So much has been said lately about the cost of the so called “War on Drugs”, a term I dislike, but one that is recognized as a catch all for the laws and enforcement we as a nation respond to with regards to our efforts to deal with drugs in our society. Much is stated about this huge cost that is inflicted upon the people of this nation and in the words of Sheriff Braudis himself, “that he is steadfast in his belief the war on drugs is a waste of time and money. Education and rehabilitation are far more effective than incarceration, he says, asserting that drug abuse is an issue of health, not criminality. …” So the real question is what are the costs? Let’s take a look shall we?
Each year, the Federal Government spends an estimated 19 billion in one form or another labeled under funds for fighting the drug war. In reality, the DEA, the forefront agency for drug enforcement, operates on a budget of just over one billion. The rest of these federal expenditures come in the form of budget line items for running ships and aircraft of the military under the pretext of protecting our borders from traffickers. Other money goes into ONDCP funding, the state department eradication programs, and so on. Much of these expenditures, I would venture to say more then 60% have no direct effect on drug trafficking as we would invasion their use to be with regards to the “War on Drugs.” Still, I will grant the whole 19 billion from the federal government. In addition to the federal budget, the states spend approximately 30 billion on some sort of drug related enforcement. This line is blurry and the figures are hard to pin down because many departments do not separate their budgets, but based on what I can find this seems to be a fairly accurate number. So we can then state that approximately 49 billion dollars per year are spent on drug enforcement at both the federal and state levels combined.
Let us now look at the other side of the coin, one that many do not care to consider when they quote the high cost of drug enforcement. The latest accurate figures I can find on the costs of drug abuse are from 1992. Strange I know, but if you allow for usual percentage increase you will get an idea of the costs as they are today. But since I only have data from 1992 that is what I will utilize in this post.
“In 1992, total estimated spending for health care services was $18.8 billion for alcohol problems and the medical consequences of alcohol consumption and $9.9 billion for drug problems. Specialized services for the treatment of alcohol and drug problems cost $5.6 billion and $4.4 billion, respectively. This included specialized detoxification and rehabilitation services as well as prevention, training, and research expenditures. Costs of treatment for health problems attributed to alcohol and drug abuse (e.g., cirrhosis, HIV infection, and trauma) were $13.2 billion and $5.5 billion, respectively.” I will do the math for you. For alcohol the total was 37.6 billion and for drugs it was 19.8 billion for a total of 57.4 billion. I will grant you that the drug amount is less with 19.8 billion, but I think it is important to point out the costs of treating alcohol as well since many who make the argument for decriminalizing drugs do not take into consideration the costs that will follow the legalization of them, as exampled by alcohol which is a legal substance.
In addition to actual costs, one must figure in the economic costs of drug and alcohol abuse. “An estimated $82 billion in lost potential productivity was attributed to alcohol and drug abuse in 1992 ($67.7 billion and $14.2 billion, respectively). This accrued in the form of work not performed – including household tasks – and was measured in terms of lost earnings and household productivity. These costs were primarily borne by the drug or alcohol abusers and by those with whom they lived. About $1 billion was for victims of fetal alcohol syndrome who had survived to adulthood and experienced mental impairment. This study has not attempted to estimate the burden of drug and alcohol problems on work sites or employers, nor should the estimates in this study be interpreted in this manner.”
Lastly, Who Bears the Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse? “Much of the economic burden of alcohol and drug problems falls on the population that does not abuse alcohol and drugs. For alcohol problems, governments bore costs of $57.2 billion (38.6 percent) in 1992, compared with $15.1 billion for private insurance, $9 billion for victims, and $66.8 billion for alcohol abusers and members of their households. For drug abuse, governments bore about $45.1 billion (46.2 percent) of the total of $97.7 billion; private insurance, $3.1 billion; victims, about $6.5 billion; and abusers and members of their households, $42.9 billion.”
These are the figures, though the expenditures for the drug fight is 2006 info and for the drug and alcohol abuse 1992, but I am sure you can adjust in your mind how much more those costs are today, 12 years later.
Given as a total, the alcohol and drug abuse costs amount to approximately 246 billion (1992 figures) as compared with 49 billion (2006 figures) in enforcement. Now that you have seen the figures, can you really say that the costs of enforcement outweigh that of legalization? What can we expect these figures to rise to once we legalize drugs? I don’t think the 49 billion saved in enforcement will even come close to paying for what will be necessary. So the next time someone starts talking about the “high” costs of enforcement, ask them about the “high” costs of treatment.
Info link on alcohol and drug abuse costs: http://www.nida.nih.gov/EconomicCosts/Chapter1.html#1.1
I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.
Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC),
alpha6,
Great post. Now we’re getting somewhere. I’d like to digest this information and consult your sources before attempting to respond in substance. However, I do have a threshold question:
Your analysis does not take into consideration revenues generated by the sale and presumed taxation of legalized, regulated drugs. I anticipate you would be able to extrapolate those figures from your knowledge of the cigarette and alcohol industries. How do legal revenues in a decriminalized, regulated drug scenario affect your equation?
Thanks.
alpha6,
Great post. Now we’re getting somewhere. I’d like to digest this information and consult your sources before attempting to respond in substance. However, I do have a threshold question:
Your analysis does not take into consideration revenues generated by the sale and presumed taxation of legalized, regulated drugs. I anticipate you would be able to extrapolate those figures from your knowledge of the cigarette and alcohol industries. How do legal revenues in a decriminalized, regulated drug scenario affect your equation?
Thanks.
Con Man takes alpha6 numbers as gospel. This is the same alpha6 who belabors both logic and credulity just to assert that every voter in Pitkin County is a moron. A proud moment for civil discourse. Trust me alpha-boy, we’re not morons, we’re poopi-pantses. (Or doody-heads. I can’t remember.)
Let me posit that the Con Man hasn’t checked the verity of alpha6 research.
We collectively bear the cost of buckets of stuff we don’t directly use. Stuff which nonetheless benefits society. Public education, for instance. And we collectively pay for things we do not like. Halliburton’s skimming, for example.
I think there’s ample evidence which affirms that drug education and rehabilitation is prevention and therefore an investment in society. Some employers subsidize health club memberships. Prevention is a good deal.
Con Man takes alpha6 numbers as gospel. This is the same alpha6 who belabors both logic and credulity just to assert that every voter in Pitkin County is a moron. A proud moment for civil discourse. Trust me alpha-boy, we’re not morons, we’re poopi-pantses. (Or doody-heads. I can’t remember.)
Let me posit that the Con Man hasn’t checked the verity of alpha6 research.
We collectively bear the cost of buckets of stuff we don’t directly use. Stuff which nonetheless benefits society. Public education, for instance. And we collectively pay for things we do not like. Halliburton’s skimming, for example.
I think there’s ample evidence which affirms that drug education and rehabilitation is prevention and therefore an investment in society. Some employers subsidize health club memberships. Prevention is a good deal.
From what I can tell, the actual annual cost of federal, state and local drug enforcement is probably closer to $40 billion dollars, less than the generous figure of $49 billion you allocated. I do agree that number is hard to pin down.
The economic burden amount you cited in the NIDA report includes both the burden of alcohol and drug abuse. The accurate number cited in that report is $97.66 billion for the economic burden of illegal drug abuse. You cannot lump in the cost of alcohol abuse, because alcohol is legal and we are trying to determine the economic effects of drug use only in its current criminalized context versus a theoretical legal, regulated alternative context.
Therefore, I posit that the accurate numbers are as follows:
Annual cost of enforcement: $40 billion
Annual societal cost of illicit drug abuse: $98 billion
According to a report issued by the Rand Corporation (Rydell, C.P. & Everingham, S.S., Controlling Cocaine, Prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the United States Army (Santa Monica, CA: Drug Policy Research Center, RAND Corporation, 1994), p. xvi.), every additional dollar invested in substance abuse treatment saves taxpayers $7.46 in societal costs. In addition, the report states that additional domestic law enforcement efforts cost 15 times as much as treatment to achieve the same reduction in societal costs. My basic math skills lead me to conclude that, as a result, every dollar dedicated to additional law enforcement only nets $0.50 in societal cost savings. Not very good bang for the buck.
Under the Rand Report scenario, if we were to take the $40 billion dollars allocated to domestic law enforcement and earmark it for drug treatment, we would achieve a societal cost savings of nearly $300 billion. That not only exceeds by threefold the societal cost of illicit drug use, but more than covers the total societal cost of drug AND alcohol abuse you identified in your post.
Based on those statistics, I can only conclude that the maximum benefit to society is achieved by emphasizing treatment and education over drug enforcement.
From what I can tell, the actual annual cost of federal, state and local drug enforcement is probably closer to $40 billion dollars, less than the generous figure of $49 billion you allocated. I do agree that number is hard to pin down.
The economic burden amount you cited in the NIDA report includes both the burden of alcohol and drug abuse. The accurate number cited in that report is $97.66 billion for the economic burden of illegal drug abuse. You cannot lump in the cost of alcohol abuse, because alcohol is legal and we are trying to determine the economic effects of drug use only in its current criminalized context versus a theoretical legal, regulated alternative context.
Therefore, I posit that the accurate numbers are as follows:
Annual cost of enforcement: $40 billion
Annual societal cost of illicit drug abuse: $98 billion
According to a report issued by the Rand Corporation (Rydell, C.P. & Everingham, S.S., Controlling Cocaine, Prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the United States Army (Santa Monica, CA: Drug Policy Research Center, RAND Corporation, 1994), p. xvi.), every additional dollar invested in substance abuse treatment saves taxpayers $7.46 in societal costs. In addition, the report states that additional domestic law enforcement efforts cost 15 times as much as treatment to achieve the same reduction in societal costs. My basic math skills lead me to conclude that, as a result, every dollar dedicated to additional law enforcement only nets $0.50 in societal cost savings. Not very good bang for the buck.
Under the Rand Report scenario, if we were to take the $40 billion dollars allocated to domestic law enforcement and earmark it for drug treatment, we would achieve a societal cost savings of nearly $300 billion. That not only exceeds by threefold the societal cost of illicit drug use, but more than covers the total societal cost of drug AND alcohol abuse you identified in your post.
Based on those statistics, I can only conclude that the maximum benefit to society is achieved by emphasizing treatment and education over drug enforcement.
WR,
Please link your source so I can see where you got your figures, difficult to ascertain how you came about those figures without it. Second, thanks for breaking out the drug figures, however, as I pointed out, I think having the alcohol figures in there are important to give you a taste of things to come with regards to legalization.
Pastor,
If you had the where with all to actually read the post, you would see that I linked to the study where the figures were obtained. More then you have provided in any of your posts. If you care to debate the issues as WR and others have that’s cool. I would agree with you that prevention and education is key to curbing illegal drug use, and hopefully the youth of today do not follow the example of Braudis’ generation of rampant drug use falsely claiming that it is a victimless crime. Difficult to educate the youth of today about the dangers of drug use when the county commissioners are voting in support of marijuana legalization. Where would you care to start these prevention and education programs?
WR,
Please link your source so I can see where you got your figures, difficult to ascertain how you came about those figures without it. Second, thanks for breaking out the drug figures, however, as I pointed out, I think having the alcohol figures in there are important to give you a taste of things to come with regards to legalization.
Pastor,
If you had the where with all to actually read the post, you would see that I linked to the study where the figures were obtained. More then you have provided in any of your posts. If you care to debate the issues as WR and others have that’s cool. I would agree with you that prevention and education is key to curbing illegal drug use, and hopefully the youth of today do not follow the example of Braudis’ generation of rampant drug use falsely claiming that it is a victimless crime. Difficult to educate the youth of today about the dangers of drug use when the county commissioners are voting in support of marijuana legalization. Where would you care to start these prevention and education programs?
alpha,
I assume you mean the Rand Study. The primary source is cited above. I came across it several times in my research, and used the summary from the following link while writing my post:
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/economi.htm
Scroll down to the high 30s or so. Somewhere on that website, there is also a summary of domestic murder rate data which has been compiled since the early 1900s. The interesting aspect to that is that U.S. murder rates spiked during Prohibition, dropped dramatically following Prohibition, and spiked again at the onset of the current “war on drugs.”
I agree with you that this problem will involve an enormous cost, and I don’t think it will ever be eradicated. I believe you were one who correctly pointed out that this is ultimately an issue of personal responsibility.
The question is, what, if anything, should our government do about it? I’m trying to make the case that decriminalization/regulation/treatment/emphasis on the demand side of the equation (as Ed from Aspen correctly identifies) leads to a better result than the criminalization/enforcement efforts our government currently employs.
I harbor no doubts that drugs and alcohol will always be a significant societal cost no matter what is done.
Cheers.
alpha,
I assume you mean the Rand Study. The primary source is cited above. I came across it several times in my research, and used the summary from the following link while writing my post:
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/economi.htm
Scroll down to the high 30s or so. Somewhere on that website, there is also a summary of domestic murder rate data which has been compiled since the early 1900s. The interesting aspect to that is that U.S. murder rates spiked during Prohibition, dropped dramatically following Prohibition, and spiked again at the onset of the current “war on drugs.”
I agree with you that this problem will involve an enormous cost, and I don’t think it will ever be eradicated. I believe you were one who correctly pointed out that this is ultimately an issue of personal responsibility.
The question is, what, if anything, should our government do about it? I’m trying to make the case that decriminalization/regulation/treatment/emphasis on the demand side of the equation (as Ed from Aspen correctly identifies) leads to a better result than the criminalization/enforcement efforts our government currently employs.
I harbor no doubts that drugs and alcohol will always be a significant societal cost no matter what is done.
Cheers.
WR,
In looking at the problem, there needs to be a balance between enforcement and education and rehabilitation.
I would like to believe that a decriminalization/regulation/treatment system would work, but several core issues do not allow for this to be implemented.
The first question is what drugs should be decriminalized. If we say all, which is fine, then we must come up with a system to make available all those drugs currently illegal in a legal fashion. If we decide to regulate them under the current prescription type laws, then individuals would have to show a medical need for the drugs. If we decide to allow for dispensing without a prescription, then you would have to create new laws preventing tort action against those providing the drugs for recreational use.
This in turn raises two questions; one, who is responsible for misuse and injury inflicted on third parties from misuse of the drugs (now legal) and second, even if they are legal, there will undoubtedly be an illegal market for those same drugs. (As exists with most prescription drugs) How do you propose to enforce only allowing for regulated drugs and what punishments should be measured out for those not acting within the legal mechanisms which have been established. Once again we are looking at a high social cost associated with the now open markets of the effects of these drugs now legal and what do with those acting outside the legal system created to “eliminate” the exact same problem of illegal dealing that existed before the drugs were made legal.
Maybe the answer lies within our punishment system, in that we do not make the costs of dealing drugs so costly that it outweighs the risks of dealing. Perhaps if we implement a system which is being effectively utilized in countries such as Indonesia, where if you are caught dealing, you are put to death. It is understood what the penalty is and it is dealt out swiftly and without exceptions. Since the implementation of these laws, drug dealing and drug use in Indonesia has dropped to almost nothing.
So now we have a tried and proven method of dealing with this drug problem, the question is, are we willing to do what is necessary as a nation to effectively address this problem? I think not. We will continue to seek a “kindler” solution and never really accomplish anything. Do I have the answers, if I did, I surely wouldn’t be here. Am I willing to look for solutions ? Of course, to stop would be to give in to whatever forces are battling at the moment, whether it is those for stricter enforcement or those for no enforcement at all.
In the meantime, I will error on the side of caution and support my argument for continued enforcement. Maybe if we can educate the youth of today on social responsibility and the dangers and hazards associated with drug use, we can, in a few generations be able to relay on what Aristotle stated so long ago, as noted in my first post; I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. Wise words to live by.
WR,
In looking at the problem, there needs to be a balance between enforcement and education and rehabilitation.
I would like to believe that a decriminalization/regulation/treatment system would work, but several core issues do not allow for this to be implemented.
The first question is what drugs should be decriminalized. If we say all, which is fine, then we must come up with a system to make available all those drugs currently illegal in a legal fashion. If we decide to regulate them under the current prescription type laws, then individuals would have to show a medical need for the drugs. If we decide to allow for dispensing without a prescription, then you would have to create new laws preventing tort action against those providing the drugs for recreational use.
This in turn raises two questions; one, who is responsible for misuse and injury inflicted on third parties from misuse of the drugs (now legal) and second, even if they are legal, there will undoubtedly be an illegal market for those same drugs. (As exists with most prescription drugs) How do you propose to enforce only allowing for regulated drugs and what punishments should be measured out for those not acting within the legal mechanisms which have been established. Once again we are looking at a high social cost associated with the now open markets of the effects of these drugs now legal and what do with those acting outside the legal system created to “eliminate” the exact same problem of illegal dealing that existed before the drugs were made legal.
Maybe the answer lies within our punishment system, in that we do not make the costs of dealing drugs so costly that it outweighs the risks of dealing. Perhaps if we implement a system which is being effectively utilized in countries such as Indonesia, where if you are caught dealing, you are put to death. It is understood what the penalty is and it is dealt out swiftly and without exceptions. Since the implementation of these laws, drug dealing and drug use in Indonesia has dropped to almost nothing.
So now we have a tried and proven method of dealing with this drug problem, the question is, are we willing to do what is necessary as a nation to effectively address this problem? I think not. We will continue to seek a “kindler” solution and never really accomplish anything. Do I have the answers, if I did, I surely wouldn’t be here. Am I willing to look for solutions ? Of course, to stop would be to give in to whatever forces are battling at the moment, whether it is those for stricter enforcement or those for no enforcement at all.
In the meantime, I will error on the side of caution and support my argument for continued enforcement. Maybe if we can educate the youth of today on social responsibility and the dangers and hazards associated with drug use, we can, in a few generations be able to relay on what Aristotle stated so long ago, as noted in my first post; I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. Wise words to live by.