Abolish the DEA
The DEA's attempts to enforce the nation's drug laws have been a resounding failure by pretty much any measure.

In 1973, the year the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was born, the federal government counted about three drug-related deaths per 100,000 Americans. By 2022, when the DEA had been waging the war on drugs for half a century, that rate had risen tenfold.
That does not look like success. Nor do trends in drug use. In a 1973 Gallup poll, 12 percent of Americans admitted they had tried marijuana. According to federal survey data, the share had risen fourfold by 2023, when the percentage reporting past-year drug use was more than double the 1995 number.
What about drug prices, which the DEA aims to boost through source control and interdiction? From 1981 to 2012, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the average, inflation-adjusted retail price for a pure gram of heroin fell by 86 percent. During the same period, the average retail price for cocaine and methamphetamine fell by 75 percent and 72 percent, respectively. In 2021, the DEA reported that methamphetamine's "purity and potency remain high while prices remain low," that "availability of cocaine throughout the United States remains steady," and that "availability and use of cheap and highly potent fentanyl has increased."
The DEA's attempts to enforce the nation's drug laws have been a resounding failure by pretty much any measure—except perhaps drug seizures, which can be expected to rise along with consumption, and arrests, which send people to prison without bringing the agency any closer to achieving its avowed goal of "deal[ing] with America's growing drug problem." This is what the DEA calls "the long, proud, and honorable tradition of federal drug law enforcement."
The DEA has not only failed to make things better. It has played a key role in making things worse, even leaving aside the pointless incarceration of people whose only crimes consisted of exchanging politically disfavored intoxicants for money.
Consider what happened when the DEA decided that doctors were overprescribing pain medication. The agency, along with its allies in government and the private sector, indisputably succeeded in reducing opioid prescriptions, which fell by more than half from 2010 to 2022. But that crackdown predictably drove nonmedical users toward black market drugs, which are much more dangerous because their composition is highly variable and unpredictable.
That hazard was magnified by the simultaneous proliferation of illicit fentanyl as a heroin booster and substitute—a development driven by prohibition enforcement, which favors potent drugs that are easier to conceal and smuggle. The upshot: The opioid-related death rate, which had doubled in the first decade of this century, tripled in the second decade. In 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) counted more than 80,000 opioid-related deaths, nearly four times the number in 2010.
Meanwhile, pain patients across the country suffered needlessly as the medication that made their lives bearable became increasingly difficult to obtain. The American Medical Association, the Food and Drug Administration, and even the CDC (which contributed to the problem by publishing guidelines that discouraged doctors from prescribing opioids) acknowledged the resulting human wreckage, including undertreatment, patient abandonment, and suicide.
As demonstrably unqualified as the DEA is to prevent substance abuse, it is even less qualified to regulate medicine, which it does by setting production quotas, deciding who may prescribe controlled substances, and threatening prosecution of doctors whose practices it deems unacceptable. By itself, this interference, which harms patients without any countervailing benefit, would make the agency worthy of the chopping block.
Without the DEA, who would strive to "stop the flow" of illegal drugs, as presidents have risibly promised to do for more than a century of prohibition? Maybe nobody, which would be an improvement when you consider all the damage caused by that doomed crusade.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Yeah but Alito has “moral standards” that make reading the US Constitution a violation of his ‘faith’.
And the [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s] wanted to monopolize the medical/pharmaceutical industry so they could STEAL grandma blind and all of her neighbors and relatives as well (see US national Debt). Heaven-forbid the Nazi’s had to actually *EARN* anything.
So true. The DEA forces doctors to stop treating patients for physical pain an depression with opioids like Norco, forcing them to see drugs on the street. The result is that too may get fentanyl and overdoes. Then, these deaths which the DEA has caused are used by the DEA to justified a larger budget to fight the drug war.
The best and safest way to handle opioids is to allow doctors to prescribe them in their sound discretion. Allowing doctors to prescribe opioids would seriously reduce the DEA budget since the number of deaths would dramatically drop and the demand for fentanyl products would drop.
It is as impossible to prohibit drugs as it was to prohibit alcohol and, in fact, alcohol kill more people than all other drugs combined. Even when you factor in fentanyl deaths. According to the CDC, there around 178,000 alcohol related deaths per year. Why aren't the prohibitionists clamoring to ban its use? Because we tried it and all we got for the effort is international crime syndicates, murders and a general lack of respect for the law. And usage increased, just as it has with drugs. When you ask about drugs, you'll be told we must "send a message" that drug use is unacceptable. That is one incredibly costly and deadly bit of virtue signaling. Plus it has enabled police to basically dismiss the Bill of Rights. The War on Drugs is as un-American as communism.