Please sign our guestbook.
Guestbook.

The New Drug War

An effective new strategy for reducing drug use and related problems.

By: Seth Heath

For: Governor Gary Johnson

Expensive and Ineffective Illegal Drug Policy

Current governmental policy concerning illegal drugs creates a fiscal burden on society and fails to fulfill its objectives. It contributes to the propagation of urban street gangs and drug related violence while demonizing the drug user, abuser, and addict. Without immediate changes in governmental policy regarding illicit drugs we are bound to imprison tremendous numbers of people, overflow a corrections system that is already bursting at the seams, and ruin the lives of countless citizens. I will demonstrate how the current “Drug War” is failing and what needs to be done to fix it. A new approach towards illegal drugs needs to be developed and enacted. A new approach that places as much emphasis on the human cost of drugs as on the monetary cost of the drug war. A new approach that will place equal emphasis on prevention, treatment, and law enforcement.

Monetary Costs

In 1970 the government spent $.1 billion on drug interdiction. That amount increased to $17 billion in 2000 (Frontline “Spending” chart) and climbed to $19.2 in 2001. (BJS “Drug/Crime Facts”) According to a study released through the University of New Mexico “drug-related criminal justice policies are costing New Mexico state government more than $43 million a year -- more than half of that in prison costs. (“Study says”, Albq. Trib,) These policies include “$6.7 million on drug-related police protection in 1997; $7.7 million for related court cases; $27.5 million on prison and probation costs for people who went through state courts other than magistrate courts; $1.47 million in lost tax revenues; and $142,000 in social welfare costs for children who had to be placed in state custody because their parents were in prison.” (“Study says”, Albq. Trib., 2)

Relationship to Campaign Finance

With the incredible amount of money being spent on enforcement of drug laws, the drug war has become big business. A case in point would be the relationship in 1989 between Senator DeConcini, from Arizona, and a Washington D.C. lobbying firm, Parry and Romani. The dealing involved lobbying for the use of a blimp like radar device called an Aerostat to track drug traffickers along the U.S./Mexico border. According to Frontline

“in 1989, NBC News correspondent Brian Ross reported on the close relationship between DeConcini and Parry and Romani. The report suggested the lobbyists had cashed in on their political connections. The facts are there. President Romano Romani, once worked on DeConcini's Senate staff. Robert Mills was also an aide to Senator DeConcini before he joined Parry and Romani. He had worked with DeConcini on the original air interdiction legislation. And Ted Mehl-he also worked on the aerostat legislation as a Congressional aide. He then became Parry and Romani's chief Congressional lobbyist for the aerostats. In 1991, Parry and Romani's connections apparently paid off when it successfully lobbied for the funding of four new aerostats. Parry and Romani's client, a company called TCOM, also won the lion's share of the contract, worth more than $100 million.”

(Frontline, “What”) But the dealings don’t stop there. “What has also happened is that DeConcini has benefited. Federal Election Commission reports from Senator DeConcini's re-election campaign list the following contributors: Parry and Romani lobbyists; Charles Craig, a TCOM owner; and numerous PACs of air interdiction manufacturers. Together they have contributed thousands of dollars since 1989.” As demonstrated the drug war is not only profitable for the drug dealers, it is profitable for everyone, good or bad. I am not proposing that we give up all together, what I am proposing is that governmental policy towards illegal drugs become more proactive than reactive. I don’t think that society wants to eliminate spending on the drug problem, but at a minimum some re-appropriation of the $19.2 billion currently being spent is in order. This re-distribution of budgetary wealth might be initially hard to justify but in the long term is the only solution to a humanitarian nightmare. As illustrated by the chart the federal government is currently spending 34% of the funds allotted to combat the drug problem on prevention and treatment. (Frontline “charts”) This suggests that the government is more concerned with arresting and imprisoning its own citizens than addressing the problems that concern them. If we continue to approach the drug problem in the same fashion, society will be bound to repeat the failures of the past in the future. In order to achieve long-term results we must look for long-term solutions, not feel-good-now public policy.

Lack of Role Models

Steve Nawojcki, a coroner from Little Rock Arkansas says, “While conducting a prison interview with a young man who was about to spend his eighteenth birthday in the prison where the most violent inmates are housed for his part in the robbery and killing of two liquor store clerks, I was told that in order for this kid to have stayed away from the violence, a role model should have intervened with him when he was around four years old. He went on to say that the street dealers and gangsters in his birthplace of Oakland, California heavily influenced his life. He eventually ended up selling crack cocaine on the streets of Little Rock and made thousands of dollars per week”(Gang, Nawojcki) The realization by this 17 year old murderer that negative role models played a major part in his evolution to gang member should say something to us all. The government needs to spend more money developing programs that foster self-esteem and self worth in our nations most vulnerable youths. Programs like Big Brother/Big Sister, Americorp, Job Corp., and others have proven to be successful. With outreaches like these, society can prevent children from following the same path as the young man Steve spoke of. Governmental programs and funding are not a cure all, but combined with socially responsible people government and citizens can make a difference. Imagine what could be done if we took a larger portion of that $19.2 billion a year allotment for drug control and helped give the under privileged children of the inner city legitimate opportunities to succeed and some hope for a better life. It is not solely a lack of positive role models that creates the problems for our youths, its lack of legitimate opportunity. The tremendous amount of money made selling drugs is a major enticement for people with few legitimate opportunities to achieve the American dream.

Economics of the Illegal Drug Trade

Abt Associates, a private social and business research firm located in Cambridge Massachusetts, produced a study that concluded “that the trade in illicit substances was roughly $57 billion t0 $91 billion per year between 1988 and 1995, according to consumption-based estimates.” (abrv. Abt., “What”, pg. 5) This does not include the common practice of sex; goods traded or services provided for drugs. In the same report Abt Associates also state that “when such “income in kind” is valued at current retail prices, an additional $4 billion to $7 billion must be added to the total for cocaine and an additional $2 billion to $4 billion to the total for heroin.”(Abt Assoc, “What”, pg 50) In a free market economy like ours, this leaves a lot of money to be made for those willing to take the risks associated with drug dealing. It also means that organizations involved in the illegal drug industry will grow, along with the desire to expand the territory in which they market their product. Since drug-dealing organizations are not regulated under anti-trust laws these drug-dealing empires, or gangs, seek monopolies on sales and distribution networks. This is when gang violence becomes part of the equation. The government could, by instituting more effective programs focusing on prevention and treatment, lower the demand for drugs. With lower demand come lower prices, with lower prices we will find less people willing to take the risks associated with illegal drugs, not only imprisonment, but being robbed, murdered, or addicted. The people involved in the drug trade would take another way out, if it were only offered to them. In an article printed on January 1^st 1999 in the Los Angeles Times Paul Jesilow, an associate professor at UC Irvine's department of criminology, law and society, said “societal and economic factors may also account for the declines. Jesilow said the strong economy could be providing many young people with jobs that steer them away from lives of crime.” (L.A. Times, “Killings”) These unfortunate members of our society deserve a chance, not prison. To often people have an attitude of “lock em' up and throw away the key”. Once an addict always an addict, or so society thinks. Due to the criminalization of illicit drugs society has developed a stigmatized attitude toward the drug user.

Laws Concerning Illegal Drugs

In the U.S. it is illegal to be in possession of, or purchase certain types of drugs and severe penalties face those who do. In California under 3 strikes laws it is possible for someone in possession of a joint to get life in prison. Here in New Mexico if a person is caught with a line of cocaine they face up to 18 months in prison. If a person gets caught violating federal drug possession laws they face a 93.7%(U.S., “2000”) chance of being sent to prison. Another tool that the government has is “The Denial of Federal Benefits for Drug Offenders (DFB), established under Section 5301 of the Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-690), codified at Title 21, United States Code, Section 862, provides Federal and State courts with the ability to deny all or selected Federal benefits to individuals convicted of drug trafficking or drug possession. This law provides an additional tool to punish drug offenders.”(BJA, “Denial”, 1) Under this law a person convicted of simple possession can be denied “student financial aid; small business loans; media and transportation licenses, medical, engineering, scientific, and academic research grants;”(BJA, “Denial”, 2) I understand the idea, but is it a good one? Punishing a person who made a mistake and did a line of cocaine, or smoked a joint of marijuana by not letting them get help to attend school, start a small business, or conduct research seems like a sure fire way to keep them on drugs.

Prohibition

The current drug war is similar to the prohibition of the 1920s and 1930s. As Andrew Sinclair puts it “national prohibition was a measure passed by village America Against urban America.”(qtd. In Abadinsky 71) America has a long history of treating the symptoms but failing to address the illness. Drug abuse and addiction is an illness caused by something else. Yochelson and Samenow theorized “[a] man used drugs to escape a painful mental state or to remove himself from a disagreeable environment.”(Yochelson, “The Criminal”) Therefore, if it is personal problems that are the reason for a person to use drugs, let us address these problems first.

Stress as Cause of Drug Use

When people feel that they are powerless in their life they seek some means of escape. People retreat from life by using legal drugs such as alcohol and cigarettes or illegal ones like marijuana or cocaine. The cost of alcohol was “in 1995 alcohol abuse is estimated to have cost $166.5 billion”(National, “Costs” 1) With the cost so high why are we not spending the same amount of money to combat alcohol as illicit drugs? But, I guess that’s another topic. The current governmental approach of arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment is not working. Average people are being sent to prison for smoking marijuana, these people are being housed in prisons with violent offenders. Incarceration is not the solution to the drug problem, social change is. If we, as society, chose to concentrate as much energy on helping the drug abuser as on arresting and incarcerating them we could dramatically reduce the overall crime rate. Spending money on enforcement is not the solution to the drug problem; political change is.

The Effect of Drug Laws

The U.S. government got involved with drugs when “in 1914 the U.S. legislature began to strictly regulate the trade of narcotics with the enactment of the Harrison Narcotic Act; in 1937 the government added marijuana to this list of controlled substances (the Marijuana Tax Act).”(MS Encarta, “Drug” 1) The Harrison Act was that first step in a constantly evolving governmental regulatory process, the most recent steps being in 1986 and 1988 with the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts. “The Anti-Drug Abuse Acts, signed into law in 1986 and 1988, set up funding for the treatment of drug abuse and for the creation of law-enforcement programs to fight the illegal sale of drugs. These acts also detailed severe punishments for individuals selling and possessing drugs illegally.”(MS Encarta, “Drug” 2) In 1997 the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported in the Uniform Crime Report that 1,583,600 people were arrested as drug abuse violators,(qtd. in MS Encarta, “Drug Arrest”), that’s more people than the entire population of the state of New Mexico. That is a lot of people whose lives have possibly been ruined because of a law that is supposed to protect them. In the photo to the right is “Gary Tucker (mustache in middle) and his brother Steven (beard), [mother Doris in middle and Brother Kenny on far left] along with Gary’s wife Joanne [not pictured] were convicted of conspiracy to manufacture marijuana based on the offenses of a few of their customers, with whom they had no contact beyond selling equipment which is completely legal. The Tuckers had no marijuana, none on their person, none in their homes, or in their store. Nor did they have any drug paraphernalia. They were never caught selling drugs or buying drugs.”(Human, “Tuckers”) Gary and Steve both got 10 years and Joanne received 10 years and a month. All for selling equipment used to grows any type of plant indoors. With stories like these becoming known it has become painfully obvious that the state has gone to far.

Popularity of Drug Use

According to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, “in 1999 an estimated 14.8 million Americans were current illicit drug users, meaning they had used some illicit drug during the month prior to the survey. This represents 6.7 percent of the population 12 years and older.” The same survey also said that “88 million Americans age 12 or older (40% of the population) reported illicit drug use at least once in their lifetime.”(NHSDA) Is it fair that we send people to prison for something that so many have done? According to the U.S. Sentencing commission “41.6 percent of defendants sentenced to time in the federal prison system during fiscal year 1999 were sent there for drug offences.”(U.S., “2000”) The Sentencing Project, a criminal justice statistic clearinghouse in San Francisco, reports the rate as higher saying that “58% of federal prison inmates [are drug offenders]”(Sentencing, “Facts”) Another interesting number given out by the Sentencing Project states that “the U.S. rate of 690 prisoners per 100,000 is now greater than the Russian rate [of] 675 per 100,000 in 2000.”(Sentencing, “U.S. Surpasses”) With the “incarceration rate increasing steadily for thirty years”(Sentencing, “Facts” 2) it has become obvious that the current strategy for reducing drug use and related crime is not working.

Solutions

The first step in an effective drug control effort needs to be education about the negative impact of drugs. The Office of National Drug Control Policy claims that the number one goal is to “educate and enable America’s youth to reject illegal drugs” (ONDCP, “Strategic”) but when government spends $8,557.6 billion on the criminal justice system and $1,953.5 billion on prevention (BJS, “Drug”) that says to me government is not putting their money where their mouth is.

Re-Education

With years of anti-drug propaganda having been perpetrated upon the American people they have started to believe that drug users are devils out to kill and steal from them and their families. If there wasn’t such an aura of evil around drugs maybe parents, teachers, clergy, and role models could have honest dialogues about the evils of drugs. Parents could openly discuss drugs with their children without feeling like they were violating some sort of taboo. This discussion would be the single most effective tool in reducing teenage drug use. So effective that it has been developed into an add campaign called “Parents, the anti-drug” This change in attitude needs to happen now. In 1999 a children’s advocacy group called Monitoring the Future found that “22% of 10^th graders and 26% of 12^th graders reported using an illicit drug in the past month.”(Monitoring, “Drug”) That is too many kids using drugs every month, too many kids that would not be using drugs if their parents had been able to talk honestly with their children about the dangers of drugs. If parents begin the process of educating children to the dangers of drug use society will have a solid foundation for teachers, clergy, role models, and community to build upon.

Governmental Role in Education

The government’s role in this educational process would be to develop innovative methods for parents, family, teachers and society to effectively educate children about drugs. Funding research in the areas of education, parenting skills, can do this, early childhood learning and other children related areas. Lets not concentrate on the past actions of people, but on the bright futures of our children. The federal government could give federal grants to states that develop and institute successful drug education, prevention and treatment programs. In the long term this investment would surely lower the amount that addictive substances cost the United States. According to the National Institute on Drug Addiction in “1995 alcohol abuse is estimated to have cost $166.5 billion and drug abuse is estimated to have cost $109.8 billion.”(NIDA, “Cost”, 1) According the chart below the costs only rise with time, over 12% from 1992 to 1995. (NIDA, “Costs, 2)

Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse for 1995
(millions of current-year dollars)

Source: Analysis by The Lewin Group.

	Alcohol		Drugs
	1992	1995	1992	1995
Health Care Expenditures
Specialty alcohol and drug services	$5,573	$6,660	$4,400	$5,258
Medical consequences	$13,247	$15,830	$5,531	$6,623
Productivity Impacts
Lost earnings - premature death	$31,327	$34,921	$14,575	$16,247
Lost earnings - illness	$69,209	$77,150	$15,682	$17,481
Lost earnings - crime/victims	$6,461	$7,231	$39,164	$43,829
Other Impacts
Crashes, fires, criminal justice, etc.	$22,204	$24,752	$18,307	$20,407
Total	$148,021	$166,543	$97,659	$109,832

Prevention

According to Yochelson and Samenow “the criminal had embarked on his life of crime very early. He was fighting, stealing, lying and intimidating others as a child, long before he had direct experience with drugs.”(Yochelson, “The Criminal”) Effective intervention in a child’s early life is more cost effective than dealing with the arrest, prosecution and eventual incarceration of a person for a drug related crime. Incarceration alone for all of the people arrested every year on drug related charges cost the U.S. $68,300,668.00 per day (General, “Studies”); imagine if we could keep half of those people out of prison how much money we would save every year. We must develop better ways of keeping kids in the educational process and out of prison. The Sentencing Project reports “65% of state prison inmates in 1991 had not completed high school.”(Sentencing, “Facts”) Compared to the national rate of 10%(Casey, “Kids”) this is a prime indicator of the importance staying in school has for our children. With furthering of the preventative programs I mentioned earlier and the development of new ones, society would have less kids dropping out of school and more kids developing a long-term future.

Addicts

Despite the introduction of all these new and productive programs there will still be the unfortunate soul that can’t resist the temptation drugs offer. The Office of National Drug Control Policy states that “Hardcore addicts make up less than a quarter of the drug users in this country, but consume over two-thirds of the illegal drugs”(Office, “What”, 6) With figures like these it is important that we address the problems associated with the hardcore drug addict. Since government is currently focused on arresting addicts, and by the increasing numbers of inmates is very successful, jails and prisons would be an ideal place to start treatment programs. With 89% of state prison inmates reporting past drug use (BJS, “Prior”) it seems logical to provide all inmates with drug abuse treatment. In England “the national treatment outcome research study, funded by the Department of Health, monitored 1100 people who entered drug treatment programs between March and July 1995. They were mainly heroin users, and between them they had committed about 70000 crimes in the three months before treatment. Two years on, incidence of both drug use and criminal behavior was substantially reduced, in many cases by more than half. (Jones, “Drug”) With stories like this as testimony surely more funding would only serve to increase success. These new treatment programs would not only provide tools for the participants to fight their addiction, but also provide job training. With their new vocational skills these once drug abusing addicts and criminals could become productive parts of society, contributing to the legitimate economy, not the illegitimate one. Accompanying the reduction of hardcore drug users as a result of treatment we would also see a decline in the cost of public medicine for them, since most are unemployed and receive some sort of public assistance, and that amount is substantial as illustrated in the cost of alcohol and drugs chart on page ten.

Method for Implementation

Any time a major policy change is initiated it takes some time for it to take full effect. It would not be necessary to take away from law enforcement, as that would have a negative impact on any attempt to decrease drug use. In order to prevent a rampant rise in drug use during the first years of such an innovative solution, a certain amount of additional money would need to be appropriated into the entire program. This money would be used to develop prevention and treatment programs while maintaining enforcement. Once these programs have been implemented the drug abuse rate would go down. A gradual decrease in drug enforcement would be preceded by a rise in drug prevention and drug treatment programs. Within five years the taxpayers would be living in a society with less crime and more security; with less welfare spending and more citizens contributing; with less taxes and more GDP.

Conclusion

In order to reduce prison and drug addict populations; we must fight the drug war on more than one front. We must create programs that encourage prevention and not stigmatization. We must attempt to help those that are unable to help themselves. We must also incarcerate and endeavor to rehabilitate those people that pose a threat to themselves and society. I am not condoning the legalization or even decriminalization of drugs. I am condoning a new way of thinking. A way of thinking that is more concerned with long term results than short-term feeling good. I am condoning a new way of living. A way of living that requires everyone to participate in society. I am condoning a new way of feeling. A way of feeling that is concerned with what happens to those less fortunate then our selves.

Works Cited

Abadinky, Howard. Organized Crime 5^th Ed, Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1998, p. 78

Abt Associates Inc. 1999. What Americas Drug Users Spent. 1988-1998, Online,

15 July 2001,

Available: http://www.abtassoc.com/reports/criminal-justice/what-americans.pdf\

Albuquerque Tribune, Study says drug war costs N.M. $43 million, Online, 10 July 2001

Available: http://www.abqtrib.com/politics/022201_drugcost.shtml

BJA, The Denial of Federal Benefits for Drug Offenders, Online, 14 July 2001

Available: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/html/dfb_hist.html

Casey, Annie. Kids Count Data Book, Detroit: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2000. pg. 26

“Drug”, Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2000. 1993-1999 CD ROM

“Drug Arrest”, Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2000. 1993-1999 CD ROM

Frontline. Drugs, Online, 22 July 2001

Available: http//www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs

General Accounting Office, 8/16/1996. Studies Comparing Operational Costs and/or Quality of Service, Online, 2 July 2001

Available: http://www.securitymanagment.com/library/000231.html

Human Rights 95. The Tucker Family. Online. 25 July 2001

Available: http://www.hr95.org/Tuckers.html

Jones, Judy. Drug Treatment Programs Work. Online, July 22 2001

Available: http://www.studentbmj.com/back_issues/1099/news/355b.html

Justice Policy Institute, July 2000 Poor Prescription, Online, 10 July 2001

Available: http://www.cjcj.org/drug/exsumm.html

Los Angeles Times, Street Crime is down, Online. 14 July 2001

Available: http://www.streetgangs.com/topics/1999/010199violdn.html

Monitoring the Future 1999. Drug Trends in 1999. Online, 21 July 2001

Available: http://monitoringthefuture.org/pressreleases/99drugpr.html

Steve Nawojczyk, Gang Dynamics, 1997. Online, 22 July 2001

Available: http://www.gangwar.com/dynamics.htm

The National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information. The Economic Impact of Alcohol, Online, 21 July 2001

Available: http://www.health.org/govstudy/bkd265/Chapter1.htm#1.10

NIDA, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Updated Cost of Drugs, Online 14 July 2001

Available: http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofax/costs.html

NHSDA 1999. National Estimates of Drug Use, Online, 22 July 2001

Available: http://www. Samhsa.gov/oas/NHSDA/1999/Chapetr2.htm

Office of National Drug Control Policy. What America’s Users Spend on Illegal Drugs,

1998-1995. Online, 21 July 2001

Available: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/retail.pdf

The Sentencing Project. 2000 Facts About Prisons and Prisoners, Online, 10 June 2001

Available: http://www. Sentencingproject.org/brief/facts-pp.pdf

The Sentencing Project. U.S. Supasses Russia as world leader in rate of incarceration,

Online, 10 June 2001

Available: http://www. Sentencingproject.org/pubs/tspubs/intdata.pdf

U.S. Sentencing Commission. 2000 Distribution of Sentenced Guideline Offenders by Select Primary Offense Category. Online, 10 June 2001

Available: http://www.ussc.gov/judpack/1999/10c99.pdf

Yochelson, Samuel and Samenow, Stanton E. The Criminal Personality. New Jersey: Aronson, 1999, pg. 171-173

Bibliography

Abadinky, Howard. Organized Crime 5^th Ed, Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1998.

Abt Associates Inc. 1999. What Americas Drug Users Spent. 1988-1998, Online,

15 July 2001,

Available: http://www.abtassoc.com/reports/criminal-justice/what-americans.pdf

Albuquerque Tribune, Study says drug war costs N.M. $43 million, Online, 10 July 2001

Available: http://www.abqtrib.com/politics/022201_drugcost.shtml

Bureau of Prisons, Characteristics of Prisoners, Online 24 July 2001

Available: http://www.bop.gov/ “characteristics” 07/24/01

Drowns, Robert and Hess, Karen M, Juvenile Justice, St. Paul: West, 1995

Drug, Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2000. 1993-1999 CD ROM

Drug Arrest, Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2000. 1993-1999 CD ROM

Foucault, Michel, Discipline & Punish, The Birth of the Prison, 2^nded, New York: Random House, 1995