And you think the DEA doth protest too much
I was trying to make a point.
So WHAT'S YOURS?
Hire more LEA? Increase budget by $BILIONS and $BILIONS?
Build more prisons?
Make criminals out of millions more citizens?
Lock them all up and throw away the keys?
No, I don't have all (or even some) of the answers
Do YOU?????
My issue with this is the same as the opponents of the DEA.
I personally don't even drink, let alone smoke dope. But legalization does seem to make sense.
Compare it to alcohol. When is the last time you heard of someone getting high and beating their wife? Stoners seem to mostly lay around playing Xbox games and eating day old pizza.
But, to the main point, I agree. It is outside the realm of the fed or any gov agency or it's employees to sponsor one side of a bill or the other, even though it happens all the time. There are advocacy groups on both sides of this issue, and if the DEA wishes to support the opposition, he can do it after he clocks out in his/her own personal life.
If the public wishes to leverage the "expert advice" of the DEA, I am sure they will ask. If the public wishes to blindly vote for things without researching it, that is also unfortunately within their rights (This is how liberals get elected).
Lets compare: How would people react if the Attorney general founded a no-prayer-allowed-in-school (call it whatever you like) organization on the clock, printed flyers, recruited supporters, all that guff even IF the entire thing was funded with "private" donations? Then, he/she started showing up in the newspapers like this speaking out and supporting the cause in public?
Exactly. These are public servants who are by design supposed to remain neutral in these issues. Failure to comply with this basic ethical standard undermines fairness and equality of all opinions, even if my opinions are the only ones that are always correct . hehehe