Here's something on the monetary value of prohibition:
Economics
1. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime,
"[T]he value of the global illicit drug market for the year 2003
was estimated at US$13 bn [billion] at the production level,
at $94 bn at the wholesale level (taking seizures into account),
and at US$322bn based on retail prices and taking seizures and other
losses into account. This indicates that despite seizures and losses,
the value of the drugs increase substantially as they move from producer
to consumer."
Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC),
World Drug Report 2005 (Vienna, Austria: UNODC, June 2005), p. 127.
2. "If compared to global licit exports (US$7,503 bn in 2003)
or compared to global GDP (US$35,765 bn in 2003) the estimated
size [of] the global illicit drug market may not appear to be
particularly high (0.9% of global GDP at retail level or
1.3% of global exports measures at wholesale level).
"Nonetheless, the size of the global illicit drug market is
substantial. The value, measured at retail prices, is higher
than the GDP of 88% of the countries in the world (163 out of
184 for which the World Bank has GDP data) and equivalent to
about three quarters of Sub-Saharan Africa’s combined GDP (US$439 bn
in 2003). The sale of drugs, measured at wholesale prices, was
equivalent to 12% of global export of chemicals (US$794 bn),
14% of global agricultural exports (US$674 bn) and exceeded
global exports of ores and other minerals (US$79 bn) in 2003.
Such sales of drugs were also higher than the combined total licit
agricultural exports from Latin America (US$75 bn) and the
Middle East (US$10 bn) in 2003."
Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC),
World Drug Report 2005 (Vienna, Austria: UNODC, June 2005), p. 127.
3. "It is also worth noting that by 1999, the UNDCP had not
attempted to follow up its efforts to estimate the size of the
world illegal drug market. That year, the Financial Action Task Force
(FATF) [an inter-governmental body focusing on anti-money laundering
activities and legislation] decided to begin work to assess the
size of the world illegal economy and found it convenient to start
with an estimate of the illegal drug market, a task that was
considered easier than estimating other illegal activities, given
the large work on drugs already available. FATF hired Peter Reuter,
a well-known economist who has done extensive work on illegal drug
markets, and produced an estimate. This job had the full cooperation
of the UNDCP, which opened its data bank to the researcher. The
resulting study is probably the most serious attempt to ascertain the
size of the world illegal drug market and resulted in an estimated
range between $45 and $280 billion."
Source: Francisco E. Thoumi, PhD, "The Numbers Game: Let's All
Guess the Size of the Illegal Drug Industry!" Journal of Drug Issues,
Vol. 35, No. 1, Winter 2005, p. 191.
4. "The most recent figures available from the Office of National
Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) indicate that, in 1999, federal
expenditures on control of illegal drugs surpassed $17 billion;
combined expenditures by federal, state, and local governments
exceeded $30 billion. What is more, the nation's so-called 'drug
war' is a protracted one. The country has spent roughly this amount
annually throughout the 1990s."
Source: National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences,
"Informing America's Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don't Know
Keeps Hurting Us" (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001),
p. 1.
5. "The long-run elasticities provide a basis for estimating
potential benefits from changing the current policy mix away from
enforcement and interdiction and towards education and treatment.
Applying the estimated coefficients, a 10 percent reduction in
expenditures on enforcement (about 1 billion dollars by the late 1990s)
would be associated with a long-run reduction of over 20% in both the
number of deaths and the age-adjusted death rate. This would imply that
close to 3,000 deaths a year might be avoided with a shift away from
enforcement approaches to drug control. Adding the billion dollars to
education and treatment would represent an 18% increase in 1998. The
estimated elasticity of 1.59 implies a reduction of close to 5,000
drug-induced deaths per year as a result. Thus, the underlying estimates
suggest that very substantial improvements in public health may be
achieved by emphasizing education and treatment over enforcement and
interdiction."
Source: Shepard, Edward & Paul R. Blackley, "US Drug Control Policies:
Federal Spending on Law Enforcement Versus Treatment in Public Health
Outcomes," Journal of Drug Issues, Vol. 34, No. 4, Fall 2004, pp. 781-782.
6. According to the United Nations, profits in illegal drugs
are so inflated, that three-quarters of all drug shipments would
have to be intercepted to seriously reduce the profitability
of the business. Current efforts only intercept 13% of heroin
shipments and 28%-40%* of cocaine shipments. (*At most; the UN
Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention notes that estimates
of production and total supply are probably understated by reporting
governments.)
Source: United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention,
Global Illicit Drug Trends 1999 (New York, NY: UNODCCP, 1999),
p. 51.
7. According to the United Nations, illegal drugs create enormous
profits. In 2001, a kilogram of heroin in Pakistan sold for an average
of $610. The UN estimates that in the US in 2001, heroin cost an average
of $25,000 per kilogram.
Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Global Illicit
Drug Trends 2003 (New York, NY: UNODC, 2003), p. 243.
8. According to the US Office of National Drug Control Policy, the cost
of heroin at the retail level declined from an average estimated
$1,974.49 per gram in 1981 to $361.95 per gram in 2003.
At the wholesale level, the drop went from $1,007.60 per gram
in 1981 to $139.22 per gram in 2003.
The average purity of heroin on the US market increased in that
time as well, going at the retail level from an average of 11%
in 1981 to an average 32% in 2003, and at the wholesale level
from an average 12% in 1981 to an average 46% in 2003.
Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy, "The Price and
Purity of Illicit Drugs: 1981 Through the Second Quarter of 2003"
(Washington DC: Executive Office of the President, November 2004),
Publication Number NCJ 207768, p. 62, Table 5 & p. 63, Table 6.
9. The UN reports that in 2001, a kilogram of
cocaine base in Colombia averaged $940, and a kilogram of cocaine in
averaged $1,565 that year. The UN estimates that in the United States
in 2001, a kilogram of cocaine averaged $21,500.
Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Global Illicit
Drug Trends 2003 (New York, NY: UNODC, 2003), p. 260.
10. According to the US Office of National Drug Control Policy,
the cost of cocaine at the retail level declined from an average
estimated $544.59 per gram in 1981 to $106.54 per gram in 2003.
At the wholesale level, the drop went from $201.18 per gram in 1981
to $37.96 per gram in 2003.
The purity of cocaine also went up during that time. At the retail
level, it averaged 40% purity in 1981 and 70% purity in 2003, while
at the wholesale level cocaine averaged 56% purity in 1981 and 63%
purity in 2003.
Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy, "The Price and
Purity of Illicit Drugs: 1981 Through the Second Quarter of 2003"
(Washington DC: Executive Office of the President, November 2004),
Publication Number NCJ 207768, p. 58, Table 1 & p. 59, Table 2.
11. "Over the past decade, inflation- adjusted prices in Western
Europe fell by 45% for cocaine and 60% for heroin. Comparative
falls in the United States were about 50% for cocaine and 70%
for heroin."
Source: United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention,
Global Illicit Drug Trends 1999 (New York, NY: UNODCCP, 1999),
p. 86.
12. "US authorities reported the mean purity level of heroin to be
around 6% in 1987 but about 37% in 1997, in which year levels were
even reaching 60% in New York."
Source: United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention,
Global Illicit Drug Trends 1999 (New York, NY: UNODCCP, 1999),
p. 86.
13. "In summary, prices for powder cocaine, crack, and heroin
declined sharply in the 1980s and have declined more gradually since
then, with periodic interruptions by modest price spikes that
have usually persisted for a year or less. For d-methamphetamine,
the pattern is broadly similar, but the price spikes appear to be
larger and longer-lasting, particularly for 1989-1991. Marijuana prices
have followed a very different pattern, increasing from 1981 to 1991,
then declining through 2000 and increasing over the past three years.
"The average purities of these drugs have varied substantially by
drug, occasionally with divergent trends. Trends over time suggest
that cutting, or diluting, across quantity levels occurs today
primarily in the case of heroin. The data also show that the average
purity of drugs obtained through seizures is generally higher than
that of drugs observed through purchases, particularly at higher
quantity levels."
Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy, "The Price and
Purity of Illicit Drugs: 1981 Through the Second Quarter of 2003"
(Washington DC: Executive Office of the President, November 2004),
Publication Number NCJ 207768, p. vii.
14. "Between 1989 and 1998, American users spent $39 billion to
$77 billion yearly on cocaine and $10 billion to $22 billion yearly
on heroin. To arrive at these estimates, we multiplied the number
of users by their typical expenditures, and then converted the
resulting estimates to 1998-dollar equivalents. Most of the
downward trend results from changes in the consumer price index."
Source: Abt Associates, "What America’s Users Spend on Illegal
Drugs 1988-1998" (Washington, DC: ONDCP, Dec. 2000), p. 5.
15. According to the US Office of National Drug Control Policy,
federal spending on the drug war in 2001 totaled $18.095 Billion,
rising to $18.822 Billion in 2002 and $19.179 Billion for 2003.
Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy, "National
Drug Control Strategy: FY 2003 Budget Summary" (Washington,
DC: Office of the President, February 2002), Table 2, p. 6.
16. According to ONDCP, the $18.822 Billion spent by the federal
government on the drug war in 2002 breaks down as follows:
Treatment (with Research):
$3.587 Billion (19.1% of total)
Prevention (with Research):
$2.548 Billion (13.5% of total)
Domestic Law Enforcement:
$9.513 Billion (50.5% of total)
Interdiction:
$2.074 Billion (11.0% of total)
International:
$1.098 Billion (5.8% of total)
In other words, $12.686 Billion in 2002 was directed to supply
reduction, i.e. law enforcement (67.4% of total), and $6.136
Billion to demand reduction, i.e. treatment, prevention and
education (32.6% of total).
Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy, "National
Drug Control Strategy: FY 2003 Budget Summary" (Washington,
DC: Office of the President, February 2002), Table 2, p. 6.
17. "Since 1982 total justice expenditures more than quadrupled
from nearly $36 billion to over $167 billion, a 366% increase.
The average annual increase for all levels of government between
1982 and 2001 was 8% (table 1)."
Source: Bauer, Lynn & Steven D. Owens, "Justice Expenditure
and Employment in the United States, 2001" (Washington, DC:
US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, May 2004),
NCJ202792, p. 2.
18. "- Overall, local police spending represented 30% of the
Nation's total justice expenditure, and State corrections
accounted for the second largest portion, 23%.
"- Police protection is primarily a local responsibility;
accordingly, local governments spent 70% of the total police
protection expenditure in the country in 2001.
"- Corrections is primarily a State responsibility, and the
State governments accounted for 63% of the Nation's corrections
expenditure.
"- Judicial and legal services in the United States were funded
primarily by local (42%) and State (36%) governments."
Source: Bauer, Lynn & Steven D. Owens, "Justice Expenditure
and Employment in the United States, 2001" (Washington, DC:
US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, May 2004),
NCJ202792, p. 4.
19. "Expansion of Nation's justice system, 1982-2001
"The increase in justice expenditures over nearly 20 years reflects
the expansion of the Nation?s justice system. For example, in 1982
the justice system employed approximately 1.27 million persons;
in 2001 it reached over 2.2 million.
"Police protection
"One indicator of police workload, the FBI's arrest estimates for
State and local police agencies, grew from 12 million in 1982
to an estimated 13.7 million in 2001. The number of employees
in police protection increased from approximately 724,000 to
over 1 million.
"Judicial and legal
"The judicial and legal workload, including civil and criminal
cases, prosecutor functions, and public defender services, also
expanded during this period. Cases of all kinds (criminal,
civil, domestic, juvenile, and traffic) filed in the nearly
16,000 general and limited jurisdiction State courts went from
about 86 million to 92.8 million in the 18-year period, 1984-2001.
The juvenile court workload also expanded from 1 million
delinquency cases in 1982 to nearly 1.7 million in 2000. The
total of judicial and legal employees grew about 97% to over
488,000 persons in 2001.
"Corrections
"The total number of State and Federal inmates grew from 488,000
in 1985 to over 1.3 million in 2001. The number of local jail
inmates tripled from approximately 207,000 in 1982 to over
631,000 in 2001.5 Adults on probation increased from over 1.3
to about 4 million persons. Overall, corrections employment more
than doubled from nearly 300,000 to over 747,000 during this period."
Source: Bauer, Lynn & Steven D. Owens, "Justice Expenditure
and Employment in the United States, 2001" (Washington, DC:
US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, May 2004),
NCJ202792, p. 6.
20. "Seven cents of every dollar spent by State and local
governments in 2001 was for justice activities. Among all State
and local expenditures, 3% was for police protection, nearly 3%
for corrections, and 2% for judicial and legal services.
"By comparison, 30% of State and local government spending went
to education, 14% to public welfare, 7% to health and hospitals,
and over 4% to interest on debt."
Source: Bauer, Lynn & Steven D. Owens, "Justice Expenditure
and Employment in the United States, 2001" (Washington, DC:
US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, May 2004),
NCJ202792, p. 4.
21. "The few studies on the local economic impacts of prisons to
date have not found significant positive impacts. For example,
a study by the Sentencing Project challenges the notion that a
new prison brings economic benefits to smaller communities. Using
25 years of data from New York State rural counties, the authors
looked at employment rates and per capita income and found 'no
significant difference or discernible pattern of economic trends'
between counties that were home to a prison and counties that
were not home to a prison (King, Mauer, and Huling 2003).
According to a recent study by Iowa State University, many towns
that made sizeable investments in prisons did not reap the
economic gains that were predicted (Besser 2003). Another analysis
in Texas found no impacts as measured by consumer spending in
nearly three-fourths of the areas examined (Chuang 1998)."
Source: Lawrence, Sarah and Jeremy Travis, "The New Landscape
of Imprisonment: Mapping America's Prison Expansion" (Washington,
DC: Urban Institute, April 2004), p. 3.
22. "The economic benefits of new prisons may come from the flow
of additional state and federal dollars. In the decennial census,
prisoners are counted where they are incarcerated, and many federal
and state funding streams are tied to census population counts.
According to the U.S. General Accounting Office (2003), the federal
government distributes over $140 billion in grant money to state and
local governments through formula-based grants. Formula grant money
is in part based on census data and covers programs such as Medicaid,
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Social Services Block Grant
(U.S. General Accounting Office 2003). Within a state, funding for
community health services, road construction and repair, public housing,
local law enforcement, and public libraries are all driven by
population counts from the census."
Source: Lawrence, Sarah and Jeremy Travis, "The New Landscape
of Imprisonment: Mapping America's Prison Expansion" (Washington,
DC: Urban Institute, April 2004), p. 3.
23. "Every dollar transferred to a 'prison community' is a dollar
that is not given to the home community of a prisoner, which is
often among the country’s most disadvantaged urban areas. According
to one account, Cook County Illinois will lose nearly $88 million
in federal benefits over the next decade because residents were
counted in the 2000 Census in their county of incarceration rather
than their county of origin (Duggan 2000). Losing funds from the
'relocation' of prisoners is also an issue for New York City, as
two-thirds of state prisoners are from the city, while 91 percent of
prisoners are incarcerated in upstate counties (Wagner 2002a)."
Source: Lawrence, Sarah and Jeremy Travis, "The New Landscape
of Imprisonment: Mapping America's Prison Expansion" (Washington,
DC: Urban Institute, April 2004), p. 3.
24. Research assessing the impact of the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) found
that the termination of addiction disability payments has had
a negative effect. According to the study,
"A qualitative analysis, featuring in-depth interviews
with 101, nonrandomly selected former recipients revealed that
disability benefits promoted housing autonomy, successful
cohabitation, and overall housing stability. The termination
of benefits, at a time of diminishing social services (e.g.,
cash and housing assistance) and a housing market explosion,
increased various types of homelessness for respondents and
dependency on family and friends. Such negative living outcomes,
in turn, further escalated the risk of drug and alcohol use,
criminal participation, and victimization."
Source: Anderson, Tammy L., Caitlin Shannon, Igor Schyb,
and Paul Goldstein, "Welfare Reform and Housing: Assessing
the Impact to Substance Abusers," Journal of Drug Issues
(Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University, Winter 2002),
Vol. 32, No. 1, p. 265.
25. Research assessing the impact of the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) found
that the termination of addiction disability payments has had
a negative effect. According to the study, "First, PRWORA of
1996 has destabilized the housing situations of the respondents
and has placed them at greater risk for various types of housing
problems and homelessness. Second, these housing complications
have exacerbated numerous social problems (drug and alcohol
abuse, crime, and victimization). It is important to consider,
however, that changes in the housing market, decreased housing
subsidies, and individual characteristics and behaviors also
played a role in these negative outcomes.
"More specifically, we found considerable housing dependency,
at some level, for all respondents, albeit most often among those
who currently had no SSI benefits. Problematic dependence on
family, friends, and significant others (doubling up or sharing
housing with other adults) was most common, followed by
dependence on state-funded program. Independent living (e.g.,
having one's own place and paying one's own rent), which we
would hope for most by middle-age, was an uncommon occurrence."
Source: Anderson, Tammy L., Caitlin Shannon, Igor Schyb,
and Paul Goldstein, "Welfare Reform and Housing: Assessing
the Impact to Substance Abusers," Journal of Drug Issues
(Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University, Winter 2002),
Vol. 32, No. 1, p. 289.
26. Research assessing the impact of the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) found
that the termination of addiction disability payments has had
a negative effect. According to the study, "While the aim
of SSI addiction disability termination was, for conservatives,
to force individuals to take greater responsibility in their
lives and to decrease dependence on governmentally funded
programs, this goal appears nearly impossible to achieve given
the lack of resources had by this under-skilled and poor
population. Nor did the policy change necessarily decrease their
risk of continued involvement in drugs and crime. We estimate
that losing a stable housing situation has placed respondents
at greater risk for continued drug and alcohol use, something
not considered by extant etiological work on individual substance
abuse. These consequences could mean a greater dependence of
this population on state and federally funded programs."
Source: Anderson, Tammy L., Caitlin Shannon, Igor Schyb,
and Paul Goldstein, "Welfare Reform and Housing: Assessing
the Impact to Substance Abusers," Journal of Drug Issues
(Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University, Winter 2002),
Vol. 32, No. 1, p. 290.
27. In January 2001, the National Center on Addiction and
Substance Abuse at Columbia University published an analysis
of costs to states from tobacco, alcohol and other drug addiction.
According to the report, "CASA's analysis revealed a few cost
categories where only a single category of substances is
implicated. (Figure 2.B) For instance, CASA identified $1.1
billion in state spending linked to illicit drug use only: $574
million for public safety costs for drug enforcement programs;
$114 million for drug courts; and $412 million linked to illegal
drugs in state spending on Medicaid.
"CASA estimates that $7.4 billion in state spending is linked
exclusively to tobacco through state Medicaid spending.
"The single drug linked to the largest percentage of state costs
is alcohol. We were able to identify $9.2 billion in state
spending linked to only to alcohol in addition to the costs
associated with abuse of both alcohol and illegal drugs:
$915 million on highway safety and local law enforcement
associated with drunk driving; $837 million in state costs for
the developmentally disabled as a result of fetal alcohol
syndrome; and, $7.4 billion in state Medicaid costs."
Source: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University, Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse
on State Budgets (New York, NY: CASA, Jan. 2001), p. 11.
28. "Of the $81.3 billion states spent on substance
abuse in 1998, $77.9 billion were spent shoveling the wreckage of
this enormous health and social problem. These clean-up costs
equal 12.6 percent of the total $620 billion in state spending
for 1998. (Table 3.1)
"Almost ninety-six (95.8) cents of every state dollar spent on
substance abuse goes to carry its burden in state programs such
as criminal justice, school aid, Medicaid, child welfare,
developmental disabilities and mental illness because of our
failure to prevent substance abuse and treat those who are
abusers and addicts."
Source: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University, Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse
on State Budgets (New York, NY: CASA, Jan. 2001), p. 13.
29. "In 1998, states spent a total of $39.7 billion
for justice-related programs in adult corrections, juvenile
justice and the judiciary amounting to 6.3 percent of their
budgets. Of this amount, $30.7 billion (77 percent) was linked
to substance abuse."
Source: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University, Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse
on State Budgets (New York, NY: CASA, Jan. 2001), p. 15.
30. "State spending for substance abuse in the justice
system amounts to over one-third (39.4 percent) of the $77.9
billion states spend on the burden of substance abuse to state
programs – 10 times the amount states spend on all substance
abuse prevention, treatment and research."
Source: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University, Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse
on State Budgets (New York, NY: CASA, Jan. 2001), p. 15.
31. "States spent $29.8 billion in 1998 for adult
corrections including incarceration, probation and parole.
Eighty-one percent of this amount ($24.1 billion) was spent on
substance-involved offenders. Of the $24.1 billion, $21.4 billion
went to run and build prisons to house substance-involved
offenders, $1.1 billion for parole and $695 million for probation
for substance-involved offenders. An additional $899 million was
spent on state aid to localities for substance-involved offenders
(Figure 3.A)"
Source: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University, Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse
on State Budgets (New York, NY: CASA, Jan. 2001), p. 15.
32. "Only $513.3 million in state funds is spent
nationwide on substance abuse prevention. This includes $223
million through the department of health, $210 million through
the department of substance abuse and $80 million in prevention
in elementary and secondary education. Most spending for
prevention through the schools is federally funded and that amount
is not included here."
Source: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University, Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse
on State Budgets (New York, NY: CASA, Jan. 2001), p. 22.
33. "Of the $3 billion states spend on prevention,
treatment and research, $920 million (30.7 percent) is spent by
state health agencies; $843 million (27.9 percent) by state alcohol
and drug abuse offices; $433 million (14.3 percent) by the justice
system."
Source: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University, Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse
on State Budgets (New York, NY: CASA, Jan. 2001), p. 22.
34. "States report spending $2.5 billion a year on treatment.
States did not distinguish whether the treatment was for alcohol,
illicit drug abuse or nicotine addiction. Of the $2.5 billion
total, $695 million is spent through the departments of health
and $633 million through the state substance abuse agencies.
We believe that virtually all of these funds are spent on alcohol
and illegal drug treatment."
Source: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University, Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse
on State Budgets (New York, NY: CASA, Jan. 2001), p. 24.
35. "The justice system spends $433 million on
treatment: $149 million for state prison inmates; $103 million
for those on probation and parole; $133 million for juvenile
offenders; $46 million to help localities treat offenders; $1
million on drug courts. Treatment provided by mental health
institutions for co-morbid patients totals $241 million. The
remaining $492 million is for the substance abuse portion of
state employee assistance programs ($97 million), treatment
programs for adults involved in child welfare services
($4.5 million) and capital spending for the construction of
treatment facilities ($391 million). (Figure 4.B)"
Source: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University, Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse
on State Budgets (New York, NY: CASA, Jan. 2001), p. 24.
36. "The final component of state substance abuse
spending is the $433 million states spent in 1998 to regulate the
sale of alcohol and tobacco and to collect alcohol and tobacco
taxes (Table 5.1) Tax rates vary significantly from state to state
and revenues generally are not dedicated to prevent, treat or
cope with the burden substance abuse and addiction places on
many state programs.
"In 1998, states collected $4.0 billion in alcohol and $7.4 billion
in tobacco taxes for a total of $11.4 billion. For every dollar
of such tax revenues, states spent $7.13 on substance abuse and
addiction -- $6.83 to shoulder the burden on public programs,
$0.26 for prevention and treatment, and $0.04 to collect alcohol
and tobacco taxes and run licensing boards."
Source: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University, Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse
on State Budgets (New York, NY: CASA, Jan. 2001), p. 27.
37. It costs approximately $8.6 billion a year to keep drug law
violators behind bars.
Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Profile of Jail Inmates
1996 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, April 1996),
pp. 1 & 4; Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1996
(Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1997), pp. 10-11;
Criminal Justice Institute, Inc., The Corrections Yearbook 1997
(South Salem, NY: Criminal Justice Institute, Inc., 1997)
[estimating cost of a day in jail on average to be $55.41 a day,
or $20,237 a year, and the cost of prison to be on average to be
about $64.49 a day, or $23,554 a year].
38. A study by the RAND Corporation found that every additional
dollar invested in substance abuse treatment saves taxpayers
$7.46 in societal costs.
Source: Rydell, C.P. & Everingham, S.S., Controlling Cocaine,
Prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the
United States Army (Santa Monica, CA: Drug Policy Research Center,
RAND Corporation, 1994), p. xvi.
39. The RAND Corporation study found that additional domestic
law enforcement efforts cost 15 times as much as treatment to
achieve the same reduction in societal costs.
Source: Rydell, C.P. & Everingham, S.S., Controlling Cocaine,
Prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the
United States Army (Santa Monica, CA: Drug Policy Research Center,
RAND Corporation, 1994), p. xvi.
40. "The heavy toll drug abuse exacts on the United States is
reflected in related criminal and medical costs totaling over
$67 billion. Almost 70 percent of this figure is attributable to
the cost of crime."
Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy, National Drug
Control Strategy 2000 Annual Report (Washington, DC: US Government
Printing Office, 2000), p. 66.
41. A 1998 report by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)
estimated the economic costs of alcohol abuse in the United States
to be $148.02 billion in 1992, 80% ($119.32 billion) of which
were due to alcohol-related illness (including health care
expenditures, impaired productivity and premature death). To
contrast, illegal drug abuse cost a total of $97.66 billion in 1992,
of which less than 40% ($38.71 billion) was due to drug-related
illness or premature death. This figure includes $4.16 billion in
HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis treatment costs.
Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institute
on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The Economic Costs of Alcohol
and Drug Abuse in the United States, 1992 (Washington, DC: US
Department of Health and Human Services, May 1998), Table 1.1,
p. 1-3 and Table 4.1, p. 4-2.
42. A 1998 report by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)
estimated the economic costs of illegal drug abuse in the United
States to be $97.66 billion in 1992. Sixty percent (60%) of drug
costs were due to drug-related law enforcement, incarceration and
crime. Only 3% of drug costs were from victims of drug-related crime.
Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institute
on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The Economic Costs of Alcohol
and Drug Abuse in the United States, 1992 (Washington, DC: US
Department of Health and Human Services, May 1998), Table 1.2,
pp. 1-6.
43. In 1969, $65 million was spent by the Nixon administration
on the drug war; in 1982 the Reagan administration spent $1.65
billion; in 2000 the Clinton administration spent more
than $17.9 billion; and in 2002, the Bush administration spent
more than $18.8 billion.
Sources: U.S. Congress, Hearings on Federal Drug Enforcement
before the Senate Committee on Investigations, 1975 and 1976
(1976); Office of National Drug Control Policy, National Drug
Control Strategy, 1992: Budget Summary (Washington DC: US
Government Printing Office, 1992), p. 214; Office of National
Drug Control Policy, National Drug Control Budget Executive
Summary, Fiscal Year 2002 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing
Office, April 9, 2001), p. 2, Table 1; Office of National Drug
Control Policy, "National Drug Control Strategy: FY 2003 Budget
Summary" (Washington, DC: Office of the President, February
2002), Table 2, p. 6.
44. The ONDCP in its 2000 annual report detailed administration
requests for major increases in funding to the Federal Bureau
of Prisons for drug-related prison construction. These include
an extra $420 Million in fiscal year 2001, and advanced appropriations
of $467 Million in 2002, and an additional $316 Million in 2003
-- all drug-related.
Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal
Justice Statistics (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office,
1997), p. 20; Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive
Office of the White House, National Drug Control Strategy, 1997:
Budget Summary (Washington DC: US Government Printing Office,
1997), p. 111; Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive
Office of the White House, National Drug Control Strategy: Annual
Report 2000 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2000),
p. 96.
45. It is estimated that Colombia repatriates $7 billion
in drug profits annually, which is nearly as high as the total
legitimate exports for Colombia which were $7.6 billion in 1993.
Source: Trade and Environment Database (TED), TED Case Studies:
Columbia Coca Trade, Washington D.C.: American University (1997),
p. 4.
46. It is estimated that Colombian narcotics cartels spend $100
million on bribes to Colombian officials each year.
Source: Trade and Environment Database (TED), TED Case Studies:
Columbia Coca Trade (Washington DC: American University, 1997),
p. 4.
47. In 1993, 98% of Bolivia's foreign exchange earnings from
goods and services came from the coca market.
Source: US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Alternative
Coca Reduction Strategies in the Andean Region, F-556 (Washington
DC: US Government Printing Office, July 1993).
48. "The value of illegal drug exports from the Caribbean
during the past two decades has fallen into two very well
differentiated periods. The first period, from 1981 to 1990, was
an epoch of impressive depression in the total value of the
Caribbean drugs exports -- from an income over US$20bn at its
peak in 1983 to US$5bn in 1991. Since 1991, the value of Caribbean
exports of illegal drugs has stabilised around US$5bn."
Source: "The Value Of Illegal Drug Exports Transiting The
Caribbean - 1981-2000," United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime,
Caribbean Regional Office, February 2004, p. 39.
49. In a report funded by the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute,
researchers concluded that "drug sales in poor neighborhoods
are part of a growing informal economy which has expanded and
innovatively organized in response to the loss of good jobs."
The report characterizes drug dealing as "fundamentally a lower
class response [to the information economy] by men and women
with little formal education and few formal skills," and the
report notes "If the jobs won't be created by either the public
or private sector, then poor people will have to create the jobs
themselves."
Source: Hagedorn, John M., Ph.D., The Business of Drug Dealing
in Milwaukee (Milwaukee, WI: Wisconsin Policy Research Institute,
1998), p. 3.
50. In a report funded by the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute,
researchers concluded that drug-dealing plays a substantial role
in the local economies of poorer urban neighborhoods. "At least
10% of all male Latinos and African- Americans aged 18-29 living
in these two [surveyed] neighborhoods are supported to some extent
by the drug economy." The report also concluded that "most drug
entrepreneurs are hard working, but not super rich" and that
"most drug entrepreneurs aren't particularly violent." One-fourth
of all drug-dealers surveyed said they encountered no violence
at all in their work, and two-thirds reported that violence occurred
less than once per month.
Source: Hagedorn, John M., PhD, The Business of Drug Dealing
in Milwaukee (Milwaukee, WI: Wisconsin Policy Research Institute,
1998), p. 1.
51. "Although residents of disadvantaged neighborhoods, neighborhoods
with high concentrations of minorities, and neighborhoods with high
population densities reported much higher levels of visible drug
sales, they reported only slightly higher levels of drug use, along
with somewhat higher levels of drug dependency. This finding
indicates that conflating drug sales with use, so that poor and
minority areas are assumed to be the focus of the problem of drug
use, is plainly wrong. The finding is based on the data collected
across 41 sites, including city and suburban (but not rural) areas
in all regions."
Source: Saxe, Leonard, PhD, Charles Kadushin, PhD, Andrew
Beveridge, PhD, et al., "The Visibility of Illicit Drugs:
Implications for Community-Based Drug Control Strategies," American
Journal of Public Health (Washington, DC: American Public Health
Association, Dec. 2001), Vol. 91, No. 12, p. 1991.
52. "Although serious drug use is slightly more prevalent in poor
minority neighborhoods than elsewhere, the major problem for
disadvantaged neighborhoods is drug distribution. These communities
are victims not only of their own drug abuse but also of a criminal
drug market that serves the entire society. The market establishes
itself in disadvantaged communities in part because of the low
social capital in these neighborhoods.The drug economy further
erodes that social capital."
Source: Saxe, Leonard, PhD, Charles Kadushin, PhD, Andrew
Beveridge, PhD, et al., “The Visibility of Illicit Drugs:
Implications for Community-Based Drug Control Strategies,"
American Journal of Public Health (Washington, DC: American
Public Health Association, Dec. 2001), Vol. 91, No. 12, p. 1992.
53. In its annual report for 1998-1999, the French organization
Observatoire Geopolitique des Drogues writes of the US:
"Inmates are even less
likely to find a job after than before serving a sentence, and
if nothing changes most of them are doomed to unemployment for
life -- and are likely to go back to prison."
Source: Observatoire Geopolitique des Drogues, The World Geopolitics
of Drugs 1998/1999 (Paris, France: OGD, April, 2000), p. 133.
54. The French organization OGD points out the deeper economic
impact from the eventual release of American drug felons: "(A)ccording
to some estimates some 3.5 million prisoners will be released
between now and 2010, and an additional 500,000 each year thereafter.
"Such a large-scale release of unskilled people - most of them
cannot even read and write - will have a negative impact on wages,
which are already low in deprived urban areas, due to a massive
influx of men desperate to get a job; especially, since the reform
of the welfare system in 1996 severely reduced felons' access
to welfare money."
Source: Observatoire Geopolitique des Drogues, The World Geopolitics
of Drugs 1998/1999 (Paris, France: OGD, April, 2000), p. 133. |
