[Updated With Correction]: Forty Years of Drug War Failure Represented in a Single Chart

Reason ^ | October 11, 2012 | Mike Riggs

[Altariel]

Via Drugsnotthugs.com and Reason's own Cynthia Bell.

UPDATE: A reader points out that the dollar amounts on the right Y axis don't add up to $1.5 trillion. The creator of the chart, documentary filmmaker Matt Groff, Tweeted the following in response to a question about where the $1.5 trillion figure comes from: "Short answer: chart shows only fed drug control, $1.5T refers to all costs assoc. w/ drug prohibition, blog on it shortly."

First off, I take the blame for not seeing the discrepancy. Shame on me.

But here's the funny thing: While the $1.5 trillion figure doesn't correspond to the numbers at right, it's actually low. In 2010, the AP put the 40-year tab of federal drug control spending at $1 trillion. But the massive federal drug control budget--for fiscal year 2013, it'll be $3.7 billion for interdiction, $9.4 billion for law enforcement, and $9.2 billion for early intervention--is actually a pretty small slice of the pie. States and municipalities have their own drug war expenses--investigating, trying, and locking up drug offenders--and those expenses actually dwarf what the federal government spends.

According to The Economic Impact of Illicit Drug Use on American Society, last published by the Department of Justice in 2011, enforcing illegal drug laws imposes an annual cost on the American criminal justice system of $56 billion; while incarceration of drug offenders poses an annual cost of $48 billion.

That's $104 billion spent annually by states and cities on two aspects of the drug war (and doesn't include treatment, public assistance, and a slew of other costs), compared to roughly $21 billion spent by the federal government. For $1.5 trillion to reflect just federal spending, the federal drug control budget would need to have been $37.5 billion a year, every year, for the last four decades. It's only slightly more than half that this year.

So, yes: There is a huge problem with the chart, in that 40 years of federal drug control spending does not add up to $1.5 trillion (though minus the "$1.5 trillion" in the middle of the image, the chart does accurately represent the growth of the federal drug control budget and the relatively flat rate of addiction to illicit substances). But even if the chart were designed to reflect "all costs associated with drug prohibition" over the last 40 years, with the right Y axis reflecting the growth of state and federal drug control spending, it would

still be wrong, because $1.5 trillion doesn't nearly cover it.

Update 2: Over at his blog, Matt Groff responds to concerns about his chart:

This graphic was initially not meant to stand on its own but rather illustrate an interviewee’s assertions about the costs and efficacy of drug prohibition. In a tight production schedule, I utilized a data set that I thought most accurately illustrated the nature and growth of the costs of the War on Drugs and that data is US federal drug control spending. But the $1.5 trillion figure, as mentioned by Jack Cole in his interview, accounts for many more costs, including state level costs, prison costs, lost productivity costs due to incarceration and others.

[Utmost Certainty]

Most drug users use on a casual or recreational basis; diehard addicts are the minority by far. So your hospice system seems rather inappropriate.

I’d say legalize drugs entirely and let the situation organically resolve itself.

[darth]

Unless we are going to have selective enforcement of federal law, I would say, “Change the federal law to allow states to “experiment””.

That said, I would cut the fed funds for the DEA and direct them to concentrate on the big fish who import the deadliest drugs.

For example, the largest drug money launderer in America has continued his very lucrative business for over 20 years through dim and pubbie administrations without an investigation. Newspaper reporters have privately told me that the operation is well known, but their editors have forbidden them to investigate or write about what they know.

The corruption of the system by bribes and intimidation are the core of our problem. For example, why did the fedgov suddenly decide to crack down on California’s medical MJ outlets? Could it be because the cartels were seeing a drop in sales?

To me, this is the MOST important reason to attack the demand for drugs. Take the profit out of heroin and you hurt the Taliban, organized crime, crooked pols, crooked cops, et al.

[darth]

The libertarian in me says “legalize”, but that is politically impossible.

The path back to Constitutional freedoms will take a generation of fighting in the political arena.

One step at a time seems possible.

[Ken H]

IOW, piss on the Tenth Amendment. Let big daddy fedgov use the expansive Commerce Clause to ‘allow’ states to experiment as much or little as it sees fit.

[darth]

I find it interesting that there is such strong libertarian/Constitutionalist sentiment on FR. A while back, anyone advocating loosening our drug prohibitions would get flamed.

I am happy that this is happening on FR and in the Republican Party. The country is becoming more liberty oriented and that is very positive.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Where’s the chart for the cartel’s income?

I expect it tracks drug war spending - as PapaNew quoted Milton Friedman, "The role of the government is to protect the drug cartel."