Harrison, Lana D.,
Michael Backenheimer and James A. Inciardi (1995), Cannabis use in the
United States: Implications for policy. In: Peter Cohen & Arjan Sas
(Eds) (1996), Cannabisbeleid in Duitsland, Frankrijk en de Verenigde
Staten. Amsterdam, Centrum voor Drugsonderzoek, Universiteit van Amsterdam.
pp. 254-258.
© Copyright 1995, 1996 Centrum
voor Drugsonderzoek, Universiteit van Amsterdam. All rights reserved.
[PDF] [Table
of contents] [Previous] [Next]
7 Enforcement and prison costs
Subtitle
Lana D. Harrison, Michael
Backenheimer and James A. Inciardi
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 1990
the United States spent $74.249 billion on justice system expenditures
(Maguire and Pastore, 1994). This includes federal, state, local, county
and municipal expenditures. (Unfortunately, 1990 is the latest year for
which data are available.) The major category of costs were police protection
at $31.805 billion (42.8%) and corrections at $24.961 billion (33.6%).
Between 1971 and 1990, the justice system expenditures have increased
606.0%. For the period 1979-1990, the figure is 185.3% and for the period
1985-1990, the figure is 62.8%. In the time frame since 1979, the percentage
increase has been greatest for corrections. The expenditure for this activity
increased 313.3% in the period 1979-1990 and increased 91.5% in the period
1985-1990. For the year 1990, three cents (3.3%) of each government dollar
was for justice activities; 1.4% for police protection, 1.1% for corrections
and 0.7% for judicial and legal services. However, the Federal Government
spent less than 1% (1 cent) of each dollar for justice while the State
Governments were spending 6% (6 cents) of each dollar and local governments
were spending nearly 7% (7 cents) of each dollar for justice activities
(BJS, 1992a, p. 1). This differential is probably due to the fact that
criminal and civil justice activities are primarily the responsibility
of State and local governments. Jointly, the State and local governments
expended 87% of all justice monies while the Federal government's share
was 13% (BJS, 1992a, p. 1). Taken as a whole, Federal, State, and local
governments spent, in 1990, $299 per capita on criminal and civil justice.
The figure for only State and local governments is $261 per capita (BJS,
1992a, p. 1).
A major research effort was initiated that sought to ascertain the direct
and indirect costs of drug use for the years 1985 and 1988 (Rice et al.,
1992, pp. 10-32). This effort showed, for the year 1985, that the total
economic cost of drug use was $44.1 billion. Direct crime costs were calculated
at $13.2 billion. This figure includes costs associated with public police
protection, private legal defense and property destruction. While no direct
crime costs are given for 1988, the total drug use costs were calculated
at $58.3 billion and it seems reasonable to assume that direct costs were
up at least proportionate to the overall increase.
Considering the Federal budget with respect to drug use activities, the
total amount requested for the Fiscal Year 1996 is $14.6 billion. Of this
$14.6 billion, $9.3 billion (64%) is for supply reduction (law enforcement)
and $5.3 billion (36%) is for demand reduction (treatment, prevention
and education). For Fiscal Year 1994, a total of $12.2 billion was allocated
for illegal drug activities with $7.8 billion being supply reduction (64%)
and $4.4 billion (36%) being demand reduction. The estimated 1995 figures
are a total of $13.4 billion with $8.3 billion being supply reduction
(62%) and $4.9 billion (38%) being demand reduction (The White House,
1995). Using the three cited years as trend data would confirm that supply
side drug activities receive far more Federal funding than do demand side
activities.
State and local governments reflect this economic division even more
keenly. In 1990 State and local governments spent approximately $14.1
billion on drug control activities. Of this amount, $11.5 billion (81.8%)
was for justice activities and just $2.5 billion (less than 18%) went
for health and education activities related to drug control. For 1991,
approximately a 13% increase in spending is noted with $15.9 billion spent
by State and local governments on drug control activities. The cited division
remains - $12.6 billion (79.2%) was spent on justice activities and $3.3
billion (20.8%) on health and education activities. It should, however,
be noted that the $3.3 billion spent in 1991 on health and education is
a 32% increase over the 1990 figure (ONDCP, 1993, p. 3).
About 1.4 cents of every dollar spent in 1990 by State and local governments
went for drug control. In 1991 this figure was 1.5 cents. Drug control
activities within the justice realm constituted 1.2 cents of every dollar
in 1990 and remained constant at 1.2 cents in 1991. For health and education
activities within the drug control realm these figures were .2 cents (.002%)
in 1990 and .3 cents (.003%) in 1991 (ONDCP, 1992, p. 3).
Three states exceeded $1 billion each in the dollars spent on drug control
in 1991. These were the States of California, New York and Florida. Together,
they totaled 44% of all State and local spending for drug control. The
following table presents the top five and top bottom States on a per capita
basis in terms of amount spent in 1991 on drug control activities. Reducing
cost to a per capita basis has the effect of neutralizing the population
density within any one state and is probably a better measure than total
dollars spent. Nationally, the per capita spending figure was $63.08 in
1991 and $56.59 in 1990 (ONDCP, 1992, p. 11).
Table 8. Top Five and Top Bottom States of
Amount Spent in 1991 on Drug Control.
| State |
Per Capita Spending |
1991 Rank |
| Alaska |
$154.44 |
1 |
| New York |
$149.00 |
2 |
| Connecticut |
$130.45 |
3 |
| California |
$102.30 |
4 |
| Florida |
$85.04 |
5 |
| Mississippi |
$21.99 |
46 |
| West Virginia |
$20.87 |
47 |
| North Dakota |
$19.64 |
48 |
| Arkansas |
$19.36 |
49 |
| South Dakota |
$13.73 |
50 |
The costs per day per jail inmate in 1988 were about $218 (BJS, 1990b).
In terms of prison inmate costs in 1990, the Bureau of Justice Statistics
estimates the cost at $15,604 for a state inmate and $14,456 for a Federal
inmate (BJS, 1992a, p. 4). These expenditures include salaries and expenses
of personnel, food, supplies, and land rental, but do not include capital
expenditures such as building prisons, improvements, etc. The foundation,
Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), cites the Bureau of Prisons
in 1994 as estimating the total cost of incarcerating a federal prisoner
at $20,804 per annum (FAMM, 1994). In 1991, State and local governments
spent $6.8 billion on correctional services for inmates having a drug
offense. In terms of total drug control spending this amounted to 43%
of the total figure (ONDCP, 1992, p. 4).
Data from the Bureau of Prisons (Federal prisoners only) is instructive
in putting the issue in perspective (The White House, 1995, pp. 101-104).
In 1994 the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) had a total agency budget of $2,232.1
million. Of this figure, 63% ($1,410.7 million) was expended on the drug-related
inmate population. The estimated 1995 budget is $2,638.2 million with
64% ($1,694.0 million) projected as expended on the drug-related inmate
population. For 1996, the requested budget is $2,977.6 million with 65%
($1,942.4 million) being the drug share. The 'drug share' includes salaries
and expenses based on the 'number of inmates projected to be convicted
of drug-related offenses during the year;' and for buildings and facilities
as the 'projected drug-related inmate population at the time current-year
initiatives are scheduled to become operational' (The White House, 1995,
p. 101). It is further estimated that in 1995, some 30.5% of the sentenced
inmate population is drug dependent. In 1991 there were 28,650 drug offenders
sentenced as Federal inmates. Of this number, 21% (6,015) were marijuana
related. At the Federal level, it can thus be seen that imprisoning drug
offenders is a very high ticket item with respect to budget and that at
least a significant minority of these costs are associated with offenses
involving marijuana. With respect to State and local spending in 1991,
it is estimated that approximately 25% of the corrections budget was drug
related (ONDCP, 1993, p. 4).
In terms of police effort, the burden of enforcing drug laws is significant
(BJS, 1992b, p. 6). Almost 19,000 State and local law enforcement officers
were engaged full time in this endeavor in 1990. This breaks down to over
16,000 local police and sheriffs' officers and over 2,000 State police
officers having full time responsibility for drug enforcement. These officers
were members of about 9,300 local police departments and 2,500 sheriffs'
departments having primary responsibility for enforcement of drug laws.
In total these departments in 1990 employed 466,000 full time (thus, not
counting State police, about 3.4% of the departments' full time person
power was devoted to drug law enforcement. For State police, this percentage
is 4.7%. At the State and local level in 1991, approximately 12% of total
police spending went for some aspect of drug control activity (ONDCP,
1993, p. 4).
Unfortunately, it is not possible to validly extract the amount attributable
to enforcement of the marijuana laws, taking into consideration the costs
of policing, arrests, the judiciary and incarceration, especially distinguishing
between possession and sales/distribution offenses. However, data from
California may be informative in this regard. California conducted a careful
study of the economic impact of its marijuana decriminalization policy
in the mid-1970s. In the early 1970s, with statewide arrests approaching
100,000 annually (over 90% of which were for simple possession), enforcement
costs averaged well over $100 million per year (Moscone Committee, as
referenced in Brownell, 1988). According to the study, decriminalization
resulted in a 74% reduction in what the state had been spending yearly
to enforce its marijuana laws (California Health and Welfare Agency, 1977;
National Academy of Science, 1982). Aldrich and Mikuriya (1988) estimate
the State of California has saved nearly half a billion dollars (about
$46 million per year) in arrest costs alone since 1976. Subsequent estimates
put the savings since 1988 at another half billion dollars (ABC News,
April 6, 1995). In general, states that decriminalized marijuana possession
in the 1970s reported savings in police and judicial resources (Slaughter,
1988).
One final note about costs for enforcement is that new laws are increasing
the value of assets seized in connection with marijuana offenses. Such
laws make it possible for the government to take profits and property
of illicit drug operations and permits participating law enforcement organizations
to share a percentage of such forfeited assets. Such seizures represent
a significant amount of money. In 1987, the DEA seized $116.4 million
in marijuana related cases. This was approximately 23% of all assets seized
by the DEA. Forfeiture for marijuana cases in 1988 amounted to $157.3
million, again 23% of seized assets. For the year 1989, marijuana asset
forfeitures dropped to $146 million, 15% of total seized assets. In 1990,
asset forfeiture for marijuana related cases increased dramatically to
$225.2 million, 20% of all forfeited assets. For 1991, $208.2 million
in marijuana related assets were forfeited, 22 percent of all forfeited
assets (DEA, no date).
Figures for all marijuana related cases for 1992 and later are not available.
However, some data are available on seizures directly related to the Drug
Enforcement Administration's Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression
Program. For the year 1992, such forfeitures amounted to $69.2 million,
an all time high and a 31% increase over the $52.8 million figure of 1991.
In 1993, the forfeiture figure was $52.0 million, a return to about 1991
levels (DEA, 1992, p. 464). The point to be made is that the government
is using the forfeiture laws as a major weapon in its effort to stem the
supply of marijuana.
In summary, the enforcement of the marijuana statutes exerts a tremendous
economic and social cost upon society. The cited material focuses more
on drug costs than marijuana specific costs but when it is remembered
that marijuana arrests constitute a major portion of all of the cited
costs, the issue cannot be denied.
References
ABC NEWS. April 6, 1995. 'America's War on Drugs: Searching
for Solutions.' Television Documentary.
BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS. 1992a. Justice Expenditure
and Employment, 1990. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS. 1992b. 'Almost 19,000
State and Local Law Enforcement Officers Fight Drugs Full Time,' National
Update, Vol. II, No. 1, Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Justice.
DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION (DEA). No Date. Domestic
Marijuana Eradication: A Success Story (U.S. Department of Justice).
FAMILIES AGAINST MANDATORY MINIMUMS FOUNDATION. 1994.
'What are Mandatory Minimums?' (Brochure) Washington, D.C.
MAGUIRE, KATHLEEN AND ANN L. PASTORE (EDS.). 1994.
Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1993. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, USGPO.
OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY. 1993. State
and Local Spending on Drug Control Activities: Report from the National
Survey of State and Local Governments. Washington, D.C.: Executive
Office of the President.
RICE, DOROTHY P., SANDER KELMAN AND LEONARD S. MILLER.
1991. 'Economic Costs of Drug Abuse,' in William Cartwright and James
Kaple (eds.), Economic Costs, Cost-Effectiveness, Financing, and Community-Based
Drug Treatment (Research Monograph No. 113). Rockville, MD: National
Institute on Drug Abuse.
SLAUGHTER, J. 1988. 'Marijuana prohibition in the United
States: History and Analysis of a Failed Policy.' Columbia Journal
of Law and Social Problems 21(1): 417-475.
THE WHITE HOUSE. 1995. National Drug Control Strategy
Budget Summary. Washington, D.C.: Executive Office of the President.
[Previous] [Next]
|