The War on Drugs - Colin Mulligan · The War on Drugs has been one of the longest, ... slogan...

The War on Drugs Mass Incarceration and Its True Cost

Colin Mulligan - April 26, 2016

Abstract

The War on Drugs has been one of the longest, most expensive wars in the history of the the United States. In this paper, I will examine the history of the war and its failure to society—specifically its direct correlation to the modern epidemic of mass incarceration. I will address detrimental effects of the modern prison system on American society and a variety of its associated costs. Despite massive legislative initiative aimed at deterring drug crime, incarcerating millions of nonviolent drug offenders has neither decreased drug usage nor inhibited drug crime. Though The War on Drugs has failed miserably and created new, tough problems throughout its tenure, progress is possible. The United States must consider large-scale reform if it hopes to truly battle the issues associated with mass incarceration and The War on Drugs. I will argue that decriminalization of all drugs, though seemingly radical, offers perhaps that most rational, top-to-bottom solution for the American drug problem and incarceration epidemic.

THE WAR ON DRUGS - COLIN MULLIGAN �1

“They could have fined me $10 million, and I could have written them the check that day, but

instead they chose to lock me up to teach me a lesson… Well you know what I learned how

to do? I learned how to cook great caramel popcorn in a microwave oven.”—Jason Smith

IntroductionJason Smith is a lucky man—relatively, at least. He created and sold a technology

company as a young man, and that income would allow him to retire in his mid-thirties with

no financial worry for the rest of his life. However, soon after retirement, Smith was

sentenced to five years in federal prison for drug possession and “conspiracy”—essentially

refusing to cooperate with the Drug Enforcement Agency’s demands.

Smith was never accused of selling drugs, nor committing any violent act of any kind,

yet because he had used illegal substances, the U.S. justice system deemed it necessary to

remove him from society for five years. What led to this type of ludicrous sentencing? What

created a legal system that imprisons nonviolent individuals at rates higher than any country

on earth? What allows prisons to be populated with incredibly disproportionate numbers of

minorities? The answer can be traced back to the creation of the War on Drugs.

Since its implementation in the early 1970’s, the War on Drugs has been a catastrophic

failure in every respect. It has not decreased drug crime in the United States, nor has it

reduced drug usage. In fact, the legislation associated with the war created the modern


American system of mass incarceration: a system that actively enforces institutionalized

racism; a system that aids in the destruction of impoverished communities; a system that

costs tax payers billions annually. Radical change must be sought to combat the societal

failures of the War on Drugs and the detrimental epidemic of mass incarceration.

HistoryIn a 1971 press conference, President Richard Nixon declared “America's public enemy

number one in the United States is drug abuse” (Nixon). Nixon felt it was necessary to attack

the sale and consumption of drugs as hard as possible. Whether this public declaration of

“war” against drugs was a purely political move or a true attempt to promote progress and

societal production, the focus on eradicating drugs garnered massive public attention. Two

years after Nixon initially announced the drug war, his administration held true to its

commitment against illegal substances by creating the Drug Enforcement Agency, or DEA

(Friedersdorf). This new federally funded agency sought to eradicate the influx of drugs into

American communities by targeting solely drug crime. With its singular focus, the DEA

helped promote the attention and fear that would surround drug usage.

As the DEA grew larger and larger each year, the US would soon find a more specific,

scarier culprit: crack cocaine. Crack, which is cocaine and baking soda cooked into a

smokable rock, jumped into the spotlight in the early 1980’s under the Reagan

administration. Crack was relatively cheap, and gave lower socioeconomic classes access to

cocaine that was previously impossible. Thus, crack cocaine became exceptionally prevalent


in poor communities, and crack usage (and associated crime) garnered mass media scrutiny.

First Lady Nancy Reagan even began a “highly-publicized anti-drug campaign, coining the

slogan ‘Just Say No’” (Drugpolicy). In her national campaign, which received massive media

attention, Nancy Reagan spread the message that drugs were evil and detrimental to society,

and that young men and women have the power to simply “say no” to drug usage

(Drugpolicy). “Just Say No” further reinforced the negative imagery surrounding drug usage

and helped garner public support in the battle against illegal substances.

The Reagan administration was absolutely adamant on getting “tough on

drugs” (Reagan). In 1988, continuing his perpetual fight against these substances, Ronald

Reagan announced that “we will no longer tolerate those who sell drugs and those who buy

drugs… they must pay” (Reagan). With the enormous national attention on drugs,

specifically crack cocaine, Congress soon passed mandatory sentencing laws for drug

distribution and increased punishment for users as well. In response to the attention

surrounding crack usage, as well as its addictive nature, sentencing for crack compared to its

pure cocaine counterpart was weighted 100:1. (Coyle). Thus, if selling 500 grams of pure

cocaine led to a 5 year minimum sentence, that same 5 year minimum sentence would be

forced onto the sale of only 5 grams of crack cocaine. Again, crack’s prevalence in

impoverished, colored communities meant that these laws had a greater impact and

relevance in those societal subsets. Because wealthier communities were more prone to using

cocaine and other drugs, the sentencing associated with crack had little impact on the


wealthier population, but drastic consequences for poor African American communities. This

type of mandatory sentencing legislation, along with the continued expansion of the DEA,

paved the way for the newest American epidemic: mass incarceration.

Mass IncarcerationWith new stringent drug laws in place, the American prison population quickly began

to grow. Between 1980 and 2013, the number of people held in prison jumped from fewer

than 320,000 individuals to more than 1.5 million (this is not including those held in jails)

(Sentencing Project). Individuals incarcerated for drug offenses increased more than ten-fold

in this same time period, from 40,900 to 488,400 (Figure 1 references specifically individuals

incarcerated in federal prisons) (Sentencing Project). Abundant mandatory sentencing

legislation meant that judges were, and are, unable to use discretionary behavior in allocating

penalties to defendants. This black and white framework means that if a judge felt that a


certain individual deserved a sentence of 2 years in prison, but the drug statute required that

the defendant be sentenced to 20 years, the judge is legally obligated to uphold the 20 year

sentence. If a judge felt that the best option for a certain individual’s rehabilitation and re-

entry to society was through a drug rehab program and community service, the judge would

still be forced to uphold the mandatory minimum prison sentence for the crime committed

(Jarecki). As the discretionary ability of those that hear criminal cases was stripped, the

incarcerated population grew more rapidly than one could imagine.

America and the World

America now boasts the highest incarceration rate per capita of any country in the

world. This rate dwarves that of “nearly every developed country,” and even surpasses “the

highly repressive regimes like Russia, China, and Iran” (Alexander 6). One might reasonably


wonder why Americans commit so much more crime than citizens of other countries—but

they do not. In fact, the crime rate (violent crime) in America is actually lower than the

international average, and, as seen in Figure 2, has been falling steadily since 1990 (Kearney).

Yet the prison population has skyrocketed in the same time period. The United States is home

to fewer murderers, rapists, and violent offenders of all sorts (per capita) than it has been in

the nearly the past half century, but the country continues to lock individuals away at a rate

that is “six to ten times that of other industrialized nations” (Alexander 7). This can only be

explained by the mass incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders—a direct result of the War

on Drugs.

Drugs and Race

Fifty percent of all inmates in federal prison are serving time for drug crimes, namely

possession and drug dealing. Violent offenders represent a mere 7% of the federal prison


population, and only 53% in state prisons (Carson). This surplus of incarcerated drug

offenders shows stark differences in class and race. As aforementioned, the targeting of crack

cocaine beginning in the 1980’s and the subsequent sentencing laws associated with the drug

had an immense effect on impoverished communities, and the drug was especially popular

in communities of color.

Due to crack’s media presence and the scare that surrounded the drug, arrests and

drug busts associated with crack were seen as more heroic and influential toward the cause

than those of other drugs. This ideology, coupled with ludicrous differences in punishment,

led to the sentencing disparity seen today: that in which one in three black men will go to

prison at some point in their lives; in which black individuals represent nearly 40% of the

prison population, and only 13% of the total population; in which cocaine, the more popular

drug of choice within privileged white communities, is sentenced 18:1 compared to crack

(down recently from the initial 100:1 disparity). Despite what the numbers appear to show,

most valid studies prove that people of all races use drugs at strikingly similar rates. If a

racial disparity is present at all, it shows whites using drugs at slightly higher rates than

other races (Alexander 9).

CostIdentifying the “total” cost of the War on Drugs is extremely subjective, if not

impossible. One simply could not account for the fees associated with imprisonment, legal

costs, opportunity cost, residual snowballing effects, etc. Thus, this paper will focus on three


main areas: the cost of incarceration on a national scale, the cost to (and effect on) families

and communities, and the cost to an incarcerated individual.

Costs on a National Scale

Removing millions of people from society and stacking them in small, 5 foot by 9 foot

cells under constant supervision is quite an expensive endeavor. According to the

Washington D.C. think tank The Brookings Institution, the annual cost for incarceration in

America is roughly $80 billion (again, this number does not account for all potential collateral

costs, such as effects on welfare, education, and child services). The same institution

estimates that “when including expenditures for police protection and judicial and legal

services, the direct costs of crime rise to $261 billion” (Kearney). In per capita terms, every

U.S. resident paid $260 on average towards corrections expenditures in 2010, and this is more

than three times the per capita expense paid in 1980 (Kearney).

The DEA budget has also grown nearly every year since its creation. In 1980, the Drug

Enforcement agency had about 4,000 employees and a budget of $206 million. In 2009, it held

10,000 employees with a budget of more than $2.6 billion (Friedersdorf). The DEA’s

expansion and massive budget increases have obviously not served to stop drug use or drug

crime, as the increasing incarceration rates prove. In fact, since drug imprisonment and its

cost continue to grow, one might wonder why the DEA continues to exist despite its obvious

failure. Granted, certain efforts go towards fighting drug trade overseas, but the agency’s

success in terms of stopping drug crime within the United States is minimal to nonexistent.


Costs to Families and Communities

The familial and communal costs are less quantitative in nature than national costs of

incarceration. Nonetheless, the removal of a large percentage of men from communities can

have a substantial negative impact. In some impoverished areas, roughly one-fifth of all adult

males are behind bars (Clear). Todd Clear, author of Imprisoning Communities, explains that

the cyclical nature of the prison system, along with high rates of recidivism lead to a climate

in which families in these communities are “hardly ever without a son, uncle, or father who

has done prison time” (Clear 9). With fathers of families continuously incarcerated, many

mothers are forced to raise families on their own, often struggling below the poverty line. In

this sense, incarceration feeds the cycle of poverty, especially in poor neighborhoods with

high rates of drug crime. Clear elucidates that prison “saps the limited economic and

interpersonal resources of families with a loved one behind bars,” leading to continual

impoverishment for both the family and community (Clear 10).

The children of these communities suffer great residual costs, even beyond the familial

financial burden incarceration puts in place. Simply having a family member that has gone to

prison elevates a child’s odds of doing the same, and, as stated in The Brookings Institution

report, “By their fourteenth birthday, African American children whose fathers do not have a

high school diploma are more likely than not to see their fathers incarcerated” (Kearney).

Prison’s cyclical nature is not only evident with individuals, but with families and


communities as well. Over time, mass incarceration (due mainly to drug crimes) can create a

seemingly inescapable community of continual imprisonment and poverty.

Costs to Individuals

Men and women that spend time in prison face a multitude of social and economic

costs. From lack of experience with rapidly evolving technology to limited labor

opportunities, the prison system leaves most with little opportunity upon release. According

to a study by the Urban Institute, only 31 percent of ex-convicts were employed two months

after being released. The individuals that were able to find jobs worked mainly in

construction, maintenance, and assembly line or factory jobs, and their median pay was $8

per hour (Visher). There is nothing wrong with this work, but it is apparent that time in

prison—which is meant for rehabilitation and preparation for re-entry to society—leaves

inmates with few options in terms of labor. The same study found that even eight months

after being released, less than half of all individuals studied were employed (Visher). Thus,

the majority of men and women hoping to re-enter society in a positive, beneficial manner

were unable to find work in any field of any skill level, disallowing them from economic

societal contribution.

Rampant post-conviction unemployment cannot be explained by apathy or laziness.

Most incarcerated individuals want “legal, stable employment upon release,” yet they are

unable to find jobs (Visher). The majority of applications have a box that must be checked if

the applicant has been convicted of a felony, and this box is an immediate filter employers


use in the hiring process. Jason Smith, the man who served five years in federal prison for

conspiracy, states that many of the men he knew in prison are now “plagued with

unemployment… because they have to check that box” (Smith). Unemployment and poor

economic outlook undoubtedly leaves many ex-convicts searching for a source of revenue,

and thus many are forced to turn to criminal activity once more.

Failure and Possible SolutionsAs previously mentioned, Jason Smith is far from the standard drug felon. He is a rich

white man with an MBA who grew up in a nice, relatively wealthy home, yet stories like his

are important as well. After being arrested, Smith spent roughly $750,000 on legal fees as he

battled his conviction. This is $750,000 that could have gone back into the economy.

Furthermore, the justice system decided to remove Smith from society for five years, missing

out on massive income and capital gains taxation, as well as incredible amounts of

consumption. Smith could have been a productive member of society and contributed his fair

share to economic growth, yet legislation required that he be imprisoned for a minimum of

five years.

Again, most convicted drug felons cannot afford to spend $750,000 in legal fees; they

will be forced to be represented by a government-provided public defender. Most cannot live

in prosperous retirement upon release; they will have to battle the odds against employment

and try to find work in any field possible. Most do not fit Smith’s profile, but their removal

from society is damaging as well. Incarcerating the occasional, rare Jason Smith, along with


millions of far poorer drug users and drug dealers costs the nation billions; not only in the

pure financial requirements of prisons, but also in lost opportunity cost by removing

potentially productive members of society for preposterous periods of time. The War on

Drugs has failed, racking up a trillion dollar price tag over its 45 year defeat (Branson). Fixing

the damage already done may be impossible, but there is opportunity for progress.

Decriminalization

Sociologists, anthropologists, and drug experts have essentially come to a unanimous

agreement regarding the problem with drug crime: profitability its sole motive. As Smith

explains, “The reason why the guys in New York City hanging around in my apartment were

there was because they could buy meth for $500 an ounce and sit in my apartment for 20

minutes and sell that ounce for $8 grand” (Smith). Illegality imposes high risk on behavior,

and thus allows drugs to be sold a high profits. It is not surprising that many individuals,

especially in impoverished communities, find an opportunity for 1000% profit (or more)

appealing. In Smith’s words, “the illegality is exactly what drives the profitability” (Smith).

The idea of decriminalizing all drugs is frightening to most Americans. The media

portrays drug users as violent, psychotic addicts that have thrown away their lives and have

nothing to lose. Wouldn’t decriminalizing crack, cocaine, heroin, and methempuatimine

create more dangerous individuals like this? Wouldn’t it cause more overdoses and deaths?

When looking at other countries that have taken a similar approach, the answer is no.


In 2001, Portugal reversed its internal War on Drugs after years of failure similar to

America’s. Portugal decided to decriminalize possession of drugs and promote health and

harm reduction instead (i.e. needle exchange programs, rehabilitation centers, etc) (Murkin).

Since 2001, the country has actually seen a reduction in overall drug usage throughout the

entire population (based on past-year and past-month prevalence, or usage in the last year/

month), with notable declines in usage among individuals aged 15-24. Drug induced deaths

were about 4 times higher in 2001 than in 2012, and HIV and AIDS diagnoses have been

decreasing at even higher rates since decriminalization was implemented (Murkin). These

statistics, along with common knowledge of life within the United States, suggest that the

illegality of drugs does not make them any less available to those who truly desire to use


them. There is not a hidden subset of the population that will begin to seek drugs if they

become legal and available, and Portugal shows that decriminalization does not cause an

increase in youth usage whatsoever.

Despite international examples like Portugal, most people in the United States still see

decriminalization as too radical. Politicians concerned with the issue instead often argue for

outreach programs or small community based programs such as public project housing.

Phillippe Bourgois, an anthropologist who spent four years living in crack-prevalent Harlem

slums in the 1980’s, describes public policy solutions like these as “naive or hopelessly

idealistic” (Bourgois 318). He illustrates the problems associated with the War on Drugs,

including institutional racism, class-segregation, and cyclical poverty as shaped in “too

complex a mesh of political-economic structural forces, historical legacies, cultural


imperatives, and individual actions to be susceptible to simple solutions” (Bourgois 318). Due

to the drugs’ illegal nature, the underground economy is more profitable and rewarding for

many individuals in impoverished communities than the legal economy is. Again, Bourgois

sees the opportunity for profit as the main culprit for drug crime, and advocates for the

decriminalization of all drugs.

If drugs were able to be legally distributed, the underground economy for illegal

substances would likely collapse entirely. Legal competition would allow drugs to be sold at

competitive rates and potentially become a major source of tax revenue for federal and state

governments. Tax payers could forego the burden of funding the incarceration of millions of

nonviolent drug offenders. Money that previously went towards funding the DEA and mass

incarceration—institutions that have failed at deterring drug crime and failed in terms of

rehabilitation—could instead be used to fund psychiatric help, rehabilitation programs, and

needle exchanges. Jason Smith explains that opportunity for true progress in deterring drug

usage is possible, “If we took the amount of money we spend on the prison system and put it

into education and drug rehabs and mental healthcare” (Smith). If the government’s true goal

in incarceration is to rehabilitate criminals and prepare them for a life of positive societal

contribution, the money spent fighting the War on Drugs would be far better allocated to

different programs such as these.

Conclusion


By all accounts, the War on Drugs has been an extremely costly failure to the United

States. The war did nothing to notably prevent drug usage, nor did it deter drug related

crimes. On the contrary, increased sentencing legislation simply increased the risk associated

with selling drugs, and thus increased the profitability. This legislation also gave way the

modern American system of mass incarceration, which serves to actively reinforce

institutional racism and cyclical poverty. Tax payers are forced to fund this flawed system,

costing the American people over $80 billion annually (Kearney).

Dealing with the problems associated with the War on Drugs requires radical change.

Dead end debates between liberals promoting increased social work and therapy

opportunities and conservatives advocating harsher penalties and the expansion of prisons

suggest that progress in the near future is bleak—neither approach has proven to be

particularly beneficial in dealing with drug crime and its associated issues (Bourgois 325). Yet

if America is truly committed to progress and instrumental change, it should take note of

European examples like Portugal and decriminalize all drugs. This may not rid the country of

drug users and deeply impoverished communities, but it would be a step towards ending the

costly, ineffective system of mass incarceration. If implemented properly, decriminalization

could save tax payers billions and even become a large source of government revenue. It

would be a step towards reforming communities plagued with imprisoned men, and the

United State could instead focus efforts on drug rehabilitation, education, and mental health.


The zero tolerance policies have failed. Stringent sentencing has failed. The War on Drugs has

failed. It is time to promote new, radical thinking. It is time to promote true progress.


Works Cited“A Brief History of the Drug War.” Drugpolicy.org. Drug Policy Alliance, n.d. Web. 3 Apr 2016.

Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. The New

Press, 2012. Print.

Bourgois, Phillippe. In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio. Cambridge University Press,

2003. Print.

Branson, Richard. “War on Drugs a Trillion Dollar Failure.” CNN. CNN, 7 Dec 2012. Web. 3

Apr 2016.

Carson, E. Ann. “Prisoners In 2014.” Washington, DC: US Dept of Justice Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Sept. 2015, NCJ248955, p. 16 (state) and p. 17 (federal).

Clear, Todd. Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged

Neighborhoods Worse. Oxford University Press, 30 Jul 2007. Print.

Coyle, Michael. “Race and Class Penalties in Crack Cocaine Sentencing.” The Sentencing Project.

The Sentencing Project, n.d. 3 Apr 2016.

Friedersdorf, Conor. “The War on Drugs Turns 40” The Atlantic. The Atlantic, 25 June 2011. Web.

3 Apr 2016.

“Fact Sheet: Trends in US Corrections.” The Sentencing Project. The Sentencing Project, n.d. 3 Apr

2016.

Nixon, Richard. “202 - Remarks About an Intensified Program for Drug Abuse Prevention and

Control.” Presidency.usb. The American Presidency Project, 17 June 1971. Web. 3 Apr 2016.


Reagan, Ronald. “Radio Address to the Nation on Economic Growth and the War on Drugs.”

Presidency.usb. The American Presidency Project, 8 Oct 1988. Web. 3 Apr 2016.

The House I Live In. Dir. Eugene Jarecki. 2012. Film.

Kearney, Melissa, et al. “Ten Economic Facts about Crime and Incarceration in the United States.”

The Hamilton Project. Brookings, May 2014. 3 Apr 2016.

Visher, Christy, et al. “Employment after Prison: A Longitudinal Study of Releasees in Three

States.” The Urban Institute, Oct 2008. Web. 3 Apr 2016.

Smith, Jason (pseudonym). Personal Interview. 14 March 2016.


The War on Drugs - Colin Mulligan · The War on Drugs has been one of the longest, ... slogan...

Documents

Transcript of The War on Drugs - Colin Mulligan · The War on Drugs has been one of the longest, ... slogan...