Marijuana is the most widely used illegal substance in the United States, and study after study shows that despite spending billions of dollars, the federal government simply does not know how to reduce its use and availability. In fiscal year (FY) 2004 alone, the federal government spent nearly $4 billion to combat marijuana. Despite spending billions of dollars over the years to enforce the prohibition of marijuana, use and perception of the drug are little different now than they were 30 years ago.

Despite record deficits, U.S. taxpayers continue to watch as year after year tax dollars go up in smoke funding expensive but ineffective government programs intended to reduce marijuana use. A new report commissioned by Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) and written by visiting Harvard University economist Dr. Jeffrey Miron found that efforts to reduce marijuana use and supply cost federal taxpayers least $3.67 billion in FY04, despite no evidence to justify this extravagant spending.

TCS commissioned this study as part of its ongoing efforts to locate wasteful and ineffective federal spending and encourage the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars. The Miron report assesses the two primary parameters of the discussion regarding the nation's marijuana efforts: the cost of the program and the effect the program has had on marijuana use. This study is intended to be a springboard for debate on reforming federal marijuana policies. Both political parties should be concerned by the poor performance of expensive drug war programs in fighting marijuana use.

What makes this report important is that it is the most complete analysis of federal marijuana spending, comparing spending outlays to the effectiveness of the programs. Federal figures show that total war on drugs spending cost federal taxpayers $11.9 billion in 2004, but this spending is not broken down among individual drugs. In addition, the federal government lacks any data to show that the money spent to reduce marijuana use has been effective. In fact, most evidence suggests the contrary: increased federal spending on marijuana has accompanied increased use.

Miron's report contains the type of data that federal agencies should have available to assess the effectiveness of federal programs. How much the government is spending and changes in use and availability are tools that can measure the effectiveness of the nation's anti-drug program investment, and this information should be made available on a drug-by-drug basis.

How much money?

There is no question that much of the tens of billions of dollars spent on the federal drug war has been wasted. Unfortunately, this waste continues to plague us. According to Miron's study, total spending on prohibition, education, treatment, and research on marijuana is conservatively calculated to be $3.67 billion in FY04.

Miron's estimate is enormous, but actual spending is likely to be much higher. The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) changed its accounting system in 2003, resulting in a much lower estimated total of the amount spent on all anti-drug activities. Under the new budgeting procedures, only spending on programs, departments, or agencies that are exclusively anti-drug is counted. To illustrate the folly of this new system, drug treatment in the nation's prisons is counted as anti-drug spending, but incarcerating drug offenders is not (since the Bureau of Prisons also holds non-drug offenders). The result is a much lower estimate that misrepresents total anti-drug spending.1

In addition, the $3.67 billion estimate only includes federal spending and does not take into account the billions of dollars spent by state and local governments. In fact, using the old ONDCP procedures to calculate marijuana spending, and including state and local expenditures, yields a total annual marijuana spending level in the U.S. as high as $8 billion in FY04.

Investing in failures

Though failure in the program has been systemic, there are numerous examples of particularly wasteful marijuana spending programs and objectives that are worth highlighting:

ONDCP's National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign

ONDCP's “National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campai.png” has done little to reduce the use of marijuana in the U.S. Created by the U.S. Congress in 1998 with the goal of preventing and reducing drug use (with particular emphasis on marijuana) among 9 to 18 year old youth, the program utilizes a number of strategies, including paid advertising, media outreach, internet marketing, and entertainment outreach.

In 2002, ONDCP launched a program exclusively targeting marijuana use among teens age 14 to 16. The “Marijuana Initiative,” included a youth advertising campaign to illustrate the negative consequences of marijuana, and an advertising campaign to give parents information about marijuana.

The Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania was contracted to analyze the media campaign as a whole and the marijuana initiative specifically, and found that in both cases there is little evidence that the millions being spent every year are having any discernable impact on use of or attitudes toward marijuana among the nation's youth.2 The final Annenberg study, which was due in January has been delayed, even as the program reauthorization moves through Congress.

The funding for the media campaign represents a small (approximately one percent) portion of the total federal drug control budget, but has already cost taxpayers more than $1.3 billion.

The ineffectiveness of the media campaign was uncovered largely because an independent organization was hired to evaluate the program. Starting next year, however, this evaluation will no longer be conducted by an unbiased entity, but will instead be scrutinized by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America which is a partner organization of the Media Campaign and openly cheerleads for the Campaign on its website.

The Media Campaign has also been plagued with myriad other problems. The advertising agency that was handling the account, Ogilvy & Mather, was accused of over-billing the federal government by $7.6 million. In addition, the Campaign produced a series of highly controversial advertisements alleging that drug users are supporting terrorism. The ONDCP later reversed course on this message, but not before spending $4 million to run two 30-second ads during the 2003 Super Bowl. In 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the ONDCP violated a federal law that prohibits use of appropriated federal money from being used in the production and distribution of propaganda. According to the GAO, the Media Campaign's “prepackaged news stories constituted covert propaganda in violation of publicity or propaganda prohibitions of the fiscal year 2002, 2003, and 2004 appropriations acts.”3

Ditchweed Eradication

In 1979, the Drug Enforcement Agency instituted the Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program (DCE/SP) to halt the cultivation of marijuana within the United States. In FY01, the DEA provided $13.1 million to 102 programs in all 50 states for marijuana eradication. This program has done little to reduce the nation's marijuana supply, however, as 99.42 percent of eradicated marijuana in 2001 (the most recent year data is available) was ditchweed, or feral hemp, which contains miniscule quantities of THC and therefore has no value as a street drug.

Lock 'Em Up and Throw Away the Key

Arrest rates for marijuana-related offenses have skyrocketed in recent years. Total arrests (federal, state, and local) increased 113% between 1990 and 2002 while total arrests for all crimes declined by 3%. In 2003 alone, more than 755,000 people were arrested for marijuana-related crimes. Since 1990, there have been 6.2 million arrests for marijuana-related offenses. Marijuana arrests constitute nearly half of all drug-related arrests in the U.S. It is no surprise, then, that federal spending on prohibition activities such as the arrest and incarceration of marijuana offenders costs the federal government at least $1.43 billion. Spending nationally on arrest and incarceration of marijuana-related offenders may actually be as high as $5.76 billion if state and local spending is included and the old ONDCP accounting measures are used. Despite a decade or more of accelerating arrest rates, which are in part intended to display a “tough on marijuana” image and dissuade young people from using the drug, marijuana usage rates are little different than they were 30 years ago.

Student Drug Testing

In his 2004 State of the Union address, President Bush highlighted drug testing of high school students as an important part of the drug program and proposed increasing funding for testing by $23 million. Though Congress only approved $10 million in FY05, President Bush proposed to increase this amount to $25.4 million for FY 2006. Any increase is unlikely to deter use of marijuana, however. A scientific review of marijuana use among high school students found no direct relationship between drug testing and reduced use of drugs or marijuana. In fact, marijuana use among 12th graders at schools with drug testing was found to be slightly higher than marijuana use at schools that do not test.4

Conclusions and Recommendations

Over the last thirty years, tens of billions of dollars have been spent to reduce drug use despite poor returns on the investment. Lawmakers and taxpayers alike should expect better. Despite nearly $4 billion in annual marijuana spending, historical data show little change over time in the number of people using marijuana or the perceptions of marijuana's harmfulness or availability. These numbers illustrate a clear failure on the part of federal programs designed to eliminate marijuana use and distribution.

The ultimate measure of the drug war's worth is its impact on drug usage. By this standard, the federal marijuana program has fared poorly. Rather than continue to spend billions of dollars on the problem, it would be better for the U.S, government to get out of the marijuana business entirely.

If the program is to remain, several significant changes are necessary to ensure that the program is serving the best interests of taxpayers:

Conduct a thorough review of current marijuana policy. This step is only common sense in light of the report's findings. If increased spending is accompanied by increased use, then continuing to increase spending in the future is just throwing good money after bad.

Restructure current budgeting and reporting procedures to give a better indication of how much the federal government is spending on individual illegal substances, including marijuana. The current practice of grouping all drug-spending together makes analysis of the overall drug program and the marijuana program, especially in regard to cost effectiveness, nearly impossible.

Perform analysis of drug war programs' effectiveness on a drug-by-drug basis. Declines and increases in the overall use of drugs is inadequate to understand where resources should be targeted, and fails to provide the necessary means to determine whether past spending is achieving key goals.