In a newly intensified public exchange, podcaster Joe Rogan has pushed back against claims made by former Vice President Kamala Harris that he falsely characterized her willingness—or lack thereof—to discuss cannabis on his show.
Background of the Dispute
In her recently published memoir, 107 Days, Harris asserts that Rogan “lied” when he stated she declined to participate in a conversation about marijuana on The Joe Rogan Experience. According to her account, the discrepancy arises from differing expectations over how the interview would be structured. Harris contends her team proposed a broader range of topics—including cannabis, social media censorship, and cryptocurrency—whereas Rogan’s camp limited the scope to issues such as the economy, immigration, and abortion.
Rogan, who had publicly declared support for former President Donald Trump prior to the 2024 election, had claimed at the time that Harris was unwilling to talk cannabis. He described her refusal as “hilarious.”
Rogan’s Counterargument
Responding on a recent episode of his podcast, Rogan rejected Harris’s characterization. He maintained that Harris’s campaign offered to do an abbreviated 45-minute session at a different location, rather than a full podcast conversation. According to Rogan, her team stipulated certain topics Harris preferred to avoid, and later denied those conditions had been set.
He also addressed timing issues, stating that no interview ever came to pass due to scheduling conflicts, Rogan’s refusal to host remotely outside his Austin studio, and an instance in which Harris’s staff allegedly claimed he had taken a “personal day” only for him to interview Trump instead.
The Broader Context: Harris’s Record on Cannabis
The dispute gains significance against the backdrop of Harris’s policy positions and past record. While she has expressed support for cannabis decriminalization and sponsored legislation to end federal prohibition, critics continue to scrutinize her tenure as a prosecutor in California. Rogan—during the podcast—pointed to data showing nearly 1,500 cannabis-related incarcerations during her time as district attorney, arguing that the statistics raise legitimate questions about her legacy. Harris, in turn, frames her prosecutorial record as having been misrepresented and emphasizes that when she assumed office, she prioritized minimizing jail time for nonviolent cannabis offenses.
Implications and Observers’ Take
This clash between Rogan and Harris illustrates tensions surrounding public narrative and accountability. It also underscores the political sensitivity of cannabis reform as a campaign issue, especially for candidates who have both endorsed legalization and faced criticism for their prior roles in law enforcement.
Media analysts note that each side’s version of events leaves space for ambiguity over exactly who would accept which conditions, and where miscommunication may have occurred. Meanwhile, the broader debate over federal cannabis policy remains unresolved, as President Biden’s administration continues to weigh rescheduling proposals—a decision observers say could emerge soon.
Dabbin-Dad Newsroom
