Put These Guys In Rehab: The Government's Hooked On The Drug War

The war on drugs has now gone on three times as long as the Vietnam war, with no end in sight and no good reason to believe it can ever be won. Richard Nixon declared the war in 1971, and its aim, as stated later by an act of Congress, was a drug-free society by 1995. If that is still the objective, plainly we have lost. In 1980 there were 50,000 people in custody for drug-related crimes. Twenty years later, the number was 400,000. The price of locking up all those people climbed above $8.5 Billion. In 1980 some 580,000 people were arrested on drug charges.

Almost 1.6 million individuals were arrested in 2000 for alleged drug offenses, and some of them have, no doubt, joined the ever expanding prison population. Nevertheless, drugs are more available, cheaper and purer in content than ever. Inevitably, the drug warriors say they are fighting hard but they don't have the resources.

What they need is more money.

In this sense, the war on drugs has come to resemble many other big government programs and bureaucracies whose raison d'etre cannot be found in any mission statement.

Why? Because they are interest groups, and the real reason for their existence, their true mission, is to exist.

And to grow. More often than not, the best way to grow is to fail.

It works for Amtrak, the Postal Service and the Department of Education (the worse kids do in school, the more lavishly Congress funds this agency), so why not the war on drugs?

The drug warriors are, in a paradoxical way, fortunate to be fighting an unwinnable war. After a real war, troops are demobilized, weapons programs are canceled and generals are sent into retirement on half pay. But in an endless war, the money to carry on the fight more and more of it keeps rolling in until the end of time.

According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the federal government will spend more than $19.2 billion waging the war on drugs in 2003. That sum is $7.6 billion more than what it spent 10 years ago, and has increased by 7 percent in the past two years.

State and local governments will spend at least $20 billion more. That buys a lot of enforcement. A drug-sniffing dog with handler runs between $40,000 and $60,000 a year. A police cruiser equipped to handle dogs goes for about $25,000. A DEA agent starts somewhere between $25,000 and $40,000.

Money creates its own constituencies, and those lucky recipients tend to favor the status quo. No interest group has ever voted itself out of existence or asked Congress for less money than it received in the previous year. The people who depend on the war on drugs for their livelihood are no different. Consider, for example, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association union of prison guards that contributed more than $2 million to the campaign of the present governor of California. It has more political muscle than any lobby in the most populous state in the union. The CCPOA campaigned vigorously against a plan to send nonviolent drug offenders to treatment instead of prison.

The union has a big stake in the war on drugs and an incentive to push for its escalation. More drug busts means more convicts, and that means more jobs for prison guards and a larger union membership and war chest.

The longer the war on drugs fails, the better the union likes it.

Before drug offenders can be jailed, they must be arrested and prosecuted. That, of course, costs money.

Like prison guards and DEA agents, a lot of judges and prosecutors owe their livelihoods to the war on drugs.

Their salaries, pensions, health insurance ( which includes drug rehab, no doubt ) and all the rest are picked up by the taxpayer who, in turn, may be picked up himself if he is suspected of fooling around with the wrong kind of drugs. Because a lot of the people who are busted for drugs can't afford to pay for their own legal defense, the state ( i.e., the taxpayer ) picks up the bill for the lawyer who tries to keep the drug offender out of jail, as well as for the one who is trying to send him there.

Just about the only people involved in a routine drug trial who are not on the government payroll are the jurors who get $30 a day and a ham sandwich for lunch.

The time lost to jury duty on drug cases by otherwise productive citizens is just one of a profusion of hidden costs of the drug war.

When you begin to consider these hidden and ancillary costs, you come to realize the true magnitude of the waste.

The official, on the books cost of this war is $609 a second.

The real cost is much greater and, because the economic distortions are so large, not really determinable.

For example, the zealous pursuit of drug criminals leads inevitably to a lot of bad arrests.

Consider the case of the woman who was strip searched at O'Hare airport and later collected $129,750 in damages when she took the narcs to court.

There will be large judgments coming in favor of the people who were stopped under racial profiling policies used to make drug busts. The drug war's failures can sometimes be too expensive to calculate in dollars and cents.

Consider, for instance, the death of a seven month old girl named Charity who was a passenger, along with her missionary parents, in a plane shot down by the Peruvian Air Force as part of the U.S.financed war on drugs.

In daily life, the drug war imposes more mundane costs of inconvenience on everyone. Those long lines of cars at the Mexican and Canadian borders are a cost, in terms of time lost. Time, after all, is money, especially if you are in the transportation business.

There is also the cost of the fuel burned by all those idling engines.

Not to mention the pollution they produce.

Drug tests are required by many companies that conduct business with the government, and the drug test industry is worth some $5.9 billion.

Does that money represent an efficient use of resources?

If you're smoking a powerful substance, the answer might be yes. The fact is that in 1990, 38 federal agencies spent $11.7 million on tests for 0.5 percent positive results. Each drug user, then, cost about $77,000.

We also have to consider what is not done with the money that goes to wage war on drugs.

If you spend money on a prison instead of a school, the long-term cost comes in the form of uneducated, unskilled kids who might just turn to selling drugs to make a living.

Or using them to ease the boredom. But, hey, you have a prison, so you'll have someplace to put them when the bill comes due.

And there is the cost of wasted opportunities and undeveloped resources.

It costs about as much to imprison someone as it does to send him to a good college. But factor in the lost wages ( and taxes ) of what might otherwise have been a productive citizen.

Add in the cost of welfare for the dependents of the jailed person and the salary of the parole officer who will supervise that person after he is released.

Taking someone prisoner in the war on drugs costs a lot of money ( as much as $450,000, according to one estimate ), and it is not a onetime expense.

In the most extreme case, society loses a taxpayer ( a productive resource ) and gains at least one, and maybe several, long term dependents. This may be good for prison guards and social workers.

But it isn't much of a bargain for the remaining taxpayers who pay the bill.

Then there is the cost of crimes committed by the violent felons who should be in prison but are released early because the space required to house them is taken up by drug offenders serving mandatory minimum sentences.

A few years ago, the state of Florida released murderers, among others, according to a formula called gain time, because it needed the beds to handle drug offenders serving long sentences.

Gain time isn't always the same as good time. In some cases, in fact, it was nothing more than time served. Some of the murderers who were released returned to violent crime, including murder.

Finally, there is the cost of putting our law enforcement energies into the war on drugs instead of, say, the war on terrorism, where the return could have been much more satisfying. Between 1992 and 1998, the FBI increased its number of convictions by almost 70 percent.

After September 11, one could reasonably ask if the FBI might have been fighting the wrong war. If the priorities of the FBI had been different, perhaps events might also have been different on September 11. That is one of those imponderables, like the actual economic costs of that terrible day.

One small cost of the drug war that has been documented is the more than $3 million that went for ads during the Super Bowl. Rather than concede the possibility that a full scale war on drugs might not be the best use of the nation's will and resources, the drug warriors spent all that money to propagandize for their war and piggyback on the public's support for the war on terrorism. According to the ads, if you do dope, the money you spend on drugs goes into the pockets of terrorists.

Ah, yes. And marijuana is a gateway to hard drugs, LSD causes birth defects, and so on. The $3 million plus is chicken feed in the big scheme of things ( and the war on drugs is a big scheme, if ever there were one ). The heavy handed pitch is pretty much in line with what we have come to expect. Of course, you could point out that Osama bin Laden is a Saudi of considerable wealth.

Saudi money comes, directly or indirectly, from oil. So maybe someone should have created an ad about how if you drive a gas guzzling SUV, you are financing terrorists. Such an ad would have provoked outrage, and rightly so. But the drug warriors didn't take much criticism for their Super Bowl spots.

Probably because we have all grown weary. The drug war has been going on so long that we expect it, like farm subsidies, to go on forever.

The difference, of course, is that when you pay farmers not to grow crops, you are just wasting money.

When you pay for a war on drugs, you waste lives. If we are going to pay so extravagantly for such meager results ( the drugs keep coming in and people keep using them ), then maybe it is time to pay off the drug warriors.

Give them the money, but only if they do nothing.

The only other solution, after such a long exercise in futility, is to recognize that what we really need to do is declare war on the war on drugs

Because the US is systematically being de-industrialized, it must do something to prop up the economy. Eventually half the population will be behind bars, and the other half will be guarding them and paying taxes. The perfect service economy.

Regards

J.R.

Having a choice is the very definition of freedom.....right??? Your choice is three hots and a cot on the taxpayers dime or work and pay taxes. What a country. A perfect closed loop, service economy

Regards

J.R.

This is THE point... All other arguments fall under this one...

Who owns your body???

You???

Or the State???

If you think the War on Some Drugs is good, then you believe the state owns your body and should choose for you what you are allowed to ingest...

That means you believe people should be slaves to the government...

Who said slavery was dead??

actually, I think you're missing the main pro-WoD arguements:

People who oppose the WoD are drugies, so ad-hominem is good
People who post things from Playboy are drugies, so reject their arguements
It's fur the chilluns
So you want a crackhouse in your neighborhood? I sure don't!
Libertarians are drugies. It's easier to say they support child porn than to counter their arguements
Big government is good, if it's our people in control

I find the authors ideas about paying off people like Asa Hutchinson so that they don't rape the Constitution anymore amusing, but sad that we're held hostage to their whims in such a manner...

At this point, I'd even be happy if they just legalized marijuana, and tabled the "rare white powders" issue for another day...

Yes, those are definitely the drug warriors main arguments...

Yet all they do is beat around the bush... They don't bring up the bigger picture...

By taking their arguments to the next integration, it is plain to see that they advocate slavery...

Slavery of the sovereign American citizen to the government...

They just can't really come out and say it... Yet...

But they are getting bolder...

The official, on the books cost of this war is $609 a second. The real cost is much greater and, because the economic distortions are so large, not really determinable.

Are we winning yet?

Great article. Playboy has done "drug" articles before, but this may be the best one.

Not to nitpick, but I object to this sentence:

The time lost to jury duty on drug cases by otherwise productive citizens is just one of a profusion of hidden costs of the drug war.

I believe most "drug cases" are pleaded, and never go to court. Yes, with 400,000 people in jail on "drug chrages", you can bet most went to trial. But last time I had jury duty, the last words I would use to describe most jurers would be "productive citizens". As many people say, they were just "to stupid to get out of jury duty".

Anyway, great article. Its good to see an article in Playboy that bashes big government. Their "drug articles" don't usualy take that approach.

The time lost to jury duty on drug cases by otherwise productive citizens is just one of a profusion of hidden costs of the drug war.

The WOD will end the same way the first prohibition ended. The people will have had enough, and they will start to aquit anyone who is accused of a non violent drug offence. It only takes one juror per trial.

Yeah, I was kinda surprised by that one too. Playboy is generally big on government -- like any other mainstream media outlet. Guess they're against government now that a Republican is in office. In any event, it's nice to see people realizing just how much this abortion is costing us every year. That could start some gears turning -- and they'll start to realize the greater costs to our culture and civil liberties.

I'm just waiting for people like Kevin Curry to show up and tell us how we're all socialists for wanting people to be free to make their own choices, as long as they are willing to accept full responsibility for their actions...and then try to convince us that he is a Conservative, although he wants Nanny State Government to "protect society from itself."

Cause I mean, it worked so well last time in the 20's and 30's....

I know, it's rather ironic. The same people who are supporting the WoD are the fools saying they want to trade liberties for security, are the same idiots looking surprised when the government reduces gun rights. . .

Thanks for the bump. I kinda like the $609 per second cost breakdown. It takes me about 20 seconds per bong hit (cleaning, loading, lighting and smoking) so I'm stickin' it to Uncle Sam to the tune of $12,180 every time I fire one up ;>).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.