The DEA Turns 35 This Week!

[Odon]

The DEA Turns 35 This Week!

The Drug Enforcement Administration was created by President Richard Nixon through an Executive Order [on] July [1,] 1973 in order to establish a single unified command to combat "an all-out global war on the drug menace." At its outset, the DEA had 1,470 Special Agents and a budget of less than $75 million. Furthermore, in 1974, the DEA had 43 foreign offices in 31 countries. Today, the DEA has 5,235 Special Agents, a budget of more than $2.3 billion and 86 foreign offices in 62 countries.

So the DEA turns thirty-five this week. That deserves a special celebration. Let’s bust out our handy-dandy calculator and the official government stats. Time to play Rate the DEA!

Today the DEA has twice the offices in twice the countries with four times the manpower than when it started thirty-five years ago. In 1973, the DEA had $0.075 billion to work with; today you have $2.3 billion. That’s an increase of 3,067%, or a dramatic thirty-fold increase. Just what have the American People received for this $31.4 billion dollar, thirty-five year investment?

Are there dramatically fewer drugs now? That’s hard to say, since nobody is out there taking official inventories of illegal drugs. But judging by the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s figures that show drug seizures from 1989–2003, it seems that there are plenty of drugs out there. In that time frame, marijuana and heroin seized by law enforcement about doubled and cocaine remained steady.

Well, those drugs have got to be harder to get, right? All those seizures and agents and arrests must mean the price of drugs has gone up thirty-fold! According to the ONDCP’s report on the Price and Purity of Drugs from 1981–2003, cocaine is one-fifth as expensive (pg 69), crack is about one-third as expensive (pg 71), heroin is one-sixth as expensive (pg 73), and meth is half as expensive (pg 75). However, the safest of all recreational drugs, marijuana, did double in price (pg 77).

OK, so there are more cheaper drugs that are easier to get, but surely they’ve got to be less potent! According to the survey previously mentioned, cocaine is about 50% more pure (pg 70), crack’s purity hasn’t changed much (pg 72), heroin is three times more pure (pg 74), meth purity is about the same (pg 76), and according to the recently released report from the Drug Czar’s (Marijuana) Potency Monitoring Project, marijuana potency doubled from 1985-2007 (pg 17).

Wow. After thirty-five years of substantially escalating DEA budgets, we’ve got cheaper, more powerful, more plentiful drugs. But maybe we now have substantially fewer drug users? According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (multiple reports), in 1979 (first year of collected data) 31.3% of the population aged 12 or older had ever used drugs, by 2006 that figure increased to 45.4%. The percentage of lifetime drug users increased by about half. In raw figures, people who ever used drugs doubled from 56 million to 111 million.

I would hope, at least, with quadruple the number of agents and thirty times the budget, the DEA would at least have more arrests to show for it. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, we did go from 628,000 drug law arrests in 1973 to almost 1.9 million arrests in 2006 – that’s about triple the number of arrests.

Has the increase in arrests at least helped to save people’s lives? According to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, back in 1979, 513 Americans died from overdoses on opiates, cocaine, and meth. By 1998, nine-times more Americans died from those illegal drugs (4,942 Americans). (Data from 1999 and later is harder to quantify, as the CDC changed how they classify overdose deaths. In 1999, 19,128 Americans died of "drug-induced causes"; in 2005, 33,541 died. However, those figures include the rapidly-increasing deaths from prescription drug overdoses.)

Yikes! More people are dying from using more plentiful, more powerful drugs. Perhaps we’re not getting to them early enough. What about the children? Didn’t we at least end up with drastically fewer high school seniors using drugs? According to the Monitoring the Future survey (Table 5-2, pg 199), often cited by the DEA, in 1975 (first year of the survey), 45% of 12th graders had ever tried an illicit drug. In 2006 (most recent data), the number of seniors who tried drugs was 36.5% – a decline of less than one-fifth in thirty years. Not exactly drastic. At this rate, the class of 2125 will be our first drug-free group of 12th graders.

So, not only more adults using cheaper, more powerful, more plentiful drugs, but barely a dent in the kids using these drugs. But as the US population has increased, there are more teenage drug users overall. Has the DEA at least made it harder for the kids to get drugs? According to the Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration, in 1992, 60% of teenagers said marijuana was easy to obtain, 40% said the same about cocaine, and about a quarter said they could get heroin easily. In 2006, half of teenagers say it’s easy to get pot, one quarter say it’s easy to get cocaine, and about one seventh say it’s easy to get heroin.

All right, then, we’ve seen the availability of drugs drop by roughly one-fifth among teenagers in fourteen years. But when more than a third of kids have tried drugs and half of them say drugs are easy to get, I don’t think that’s much of a success story for a $31 billion 35-year effort.

Bigger budgets, more drugs. More arrests, more deaths. More seizures, more potency. More agents, more users. For their thirty-fifth anniversary, perhaps they should change their name to the Drug Encouragement Administration.

"Radical" Russ Belville [send him mail] is the host of The Russ Belville Show on XM Satellite Radio and Portland's Progressive Talk, AM 620 KPOJ. Russ also hosts the NORML Daily Audio Stash podcast (stash.norml.org) for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Lawsand is the Associate Director of NORML's Portland, Oregon chapter.

The DEA Turns 35 This Week!
Russ Belville
LewRockwell.com
7.3.08

Link!

Mmmm..

 

[Taurothar]

As celebration, I think we should all collectively indulge in our illegal substance of choice. Sadly, I don't have any illegal ones that I partake in, so I'll just get trashed the way my ancestors did, alcohol.

 

[Trippyhippy]

The DEA Turns 35 This Week!

"Radical" Russ Belville [send him mail] is the host of The Russ Belville Show on XM Satellite Radio and Portland's Progressive Talk, AM 620 KPOJ. Russ also hosts the NORML Daily Audio Stash podcast (stash.norml.org) for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Lawsand is the Associate Director of NORML's Portland, Oregon chapter.

The DEA Turns 35 This Week!
Russ Belville
LewRockwell.com
7.3.08

Link!

Mmmm..

I must spread some rep before giving more to my darling psychonaut...

There is no one alive who can honestly say that these laws are in place for a good reason and then back it up with any facts at all.

The drug war is a total failure and an insult to the American people as a whole. What kind of civilized nation declares war on it's own citizens?

 

[hellstorm]

What would you rather them do, make drugs legal then we spend millions one over dose cases and welfare cases. Oh wait we already do.

 

[Dejavu]

Or we could make the drugs legal and say go fuck yourself to everyone who overdoses and doesn't have insurance... sounds like a plan to me.

 

[Trippyhippy]

What would you rather them do, make drugs legal then we spend millions one over dose cases and welfare cases. Oh wait we already do.

The same people are going to use whatever drugs they want wether they are legal or not. Furthermore, not all drugs can cause an overdose. The majority of those that can are legal drugs.

Drug use and welfare do not go hand in hand. One does not cause the other. I work for a living to support my habit.

 

[Skaw]

Or we could make the drugs legal and say go fuck yourself to everyone who overdoses and doesn't have insurance... sounds like a plan to me.

Not like any insurance company would cover drug overdose in the first place. Shit, they probably wouldn't even accept you if they knew you did drugs like heroin and coke.

 

[Celvantes]

I like my solution for drugs:

1. Legalize all currently illegal narcotics.

2. Fully allow businesses to hire/fire at will based on drug tests.

3. New jail space-saving law: You commit a felony under the influence of a narcotic... death penalty.

4. Deny all government-funded healthcare to drug-related conditions (i.e. if you OD and you don't have your own insurance, you're at the mercy of whatever doctors want to do for you without being paid).

5. Step back and let Darwin go to work.

So, if want to use drugs, fine, but you'd better be able to pay for your own medical care, hold down a job that doesn't care about your drug use, and so help you if you ever hurt anyone while under the influence.

Hopefullly, the majority of drug users would weed themselves out of the gene pool within a couple generations, and such a system would automatically cull out the new users quickly and (from the standpoint of society as a whole) painlessly.

 

[Odon]

3. New jail space-saving law: You commit a felony under the influence of a narcotic... death penalty.

Won't work, do you know how expensive it is to kill someone legally?

 

[Rorschach]

What, we can't enact a new law called the "stabbing chair"? Its free quick and painless... to the person behind the knife.

 

[Carste]

The same people are going to use whatever drugs they want wether they are legal or not. Furthermore, not all drugs can cause an overdose. The majority of those that can are legal drugs.

Drug use and welfare do not go hand in hand. One does not cause the other. I work for a living to support my habit.

So wait... Those pamphlets I received in high school, those commercials I see on TV, AND my next-door neighbor (The one that screams we're all going to hell if we aren't devout <her religion>) were all wrong? Every drug user isn't a "poor homeless criminal that rapes babies for hits of acid"? Who knew...

 

[Raesvelg]

Won't work, do you know how expensive it is to kill someone legally?

The only real expenses to execution are legal. Even the most expensive method of execution (lethal injection) doesn't actually cost all that incredibly much.

Besides, bullets are cheap and firing squads are dramatic. Or if you prefer a higher up-front investment but less human involvement, turn to the beef industry and install a chair with a pneumatic hammer that punches through the base of the skull. Your only cost is a tiny bit of electricity, death is guaranteed and instantaneous, and if you're a complete pussy you can even set it to fire on its own, thus eliminating the "human cost" to the executioner.

My plan much resembles Celvantes' plan. Which is unsurprising in many ways...

Furthermore, not all drugs can cause an overdose. The majority of those that can are legal drugs.

Okay... Let's, for a moment, ignore the fact that there are thousands of times as many legal drugs as illegal drugs.

All opiates are can be overdosed with potentially lethal effects. That covers the majority of all Schedule I drugs in one shot. Pretty much any stimulant or depressant can be overdoes with potentially lethal effects. That, combined with opiates, covers almost the entirety of Schedule II,III, and IV as well.

Almost all illegal drugs can be overdosed with lethal consequences. Hallucinogens are about the only category where that is remotely difficult to do, and the possibility to overdose with serious side effects remains.

Drug use and welfare do not go hand in hand. One does not cause the other.

No, but one can well contribute to the other, in both directions. Poverty can lead to drug use, which can lead to welfare/crime. Drug use can lead to poverty, which can lead to welfare/crime. Are they causes? No. They are contributing factors.

Addiction is a terrible thing. Physical addiction in particular. Not everyone has the willpower or the inclination to kick a habit, and once you get a couple offenses (legal or just losing your job for drug-related incidents) on your record it's hard to get a good enough job to support your habit. Many will turn to welfare or crime to support that habit.

The term "crack whore" is in the common lexicon for a reason.

Now, you can respond with: "But the drugs I use don't cause people to lose their jobs etc etc, or are not so addictive that people will steal to get more etc etc", to which I can respond: "That's not entirely true either, even something as relatively harmless as marijuana can leave people jobless, destitute, and desperate for more." Is it likely? Not really. But it can happen.

The classic "slippery slope" argument does apply to the hypothetical legalization of many illegal drugs. Many opiates and stimulants are extremely addictive, physically and psychologically, even after single doses. Legalizing, say, methamphetamines, then providing cheap, pure drugs, and making them commonly available, could have potentially disastrous effects. Especially considering that most employers don't want someone heavily dosed on stimulants, depressants, or opioids working in their place of business. It's dangerous, for a variety of reasons.

So even in a fully legal society, there will be consequences for drug abuse. While the majority of criminal enterprise would be eliminated by legalization and low-cost, high-availability drugs, the economic costs would be significant, and the... hmm... "first-tier?" crime associated with drug use, ie stealing/whoring to support a habit, would continue unabated and possibly on a greater scale.

So, one can hypothetically move to a "Hard Drug vs Soft Drug" policy like that of the Netherlands, in which the truly dangerous drugs are banned and things like cannibis are legal, and while that causes relatively few problems there, remember that not all societies operate in quite the same way. We're not nearly as heavily socialized as the Netherlands, which has up sides and down sides, and in this case the down sides could have serious negative consequences. Poverty and drugs do not mix well.

I do find it amusing that they've started banning hallucinogens in the Netherlands tho'.

 

[Trippyhippy]

Okay... Let's, for a moment, ignore the fact that there are thousands of times as many legal drugs as illegal drugs.

How so? Most legal drugs can be considered illegal as well. Like Xanax, Valium, Vicoden, Oxycontin, etc.

All opiates are can be overdosed with potentially lethal effects. That covers the majority of all Schedule I drugs in one shot. Pretty much any stimulant or depressant can be overdoes with potentially lethal effects. That, combined with opiates, covers almost the entirety of Schedule II,III, and IV as well.

Actually, Cannibus, DMT, Peyote, Mescaline, Psilocybin, and LSD are all Schedule I and none of those are opiates. It would be very hard to overdose on any of those, as you mention in your next paragraph.

Almost all illegal drugs can be overdosed with lethal consequences. Hallucinogens are about the only category where that is remotely difficult to do, and the possibility to overdose with serious side effects remains.

I like you you say "serious side effects" without being too specific. That's why drug laws are ignorant. People think "Heroin kills you therefore Marijuana is bad".

Now, you can respond with: "But the drugs I use don't cause people to lose their jobs etc etc, or are not so addictive that people will steal to get more etc etc", to which I can respond: "That's not entirely true either, even something as relatively harmless as marijuana can leave people jobless, destitute, and desperate for more." Is it likely? Not really. But it can happen.

You make a good point, but it's not marijuana leaving you jobless and destitute, it's the horribly unjust drug laws that cause the problem. I think anyone can agree smoking pot at night is no reason you should lose your day job. And no, you are never "desperate for more".

The classic "slippery slope" argument does apply to the hypothetical legalization of many illegal drugs. Many opiates and stimulants are extremely addictive, physically and psychologically, even after single doses. Legalizing, say, methamphetamines, then providing cheap, pure drugs, and making them commonly available, could have potentially disastrous effects. Especially considering that most employers don't want someone heavily dosed on stimulants, depressants, or opioids working in their place of business. It's dangerous, for a variety of reasons.

You think drugs being legal will make people shoot up and then go to work? It wouldn't be any more of a problem than people being drunk at work.

So even in a fully legal society, there will be consequences for drug abuse. While the majority of criminal enterprise would be eliminated by legalization and low-cost, high-availability drugs, the economic costs would be significant, and the... hmm... "first-tier?" crime associated with drug use, ie stealing/whoring to support a habit, would continue unabated and possibly on a greater scale.

If you don't take everything someone owns when you find them smoking pot then charge them a bunch of money for fines, right after you put them in jail and cause them to lose their job... Ya see where I'm going with this?

So, one can hypothetically move to a "Hard Drug vs Soft Drug" policy like that of the Netherlands, in which the truly dangerous drugs are banned and things like cannibis are legal, and while that causes relatively few problems there, remember that not all societies operate in quite the same way. We're not nearly as heavily socialized as the Netherlands, which has up sides and down sides, and in this case the down sides could have serious negative consequences. Poverty and drugs do not mix well.

America is the greatest country in the world. I think we could handle it.

 

[Raesvelg]

Took yer damn time Hippy.

Anyhoo.

Gonna make a quick post before I run to Batman, fill in more later.

How so? Most legal drugs can be considered illegal as well. Like Xanax, Valium, Vicoden, Oxycontin, etc.

Most of which are on the schedule, aye. I was referring to things a bit more broadly when I say "legal drugs". Not "only legal drugs that can get you high", you damn pot fiend.

You make a good point, but it's not marijuana leaving you jobless and destitute, it's the horribly unjust drug laws that cause the problem. I think anyone can agree smoking pot at night is no reason you should lose your day job. And no, you are never "desperate for more".

Psychological addiction is nearly as potent as physical addiction for some people. I had a friend in high school (Sam) that wound up literally doing nothing but sit around and smoke pot all day. He got a job to support his habit initially, but he showed up to work stoned too many times so they fired him. Was never arrested for it, but he craved it on a level that I couldn't understand. I'm sure if it had been alcohol he'd have drunk himself to death.

Like I said, not likely, but if you're the kind of person who is susceptible to that level of psychological addiction, it's possible.

America is the greatest country in the world. I think we could handle it.

I'm not saying we couldn't. I'm saying that just because it works somewhere else doesn't automatically mean it will work here.

 

[Celvantes]

Won't work, do you know how expensive it is to kill someone legally?

I didn't mean 'legally' in the way that a death row felon gets a whole bunch of appeals before finally getting executed. I was thinking more along the lines of the Judge Dredd approach.