Where Did All The Money Go? [Pic]

Submitted by: kitteh9lives 4 years ago Misc

Maybe while waging "war on drugs" & trying to control drugs they should work on controlling their spending too.
There are 40 comments:
Male 15,832
[quote]Illicit drugs have become more addictive in the last 40 years.[/quote]
I don`t know about "addictive," but they certainly have increased in strength and purity. Marijuana today is much stronger than it was 40 years ago. However, this is a natural and inevitable consequence of prohibition. If you can grow pot with 5 times as much active ingredient, you can sell it for 5 times as much, but it still takes up the same amount of space to transport it.

Prohibition incentivizes concentration. Just look what happened during alcohol prohibition. We were turned from a nation of beer drinkers into a nation of liquor drinkers, because bootleggers couldn`t haul enough beer to make it worth their while.

And if you still have doubts as to the perniciousness of prohibition, remember that Alcoholics Anonymous didn`t even exist before prohibition.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Illicit drugs have become more addictive in the last 40 years[/quote]
Says the guy who`s never done drugs. Care to cite that?
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@Crakr: Obviously you missed my comment earlier: post hoc ergo propter hoc. The most you have to show for your country`s policy is ridiculously large rates of imprisonment. Usage in the US is still something like twice the amount of the Netherlands for weed and cocaine. Drug war policies are antiquated and counterproductive. The Dutch have also had addiction rates fairly constant for decades, but at least they don`t lock up 1% of their population.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
patchgrabber: Ineffective? Seems that the graph shows it is effective at keeping the rate at a lower, nearly constant level.

Illicit drugs have become more addictive in the last 40 years, if we hadn`t been fighting the drug war even more people would be addicted than are now.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@som-tam: I see your point, and the graph is poorly presented, but the % for addicts is reasonable, because it is a rate, which could be presented as a ratio or a percentage. The dollar number is incomplete, but for the drug war to be useful, you should see the addiction rate go down, or drug usage go down. You don`t see either of these.

Nixon`s initial drug budget was $100 million, now it`s $15.1 billion, which is 31 times Nixon`s amount, and that`s AFTER inflation adjustment.


Yet spending is increasing much more for the useless policies of imprisonment and policing instead of useful programs like treatment.
0
Reply
Male 714
once agian you failed to see the point i was making.
-the number of addicts id measured in % this hides the raising number of addicts due to population increase; 203,392,031 in 70 - 314,636,000 in 2010, a 50% rise.
-the amount spent is measured in dollars which doesn`t take into account inflation or the extra cost of a rising population.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@som-tam: If you`d have looked at the link I gave to an explanation of this graph i.e. where it`s wrong and where it`s right, you`d be less propagandized.

But I fail to see how all this money was spent to keep addiction rates low. It was spent to incarcerate people (doesn`t help addiction) and stop illicit drug trade. If it had any effect on addiction rates then that would not be due to the billions spent on prisons and law enforcement.
0
Reply
Male 714
that`s right patchgrabber, just ignore what the facts that this is pure propaganda.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]all being said it`s money well spent to keep the % at a level rate.[/quote]
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
0
Reply
Male 714
ok so just in case no-one else has worked it out, this is pure propaganda. it uses a percentage for the drug addicts, this does not take into consideration the growing population. and it uses dollars for the amount spent, not taking into consideration inflation and the increase in addicts. all being said it`s money well spent to keep the % at a level rate.
0
Reply
Female 9,400
1986 must of been a bad year.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Explanation on this image here.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
So @Crakr will whine and moan about government spending too much money, yet when something as visibly ineffective as the drug war is concerned, well then that money deserves to go down the bottomless hole. *eye roll*
0
Reply
Male 1,059
Do one on the war on poverty! Equally worthless. Everyone ready for the government to just go away and do nothing but national defense? We could cut the budget by 80% tomorrow and life would continue along just fine without all the worthless crap our federal government does with our money.
0
Reply
Male 559
CrakrJak may not use drugs, but his avatar is a pothead.

Apparently the dude does not abide.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak

You haven`t used drugs? You`ve never used alcohol, caffeine, cocoa (chocolate), or any kind of painkillers or medication.

Ever?

Note, he said drugs, not illegal drugs.

Try your answer again, CrakrJak.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
VirtualParty: Yes, No, Yes, No and Don`t fart or you`ll blow your brains out.
0
Reply
Male 1,063
According to who?
0
Reply
Male 15,832
I`ve given up commenting on the drug war. What`s the f***ing point?
0
Reply
Male 787
CrackrJak, do you support the drug war and this kind of spending? Have you ever used drugs? Have you ever met a methamphetamine addict? Have you ever met someone who went to prison just because a small amount of weed? Have you ever pulled your head out of your ass your entire life?
0
Reply
Male 17,512
whodat: Those people locked up in prison, not county jail mind you, are there for amounts of drugs that are considered `distribution` or `sales`. Addicts with small amounts are routinely given a fine, probation and made to attend narc-anon or some similar group.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
That`s not adjusted for inflation.
0
Reply
Male 1,377
The point of the graph is to show that no matter how much money has been put into enforcing the ridiculous drug laws, the % of the population addicted to illegal drugs has not changed. This leads to the question "where are the results of $1.5 trillion dollars if the same % of the population is still addicted to drugs as they were 40 years ago".
We went from roughly 200 million to 300 million in the time frame, so the actual number of drug abusers has gone up. While that in the end equals more people, the real test of success is in percentages.
The answer to the question "where does all the money go" is the prisons and law enforcement. Prisons earn money based on how many prisoners they have. Law enforcement pays police officers to track down non-violent offenders, and in the end, the citizens pay for most of it. Sure, assets of offenders can be liquidated, but the majority of this is tax money.
0
Reply
Male 1,377
So in the end, we spend 1.5 trillion to put drug offenders in jail, and the net outcome is that the same % of people are addicted to drugs as they were 40 years ago.
If the purpose was to get people off of drug addictions (because that`s what we really want, isn`t it? for people to not be addicted to drugs?) then it is a complete failure. Yes, the graph is lacking because obviously no one would ever buy into the sole purpose of the war on drugs to be reducing the number of drug addicted people.
0
Reply
Male 559
That drug addiction rate in no way accounts for the drugs that the vast majority of addicts are addicted to: caffeine and nicotine.

Drugs are drugs. If you want to pick and choose which ones to get rid of, you need to ask yourself why.

Is marijuana more harmful than tobacco? Is THC worse for you than caffeine?
0
Reply
Male 184
@Gothicwyer- If the government wasn`t increasing its technology to catch drug smugglers and dealers, there wouldn`t have been a need for dealers and smugglers to get more sophisticated. Anyone who was actually interested in purely stopping drugs in america would have rehashed their strategy around 1983 or 1984 according to the info this graph presents. Just sayin.I agree that pot should be legalized and also mandatory minimums need to be overturned.
0
Reply
Male 3
I agree we need more data but...

The increase comes from needing more money to fight more sophisticated smuggling methods. The increase is needed just to keep the other from rising.

Also inflation is a bitch. The money figure should be done as a percent of GDP like the other figure is for percent of population.

That being said. Legalize it.

0
Reply
Female 280
Skypirate, I was about to say the same thing but you beat me to it.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
@skypirate ....percent of the population, clearly.

I`ll echo you and whyteman in saying I need citations on my graphs or I ignore them
0
Reply
Male 2,542
% of what? and [quote]Citation or gtfo. [/quote]
0
Reply
Male 132
43 65 90 10

Those numbers are the most important numbers to everyone in the world. Don`t worry about where they came from or any other mitigating factors. Just look at those numbers.
0
Reply
Male 3,909
The majority of criminals who are locked up by the "war on drugs" are convicted marijuana related crimes. 88% of those marijuana related arrests are only for possession.
0
Reply
Male 96
Citation or gtfo.
0
Reply
Male 1,243
haha so biased, i`d like to see the actual data for that, i suspect drug use has been increasing.
0
Reply
Male 2,552
I agree, it`s a waste of money. Making it illegal--and therefore harder to obtain--makes it more dangerous.
0
Reply
Male 27
Where did the numbers come from?
0
Reply
Male 2,436
Interesting... `94 was likely my largest drug consuming year.
0
Reply
Male 79
Crime is at an all time low. Incarceration is at an all time high. We tout how we are a beacon of freedom in the world. Yet we have the highest incarceration rate in the world.
0
Reply
Male 2,855
good thing its keeping it stable
0
Reply
Female 8,044
Link: Where Did All The Money Go? [Pic] [Rate Link] - Maybe while waging `war on drugs` & trying to control drugs they should work on controlling their spending too.
0
Reply