According to the Drug Policy Alliance, waging the war on drugs costs the U.S. more than $51 billion a year. As of 2012, the U.S. has spent $1 trillion dollars on the war on drugs.
The cost estimates do not take into account the loss of potential taxes on currently banned substances. According to a 2010 report by the libertarian Cato Institute, taxing and regulating illegal drugs, similar to tobacco and alcohol, could generate $46.7 billion in tax revenue annually.
That annual cost — spending, lost potential taxes — represents nearly 2 percent of the state and federal budgets, which totaled roughly $6.1 trillion in 2013. That's not a large sum, but it may not justify the cost if the War on Drugs leads to drug-related violence around the world and does not significantly reduce drug abuse.
War on Drugs and Racism
In the United States, the drug problem mainly affects minority communities, especially African-Americans. This disproportionate effect leads many critics to label the war on drugs as racist.
While African American communities do not have a greater number of drug users or dealers, they are much more likely to be arrested and convicted of drug offenses.
When African Americans are accused of drug offenses, they are more likely to receive harsher prison sentences. According to a 2012 report from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, between 2007 and 2009, drug sentences for African American men were 13.1 percent longer than for white men.
The cost estimates do not take into account the loss of potential taxes on currently banned substances. According to a 2010 report by the libertarian Cato Institute, taxing and regulating illegal drugs, similar to tobacco and alcohol, could generate $46.7 billion in tax revenue annually.
That annual cost — spending, lost potential taxes — represents nearly 2 percent of the state and federal budgets, which totaled roughly $6.1 trillion in 2013. That's not a large sum, but it may not justify the cost if the War on Drugs leads to drug-related violence around the world and does not significantly reduce drug abuse.
War on Drugs and Racism
In the United States, the drug problem mainly affects minority communities, especially African-Americans. This disproportionate effect leads many critics to label the war on drugs as racist.
While African American communities do not have a greater number of drug users or dealers, they are much more likely to be arrested and convicted of drug offenses.
When African Americans are accused of drug offenses, they are more likely to receive harsher prison sentences. According to a 2012 report from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, between 2007 and 2009, drug sentences for African American men were 13.1 percent longer than for white men.
The Sentencing Project explains the disparities in a February 2015 report, «Many criminal justice policies that appear to be race-neutral actually have broader socioeconomic consequences that result in disparities.... Socioeconomic disparities often result in people of color being unfairly subjected to police scrutiny when using and selling drugs on the streets».
For example, trafficking in crack cocaine, one of the most common illicit drugs among African Americans, is punished with the most severe penalties. The threshold for a mandatory five-year sentence for crack is 28 grams. While the threshold for powder cocaine, which is more common among whites, is 500 grams, although the two substances are pharmacologically similar.
With respect to broader racial disparities, federal programs that encourage local and state police departments to crack down on drugs can create perverse incentives to target minority communities. For example, some federal grants have previously required police to make more frequent drug arrests in order to receive more anti-drug funding.
Neil Franklin, a retired police major from Maryland and executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, said minority communities are «easy hanging fruit» for police departments because they tend to deal in open markets, such as on public street corners, and have less political and financial power than white Americans.
In Chicago, for example, an analysis by Project Know, a drug addiction resource center, found that enforcement of anti-drug laws is concentrated in poor neighborhoods that tend to have more crime but are predominantly black.
For example, trafficking in crack cocaine, one of the most common illicit drugs among African Americans, is punished with the most severe penalties. The threshold for a mandatory five-year sentence for crack is 28 grams. While the threshold for powder cocaine, which is more common among whites, is 500 grams, although the two substances are pharmacologically similar.
With respect to broader racial disparities, federal programs that encourage local and state police departments to crack down on drugs can create perverse incentives to target minority communities. For example, some federal grants have previously required police to make more frequent drug arrests in order to receive more anti-drug funding.
Neil Franklin, a retired police major from Maryland and executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, said minority communities are «easy hanging fruit» for police departments because they tend to deal in open markets, such as on public street corners, and have less political and financial power than white Americans.
In Chicago, for example, an analysis by Project Know, a drug addiction resource center, found that enforcement of anti-drug laws is concentrated in poor neighborhoods that tend to have more crime but are predominantly black.
Detention operations throughout the day and evening resulted in an average of 20 to 30 arrests, providing additional data for grant applications. A significant amount of money and valuables are also seized as part of these activities. This is another successful effort.
Excessive arrest and incarceration rates have a negative impact on less affluent communities. A 2014 study published in the journal Sociological Science found that boys whose fathers serve time are less likely to develop the necessary behavioral skills to succeed in school by age five, which can put them on a path to crime known as «school-to-prison».
As the fight against drugs continues, these racial disparities have become a major tipping point. The question is not only whether the war on drugs has led to the mass and costly incarceration of millions of Americans, but also whether the practice has created a «new Jim Crow», a reference to the segregationist policies and voting rights restrictions that enslaved black communities in U.S. America.
What are the most dangerous drugs?
This is actually quite a controversial issue among drug policy experts. While some researchers have attempted to rank drugs according to their harms, some experts argue that these rankings are often more misleading than helpful.
In a report published in The Lancet, a team of researchers ranked the harms of drug use in the UK, taking into account factors such as lethality, likelihood of developing dependence, behavioral changes such as increased risk of violence, and loss of economic productivity. Alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine topped the charts.
Excessive arrest and incarceration rates have a negative impact on less affluent communities. A 2014 study published in the journal Sociological Science found that boys whose fathers serve time are less likely to develop the necessary behavioral skills to succeed in school by age five, which can put them on a path to crime known as «school-to-prison».
As the fight against drugs continues, these racial disparities have become a major tipping point. The question is not only whether the war on drugs has led to the mass and costly incarceration of millions of Americans, but also whether the practice has created a «new Jim Crow», a reference to the segregationist policies and voting rights restrictions that enslaved black communities in U.S. America.
What are the most dangerous drugs?
This is actually quite a controversial issue among drug policy experts. While some researchers have attempted to rank drugs according to their harms, some experts argue that these rankings are often more misleading than helpful.
In a report published in The Lancet, a team of researchers ranked the harms of drug use in the UK, taking into account factors such as lethality, likelihood of developing dependence, behavioral changes such as increased risk of violence, and loss of economic productivity. Alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine topped the charts.
There are two important observations in this report. First, it does not fully control for drug availability, which may lead to higher rankings for heroin and crack cocaine if they were as available as alcohol. Second, the estimates are for British society, so they may be slightly different for the US. David Nutt, who did the analysis, suggested that the harms of methamphetamine in the US may be much higher because of its widespread availability in America.
However, drug policy experts point out that the study and rankings do not take into account some aspects of harm from some drugs.
Drug policy expert John Caulkins of Carnegie Mellon University cited the analogy of an alien race coming to Earth and asking a question about the largest land animal. If we are talking about weight, the African elephant is the largest. However, if we talk about height, the largest is the giraffe. And in terms of length, it is the reticulated python.
Caulkins noted, «You can always create a composite concept, but it can lead to misunderstandings, more likely than being useful».
However, drug policy experts point out that the study and rankings do not take into account some aspects of harm from some drugs.
Drug policy expert John Caulkins of Carnegie Mellon University cited the analogy of an alien race coming to Earth and asking a question about the largest land animal. If we are talking about weight, the African elephant is the largest. However, if we talk about height, the largest is the giraffe. And in terms of length, it is the reticulated python.
Caulkins noted, «You can always create a composite concept, but it can lead to misunderstandings, more likely than being useful».
Direct measures of drug harm also face similar problems. Because alcohol, tobacco, and prescription drugs are legal, they can be more deadly than illegal drugs, making it difficult to compare their overall impact. Some drugs can be very dangerous to health, but because they are rarely used, they do not pose a serious threat to society.
Some drugs may be extremely dangerous in the short term (e.g. heroin) but not so in the long term, or vice versa (tobacco). Analyses of mortality or other harms from certain drugs do not always take into account interactions with prescription drugs, which may increase their lethality or harms relative to individual use.
Given the diversity of drugs and their effects, many experts argue that trying to rank the most dangerous drugs is a futile and misleading exercise. Experts say that instead of basing policy on a ranking, lawmakers should develop individual policies aimed at minimizing the specific set of risks and harms of each drug.
Why are alcohol and tobacco excluded from the war on drugs?
Tobacco and alcohol are often excluded from the drug category, despite their harmful effects on human health and society, for a variety of economic and cultural reasons.
Historically, tobacco and alcohol have been considered common drugs in the United States for many decades and remain the most commonly abused drugs in the country, along with caffeine. Attempting to ban the use of these substances by Americans through the use of legal enforcement would likely result in serious political consequences due to their popularity and importance in the culture.
In fact, a similar thing happened in the 1920s when the federal government attempted to ban the sale of alcohol through the 18th Amendment. This policy, known as Prohibition, is widely recognized by researchers and historians as a failure and even a disaster because it triggered the emergence of a massive illegal alcohol market that funded criminal gangs across the country. It took Congress only 14 years to repeal Prohibition.
Some drugs may be extremely dangerous in the short term (e.g. heroin) but not so in the long term, or vice versa (tobacco). Analyses of mortality or other harms from certain drugs do not always take into account interactions with prescription drugs, which may increase their lethality or harms relative to individual use.
Given the diversity of drugs and their effects, many experts argue that trying to rank the most dangerous drugs is a futile and misleading exercise. Experts say that instead of basing policy on a ranking, lawmakers should develop individual policies aimed at minimizing the specific set of risks and harms of each drug.
Why are alcohol and tobacco excluded from the war on drugs?
Tobacco and alcohol are often excluded from the drug category, despite their harmful effects on human health and society, for a variety of economic and cultural reasons.
Historically, tobacco and alcohol have been considered common drugs in the United States for many decades and remain the most commonly abused drugs in the country, along with caffeine. Attempting to ban the use of these substances by Americans through the use of legal enforcement would likely result in serious political consequences due to their popularity and importance in the culture.
In fact, a similar thing happened in the 1920s when the federal government attempted to ban the sale of alcohol through the 18th Amendment. This policy, known as Prohibition, is widely recognized by researchers and historians as a failure and even a disaster because it triggered the emergence of a massive illegal alcohol market that funded criminal gangs across the country. It took Congress only 14 years to repeal Prohibition.
Alcohol and tobacco are significant components of the U.S. economy. In 2013, sales from alcohol sales reached $124.7 billion (excluding bar and restaurant sales) and tobacco sales totaled $108 billion. If lawmakers decide to ban and eliminate these legal industries, there will be a significant financial loss to the economy and the loss of thousands of jobs.
When legislators passed the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, they were well aware of the cultural and economic aspects of this problem, which is why alcohol and tobacco were exempted from the list of controlled substances.
Had these substances not been exempted, it is likely that today's regulatory regime would have subjected them to strict controls. Mark Kleiman, a drug policy expert, argues that if evaluated today, both of these substances could be classified as Schedule 1 because they are addictive, harmful to health and society, and have no established medical value.
This leads us to reflect on a key aspect of drug control: policymakers cannot look at drugs in isolation. They must also consider the social and economic consequences of banning psychoactive substances and weigh the possible negative consequences against the potential benefits of reducing the use and abuse of these substances.
But this kind of pros and cons analysis is also why critics today want to end the war on drugs. Even if the war on drugs has been successful in reducing drug use and abuse, its impact on budgets, civil rights and international violence is so large and damaging that the small impact it may have on drug use may not be worth the cost.
When legislators passed the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, they were well aware of the cultural and economic aspects of this problem, which is why alcohol and tobacco were exempted from the list of controlled substances.
Had these substances not been exempted, it is likely that today's regulatory regime would have subjected them to strict controls. Mark Kleiman, a drug policy expert, argues that if evaluated today, both of these substances could be classified as Schedule 1 because they are addictive, harmful to health and society, and have no established medical value.
This leads us to reflect on a key aspect of drug control: policymakers cannot look at drugs in isolation. They must also consider the social and economic consequences of banning psychoactive substances and weigh the possible negative consequences against the potential benefits of reducing the use and abuse of these substances.
But this kind of pros and cons analysis is also why critics today want to end the war on drugs. Even if the war on drugs has been successful in reducing drug use and abuse, its impact on budgets, civil rights and international violence is so large and damaging that the small impact it may have on drug use may not be worth the cost.
Emphasis on drug rehabilitation and treatment
The most cautious reform in the war on drugs puts more emphasis on rehabilitation rather than incarcerating drug users, but it does so without decriminalizing or legalizing drugs.
The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy recently adopted an approach to increase funding for rehabilitation programs in the coming years. The Obama administration has also approved a number of legislative and regulatory changes, including Obamacare, which expanded access to drug treatment through health insurance. Nevertheless, the federal government continues to spend billions of dollars annually on routine drug law enforcement operations.
Drug courts, supported even by some conservatives such as former Texas Governor Rick Perry, are an example of a rehabilitation-oriented approach. Rather than simply incarcerating drug offenders, these courts send them to rehabilitation programs that aim to treat addiction as a medical rather than a criminal problem.
However, the Global Commission on Drug Policy states that drug courts can become almost as punitive as the full criminalization of drugs, as they often require total abstinence from drugs under threat of imprisonment. Given that recidivism is part of the rehabilitation process, the threat of imprisonment means that many non-violent drug offenders may find themselves back behind bars through drug courts.
Some other countries have adopted more radical rehabilitation measures, realizing that not all drug addicts will succeed in recovering from addiction. In some European countries, heroin is prescribed and administered under supervision to a limited number of addicts who are not amenable to other treatment methods. These programs allow some addicts to satisfy their addiction without the high risk of overdose and without having to commit other crimes to obtain drugs, such as robbery or theft.
The most cautious reform in the war on drugs puts more emphasis on rehabilitation rather than incarcerating drug users, but it does so without decriminalizing or legalizing drugs.
The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy recently adopted an approach to increase funding for rehabilitation programs in the coming years. The Obama administration has also approved a number of legislative and regulatory changes, including Obamacare, which expanded access to drug treatment through health insurance. Nevertheless, the federal government continues to spend billions of dollars annually on routine drug law enforcement operations.
Drug courts, supported even by some conservatives such as former Texas Governor Rick Perry, are an example of a rehabilitation-oriented approach. Rather than simply incarcerating drug offenders, these courts send them to rehabilitation programs that aim to treat addiction as a medical rather than a criminal problem.
However, the Global Commission on Drug Policy states that drug courts can become almost as punitive as the full criminalization of drugs, as they often require total abstinence from drugs under threat of imprisonment. Given that recidivism is part of the rehabilitation process, the threat of imprisonment means that many non-violent drug offenders may find themselves back behind bars through drug courts.
Some other countries have adopted more radical rehabilitation measures, realizing that not all drug addicts will succeed in recovering from addiction. In some European countries, heroin is prescribed and administered under supervision to a limited number of addicts who are not amenable to other treatment methods. These programs allow some addicts to satisfy their addiction without the high risk of overdose and without having to commit other crimes to obtain drugs, such as robbery or theft.
Researchers believe that Switzerland's heroin treatment program, the first national program of its kind, has reduced drug-related crime and improved social functioning, including stabilization of housing and employment. But some advocates of the war on drugs, such as the International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy, argue that these programs give the false impression that drug addiction can be safely controlled, which can weaken the social stigma surrounding drug use and lead more people to start using drugs.
For drug policy makers, the question is whether the potential overcoming of this stigma — and possibly leading to more drug use - is worth the benefit of giving more people the treatment they need. In general, drug policy experts agree that the trade-off is worth it.
What is the situation with the legalization of drugs?
Given concerns about the illicit drug market as a source of revenue for violent drug cartels, some advocates have called for the full legalization of drug use, possession, distribution and sale. However, exactly what legalization entails may vary.
In January 2015, prominent drug policy experts around the country presented several options, including allowing possession and cultivation but not sale (as in Washington), allowing distribution only in limited private clubs, or allowing the state government to manage the supply chain and sale of marijuana.
The report emphasizes the idea of a state monopoly on the production and sale of marijuana in order to eradicate the underground market and achieve the best public health outcomes. This would allow regulators to directly control the price and audience of marijuana users. Previous studies have shown that states that established a state monopoly on alcohol had higher prices, restricted access to minors, and reduced overall alcohol consumption, all of which had public health benefits. The same model can be applied to other drugs.
For drug policy makers, the question is whether the potential overcoming of this stigma — and possibly leading to more drug use - is worth the benefit of giving more people the treatment they need. In general, drug policy experts agree that the trade-off is worth it.
What is the situation with the legalization of drugs?
Given concerns about the illicit drug market as a source of revenue for violent drug cartels, some advocates have called for the full legalization of drug use, possession, distribution and sale. However, exactly what legalization entails may vary.
In January 2015, prominent drug policy experts around the country presented several options, including allowing possession and cultivation but not sale (as in Washington), allowing distribution only in limited private clubs, or allowing the state government to manage the supply chain and sale of marijuana.
The report emphasizes the idea of a state monopoly on the production and sale of marijuana in order to eradicate the underground market and achieve the best public health outcomes. This would allow regulators to directly control the price and audience of marijuana users. Previous studies have shown that states that established a state monopoly on alcohol had higher prices, restricted access to minors, and reduced overall alcohol consumption, all of which had public health benefits. The same model can be applied to other drugs.
Other options exist. Governments could increase funding for prevention and treatment programs and focus on legalization to deal with a possible increase in the number of new drug users. They could require licenses to purchase drugs and regulate the process, similar to what some states do with guns. Or they could restrict drug use in special facilities, such as supervised heroin injection sites or specialized facilities where people can legally use psychedelics.
But Jeffrey Miron, an economist at Harvard University and the libertarian Cato Institute, supports full legalization, even if it means commercializing drugs that are currently illegal. That, he says, is the only complete answer to eliminating the black market as a source of revenue for violent criminal gangs.
When drug policy expert Mark Kleiman was asked about the possibility of full legalization of drugs, he expressed his opposition to the idea. He stressed that full legalization could lead to an increase in the number of problem drug users. According to Kleiman, commercial pharmaceutical companies, like alcohol and tobacco manufacturers, favor avid users because they purchase significantly more products. In Colorado, for example, the top 30 percent of marijuana users account for nearly 90 percent of the demand for the product. Kleiman emphasized that such an industry has goals that are contrary to the public interest.
On the other hand, Miron noted that even if drug sales and distribution were legalized, more dangerous drugs could be taxed and regulated just as strictly, if not more strictly, than tobacco and alcohol. However, he is not personally in favor of such an approach. «You could legalize it completely and put restrictions on commercialization. Those have to be addressed as separate issues» Miron said.
Kleiman pointed out the shortcomings of the alcohol model. Alcohol continues to cause serious health problems that kill tens of thousands of people each year. It is often linked to violent crime, and some experts consider it one of the most dangerous drugs.
But Jeffrey Miron, an economist at Harvard University and the libertarian Cato Institute, supports full legalization, even if it means commercializing drugs that are currently illegal. That, he says, is the only complete answer to eliminating the black market as a source of revenue for violent criminal gangs.
When drug policy expert Mark Kleiman was asked about the possibility of full legalization of drugs, he expressed his opposition to the idea. He stressed that full legalization could lead to an increase in the number of problem drug users. According to Kleiman, commercial pharmaceutical companies, like alcohol and tobacco manufacturers, favor avid users because they purchase significantly more products. In Colorado, for example, the top 30 percent of marijuana users account for nearly 90 percent of the demand for the product. Kleiman emphasized that such an industry has goals that are contrary to the public interest.
On the other hand, Miron noted that even if drug sales and distribution were legalized, more dangerous drugs could be taxed and regulated just as strictly, if not more strictly, than tobacco and alcohol. However, he is not personally in favor of such an approach. «You could legalize it completely and put restrictions on commercialization. Those have to be addressed as separate issues» Miron said.
Kleiman pointed out the shortcomings of the alcohol model. Alcohol continues to cause serious health problems that kill tens of thousands of people each year. It is often linked to violent crime, and some experts consider it one of the most dangerous drugs.
However, some studies suggest that alcohol consumption patterns can be adjusted to reduce the problems associated with them. An extensive review of the evidence by Alexander Wagenaar, Amy Tobler, and Kelly Comroe concluded that raising alcohol taxes, and consequently reducing alcohol consumption, would significantly reduce violence, crime, and other negative consequences of alcohol use.
However, there is evidence to suggest that the war on drugs increases prices and limits availability beyond taxation and regulation. A 2014 study by John Caulkins, a drug policy expert at Carnegie Mellon University, found that prohibition increases the price of hard drugs by a factor of 10, so legalization by repealing prohibition and providing greater access to drugs could significantly increase drug use.
So the issue of legalization comes back to the question of balancing pros and cons: is the reduction in drug abuse, especially in the U.S., worth the carnage caused by the money made by violent criminal organizations in the black market for drugs? This is a common refrain in drug policy that experts repeat over and over again: there is no perfect solution, so policy should focus on choosing the best of many bad options.
«There’s always a choice» — explained Keith Humphries, a drug policy expert at Stanford University. «There is no structure in which there is no harm. We have freedom, pleasure, health, crime and public safety. You can insist on one and two of those — maybe even three with different drugs — but you can. Don't get rid of them all. You're going to have to pay the piper somewhere».
However, there is evidence to suggest that the war on drugs increases prices and limits availability beyond taxation and regulation. A 2014 study by John Caulkins, a drug policy expert at Carnegie Mellon University, found that prohibition increases the price of hard drugs by a factor of 10, so legalization by repealing prohibition and providing greater access to drugs could significantly increase drug use.
So the issue of legalization comes back to the question of balancing pros and cons: is the reduction in drug abuse, especially in the U.S., worth the carnage caused by the money made by violent criminal organizations in the black market for drugs? This is a common refrain in drug policy that experts repeat over and over again: there is no perfect solution, so policy should focus on choosing the best of many bad options.
«There’s always a choice» — explained Keith Humphries, a drug policy expert at Stanford University. «There is no structure in which there is no harm. We have freedom, pleasure, health, crime and public safety. You can insist on one and two of those — maybe even three with different drugs — but you can. Don't get rid of them all. You're going to have to pay the piper somewhere».