I posted about this a few days ago. And I have had some more time to think about it and read what other people have said.
I am still undecided, but I am leaning towards abolishing them one at a time rather than combining them then trying to abolish the conglomerate. The reason being that while there are votes to be had from across the aisle for the abolishment of the DEA, I think there are more votes to be lost by people strongly opposed to legalized recreational drugs. Abolish what we can, when we can, then look for an opportunity to get rid of other agencies when the time is right.
ATF/DEA merger: a good idea? – American Thinker
Gun Owners of America is alarmed, warning such a merger would enable even greater anti-liberty/gun mischief, such as:
*The combined agency would have three times the ATF budget
*Four times current ATF tactical (SWAT-like) units
*More than 10,000 new employees
*Reduced oversight and accountabilityThe Firearms Policy Coalition is equally unimpressed:
The DOJ’s dangerous proposal would consolidate the ATF and DEA into an authoritarian “super-agency” with the combined powers to wage the failed war on drugs and enforce unconstitutional federal gun control laws against all Americans, not just violent criminals and drug cartels. By merging the ATF’s firearms enforcement authority into the DEA, the DOJ is effectively equating peaceable American gun owners with drug cartels, turning millions of law-abiding citizens—as well as their constitutionally protected weapons—into co-equal targets of a militarized federal enforcement regime.
It’s hard to know who is right in this case. There’s no question the ATF has all too often abused its power, serving as an anti-gun enforcer for anti-liberty/gunners rather than a professional, non-partisan law enforcement agency. Too often their enforcement targets have been gun dealers who made innocent paperwork errors, or Americans with no criminal intent charged with made-up crimes. Some in Congress continue to want to entirely abolish the ATF, an idea that could arguably strengthen individual liberty.
It’s also hard to imagine how the legally mandated tasks of both agencies might be combined in a way that would make either more efficient or less costly.
Right now, liberals (generally speaking) want to ban guns and legalizes all drugs.
Likewise, conservatives (generally speaking) want to ban drugs and keep guns legal.
Merge them, highlight their abuses, and both sides will (generally speaking) want to abolish DEABATFE because they tend to focus on where it’s stepping on their preferred rights.
OTOH, merging them carries huge upfront financial costs and lost of distracting political wrangling and hand-wringing and turf battles.
So yeah, quietly disband both, along with the CIA, the FED, and a few more agencies, and merge their few required functions into the US Marshals, or to state agencies via funding grants (contingent on their actually enforcing the appropriate laws).
I also heard pointed out – probably on the Bearing Arms podcast – that unless the underlying regulations (e.g. gun control laws) are also abolished, closing a particular agency doesn’t do much. The duties and responsibilities still need to be carried out by somebody. If ATF is shuttered, who takes on those tasks? DEA? FBI? DHS? TSA?
And also. There is no shortage of voices calling for ATF to be abolished (or converted to a convenience store), above point notwithstanding. But who’s calling for this merger with DEA? I had heard “absorb into the FBI” before, but this merger with DEA seems to have come from nowhere … and is something I find troubling.
DEA and ATF are both, on paper, regulatory administrations. Even if you legalized all currently illicit drugs in the US, the DEA would still have a purpose because their job is also to monitor for the diversion of legal pharmaceuticals, and the companies that make them. And btw, the nonsense of DEA restricting the manufacture of more meds is nonsense, the pharma companies are simply not making enough for the supplies they are already authorized; they don’t need more because they haven’t even used the material they already have, so that’s not an excuse either.
DEA actually follows the laws regarding regulation of pharma and illicit drugs, including marijuana btw. If Congress wants to legalize marijuana it isn’t the DEA that’s going to have to do it, it’s Congress. The US is party to at least three treaties regarding its legality. Of course, so are Canada and Mexico, and they are in violation of said treaties, so… A merger between ATF and DEA will likely result in the ATF-related regs being followed, no new rules being made because the DEA has a long, drawn-out process for that too, and the removal of ATF-created regs because most of them are unlawful. DEA is already set as the bigger of the orgs, and ATF had a MUCH bigger reduction in funding between the two agencies.
Joe, I need some assistance; I think I’ve found some language in the Constitution that seems to not only permit but encourage ownership and use of firearms (subject to varied, perpetual and well politicized interpretation, of course….), but I cannot find any language regarding Constitutionally-ensured ownership and use of drugs, other than that “general welfare” thing that seems to be applicable to everything except guns.
Can you help?
Perhaps you have the wrong frame of reference. Where in the constitution does it grant the government power to regulate drugs (recreational or medical)?
Best you could do is to standardize weights and measures, and possibly regulate (meaning: to make regular) packaging, composition and markings of product moved in interstate commerce.
Greetings from a tent at Camp Parsons. Back to the rifle range in 15 minutes.
At least three Senate-approved international treaties is also a thing, though those could be argued against based on a lack of authority on the subject. That said, each of the States could pick up the slack there, as they are not prevented from making laws on a whole lot (Amendment 10).
Article 1, Sec 8, includes the following:
To regulate Commerce with Foreign nations and among the several States;
To define and punish …, and Offences against the Law of Nations; (this is where treaties come in)
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback.
“Where in the constitution does it grant the government power to regulate drugs (recreational or medical)?”
So…..other than that “general welfare” thing in the Constitution that Congress absolutely, totally loves so much (and abuses with such gay abandon to no end), the FDA is a rogue agency? That actually seems about right (one of many, I might add).
Which raises the question, if such is the case, are we dependent upon the 50 states to establish standards (purity, quality, dosages, etc.) within their own borders? The 10th certainly seems to not preclude it. (As to whether “standards” – however they’re defined – are necessary is a separate question.)
Unless we’re in that governmental twilight zone of “what is not prohibited is allowed” and vice-versa.
There are thousands of standards that were created and enforced without any government involvement. The most glaring at this moment are things like ASCII and HTTP.