DEA:Cannabis to remain classified

[Rob Roy]

I'm thinking we don't need a DEA at all anymore. Disband the entire fucking department, let that serve notice to all the rest of the Federal Government bureaucracies that if they don't serve the REAL will of We the People, they will be next.

I'm thinking you may have found a nut, blind squirrel.

 

[schuylaar]

Right now Hillary is "having" Bernie in her dungeon with an 11" strap on.

That would interest me if it were the other way around..I'm more the submissive type.

 

[Rob Roy]

Police have the legal authority to enforce the law once they become police officers. Similarly, publicly elected officials have the legal authority to create the law once they become publicly elected officials.

You're assuming that since you don't have the power to create laws and I don't have the power to create laws, then nobody else does either. The power to create laws is granted to people once they are publicly elected to office.

You can disagree with that all you want and say that you don't think it should be that way, but that's how it works, that's the way it is

The power to delegate rights is granted to publicly elected individuals by the people that elect them

You give your consent to be represented by a representative of the government by living in one of the districts owned by the government. Nothing is stopping you from moving outside said district and voluntarily removing yourself from representation. By choosing to live where you live, you are choosing to give your consent to be governed.

The owner would have the right to determine the use/nonuse of the subject property so long as it follows the law. For example, it's illegal to discriminate against people based on the color of their skin, so if you owned a public establishment, you would not be allowed to discriminate against a group of people based on things the law protects against (race, color, religion, etc.). That wouldn't make the public establishment any less your property

Sure, I would agree being able to do what you want with your own property so long as it follows the law is what makes owned property, property and not something else

You said, " You're assuming that since you don't have the power to create laws and I don't have the power to create laws, then nobody else does either. The power to create laws is granted to people once they are publicly elected to office."

On it's face your statement is nonsensical and relies on a suspension of logic and flawed math. (also you switched from a discussion of rights to a discussion of who can create laws, but my example works either way)

Here's the part you have can't refute...

If a person gathers with a bunch of people and none of them possess a given thing, then they have "zero" amount of that thing and the aggregate of their zeroes is still zero.


So, pretty much what you are saying is that a nonexistent right to do something, can be conjured up if enough people, none of whom posses that thing, gather and by some magic of putting names in a ballot box the right to do something is created and can then be conferred on other "special people who then become "government" ?

Would that process work with weed too? Cuz this onetime at band camp, we were out of weed and had I known your magical process, I would have told everyone we could create a nonexistent thing into being, simply by holding an election.

 

[Rob Roy]

That would interest me if it were the other way around..I'm more the submissive type.

I'm sorry but I can't help you, big"foot" isn't available for the 11" jobs.

Craigslist maybe?

 

[OddBall1st]

Can

DEA head Chuck Rosenberg is only acting chief until a new one is appointed. What's Obama going to do? He has a department that is running off the rails and he isn't able to fire everybody, though I'd like to see that happen. Its not at all clear that he can fire Rosenberg for following federal law. From a legal standpoint, his directive might not withstand a legal challenge and where would state legalized MMJ be then? Certainly, the Republican Congress would leap at the opportunity to make Obama and Democrats look "weak on crime".

On top of it all, they fired DEA chief Leonhart for breaking with his policies and not taking action when seven agents hired hookers in Columbia for a party. Even then that took a loong time to get done. Obama is in office for another six months. It's my guess that the DEA agents are running amok and taking advantage of the situation. Perhaps to enrich themselves but also because raids are fun!

You were in the military. You must know how managing from the top down has limited leverage. You also must know how long it can take to effect a change in leadership.

I'm not making excuses for Obama but you seem to be saying that Obama is for some reason complicit in this hot mess. I think you should look elsewhere.

The DEA is an agency that works for the DOJ. It can be shut down and re-structured at the snap of Obama`s finger.

My point is, ...He hasn`t even tried to gain control of an alleged out of control agency. The reason things are taking so long, is that the only man who can make the call at will, on site,....wont. Pushing it through the system rewards the corruption with the time they need. He has a lot to say about Trump while Milwaukee burns and Baltimore turns.

There`s nothing you can say or show me that puts Obama taking the bull by the horns. He and his family have a life beyond the White House, and he doesn`t want to be that citizen responsible.

BLM will be around when Obama is gone,...so Milwaukee will burn and Baltimore will turn.

The worst mass murderers to hit the middle East are shrugged off as a JV team and we`ll get that later is all one needs to see to tell the story of his leadership and command skill.

Worried that Democrats will lose an Election takes priority over the State of the Union and those he leads. It`s not better for the country that Hillary wins, it`s better for the Country that the Country picks. But not for Democrats.

He would even get thrown off the "lazy Carrier" in my fleet. I don`t even know how he would get in.....

 

[Fogdog]

The DEA is an agency that works for the DOJ. It can be shut down and re-structured at the snap of Obama`s finger.

My point is, ...He hasn`t even tried to gain control of an alleged out of control agency. The reason things are taking so long, is that the only man who can make the call at will, on site,....wont. Pushing it through the system rewards the corruption with the time they need. He has a lot to say about Trump while Milwaukee burns and Baltimore turns.

There`s nothing you can say or show me that puts Obama taking the bull by the horns. He and his family have a life beyond the White House, and he doesn`t want to be that citizen responsible.

BLM will be around when Obama is gone,...so Milwaukee will burn and Baltimore will turn.

The worst mass murderers to hit the middle East are shrugged off as a JV team and we`ll get that later is all one needs to see to tell the story of his leadership and command skill.

Worried that Democrats will lose an Election takes priority over the State of the Union and those he leads. It`s not better for the country that Hillary wins, it`s better for the Country that the Country picks. But not for Democrats.

He would even get thrown off the "lazy Carrier" in my fleet. I don`t even know how he would get in.....

You confuse running a gas station where firing a pump jockey or attendant is easy. If it were me, I'd fire the SOB and face the consequences. But then again, neither you nor I are in the running for high office.

You are a simpleton OB. I admit, I don't know what it takes to run a large organization but I will say that simply replacing the person at the top of a division or a bureau isn't the same as gaining the trust and loyalty of the people in that organization. And so, firing the first chief of the DEA and then firing the interim chief before identifying the right person to head the DEA would create even more headaches. There is no chance of a nominee by Obama getting through Congress this year. And so, the DEA goes rogue and pillages.

The department is administered under the auspices of the president but it enforces laws written by Congress and is also funded by Congress. The prez doesn't have the power to do whatever he wants. Not if he operates under the Constitution.

Why don't you blame Congress? They are the ones refusing to budge on MJ legalization at the national level. They are the ones blocking Obama's nominations for offices of government. They are the ones who want him to fail.

You are in the minority when it comes to your choice of Trump over Hillary. And so, I won't take your death threat to the prez. seriously. There are some second amendment folks who might. It would be awful if they did anything however.

 

[captainmorgan]

Do you think these tools really believe this or just sleazy politics.

https://www.marijuanatimes.org/dea-compares-legal-colorado-grow-houses-to-meth-labs/

 

[Padawanbater2]

Do public officials have the power to create laws which violate other peoples rights?

Yeah, apparently they do, marijuana is illegal

If public officials do have the power to create laws which violate peoples natural rights, how and why are people obligated to follow them ?

People are not obligated to follow rules that violate their natural rights

If a person gathers with a bunch of people and none of them possess a given thing, then they have "zero" amount of that thing and the aggregate of their zeroes is still zero.

Wrong. How did democracy ever develop? Natural rights? Law itself? Thousands of years ago everyone was a "zero" in regards to those examples. It took the development of society for each of them to evolve. Men started out at zero and decided amongst themselves the best way to orchestrate society, hence government. Police officers aren't born with the authority to jail citizens. They go through a program that our society has deemed sufficient to hold said responsibilities, they are granted them upon graduation. Started out at zero, now have the legal authority to put citizens behind bars for extended periods of time

So, pretty much what you are saying is that a nonexistent right to do something, can be conjured up if enough people, none of whom posses that thing, gather and by some magic of putting names in a ballot box the right to do something is created and can then be conferred on other "special people who then become "government" ?

A representative republic was simply what the founders of the country felt was the most effective way to run the government at the time. It was built out of necessity. You can't sit down and wait to make decisions until all the votes are counted from every American in the country, especially at a time when it took weeks for a response or especially in a time of war.

Would that process work with weed too? Cuz this onetime at band camp, we were out of weed and had I known your magical process, I would have told everyone we could create a nonexistent thing into being, simply by holding an election.

Seriously poor example..

You're attempting to equate wishing weed into existence out of thin air, magically, with a group of citizens coming together within a society and deciding to publicly elect someone to represent them in the federal government within a representative republic..

I mean.. yeah.. I'd imagine most people can see the clear difference in those scenarios..

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Do you think these tools really believe this or just sleazy politics.

https://www.marijuanatimes.org/dea-compares-legal-colorado-grow-houses-to-meth-labs/

It is more about keeping their jobs. But it is not entirely false. Bad tenants are bad tenants. Some bad tenants grow weed. Most do not.

 

[Rob Roy]

Yeah, apparently they do, marijuana is illegal

People are not obligated to follow rules that violate their natural rights

Wrong. How did democracy ever develop? Natural rights? Law itself? Thousands of years ago everyone was a "zero" in regards to those examples. It took the development of society for each of them to evolve. Men started out at zero and decided amongst themselves the best way to orchestrate society, hence government. Police officers aren't born with the authority to jail citizens. They go through a program that our society has deemed sufficient to hold said responsibilities, they are granted them upon graduation. Started out at zero, now have the legal authority to put citizens behind bars for extended periods of time

A representative republic was simply what the founders of the country felt was the most effective way to run the government at the time. It was built out of necessity. You can't sit down and wait to make decisions until all the votes are counted from every American in the country, especially at a time when it took weeks for a response or especially in a time of war.

Seriously poor example..

You're attempting to equate wishing weed into existence out of thin air, magically, with a group of citizens coming together within a society and deciding to publicly elect someone to represent them in the federal government within a representative republic..

I mean.. yeah.. I'd imagine most people can see the clear difference in those scenarios..

 

[Padawanbater2]

View attachment 3758697

 

[Chunky Stool]

 

[Rob Roy]

 

[Padawanbater2]

So the next time you pull the "can a person delegate a right they don't have?" card, I'll just reference this thread and show you exactly where I addressed it and you ignored it for the dozenth time

 

[VTMi'kmaq]

It is more about keeping their jobs. But it is not entirely false. Bad tenants are bad tenants. Some bad tenants grow weed. Most do not.

Id rather have pot growing tenants who pay their rents then child molestors on subsidies......

 

[Rob Roy]

So the next time you pull the "can a person delegate a right they don't have?" card, I'll just reference this thread and show you exactly where I addressed it and you ignored it for the dozenth time

You have confused the power to do something with the right to do it. They are two different things.

You have not refuted my assertion, you have given examples where people abuse others rights and believe because it happens on a frequent basis, it somehow provides evidence that it is a refutation. It's not.

The reason why, is my assertion is self evidently correct. You, nor anybody or group of anybodies can delegate a right they do not possess. Therefore if no single component person within a group has a right, it can't possibly be created from nothing.

If I have no right to do something to you, no group of people all of whom possess no right to do that same thing, can possibly conjure it up from nothing. If rape is wrong, so is gang rape.

Again, the sum of an aggregate of zeroes is still zero.

 

[cat of curiosity]

That would interest me if it were the other way around..I'm more the submissive type.

i doubt anyone is surprised...

 

[Padawanbater2]

Can you enforce the law?

Can police?

Enforcing the law is not a "right", it's a responsibility entrusted to members of society who pass the test we put in place that tells the rest of us they're competent enough to do it

Exact same thing with politicians and creating the law

 

[UncleBuck]

You have confused the power to do something with the right to do it. They are two different things.

You have not refuted my assertion, you have given examples where people abuse others rights and believe because it happens on a frequent basis, it somehow provides evidence that it is a refutation. It's not.

The reason why, is my assertion is self evidently correct. You, nor anybody or group of anybodies can delegate a right they do not possess. Therefore if no single component person within a group has a right, it can't possibly be created from nothing.

If I have no right to do something to you, no group of people all of whom possess no right to do that same thing, can possibly conjure it up from nothing. If rape is wrong, so is gang rape.

Again, the sum of an aggregate of zeroes is still zero.

STFU, racist pedo.

 

[Rob Roy]

Can you enforce the law?

Can police?

Enforcing the law is not a "right", it's a responsibility entrusted to members of society who pass the test we put in place that tells the rest of us they're competent enough to do it

Exact same thing with politicians and creating the law

Self defense is a natural right and exists whether it is legal or not.

Enforcing laws which deprive others of self determination may be lawful, but many things which are statutorily "legal" violate rights and are shitty things to do.

Enforcing a bad law is a WRONG, whether legally sanctioned or not.


For instance you might have a responsibility to do your job as a slave catcher, but your job and your "responsibility" to perform, does not trump the slaves right to run away or to defend himself from the wrongful slave catcher thug.

You may be equating something legal with something right or just, when that's often not the case.