Im sure some of you may have seen this already [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykwaXsQY6Eg]"I'm Just Asking You As An Expert Is Heroin Worse For Someone's Health Than Marijuana?" - YouTube[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFC2IZe04EY]Rep. Steve Cohen (D.TN) Grills Michele Leonhart on the Dangers of Medical Marijuana - YouTube[/ame]
Anyone notice the common thread of government agencies yet? If they work towards or actually "fix" the problem, they are being efficient, and can thus function off of less taxpayer dollars, thus resulting in layoffs. Thus, to get a bigger budget (and hire more people), the drug problem must become worse, the terrorists must become more dangerous, education must teach less, poverty must become more rampant, and so on and so forth. The incentive to make more money as a government agency is to be as inefficient as possible. As the problem gets worse, you become a bigger leech, and cry about how bad said problems have become that you were hired to fix in the first place. The bigger the perceived problem, the higher up on the priorities list your funding is comparative to other agencies when time to allocate funding comes around.
I just dont see how a problem like this couldnt have been forseen when creating the damn agencies to begin with. Or perhaps it was. Then again it doesnt seem like much thought went into creating it anyways.