Skip to main content

Spending Priorities

President Obama's New Drug War Strategy and the Low-Down on 'America's Trillion Dollar Dope Game'

Houston-area journalist Clarence Walker reflects on the occasion of a trillion dollars spent on the failed US drug war.

No other has spent more money on the dope trade than our own U.S. Federal Government. Even the richest of drug barons and associated players, dead and alive, cannot or could not have competed with the avalanche of paperwork doled out by the government in its fight against this monster. Even the once ruthless - and now dead - Pablo Escobar and his Medellin Cartel, the Cali Cartel or the Mexican Drug Cartels cannot match the money they have earned from the drug trade with the amount the Federal Government has allocated for years in its battle to stem the flow of illegal drugs into America.
 
And what is the cost for our government in its fight against this narcotics epidemic, a war raged now for some four decades? By all means have a guess, but here is the figure according to The White House: One trillion dollars.

The war on drugs is the longest war the American government has ever fought, longer than World War II, the Cold War, the Korean War and  the Vietnam War. And even after 40 years, the battle to enforce the laws of the land that prohibits "getting high on dope", this poisonous, addictive trade continues to thrive with the ferocity of an earthquake across the planet. Quite obviously, there is no clear-cut victory in sight.

From the outset, if  the intent driving the war on drugs, beginning in 1970 under President Nixon's Administration, was to create a drug-free America, we can see that after the spending of a trillion dollars, culminating in millions of arrests, the creation of a burgeoning health care system with which to effectively treat addicts, and the billions spent on law enforcement's task of arresting drug dealers and the  prison system in housing the millions of nonviolent drug offenders alongside thousands who have brought violence and death, the "war on drugs" nevertheless remains a dismal failure.

Pres. Obama’s Proposed 2011 Budget Bolsters War on Drugs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                               February 9, 2010

Pres. Obama’s Proposed 2011 Budget Bolsters War on Drugs

Obama administration to expand drug war by tilting funds heavily toward law enforcement and away from treatment

CONTACT: Aaron Houston, MPP director of government relations …… 202-905-2009 or [email protected]

WASHINGTON, D.C. — According to 2011 funding “highlights” released this week by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), the Obama administration is expanding the war on drugs and focusing its funds toward law enforcement over treatment. The budget puts America’s drug war spending at $15.5 billion for fiscal year 2011; an increase of 3.5 percent over 2010 and an increase of 5.2 percent in overall enforcement funding ($9.7 billion in FY 2010 to $9.9 billion in FY 2011). Addiction treatment and preventative measures are budgeted to increase from $5.2 billion to $5.6 billion.

         Furthermore, President Obama chose to continue funding the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, which is run by the drug czar’s office and has for years emptied its coffers on absurd anti-marijuana ads that veer far from the truth. One such ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9B-h_bU-uI) released in 2006 insinuates that marijuana use can lead to rape, a particularly dishonest claim considering that alcohol, a legal drug, is a factor in a huge majority of sexual assaults.

         “This budget reflects the same Bush-era priorities that led to the total failure of American drug policy during the last decade,” said Aaron Houston, MPP director of government relations. “One of the worst examples is $66 million requested for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign when every independent study has called it a failure. The president is throwing good money after bad when what we really need is a new direction.”

         With more than 29,000 members and 100,000 e-mail subscribers nationwide, the Marijuana Policy Project is the largest marijuana policy reform organization in the United States. MPP believes that the best way to minimize the harm associated with marijuana is to regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol. For more information, please visit mpp.org

####

DPA Statement: FBI Releases 2007 Crime in the US Report

For Immediate Release: September 15, 2008 For More Info: Tony Newman at (646) 335-5384 FBI Releases 2007 Crime in the United States Report Record Number of Marijuana Arrests, 775,000 for Nothing More than Possession DPA Statement: Throwing Good Money (and Lives) After Bad According to the FBI’s 2007 Crime in the United States Report, released today, the police made more than 1.8 million drug arrests last year, more than three times the number of arrests for violent crime during the same period. 82.5 percent of drug arrests were for simple possession of an illegal drug. Only 17.5 percent were for sales or manufacturing. Almost 775,000 arrests were for nothing more than possession of marijuana for personal use, a 5 percent increase over 2006. Those arrested are separated from their loved ones, branded criminals, denied jobs, and in many cases prohibited from accessing public assistance for life. The Following is a statement from Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance: “For more than 30 years the U.S. has treated drug use and misuse as a criminal justice matter instead of a public health issue. Yet, despite hundreds of billions of dollars spent and millions of Americans incarcerated, illegal drugs remain cheap, potent and widely available in every community; and the harms associated with them -- addiction, overdose, and the spread of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis -- continue to mount. Meanwhile, the war on drugs has created new problems of its own, including rampant racial disparities in the criminal justice system, broken families, increased poverty, unchecked federal power, and eroded civil liberties. Continuing the failed war on drugs year after year is throwing good money and lives after bad. “It's time for a new bottom line for U.S. drug policy -- one that focuses on reducing the cumulative death, disease, crime and suffering associated with both drug misuse and drug prohibition. A good start would be enacting short- and long-term national goals for reducing the problems associated with both drugs and the war on drugs. Such goals should include reducing social problems like drug addiction, overdose deaths, the spread of HIV/AIDS from injection drug use, racial disparities in the criminal justice system, and the enormous number of nonviolent offenders behind bars. Federal drug agencies should be judged -- and funded -- according to their ability to meet these goals. “Policymakers should especially stop wasting money arresting and incarcerating people for nothing more than possession of marijuana for personal use. There’s no need to be afraid of what voters might think; the American people are already there. Substantial majorities favor legalizing marijuana for medical use (70 percent to 80 percent) and fining recreational marijuana users instead of arresting and jailing them (61 percent to 72 percent). Twelve states have legalized marijuana for medical use and 12 states have decriminalized recreational marijuana use (six states have done both).”

Clinton Crime Agenda Shortsighted; May Hurt Poor and Minorities, Advocates say

[Courtesy of Justice Policy Institute] Clinton Crime Agenda Ignores Proven Methods for Reducing Crime Advocates say plan will increase incarceration rates and negatively impact the poor and minorities For Immediate Release: Monday, April 14, 2008 Contact: LaWanda Johnson (202)-558-7974 x308, cell 202-320-1029 Washington, D.C.--The Justice Policy Institute (JPI) announced today that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's anti-crime package ignores critical research that finds that investments in employment, education, housing and treatment for those who need it is the most effective and fiscally-responsible way to improve public safety. Research shows that Clinton's proposal to revive former President Clinton's COPS initiative, which called for investments in policing, would increase prison populations, and may have a negative impact on the nation's poor and minorities, without significantly reducing crime. The Clinton Administration's "tough on crime" policies resulted in the largest increases in federal and state prison inmates of any president in American history. Advocates say re-implementing this agenda would be a return to bad policies. "The first COPS was found to be costly and ineffective in reducing crime rates and COPS 2.0 is not an improved version of the first one," says JPI executive director Sheila Bedi. "COPS was only successful in filling our prisons and jails with people who research shows can be better served with treatment, evidence-based practices, and community-based alternatives that also promote public safety." According to research, adding police to the streets is not the most effective method for reducing crime. Delaware received $19.6 million in COPS grants and during that same time, the number of violent crimes increased 35.9 percent. In contrast, Oklahoma City, which did not receive any COPS grants, decreased its police force by 16 percent and during that same period saw a dramatic 32.5 percent decrease in the number of violent crimes reported. Furthermore, advocates say law enforcement professionals don't support policing as being the most effective method of reducing crime. In a 2002 poll, 71.1 percent of surveyed chief of police, sheriffs and prosecutors agreed that providing more educational and after-school programs would make the greatest impact in reducing youth crime and violence. Only 14.9 percent said that hiring more police would have the greatest impact. "We've tried to win the war on gangs with law enforcement alone, but we have little to show for it," says National Black Police Association Executive Director Ronald Hampton. "Rather than engaging in endless battles, we need to target the problem behavior that hurts communities. We should support the kinds of prevention and proven programs that we already know reduce violence and crime." Research supports investments in communities as a more cost effective and beneficial way of reducing crime. Research shows that when there is a reduction in crimes rates, it coincides with increased employment. When more people have jobs, fewer crimes are committed. A study by the Heritage Foundation found that "For every 1 percent increase in civilian labor force participation, violent crime is expected to decrease by 8.8 incidents per 100,000" people. "Not only does the Clinton crime plan lack innovation and forward thinking, it ignores all we know about crime prevention. When people are employed, violent crime decreases," says Lisa Kung, Director of the Southern Center for Human Rights. "One in every one hundred Americans is incarcerated. It is clear that Clinton intends to continue a legacy of policies that will keep Americans paying for more police, more prisons and more punitive measures." Advocates also believe that Clinton's opposition to the U.S. Sentencing Commission's decision to make retroactive the changes to sentencing for the thousands of people who had received disproportionately long sentences for crack-cocaine, most of whom are African American, is concerning. Nationwide, from 1995 to 2004, drug abuse violations were the only crime that saw an increase in arrests following the COPS grant. However, a report by JPI release last year, found that while African Americans and whites use and sell drugs at similar rates, African Americans are ten times more likely than whites to be imprisoned for drug offenses mainly due to disparate policing practices, disparate treatment before the courts, mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws, and differences in the availability of drug treatment for African Americans. According to Families Against Mandatory Minimums, "it would be a cruel injustice to base the crack cocaine reduction on an assessment that these people have suffered under an unjust structure and then deny the benefit of the amendment to the very people whose experiences led the Commission to lower the sentences in the first place." "If any of the candidates really wants to do something about crime, then they should invest in policies that increase employment, educational attainment and treatment for people who need it," says Bedi. "These are proven approaches that reduce crime and recidivism--evidence-based practices, which have undergone rigorous experimental inquiry, and have been shown to have proven public safety benefits." For more information contact LaWanda Johnson at 202-558-7974, ext. 308. #######

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

Subscribe to Spending Priorities