In a comment on someone elses post, another reader wrote "The DEA is an unconstitutional and illegal agency".
This bugs me... We frequently see these sorts of statements made about the DEA, the ATF, the federal reserve (where ok, there's at least a rational and reasonable though flawed argument to be made... most of the people shouting stuff like that above aren't making those arguments, but still)... Basically any federal agency that they don't like, or which enforces laws, or uses delegated powers which they personally don't like.
No, the mere existence of the DEA is not unconstitutional or illegal. It is perfectly constitutional in that it is an executive agency chartered to enforce the laws promulgated by the legislative branch.
The fact that the federal government has no constitutional authority to outright ban or criminalize such substances as the DEA is chartered to regulate, or to ban or criminalize their manufacture, use, or possession (and only limited power to regulate their sale. No, sorry, regulating interstate commerce and making such laws as necessary for the general welfare does not grant them such broad and deterministic powers... and Wickard v. Filburn is bad law and needs to be overturned), does not mean that all laws relating to such substances are illegal or unconstitutional. There are legitimate regulatory powers that such an agency may lawfully and constitutionally exercise.
AS CURRENTLY EXTANT AND IN THEIR CURRENT ROLES AND ACTIONS... The DEA often engages in unconstitutional behaviors, and acts to enforce unconstitutional laws. That much is certainly true. But they are not inherently unconstitutional, or illegal.
Those are actually really important distinctions. Not just semantics or distinctions without difference.
This is so, because you go about addressing the issues, and solving the problems, differently. Things which are blatantly and directly illegal or unconstitutional are best addressed in one way. Things which are peripherally so, are best addressed in a very different way.
You have to shoot at the proper target, with the proper ammunition.
Also, it's really important to remember, that "bad and stupid" or "harmful" or "undesirable", or "pointless"; does not necessarily mean "unconstitutional". Nor does "constitutional" mean "good", or "useful" or "effective".
That's not even a matter of judges discretion or interpretation... The constitution actually provides far less protection of rights, and limitation of powers, than people believe it, expect it, and wish it to (at least explicitly... the 9th and 10th amendments... there's much bigger and messier issue).