Talk:Drug Enforcement Administration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Drug Enforcement Administration is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Drug Policy, an attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage of drug policy. Feel free to participate by editing this article or by visiting the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating 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 distributors 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)

Is your statement logical? First you say that choosing to do drugs is ruining your own life, so if someone is supplying market demand (regardless of their personal situation and reasoning) then according to your statement it's the customers choice to ruin their own life not the distributer coercing the individual. The only thing the DEA really does is price support by making selling drugs extremely lucrative, especially to the impoverished.

Agreed. The fact that a dealer would sell a substance to a user who is ruining his or her own life does not mean that dealer is at fault. It is the same concept as a liquor store and an alcoholic, the same as a compulsive gambler at a casino etc.
Furthermore, Duns severely oversimplifies the issue when he asserts that "the DEA goes after the distributors of drugs, not so much the users" in that the DEA has the final decision as to which drugs are scheduled and into what category. The DEA's authority to create drug policy supercedes that of administrative law judges, of the FDA, and of course of all state and local governments. Duns would seem to be insinuating that a Schedule I at the federal level isn't extraordinarily significant in relation to how states will follow suite in terms of legislation which provides for prosecution of individuals for mere possession of a substance, something which is patently false.

Kst447 (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2008 (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...

Khranus

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)

You are incorrect in that both Marijuana and LSD have shown great potential in treating a number of severe ailments. LSD was used to treat alcoholics in clinical trials in the 1960s, to treat cluster headaches, and to help bring about a sense of spiritual rest to those with terminal illness. The drug is being explored again in the United States for possible viable uses. [1] Furthermore, LSD is not toxic to the body and does not cause permanent alterations in brain function in users unpredisposed to relevant ailments such as Schizophrenia. There exists the rare cases of Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder. But long-term complications from use of the drug is rare, and death due to the effects of the drug is exceptionally rare. [2]
Individual chemicals found in Marijuana also have shown great promise in slowing the spread of cancer, such as Cannabidiol, found to be an antagonist to breast cancer cell growth. [3] This is consistent with a recent, large-scale study finding no increased risk between lung cancer and marijuana smoking. [4] THC has also been found to be preventative of atherosclerosis. [5] The examples pile up fairly quickly, I won't go and list them all.
Additionally, I imagine you are not very familiar with the habits of drug users in relation to LSD or Marijuana. Taking LSD is not a short-term arrangement in any sense: the effects of the drug are prolonged (8-12 hours on average), profound, and uncertain as the users state of mind before taking the drug is an essential determining factor to the experience. The impact of a single trip can be life-changing, for the positive or negative, but to say that the gain from LSD is de facto short-term and is invariably mated to some certain damage is ridiculous, as is to imply that LSD users are often or even hardly ever frequent users of the drug. To be one, as in the case of Syd Barret, is actually quite rare. Much the same can be said for Marijuana. Although I would not argue that those who smoke pot regularly gain a lot of important insight and whatnot, I would not argue that it is very harmful if at all. The facts don't support it, they never have. [6]

Kst447 (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2008 (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 in the 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)

Added request for citation of statement: Furthermore, illegal drug trafficking profits only criminal elements and terrorist groups who would use the funds to spread further violence to other areas. I have heard the "drugs fund terrorism" line frequently and have yet to be given a source which supports the assertion. While the conclusion seems reasonable based upon common sense, common sense cannot replace the need for actual facts.Mtiffany71 05:45, 26 June 2007 (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] Fascist?

I added the page to Cat:Fascism because it meets the criteria of policed state control over non-violent "crime."

---

[edit] Changing mention of ACLU in 'Criticism' section

The 'Criticism' section currently says "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 anybody should be free to put any substance they choose into their own bodies for any reason..." and this is quite properly flagged as unsubstantiated. As far as I can tell, the ACLU has never criticized the pure existence of the DEA, only specific policies and mechanisms, and has never made a blanket statement about a person's right to their body vis-a-vis drugs. From http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/gen/10831res20051128.html ("About the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project") :

The Drug Law Reform Project is a division of the national ACLU. Our goal is to end punitive drug policies that cause the widespread violation of constitutional and human rights, as well as unprecedented levels of incarceration. ... We will continue that tradition of success, combining litigation, education, and community empowerment to achieve a humane and sensible drug policy that respects basic human rights and the liberties enshrined in our nation’s Constitution.


I am changing this section to reflect this. --JdwNYC 18:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article seems quite biased in favor of those who want less drug enforcement

Remember this is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry, and the issue of legalizing certain drugs should be a separate issue that needs only be mentioned briefly in this article.

This article seems to mention only criticisms against the DEA and very little about their history. What about their successes against drug cartels in South and Central America? I'm not sure if I agree with "War on Drugs" either, but the drug lords who profit from the narcotics trade are hardly saints - far from it, the crimes of Escobar, Noriega, or even random groups do present a danger to the public through increased violence and crime. Now some drugs are more dangerous than others, but realistically more narcotics has always equalled more guns. For this article, in addition to the agency's history I think there definitely needs to be more said about the DEA's contribution to law enforcement and crime reduction.--Acefox 18:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you should realize that drug lords are probably the most pleased out of anyone with prohibition. With prohibition replaced with legalization and regulation, their customer base would shrivel and blow away with the wind. So no matter how many people the DEA provides for arrest, prosecution, and conviction, it should be made clear that the DEA is the drug lord's hardest-working and most heavily-funded group of employees outside an actual drug cartel. Without this organization, the limited competition and sky-high prices which exist in the drug trade now would disappear.
Having said all that, I agree that the article should be well-balanced, but that criticisms of the DEA's existence, role, and behavior should remain because the role of the organization is important and unique and the controversy levied against it is long-standing and can be viewed as legitimate.

Kst447 (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Budget info is way off

The top of the page says that the FY 2006 budget was about $2.4 million. Should that be billion? the FY 2005 budget was $1.6 billion so the '05 number is in the billions, though I don't know if it is as high as $2.4B. What is the source for this info? It makes me wonder how far off the employee info is. Maybe it would be best to just find the '07 info so it is a little more current. Docely (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DEA Museum and Visitors Center

is missing.

87.234.41.130 (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Office of Aviation Operations emblem

use? 87.234.41.130 (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caption of Photo Vandalized

I noticed that the photo of two armed DEA agents has been vandalized. While it has appeared on the DEA website to illustrate training exercises, it has been improperly captioned "Two DEA agents prepare to use violence to enforce prohibition." I am changing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leesamuel (talk • contribs) 13:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This wasn't vandalism. Training is preparation, too. They don't engage in a shoot house exercise just for fun. I am reverting this. --mms (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It may or may not be vandalism, but it is certainly not neutral-point-of-view. The photo is clearly most directly described as being of a shoot-house training exercise. Describing it as "violence to enforce prohibition" is point-of-view-motivated obfuscation rather than a clear, encylcopedic explanation. Ketone16 (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] education

presuing a career in the DEA you need a bachors degree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.167.172 (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US vs. U.S.

With regard to the recent "edit war" about the appropriate abbreviation for the United States, I contend that the abbreviation should be U.S. (with periods), not US (without periods). Swamilive contends that it should be US (without periods), as that abbreviation is "more standard," and "becoming more common" as per the WP:MoS. That argument neglects the fact that the WP:MoS says that "US is becoming more common and is standard in other national forms of English," where here "other" means countries other than the United States. The same section in the Manual of Style says that "[i]n American English, U.S. is the standard abbreviation for United States" (emphasis on "standard" added), so "becoming more common" still implies that it is not the standard in American English. In that case, I argue that the WP:MoS section on "national varieties of English" that says "[a]n article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation" is appropriate for this article. The article is about a specific U.S. government agency. The DEA even uses U.S. to write its own name, as in "U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration," and the U.S. Government Printing Office's Style Manual specifies U.S. as the correct abbreviation for federal government use.[7] For this reason, I believe U.S. (with periods), which is standard in American English, should be the standard abbreviation in this article. Ketone16 (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there do not appear to be any holes in your argument, so I will leave the periods in. However, I might suggest we replace the image of the badge on the top of the page to one which reflects the proper punctuation. Cheers. Swamilive (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)