78 votes

Forty Years of Drug War Failure in a Single Chart

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Forfeiture Laws come into play here

Keep in mind the War on Drugs is used by Law Enforcement to SEIZE personal property. A hotel was recently seized in Massachusetts, because a single drug transaction in a room. 100 of millions of personal property is seized and sold at auction every month by US Marshals.

The War on Drugs is profitable for the US Govt. Why would they stop it ?

More on this ? Listen to Peter Schiff show interview Monday 10/15/12 AM.

"This isn't what the govern meant"

"Win the crowd and you will win your freedom"

"Failure" assumes that the point of the drug war

"Failure" assumes that the point of the drug war is/was to decrease drug use and abuse rather than to increase the size of government, the police state, federal spending and banking revenue (from high priced illegal drug trade).

The effective path to reduce drug addiction and other drug related problems has been well established. Portugal's drug decriminalization Policy is a good example of an effective policy.

Worse chart

will be for education. The quality actually goes down while current government expense on education (Fed & Local) is $1.2T+/year.

If your mom is a public school teacher, let's see how she reacts. Probably the same as people who are signing up for police.

lol

wow, if it wasn't tragic. who, is for this again, and why are they not laughed out of hearing rooms and news studios? that chart could save a billion dollars.

oh wait

it's a racket...if you're getting that much money, you buy your congressman to keep it flowing

But wait!

But think of all the people they saved from addiction.

nice chart

But maybe someone can clarify something for me. Just eyeballing the chart, it seems that the average height of the green line is at about 11 or 12 billion and spreads over forty years. 12 billion times 40 is still less than half a trillion, not 1.5 trillion, so can someone explain to me what's wrong with my arithmetic, or why the discrepancy exists in the chart. Off the top of my head, my best guess is inflation adjustment, but that would be something that should probably be noted on the graphic, and the 1.5 still seems wrong, because even the most recent year times 40 is not close to 1.5, so my other guess is that the 1.5 is both inflation adjusted AND including years previous to 1970? Me confused.

Good catch.

But real numbers are not easy to separate. There are 1) FBI/CIA overseas prevention expense; 2) Border security (intelligence, monitoring, search); 3) FBI domestic work; 4) Prisons expense; 5) Court, lawyers and appeals expenses; 6) Educational prevention expense; 7) Finally, state local police. Local police love drug cases - they are either being paid off or can seize cash from drug dealers ... and pocket it.

I think the real number is much higher than that on the graph. Money are just split between different book ledger accounts (like Pentagon does.)

Oops

I take that back, if you actually click on the link, it has a great explanation for it.

Great Catch

I didn't catch that until you said it and I have no idea either. It does seem kind of unfair if it is inflation-adjusted without a caption. If so, this is a dirty arithmetic trick akin to something the government would do to fudge statistics and prove their own point. Would like this clarified also, great point!

An Arrow Showing Crack

being introduced is something else I would add, that and maybe a CIA plane dropping white bags from above, just to make sure that the addiction rate remains lucrative enough to keep the banksters liquid.

is the control spending

is the control spending adjusted for inflation?

Job creation for government

Job creation for government workers ...

Value Destruction!

Value Destruction, by value destroyers creating problems that need not exist.

The creation, production and fair exchange of values is the business of evolving consciousness, love and life.--Craig Johnson

Of the most insidious kind,

Of the most insidious kind, too; since most of these workers are drawn from what was once thought of as the "small government" party.

At least with teachers, social workers and apparatchiks, you are generally dealing with people who are upfront and unapologetic about their progressive beliefs.

While with the armed drones hailed as America's thin blue line against the bad, mean, scary world by the Neocons, we are dealing with people so self righteous and clueless that they can straight faced say they are conservative and against big government, while at the same time justifying their own value destroying, predatory, leeching existence; to the point of justifying literally killing those whose only crime is seeing these thugs for what they really are; tax feeding leeches, and nothing but.

Your comment about teachers (public) is generally true today.

But care to hazard a guess as to who was the most vocal in protest against the creation of the U.S. Department of Education?

That's right - teacher's unions!!!

They (rightfully) claimed this would lead to Federal meddling in Education, which they claimed could only properly be handled at the local level between parents and teachers.

Like all Congressional boondoggles, it too started from humble beginnings known as the "school lunch program." And even today, essentially that's all the DoEd is—a series of puppet strings.

The "drug war" is a little different. But essentially, it's just a restriction on interstate commerce. If States wanted to fight it hard enough, they could end the enforcement of Federal laws within their territories in short order.

This goes for much of the rest of the crap Congress has pushed on us. If the States just stood up for themselves, they could put the Federal Genie back in its bottle.

Sadly, few governors or legislators have the balls to do so. They're nothing but pansies.