DEA Rolls Out Operation Engage - 24 February 2021

[dalpat077]

DEA Rolls Out Operation Engage

tinyurl.com

 

[ions]

When reading the dea.gov page, I look for the comments section. There is none. It's a spear headed approach to drug reform. These are the real threat to America.

 

[dalpat077]

Hey. I'm just putting it out there.

There's various ways made available on their website to comment. I'm sure they'll be only too pleased to hear from you.

And not that I want to have a protracted discussion about the DEA. But I'm having trouble reconciling decriminalization and legalization with enforced abstinence. Unless the plan is to eradicate all drugs while at the same time assisting addicts to clean up thus resulting in a drug free America overall. And you'll note that this is the beginning of a much longer and protracted operation i.e. not a whim or flash in the pan that's to last for a few weeks.

And I'm not criticizing the DEA. I'm just trying to work out what the shot is.

And which begs a good question (to which I don't know the answer): does individual State law override that of a Federal Authority?

 

[ions]

Yea, off topic, but it's like if a medical doctor put out an e-mail address to contact or had personal contacts. They're secretive like the DEA.

I dunno about overriding state enforcers. Usually feds have overriding jurisdiction. But they can hand the case over to locals.

I think I've written the CIA and FBI before telling them they got shutdown. Somehow they're still funded.

 

[ions]

But you know who would know the answer to that. @JessFR

 

[JessFR]

State law does not override federal law.

Basically both state and federal government can pass laws. If you break those laws either of those governments can put you on trial.

The concept is called dual sovereignty and it even applies on top of double jeopardy.

So you can even be charged of the same crime twice, provided one is by the state government and the other by federal government. The same government can't try you twice but both get a shot. Though I don't think it's especially common.

The 10th amendment of course restricts what laws the federal government can pass, but provided it's constitutional, and there are state laws as well, you can be subject to both. One won't override the other.

And as is probably widely known now since widespread drug legalization, even if something's legal in your state you can still theoretically be subject to federal charges if what you're doing breaks federal law.

 

[ions]

From what I’ve seen feds can hand a case off to locals. But feds have jurisdiction or trump locals.

 

[Snafu in the Void]

So... Instead of focusing on opioids they will focus on whatever is the worst in an area?

Lol why wasn't it always like this? Am I missing something?

 

[JessFR]

From what I’ve seen feds can hand a case off to locals. But feds have jurisdiction or trump locals.

A lot of this is more theoretical than practical. I think in practice usually only one government will try you.

But it's definitely try that both theoretically can. Double jeopardy only protects against being charged for exactly the same offense by exactly the same government a second time.

It doesn't count if it's a different government and it doesn't count if it's the same criminal offense against the same victim but in different circumstances.

 

[JessFR]

So... Instead of focusing on opioids they will focus on whatever is the worst in an area?

Lol why wasn't it always like this? Am I missing something?

I have my own proposal, operation fuck this shit.

In operation fuck this shit we abolish the DEA and replace it with limited drug legalization. We also empty the jails of non violent drug offenders.

Operation fuck this shit! Make me president and that's what I'll fight for! By 2024 I'll be over 35 and you can vote me in. :D.

I'm a heroin addict, not a politician, can you really tell me you don't trust me more?

 

[S.J.B.]

So... Instead of focusing on opioids they will focus on whatever is the worst in an area?

Lol why wasn't it always like this? Am I missing something?

Yeah, sounds like pretty much the same-old to me. Guess they wanted to spice things up with a fancy name.

 

[JessFR]

Yeah, sounds like pretty much the same-old to me. Guess they wanted to spice things up with a fancy name.

Fancy? It's a stupid name. Operation Engage? Wtf who thought of that?

Operation fuck this shit is honestly still better than that.

 

[neversickanymore]

I'm down with what they presented. You have a better take, lets hear it? Also they have to shore this. Stop putting non criminal drug users and addicts in the legal system.. it destroys the family system that our foundation is made of. when the foundation erodes we crumble. When we crumble no one stands a chance.. true

 

[JessFR]

I'm down with what they presented. You have a better take, lets hear it?

Yep, my system is all drugs are legalized, not in the way alcohol or tobacco is legal, there'd be no advertisement, you'd have to get in touch with medical services.

Itd basically be like methadone programs, but with proper drugs, no requirement to already be a user, and no advertisements.

Some drugs is just make 100% legal, but the above is how the hard drugs would work.

 

[dalpat077]

Alright, well, I know I said I didn't want to become involved in a protracted discussion involving the DEA. But there's been some good posts since my posting the headline so may as well bring this bring this ship to shore.

Also and as some will know: I'm constantly involved in these legalization and decriminalization debates for the sake of my own interest (and nothing nefarious or self-serving where such debates are concerned).

Also worth mentioning that I realize that none of this affects me. I mention this so as to avoid arrows being fired off in my direction i.e. "easy for you to talk" type of notion.

So again just putting some things out there and based purely on what I know and have read.

My starter for ten points: the DEA is only the enemy if you're a manufacturer or distributor or dealer or user or addict. Up until now. I'll let that sink in for a minute.

But from what I've read about this: it has a rather more all encompassing, and dare I say softer, flavor to it. This as opposed to the usual and forceful total war on drugs period. And I have to make the assumption that they're going to carry out this operation as described i.e. that it is what it says on the tin. And that it is a part of a bigger and long term plan that could involve decriminalization (at very least). It wouldn't make sense to any logical person for the DEA to continue a full on assault while individual States are moving toward decriminalization.

I'm all for education starting at a young age and that appears to be a part of this program. I put it to you that this is a far better option in the long term than these new pundits popping up here, there, and everywhere else advocating responsible and adult drug use. I've had this debate now more than once and was almost convinced. But no. The stories that I read on these very forums on a daily basis indicate otherwise i.e. for the most part it would appear to me that responsible and adult use of drugs eventually leads to the same end. In some cases it just seems to take a bit longer before falling off of the cliff. And all respect goes to those that are current users or addicts but still vehemently warn of the dangers of use especially when it comes to Opiates, Methamphetamine, and Crack.

Probably my main point is that at face value: this could be the beginning of something good. Point is: ease up on any possible knee jerk reactions the moment the DEA is mentioned.

The main reason why I was asking about which authority (Federal or State) has the final say is because of the Oregon thread a little further down. And I make the assumption that other States will follow at some point. In other words: how does it then work if possession (based on certain guidelines) is decriminalized yet the DEA's business is the eradication of drugs? Unless of course the new operation doesn't specifically target users and addicts gives them a rub (based on said guidelines) and only targets manufacturers and distributors and dealers and the like. Unless, as I say, this is all part of a far bigger, and dare I say beneficial to all, program.

Food for thought and comment and debate is all i.e. not making judgments at all.

 

[JessFR]

My starter for ten points: the DEA is only the enemy if you're a manufacturer or distributor or dealer or user or addict.

Sooooo all of us? :D

 

[dalpat077]

Sooooo all of us? :D

Pretty much. Don't quote me out of context. I did say "up until now".

 

[JessFR]

The main reason why I was asking about which authority (Federal or State) has the final say is because of the Oregon thread a little further down. And I make the assumption that other States will follow at some point. In other words: how does it then work if possession (based on certain guidelines) is decriminalized yet the DEA's business is the eradication of drugs?

Well, you won't face state charges, but you could face federal charges. That's how it would work.

However, in practice. If a state decided it doesn't wanna enforce a federal anti drug law. It's unlikely you're gonna actually end up charged in practice because the state and local police won't enforce it.

Pretty much. Don't quote me out of context. I did say "up until now".

If I omitted important context I assure you it was unintentional.

 

[Burnt Offerings]

The main reason why I was asking about which authority (Federal or State) has the final say is because of the Oregon thread a little further down. And I make the assumption that other States will follow at some point. In other words: how does it then work if possession (based on certain guidelines) is decriminalized yet the DEA's business is the eradication of drugs? Unless of course the new operation doesn't specifically target users and addicts gives them a rub (based on said guidelines) and only targets manufacturers and distributors and dealers and the like. Unless, as I say, this is all part of a far bigger, and dare I say beneficial to all, program.

Food for thought and comment and debate is all i.e. not making judgments at all.

There's already a case study for what you're describing: cannabis legalization in Colorado and Washington, 2012.

At that time a lot of people were contemplating what the feds would do, if they'd move in and bust heads like they did during the pre-2012 medical marijuana days. Someone posted an interesting observation that I still remember to this day, and that's the fact that out of the marijuana interdiction programs that the government was involved in, federal marijuana busts, somewhere around 99% of them relied on state local law enforcement for some part of the operation...they were almost always the people doing the actual busts. I don't think that a federally-driven prohibition regime would be effective (even to the very, very minimal extent that it is, or ever has been, effective) without the active participation of state and local law enforcement. The feds saw the writing on the wall with this issue, in regards to cannabis anyway, and that was a real turning point.

 

[JessFR]

There's already a case study for what you're describing: cannabis legalization in Colorado and Washington, 2012.

At that time a lot of people were contemplating what the feds would do, if they'd move in and bust heads like they did during the pre-2012 medical marijuana days. Someone posted an interesting observation that I still remember to this day, and that's the fact that out of the marijuana interdiction programs that the government was involved in, federal marijuana busts, somewhere around 99% of them relied on state local law enforcement for some part of the operation...they were almost always the people doing the actual busts. I don't think that a federally-driven prohibition regime would be effective (even to the very, very minimal extent that it is, or ever has been, effective) without the active participation of state and local law enforcement. The feds saw the writing on the wall with this issue, in regards to cannabis anyway, and that was a real turning point.

Yeah. Legally you're still subject to federal law, it's not overriden by state law. But in practice if it's legal under state law there's lots of problems with actually enforcing the federal law practically with something like this.