4 ms·

Yes, and the charter you just gave is is evil. Fundamentally evil. Pure evil even. "...do everything it can to prosecute as many drug violations as they can."

Yes, and the charter you just gave is is evil. Fundamentally evil. Pure evil even. "...do everything it can to prosecute as many drug violations as they can." That makes no mention of improving society. Or protecting society. Or providing valuable services to the citizens of society. Nor does it even make mention of the validity of the violations in question. Who cares if the violations in question are actually true. Truth and justice have nothing to do with the charter! So no, the DEA deserves to be perfectly square in the crosshairs of blame. Along with many other agencies and governmental organizations.

gamblor956 13y ago
It's called the "Drug Enforcement Agency." It's sole purpose is to enforce drug laws, not to make drug policy. Like other agencies, it was created to enforce the policies enacted by politicians (Congresscritters and Senators). Blame the politicians, not the agencies.
- bionsuba 13y ago
  It's called the "Rape Creation Agency" It's sole purpose is to rape people, not to make rape policy. Like other agencies, it was created to enforce the policies enacted by politicians (Congresscritters and Senators). Blame the politicians, not the agencies. I know it seems like a straw man but I just wish to show that your reasoning isn't quite sound.
  - chc 13y ago
    Unless you're meaning to imply that laws around drugs are categorically evil, I don't think you actually have a point.
    - smsm42 13y ago
      The US laws around drugs right now are categorically evil, yes.
      - chc 13y ago
        No, not the laws around drugs right now — the concept of laws around drugs. Because if it's just the current laws that are problematic, then it is indeed the laws that are the problem, not the agency. This is not comparable to a hypothetical Rape Creation Agency, which is problematic in and of itself because we do not approve of rape under any circumstances and there are no laws that could be changed to make such an agency acceptable. The analogy is not valid for making that particular point.
        Crito 13y ago
        The drug laws are Jim Crow laws, version 2.0 (now with added resiliency!) They were created for exactly the same racist reasons. The laws are evil, and those who voluntarily sign on to enforce them are evil. The DEA isn't staffed by people who were drafted, they all chose to involve themselves. Each individual member of the DEA is free to refuse to participate, but they instead choose to participate. We can and should judge them for that.
        chc 13y ago
        I think you're letting your outrage overcome your sense, because this has very little to do with what I was talking about.
        Crito 13y ago
        It has everything to do with what you are talking about. You said: "Because if it's just the current laws that are problematic, then it is indeed the laws that are the problem, not the agency." But it isn't just the laws that are problematic. The agency itself is problematic (being a construct that exists only because of the problematic laws), and the people who voluntarily work for the agency deserve every ounce of criticism that they get. There is no sense in which the agency is not problematic, both it as an abstract concept and it as a collection of free individuals are part of the problem. Neither the agency nor the people that comprise are blameless just because they did not write the laws.
        13y ago
  - fforw 13y ago
    > It's called "Vernichtungslager" / "Concentration Camps", their whole purpose is the legal killing of undesirables, you're really venting your anger at the wrong agency here. They're just doing the job they were hired for.
  - gamblor956 13y ago
    I don't think you understand logic, the law, or modern society. Rape is illegal, hence, the legislative branch could not and would not create a "rape agency" to rape people without also making rape legal. Obviously, if they were to do that, the problem is the politicians would make rape legal. Our duly elected representatives made laws prohibiting drugs, and an agency to enforce those laws. We've had many chances to replace those representatives in the decades since, and have chosen not to replace them with representatives who would remove those laws or water down the enforcement provisions.
    - bionsuba 13y ago
      Is there a difference between morality and the law? If our "duly elected representatives" made laws that made rape legal, would that be moral? If there are 100 people in a room and 51 people vote for the other 49 to become their lunch, is that ok? What if they made laws that made killing certain ethic groups legal, would that be moral? What if both of the candidates in a race are for the drug war and I don't have a choice? Does voting really imply consent? If it does, what if the candidate was lying during the campaign? What if he/she changed their mind about an issue? Do I still imply consent?
- wwweston 13y ago
  I'm happy to blame congress and others for creating the terrible policy, but that doesn't let the DEA off the hook for the practices they're describing here. An agency or officer that's justifying their actions as "enforcing the law" had better be talking about the every bit as important and legitimate laws that limit their activities and powers, as well as the criminal statutes. Otherwise, they're doing something else besides law enforcement.
- jstalin 13y ago
  Nope, it's Drug Enforcement Administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Enforcement_Administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Enforcement_Administratio...
- forrestthewoods 13y ago
  Pardon my language, but fuck that. Members of the DEA are responsible for their own actions with respect to how they uphold those laws. They hold prosecutorial discretion and they may be rightly judged for how they exercise that privilege. Some judge may have ruled parallel construction, amongst other things, as legal but that doesn't mean it's moral or ethical.

gamblor956 13y ago

It's called the "Drug Enforcement Agency." It's sole purpose is to enforce drug laws, not to make drug policy. Like other agencies, it was created to enforce the policies enacted by politicians (Congresscritters and Senators). Blame the politicians, not the agencies.

bionsuba 13y ago
It's called the "Rape Creation Agency" It's sole purpose is to rape people, not to make rape policy. Like other agencies, it was created to enforce the policies enacted by politicians (Congresscritters and Senators). Blame the politicians, not the agencies. I know it seems like a straw man but I just wish to show that your reasoning isn't quite sound.
- chc 13y ago
  Unless you're meaning to imply that laws around drugs are categorically evil, I don't think you actually have a point.
  - smsm42 13y ago
    The US laws around drugs right now are categorically evil, yes.
    - chc 13y ago
      No, not the laws around drugs right now — the concept of laws around drugs. Because if it's just the current laws that are problematic, then it is indeed the laws that are the problem, not the agency. This is not comparable to a hypothetical Rape Creation Agency, which is problematic in and of itself because we do not approve of rape under any circumstances and there are no laws that could be changed to make such an agency acceptable. The analogy is not valid for making that particular point.
      - Crito 13y ago
        The drug laws are Jim Crow laws, version 2.0 (now with added resiliency!) They were created for exactly the same racist reasons. The laws are evil, and those who voluntarily sign on to enforce them are evil. The DEA isn't staffed by people who were drafted, they all chose to involve themselves. Each individual member of the DEA is free to refuse to participate, but they instead choose to participate. We can and should judge them for that.
        chc 13y ago
        I think you're letting your outrage overcome your sense, because this has very little to do with what I was talking about.
        Crito 13y ago
        It has everything to do with what you are talking about. You said: "Because if it's just the current laws that are problematic, then it is indeed the laws that are the problem, not the agency." But it isn't just the laws that are problematic. The agency itself is problematic (being a construct that exists only because of the problematic laws), and the people who voluntarily work for the agency deserve every ounce of criticism that they get. There is no sense in which the agency is not problematic, both it as an abstract concept and it as a collection of free individuals are part of the problem. Neither the agency nor the people that comprise are blameless just because they did not write the laws.
      - 13y ago
- fforw 13y ago
  > It's called "Vernichtungslager" / "Concentration Camps", their whole purpose is the legal killing of undesirables, you're really venting your anger at the wrong agency here. They're just doing the job they were hired for.
- gamblor956 13y ago
  I don't think you understand logic, the law, or modern society. Rape is illegal, hence, the legislative branch could not and would not create a "rape agency" to rape people without also making rape legal. Obviously, if they were to do that, the problem is the politicians would make rape legal. Our duly elected representatives made laws prohibiting drugs, and an agency to enforce those laws. We've had many chances to replace those representatives in the decades since, and have chosen not to replace them with representatives who would remove those laws or water down the enforcement provisions.
  - bionsuba 13y ago
    Is there a difference between morality and the law? If our "duly elected representatives" made laws that made rape legal, would that be moral? If there are 100 people in a room and 51 people vote for the other 49 to become their lunch, is that ok? What if they made laws that made killing certain ethic groups legal, would that be moral? What if both of the candidates in a race are for the drug war and I don't have a choice? Does voting really imply consent? If it does, what if the candidate was lying during the campaign? What if he/she changed their mind about an issue? Do I still imply consent?
wwweston 13y ago
I'm happy to blame congress and others for creating the terrible policy, but that doesn't let the DEA off the hook for the practices they're describing here. An agency or officer that's justifying their actions as "enforcing the law" had better be talking about the every bit as important and legitimate laws that limit their activities and powers, as well as the criminal statutes. Otherwise, they're doing something else besides law enforcement.
jstalin 13y ago
Nope, it's Drug Enforcement Administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Enforcement_Administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Enforcement_Administratio...
forrestthewoods 13y ago
Pardon my language, but fuck that. Members of the DEA are responsible for their own actions with respect to how they uphold those laws. They hold prosecutorial discretion and they may be rightly judged for how they exercise that privilege. Some judge may have ruled parallel construction, amongst other things, as legal but that doesn't mean it's moral or ethical.