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