DEA attempts to justify its existence, predictably fails

Answerable to no one and willed into existence by the FedGov, the DEA, ostensibly designed to protect Americans--especially the children--from themselves, has issued a decree from on high that carries the force of law, but eschews petty concerns, like the consent of the governed, that would give it the scent of legitimacy.

The decree? That legal highs K2 and Spice will be banned by the DEA.

I have no idea what these substances are, and I've never even heard of them before I read the article. But I do know tyranny when I see it, and I'm seeing it in spades with this travesty. The article states that after a 30-day waiting period (if it's such a danger, why wait 30 days?), the drugs will be banned by "the DEA using its emergency powers," whatever those are, for at least a year.

Of course the DEA tries to justify its decision by saying that the substances, which are apparently sprayed on herb leaves and mimic the effect of THC on the brain, have no standards for dosage and some brands are more spiked than others. So are we to believe that this dilemma could be solved by accurate labeling?

Au contraire, the DEA also shows their concern for your well being by stating that unlike real cannabis (so now the DEA's a champion of real pot?), these synthetic forms of cannabis have never been tested in humans and might be harmful to them. They contain chemical compounds that "stick around in the body for quite a long time." So do a lot of other things people ingest, think plastics which leech PBA into food when heated.

Finally, to put a maraschino cherry on top of its unilateral decision, the DEA says the American Association of Poison Control Centers "has received more than 1,500 calls relating to products spiked with these" drugs. Well, there you have it. Conveniently, though, it doesn't say what those calls were about, only that they were "related" to these products. In and of itself, the above statement is meaningless. Perhaps people were asking what amount they should smoke, or if any reports of adverse reactions to the drugs had been received. Or maybe they were DEA agents trying to inflate the number of calls to the AAPCC, who knows? That "the calls came from 48 states and the District of Columbia" is immaterial also, but it was included in the DEA statement as some pretext for widespread DEA intervention.

Look, at this point no one knows if these synthetic compounds are hazardous to human health or not. The DEA certainly does not, yet they make a decree as if they know. Unless compelling evidence can be shown that the drugs pose an immediate threat to health, they should not be banned. Studied, perhaps (at DEA expense); banned, no.

But this whole thing isn't about protecting anyone or anything, save for jobs at the DEA, it's about pure, unadulterated power and the exercise thereof. Think of any justification they might coddle together as the lubricant they'll use to ram that power in/up the American orifice of their choice.

No appeal, no questioning this or any other bureaucratic whim, just do as they say and live with it.

Take care.
DAL357