seducing the public. It’s a preemptive rebuttal to the classic attack line that legalization equals endorsement, turning any nuanced position into a character judgment.
The strategic hedge is “probably.” It keeps him aligned with prohibition-era anxieties without committing to a factual claim that might collapse under evidence. In an era when marijuana policy was becoming a bipartisan pressure point - medical use, states’ rights, libertarian skepticism of the drug war - this formulation lets a politician signal openness to reform while staying emotionally fluent in “tough on drugs” rhetoric.
Intent-wise, it’s permission to proceed with policy change while preserving the speaker’s moral posture: I’m not soft, I’m responsible. The power of the sentence lies in how it seeks to control interpretation before the debate even begins.
Quote Details
| Topic | Health |
|---|
More Quotes by Dana
Add to List






