Talk:Drug Enforcement Administration/Archive 1

September 2003
Marijuana has definite medical uses.

Should not be in level 1. Michael Janich 02:16, 3 September 2003 (UTC)


 * Of course it shouldn't. LSD especially shouldn't, as it was proven to cure autism and schizophrenia in some cases during experimentation in the 1950's...  However, it is banned because of lobbying by drug companies to keep LSD and other such 'cures' off the market, so as to increase sales of treatments, which never really cure anything, but help ease the pain as the victim, err, patient descends into disease.  Actually, in terms of autism and schizophrenia, it seems that only depressents are used, which do not help the patient in any way but make them docile so that they can be herded around in mental institutions.


 * Obviously there is something very wrong with the common system of government, and moreover, with the inordinate feudal-style power corporations have over the government...


 * Khranus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.227.222.1 (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2003 (UTC)


 * Marijuana and LSD have no viable medical usages(accusations of big business interference and the wishful thinking of some notwithstanding). Some components of them, such as THC may have. The legalization of recreational drugs is based on public perception of their dangers not on the perceptions of te counter-culture minority. LSD, once touted as the cure for the (not-so)common cold, has been proven in numerous studies conducted by the AMA and others to have long lasting negative (called chronic) effects on the CNS which preclude its daily use. While I generally believe that people should have the personal choice to do what they want I also believe that some will chose to harm themselves in the longterm for a short-term award, and yes, I believe that some people have to be protected against themselves for they are their own worst enemies. The above is simply the uninformed opinion of others--Numerousfalx 14:19, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect in that both Marijuana and LSD have shown great potential in treating a number of severe ailments. LSD was used to treat alcoholics in clinical trials in the 1960s, to treat cluster headaches, and to help bring about a sense of spiritual rest to those with terminal illness. The drug is being explored again in the United States for possible viable uses.
 * Furthermore, LSD is not toxic to the body and does not cause permanent alterations in brain function in users unpredisposed to relevant ailments such as Schizophrenia. There exists the rare cases of Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder. But long-term complications from use of the drug is rare, and death due to the effects of the drug is exceptionally rare.


 * Individual chemicals found in Marijuana also have shown great promise in slowing the spread of cancer, such as Cannabidiol, found to be an antagonist to breast cancer cell growth.
 * This is consistent with a recent, large-scale study finding no increased risk between lung cancer and marijuana smoking.
 * THC has also been found to be preventative of atherosclerosis.
 * The examples pile up fairly quickly, I won't go and list them all.


 * Additionally, I imagine you are not very familiar with the habits of drug users in relation to LSD or Marijuana. Taking LSD is not a short-term arrangement in any sense: the effects of the drug are prolonged (8-12 hours on average), profound, and uncertain as the users state of mind before taking the drug is an essential determining factor to the experience. The impact of a single trip can be life-changing, for the positive or negative, but to say that the gain from LSD is de facto short-term and is invariably mated to some certain damage is ridiculous, as is to imply that LSD users are often or even hardly ever frequent users of the drug. To be one, as in the case of Syd Barret, is actually quite rare. Much the same can be said for Marijuana. Although I would not argue that those who smoke pot regularly gain a lot of important insight and whatnot, I would not argue that it is very harmful if at all. The facts don't support it, they never have.
 * Kst447 (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't you mean wrongfully informed. Khranus's facts are incorrect. LSD was supposed to be a cure for the common-cold. It was never shown to have any use as a psychtrophic drug. And stimulant based drugs are primarily used to treat autism and other physiological brain disorders. Non-stimulant based meds are currently enetering the market. --68.80.223.233 14:23, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * While certain narcotics have both a medical and recreation use, public outcry has prevented the legalization of the narcotics. While alcohol and its derivitives are widely accepted, narcotics are not and until the people reach a consensus (hardly likely) they will reamin illegal. Those US states which allow medical marijuana allow it in the pill form and it is widely perceived by the public as thefirst step in the attempted legalization of narcotics. While the war on drugs isn't going well it does need to be fought whole heartedly with the napalming of those areas that produce the basis and the administration of the Singapore Solution  (ie manditory deathe sentence) to the producers and purveyors thereof. Just my two bits. --Tomtom 19:57, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You are using the term "narcotic" incorrectly. Cannabis and LSD ARE NOT true narcotics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalhead94 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Marijuana is in Schedule I because it cannot be patented and therefore doesn't have any powerful backers in the pharmaceutical industry pulling for it. Contrast that to the regulation of OxyContin. 24.54.208.177 02:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

From Village Pump:

 * Wikipedia & ethics of "sensitive" information

While researching the article on medical prescription, I stumbled across information on what consistutes a valid DEA number (US government's Drug Enforcement Administration). That, is the number of letters and digits and the relationship of the digits and letters within the DEA number. While this information is clearly public, including it Wikipedia certainly aids criminals in prescription forgeries. Should I include it in an article? (The same discussion would apply to credit card numbers, etc.)  Samw 00:40, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with these numbers (hey, an article about the numbers would be good) - what legitimate interest would someone have in finding these numbers in an encyclopedia? -- Finlay McWalter 00:48, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * The information on how valid credit card numbers are constructed is already in Wikipedia, which I don't see as problematic. These are all very simple and openly published checksums, so relying on them to prevent fraud would certainly be foolish.  If there is an article in which the DEA number information would be of interest, I would say go ahead and add it. --Delirium 08:38, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree. I recall that, at age 15, how to construct a valid credit card number was part of my school syllabus (if my memory can be trusted, they have certian prefixes and a mod 10 checksum).  I don't see how a DEA number could be any more sensitive. Stewart Adcock 17:02, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * No answers, but perhaps I can formulate some questions. The big question is, "is it legitimately of interest to someone who's interested in the subject of prescriptions?" Let's put it another way. We normally accept that encyclopedia articles are of legitimate interest to somebody who is not a professional in the field described by the topic. If we truly believed that "A little learning is a dangerous thing/Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring" there would be no point in having an encyclopedia at all. Your article on medical prescriptions (which looks very good, by the way) already contains information about prescription forgeries. I find this information interesting to know, even though I've never forged and never intend to forge a prescription. Normally we assume that the inclusion of information is not tantamount to an enticement to abuse. Personally, I think that information about the internal consistency check algorithm for a valid DEA number is legitimate, while, say, Bill Gates' social security number is not.


 * I tend to agree with those who deprecate "security through obscurity." There was a recent research paper by some computer security gurus who looked at the structure of an ordinary cylinder lock with master-key system. They saw analogies to well-known security issues in computer systems and were surprised to find that the system was extremely insecure. Their publication created a minor flap&mdash;but then it emerged that the security issues had, in fact, been known to locksmiths and criminals literally for over a century. The only people that hadn't known about them were the people that relied on the security of these locks.


 * The second question is: can you get in trouble yourself or get Wikipedia in trouble by including some piece of information? I think I'm not going to even try to guess on this one. Dpbsmith 15:01, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks for everyone's input. I've added a description of the checksum algorithm to Drug Enforcement Administration. Samw 21:39, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"U4EA"
What is U4EA supposed to be? No reference to it by that name on the DEA website. The few references I get when I google for it is from a Beverly Hills 90210 episode, and some who think it's actually 2C-B. --80.202.27.178 09:59, October 28, 2004


 * 4-methylaminorex, but also ecstasy. &#x2014;alxndr&#x00a0; (t) 03:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * For information on this rather obscure drug, your best bet would be to look at Erowid.
 * It is a stimulant, a bit like methamphetamine but supposedly milder.
 * User talk:Macellarius 06:26, 23 February 2006.

November 2005
"Others, such as the ACLU, criticize the very existence of the DEA and the War on Drugs as inimical to the concept of civil liberties by arguing that adults should have the right to put whatever substances they choose into their own bodies."

This may very well be accurate, but is it logical? The ACLU is overlooking the fact that the DEA goes after the distributors of drugs, not so much the users. The way I look at it; you want to use drugs, well, go ahead, fine. Do it. Ruin your own life. But if you cross that line...you start messing with other peoples' lives, you can go to...well, you all know where.

--Dunstonator 01:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Is your statement logical? First you say that choosing to do drugs is ruining your own life, so if someone is supplying market demand (regardless of their personal situation and reasoning) then according to your statement it's the customers choice to ruin their own life not the distributer coercing the individual. The only thing the DEA really does is price support by making selling drugs extremely lucrative, especially to the impoverished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.89.38 (talk) 10:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The fact that a dealer would sell a substance to a user who is ruining his or her own life does not mean that dealer is at fault. It is the same concept as a liquor store and an alcoholic, the same as a compulsive gambler at a casino etc.


 * Furthermore, Duns severely oversimplifies the issue when he asserts that "the DEA goes after the distributors of drugs, not so much the users" in that the DEA has the final decision as to which drugs are scheduled and into what category. The DEA's authority to create drug policy supercedes that of administrative law judges, of the FDA, and of course of all state and local governments. Duns would seem to be insinuating that a Schedule I at the federal level isn't extraordinarily significant in relation to how states will follow suite in terms of legislation which provides for prosecution of individuals for mere possession of a substance, something which is patently false.
 * Kst447 (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Section: Impact on the Drug Trade
It's relevant, correct, and meticulously sourced. However, there may be a problem with law enforcement agents vandalizing this information for political reasons. Hopefully everybody can act like adults and let the facts speak for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.129.52.231 (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This section should be moved further down the page, and the general history and overview of the agency should come before this polemic. The language has a clearly pro-drug legalization bias.  It's making a case for the acceptance of drug usage, beyond the scope of merely presenting drug abatement "effectiveness" of the DEA.  A couple of links to citations hardly counts as "meticulously sourced", and it is only partly "correct".  This section's presentation is rife with opinion mixed in with its facts, and needs clean-up for more objective voice.  Presenting facts without bias is also a way adults should act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddgee (talk • contribs) 14:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Internal link to Quantico, Virginia
IMHO we should rather link to Marine Corps Base Quantico ("Both the United States Drug Enforcement Administration's training academy and the FBI Academy are on the base"). Apokrif 16:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Changing mention of ACLU in 'Criticism' section
The 'Criticism' section currently says "Others, such as the ACLU criticize the very existence of the DEA and the War on Drugs as inimical to the concept of civil liberties by arguing that anybody should be free to put any substance they choose into their own bodies for any reason..." and this is quite properly flagged as unsubstantiated. As far as I can tell, the ACLU has never criticized the pure existence of the DEA, only specific policies and mechanisms, and has never made a blanket statement about a person's right to their body vis-a-vis drugs. From http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/gen/10831res20051128.html ("About the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project") : "The Drug Law Reform Project is a division of the national ACLU. Our goal is to end punitive drug policies that cause the widespread violation of constitutional and human rights, as well as unprecedented levels of incarceration. ... We will continue that tradition of success, combining litigation, education, and community empowerment to achieve a humane and sensible drug policy that respects basic human rights and the liberties enshrined in our nation’s Constitution."

I am changing this section to reflect this. --JdwNYC 18:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Article seems quite biased in favor of those who want less drug enforcement
Remember this is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry, and the issue of legalizing certain drugs should be a separate issue that needs only be mentioned briefly in this article.

This article seems to mention only criticisms against the DEA and very little about their history. What about their successes against drug cartels in South and Central America? I'm not sure if I agree with "War on Drugs" either, but the drug lords who profit from the narcotics trade are hardly saints - far from it, the crimes of Escobar, Noriega, or even random groups do present a danger to the public through increased violence and crime. Now some drugs are more dangerous than others, but realistically more narcotics has always equalled more guns. For this article, in addition to the agency's history I think there definitely needs to be more said about the DEA's contribution to law enforcement and crime reduction.--Acefox 18:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you should realize that drug lords are probably the most pleased out of anyone with prohibition. With prohibition replaced with legalization and regulation, their customer base would shrivel and blow away with the wind. So no matter how many people the DEA provides for arrest, prosecution, and conviction, it should be made clear that the DEA is the drug lord's hardest-working and most heavily-funded group of employees outside an actual drug cartel. Without this organization, the limited competition and sky-high prices which exist in the drug trade now would disappear.


 * Having said all that, I agree that the article should be well-balanced, but that criticisms of the DEA's existence, role, and behavior should remain because the role of the organization is important and unique and the controversy levied against it is long-standing and can be viewed as legitimate.
 * Kst447 (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

June 2007
Added request for citation of statement: Furthermore, illegal drug trafficking profits only criminal elements and terrorist groups who would use the funds to spread further violence to other areas. I have heard the "drugs fund terrorism" line frequently and have yet to be given a source which supports the assertion. While the conclusion seems reasonable based upon common sense, common sense cannot replace the need for actual facts.Mtiffany71 05:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Budget info is way off
The top of the page says that the FY 2006 budget was about $2.4 million. Should that be billion? the FY 2005 budget was $1.6 billion so the '05 number is in the billions, though I don't know if it is as high as $2.4B. What is the source for this info? It makes me wonder how far off the employee info is. Maybe it would be best to just find the '07 info so it is a little more current. Docely (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The DEA Home Site will lead you to a recap of the budget from 1972 - 2011. The total of these years is approximately $40Billion with 2010 being the high point at $2.4Billion. The claim in the article that the total is over $500Billion seems very inaccurate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.174.100.163 (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

DEA Museum and Visitors Center
is missing.


 * Location: Washington, D.C.
 * URL: http://www.deamuseum.org/

87.234.41.130 (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Office of Aviation Operations emblem
use? 87.234.41.130 (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Caption of Photo Vandalized
I noticed that the photo of two armed DEA agents has been vandalized. While it has appeared on the DEA website to illustrate training exercises, it has been improperly captioned "Two DEA agents prepare to use violence to enforce prohibition." I am changing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leesamuel (talk • contribs) 13:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This wasn't vandalism. Training is preparation, too. They don't engage in a shoot house exercise just for fun. I am reverting this. --mms (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It may or may not be vandalism, but it is certainly not neutral-point-of-view. The photo is clearly most directly described as being of a shoot-house training exercise.  Describing it as "violence to enforce prohibition" is point-of-view-motivated obfuscation rather than a clear, encylcopedic explanation. Ketone16 (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

education
presuing a career in the DEA you need a bachors degree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.167.172 (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

US vs. U.S.
With regard to the recent "edit war" about the appropriate abbreviation for the United States, I contend that the abbreviation should be U.S. (with periods), not US (without periods). Swamilive contends that it should be US (without periods), as that abbreviation is "more standard," and "becoming more common" as per the WP:MoS. That argument neglects the fact that the WP:MoS says that "US is becoming more common and is standard in other national forms of English," where here "other" means countries other than the United States.  The same section in the Manual of Style says that "[i]n American English, U.S. is the standard abbreviation for United States" (emphasis on "standard" added), so "becoming more common" still implies that it is not the standard in American English. In that case, I argue that the WP:MoS section on "national varieties of English" that says "[a]n article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation" is appropriate for this article. The article is about a specific U.S. government agency. The DEA even uses U.S. to write its own name, as in "U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration," and the U.S. Government Printing Office's Style Manual specifies U.S. as the correct abbreviation for federal government use. For this reason, I believe U.S. (with periods), which is standard in American English, should be the standard abbreviation in this article. Ketone16 (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, there do not appear to be any holes in your argument, so I will leave the periods in. However, I might suggest we replace the image of the badge on the top of the page to one which reflects the proper punctuation.  Cheers.  Swamilive (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For god's sake you two, if you can't settle on an abbreviation someone might as well just change them all to say 'United States', or 'USA'. It doesn't matter in any case, everybody knows what you're talking about anyways so both of you need to GROW UP! Squirtle417 —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * LOLs! Swamilive (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actual location
In reference to the diff, is this one of those federal installation that, like the CIA, has no actual physical address? EVCM (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * DEA headquarters is located in Arlington County, Virginia and it has a street address. The address you used is the mailing address, which is located in Alexandria, Virginia. Ketone16 (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

misnomer?
if "law enforcement" means making people obey the law, what means "drug enforcement"? making people using drugs? or is it "drug-law enforcement administration"? --Homer Landskirty (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

New development: Obama administration
According to this San Francisco Chronicle article, "U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is sending strong signals that President Obama - who as a candidate said states should be allowed to make their own rules on medical marijuana - will end raids on pot dispensaries in California." Just wanted to point this out in case the information in the article can be used to improve this page. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 06:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

DEA statistics on purity and price of drugs
I edited the article to say that while the DEA says price is increasing and purity is decreasing, this is shown to be the opposite by countless other studies. This edit was reverted almost immediately before I could cite my sources. I am going to change the article again. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.61.44 (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Was Elvis a DEA agent?
Check this section (a little below the photo of him and Nixon), and this. 192.30.202.15 (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

How many DEA offices are there in Canada?
I understand there's one in Vancouver; that got Canadian Marc Emery in trouble.192.30.202.15 (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Answer to my own question []. There are two: Ottawa and Vancouver; and apparently the Canadian government works well with them.192.30.202.15 (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

kicked out of bolivia
no mention of the DEA being kicked out of bolivia by evo morales a few years ago, due to the book "big white lie" by ex-DEA agent michael levine and the book's claims that the CIA had collaborated with the Bolivian Suarez cartel to carry out the 1980 "Cocaine Coup"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.170.248.36 (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Juarez Cartel and La Linea declare war to DEA
Just recently, the Juarez Cartel and their armed wing La Linea declared war to DEA. After the capture of 'El Diego,' former leader of La Linea, 'El Gato' took over, and now plans to carry out attacks against DEA and other U.S. agents.

Anyhow, do you guys think this information should be included in the article? I think this threat is increasingly important for the U.S. government, thus deserving a section in this article. ComputerJA (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MX (talk • contribs) 18:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds more reasonable to include in an article about the Mexican drug war. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Source giving Spanish translation
http://www.justice.gov/ndic/spanish/13438/13438p.pdf WhisperToMe (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Impact on the drug trade section
This section of the article recently has been modified to include a substantial lead paragraph that appears to be entirely analysis based on original research in violation of Wikipedia's No Original Research policy. I have tagged it as such and therefore it is subject to deletion if the statements it contains are not properly attributed per Wikipedia policy on verifiability. Since more than half the section now has no citations to reliable sources at all, I also added a tag saying the section needs more citations. The statements in this paragraph are not widely accepted facts of the impact of DEA enforcement operations on the drug trade, as the final sentence in the paragraph even admits; therefore they need to be attributed to some informed analysis that can be attributed to a reliable source. I will leave the section alone for now in order to let other editors improve it, but if it is not improved I will delete the lead paragraph per Wikipedia policy. Ketone16 (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Chong incident
I have edited the discussion of this incident to better reflect the Wikipedia policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. Most of the cited reliable sources reflect only Chong's claims about the incident, since the DEA largely has declined comment other than to say that they did confine Chong for days, although they claim the extended confinement was accidental rather than intentional. Marginalizing this claim by putting "accidental" in quotation marks is pushing a POV (specifically, the POV that the DEA officials are lying), as are the statements about illegal detention and torture. If some investigative committee or court finds that the detention was intentional and constitutes torture, then it's fine to make those statements (with proper attribution), but not before, since that is merely a statement of opinion (contrary to Wikipedia policy on original research). I also think that removing the statements about the facts of the drug raid (a raid on a suspected MDMA operation that resulted in the seizure of a large quantity of MDMA as well as other drugs and weapons) is pushing a POV, since those are facts that were listed in almost all of the cited sources. I note that the editor of the discussion of this incident claims to want the discussion to be complete. Ketone16 (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Impact on the drug trade Section's Objections
''Objections? BRING HERE BEFORE EDITING'' The section seems logical and passes validity testing; however it seems to be prone to vandalism. If there is something specific that can be shown to be objectionable; please bring it forward here. The only flaw thus far I can see is some objectionable grammar. However, this is, indeed, objective. Objective Reason (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been a month and there's been two more erroneous vandalism attacks without even attempting to address a single point. I will therefore remove the tag and hope this page will not need semi-protection Objective Reason (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Um, it currently reads like an op-ed piece, and cites only an ideological source (the Ludwig von Mises institute). It seems like Wikipedia is more and more full of this kind of silliness lately.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.19.7 (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I see no evidence of an "op-ed" outside the demeanor you are expressing yourself here on this talk page. Engaging in pathos appeals towards "silliness" does not grant yourself credibility to delete an entire section. Nor have you provided a SINGLE piece of evidence illustrating how this is an "op-ed". Is everything verifiable? It appears as such. Please quote passages that are not written objectively.Objective Reason (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * And to be clear, another commenter above (which you ignored in favor of creating a new section here) already pointed out the obvious problems with that section (hint: "seems logical" is not the test here), which you seem obsessed with. I just deleted it again, but I'm sure you'll add it back soon.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.19.7 (talk) 05:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Engaging in personal attacks, through an 'ad-hominem fallacy' is an appeal that is an emotional appeal that diverts content of discussion away from subject matter. Unless you can illustrate any logical correlation against a username to this heading it has no relevance to this article nor does it serve your credibility particularly well. Please read the Wikipedia guidelines if you would like to make any comments relevant to the article title and not usernames. Objective Reason (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Impact on the drug trade - nobel prize, milton freidman
ok, so without spreading this shit storm into another article... the link for Nobel Prize directs to the general article on the prizes with the qualifier "winning economist" assumed to specify which prize.. i'm going to tidy that up by linking to the specific award. saying Nobel Prize winning economist does seem to imply what we know to be the truth about which award freidman won, but it could be seen as imprecise (e.g. an economist could win the nobel prize in literature). and even though i disagree with the name of the article for the prize, i'm leaving it as the title of the article... this is giving me a big headache.... i just don't see how there has to be a discussion, consensus and plea bargain on what to name something that already has a name all because lazy journalists call it something else, and everyone else just follows suit.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sensorsweep (talk • contribs) 07:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

DEA may be editing this article
An IP address in a residential area near the DEA headquarters made three edits, one of which removed a POV tag with no explanation. I reverted the edit, asking that they not remove tags without explanation/justification. I also pointed out that their IP address (and the fact that they weren't registered) suggested they may be biased by association. This, of course, isn't definite, but is something we should always keep an eye out for. The POV tag was removed again by a different IP address in the same area, again with no explanation. It therefore seems that the DEA may be editing this page, and in a way that serves their own interest. Please keep an eye out for any POV edits. Thanks.

Exercisephys (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it's the DEA, nor do I know who you are. I do agree with you, however, that these edits are not being made in a diplomatic effort. In fact, there has been some vandalism upon review. I affirm your caution. Watch this page Objective Reason (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Any POV problems on this page are almost surely going to be anti-DEA. As it stands, this article is somewhat entertaining to read. 107.199.113.209 (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, the tinfoil hats are really getting a workout here. I take it by "near the DEA headquarters" you mean somewhere in the DC region?  Obviously that proves who's behind it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.19.7 (talk) 05:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

assessment
A good pitch, but need to be able to verify the statements, need to get references in there. I am pro-legalization, but I have to admit this section is highly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.64.49 (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

New criticism sub-section
I recently added a new criticism sub-section regarding the DEA's propaganda efforts. Could a more experienced wikipedian help me with the citation, and perhaps with the language of the text. Thanks.Skberry889 (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * First off I cleaned it up because the revision had a lot of POV in it. Also you need to find citations for those criticisms, the DEA's own anti-marijuana report doesn't have those criticisms so you need to find places with those criticisms. - SantiLak  (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This section still lacks any citations and possibly represents original research. I think that unless citations are produced, this section should be deleted.  Is there anyone familiar with this sub-topic who can provide citations?  Ketone16 (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Angry
Do the people who work at the DEA have a right to be very, very angry and furious at the suspects? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.127.244 (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Drug Enforcement Administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150713003814/http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs11/13853/avail.htm to http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs11/13853/avail.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140222202857/http://www.millionmarijuanamarch.com/mmm1_047.htm to http://www.millionmarijuanamarch.com/mmm1_047.htm

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Drug Enforcement Administration
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Drug Enforcement Administration's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "CNN": From Afghanistan:  From National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency: "Secretive map agency opens its doors", CNN.com, December 13, 2002 From 2008 Mumbai attacks:  From Netflix:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Drug Enforcement Administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119062135/http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/1797.html to http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/1797.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110911203541/http://www.drugtext.org/library/research/mdma/archive/15/default.htm to http://www.drugtext.org/library/research/mdma/archive/15/default.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120711132108/http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/04/11527375-students-ordeal-how-was-daniel-chong-lost-in-dea-detention to http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/04/11527375-students-ordeal-how-was-daniel-chong-lost-in-dea-detention
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927223607/http://www.peterrdevries.nl/programma/textprogramma021005.htm to http://www.peterrdevries.nl/programma/textprogramma021005.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111024173130/http://www.deamuseum.org/ida/index.html to http://www.deamuseum.org/ida/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Drug Enforcement Administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070526082104/http://www.dea.gov/pubs/history/1999-2003.html to http://www.dea.gov/pubs/history/1999-2003.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070810114233/http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/08aug20051500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2005/julqtr/pdf/28cfr0.102.pdf to http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/08aug20051500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2005/julqtr/pdf/28cfr0.102.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080722205257/http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/agency/domestic.htm to http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/agency/domestic.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070513034556/http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/job/agent/bef_drugQuest.html to http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/job/agent/bef_drugQuest.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080920235245/http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/programs/aviation.htm to http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/programs/aviation.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150103090908/http://www.dea.gov/about/history/staffing.shtml to http://www.dea.gov/about/history/staffing.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140926175332/http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/may/01/man-abandoned-dea-cell-steps-forward/ to http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/may/01/man-abandoned-dea-cell-steps-forward
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121005171533/http://articles.cnn.com/2008-11-01/world/bolivia.dea_1_bolivian-government-autonomy-movement-chapare?_s=PM%3AWORLD to http://articles.cnn.com/2008-11-01/world/bolivia.dea_1_bolivian-government-autonomy-movement-chapare?_s=PM%3AWORLD

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)