Home DEA The Criticisms of Drug Enforcement Agency

The Criticisms of Drug Enforcement Agency

The Criticisms of Drug Enforcement Agency

Despite its overall success on the war on crime, the Drug Enforcement Agency has been under criticism and scrutiny by various political factions and organizations. The nature of the criticism ranges from the DEA's role in scheduling controlled substances to their overall philosophy on the war on drugs. Organizations such as the Cato Institute, ACLU, and California's Wo/Men's Alliance for the Medical Marijuana have all criticized the actions and ideals of the DEA. In order to both make such criticisms and understand them, it is important that one has a solid knowledge of DEA information.
 
 
One of the main topics criticized by various factions is the role the DEA has in scheduling controlled substances in accordance to the Controlled Substances Act. One of the main arguments stems from the fact that many of the substances controlled by Federal law have legitimate purposes and uses in the medical world. Those who use DEA information to argue against the DEA would argue that the highly restrictive laws can often impede their availability to those that could actually benefit from their use. Furthermore, there are other substances that are controlled that have not been proven or unproven in terms of their medical viability for use and treatments.
 
 
The tough restrictions and regulations make it near impossible for researchers in the medicine and pharmacological fields to appropriately study and derive a definitive conclusion on certain drugs or substances. Such was the case with the drug MDMA, or Ecstasy. In 1985, MDMA and its analogous substances or derivatives were being reviewed by the DEA and the FDA to determine to drug’s potential for abuse and/or addiction.
 
 
After all the evidence, DEA information, and known facts were presented to the courts, the judge did not see extreme potential for abuse and concluded a certain medical use for those with clinical depression and possible use in treatments for anxiety disorders. Regardless of the findings, the DEA administrator at the time overruled the recommendation of placing the substance under Schedule III provisions and placed it in Schedule I, the legislation's most restrictive and severe category. The administrator argued with DEA information that there was no empirical evidence that provided beyond a reasonable doubt for its applications in medicine and the potential for abuse was still of great concern.
 
 
Even though the research showed otherwise, MDMA was placed in Schedule I and is still under that provision today. This kind of situation also leads to another point of controversy that it is the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institute on Drug Abuse that should be charged with the responsibility of classifying controlled substances, which currently is a role for the DEA. The Controlled Substances Act legally binds that responsibility to the Department of Health and Human Services, not the DEA, to be in charge of the classification system. 
 
 
Though the DEA information shows that it is legally in existence to uphold and enforce the legislation's rules and regulations, it is not the organization's role to be involved in the drug or controlled substance scheduling process. Furthermore, the DEA is also criticized as to its focus on certain drugs or substances that will yield the most in terms of the seizing of assets obtained through the illegal trafficking, production, manufacturing, and distribution of controlled substances.
 
 
It seems that, according to DEA information, the DEA will concentrate its efforts on operations regarding the trafficking of heroin and cocaine, when studies will continually show that marijuana is still the most commonly used controlled substance. Also, the focus on the deviated use of prescription drugs is becoming more rampant and widespread, more so than heroin, and yet there is less concentration on that aspect.
 
 
The Cato Institute deems the DEA's philosophies and operations as a violation of civil liberties, stating that an individual has the right to use any substance because it is her/his body, and no person, faction, or government has a right to restrict that freedom. Secondly, the Cato Institute notes that legal substances, such as tobacco, alcohol, and prescription drugs have proven to be extremely prone to abuse and addiction and they still remain free to consume. The need for more restrictive laws is not necessary, according to the Cato Institute, because they simply will not be efficient when people simply choose to disobey them.
 
 
Another aspect that is constantly brought to the forefront has to do with the DEA's apparent focus on larger, public drugs busts and operations versus the illicit use of drugs at smaller levels. The DEA information shows the apparent focus of dealing with the war on drugs on a broader and international scope, while local law enforcement is left to deal with drugs on their own. This argument based on DEA information proves to become more ardent as the DEA's budget allowances are brought into question, while local law enforcement suffers with budget cuts and personnel loss. 
 
 
Other groups criticize the DEA in terms of their regulations of certain controlled substances, posing the concept that if certain drugs or substances were to be legalized, the illegal trafficking and subsequent criminal or deviant behavior would be reduced dramatically. Secondly, the legalization of certain drugs, such as marijuana, would not only provide for an excellent tax source, but it can be readily available for those who could benefit from the proven medical uses and treatments of the drug.
 
 
Though marijuana and its legalization is under constant debate, there are certain states and countries that have legalized it for medical use, but still impose strict regulations. In Canada, those who are eligible to receive the drug through prescriptions and legal means still do so illegally, an astounding 86% of legal users. In recent times, the DEA has taken a focus of engaging in certain raids on medical marijuana collectives in California.
 
 
The Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana, along with the County of Santa Cruz have filed suit against the DEA regarding the recent raids of families with terminally-ill members or patients claiming the illegal trafficking or distributing of cannabis. These raids have also been occurring in the Los Angeles area, and the City has motioned to ask the DEA to stop its raids on marijuana collectives as the City prepares for further regulations of its own.