Why would they do anything about that? It’s their job to set and enforce quotas, not to ensure access. From their perspective, I’d imagine that tight quotas make them feel reassured that they’ve got a lid on diversion concerns.
It does sound like the quota-setting system was designed for an era where the “legitimate” growth wasn’t on the order of “10% a year for 15 years”:
You're right that the DEA's quota system prioritizes diversion control over access, and it's clearly stuck in a bygone era unfit for todays demand growth. But it's baffling that Big Pharma, with its lobbying muscle, hasn't pushed Congress to modernize this bottleneck. Surely they'd profit from looser quotas.
Instead of hoping for a Trump EO to nuke the DEA (literally or figuratively), why not redistribute Controlled Substance Act enforcement? Agencies like the FBI or HHS already handle overlapping domains. The DEA's rigid gatekeeping, especially on research and quotas, stifles innovation more than it curbs abuse.
Or if the court overturned Wickard v Filburn. The Federal power to regulate substances like this at all is based on a butterfly effect version of the commerce clause.
It does sound like the quota-setting system was designed for an era where the “legitimate” growth wasn’t on the order of “10% a year for 15 years”:
https://www.additudemag.com/adderall-shortage-dea-stimulants...