Talk:Drug Enforcement Administration
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject, a wikiproject dedicated to improving wikipedia's coverage of law enforcement. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] assessment
A good pitch, but need to be able to verify the statements, need to get references in there.
[edit] Section: Impact on the Drug Trade
It's relevant, correct, and meticulously sourced. However, there may be a problem with law enforcement agents vandalizing this information for political reasons. Hopefully everybody can act like adults and let the facts speak for themselves.
This section should be moved further down the page, and the general history and overview of the agency should come before this polemic. The language has a clearly pro-drug legalization bias. It's making a case for the acceptance of drug usage, beyond the scope of merely presenting drug abatement "effectiveness" of the DEA. A couple of links to citations hardly counts as "meticulously sourced", and it is only partly "correct". This section's presentation is rife with opinion mixed in with its facts, and needs clean-up for more objective voice. Presenting facts without bias is also a way adults should act.
"Others, such as the ACLU, criticize the very existence of the DEA and the War on Drugs as inimical to the concept of civil liberties by arguing that adults should have the right to put whatever substances they choose into their own bodies."
This may very well be accurate, but is it logical? The ACLU is overlooking the fact that the DEA goes after the distributers of drugs, not so much the users. The way I look at it; you want to use drugs, well, go ahead, fine. Do it. Ruin your own life. But if you cross that line...you start messing with other peoples' lives, you can go to...well, you all know where.
--Dunstonator 01:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Marijuana has definite medical uses.
Should not be in level 1. Michael Janich
Of course it shouldn't. LSD especially shouldn't, as it was proven to cure autism and schizophrenia in some cases during experimentation in the 1950's... However, it is banned because of lobbying by drug companies to keep LSD and other such 'cures' off the market, so as to increase sales of treatments, which never really cure anything, but help ease the pain as the victim, err, patient descends into disease. Actually, in terms of autism and schizophrenia, it seems that only depressents are used, which do not help the patient in any way but make them docile so that they can be herded around in mental institutions.
Obviously there is something very wrong with the common system of government, and moreover, with the inordinate feudal-style power corporations have over the government...
Marijuana and LSD have no viable medical usages(accusations of big business interference and the wishful thinking of some notwithstanding). Some components of them, such as THC may have. The legalization of recreational drugs is based on public perception of their dangers not on the perceptions of te counter-culture minority. LSD, once touted as the cure for the (not-so)common cold, has been proven in numerous studies conducted by the AMA and others to have long lasting negative (called chronic) effects on the CNS which preclude its daily use. While I generally believe that people should have the personal choice to do what they want I also believe that some will chose to harm themselves in the longterm for a short-term award, and yes, I believe that some people have to be protected against themselves for they are their own worst enemies. The above is simply the uninformed opinion of others--Numerousfalx 14:19, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Don't you mean wrongfully informed. Khranus's facts are incorrect. LSD was supposed to be a cure for the common-cold. It was never shown to have any use as a psychtrophic drug. And stimulant based drugs are primarily used to treat autism and other physiological brain disorders. Non-stimulant based meds are currently enetering the market. --68.80.223.233 14:23, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
While certain narcotics have both a medical and recreation use, public outcry has prevented the legalization of the narcotics. While alcohol and its derivitives are widely accepted, narcotics are not and until the people reach a consensus (hardly likely) they will reamin illegal. Those US states which allow medical marijuana allow it inthe pill form and it is widely perceived by the public as thefirst step in the attempted legalization of narcotics. While the war on drugs isn't going well it does need to be fought whole heartedly with the napalming of those areas that produce the basis and the administration of the Singapore Solution (ie manditory deathe sentence) to the producers and purveyors thereof. Just my two bits. --Tomtom 19:57, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Marijuana is in Schedule I because it cannot be patented and therefore doesn't have any powerful backers in the pharmaceutical industry pulling for it. Contrast that to the regulation of OxyContin. 24.54.208.177 02:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
From Village Pump:
[edit] Wikipedia & ethics of "sensitive" information
While researching the article on medical prescription, I stumbled across information on what consistutes a valid DEA number (US government's Drug Enforcement Administration). That, is the number of letters and digits and the relationship of the digits and letters within the DEA number. While this information is clearly public, including it Wikipedia certainly aids criminals in prescription forgeries. Should I include it in an article? (The same discussion would apply to credit card numbers, etc.) Samw 00:40, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with these numbers (hey, an article about the numbers would be good) - what legitimate interest would someone have in finding these numbers in an encyclopedia? -- Finlay McWalter 00:48, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- The information on how valid credit card numbers are constructed is already in Wikipedia, which I don't see as problematic. These are all very simple and openly published checksums, so relying on them to prevent fraud would certainly be foolish. If there is an article in which the DEA number information would be of interest, I would say go ahead and add it. --Delirium 08:38, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)
-
- I agree. I recall that, at age 15, how to construct a valid credit card number was part of my school syllabus (if my memory can be trusted, they have certian prefixes and a mod 10 checksum). I don't see how a DEA number could be any more sensitive. Stewart Adcock 17:02, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- No answers, but perhaps I can formulate some questions. The big question is, "is it legitimately of interest to someone who's interested in the subject of prescriptions?" Let's put it another way. We normally accept that encyclopedia articles are of legitimate interest to somebody who is not a professional in the field described by the topic. If we truly believed that "A little learning is a dangerous thing/Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring" there would be no point in having an encyclopedia at all. Your article on medical prescriptions (which looks very good, by the way) already contains information about prescription forgeries. I find this information interesting to know, even though I've never forged and never intend to forge a prescription. Normally we assume that the inclusion of information is not tantamount to an enticement to abuse. Personally, I think that information about the internal consistency check algorithm for a valid DEA number is legitimate, while, say, Bill Gates' social security number is not.
- I tend to agree with those who deprecate "security through obscurity." There was a recent research paper by some computer security gurus who looked at the structure of an ordinary cylinder lock with master-key system. They saw analogies to well-known security issues in computer systems and were surprised to find that the system was extremely insecure. Their publication created a minor flap—but then it emerged that the security issues had, in fact, been known to locksmiths and criminals literally for over a century. The only people that hadn't known about them were the people that relied on the security of these locks.
- The second question is: can you get in trouble yourself or get Wikipedia in trouble by including some piece of information? I think I'm not going to even try to guess on this one. Dpbsmith 15:01, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for everyone's input. I've added a description of the checksum algorithm to Drug Enforcement Administration. Samw 21:39, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
[edit] "U4EA"
What is U4EA supposed to be? No reference to it by that name on the DEA website. The few references I get when I google for it is from a Beverly Hills 90210 episode, and some who think it's actually 2C-B. --80.202.27.178 09:59, October 28, 2004
- 4-methylaminorex, but also ecstasy. —alxndr (t) 03:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
For information on this rather obscure drug, your best bet would be to look at Erowid. http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/4_methylaminorex/ It is a stimulant, a bit like methamphetamine but supposedly milder. (t) 06:26, 23 February 2006.
[edit] Internal link to Quantico, Virginia
IMHO we should rather link to Marine Corps Base Quantico ("Both the United States Drug Enforcement Administration's training academy and the FBI Academy are on the base"). Apokrif 16:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fasicst?
I added the page to Cat:Fascism because it meets the criteria of policed state control over non-violent "crime."
---
References to fascism for this page are irrelevant. One, because the application of the term is shallow and cosmetic at best, and two, it clearly is added here only as an invective opinion that borders on page vandalism. Keep your agendas to yourself, and present information in a neutral voice.
