TL: STUDY: DRUG TREATMENT COST EFFECTIVE OVER LAW ENFORCEMENT.
WHITE HOUSE CAVES IN TO MILITARY, REJECTS COCAINE STUDY
The White House has rejected the main findings of a study
on how to curb the use of cocaine. Why? Because the study showed that drug
treatment is seven times more cost effective than the most successful law-enforcement
efforts.How's that again?
Yes, that's right. The federal
government is so sensitive to the pressures of the military and police
agencies that lap up money--supposedly to rein in production, trafficking
and dealing in cocaine--that it has rejected the conclusions of a study
it helped fund.
The study was prepared by
researchers C. Peter Rydell and Susan S. Everingham for RAND, a Santa Monica-based
private, non-profit institution, and was released June 13. It was funded
by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the U.S. Army, the Ford
Foundation and RAND. The researchers based some of their analysis on data
collected in the National Household Survey of Drug Abuse.
The study reports that the various
levels of government spend a total of $13 billion a year on cocaine control.
Only 13 percent of that goes to treatment (6 percent) and prevention (7
percent). The rest goes to domestic law enforcement (69 percent), interdiction
(12 percent) and source country control (6 percent)--that is, the police
and the military.
However, despite the billions spent
on enforcement, the street price of pure cocaine has dropped from $750
a gram in 1977 to a little over $100 in 1992, indicating a plentiful supply.
The number of users has declined
from its peak of around 12 million in 1985 to 7 million in 1991. But a
shift toward heavier consumption of the drug by the remaining users has
kept the amount of cocaine sold in the U.S. the same.
It is the report's conclusions that
seem to have miffed the White House. The researchers project that if the
amount of money spent on treatment were raised from the current $1 billion
to $4 billion a year by taking $3 billion from supply control, all heavy
cocaine users could be treated. Today, only 30 percent are. This would
result in "a one-third reduction in annual cocaine consumption, a significant
drop in the number of users and, as a result, a decrease in the cocaine-related
costs of crime and lost productivity estimated at $10 billion."
The study also shows that to reduce
cocaine consumption by just 1 percent, it would cost $783 million if spent
on "source country control"--such as setting up helicopter bases in the
Andes-- but a mere $34 million if spent on drug treatment here.
Shouldn't the Clinton administration
be thrilled at all this? Without spending one extra penny, they could score
a significant victory in the war on drugs.
Yet that seems to be the problem.
Just as in a general shooting war, there are a lot of vested interests
in this battle. And the people who run neighborhood treatment centers don't
have the same clout in capitalist politics as do Air Force generals, the
LAPD, the prime-time producers who glorify them, or the giant banks that
launder billions in drug money.
Copyright © Workers World Service. Permission
to reprint granted if source is cited. For more information contact:
Workers World
55 W. 17 Str
New York, NY 10011
Email: ww%transfr@blythe.org
