Should the U.S. Continue its War on Drugs?

Recommend (5) Comments (3)

Drug control strategies that seek to interrupt the supply at its source have failed over and over again for cocaine, heroin, marijuana and virtually every drug to which they have been applied – including alcohol during alcohol Prohibition. Fundamental economic principles demonstrate why: as long as a strong demand for a drug exists, a supply will be made available at some price to meet it. Worse than simply being ineffective, supply-side strategies drive market forces to expand cultivation and trafficking, generate unintended consequences and, in many instances, ultimately worsen the problem.

Study after study has shown that increased funding for treatment is the best way to undermine drug markets and reduce drug abuse. A RAND Corporation study for the U.S. Army and the Drug Czar’s office found treatment to be 10 times more effective at reducing drug abuse than drug interdiction, 15 times more effective than domestic law enforcement, and 23 times more effective than trying to eradicate drugs at their source. It concluded that for every dollar invested in drug treatment taxpayers save an estimated $7.46 in social costs. In contrast, taxpayers lose 85 cents for every dollar spent on source-country control, 68 cents for every dollar spent on interdiction, and 48 cents for every dollar spent on domestic law enforcement.

California’s CALDATA study found that every dollar invested in alcohol and drug treatment saved taxpayers more than seven dollars, due to reductions in crime and healthcare costs. Oregon estimates its return on every dollar invested in treatment to be $5.62, primarily in the areas of corrections, health and welfare spending. A SAMHSA study found that treatment reduces drug selling by 78%, shoplifting by almost 82% and assaults by 78%. Treatment decreases arrests for any crime by 64%. After only one year, use of welfare declined by 10.7%, while employment increased by 18.7%. Medical visits related to substance abuse decreased by more than half following treatment, while in-patient mental health visits decreased by more than 25%.