Prompted by “Michele Leonhart”: http://www.drugwarrant.com/2015/04/michele-leonhart/
“The scandal only demonstrates the obscene level to which the agency considers itself above the law and responsible to no ethical or legal code, while at the same time using violence against citizens to enforce arbitrary laws that they help create.”
“Meanwhile, good citizens have lost their jobs, their homes, their families, their freedom…”
“Truth has never been important…”
Protecting the innocent from the ravages of illicit drugs? The DEA needs you to believe they provide that protection in order for their very existence to make any sense within the public mindset preferring to exercise sanity.
Is anyone able to provide a single shred of conclusive (so at least arguably credible) evidence confirming they are achieving that protection? No.
Is anyone able to provide a single shred of experimental (i.e. ultimately liberty-respecting and credible) science proving illicit drug use automatically equals drug abuse? No.
Is anyone able to provide ample conclusive evidence confirming their organization is an outrageously blatant assault against the unalienable right to liberty (including anti-drug laws obviously insanely, outrageously, and ridiculously ruled constitutional by way of the Commerce Clause — “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”), is a terrible waste of ample taxpayer resources (billions of dollars annually), does nothing but naturally help sustain black market violence, at best temporarily dents illicit drug supply while demand then often shifts towards potentially deadly alternatives (e.g. spice instead of cannabis, 25I instead of ‘Hoffman grade’ LSD, etc.), is destructive against our environment (e.g. from crop eradication, and pollution by black market organizations), and ruins many lives to varying degrees (including deadly ones) of people innocent of any direct rights infringement (e.g. roughly ruining the lives of millions, if not billions, of non-violent citizens over the span of decades)? A resounding yes to that last question must continuously reverberate throughout the public towards their safety until sanity is restored to our nation’s rule-of-law, and drug abuse is managed logically fundamentally as the serious stress (i.e. health) and education issue that it must truly form in a truly healthily free society.
Tyrannical rule (i.e. law abuse) is why our nation was established in a bloody revolution, so why does mainstream American society openly accept (if not dominantly embrace) a terrible growth of “law” (e.g. Controlled Substances Act) in the obviously questionable name of one-size-fits-all risk management to the ironic “clear and present danger” (i.e. extreme risk) from law abuse? Considering the mainstream media is best positioned to properly powerfully inform the public, and the mainstream media effectively refuses to properly disclose their obviously serious conflict of interest with law enforcement necessary to consistently secure newsworthy information about the tragic events they obviously often report (i.e. the mainstream media has serious incentive to avoid sufficiently publicly exposing obviously demonstrably one the grossest national scams ever perpetrated in our nation’s history, because that scam primarily financially benefits “law enforcement” organizations), naturally serious blame rests there.
The horrible result is the public remains excessively unaware that law abuse (too often grounded in the mainstream media’s reason abuse) is rampant terribly against public safety, and that includes the extremely abusively reasoned conventional “wisdom” that illicit drugs are automatically publicly dangerous. That “wisdom” even remains egregiously hypocritically true among the political right refusing to understand and accordingly lawfully react from the fact that such a war judicially comes from unintended consequences by a major political leftist figure — President Franklin Roosevelt — and ultimately his “New Deal” version of the Commerce Clause — e.g. “The switch in time that saved nine” Wikipedia entry — that cannot possibly withstand proper scrutiny towards judicial legitimacy by any sane measure.
“Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything – and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.” — stated by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (opening paragraph in his dissent of the 2005 case of Gonzales v. Raich)
The truth is not only important, but critical. Many innocent lives of all ages are at stake. Not only from the obvious horrors of persecution by sanctioned thuggery (unethically proudly presented as just prosecution), but also the absence of responsible and effective education regarding intentional perception alteration itself (e.g. “illicit” drugs, virtual reality, religious exercise, etc.) to actually oppose abuse of such alteration for public safety (instead of abusively leveraging law to determine which intentional perception alteration methods are lawfully acceptable or not in the “land of the free”).
While I always sincerely appreciate the honest intentions of the political left towards equality, their actually dominating non-liberal/non-progressive methodology is fundamentally problematic against those intentions. The war on some drugs (which includes severe racial disparity by law abuse against such equality) exemplifies that problem, so not just remains sourced by Republicanism (e.g. Nixon’s official declaration of the war on some drugs, the Reagan-era “Just Say No” campaign, etc.), but in the demonstrably wrong idea that regulations are needed for a net reduction in tragedy — even though (without sane doubt) tragedy is inherent in reality (regulations can only merely shift the targets of tragedy, scientifically speaking — understand Reality Waveform Theory to understand that scientific certainty).
Working to liberally/progressively (yet American, not pre-American, conservatively) secure the essential (and concisely defined) unalienable right to liberty for preventing law abuse from horrible entrenchment (including logically forming maximal social equality), and solely leveraging education and science (especially reasonable after the start of the Information Age) for aforementioned risk management is wisdom that the public needs to now conventionalize, righteously logically speaking.
If you have not read my Liberty Shield introduction uniquely detailing the fundamental national problem of law abuse (fully logically grounding my sadly uniquely fringe argument in the sadly overwhelmingly dominant ocean of powerful opinionated currents carrying society to the nationally unfortunate contrary), feel free to give it a read at least for a truly fresh angle on this most serious national (and ultimately even international) problem — law abuse (too often formed by reason abuse) for the sake of (at least too often) pretending to oppose other forms of abuse.
For the sake of civility (obviously including public safety), just say (actually ethically demonstrate) no to thugs.