• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DEA continues pot raids Obama opposes

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
DEA continues pot raids Obama opposes

Washington Times - DEA continues pot raids Obama opposes

Drug Enforcement Administration agents this week raided four medical marijuana shops in California, contrary to President Obama's campaign promises to stop the raids.



I will give Obama until he appoints the DEA replacement head, but still, Shouldn't he be letting the current guy know this ain't no longer cool?



I have no problem with people who smoke weed responsibly. I could care less. These raids I disagree with and hoped Obama would indeed put a stop to them.


I guess its not a priority to Obama or the old DEA guy has some ballz.
 
Last edited:
For now, DEA is run by acting Administrator Michele Leonhart, a Bush appointee.

I hope the guy can find a gig as a third shift parking lot security gaurd.
 
I will give Obama until he appoints the DEA replacement head, but still, Shouldn't he be letting the current guy know this ain't no longer cool?



I have no problem with people who smoke weed responsibly. I could care less. These raids I disagree with and hoped Obama would indeed put a stop to them.


I guess its not a priority to Obama or the old DEA guy has some ballz.

If Obama is really serious, all he has to do is issue an Executive Order for the raids to stop. The question here, given his campaign rhetoric, is why isn't he issuing that Executive Order?
 
While I don't think this is the highest of priorties, I agree that I hope sometime soon Obama does replace this guy or he gets with the program and following the current administrations will on this.
 
If Obama is really serious, all he has to do is issue an Executive Order for the raids to stop. The question here, given his campaign rhetoric, is why isn't he issuing that Executive Order?

Cause he's a man not to be trusted. Why would Obama stop pot raids? Why would he do anything to decriminalize/legalize it? Obama's goal isn't the reduction of government, it's the expansion of it. I don't think that Obama will do anything to alter significantly the drug laws of this country. The man is all talk, he'll tell you anything you want to hear to get you into bed and the next morning he'll be gone before the sun comes up.
 
Cause he's a man not to be trusted. Why would Obama stop pot raids? Why would he do anything to decriminalize/legalize it? Obama's goal isn't the reduction of government, it's the expansion of it. I don't think that Obama will do anything to alter significantly the drug laws of this country. The man is all talk, he'll tell you anything you want to hear to get you into bed and the next morning he'll be gone before the sun comes up.

Because he said he would, and because he said he was a man of his word, who would bring change. Right now, I have to ask, "What change?".
 
The same change so many of us were trying to say...

A change from (R) to (D), nothing more
 
For now I'll give Obama the benefit of the doubt, considering the economic crisis and fast transition. However, in time he had better stop the raids. Its not like he even has to legalize marijuana, all he has to do is say "Its up to the states. California can makes its owns rules regarding the drug and the DEA will not be involved."
 
Because he said he would, and because he said he was a man of his word, who would bring change. Right now, I have to ask, "What change?".

I find it rather interesting that people think change can occur in less than 3 weeks.
 
Maybe he's waiting to do it under the radar so to speak. I'm sure he doesn't want it ruling the news cycle.
 
If Obama is really serious, all he has to do is issue an Executive Order for the raids to stop. The question here, given his campaign rhetoric, is why isn't he issuing that Executive Order?

I was going to ask this very same question. Why are the raids being conducted? Could there be some illegal activity going on or is this a case of a DEA director gone rougue? We'll just have to wait and see.
 
Let's hope the media shines some light on this.
 
Cause he's a man not to be trusted. Why would Obama stop pot raids? Why would he do anything to decriminalize/legalize it? Obama's goal isn't the reduction of government, it's the expansion of it. I don't think that Obama will do anything to alter significantly the drug laws of this country. The man is all talk, he'll tell you anything you want to hear to get you into bed and the next morning he'll be gone before the sun comes up.


No offense, but you sound like a very bitter person who wouldn't be happy no matter who was in the White House. Obama has done nothing to indicate that he is "all talk", yet that criticism sounds good to you, so you use it. You say "he's a man not to be trusted", yet he hasn't had time yet to demonstrate he is unworthy of trust. You say his "goal" is the expansion of government, yet I think there is a concensus that his goal is the improvement of the lives of the American people. I suppose it is your Libertarian beliefs that lead you to conclude that no politician can be trusted, but I don't see how you could run a country on those beliefs.
 
I find it rather interesting that people think change can occur in less than 3 weeks.

Yeah. Makes me think that it's really the right that thinks he's The Messiah. ;)
 
Actually, he has done "something" to indicate he's all talk. Take a look at the entire lobbyists in the white house debacle. From breaking campaign promises (politics as usual) to creating ethics rules with specific loopholes to get the people he wants in despite the message he's sending (politics as usual) it showed at least in part he was all talk. This was something.

You can say "But he's only been in 3 weeks!". So can I. In 3 weeks he managed to break a large campaign promise and already was going agaisnt his main campaign message.

One dollar isn't a lot of money...but if you start finding 6 or 7 of them on top of a few $5's and $10's it can add up quick. I'd consider this current story small, but other things he's been doing add into it to make people believe its not likely to change.

That said, I can understand people like aps saying "Its only been 3 weeks" and not passing judgement yet. However to say that he's done "Nothing" to indicate it is just factually incorrect.
 
If I were him, I would sign the EO on the day that Rove testifies before congress.
 
No offense, but you sound like a very bitter person who wouldn't be happy no matter who was in the White House. Obama has done nothing to indicate that he is "all talk", yet that criticism sounds good to you, so you use it. You say "he's a man not to be trusted", yet he hasn't had time yet to demonstrate he is unworthy of trust. You say his "goal" is the expansion of government, yet I think there is a concensus that his goal is the improvement of the lives of the American people. I suppose it is your Libertarian beliefs that lead you to conclude that no politician can be trusted, but I don't see how you could run a country on those beliefs.

He has proven that he is either 1:lying or 2: completely ignorant.

He also harnessed the power of emotion and what I think is pay offs to get people to vote for him. The crazy thing is its plastered all over his website.

(paraphrasing) "I'll tax 'Big Oil' and give you a $500 check." That was one of his campaign promises. That, to me, "is saying vote for me and I'll pay you money." Is that a person you can trust?

You also are under the false belief that government can make individuals lives better. How the hell can they do that? They can make it better by staying the hell away from me.

Most politicians can't be trusted. They have proven that.
 
No offense, but you sound like a very bitter person who wouldn't be happy no matter who was in the White House. Obama has done nothing to indicate that he is "all talk", yet that criticism sounds good to you, so you use it. You say "he's a man not to be trusted", yet he hasn't had time yet to demonstrate he is unworthy of trust. You say his "goal" is the expansion of government, yet I think there is a concensus that his goal is the improvement of the lives of the American people. I suppose it is your Libertarian beliefs that lead you to conclude that no politician can be trusted, but I don't see how you could run a country on those beliefs.

Obama has done nothing to indicate he's not just another politician. And that's where our differences come in at. You'll believe what he says till he breaks his word (which he has done already. He did say he'd wait 5 days for non-emergency bills to allow public discourse of the bill on the WH website...but that didn't happen with a bill already). I, on the other hand, won't believe he's something different and honorable until he proves himself different and honorable.

His cabinet is full of political friends and senators, tax cheats and lobbyists (which I thought he wasn't going to have). You're telling me he's different, his actions seem to state otherwise. No offense, but you seem to be someone whom is easily swayed by rhetoric and naively trusting of those whom wield our power; unquestioningly so. He's sent missiles into Pakistan, he's talking about growing the government even more, spending ridiculous amounts of money on ineffective bailouts and stimulus. How is this not more of the same? So I'm to believe he's gonna hold up his word on pot as well? He's already broken promises, you can say I'm negative or whatever but I'll believe it when I see it.
 
Stoners are high if they think Obama gives a rats ass about drug raids. He's got his priorities you know. Number one apparently was the terrorists in Guantanamo.
 
I hope the guy can find a gig as a third shift parking lot security gaurd.

SHE is a career agent, not a political appointee.

Leonhart was appointed as a DEA Special Agent in late 1980, and was first assigned to Minneapolis, Minnesota, where she worked for five years. In 1986, Leonhart transferred to the St. Louis Field Division where she became the Special Agent recruiter for the division. She was promoted to a GS-14 Group Supervisor position in the San Diego Field Division in early 1988. After a short assignment as the supervisor of an intelligence group, she supervised an enforcement group for five years.

Leonhart was featured in a documentary filmed by the BBC in 1991. Her enforcement group conducted numerous investigations to include international smuggling cases. The most notorious of her group's investigations was the investigation of a major Bolivia-based cocaine cartel that resulted in the arrest and conviction of cartel leader Jorge Roca-Suarez, co-defendants, and the seizure of over $14 million in assets. Leonhart was awarded the DEA Administrator's Award in 1993 for her distinguished service as a group supervisor.

In 1993, Leonhart transferred to DEA Headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, where she served as an (internal affairs) inspector with the DEA Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). In 1994, Leonhart was promoted to GS-15 and served on DEA's Career Board until her assignment as Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the Los Angeles Field Division in 1995. In 1996, she was promoted to the ranks of the Senior Executive Service (SES) and was assigned oversight of the Special Agent Recruitment Program at DEA Headquarters. Leonhart was appointed in 1997 as the Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of the San Francisco Field Division, where she served until her appointment in September 1998 as the SAC of the Los Angeles Field Division. In that capacity, she commanded DEA offices and enforcement operations in the Los Angeles area, as well as Nevada, Hawaii, Guam, and Saipan. She remained in this position until 3 September 2003, when President Bush announced his intention to designate Leonhart as Acting Deputy Administrator.
 
Apparent update

thanks for finding another home for that :D I was half thinking of starting a new thread for that prior to posting it, good thing I didn't.

I was wondering prior to finding this today how long this issue would linger without a response, it seems marijuana and any aspect of tolerance or permissibility is still a taboo subject for politicians and media alike. It is a tall order to find mention of either this, or the proposed legalization legislation in CA anywhere in the media.

Amusing since for millions of people both items are HUGE news. Fear of losing advertising revenue for the corporate media or votes for our politicians keeps it way too quiet.

It is time for both to face the truth, this is not something that can be swept under the rug and ignored, the murmur is getting louder and louder.

All the DEA raids accomplished was to draw attention to that glaring bulge under the rug (well and upset quite a few peoples lives).
 
Cause he's a man not to be trusted. Why would Obama stop pot raids? Why would he do anything to decriminalize/legalize it? Obama's goal isn't the reduction of government, it's the expansion of it. I don't think that Obama will do anything to alter significantly the drug laws of this country. The man is all talk, he'll tell you anything you want to hear to get you into bed and the next morning he'll be gone before the sun comes up.

You hit the nail on the head! I could not agree more! I expect some day that liberals will rise up against his policies in droves before his term is over. I only hope that it's not too late to salvage this country when the consensus turns against him!
 
Back
Top Bottom