DEA operations chief decries legalization of marijuana at state level

Washington Post ^ | 01/20/2014

[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.

[coloradan]

Why is it that bringing a good that is legal in one state, into another where it is not, (i.e. “smuggling”) a federal matter? The law being violated is a state law, because the good isn’t legal in the second state. Trade between two states is “interstate commerce” and can be regulated by federal law, but you’re specifically talking about smuggling. For that matter, if a good is illegal under both state laws, it would also be smuggling. Do you think this would also be under federal jurisdiction? I don’t.

[coloradan]

Why do some people call themselves “born-again Christians?” Were they stupid the first time around, too? They got it all wrong in the past, and are advertising this fact?

[tacticalogic]

I wish these legalization threads had truth in posting qualifications such as each post should begin either: I smoke pot regularly and here is my opinion: or I do not smoke pot now (or ever have) and this I my opinion:

From Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution

"The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments. "

What do you make of that, since there's no record of whether he smoked pot or not?

[central_va]

I agree the only thing the Feds should do is control the borders and confiscating contraband is a Constitutional duty of the Feds. As far as enforcement in the USA that is a states rights issue.

[central_va]

Do you use pot? I don’t.

[2001convSVT]

“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.”

Yea, it will put him out of a JOB!

[tacticalogic]

Do you use pot? I don’t.

Are you "Living document" revisionist? I'm not.

[tacticalogic]

Clarence Thomas says he smoked pot back in his college days. Do you think we need to get rid of him?

[central_va]

So you don’t want to answer the question so I will put you down in the stoner category. Also you do not think it is the Fed’s job to interdict on the borders the smuggling of contraband, drugs or otherwise. I’ve also have told you I think drug enforcement INSIDE the USA is a states rights matter and should NOT be a Federal responsibility. So when you come down we’ll have an adult conversation.

[central_va]

Clarence Thomas says he smoked pot back in his college days. Do you think we need to get rid of him?

How asinine is that comment? FYI: Paranoia is a symptom of heavy pot use.

[central_va]

Here is the DEA's responsibility, what part is not Constitutional? YOU MAY argue that perhaps the interstate part MAY be UNCONSTITUTIONAL but not the international responsibility.

According to DEA, its primary responsibilities for drug law enforcement include the following:

investigating major drug traffickers operating at interstate and international levels and criminals and drug gangs who perpetrate violence in local communities;

coordinating and cooperating with federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies on mutual drug enforcement efforts, including interstate and international investigations;

managing a national drug intelligence system in cooperation with other federal, state, local, and foreign agencies to collect, analyze, and disseminate strategic and operational drug intelligence information; seizing and forfeiting drug traffickers' assets;

coordinating and cooperating with federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and foreign governments on programs designed to reduce the availability of illegal drugs on the U.S. market through nonenforcement methods, such as crop eradication, crop substitution, and the training of foreign officials;

and operating, under the policy guidance of the Secretary of State and U.S. Ambassadors, all programs associated with drug law enforcement counterparts in foreign countries

[tacticalogic]

Paranoia is a symptom of heavy pot use.

It's not paranoia if they really are out to destroy the republic.

[tacticalogic]

Also you do not think it is the Fed’s job to interdict on the borders the smuggling of contraband, drugs or otherwise.

What kind of drugs are you taking that are making you imagine you can read other people's minds?

[central_va]

If a person grows and smokes his own weed the DEA has nothing to do with it. IF that person transports it over state/international borders for sale THEN the DEA gets involved. I do not think that is destroying the republic.

[zeugma]

Libertarian- A Republican that wants to smoke legal pot.

LOL. That's all you got?

The police state thanks you for your support in their efforts to completely destroy the Constitution. We'd seen the destruction of our rights perpetuated in the name of the war on drugs.  There is no longer any doubt that its primary purpose is turn this nation into yet another banana republic.

Anyone who supports the drug war is no friend of liberty, the Constitution or our Republic.

[central_va]

Since you will not answer any of my questions it is incumbent on me to make assumptions. You could alleviate that situation and ambiguity by answering questions when presented.

[OneWingedShark]

The war on drugs is a good thing.

No; it's not. It's an usurpation of power and the means by which most of the bill of rights (and other legal rights) has been degraded.

The Unjust Justification

The Injuries on Rights

There is no constitutional authority for the federal regulation of drugs. Because of #1, the authority must be derived from somewhere: this somewhere is the commerce clause Because of #2, the power to regulate interstate commerce must be transformed into the power to regulate intrastate commerce. From the need of #3, Wickard is flatly established as "settled law" and precedent. #4 necessitates the elevation of precedent to the level of Constitutional Law (actually trumping it, when desired). #4 also is reinforced by making non-commerce regulatable under the interstate commerce powers (see Raich). The asset forfeiture laws make it profitable for police to make drug-related "busts". #7 also pressures the Judiciary to sign off on unreasonable searches. #7 and #8 pressures the Judiciary to excuse violence done by the police on the people. All of the above concentrate power into "the authorities" and allow them to excuse violations of the strictures imposed on them by the law.

Amendment X — 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. The powers used to regulate drugs are not delegated, they are assumed and invented. Amendment IX — The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. One such right is the classical presumption of innocence in traditional American Jurisprudence; another is that of the jury to try the law as well as the facts of the case (i.e. nullification). The War on Drugs has necessitated the usage of mandatory sentencing which, in the face of the general cultivation of ignorance surrounding jury-nullification, is essentially telling the jury that they must rule in accordance with the wishes of the State; this essentially turns the jury into a rubber stamp. Amendment VIII — Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. There is a cruelty, an inhumanity in our prison-system: the excessively long sentences — twenty years in snot uncommon, and that is a quarter of a man's life. Moreover, with the proliferation of felonies, even after serving the sentence the guilty are not fully restored to society, but instead relegated to a second-class citizen. This is cruel; if a person can never pay his debt to society then they should be killed, and their death balance the budget. Amendment VII &mdash In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. The seventh amendment has been relegated to a non-entity because the War on Drugs has proliferated the idea that all wrongs that are committed are maters of criminal law. Amendment VI — In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. The War on Drugs has hideously bogged down the courts, making the speedy qualifier a joke. Drug charges are commonly used to taint a jury against someone, and there is evidence that planting drugs is not an uncommon tactic of the police. Amendment V — No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. The War on Drugs has given rise to confiscation laws, which in turn deprive the accused of property before facing the lawful judgement of their peers. Moreover, with the ability to arrest (read confiscate) property, it is common that the accused has to prove their innocence. Amendment IV — The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The War on Drugs has been used to facilitate no knock warrants, an affront to every American sensibility, and a flatly unreasonable method of search. (Literally, there is no way to reason with a no knock raid.) The exigent circumstances which allow warrantless search and seizure were invented because of the War on Drugs, and have been expanding ever since. Amendment III — No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Generally thought to be laughable and 'dead' there recently was a real live third amendment case; while the police therein were looking for domestic violence the mentality they had was directly tied-to/grown-with The War on Drugs. (The article references The Rise of The Warrior Cop.) Amendment II — A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Due to the proliferation of felonies, spurred on by the War on Drugs, the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms is taken as a matter of course. Instead of being taken as its passive-voice suggests and prohibiting the action of infringing, it is taken more as a suggestion – always ameniable to the exigent circumstances of common sense gun laws. As the above shows, ninety percent of the bill of rights has been negatively impacted by the War on Drugs.

[central_va]

Anyone who supports the drug war is no friend of liberty, the Constitution or our Republic.

Ok, so are you a regular user?

[tacticalogic]

If a person grows and smokes his own weed the DEA has nothing to do with it. IF that person transports it over state/international borders for sale THEN the DEA gets involved. I do not think that is destroying the republic.

The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to give the federal government the authority to prevent the States from interfering with commerce.

[central_va]

Sodomy used to be illegal and now those laws are ignored. Look where that has got us.

To me the rise of socialism and the rise of pot use track side by side.

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.

I agree the SCOTUS should shoot down any unconstitutional parts of the drug was but SCOTUS is useless.