Thanks dude!
In reply to this comment by MrFisk:
*promote *controversy

Haha, she says all schedule I drugs are addictive. That is actually not true. She is the head of the DEA and doesn't know facts about drugs.

EDIT: Oh shit, Messenger posted the same reply. Well I will add to Messenger's list of non-addictive Schedule I drugs: DMT. And I feel if someone became mentally addicted to DMT, they are probably very insane like any person who wakes up every morning to take a bunch of sugarcubes. That is just insane most people just naturally don't feel inclined to do so.

(I'm just 6 minutes too late to submit this one!)

Found this on Dangerous Minds:

Why is someone as blinkered as Michelle Leonhart serving as a top DEA administrator? Her opinion about marijuana being as dangerous as other illegal drugs like heroin, crack, or meth hardly rises to the level of superstition let alone any kind of objective science.

This dumbass obviously has no idea what she is talking about. This is an infuriating display of complete idiocy and willful ignorance. Or else she’s just lying and stonewalling with the DEA party line, of course, but the “deer in the headlights” uncomprehending look on her face as she’s being grilled probably indicates that she’s being sincere. And stupid. Via The Raw Story:

During a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on Wednesday, Drug Enforcement Administrator Michele Leonhart repeatedly refused to admit that anything was more addictive or harmful than marijuana.

Democratic Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado pressed Leonhart on whether illegal drugs like methamphetamine and crack, as well as legal prescription drugs, caused greater harm to public health compared to marijuana. But within a three minute time-span, Leonhart dodged his questions eleven times.

“Is crack worse for a person than marijuana?” Polis, who has called for an end to marijuana prohibition, asked.

“I believe all illegal drugs are bad,” Leonhart responded.

“Is methamphetamine worse for somebody’s health than marijuana?” Polis continued. “Is heroin worse for somebody’s health than marijuana?”

“Again, all drugs,” Leonhart began to say, only to be cut off by Polis.

“Yes, no, or I don’t know?” Polis said. “If you don’t know this, you can look this up. As the chief administrator for the Drug Enforcement Agency, I’m asking a very straightforward question.”


If Leonhart REALLY doesn’t know the difference between pot and crack and their respective effects on the human body, as her answers would seem to indicate, may I suggest she actually TRY the drugs that she has no idea about and form a sensible opinion? Or maybe check in with some longtime pot smokers and some longtime crack heads or toothless meth addicts so she can see the difference? Or would that just be too easy? (31 years of daily pot smoking for me, I’ll meet with Leonhart happily and even subject myself to medical testing. I am a definitive study of one, trust me.)

Public opinion should force people like Leonhart out of their jobs where they have too much control over the lives of others. She was appointed by Bush and re-appointed by Obama in 2010. She’s an embarrassment to both administrations. A buffoon. An ignoramous. There wasn’t a person in the room—even the Republicans—who was impressed by this woman’s astonishing lack of expertise (and therefore NOTABLE lack of qualifications for her position). How could anyone be impressed by her performance on Capital Hill? She should be fired immediately.

“Is heroin worse for someone’s health than marijuana?” It’s not a trick question! The answer is YES, for fuck’s sake. The average senior citizen has a more enlightened approach than this DEA clownjob. WHAT are this woman’s qualifications for her job, anyway? A pulse?

Bring the goddamn drug laws into the 21st century, PLEASE. This is just getting to be so fucking stupid.

Kudos to Rep Jared Polis of Colorado for so doggedly exposing this nonsense. We need more like him in Congress.

>> ^vaire2ube:

The War on Drugs is a War on People... or quite literally, a War on Freedom.
Who else hates our freedom as much as the DEA?? Ask Daniel Chong... Bin Laden has nothing on what the DEA did to him.


I agree, but let me devils advocate for a second. Everyone has heard of sin taxes, extra taxes placed on things like cigarettes to discourage their use. These things fly in the face of freedom as well, they just don't send you to jail, just the poor house. The scary part about sin taxes isn't the tax itself, even though it is bad, but it is the justification it then grants the government in the matters of regulating what you consume. There is the FDA on the other side of that argument as well. Lets say Mary Jane gets legalized, you can bet your ass the stuff you grown in your back yard STILL isn't going to be legal. You are going to need some kind of licence, some sort of standardized testing procedure to make sure you aren't poisoning yourself...ect ect.

My point is, harping on the drug war is fine, and it is right to do so. But there are SO many different agencies and areas the government tells us what do and what not to do. IN that, the drug war is just an extension of those things. If you still want the FDA by the logic, that the drug war is a war on people, I don't think it will stand the test. Instead, you have to take a MUCH less ideological position of "more people want to do it than don't, so it is the exception in regulator matters". That is the problem you get into when you start trying to make everyone safe...there isn't such an actual idea as safe. Safe is a completely subjective idea...some people feel safe skydiving...fuck that noise.

As a crazy libertarian, I am fine with most government agencies shutting down. To that end, I do think life wouldn't change to much. The entities in the government evolved from our desire for them to exist. They would all most likely come to be in the private sector as well, a consumer reports of food, ect. And with places like the sift and redit, I do think the second age of the information age is going to place a LOT of pressure on governments and challenge their ability to deal with challenges. The internet might unlock a democratic meritocracy in certain instances, and for that I am very hopeful. </rant>

The War on Drugs is a War on People... or quite literally, a War on Freedom.

Who else hates our freedom as much as the DEA?? Ask Daniel Chong... Bin Laden has nothing on what the DEA did to him.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by mintbbb.

>> ^swedishfriend:

About 10:40---
There is no evidence use would go up with legalization and, yes I would like for use to increase. Cannabis is good for your body and mind.
Also from what I understand while alcohol is in use today it was much more of a problem during prohibition.


Ya, the "more use" argument is a faux argument. You can't make the same argument for, say, baked turkeys. "If we legalize baked turkeys consumption might go up!" The logical response to this is...so what. Even IF mary jane was harmful, we are allowed to harm ourselves in other ways, like not exercising or eating to many calories. This has everything to do with enforcing a moral direction, much like all social laws, be in welfare or gay marriage; someone trying to force his version of "good" into law.

>> ^bmacs27:

Why don't people just ask the basic question: "What is your constitutional and moral justification for this particular restriction of liberty?"


But think of the children...

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^MrFisk:
>> ^direpickle:
>> ^MrFisk:
The executive branch doesn't write laws, it only enforces them.

And the president is nominally the head of his party and can, to a degree, set the agenda. As president, he could follow through with his promise to not prosecute medical marijuana growers and dispensaries. As president, he could tell the House and Senate Democrats to push for legislation that would reform drug laws. As president, he could tell the FBI to completely ignore nonviolent drug offenders.
Yeah, the president isn't all powerful. He does have a good deal of power, though. How come Bush and Cheney were seen as destroying the country all on their own, but Obama's seen as being completely powerless in the face of a minor Republican majority in one house of Congress?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/executive-branch

I... I assume you posted that to back up what I said?
"The President can issue executive orders, which direct executive officers or clarify and further existing laws. The President also has unlimited power to extend pardons and clemencies for federal crimes, except in cases of impeachment."
"The DOJ [part of the Executive Branch] is comprised of 40 component organizations, including the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Marshals, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons."
Per Wikipedia, w.r.t. FBI:
"FBI Directors are appointed by the President of the United States. They... serve a term of office of five years... unless they resign or are fired by the President before their term ends."
Democrats.org lists the president as one of the leaders of the party.
In summation, the president is nominally one of the heads of his party and can, to a degree, set the agenda. As president, he could follow through with his promise to not prosecute medical marijuana growers and dispensaries. As president, he could tell the House and Senate Democrats to push for legislation that would reform drug laws. As president, he could tell the FBI to completely ignore nonviolent drug offenders.
Yeah, the president isn't all powerful. He does have a good deal of power, though. Why is he seen as being powerless in the face of a minor Republican majority in one house of Congress?


Technically, the FBI's main concern is terrorism. It's the DEA that has been licking their chops to bust stoners, grow-ops, etc. Them, and state's attorney generals looking for a feather in their cap.
I don't think the President can tell them to ignore laws on the books. However, he does work with Congress to write a budget that funds them: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/the-national-drug-control-budget-fy-2013-funding-highlights
And as you can see, the Obama administration continues the same failed policies of his predecessors. So, I'm not say he's powerless; I'm saying he's complicit.

It's all a fraud, but a voluntary one. The CSA is unscientific and doesn't abide by its own classifications... but has been adopted by the States, who now don't question it.

Since 2003, the US Govt, through the DHHS, owns a patent on Cannabidiol - a main ingredient in the cannabis plant and component of the smoke from combustion of the plant -- thus invalidating the claim against medicinal value. Patent Number 6630507. So why is it illegal? Guess who is in charge of authorizing the studies?

You will have to look it up, because for all intents and purposes it is actually the DEA who sets AND enforces drug policy in our country. (of course, they swear they are just followin the orders which come right from our citizens! they are doin the good work by keepin us from getting free medicine. don't you remember asking them to ruin your life just for fun?)

The current DEA director LYINGHEART actively blocks all attempts at scientific discourse regarding marijuana, yet screams the sky is falling because of synthetic cannabinoids that have been available for over a decade, proving that the DEA is up its own ass, at least partially enough to block hearing and sight. They can still smell pot smoke though.


Marijuana is not a drug. The plant isnt a drug. The chemicals inside it are... and they have medicinal value. So why make the plant illegal? Because its free. Number one, period.

prescription pain killer abuse is at an all time high and rising with the population... so one has to question the motivations of people who keep a free effective drug illegal. The most therapeutically safe substance known to man is classified with Heroin in terms of impact on health and society. That alone should be a warning flag to any thinking citizen.

Sickening, yet the only logical conclusion in light of all the facts.

It was indeed dead, those bums changed the embed code. Fixed it for the time being.>> ^jimnms:

Is this dead? I don't see a video, just white space where the embed should be.

Man if that is true I am even more upset with the DEA. If you were going to be fair dealers should not be in trouble as much as users because dealers are further removed from any supposed harm and don't actually cause any harm at all.

>> ^entr0py:

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^jonny:
"he spent in a 5 ft. by 10 ft. cell, where he could not spread his arms out wide."
How long are this dude's arms?!?!

He was handcuffed. Odd wording but it's the only explanation.
All they seized were some soft drugs - shrooms, weed, ecstacy, some other crap and "some weapons" ie. various things that you'd find in a normal house that can be used to fluff out the report and make sure such drugs are associated with violence!
Someone remind me again what's so terrible about taking those things in the privacy of your own property?

Here's a more recent CNN story.
Yes, he was handcuffed in the cell. The house that was raided seemed to be an MDMA distribution center, and the DEA claims they seized 18,000 pills, as well as several guns and cases of ammo. But it also wasn't the kids house; it seems he was just there with friends to get high. Which is why he wasn't charged and supposed to be released.

>> ^entr0py:

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^jonny:
"he spent in a 5 ft. by 10 ft. cell, where he could not spread his arms out wide."
How long are this dude's arms?!?!

He was handcuffed. Odd wording but it's the only explanation.
All they seized were some soft drugs - shrooms, weed, ecstacy, some other crap and "some weapons" ie. various things that you'd find in a normal house that can be used to fluff out the report and make sure such drugs are associated with violence!
Someone remind me again what's so terrible about taking those things in the privacy of your own property?

Here's a more recent CNN story.
Yes, he was handcuffed in the cell. The house that was raided seemed to be an MDMA distribution center, and the DEA claims they seized 18,000 pills, as well as several guns and cases of ammo. But it also wasn't the kids house; it seems he was just there with friends to get high. Which is why he wasn't charged and supposed to be released.


I'm glad there's a company line being towed on why an innocent person nearly died thanks to the war on drugs

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^jonny:
"he spent in a 5 ft. by 10 ft. cell, where he could not spread his arms out wide."
How long are this dude's arms?!?!

He was handcuffed. Odd wording but it's the only explanation.
All they seized were some soft drugs - shrooms, weed, ecstacy, some other crap and "some weapons" ie. various things that you'd find in a normal house that can be used to fluff out the report and make sure such drugs are associated with violence!
Someone remind me again what's so terrible about taking those things in the privacy of your own property?


Here's a more recent CNN story.

Yes, he was handcuffed in the cell. The house that was raided seemed to be an MDMA distribution center, and the DEA claims they seized 18,000 pills, as well as several guns and cases of ammo. But it also wasn't the kids house; it seems he was just there with friends to get high. Which is why he wasn't charged and supposed to be released.

>> ^jonny:

"he spent in a 5 ft. by 10 ft. cell, where he could not spread his arms out wide."
How long are this dude's arms?!?!


He was handcuffed. Odd wording but it's the only explanation.

All they seized were some soft drugs - shrooms, weed, ecstacy, some other crap and "some weapons" ie. various things that you'd find in a normal house that can be used to fluff out the report and make sure such drugs are associated with violence!

Someone remind me again what's so terrible about taking those things in the privacy of your own property?