Isn't that Gomey, Hank's old DEA partner?

>> ^legacy0100:

I was actually referring to the woman's parenting job as her son was being raised, not her responsibility as a parent currently when he is all grown up.
The argument I'm making is that she's done a shitty job raising her son, hence why he's being chased by DEA agents. This is different from what you guys have pointed out which is that her responsibility as a parent stops once the child becomes an adult and makes his own decisions.
She has no control over her son's individual will as an adult, hence she is free from the blame of her son's criminal activity. But the original argument of her being a shitty parent still stands. The role of parent has an enormous impact on the child's cognitive development and their career choice. And at the end of the day she must live with the fact that she has raised a criminal.


That's a very absolute view on the world which is rarely made up of absolutes when it comes to people. Her son might just be a shithead, or her son might not have been the guy they were looking for thus no conviction/arrest.

I was actually referring to the woman's parenting job as her son was being raised, not her responsibility as a parent currently when he is all grown up.

The argument I'm making is that she's done a shitty job raising her son, hence why he's being chased by DEA agents. This is different from what you guys have pointed out which is that her responsibility as a parent stops once the child becomes an adult and makes his own decisions.

She has no control over her son's individual will as an adult, hence she is free from the blame of her son's criminal activity. But the original argument of her being a shitty parent still stands. The role of parent has an enormous impact on the child's cognitive development and their career choice. And at the end of the day she must live with the fact that she has raised a criminal.

They cut him off for expired time right as he reads to her the passage in a DEA publication claiming marijuana is wrong for anyone to use, even medicinally. She certainly claims, as other posters have pointed out, to know things outside the scope of her position, and is, in fact, making POLICY based on those erroneous assertions.

DEA = POLICY and ENFORCEMENT = NO FREEDOM .. yay!!!

>> ^VoodooV:

im not saying she didn't screw up, just that we're asking the wrong people.
It's congress that made this stuff illegal in the first place. Instead of picking on the DEA, Congress should get off it's ass and..oh I don't know...be the leaders we elected them to be?

>> ^PalmliX:

Ummmm shouldn't we be blaming congress which passed the law making marijuana schedule 1 in the first place? According to US federal law, marijuana IS AS harmful as meth, crack, heroin etc... Her job is to enforce those laws which congress passes, not to critically analyze the latest science behind drug testing, is anyone really surprised then at the way she answered? In other words, don't hate the player hate the game.

QFT.

She's the head of the Drug ENFORCEMENT Agency, not the Drug Figure Out Which Drugs Are Worse Than Others Agency.

im not saying she didn't screw up, just that we're asking the wrong people.

It's congress that made this stuff illegal in the first place. Instead of picking on the DEA, Congress should get off it's ass and..oh I don't know...be the leaders we elected them to be?

The Congressman said there are three possible answers. Or she could even offer a fourth: "I'm in law enforcement, and while I am aware of information about the relative dangers of various drugs, it's not my place to comment on the relative harm these drugs do."

But she doesn't say that. She takes a scientific position, albeit a weak one, and one outside the scope of her position as a police officer, which is that all Schedule I drugs are "bad". She then goes on, still outside the scope of her position, to express her belief on the reasons marijuana was made a Schedule I drug. Then she agrees that Heroin is more addictive that marijuana. Then she claims that prescription drugs are "VERY addictive", indicating she's aware that there are varying levels of addictiveness among different substances.

Anyone offering the "She's just a cop" defence, you have to apply the same defence to everything she says, and it doesn't stick. She knows the facts when she's on her talking point, but doesn't even acknowledge that the facts exist when asked something against her talking point. Intellectually dishonest.>> ^VoodooV:

Yeah I hate to say it but I agree that it's not completely fair to her. You're asking an enforcement officer about science and to make an analysis/judgement of which drugs are worse/better. We pay them to enforce the law, not to understand the law.
It's congress that says these things are bad. It's really a question for congress and not the DEA.
That said, you would think that the top director of drug enforcement would have some idea of which ones are worse and which aren't

>> ^lucky760:

Freakin' William Randolph Hearst.


Don't forget Anslinger!

Yeah I hate to say it but I agree that it's not completely fair to her. You're asking an enforcement officer about science and to make an analysis/judgement of which drugs are worse/better. We pay them to enforce the law, not to understand the law.

It's congress that says these things are bad. It's really a question for congress and not the DEA.

That said, you would think that the top director of drug enforcement would have some idea of which ones are worse and which aren't

excatly... tobacco grown naturally is far less risky than a manufactured cigarette... the poison they put on the cigs during processing turns radioactive when combusted.

and as for this being an anti-pot argument? There are several smokeless methods, none of which affect the pulmonary system negatively. So, next argument.

What's that? illegaldrugsareallbadthinkofthechildren??

Oh, ok ill shut up. Good point.

Fucking Terrorist DEA

>> ^messenger:

She said all schedule 1 drugs are addictive. Isn't LSD a schedule 1 drug? Not addictive in the least, as far as I know.


It's like the opposite of addictive, but it can fuck ya up good.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^messenger:

She said all schedule 1 drugs are addictive. Isn't LSD a schedule 1 drug? Not addictive in the least, as far as I know.


Try to find a list long term side effects of LSD based on scientific studies. Avoid 'drugs are bad' literature but find the results of actual scientific studies and you find some interesting results.

>> ^chingalera:

AM WE the only ones think this bitch needs some hard ass-fucking treatment?


you mean like modern day therapy? i'm pretty sure she could use some kind of drug to mellow her some, chill her out a little......what could that be?......hmmmm

now that i think about it, it does seem quite preposterous that those who've never tried the drug are often the ones passing judgement on it.

>> ^MrFisk:

She's not stupid, she's protecting her job.

Smart people don't want that job.