Being found currently in possession of controlled substances can be problematic. Having in the past been in possession, there being no other way to be a past "user" than having been in possession at time of use, is that criminalized? Not so, and the question of being a user or addicted to controlled substances and purchasing a firearm and misstating status then on the disclosure form, what Hunter Biden did, as prosecutors defined "addicted" is a crime. Precision in what is crime or not is required in terms of Constitutional due process.
Why split hairs? Because Strib editorial writer Jill Burcum has opined:
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is a powerful law enforcement agency that falls under the U.S. Department of Justice’s oversight umbrella. As the nation grapples with an opioid drug abuse epidemic claiming about 82,000 overdose deaths annually, the DEA’s mission of battling drug trafficking and enforcing controlled substance laws is vital to the public’s health and safety.
Given that reality, Americans deserve to know if the man tapped by President-elect Donald Trump to lead the DOJ as the nation’s next attorney general is himself an illicit drug user.
Who says? Is that objective truth, or the editorialist's opinion? Continuing where the quote was left off -
That’s a key reason why Congress should make public the results of a lengthy U.S. House Committee on Ethics investigation of former Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz’s alleged drug use and other alleged misconduct as soon as possible. If Gaetz, R-Fla., is guilty of breaking drug laws, as he stands accused, how can he be trusted to enforce criminal statutes as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer?
Even among questionable choices Trump has made for his second-term Cabinet, Gaetz’s nomination stands out as especially disturbing. The drug-use allegations are just one type of misconduct under scrutiny.
First, what is a "reason" vs. an "argument" and which word applies best?
Beyond that, the charge the editorialist alleges, "breaking drug laws as he stands accused" is vague. Breaking, and having broken are distinct, tense matters.
As to "disturbing" and "misconduct" those are elastic words, as neither is necessarily a crime. The editorialist makes value judgments where the standard is agree or disagree, based on subjectivity.
Next, consider the sentence as a whole, "If Gaetz, R-Fla.,
is guilty of breaking drug laws, as he stands accused, how can he be
trusted to enforce criminal statutes as the nation’s chief law
enforcement officer?"
The direct answer, Trump trusts him, as a fact, and that is a "how can" answer if there is one.
Moreover, one may argue a past user has an experience base to distinguish between serious cartel trafficting across a border, and tooting coke one or several times. So that the DEA does not waste time chasing minor things, but concentrates money and personnel on serious stuff, an experienced past user might in fact be better able to comprehend and administer those distinctions than one not so experienced. The editorialist guesses one way, Crabgrass is not too certain that past use is a per se disqualification. Morally or legally.
Surely Senators will subjectively judge Gaetz on many bases when he is considered for confirmation, but don't call him a current criminal unless there's proof he is one.
It is fundamental to not wrongly call one a criminal, arguably defamatory if false, but litigated or not the misnomer is something to be avoided. As to hair splitting, Crabgrass likely has erred in posting in ways now discussed, and better choice of words is always possible. This is not saying Gaetz should sue the editorialist for defamation, just, if you write for a living, be careful.
To the extent Crabgrass might have erred, sorry about that. Point it out and we can have a look. Calling Trump a "convicted felon" is correct in so far as a jury trial was held and a verdict ensued.
But, is one a "convicted felon" if never yet sentenced? That's one that needs discussion. What is the answer?
Thinking Trump made an unwise choice with Gaetz and more so with his DOD choice is clearly a Crabgrass opinion. But opinions can differ. My opinion is Harris would have been a better President than Trump starting in January. So what? Trump won. More voters had a contrary opinion to mine.
If I were a Senator I believe I would decline to vote to confirm Hegseth and Gaetz, but the fact Trump nominated them makes it a real and not hypothetical question for those that actually are Senators. Unless either nominee withdraws, or Trump changes his mind, the Senate can delay, but that's a political thing.
And the editorialist said the public deserves to know, where the better argument is the Senators should know report content as it would likely affect best judgment. The public? It might be interesting, even salacious, but do I "deserve" knowledge of that doc? You tell me.
I don't like the looseness of that editorial. Gaetz is not a criminal. He's been convicted of nothing. Despite that, the House ethics report might or might not be released to the public, or not be made public but allowed for Senators to view and weigh. We'll see. But stringing words to imply Gaetz is per se unqualified is not sound practice. The editorial boils down to the writer would not confirm. Beyond that, what weight has it?
____________UPDATE__________
Guardian last summer publishing when MinnReformer first published of "bong water" being charged in a Minnesota county as crime indicates that such a prosecutorial step is internationally questionable and stupid.
Crabgrass hopes that Gaetz, perhaps as a possible past user, if confirmed might be more tolerant of scheduled materials use than Trump, with federal law still on the federal books now inconsistent with changing State mj law. Guardian, currently, suggests the DEA might reclassify mj, this link. That fits the suggestion above that a past user in charge of DOJ/DEA might be more sensible than otherwise. The law is in flux. Many might view DEA enlightenment as a good thing, feeling that sluggishness in adopting new norms is a fault and not a virtue.