Why We Can't Have Nice Things: The War on Drugs
How the FDA and DEA overrule the interests of doctors and patients.

In many cases, the government's attempts at regulating health care markets are complex, convoluted operations—and seeing the consequences of those policies can be tricky.
Other times, however, it is very straightforward: the government just says "no."
When that happens, it doesn't matter what patients need or what doctors want. In its rush to prevent some people from recreationally using certain drugs or accessing certain treatments, the federal government creates huge roadblocks for patients with legitimate needs and doctors who are only trying to help.
That's what happened earlier this year when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decided not to approve MDMA-assisted psychotherapy as a treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
"Who is harmed, primarily, are all the people with post-traumatic stress disorder who are hoping to have access to this treatment," says Julie Holland, a New York-based psychiatrist and author. "And I would argue honestly that psychiatrists and therapists are also harmed because we are having more and more people who are traumatized, and our treatment options have not changed in a very long time."
Less directly, that's also what has caused a serious shortage of Adderall and other drugs used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Because the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) strictly limits the availability of substances like amphetamine or dextroamphetamine in an attempt to reduce their recreational uses, patients with legitimate prescriptions can end up having a hard time filling their prescriptions.
"It took me weeks to get a prescription for something that really negatively affects my life," says C.J. Ciaramella, a reporter at Reason who has written about his personal struggles with ADHD. "It kept me suffering and anxious."
Further reading for this week's episode:
"It Took Me Months To Get the ADHD Meds the DEA Says Are Overprescribed," by C.J. Ciaramella, Reason
"Dickens, Diabetes, and Positive-Sum Games," by Anne Bradley
Good Chemistry: The Science of Connection, from Soul to Psychedelics, by Julie Holland
"Adderall Shortage Led to 10 Percent Fewer Prescriptions Being Filled," by Joe Lancaster, Reason
"Founder of Adderall 'Pill Mill' Sent Back to Jail," by Rolfe Winkler, The Wall Street Journal
"FDA Declines To Approve MDMA-Assisted Psychotherapy as a PTSD Treatment," by Jacob Sullum, Reason
- Producer: Hunt Beaty
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
As long as the federal government allows and funds those cosplay transition drugs for illegal aliens, then totes ok.
I firmly believe people should be able to buy and use any drug someone is willing to sell them without jumping through hoops mandated by government for the benefit of credentialed gatekeepers. Yet, taking speed just to help remember what day the garbage truck comes seems like pharmaceutical overkill.
so baby killers is one of those 'nice things' we oughta have.
Yes, I see.
Which assumes that they ARE selling what you think they are selling, and so you end up dead on the street. Which is fine with the rest of us because you don't care about the rest of us.
But without the FDA, how will we know what's in them when we legalize them?
Social media reviews.
We know that from Amazon to Walmart, paid posters , a small army, manipulates those reviews.
The Old Amazon Best Seller Scam is Still Happening! Don’t Be Sucked In!!
https://writersweekly.com/angela-desk/the-old-amazon-best-seller-scam-is-still-happening-dont-be-sucked-in
Underwriters Laboratories?
In its rush to prevent some people from recreationally using certain drugs or accessing certain treatments, the federal government creates huge roadblocks for patients with legitimate needs and doctors who are only trying to help.
It's simple really - cost vs benefit. You want to view it on an personal level, because you just want literally nothing more in life than to get high. They view it on a social level, because a drug addicted society is a destructive one with no upside whatsoever.
"Patient with legitimate needs" (but let's not define "legitimate") is not enough of a benefit to outweigh the costs of the sheer destructiveness recreational drug use does to a population.
Taken a good look at Portland lately? From PBS: https://tinyurl.com/dctafpr
Drug use skyrocketed, normal people (and businesses) fled - and now the city is, by any measurable standard, unliveable. Even their own Democrat legislator said it looks “like Dresden in World War II.”
But you don't care. You just want to get high. It's all worth it to you. Destroying a major west-coast city is totally worth it, so that you can escape reality one fix at a time. Do you see why normal people utterly despise you druggies?
And your whole drug-obsessed argument is just one big emotional rationalization in the first place. "Just trying to help," what you had to go with that because, "Think of the children!" didn't fit?
Shut up Eric.
An alcoholic society is also a destructive one with no upside whatsoever, so we should ban alcohol while we're at it!
Oh, wait, that was tried once and led to some negative side-effects, didn't it?
Not every substance has the same levels of toxicity, addictiveness, and inebriation.
Alcohol has not impeded the building of civilizations because the vast majority of people are capable of moderating their consumption of it and people can function on moderate amounts of it. We have thousands of years of data backing this up.
We also have plenty of data demonstrating that what we consider illicit drugs does do harm to societies.
So the deaths, cancers, brain damaged babies, violence, rapes etc etc caused by alcohol use are not a problem?
Weed users are incapable of moderating their use or functioning when slightly under the influence?
Man what planet do you live on?
ANd you support abortion for those babies, and you are better ?????Where did the attitude you atack come form but the homoseexual and abortion folks.
As for you, If you want no road deaths,w hat do you do? Outlaw cars, or just allow slow cars...well people will still die...and if you outlaw vehicles how do ambulances get people to hospitals. I am not taking the Utilitarian approach but you are taking the Hillary approach. abuse your oppnonent by fake high standard morality even perfectionism and then do just what the hell you want
The US up to the beginning of federal narcotics prohibition in1914.
An alcoholic society is also a destructive one with no upside whatsoever, so we should ban alcohol while we’re at it!
Equating alcohol with drugs LOL! *drink*
When's the last time you saw entire city blocks or districts - heck, an entire major metropolitan city - fall to utter ruin as a direct result of the shuffling derelicts living in tent cities who have destroyed their lives and surroundings through alcohol addiction? Where have you seen market values and tax bases completely vanish as a result of it? Where have you seen sharp increases in overall violent and property crime rates as a result? When's the last time anyone described a city as resembling the bombed out ruins of wartime action over alcohol users?
You haven't. You know where you have seen it? With drug users.
How stupid. Read Lincoln's speech on that to the Temperance Society where he politely vomits on people like you.
Have some mercy, man.
What is an alcoholic society. I have maybe one beer a day. Do you get to decide who should be shunned. Should I wear a scarlet 'A'
And Prohibition, my benighted KKK-er, was opposed always and everywhere by the Catholic Church.
This has 2 logic errors and one language error
persons drink alcohol and not societies. How can you say all who drink , drink to excess. Then you say no 'upside' showing that this is strictly a utilitarian view, pure HIllary Clinton, who said abortion should be rare and then supported it to the skies never doing anything for those railroaded into killing a baby they wanted.
And WHO opposed all along Prohibition? THE CATHOLIC CHURCH...wow now that must make you mad : Someone with your right idea that is spiritual and moral !!!
Utter flaming collapse to your post ????
Typical progressive communist
HOw can there even be such a thing as a typical progressive communist? You have met thousands of people in your life. You didn't know for 95% whether they were progressive or Communist or whether , if they said something, they were telling the truth.
Tylpical unthinking reply 🙁
We have an FDA….and YET!….a “Portland” STILL happened. Does that not call into question the effectiveness of such a gov body to successfully regulate these things?
The gov, it turns out, has never been particularly successful attempting to regulate morality (I use this term in a relatively broad sense). This goes all the way back to the prohibition days and even before.
We like feel good about these kinds of gov “solutions” to social ills but they have rarely if ever been effective by any objective measure.
We have an FDA….and YET!….a “Portland” STILL happened.
That's a separate issue entirely. And a valid point, I might add.
The gov, it turns out, has never been particularly successful attempting to regulate morality
... you think the FDA exists to regulate morality???
We like feel good about these kinds of gov “solutions” to social ills but they have rarely if ever been effective by any objective measure.
Nonsense. Recreational drug use was outlawed across the nation for decades, and we never saw the kind of destruction and ruin like the kind we're seeing now that we've eased up on it. Clearly something was working.
I agree with you. FDA has to address morality, obviously. And using the word 'regulate' shows that poster knows this. He doesn't deny there is a morality or that the good should be promoted and the bad not promoted. It is the typical unthinking reply of a dumb Libertarian. IF you are anti-abortion that is a religous stance but if you are pro-abortion well that is foregoing regulation of morality. Really a stupid post, stands out for folly
Still your argument is ultra-Utilitarian and recalls Hitler talking about the Jews.
You overlook the actual situation
--If you don't punish the initial drug violations what purpose is served going after the addict that commits murder to get a fix?
And of course the whole way you use the word 'drug' shows a fantasy view detached from reality. I see this kind of headline more and more
Man pleads guilty to tricking pregnant girlfriend into taking abortion pill
Man convicted of killing unborn baby by poisoning his girlfriend with abortion pills
Man jailed for poisoning woman with abortion drugs
Your view creates a greater problem by moving everything inot an economic discussion.
Transferring funds from the DEA and FDA to FEMA for disaster relief should help this a bit.
They do it for..."the children".
I thnk you glory in being a Nominalist because it lets you lampoon everything. IF something were actually done for needy children you could still make fun of them. Now, be a man, and stand up for something and see how lousy you look.Anybody can do the Hillary Clinton ugly takedown routine, but let's see you stand up FOR SOMETHING
I know you think htat is clever but it is self-refuting. Unless you are going to get thought police and torturers involved, we are going to have to debate things without peering into people's heads and wills.
You do it or you don't do it. MANY like you argue for something and are totally oblivious to the everday reality that people can support X for totally opposed reasons. I might dislike govt interference with alcohol because it affects sales from my still in the backyard -- and you think I am in your camp 🙂
Yeah, let's ruin society for one looney tunes 'reason reporter.' Free meth for everyone -- it's in the Constitution somewhere. I'd look for it, but without my Adderall, well, you know.
How about you show me in the constitution where we can’t do what we want with our own bodies ya silly dumb boot licker.
Strap a bunch of C4 around your chest and walk into a public place.
Your right to do what you want with your own body ends when it starts threatening and/or actively destroying everything around you.
Which is the only thing drug users have proven, in spades, that they are capable of. Destruction and ruin. They can't handle it. You belief that you can (you can't) is the exception, not the rule.
I would 100% be with you on this if it weren't for the fact that druggies cause nothing but destruction and ruin no matter where they go. Alcoholics don't do that. Tobacco users don't do that. But Recreational Drug users invariably do.
If you've got a problem with the fact that the majority of drug users ruin it for the people that CAN handle it - take it up with the druggies. Not with the We The People who are completely, utterly, unequivocally sick to death of their druggie BS. If you don't like being lumped in with them, then go do something about them.
Just look at Hunter. Won't support his child !! Serial adulterer...habituee of pronstitutes, seller of political influence.
What needs the hand of the law is not gross violation down the road but the first stepping out of line. This is probably the best illustration of the truth of the Broken Windows theory.
Easy as hell. Suicide laws at time of Constituton and after. Sumptuary laws. Marriage and child support laws.
NOwhere is there support in Constitution for 'you can do anything with your own body" --- at time of Founding suicide, adultery, sodomy sumpturay laws, blue laws ABOUNDIED.
But you are a good argument for not letting people like you keep thier bodies out of school 🙂
The reason we can’t have nice things is because you dumb shitheads keep voting for the lesser of two evils AND support genocide. Really, we need to wipe Israel off the face of the planet at this point.
But if we bo by what is optimal, it would be wiping jerks like you off the planet. Not one word from you in your posting history about the sending of rockets into civilian neighborhoods. I don't know you but I know that not-so-deep-down hate is your motivating force.
NO, we need to shoot anti-semites.
A hater like you can never be a model for anyone except another hater.
If you were killed tomorrow I would not approve it, but the world would be a little sunnier without your relentless hate.
And I’m not talking about taking any lives, we can offer the Zionists immigrant status here in the states and give the land back to the Arabs and Jews. Zionists attempt to engage in genocide over here and we will prosecute them to the full extent of the laws.
In addition, as a requirement for staying in the states they will be required to attend Reason counseling sessions facilitated by you know who!
It will stalinist police measures to see who is Zionist, who is anti-Zionist, who is a cultural Jew, and who is a religious Jew.
Why is there any need at all to get into someone's head. Proscribe certain actions and leave it at that.
You could spend hundreds of thousands adjudicating what is a drug.
These kinds of questions bring up : what constitutes a war on drugs vs just controlling them? What is a drug? How to define it?
Cna an amorphous societal interest stand against my desire to live in an opium dream?
Until you / REASON realize the real problem nothing can be solved.
It is government's complete control over defining what is a drug.
I didn't think I'd see it but here is a disgraceful example
CLINTON IN 1996 declared nicotine an addictive drug
Clinton's proposals would:
- Require the tobacco industry to fund a $150 million education campaign to stop kids from smoking, with a major emphasis on television public service spots.
- Forbid brand-name sponsorship of sporting events and brand-name advertising on products like hats and T-shirts that are not related to tobacco use.
Clinton's initial proposal also included a ban on all cigarette vending machines and self-serve displays, allowing cigarettes to be sold only by clerks over the counter.
Niw, isn't that just complete nonsense. At a mind-numbing cost the govt has to tell you 'your ass is on fire"
What the hell are you talking about. FDA with Ivermectin, now linked to successful cancer treatment.
And DEA ...why did President Clinton do this
By Associated Press
President Clinton declared nicotine an addictive drug and imposed strict limits on tobacco use by minors, the White House said Friday, in a dramatic election-year assault on the tobacco industry.
REASON, you do this all the time , you talk about X and how it should be hands off or encouraged or whatever but you don't realize you are using legally-controlled vocabulary.
There is no need for Clinton to do that. Your appraoch increases crime and violence and, yes , real drug abuse.
REad Mark Twain's "THe Man who Corrupted Hadleyburg"
"In the story, a town has gained a reputation for incorruptibility. Its population is trained to avoid temptation. An offended stranger seeks revenge against the town's population, and starts tempting them with a reward in gold coins for a supposedly forgotten act of kindness. After receiving anonymous tips from the stranger, nineteen of the town's most prominent couples claim the reward under false pretenses. Their dishonesty becomes evident in a public meeting, and they are publicly shamed. The stranger observes that the townspeople were actually easier than usual to corrupt, because their resolve had never been tested"
======> NEVER BEEN TESTED
Clinton said cigaretter are legally addictive. And SG says alcohol causes cancer. .Why is this different from "carrots are good for you, you must eat a minimum of carrots"
Silly? No, every thing you eat, drink and smoke has good and bad effects. I mean if it were all bad you wouldn't do it, right 🙂
Follow up to my prescient tobacco comment
JUST 3 days ago
FDA proposes landmark nicotine limit in cigarettes and certain other combustible tobacco products
you want people to like what you like and dislike what you dislike So now we have MIfepristone and the FDA being touted as safe
but FDA originally said
"It can be used only up to 7 weeks of pregnancy, it must be dispensed by a doctor after an in-person evaluation, the pill must be taken at the doctor’s office, and an in-person follow-up with the doctor is required. Any serious adverse effects would have to be reported to the FDA."
Now boyfriends will be secretly aborting their women and who will know.
Everywhere else REASON is calling what Trump did " A Tariff War" but here they use his own words "it is a drug war"
ANd to me that shows the dishonesty of both views. They call it what will make it look bad for the point they are making.
Well Trump and his NEC point man Kevin Hassett insist it is not a tariff war but a drug war. So let's start with that.
I ask all reason readers incl pro-abortionists : IS NOT THE SAVING ONE LIFE WORTH IT ?
Okay, with limited resources what is good in iteself might not be good in context. you save a cat from a building. Good? No,k not if you bypassed saving a baby that needed saving.
"In 2022, fentanyl was responsible for 200 deaths every day. Over a quarter of a million Americans have died from a fentanyl overdose since 2018. In 2022, 73,654 people died from a fentanyl overdose in the US, more than double the amount of deaths from three years prior in 2019."
Until Reason shows me a better use, this is gold YOu suppoted much more expensive COVID measures.
Is it not the opposite of Libertarianism to support in the name of some drug crusade the right of many males to kill a woman's baby and put her at risk , all with no suspicion for her whole life !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Man tricks pregnant girlfriend into taking abortion pill
Texas man who drugged wife with abortion drug given 180 .days
And childish Eric says : How the FDA and DEA overrule the interests of doctors and patients.
Fla. Man Admits Secretly Giving Girlfriend Abortion Pill
May 18, 2018 — A doctor who slipped an abortion pill into his pregnant girlfriend's tea was sentenced to 20 years in prison Friday, however, he will serve only three years.
A Texas attorney who pleaded guilty to slipping abortion medication into his pregnant wife's drinks was sentenced to 180 days in jail.
Man charged with 'misleading' woman into taking abortion pill
Just to show that REASON is in the pocket of Planned Parenthood and abortionists
"The medical director of a Planned Parenthood in Pennsylvania recently told the media: “If you’re accessing (abortion pills) and you’re not sure where it’s coming from, it’s maybe not regulated. You don’t know exactly what it is. That can definitely be a problem. Potential complications can be bleeding, infection, those kinds of things.”"
The irony in all this falls on the fact that Planned Parenthood themselves refer women directly to these online vendors that send pills recklessly and without any authorization or regulation.