| DEA Statement |
Response |
| The mission of the Drug Enforcement Administration is to enforce the
controlled substances laws and regulations of the United States and to bring to the
criminal and civil justice system of the United States or any other competent
jurisdiction, those organizations, and principal members of organizations, involved in the
growing, manufacture, or distribution of controlled substances appearing in or destined
for illicit traffic in the United States; and to recommend and support nonenforcement
programs aimed at reducing the availability of illicit controlled substances on the
domestic and international markets. |
That's a nice sounding statement, but the mission of the drug enforcement
authorities in the United States has never been quite that simple. The truth is that
the DEA and its predecessors were primarily the result of the most cynical political
ploys, and the history of these agencies is among the dirtiest and most ridiculous
chapters of American history. For some good examples of this, we invite you read
the many Historical References, particularly
Professor Whitebread's Piece, The History of the
Non-Medical Use of Drug in the United States, as well as the historical portions of
The Consumers Union Report on Licit
and Illicit Drugs, and Dan Baum's excellent work on modern history, Smoke and Mirrors. |
| In carrying out its mission, DEA is the lead agency responsible for the
development of overall Federal drug enforcement strategy, programs, planning, and
evaluation. DEA's primary responsibilities include: |
|
- Investigation and preparation for prosecution of major violators of controlled
substances laws operating at interstate and international levels;
|
We think you ought to become acquainted with some of the people the DEA
has put in jail. See: Families Against Mandatory
Minimums
The November Coalition
The Prisoners Page
Human Rights 95 |
- Management of a national drug intelligence system in cooperation with Federal, state,
local, and foreign officials to collect, analyze, and disseminate strategic and
operational drug intelligence information;
|
This wouldn't even be necessary, except for the fact that prohibition has
made it immensely profitable for criminals to set up massive drug distribution networks. |
- Seizure and forfeiture of assets derived from, traceable to, or intended to be used for
illicit drug trafficking;
|
If civil forfeiture was being enforced solely against real drug
traffickers, this wouldn't be a problem. But, sadly, that isn't the case. We
recommend that everyone become acquainted with the rampant abuses in this part of the law.
See Forfeiture Endangers American Rights. |
- Enforcement of the provisions of the Controlled Substances Act as they pertain to the
manufacture, distribution, and dispensing of legally produced controlled substances;
|
It should be noted that there are severe penalties for illegal drugs,
which kill perhaps 10,000 people per year, while there are no penalties for alcohol or
tobacco, which kill at least fifty times that many. It should also be noted that
the Controlled Substances Act is just another face for the same old illogical drug policy.
Alcohol and tobacco are not covered at all. Heroin is completely prohibited,
although there is no significant medical distinction from morphine, which is a legal
medical drug. |
- Coordination and cooperation with Federal, state and local law enforcement officials on
mutual drug enforcement efforts and enhancement of such efforts through exploitation of
potential interstate and international investigations beyond local or limited Federal
jurisdictions and resources;
|
It sure sounds great but, in practical terms, it means very little.
There has been such a history of infighting between various agencies that they actually
created a "Drug Czar" (William Bennett was the first one) to try to bring them
all together. Recent news stories consistently indicate that no such unity has yet
been achieved and various events hint at extreme disarray in the Drug Czar's office, which
never did have the power to achieve what was desired, anyway. |
- Coordination and cooperation with other Federal, state, and local agencies, and with
foreign governments, in programs designed to reduce the availability of illicit abuse-type
drugs on the United States market through nonenforcement methods such as crop eradication,
crop substitution, and training of foreign officials;
|
This is such things as the marijuana eradication programs which seem to
seize more and more every year, and still haven't made a perceptible dent in either the
demand or the supply. If you are interested in some economic humor, look at the grossly
inflated values attributed to what they seized. The DEA commonly attributes the most
ridiculous values to what they seized in order to inflate their own importance.
Their most common method of calculation is to quote the value as the total value if the
drug was diluted to the maximum limit and then sold in the smallest possible units to the
most foolish idiot on the street. It is the same type of value you would get if you
assumed that every tobacco cigarette in the United States was sold individually, at ten
dollars each.
What they fail to notice is that, according to their own value of seizures figures,
compared with their estimates of the percentage they actually seize, the total value of
the drug business must be far larger than they estimate. |
- Responsibility, under the policy guidance of the Secretary of State and U.S.
Ambassadors, for all programs associated with drug law enforcement counterparts in foreign
countries; and
|
As the Dutch, and now the Australian officials can tell you, this
basically means heavy arm-twisting to make other countries fall into line with hard-line
US policies. The DEA does not take kindly to any other countries which want to
experiment with any other approach to the drug problem. When Australia was recently
considering heroin maintenance trials, after the good experience in the Swiss heroin
maintenance trials, they received visits from American officials who informed them in no
uncertain terms that even experimenting with other approaches to heroin would lead the US
to take severe repressive actions against the legal Tasmanian opium growers -- who weren't
even a party in any way to the proposed heroin trial.
Why would the DEA and its allies do this? The simple reason is that the current
policy, and the DEA's supposed administration of it, is a long-term fraud. Even a
successful heroin trial in far-off Australia is likely to call into question the very
basis of the US approach to drugs. |
- Liaison with the United Nations, Interpol, and other organizations on matters relating
to international drug control programs.
|
This is found in the Single Convention Treaty on Narcotics which binds
signatory countries to a prohibitionist approach to drugs. It is most commonly used
in the excuse that we can't change our policy because we are bound by the Single
Convention Treaty -- never mind the fact that the Single Convention Treaty was a creation
of US policy in the first place. |
DRCNet
Response to the