Consider the following scenario: President Barack Obama calls a press conference. At the conference, he expresses his concern for what he considers to be one of the single greatest threats to society: germs. He announces his intention to launch a full-scale "War on Germs," with the eventual goal of completely eliminating all germs from the face of the earth.
In order to implement this goal, he creates an entire government agency dedicated to dealing with the germ threat. He pumps billions upon billions of dollars into his anti-germ program only to find that he is no closer to reaching his goal. His solution: Spend even more tax dollars on anti-germ efforts. However, no matter what action the government takes, germs are still running rampant.
It is very obvious to see that fighting a "War on Germs" would be an utterly futile effort. Based on the sheer number of germs and their abilities to adapt to changing environments, it is virtually impossible to eradicate them all. What we are able to do, however, is reduce the level of impact that germs have on society. We can educate people about sanitary practices, like washing their hands, bathing and sterilizing utensils. We are also able to treat people afflicted by germs through our medical system. Therefore, although we cannot eliminate germs, we are able to minimize their influence on society as a whole.
The exact same logic can be applied to the "War on Drugs," the series of anti-drug policies implemented by Richard Nixon that is the backbone of modern drug policy, which led to the creation of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). In 2009, the current budget of the DEA is $2,602,000,000. Furthermore, in 2005, approximately 253,000 inmates were held in state prisons for drug offenses at a cost of approximately $67.55 per inmate per day (which adds up to $6,245,301,475 per year). Despite all this government spending, drugs are still readily available.
A 2005 survey of U.S. citizens over the age of 12 indicated that 40.1 percent had used marijuana, 17.1 percent had used powder or crack cocaine, and 1.5 percent had used heroin. In fact, in 2008, 47 percent of Americans reported using an illicit drug at least once during their lifetimes. Considering that this "war" has been going on since the 1970s, one would expect slightly more progress than that.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that it is virtually impossible to wipe all the drugs off the street. Like germs, the sheer quantity and adaptability of drugs makes the goal of total eradication unattainable. As a result of drug prohibition laws, black markets emerge to fill the demand in the form of drug cartels (from which gang violence emerges). If people cannot smuggle drugs, they will find ways to manufacture their own out of household products (consider methamphetamines). In short, regardless of the environment, there will always be a way in which drugs can infiltrate and adapt to it. Therefore, spending billions of tax dollars per year in attempts to eliminate drugs and incarcerate drug offenders is pointless.
On the other hand, we are able to minimize the impact the drugs have on society through education and treatment. In fact, the RAND Corporation reports that law enforcement costs about 15 times as much as treatment for the same reduction in societal costs. Unfortunately, because of strict anti-drug laws, many drug abusers are afraid to seek treatment. Compare that to Portugal's drug policy. After the state decriminalized drugs in the early 2000s, not only did aggregate drug use not rise, but a far greater number of people were willing to seek treatment for their drug problems. Aside from treatment, we have great potential to increase our drug education efforts. Education is the single greatest prevention tool. In 2006, about 45 percent of American adults reported being former smokers. The fact that such a large percentage of the population was able to stop using nicotine, one of the single most addictive drugs known to man, is a testament to the value of education efforts.
A War on Drugs seems like an attractive idea: The concept of keeping drugs off the streets appeals to a large portion of society. The problem is that modern drug policy does very little to actually achieve that goal. Drugs are still readily available in large quantities despite the billions of dollars we spend each year on law enforcement. The fact of the matter is that drugs are an evil that can never be fully eradicated through frivolous spending and law enforcement. We should instead be focusing our efforts in the areas where we can make the most difference: treatment and education. However, this will not happen until lawmakers realize that we are about as likely to completely eliminate cocaine as we are to completely eliminate influenza.
Mark Goldstein
junior
ACIS/management