The War on Drugs
“No Need For A Name”
Paul Allen
Karla Conzelman
Postra Kuoy
Jasmin Sanchez
The Failure of the
US War on Drugs
• More than 75% of the population believes
that the US War on Drugs is a failure.
• In the proceeding analysis, the usage of
illicit substances is neither condoned nor
condemned.
– All drug use is harmful and potentially lethal.
Knowing the consequences, each person
should have the option of making informed
choices.
Timeline of Legislation
1906 - Food and Drugs Act of 1906
This act did not create prohibitions - what it did do was
ensure that products met standards of purity, and were
honestly labeled.
1905 - 1917 Many states began to ban alcohol and other
drugs.
1914 - The first national legislation, the Harrison Narcotics
Control Act. Intended as a law to regulate the sale of
certain narcotics (opium, heroin, cocaine). While claims
were made that this law was not to be prohibitionary,
the taxes relating to the sale of the regulated substances
were ultimately raised to a level that made them
prohibitionary in nature. The seeds for the modern drug
war were sewn.
Timeline of Legislation
1917 - 18th amendment goes into effect, creating a
nationwide prohibition of alcohol.
– Initially alcohol consumption dropped, but in a few short years
organized crime gangs filled the demand for alcohol. Violence
and crime flourished, funded by the ill-gotten gains of the illegal
alcohol black market. Alcohol use steadily rose to exceed preprohibition levels.
1933 - 21st amendment to the constitution was ratified,
repealing the 18th amendment and ending national
alcohol prohibition. The laws relating to other drugs
however, remained in place.
1937 – A new tax introduced, targeting Marijuana, a
commonly used legal drug.
Timeline of Legislation
1961 – The UN adopted the Single Convention
Treaty on Narcotic Drugs, opening the way for
more stringent enforcement. The CIA went into
Vietnam and heroin began to flow into America
from Asia.
1965 - Drug Abuse Control Amendments were
passed, creating the Bureau of Drug Abuse
Control.
Timeline of Legislation
1969 – President Nixon declares war on
drugs and crime.
1970 - Modern "War On Drugs" is born as
the "Comprehensive Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control Act".
1973 - Nixon reorganizes various federal
drug law enforcement agencies creating
the Drug Enforcement Agency, or DEA.
Timeline of Legislation
1986 - Nancy Reagan begins the "Just Say No" campaign.
While there is an initial drop in drug use, drug use again
rises rapidly within a few years.
1988 - The Office Of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP
and position of the "Drug Czar) is formed.
1994,1997 - the RAND Corporation releases reports
showing that drug treatment and education is 7 times
more cost effective than criminal interdiction.
Current Status
• At the federal level the Controlled Substances
Act, and it's various amendments, is the law of
the land. It outlines severe criminal penalties for
making, selling, and/or using the substances it
controls, such as marijuana, ecstasy, peyote,
heroin and cocaine.
– The act is enforced by the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA). Although 8 states have made
medical marijuana completely legal, the DEA claims
federal jurisdiction, and has enforced the laws in these
states, going so far as to arrest and imprison
bedridden terminally ill patients for using doctor
prescribed marijuana.
Current Status
• In terms of civil liberties, the Supreme
Court has generally ruled in favor of
increasing police powers and decreasing
citizen privacy when drug war issues are
tried.
Costs to Society
In terms of deaths per year.
• Approximately 7,000 people die each year
from drug overdose.
– 80% of drug deaths (5,600) are due to
impurities and other factors that would not be
present in legal preparations.
• Because needle sales are banned, shared
needles have become the primary mode of
AIDS transmission in the U.S.
– approximately 3,500 new cases/year.
• The turf wars over drug territory result in
gang shootings in which innocents
– 1,600 annually are killed.
Costs to Society
In terms of deaths per year, continued
• Because drug prohibition makes the price of drugs almost
100 times higher than they otherwise would be, addicts
rob to support their habit, killing many of their victims in
the process
– about 750 each year.
• Therefore, the death toll caused by the War on Drugs
5,600+3,500+1,600+750=11,450
– If drugs were legalized, the death toll of drugs would be
• 20% of 7000=1400, approximately 8 times less.
• Since an estimated one out of eight people in the U.S. use
•
illegal drugs regularly, the whole population would have to
use them in a legal setting for the death toll to be as high
as it is under drug prohibition.
These estimates are consistent with the death toll per
capita from drugs in Amsterdam, which does not
prosecute users.
Average Annual Deaths,
as per National Institute for Drug Abuse, 1974-1987
400
390
350
300
Tobacco
250
Alcohol
200
Second-Hand Smoke
150
100
80
All Illegal Drugs
Combined
50
50
4.5
0
Deaths - THOUSANDS
Cost to Society
• The cost to put a single drug dealer in jail is about
$450,000, composed of:
– The cost for arrest and conviction is about $150,000.
– The cost for an additional prison bed ranges $50,000 to
$150,000, depending upon the jurisdiction.
– It costs about $30,000 per year to house a prisoner. With an
average sentence of 5 years, that adds up to another $150,000.
• The same $450,000 can provide treatment for about 200
•
people.
In addition, putting a person in prison produces about
fifteen dollars in related welfare costs, for every dollar
spent on incarceration. Every dollar spent on treatment
and education saves about five dollars in related welfare
costs.
Prison
Populations
(As per the Federal Bureau of Prisons)
NOTE: Under testimony, the FBOP estimates that approximately 50% of
inmates in the “drug offenses” category are first time, non-violent
offenders.
70%
Drug Offenses
60%
59.6%
Robbery
Property Offenses
Extortion Fraid, Bribery
50%
Violent Offenses
Firearms, Explosives, Arson
40%
White Collar
Immigration
30%
Courts or Corrections
National Security
20%
10%
Continuing Criminal Enterprise
9.80%
Miscellaneous
8.60%
5.50% 6.80%
2.70%
1%
0%
Offense
2.80%
0.80% 0.10% 0.80% 1.50%
Comparison of Average Sentences
(As per the Federal Bureau of Prisons)
90
80
70
82.4
1st time Drug
offense
Firearms
73.8
66.9
60
Sexual Abuse
50
40
Assault
33.4
26.8 24.6
30
20
Manslaughter
20
10
0
Burglary
Auto Theft
Offense
Sentence lengths shown in months
Mandatory Minimums
• Federal mandatory minimum sentences are
determined solely by the weight of the drugs.
The prisoner must serve at least 85% of this
sentence, and there is no parole available
– In comparison, a violent offender will serve less
than 54% of his sentence on average.
• Sentences are mandatory – judges must
impose them, regardless of the defendant's role
in the offense, his culpability, likelihood of
rehabilitation, or any other mitigating factors.
Mandatory Minimums
• Opposed most notably by the American Bar
•
•
Association, the U.S. Sentencing Commission
and Human Rights Watch.
In 1978, the number of imprisoned parents was
21,000. By 1990, it had risen to 1,000,000.
Since mandatory minimums were enacted, the
number of women inmates has tripled. The
majority of these women are first-time,
nonviolent, low-level offenders.
– Over 80% of the female prisoners in the United
States are mothers, and 70% of these are single
parents.
Mandatory Minimums
• Mandatory minimums are costly financially
– The portion of tax dollars that goes to support federal
prisoners grows faster than any other federal expenditure,
including education, defense, the environment,
transportation and social security.
– Since the enactment of mandatory minimum sentencing
for drug users, the Federal Bureau of Prisons budget
increased by more than 1,350%, from $220 million in 1986
to about $3.19 billion in 1997.
– It costs more to send a person to prison for four years
than it does to send him to a private university for four
years, including tuition, fees, room and board, books and
supplies. (Bureau of Prisons)
How much has the Drug
War cost so far this year?
cost of drug war clock
(link to webpage)
The Case Against Drug
Prohibition and the Drug War:
Generally fall into one of four
categories:
• Anti-Prohibitionists
• Drug Law Reformers
• Treatment/Education/Harm
Reductionists
• Drug Regulationists
Anti-Prohibitionists
• The main point of those in the anti-prohibition
•
•
movement is that prohibition does not work; prohibition
does not stop the making, selling, buying and using of
recreational drugs.
A second point of the anti-prohibitionists is that
America's current drug law prohibitions only result in
creating a black market, where all moneys from
recreational substance distribution go to drug dealers,
drug lords, gangs and organized crime.
Anti-prohibitionists also claim that the black market
caused by prohibition actually makes children, young
teens especially, at greater risk for drug use.
Anti-Prohibitionists
(According to the Drug Policy Forum)
The rate of addiction in 1914 was
about 1.3% of the population,
and hard drugs - drugs like
cocaine - were readily
available on grocery shelves.
In 1979, before the big "War on
Drugs" crackdown, the
addiction rate was still 1.3%.
In 1998? Still about 1.3%.
Is such a large budget justified?
Anti-Prohibitionists
Augmenting the Black Market?
(According to FBI statistics)
• One third of robberies and burglaries is
committed to obtain money for highpriced, black market drugs.
• Up to 40% of murders in major cities and
20% of killings nationwide occur in the
drug trade.
Drug Law Reformers
• A common point of drug law reformers is that
•
individuals should have the right to use
whatever medication they wish; at the very least
in concert with their doctor.
A further concept is that responsible recreational
use of certain substances can be an important
part of a healthy lifestyle. They point out that
alcohol is among the most dangerous of
recreational drugs, yet is well tolerated as a
legal and regulated drug.
Treatment/Education/Harm
Reductionists
• The treatment and education camp's view
is that problems of drug use and abuse
should be addressed through harm
reduction and treatment - not though
criminality, in much the same way that
alcohol problems are dealt with.
– Studies, such as one produced by RAND
Corp., indicate that treatment is 7 times more
effective than criminal incarceration.
Treatment/Education/Harm
Reductionists
• Harm reductionists also claim that criminalized drug black
markets create an additional threat to society.
– People with substance problems are afraid to come forward due to the
fear of criminal sanctions.
– There are no environmental controls, no laboratory standards or
appropriate equipment.
• No purity or strength conformity standards.
• Production in clandestine operations, and places the environment in
potentially great harm.
– These operations yield upwards of five pounds of toxic byproduct
for every pound of drug produced – hazardous waste that’s not
being properly disposed of.
– Waste products are routinely spilled onto the ground, polluting
soil and water systems or left behind
Drug Regulationists
The drug regulation groups like to show
that needless tax dollars are lost to the
illegal drug black market, and if
recreational drugs were regulated like
alcohol, the resultant tax revenues could
be used to fund effective treatment
programs.
Federal Financial Analysis of
Legalization of Drugs
• This Federal financial analysis of
legalization comes from Theodore R.
Vallance, Former chief of the Planning
Branch of the National Institutes of Mental
Health. His main professional effort for
many years was directed at just this sort
of analysis. The analysis was published in
the 7-10-95 issue of National Review.
Reductions (in millions of $
Direct
Law Enforcement
*Interdiction costs
*International
anti-drug
*OCDETF (Organized
Crime &
Drug Enforcement Task
Force)
ONDCP (the "drug czar")
Indirect
Victims of Crime
Incarceration
Crime careers
From
To
Saving
13,203
2,200
768
399
3,300
0
384
40
9,903
2,200
384
359
69
17
52
842
4,434
13,976
210
887
2,679
632
3,547
11,297
________
28,374
-3,572
-2,802
________
22,000
15,000
________
37,000
Subtotal
Less increase in prevention research and service
Less increase in treatment research and service
Subtotal
Plus net income from drug taxes
Total
*1993 Figures.
Critical Issues
• Civil Rights: Does a person have the right to use a recreational substance? Does
•
•
•
•
•
•
a person have a right to access whatever medication they and their doctor agree
upon for treatment of any condition? Should a person be imprisoned
responsible, recreational substance usage?
Criminal Issues: Do recreational substances cause crimes (other than use?) Is
drug war related crime a consequence of the drug laws as opposed to the drugs
themselves? Does prohibition result in increased profits for drug dealers, drug
lords, and terrorists?
Effectiveness Of Prohibition: Do prohibition laws work? Is the manufacture,
trade, and use of recreational substances halted? Is prohibition cost effective?
Funding for Treatment: Is treatment more cost effective than prohibition in
curbing recreational substance abuse? Are adequate funds available for
treatment by those in need?
Education: Is recreational substance related education being addressed in an
effective way? Is the "abstinence only" approach productive in reducing drug
abuse?
Law Enforcement: Have drug enforcement tactics resulted in police abuses? Has
corruption in police departments increased as a result of the drug war? Have
innocent citizens been harmed or killed by police in pursuit of the drug war?
Taxes and Spending: Are tax dollars being spent most effectively with current
government policies? If regulated like alcohol, instead of prohibited, would the
sale of recreational substances generate tax revenues that could be used for
treatment and education?
Critical Issues
From a Business Perspective
• Relate the US Government and the War on
Drugs to a business and it’s policies.
– Good Cash Management to minimize income.
However, this relates to the maximization of
tax savings, so the government doesn’t need
to utilize this strategy.
– Businesses with reoccurring NOI losses would
quickly dismantle, restructure, or come under
investigation for illegal practices.