Is the DEA having a bad day?

Awww… too bad.

This article really makes me smile.

Congress’ Summer Fling With Marijuana.
How Congress turned on the DEA and embraced weed.
by James Higdon.

[…] The next day, Leonhart retired, a move Chaffetz and Cummings deemed “appropriate.” That was April.

In May, the Senate made history by voting in favor of the first pro-marijuana measure ever offered in that chamber to allow the Veterans Administration to recommend medical marijuana to veterans. Then when June rolled around, it was time for the House to pass its appropriations bill for Commerce, Justice and Science. That’s when things got interesting. The DEA got its budget cut by $23 million, had its marijuana eradication unit’s budget slashed in half and its bulk data collections program shut down. Ouch.

In short, April was a bad month for the DEA; May was historically bad; but June was arguably the DEA’s worst month since Colorado went legal 18 months ago […]

The string of setbacks, cuts and handcuffs for the DEA potentially signals a new era for the once untouchable law enforcement agency—a sign that the national reconsideration of drug policy might engulf and fundamentally alter DEA’s mission.

“The DEA is no longer sacrosanct,” Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) tells Politico. […]

But unlike such dire warnings in the past, when Congress could be assured of protecting funding for a law enforcement agency seen for decades as key to winning the War on Drugs, the shine has now clearly come off DEA—and that means the agency’s problems might just be beginning.

This has been a long time coming.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Is the DEA having a bad day?

  1. Tony Aroma says:

    Update on the surprising DARE change of course, advocating FOR legalization. It was a mistake, and DARE has removed the post. Oops! Guess they should have actually read the article, not just the title.

    D.A.R.E. Accidentally Publishes Pro-Marijuana Legalization Post

    However, on Tuesday the group confirmed to Washington Post writer Christopher Ingraham — whom D.A.R.E. inexplicably addressed as “Scott” — that the post was a mistake and “we do not support legalization.” The spokesman said the letter’s title, “Purchasing Marijuana Puts Kids At Risk,” likely led someone to believe that its content was anti-legalization.

  2. Mike says:

    Had its marijuana eradication units slashed in half.

    Wonder how many Hemp plants were eradicated, seems like
    States will be asking for compensation of there valuable
    plants back, as more States are looking to pass new Cannabis laws.

    Sec. 4. Any hemp, marihuana, marihuana accessory, marihuana product, or licit property that is possessed, owned, or used incidental to or in connection with activity as allowed under this act shall not be seized or forfeited.

    Sec. 5. (a) A person may engage in hemp cultivation, acquisition, transfer and exchange of seeds, delivery, processing, manufacture, sale and export of products for commercial purposes and research. All products made from hemp may be possessed or traded for remuneration without the possessor or trader being subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner or denied any right or privilege.

    (b) The department of agriculture and rural development may adopt rules to facilitate and provide for the implementation of this provision. The department shall not adopt a rule that would prohibit a person from growing hemp based on the legal status of hemp under federal law, or which creates an unreasonably impracticable burden upon a Michigan farmer.

  3. N.T. Greene says:

    It seems like we’re gearing up for some bigger battles in the not so distant future. I hate to say ‘I told you so’, but I recall saying something about our numbers only growing with time a few years ago.

    The tipping point is likely approaching, if it hasn’t arrived already. Of course, we cannot rest easy on that. Now is the time to really press the offensive.

    Wounded and cornered animals fight viciously. It is worth remembering that sort of thing.

    • Frank W. says:

      The SS got pretty eccentric in the final days of WWII.
      [all posts Godwinized in 30 minutes or less!]

      • N.T. Greene says:

        The Allied forces also had to beat them all the way back to Berlin before they quit.

        And Stalingrad was the beginning of the end, but that’s OT.

  4. kaptinemo says:

    I really love Nature programs. They enable you to illustrate perfectly the process DEA is experiencing politically.

    We said the opportunistic pols would turn on the DEA when there was sufficient blood in the water…and now there is. While other Fed agencies are circling like lesser sharks, looking to snag mid-sized fiscal pounds-of-flesh.

    Let the feeding frenzy begin.

    • kaptinemo says:

      And this was especially enjoyable:

      Acting Administrator Rosenberg arrived at the agency with a mission to stabilize the organization after its recent turmoil. In announcing his new role, administration officials said they expected him and the agency to focus more on heroin and other “major” drugs. In interviews since, Rosenberg has seemed to avoid mentioning marijuana as much as possible, instead touting as his first initiative a drug take-back program targeting unused prescription medicines. In the past, when DEA lost a fight on marijuana law reform, Leonhart never hesitated to voice her displeasure, but after that $23 million cut to DEA’s budget on the House floor in June, nary a peep from Rosenberg.

      Gelded animals are usually much easier to manage. DEA is learning what it feels like to have the cold steel edge of the fiscal scissors against its budgetary cojones.

      Any more attitudinal lip…and Congress goes snip-snip-snip.

      Ultimately, it’s because we told them to. This is reform in action.

  5. Duncan20903 says:


    It’s no wonder why small children mercilessly tease and torment the prohibitionists. How could any person or cohort of people be so wrong so often? Not just merely wrong but a full 180Ëš to get back to right wrong. Poor Francis. No rest for the wicked, no doubt. Let’s put this one in “Seriously? From Realty Biz News? WTF?” category:

    Will Marijuana Turn Denver into The Next San Francisco?

    No question about it, the Denver housing market is “cooking with gas”. When it comes to housing prices and rental rates Denver is the only inland city that is experiencing the kind of explosion in housing prices usually seen only in popular coastal cities like San Francisco.

    Turns out that legalizing medical marijuana has created an “accidental” housing boom in Denver and virtually all of the surrounding metro areas. Three-bedroom, two-bath houses, with a basement, that used to rent for $900 per month are now pushing two-grand per month. An increase of more than 100% in little more than three years time.

    Ambiguity around the idea of grow-houses may be keeping some real estate developers and builders away from what is clearly an opportunity for a housing boom on the order of what has happened in Williston, North Dakota, where oil and gas mining turned that town into a mecca for builders and developers during the depths of the recent recession.

    But one thing is clear. Until there is more supply available to meet the medical marijuana demand, Denver and all of Colorado will continue to be a mecca for would-be growers who wish to ply their trade legally. And the Denver housing market will continue to be one of the hottest in the entire nation.

    I must say that I wish she hadn’t used the phrase “cooking with gas” and “explosion” in her peppiness. Possibly she’s not aware of the existence of the BHO tragedies caused by idiots who were “cooking with gas”.

  6. thelbert says:

    it’s more a matter of americans having a good day, for once.

Comments are closed.