Posted on 01/20/2014 3:45:55 AM PST by Wolfie
DEA operations chief decries legalization of marijuana at state level
The chief of operations at the Drug Enforcement Administration on Wednesday called the legalization of marijuana at the state level “reckless and irresponsible,” warning that the movement to decriminalize the sale of pot in the United States will have severe consequences.
Capra’s comments marked the DEA’s most public and pointed criticism of the movement toward decriminalization in several states, where local officials see it as an opportunity to generate tax revenue and boost tourism.
“It scares us,” James L. Capra said, responding to a question from a senator during a hearing focused on drug cultivation in Afghanistan. “Every part of the world where this has been tried, it has failed time and time again.”
Capra’s comments marked the DEA’s most public and pointed criticism of the movement toward decriminalization in several states, where local officials see it as an opportunity to generate tax revenue and boost tourism.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
No, what they'll instead do is work towards passing decriminalization laws in their own states. This is going to snowball. I predict in ten years, half the states in the Union will have decriminalized marijuana.
Sodomy laws were also State laws, not federal — you analogy fails.
To me the rise of socialism and the rise of pot use track side by side.
Frankly, I don't care about pot — I've never done it, I hate the smell.
That said, I do care about justice; and the War on Drugs only cultivates injustice.
(And much of that injustice is in the form of power being abused.)
But I agree the pot laws were enacted by congress long ago, maybe a national referendum would be a good thing. Maybe the next RINO can run on that platform for President.
National referendum? What would that do? Moreover, why should it be a national matter at all?
That post I wrote showed how 90% of the bill of rights has been damaged by the War on Drugs; please name one other federal government policy that has been so destructive to liberty.
I agree the SCOTUS should shoot down any unconstitutional parts of the drug was but SCOTUS is useless.
The SCOTUS has made it clear that they are political creatures, allied on the side of federal power rather than the Constitution to which they swore their allegiance.
Got ad hominem much?
I have posted before that when I joined in 2000, I felt I should be honest. I also felt that my experiences might be interesting and informative to the people who have spent their lives in conservative bubbles with no real understanding of what we are facing and fighting.
You are aware that non-conservatives, including moderates, apply the same tactics of denigrate, demean and destroy as the last ditch effort when they have lost an argument?
Says who? We get along without those despite differences in state regulation. Medical marijuana is 20 states and DC and I don't see any fences or border guards. Same with CO and WA.
Again, all you have is accusing someone of being a drug user.
Well yes, I drink enough coffee to kill a horse. I've often mused that an i.v. would be more efficient. Speaking of which, it's time to put on another pot of the beans I roasted yesterday.
As for other drugs, well, my doctor told me last time it was brought up, that my drinking habits is essentially the same as "none" for his purposes, so that's how I should fill out their forms for it.
Other than that, no.
Do you profit from the war on drugs? I find that generally the strongest supporters of this evil war on our rights benefit directly from prohibition.
I do not profit one way or the other form the current drug war.
Pot hasn't been that long that the disparities have become sufficiently problematic. If State A had legal pot and State B outlawed it completely, guess what? At that point the Feds WOULD justify getting involved as a matter of interstate commerce. Is that what you want?
It's perfectly legitimate for feds to help prevent importation of a particular intoxicant into a state that has outlawed it. The 21st Amendment says just that with regard to alcohol. So I have no problem with it.
I want states to exercise their legitimate powers under the Tenth Amendment, which includes legalizing pot if they so choose. Do you agree or disagree?
I notice your use of the weasel word "current".
The government can't even keep drugs out of prisons. How the hell can they claim to be able to keep drugs out of the country, especially when all it takes to grow pot is to toss seeds in the ground. It's a freaking weed for gosh sakes.
I'm fine with it. I was merely pointing out a logical consequence. One state might declare it legal. Another might put an immediate death penalty for possession. Natural law competition sorts out the results.
Well, constitutionally that which is not specifically designated as a function of the Fedthug is relegated to the states. OTOH, look at the overreach. However if they default on their responsibility it can be argued that they surrendered said responsibility to the state. Like border patrols and abortion, although the Fedthug has not abandoned a say in either scenario. Not that it’s in the Constitution either way.
Where in the Constitution is the DEA authorized? To give you an example of what I’m talking about, the Patent Office, Post Offices, various branches of the military, and a few other things are explicitly authorized to exist. By amendment the BATFE exists, although what power they can claim to regulate guns under the Second Amendment, is debatable. But, for example, their authority to tax alcohol seems constitutionally solid, even if it isn’t exactly promoting freedom.
So, what about the DEA? Where is it spelled out and authorized?
The DEA may be unconstitutional and struck down, but for that to happen someone wold have to bring a case to SCOTUS. Not sure anyone has, maybe you should.
That dodges my question. That said, I don’t have any dealings with the DEA in any way, so I lack the sort of standing that courts typically require to hear cases.
Look, the Air Force is not in the constitution. If push came to shove and somebody brought up a case the Air Force would have to be folded back into the Army, It’s just NOBODY is going to make a Federal case out of it.
nobody gets impaired by pot for driving
Ok, even when I was a stoner I knew better than that!
field sobriety tests.
Had one once, going through one of the gates at Elmendorf AFB about 4am. Only time I ever went through that gate stone cold sober; failed it. SSGT was perplexed that he couldn’t get any reading on his portable detector.
A buddy woke me up and insisted I go help him find his van. Assured me that he wouldn’t drive back; just wanted to know where it was. He kept falling asleep on me so I went back, still dead tired. Guess we looked suspicious at the gate....
Yes it is. I.8.12 =>
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
You’re operating on a faulty assumption here: that the illegalization is itself legitimate
So, we can’t ban heroin? How about Coke? Meth? Or full auto weapons? Or private ownership of nukes? Alcohol was common and legal in 1776, other drugs were not. There ARE some needed limits on states rights, even though there are more limits on them than there should be.
One of the big problems with pot is that it funds the cartels which are enemies not just of this country but of civilization itself. This may be why they do align to an extent with the muslim terrorists....
If weed is to be legal it would have to be legal in at the fed level. It would have to be regulated and there would have to be strict penalties for “bootlegers”. We would need a way to determine where it was grown (ie. inside the USA).
______________________________________________________________
The Tenth Amendment lays that out very clearly.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
______________________________________________________________
Which section of the Constitution do you think delegates to Congress the power to impose national marijuana prohibition?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.