#Login Register
The Vigilant Citizen Forums

DEA Secretly OKs Killer Quantities of Oxy and Morphine

10-25-2015, 12:34 AM #1
Status: Offline Posts:939 Likes Received:830
Good job, feds.

Quote:The federal government is actively fueling a killer drug epidemic behind closed doors.

The Drug Enforcement Administration—tasked with fighting the war on drugs—has for the past two decades approved ever-greater quantities of controlled substances like oxycodone for manufacture and sale in the U.S. by pharmaceutical companies.

In 1993, the DEA allowed pharmaceutical companies to manufacture 3,520 kilograms of oxycodone. In 2015, the DEA authorized production of 137,500 kilograms of oxycodone. That’s a 39-fold increase in 22 years, the equivalent of turning two Buicks into four Boeing 737s. Either Americans are in 39 times more pain than we were 20 years ago, or something else is wrong.

When I was researching my book, American Pain, about a young drug felon who hired a team of doctors and made millions selling oxycodone to addicts posing as pain patients, I dug up the staggering drug manufacturing numbers.

I learned that it isn’t just oxycodone production that the DEA has been jacking up each year. Between 1993 and 2015, the DEA has allowed the production of hydrocodone to increase 12-fold, the production of hydromorphone to increase 23-fold, and the production of fentanyl to increase 25-fold.

(While the DEA did reduce the oxy quota by 8 percent in 2015, possibly because fewer pill mills were around to sell the drugs, the DEA recently announced a small increase in next year’s quota.)

The secret process appears to be less hard bargaining and more rubber-stamping. Each pharmaceutical company applies to make a certain amount of a given controlled substance each year, but the DEA won’t reveal those numbers to the public. The companies and the DEA have negotiation meetings, the content of which is also not made public. The DEA then sets quotas based on “expected need.” The only information the DEA reveals each year is the total amounts requested by the entire industry and the total amounts the DEA is allowing them to produce. The DEA says it would be unfair to the pharmaceutical companies to reveal how many pills the individual companies wanted to manufacture.

These are the same pharmaceutical companies that in the mid-1990s began marketing opioids as safe, i.e., little to no potential for abuse, contradicting thousands of years of human experience with the opium poppy. They’re the same companies that launched massive campaigns to convince doctors that highly addictive narcotics were a first resort for patients with chronic pain.

Since 1999 there have been more than 221,000 fatal overdoses from prescription opiods and illegal heroin. Despite this grim toll, no one in the federal government seems interested in simply reducing the supply. Instead, the DEA and its partners in government have supported policies only if they do not step on Big Pharma’s production, like arresting doctors who prescribe pills for no good reason and funding drug-treatment programs.

Only one time this century, when the country was first becoming aware of OxyContin abuse, was there talk about choking off the drug supply.

In 2001, the DEA asked Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, to consider providing the drug only to physicians trained in pain management. Purdue balked and Donnie R. Marshall, the then-DEA administrator, told Congress he was considering “rolling back those quotas to 1996 levels.” The pain industry said this would make drug prices skyrocket and pain patients suffer. Purdue didn’t budge, and the quota-cut idea vanished when new administrators came in.

Instead, the DEA has gone after bit players instead of Big Pharma. When hundreds of pill mills popped up in Florida after 2008, the DEA and other federal agencies cracked down hard, sending many owners and doctors away for long prison sentences.

That drove up pill prices, and millions of newly minted painkiller addicts began seeking their fixes from heroin. Painkiller production and deaths have leveled off for the moment, but fatal heroin overdoses have quadrupled, driving home the point that, whether the drugs come from the street or a pharmacy, the opioid epidemic is far from over.

Either Americans are in 39 times more pain than we were 20 years ago, or something else is wrong.

The DEA was created in 1973 by President Nixon to fight an “all-out global war on the drug menace.” Soon after it actually did that with success. When speed was popular in the ’70s, the DEA cut the amphetamine production quota by 90 percent and the illicit market dried up. A decade later, sedative-hypnotics like Quaaludes swept across the country, and the DEA cut the quota of the methaqualone by 74 percent, which effectively erased the problem.

Now, prescription opioids are killing far more people than speed or sedatives ever did, but the government has signed off on enormous hikes in the drug supply almost every year.

The idea of making more drugs during a drug epidemic baffled previous DEA administrators like the late Gene Haislip, former head of the DEA’s Office of Diversion Control. Haislip was in charge during the Quaalude crackdown. It hadn’t been easy to buck the powerful pharmaceutical industry, but, as he told a reporter shortly before his death: “You’ve got to have some kind of principles.”

Nobody is suggesting we do away with opioids altogether: They are a godsend for patients suffering from cancer or traumatic injuries. At the very least though, the DEA could use its quota power to force drug companies to make sure their addictive wares aren’t heading to the street. It’s a potent warning: Sell drugs to pill mills and we’ll cut your company’s quota in half.

Even the drug manufacturers who have ignored deaths, lawsuits, and fines might heed that threat.


10-28-2015, 12:12 PM #2
Status: Offline Posts:7 Likes Received:10
So they secretly (Or not so secretly since you know about it) increased production of a drug that is mostly used for medicinal purposes? I'm sure there's a lot of bad stuff in the world but I fail to see how this qualifies as even close to bad
The following 1 user Likes Smurf's post:

A better day Show this Post
10-28-2015, 06:22 PM #3
A better day Unregistered
And at the same time the Dems and RINOs open wide the borders and encourage the drug cartels to ride the U.S. welfare system, a system supplied by the earnings of tax paying citizen.  

Heroin and illegally obtained opoids are not, ARE NOT, the fault of legal medicine.

That doesn't anger me more than the way the Dems blame it on the prescribing physicians! Angry

Or freakin' supplying the junkies with NARCAN so they can live to shoot up another day! Angry

Seems to me the drug cartels maybe "donating" to the Dems and Rinos.

10-28-2015, 10:08 PM #4
Status: Offline Posts:1,958 Likes Received:2252
The fact that you're using RINO makes me raise an eyebrow

10-30-2015, 12:57 AM #5
Status: Offline Posts:939 Likes Received:830
Republicans want open borders -- at least the rich ones do.  It keeps minimum wage low and is muy NWO.

A better day Show this Post
10-30-2015, 07:20 PM #6
A better day Unregistered
For sure,  there are corrupt businesses employing illegal aliens to keep the bottom line low. Those are the RINOs. It's, conservative Republicans, at least when massaging the base, who promise to close the border to the illegal non-citizens (AKA aliens).

But --- it's the Dems who want to fill the welfare rolls in order to fill the voting polls.

Returning to the heroin-opoid topic ---
I'm sure a cabal is going on.  Manipulating the public through drugs is an old practice.  Opium to weaken China, 1800's.  LSD to squash the Marxist rising in the 1960's.

Cocaine money pretty much built Florida back in the 80's.  

The drug scene today is much like the 70's.  Junkies for the most part don't vote, and the ones that do will vote for the Dems, who are the controllers of the welfare dependents .

11-01-2015, 08:04 PM #7
Status: Offline Posts:939 Likes Received:830
There are benefits to the elite in having a doped up population. The control of drugs (and alcohol, to a lesser extant) is used by the powers that be to exert influence on the people who use them.  The more people who are hooked, the more people who can be controlled.  Even if that control is only to stop them from voting.

But Republicans aren't the shining knights of a well-policed southern border.  In fact, the only intelligent thing I've heard on the border in this American presidential race is from Bernie Sanders.

Here's what he said in an interview with Ezra Klein from Vox.

Quote:Ezra Klein
You said being a democratic socialist means a more international view. I think if you take global poverty that seriously, it leads you to conclusions that in the US are considered out of political bounds. Things like sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders. About sharply increasing ...

Bernie Sanders
Open borders? No, that's a Koch brothers proposal.

Ezra Klein

Bernie Sanders
Of course. That's a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States. ...

Ezra Klein
But it would make ...

Bernie Sanders
Excuse me ...

Ezra Klein
It would make a lot of global poor richer, wouldn't it?

Bernie Sanders
It would make everybody in America poorer —you're doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don't think there's any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don't believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs.

You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you're a white high school graduate, it's 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?

I think from a moral responsibility we've got to work with the rest of the industrialized world to address the problems of international poverty, but you don't do that by making people in this country even poorer.

A better day Show this Post
11-02-2015, 12:45 AM #8
A better day Unregistered
Thunderian, I think I'm agreeing with you, somewhat, but from a different POV.  The elite, the uber wealthy, like the Koch Bros., hold both the right and left reins and steer the masses ever closer to slavery. I am aware that NAFTA was A Bush Sr. thang. Angry   IMHO, the long range goal most definitely is a one world government.  Angry  Anything that will slow that down is helpful.  Closing the gate on the illegal immigration is of immediate concern.  IMHO, capitalism, and it does need some regulation, but capitalism creates money, and from that money taxes can be collected and from that large scale infrastructure can be done.   Without an economic system that can generate surplus, there is no money, for anything, including welfare.  I'm not impressed with Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, the former USSR, or the People's Republic of China.  It's not the people, it's their governmental system.