7 ms·

We should probably get rid of the DEA. The amount of damage the agency does outweighs the benefits.

by gozur88 10y ago

cm3 10y ago
Shouldn't they have a stock symbol for all the money they appropriated through the years? It's a publicly funded institution, so maybe it should be traded publicly as well.
- wtf_is_frp 10y ago
  That's a hilarious idea.
- cynwoody 10y ago
  The stock symbol DEA is already taken†. It belongs to Easterly Government Properties, a REIT which leases commercial property to federal agencies, such as "the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service ...". Market cap $616m. †https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ADEA https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ADEA
moribondus 10y ago
This is generally true for all law enforcement agencies. However, since the hoi polloi have bought into their false legitimacy, getting rid of them cannot be achieved just like that. The very same people complaining about their abuses on this site would be the first ones to utterly condemn you if you actually did anything even remotely effective to solve the problem. This constituency fully deserves what they are getting. Seriously, the problem should NOT be solved whatsoever. If you do not like the problem, you must join another constituency instead. When I live in Europe -- not right now actually -- I make sure to live in the middle of a muslim no-go zone. The police do not go there, because they cannot possibly guarantee that they would come back alive. Since I am publicly known to subscribe to the one-god theorem, I am not a target whatsoever for the locals. I am exceedingly safe from both the police and the criminals that often live there but do not dare to operate there.
joesmo 10y ago
What benefits?
- murbard2 10y ago
  It creates administrative jobs that politicians can use to reward political allies.
  - wtf_is_frp 10y ago
    It can't be all there is to it. In Afghanistan, puppies have been cultivated in open fields for decades and the US hasn't done shit - besides patrolling. I remember reading somewhere that the US banks benefited from the liquid cash of these kind of activities during the financial crisis in 2008.
    - murbard2 10y ago
      Puppies growing in open fields sounds adorable. But in all seriousness, no those activities do not generate "liquid cash" (if anything they're more likely to use physical cash as storage and withdraw it from circulation) and even if there was a plausible mechanism by which it could help US banks, the size of it is very small potatoes compared to the woes encountered in 2008.
      - wtf_is_frp 10y ago
        Since I am not an economist, I can't argue its validity: http://www.reuters.com/article/financial-un-drugs-idUSLP65079620090125 http://www.reuters.com/article/financial-un-drugs-idUSLP6507...
- gozur88 10y ago
  I know the War on Drugs is unpopular in HN, and it should be clear from my comment I'm against it myself. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who wouldn't drive to a seedy neighborhood and risk arrest to secure drugs, but who would take drugs if buying them were cheap and safe. Some number of those people will end up hooked, and some number of those people will be breaking into houses (or worse) looking for stuff to sell so they can get their next hit. Like I said, I don't think the putting a stop to that is worth what we're paying in terms of money and lost freedoms, but let's not pretend these substances were made illegal out of groundless malice. If and when we end the drug war there will be more junkies, more crack whores, more people who sit around staring at the wall instead of working and raising families, more people in the ERs from overdoses and drug-fueled mental breakdowns. It's a price I think we should pay, but it still a price.
mirimir 10y ago
I agree. But good luck on that. There's too much money in illegal drugs for that to ever happen.
- morganvachon 10y ago
  Indeed, it makes more sense to decriminalize obviously non-dangerous drugs, and revamp the schedules to get rid of 1930s "reefer madness" mentalities. The scientific and medical communities have a much better understanding of which drugs are actually dangerous and addictive, yet the federal government is still policing on a 100 year old level. And I say that as someone who has never taken an illegal drug nor drank alcohol, and I avoid prescription and OTC medication as much as possible (I believe in living healthy in all aspects, though I concede that certain drugs are unavoidable for some people, including me with my wonderful thyroid issues).

We should probably get rid of the DEA. The amount of damage the agency does outweighs the benefits.

by gozur88 10y ago

We should probably get rid of the DEA. The amount of damage the agency does outweighs the benefits.

cm3 10y ago

Shouldn't they have a stock symbol for all the money they appropriated through the years? It's a publicly funded institution, so maybe it should be traded publicly as well.

wtf_is_frp 10y ago
That's a hilarious idea.
cynwoody 10y ago
The stock symbol DEA is already taken†. It belongs to Easterly Government Properties, a REIT which leases commercial property to federal agencies, such as "the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service ...". Market cap $616m. †https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ADEA https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ADEA

moribondus 10y ago

This is generally true for all law enforcement agencies. However, since the hoi polloi have bought into their false legitimacy, getting rid of them cannot be achieved just like that. The very same people complaining about their abuses on this site would be the first ones to utterly condemn you if you actually did anything even remotely effective to solve the problem. This constituency fully deserves what they are getting. Seriously, the problem should NOT be solved whatsoever. If you do not like the problem, you must join another constituency instead. When I live in Europe -- not right now actually -- I make sure to live in the middle of a muslim no-go zone. The police do not go there, because they cannot possibly guarantee that they would come back alive. Since I am publicly known to subscribe to the one-god theorem, I am not a target whatsoever for the locals. I am exceedingly safe from both the police and the criminals that often live there but do not dare to operate there.

joesmo 10y ago

What benefits?

murbard2 10y ago
It creates administrative jobs that politicians can use to reward political allies.
- wtf_is_frp 10y ago
  It can't be all there is to it. In Afghanistan, puppies have been cultivated in open fields for decades and the US hasn't done shit - besides patrolling. I remember reading somewhere that the US banks benefited from the liquid cash of these kind of activities during the financial crisis in 2008.
  - murbard2 10y ago
    Puppies growing in open fields sounds adorable. But in all seriousness, no those activities do not generate "liquid cash" (if anything they're more likely to use physical cash as storage and withdraw it from circulation) and even if there was a plausible mechanism by which it could help US banks, the size of it is very small potatoes compared to the woes encountered in 2008.
    - wtf_is_frp 10y ago
      Since I am not an economist, I can't argue its validity: http://www.reuters.com/article/financial-un-drugs-idUSLP65079620090125 http://www.reuters.com/article/financial-un-drugs-idUSLP6507...
gozur88 10y ago
I know the War on Drugs is unpopular in HN, and it should be clear from my comment I'm against it myself. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who wouldn't drive to a seedy neighborhood and risk arrest to secure drugs, but who would take drugs if buying them were cheap and safe. Some number of those people will end up hooked, and some number of those people will be breaking into houses (or worse) looking for stuff to sell so they can get their next hit. Like I said, I don't think the putting a stop to that is worth what we're paying in terms of money and lost freedoms, but let's not pretend these substances were made illegal out of groundless malice. If and when we end the drug war there will be more junkies, more crack whores, more people who sit around staring at the wall instead of working and raising families, more people in the ERs from overdoses and drug-fueled mental breakdowns. It's a price I think we should pay, but it still a price.

mirimir 10y ago

I agree. But good luck on that. There's too much money in illegal drugs for that to ever happen.

morganvachon 10y ago
Indeed, it makes more sense to decriminalize obviously non-dangerous drugs, and revamp the schedules to get rid of 1930s "reefer madness" mentalities. The scientific and medical communities have a much better understanding of which drugs are actually dangerous and addictive, yet the federal government is still policing on a 100 year old level. And I say that as someone who has never taken an illegal drug nor drank alcohol, and I avoid prescription and OTC medication as much as possible (I believe in living healthy in all aspects, though I concede that certain drugs are unavoidable for some people, including me with my wonderful thyroid issues).