Why I love my neighbors to the South.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/27/marijuana-cannon-us-border-seized-mexico

[Aucoq]

 

It's like those shirt cannons at sporting events.  Only it's drugs instead of shirts.  And a mindless crowd instead of a mindless crowd.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

What's HILARIOUS is that California weed is so plentiful and so much better, if only they could sell it legally, but we can't let THAT happen because then those dirty local farmers would win and no money would go to the DEA.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

What's HILARIOUS is that California weed is so plentiful and so much better, if only they could sell it legally, but we can't let THAT happen because then those dirty local farmers would win and no money would go to the DEA.

I wonder how bad the DEA got hit in the sequester?  Anyone?  Anyone?  Bueller?

[Pergamos]

According to the report I found

With the failure of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to reach an agreement, this Policy Brief examines the effects of a $1.2 trillion sequestration (automatic cut) on the federal drug control budget.  Slated for implementation beginning in 2013, Carnevale Associates' analysis finds that the proposed cuts would be much more detrimental to demand reduction programs than to supply reduction programs.  The disproportionate impact on demand reduction programs may impede the Obama administration's stated aim of implementing the public health approach promoted in its National Drug Control Strategy.

That sounds bad to me.

Meanwhile, as far as the DEA in particular is concerned, I saw some rather...flexible figures.

For example, since the DEA's budget is an explicit appropriation that is entirely drug-related, it would realize the full impact of a sequestration.  A hypothetical 10 percent sequestration would reduce its resources for drug control by 10 percent.

All of that was from here.

http://carnevaleassociates.com/sequestration

Not sure how reliable a source that is.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

What's HILARIOUS is that California weed is so plentiful and so much better, if only they could sell it legally, but we can't let THAT happen because then those dirty local farmers would win and no money would go to the DEA.

I wonder how bad the DEA got hit in the sequester?  Anyone?  Anyone?  Bueller?

WHAT IS ALEX, NOT AT ALL?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

According to the report I found

With the failure of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to reach an agreement, this Policy Brief examines the effects of a $1.2 trillion sequestration (automatic cut) on the federal drug control budget.  Slated for implementation beginning in 2013, Carnevale Associates' analysis finds that the proposed cuts would be much more detrimental to demand reduction programs than to supply reduction programs.  The disproportionate impact on demand reduction programs may impede the Obama administration's stated aim of implementing the public health approach promoted in its National Drug Control Strategy.

That sounds bad to me.

Meanwhile, as far as the DEA in particular is concerned, I saw some rather...flexible figures.

For example, since the DEA's budget is an explicit appropriation that is entirely drug-related, it would realize the full impact of a sequestration.  A hypothetical 10 percent sequestration would reduce its resources for drug control by 10 percent.

All of that was from here.

http://carnevaleassociates.com/sequestration

Not sure how reliable a source that is.

Oh, about as reliable as it needs to be.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=carnevale+&fulltext=Search

[Cardinal Pizza Deliverance.]

According to the report I found

With the failure of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to reach an agreement, this Policy Brief examines the effects of a $1.2 trillion sequestration (automatic cut) on the federal drug control budget.  Slated for implementation beginning in 2013, Carnevale Associates' analysis finds that the proposed cuts would be much more detrimental to demand reduction programs than to supply reduction programs.  The disproportionate impact on demand reduction programs may impede the Obama administration's stated aim of implementing the public health approach promoted in its National Drug Control Strategy.

That sounds bad to me.

Meanwhile, as far as the DEA in particular is concerned, I saw some rather...flexible figures.

For example, since the DEA's budget is an explicit appropriation that is entirely drug-related, it would realize the full impact of a sequestration.  A hypothetical 10 percent sequestration would reduce its resources for drug control by 10 percent.

All of that was from here.

http://carnevaleassociates.com/sequestration

Not sure how reliable a source that is.

That's the only source I can find as well, which makes me doubt its validity.

[Cardinal Pizza Deliverance.]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/81967.html

Sequestration would gut the Department of Justice — and the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Drug Enforcement Administration; and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives with it. The FBI has foiled at least 30 separate terror plots since Sept. 11. In addition to investigating domestic and international terrorism, the FBI investigates public corruption and human trafficking. The DEA and ATF investigate drug crime, pursue violent gangs and work in cooperation with other agencies to secure our borders.

It is estimated that sequestration would cost the DOJ, FBI, DEA and ATF some 3,700 agents and U.S. marshals. Nearly 1,000 attorneys would be asked to stop protecting the homeland and start applying for new jobs. Sequestration would put the United States in the vulnerable position of having to choose what kinds of serious crimes to prevent.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/81967.html

Sequestration would gut the Department of Justice — and the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Drug Enforcement Administration; and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives with it. The FBI has foiled at least 30 separate terror plots since Sept. 11. In addition to investigating domestic and international terrorism, the FBI investigates public corruption and human trafficking. The DEA and ATF investigate drug crime, pursue violent gangs and work in cooperation with other agencies to secure our borders.

It is estimated that sequestration would cost the DOJ, FBI, DEA and ATF some 3,700 agents and U.S. marshals. Nearly 1,000 attorneys would be asked to stop protecting the homeland and start applying for new jobs. Sequestration would put the United States in the vulnerable position of having to choose what kinds of serious crimes to prevent.

Totes. But not in a position to have to reconsider dumping over 50% of its budget into military spending.

[Cardinal Pizza Deliverance.]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/81967.html

Sequestration would gut the Department of Justice — and the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Drug Enforcement Administration; and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives with it. The FBI has foiled at least 30 separate terror plots since Sept. 11. In addition to investigating domestic and international terrorism, the FBI investigates public corruption and human trafficking. The DEA and ATF investigate drug crime, pursue violent gangs and work in cooperation with other agencies to secure our borders.

It is estimated that sequestration would cost the DOJ, FBI, DEA and ATF some 3,700 agents and U.S. marshals. Nearly 1,000 attorneys would be asked to stop protecting the homeland and start applying for new jobs. Sequestration would put the United States in the vulnerable position of having to choose what kinds of serious crimes to prevent.

Totes. But not in a position to have to reconsider dumping over 50% of its budget into military spending.

It is oddly difficult to find information on this topic that implies any authenticity. However, it's time for me to get off the god damn internet and go do something before I hit the sack. Maybe I'll try again tomorrow.

[AFK]

According to the report I found

With the failure of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to reach an agreement, this Policy Brief examines the effects of a $1.2 trillion sequestration (automatic cut) on the federal drug control budget.  Slated for implementation beginning in 2013, Carnevale Associates' analysis finds that the proposed cuts would be much more detrimental to demand reduction programs than to supply reduction programs.  The disproportionate impact on demand reduction programs may impede the Obama administration's stated aim of implementing the public health approach promoted in its National Drug Control Strategy.

That sounds bad to me.

Meanwhile, as far as the DEA in particular is concerned, I saw some rather...flexible figures.

For example, since the DEA's budget is an explicit appropriation that is entirely drug-related, it would realize the full impact of a sequestration.  A hypothetical 10 percent sequestration would reduce its resources for drug control by 10 percent.

All of that was from here.

http://carnevaleassociates.com/sequestration

Not sure how reliable a source that is.

It is bad because the brunt of that will be with prevention.  That is what they are talking about when they say "demand reduction".  I'm sure DEA will take some cuts as well, but I bet they'll funnel those cuts to their demand reduction operations.  I'll have to ask my DEA friend to see if he has any inside baseball on that. 

[Sir Squid Diddimus]

   HA HA! Fucking party!



wait... 

[Pergamos]

According to the report I found

With the failure of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to reach an agreement, this Policy Brief examines the effects of a $1.2 trillion sequestration (automatic cut) on the federal drug control budget.  Slated for implementation beginning in 2013, Carnevale Associates' analysis finds that the proposed cuts would be much more detrimental to demand reduction programs than to supply reduction programs.  The disproportionate impact on demand reduction programs may impede the Obama administration's stated aim of implementing the public health approach promoted in its National Drug Control Strategy.

That sounds bad to me.

Meanwhile, as far as the DEA in particular is concerned, I saw some rather...flexible figures.

For example, since the DEA's budget is an explicit appropriation that is entirely drug-related, it would realize the full impact of a sequestration.  A hypothetical 10 percent sequestration would reduce its resources for drug control by 10 percent.

All of that was from here.

http://carnevaleassociates.com/sequestration

Not sure how reliable a source that is.

It is bad because the brunt of that will be with prevention.  That is what they are talking about when they say "demand reduction".  I'm sure DEA will take some cuts as well, but I bet they'll funnel those cuts to their demand reduction operations.  I'll have to ask my DEA friend to see if he has any inside baseball on that.

That was what I gathered from it.  Cuts will hit treatment programs, counselling, etc, enforcement, if cut, will be far less cut.  I'm curious if those priorities are somehow being forced on them or if that is simply the DEA saying "enforcement is more important than prevention"

[AFK]

The former.  The DEA are actually pretty big on prevention and have a whole department devoted to it.  But prevention always gets cut first no matter what the domain.  In schools, when budgets are being cut, the in school counselors are the first to go.  But it's the culture of the United States, which never has been one that has encouraged preventative, pro-active approaches to public health.  The ACA starts to move the needle in the right direction, but very slowly, and unfortunately sequestration is going to stunt that.