I find it interesting that with the wealth of arguments for legalization of drugs, it is still improbable that anything sensible will actually take place. What can be dealt with in rational terms always loses out to the emotional and moral arguments that have no basis in a pragmatic reality. It seems to me that at some point society should take a look at what it is getting for its money, what changes have taken place and the true cost of those changes.

In 1973 the DEA spent about $0.7 billion combating drugs. As of the year 2000, that amount had increased over fifty times, to $17.8 billion. To put that in perspective, the federal government spends only about $14.2 billion per year on welfare (DEA 1). To put that in perspective, the federal government spends about $348 billion each year on defense. Ten billion here, ten billion there, pretty soon we’re talking real money.

I went and took a look at the DEA’s webpage, and found a couple of interesting things. They have a list of debating points in favor of keeping drugs illegal. They make use of many statistics, and many statements by government “experts.” What’s interesting is what these statistics say. One of the debating points is titled, “Prohibition is Working.” In it, they state that since 1998 the number of tenth graders (that’s fifteen-year-olds) who have tried a controlled substance has dropped from 38.5% to 35%. Frankly, I think this is an incredibly revealing statistic.

In the first place, the margin of error in these type of surveys is approximately the same as in electoral polls, usually plus-or-minus 4%. That means this drop could be a statistical error. Even if it’s not, the idea that spending $17 billion has delivered a 3.5% drop in high school drug usage is appallingly bad economics, not to mention only marginally effective. Secondly, it seems farcical to claim that “Prohibition is Working” when fully a third of our teenagers are managing to find and consume some sort of prohibited substance. What would they consider “not working?”

Finally, the most interesting thing about this statistic is that it’s from a survey of teenagers, probably the least likely group to be affected by criminal prosecutions and targeted drug busts. To me, this means the drop, if real, is probably caused more by educational campaigns about the harmful effects of drugs than it is by any interdiction policy favored by the DEA. I think it would be supremely ironic if the most under-funded anti-drug effort had the greatest effect.

Which brings me to my basic point. After a decade and over $200 billion spent on combating drugs (DEA 3), the best the government can say is they’ve kept even more people from doing drugs than there already are. To say this is an under-achievement is overly kind. There has to be something better than what we’re doing. We can debate specifics and morality all day long, but after throwing money at this problem, in staggering amounts for years, the problem has only gotten worse. The “war on drugs” is not working, bottom line. The sad fact is, as long as the government is giving itself these huge sums of money, and society is unwilling to deal with the moral issues behind the problem, it’s not very likely to stop any time soon. The real question is, how long can we afford it?

copyright 2002 - jem moore