Pubdate: Fri, 28 Mar 2003
Source: Reason Online (US)
Copyright: 2003 The Reason Foundation
Contact:  http://www.reason.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2688
Author: Jacob Sullum
Note: Posted as an exception to our policy on web-only material.

TOKERS AND TERRORISTS

How Many Wars Can We Afford?

When President Bush sent the first bill for the war with Iraq to Congress, 
he warned that "business as usual on Capitol Hill can't go on." He said 
legislators should not treat the supplemental appropriation "as an 
opportunity to add spending that is unrelated, unwise, and unnecessary."

Yet when it comes to the disastrous boondoggle that is the war on drugs, 
business as usual continues. It entails spending that is not only unwise 
and unnecessary but demonstrably harmful.

The Drug Policy Alliance estimates that enforcing state and federal drug 
laws costs something like $40 billion a year. That figure does not include 
myriad other costs associated with prohibition—such as property crime, 
black market violence, police corruption, and deaths from overdoses and 
tainted drugs—that never show up in anyone's budget. Added together, they 
would make the tab for invading Iraqi, $75 billion so far, look modest by 
comparison.

With escalating budget deficits as far as the eye can see, Americans should 
seriously consider whether we can afford a war on drugs in addition to a 
war with Iraq and a war on terrorism. Given the dangers we face, it's 
inexcusable to blithely continue the futile crusade against politically 
incorrect plants, powders, and pills.

Consider one example of how the war on drugs squanders your tax dollars and 
diverts law enforcement resources from real threats to your safety. On 
Monday three officers of the Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center plan to 
plead guilty to federal charges of "knowingly opening and maintaining a 
place where [marijuana] was manufactured, distributed or used." Scott 
Imler, Jeff Yablan, and Jeffrey Farrington decided against going to trial 
because they knew they would not be allowed to explain the purpose of their 
organization: providing marijuana to patients who use it as a medicine, as 
permitted under California law.

Without a plea, the three would have faced additional charges, carrying 
mandatory minimum sentences of 20 years or more. They still could face 
prison terms.

Questions of justice aside, can anyone seriously contend that locking up 
Imler and his friends is a wise use of scarce prison space? Think of it 
this way: Every nonviolent drug offender behind bars represents a predatory 
criminal on the streets.

Imler's organization was raided by the Drug Enforcement Administration in 
October 2001, a month and a half after Al Qaeda's attacks on the Pentagon 
and the World Trade Center. It speaks volumes about the twisted priorities 
dictated by the war on drugs that the federal government, having failed so 
spectacularly in its central function of protecting Americans from 
aggression, could so quickly turn its attention to punishing Americans for 
trying to alleviate the suffering of sick people.

Measured by arrests (about 700,000 a year), marijuana is the main target of 
the war on drugs, which is why federal officials have shown no mercy toward 
patients who use it to relieve pain, nausea, or muscle spasms. Admitting 
that marijuana could be good for anything would be an embarrassing retreat 
from the aptly named policy of "zero tolerance."

In addition to hurting innocent people, this policy costs a lot of money, 
going well beyond the resources allocated to police, prosecutors, and 
prisons. The government estimates, for instance, that Americans spend 
between $50 billion and $100 billion a year on illegal drugs. Almost all of 
that spending is a cost of prohibition, since it represents the "risk 
premium" that criminals earn by supplying contraband.

This gift from the government enriches and empowers murderous thugs, 
subsidizes terrorism, and contributes to property crime by heavy users 
trying to support their habits. Since stolen goods typically are sold at a 
steep discount, their value far exceeds the already inflated cost of drugs.

A less quantifiable cost of prohibition is the erosion of civil liberties. 
In recent decades, the war on drugs has been the biggest factor undermining 
the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against "unreasonable searches and 
seizures." It also has threatened property rights through asset forfeiture 
and religious freedom through prohibition of drug rituals.

The Office of Management and Budget has suggested that the civil liberties 
implications of anti-terrorism measures should routinely be considered 
along with their dollar cost. No such caution applies to anti-drug 
measures, which do not even have the justification of preventing violence.

Former DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson has shown us the direction the 
government ought to be taking. He recently left the anti-drug agency for a 
job in the Department of Homeland Security.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and the author of Saying Yes: In 
Defense of Drug Use
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens