Jonathan Koch
04/20/2009
Research Paper
War on Drugs: Cultural Success, or Economic Failure
In 1937 a federal tax law was passed that would be the main arguing point to the eventual banning of the consumption and possession of Cannabis in the United States. This proposal was greatly lobbied by DuPont chemical manufacturing company who, at the time, was competing for the rights to manufacture car seats in the new booming automotive industry. While this did not make the consumption or possession of Cannabis illegal, it did impose a $100 tax on commercial use of the plant every time the plant, or drug, changed hands (1). Their major competitor was the manufactures of hemp that could be used as a strong fiber that would tear much less than DuPont’s own cheaply made oil-based fibers. Conspiracies like this have surfaced to my attention a lot since I was in high school. If any of them are legitimate in their argument, I could not tell you. My big concern is not really focused so much on the controversially unconstitutional prohibition of drugs, but the amount of money spent on keeping these drugs illegal and how the war on drugs is hurting our economy instead of fixing it.
The war on drugs was coined in 1969 by then president Richard Nixon (2) when he promised to keep drugs out of our communities and out of our homes by imposing and enforcing strict policies on offenders. Robert E. Peterson, former director of Michigan’s office of drug control, is a firm supporter in the firm punishment of drug offenders. Peterson now has his own private law firm in Owego, New York and has been keeping with his stance against drugs in America. In a 1996 essay, Peterson wrote that as the more drug offenders are put in jail, the drug use and other crimes in New York from years 1991 to 1995 have fallen (3). This is true; the rates have fallen, and they have continued to fall. In fact New York City is reporting the lowest crime rates in forty years according to the New York Times (4). But does this really have anything to do with drug use?
I did some searching in the library and came across some national statistics on the amount of drugs that have been seized by the government. Methamphetamine seizure had increased almost six hundred percent from the 274 kilograms seized in year 1990 to the 1817 kilograms seized in year 2005 while cocaine seizures had risen over forty-eight percent with 57,031 kilograms seized in 1990 to 84,959 in year 2005 (5). While this evidence seems to support the observations made by Peterson, we are only really seeing how much more is being smuggled in or manufactured and found by officials. We are not seeing the millions of dollars that are slipping by to meet the demand.
Even with the large amounts of drugs being seized, a report from the White House Drug Policy advisor states that Americans still spent nearly a combined total of $45 billion on heroin and cocaine in the year 2000; in the year 1990 it was estimated at over $92 billion. This does suggest that users are spending less on the drugs, but it does not tell how or why not as much money is being spent. To reach a demand, smugglers must first get the product to the United States. This would be very difficult to do if the product was bulked up with impurities, so the drugs must be separated down to the purest form to allow smugglers to conceal and move the product. In the year 1990, a pure gram of cocaine would cost $180 dollars. In the year 2000, cocaine prices had fallen to $152 per pure gram and heroin had fallen from $2,184 per pure gram to $839 per pure gram (6). This had also been a main reason for boiling cocaine to the base salts and smoked as the recreational drug, “crack”, which is potentially more dangerous and even less expensive than in the pure form.
One of the main arguments on keeping dangerous drugs illegal for the recreational consumption is that people feel threatened by the thought of having a meth lab on the corner of their neighborhood. They do not want to worry about their children being targeted by drug pushers while they walk home from school. They do not want to have to worry about being assaulted and robbed by some junky trying to get his next score of – whatever. But the problem with this is that most drug users are not bad people. They are little league coaches, teachers, moms, dads, or they are people just trying to ease the excruciating nausea and vomiting that occurs after chemotherapy treatment. Sure, you have the idiot high school kids getting high behind a statue after school at 4:20, but they are not criminals; they are just idiots. So, what are we supposed to do with people that are not criminals in any other sense except for the fact that they enjoy drugs that somebody else has said they are not allowed to put in their own body? Should we send them to jail?
A 2008 yearly census reported that 2,310,984 prisoners are lodged in either federal or state prisons, which is an increase of 2.4% from years 2000 to 2007. Of the 2,310,984 prisoners, 253,300 were in for non-violent drug offences (7). In a brief statistic taken by the state of Florida, it is estimated that it costs anywhere from $43.11 to $94.87 to house an inmate depending upon the amount of care the inmate requires (8). If the average inmate requires $43.11 to be housed (assuming that costs is similar to other state and federal systems), that would cost the United States $10,919,763 a day to incarcerate the drug offenders alone. That is over $3.9 billion a year. Can we not just let them go and expect them to be on their marry way to recovery?
A 16 year old male, from Washington, D.C., has been arrested 12 times and still makes more money per day than I probably will ever make with no arrests. He was reported as making $300 to $400 dollars a day selling crack. His behavior was of his environment; “I don't want to make this a life thing. I'll quit when I get out of high school. But when you start you really can't stop. The money is too good.” (11): This teenager did not want to be a drug dealer. These people are a product of an environment that is created by oppression. They are people whom are controlled by people that take advantage of others and exploit things like illegally selling drugs to users. When I filed for financial aid this year, and years before, I was asked if I had ever had any drug related charges. Before I started researching the topic of America’s drug war, I always wondered what would have happened if I had to mark “Yes”. Turns out that there was an education bill passed in 1988 that would deem me ineligible for federal aid if I marked yes, or had been found to have a drug related charge on criminal record. With the exceptions of a few speeding tickets, I have no criminal record, so I just marked “No” in the circle, submitted the document and waited for my money. Until reading Merchandizing Prisoners: Who really Pays for Prison Privatization by Byron Eugene Price, I never made the connection that a 19-year-old kid caught with an ounce of marijuana would be disqualified for financial aid, while another who is convicted of a violent crime, such as murder, can still receive government assistance (9). Not to imply that aid should be disqualified for both, but that we cannot expect a person to just recover from a felony conviction without an education. While there are welfare benefits for drug abusers, I would rather much see this money being put back in our education systems.
Another issue with the laws on drugs is medical care. Doctors of medicine and other medical professions are allowed to prescribe medications to patients by means a drug administration card that is closely monitored by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). These drugs are scheduled from 1 to 5 based upon their danger and likeliness of causing addiction or dependency, schedule 1 being the most dangerous, 5 being the least. You cannot get any of the scheduled drugs in the United States without proper permission from the DEA (10). This causes panic in doctors in that they are afraid of prescribing what the DEA may consider to be too much medication. The overprescribing of medication can result in the revocation of the doctor’s privilege to prescribe medications to patients that may require larger amounts of medication as their tolerance of the drugs increase. Consequently, a study submitted by The New England Journal of Medicine in a book on drug addiction by Esther Grinnell M.D. shows that pharmacies are 75% less likely to carry sufficient amounts of opioid pain medication in nonwhite neighborhoods versus 23% in majority white neighborhoods (11).
Grinnell, an expert on addictive behavioral studies, also suggests that drug addiction is more likely to be cause of a behavioral problem than it is a chemical problem. This is suggesting the report on pharmacy’s underwhelmed pain prescription supplies in nonwhite neighborhoods could be based off an ethnocentric belief that whites are less likely to abuse prescription drugs (11). This could lead to lower sales in and closures of pharmaceutical stores in black neighborhoods. Without the assistance of pain medications, people requiring these medications will not be able to recover from injury or be able to perform duties required by their work, which can lead to time loss of work or even job termination.
Peterson’s review in support of America’s drug policy shows the decreased crime rates in the city of New York throughout the 1990’s as more and more drug users spent more time in jail. His evidence does show to be true, but the claim seems all too accidental, or with false cause. The crime rates in the statistics do show lowering rates of crime, but they do not support that the drug policy is effective economically especially when crime rates have been battled positively just by doing something as simple as repairing broken windows on low income housing which is much less expensive than sending a person to prison.
If the war on drugs is meant to stop crime and to stop drug use, then the war on drugs is at best a temporary solution that will backlash as prisons fill and education priority declines. When we make laws that prohibit drug use, we put the power into the hands of people that will exploit impressionable teenagers with promises of money and power. These people are in charge of large amounts of uncontrolled money and capitol, and are not afraid to resort to ignominious and despicable acts of crime to protect them. So, why should we put the power in the hands of these people when we could be controlling the purity and costs of the drugs so we can make recreational use much safer in a well-regulated market? Why should we waste resources trying to find drug smugglers and dealers? What we, as a nation, need to be doing is building a stronger nation from the sales and taxes on drugs that would go to rebuilding urban neighborhoods to give people a safe living environment; to hospitals and programs that teach the potential risks associated with addictive behavior and the abuse of drugs or anything else that can create a wall in successfully achieving their goals.
Bibliography
1. Booth, Martin. “Cannabis: The History.” Holtzbrinck Publishers, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. 2005 (P. 188).
2. Payan, Tony. “The Three U.S.-Mexico Border Wars.” Westport, Conn.: Praeger Security International, 2006. (P. 23).
3. David bender, Publisher; Bruno leone, executive editor; Bonnie Szumski, Editorial Director; Brenda Stalcup, Managing Editor; Scott Barbour, Senior Editor; Stephen P. Thompson, Book Editor. “The War on Drugs: Opposing Viewpoints.” Greenhaven Press, incorporated, Box 289009 San Diego, California 92198-9009. 1996. (Pg. 29 – 32).
4. Rashbaum, William K.. “Falling Crime In New York Defies Trend.” 2002: New York edition, section B page 1. November 29, 2002. New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/29/nyregion/falling-crime-in-new-york-defies-trend.html?scp=1&sq=falling%20crime%20in%20new%20york&st=cse>. 24 April, 2009.
5. Hubert C. Cuvey, “The Methamphetamine Crisis”: Stratagies to Save Addicts, Families, and Communities.
Praeger Publishers, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT. 2007.
Includes bibliography, references, index . (P. 35).
6. "What America’s Users Spend on Illegal Drugs." White House Drug Policy. Dec 2001. Abt Associates,Inc..
7. "Prison Statistics." Bureau of Justice Statistics. 30 June 2008. Beuro of Justice. 30 Apr. 2009
8. Bryant, Paula. "Inmate Cost Per Day." Statistics in Brief. Sep. 2008. Florida Department of Corrections. 03 May 2009
9. Price, Byron Eugene. “Merchandizing Prisoners: Who Really Pays for Prison Privatization”
Prager Publishers, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881. (2006) P. 142.
10. Drug Enforcement Agency. DEA, drug Scheduling. DEA, 04 May, 2008.
11. Grinnell, Esther M.D.; Adamec, Christine. “The Encyclopedia of Addictions and Addictive Behaviors Facts on File”, Inc. 132 west 31st Street, New York NY 10001, 2006. (xii).
