That Liberal Media Volume XVIII: Tax cut = Tax Increase

Are you talking about the War on Drugs? As in cocaine, mar1juana, etc.? I think you mean the ONDCP.

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/about/index.html

The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), a component of the Executive Office of the President, was established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988.

The principal purpose of ONDCP is to establish policies, priorities, and objectives for the Nation's drug control program. The goals of the program are to reduce illicit drug use, manufacturing, and trafficking, drug-related crime and violence, and drug-related health consequences. To achieve these goals, the Director of ONDCP is charged with producing the National Drug Control Strategy. The Strategy directs the Nation's anti-drug efforts and establishes a program, a budget, and guidelines for cooperation among Federal, State, and local entities.

By law, the Director of ONDCP also evaluates, coordinates, and oversees both the international and domestic anti-drug efforts of executive branch agencies and ensures that such efforts sustain and complement State and local anti-drug activities. The Director advises the President regarding changes in the organization, management, budgeting, and personnel of Federal Agencies that could affect the Nation's anti-drug efforts; and regarding Federal agency compliance with their obligations under the Strategy.

 

Ending the FDA would reduce government spending by more then $3.5 million (for the third time you aren't considering the money saved from ending the drug war). I would agree cutting the military budget would work, but that conflicts with my belief in a strong national defense.

 

If you ended the FDA then you would be ending the ONDCP. If I am allowed to put whatever I want in my body then why would the ONDCP exist?

 

So you really don't have any viable answers to the questions facing America.

okay

Btw you can have a righteous military for $450 billon dollars a year. In fact every other country around the world does it for less.

 

That has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

Why don't we just dismantle the entire government? I mean they created the FDA, so let's take them down.....

 

I cannot believe that Democrats are backing down on this. If they can't articulate why it's necessary for the upper tier tax cuts to expire then they deserve to lose the House.

 

So you would be OK with American citizens poisoning themselves by taking unsafe medications put out by a drug industry that places profits above everything else. What do you do when Americans become ill, when Americans die from unsafe medications? Say that it's market forces at work? Now that all those men, women, and kids have become ill, perhaps disabled for life, and some have even died because of Medication X, that no one will buy it? That it is "Small Government at Work?"

Are you really that incredibly naive? I believe you are.

 

I would say those people shouldn't put drugs in their body without asking a doctor, but if they choose to take the risk of putting something unknown to them in their body thats their right. Like I said earlier, if the FDA wanted to list on say a website all the pros and cons of said drugs and then leave it every citizen to make there own decision, I would be willing to live with that. I am not 10 and I don't need anyone telling me what risks I can and can't take.

Why would greedy, profit-driven drug company X poison all it's customers? Seems like a bad business model.

 

My god... you really are this ignorant! And no, you obviously aren't ten. I'm putting money on 13. Maybe 14. I'm feeling generous.

Look, I personally know people who took meds that a Big Pharm company put out knowing that they had not done the proper testing, and had even lied to the FDA about it. That happens far more than your clearly limited life experience would have you believe. Oh, and I want to apologize. I've been thinking you were a certain member of the BBS who has been on extended hiatus, someone who used to post here all the time, but clearly you are not. While I almost always disagreed with him, except about basketball, he was obviously highly educated and intelligent, in his own twisted way. With all due respect, you simply come across as grossly inexperienced. If you really believe what you're posting, I suggest that you take a similar hiatus and get some more education under your belt. Education is good for you. Even better than a good breakfast cereal. I promise!

 

I don't think you made one point in that whole rant. You have given me advice, so I will give you some. You shouldn't get upset so easily. Don't give people that kind of power over you. It apparently takes me 2 sentences to send you into emotional insulting rant. Thats power.

 

Again, you aren't taking into account that the war on drugs is carried out by the Drug Enforcement Administration, not the FDA. Getting rid of the FDA is not necessary to end the war on drugs, nor is it a sufficient step on its own.

 

He's not naive. He's just a troll who likes to get people riled up by being utterly stupid and unresponsive to reasoning.

 

I would like you to keep in mind my history of supporting the end of prohibition when I tell you that you are clueless as to the structure of the drug war. The FDA and the DEA are the agencies that schedule drugs, so removing the FDA would only remove half of the apparatus that keeps illicit drugs prohibited. The ONDCP is another agency altogether, completely separate from the DEA and FDA.

FWIW, ending the drug war would have a budgetary impact of about $100 billion per year, but that money is distributed between the federal government and the states, so completely removing the drug war apparatus would save about $50 billion in the federal deficit, or roughly 3.8% of the deficit.

 

What drugs would the DEA be fighting against if the FDA did not exist? See if drugs aren't illegal then the war on drugs does not exist.

 

the DEA and ONDCP are bi-products of the FDA. Since the FDA makes drugs illegal we have the DEA and ONDCP to enforce what the FDA decides. So if the FDA says cocaine is bad and people can't put it in their body then the DEA enforces this. Without the FDA the DEA has nothing to enforce.

 

You need to read the CSA, both agencies are responsible for setting the schedule of a drug, the FDA can't do anything about illegal drugs without the DEA.

 

The DEA makes decisions based on the findings of the FDA. Without the FDA, the DEA can't do it's job.

 

Read the CSA, the DEA makes decisions independently of the FDA. A great example would be the prohibition on industrial hemp, a product that does not qualify as a "drug" and thus is outside the purvey of the FDA, but the DEA still has the power to keep it illegal under the CSA.

You are looking at one of the variables, thinking that zeroing it out will zero out the whole equation when that is not the case. To truly get rid of the drug war, you would need to repeal the CSA, defund the DEA, defund the ONDCP, defund the Justice Department programs that support state prohibition efforts, etc. Doing away with the FDA would not accomplish any of that.

 

All of these things would happen anyways if you got rid of the FDA. Why does the DEA ban industrial hemp? I would guess it is because they fear it being misused and treated like a drug. Why don't they want industrial hemp being used as a drug? Because the FDA says cannabis is bad.

 

We have recently seen what happens when regulation is diminished or compromised:

Wall street implosion
BP oil spill in Gulf
salmonella in eggs
(feel free to add your own)

The Bush years were the clearest example of the folly that tallanvil is suggesting and we are now seeing the repercussions of that folly.

I think the verdict is pretty clear on the idiocy of these ideas.