Marijuana.com

Buzzby

Waste in the War on Drugs
Government Waste Watch, Summer 2005
Angela French | Citizens Against Government Waste | 08/25/2006

In May 2005, Citizens Against Government Waste released “Up in Smoke: ONDCP’s Wasted Efforts in the War on Drugs,” an in-depth and ultimately unflattering probe into America’s drug policy. The report names the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) as among several expensive programs at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) that have failed to produce any meaningful results after 17 years.

President Bush’s fiscal 2006 budget request included significant funding cuts for several local and state law enforcement programs, including complete elimination of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Edward Byrne discretionary grants and a 96 percent reduction to the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program budget. The president also proposed changes at the ONDCP, including consolidating HIDTA with DOJ’s drug control programs and reducing HIDTA’s budget by 55.8 percent, from $226.5 million to $100 million.

The proposed cuts were met with rigid opposition by law enforcement officials and several members of Congress, who maintain that erasing the programs will lead to a rise in drug trafficking and drug use in the U.S. However, regional drug control programs are ineffective and costly because members of Congress have seized the opportunity to ship drug enforcement money home for political gain rather than to stop the influx of drugs.

HIDTA was designed chiefly to curb drug trafficking across America’s borders, but it has morphed into a drug war spending free-for-all that has little impact in the areas where it is most needed. Created in 1988, the program’s funding was distributed to five “gateway” regions of the U.S. where the majority of drug trafficking took place, and by 1990, funds were heading to Los Angeles, Houston, New York/New Jersey, South Florida, and the Southwest border.

But numerous politicians — always sniffing for opportunities to bring home the bacon — began to lobby for HIDTA money for their states. Landlocked states like Colorado and Iowa were added to the program and by 2001, 56 percent of states were receiving HIDTA funding.

Although funding has increased dramatically for HIDTA, an increasingly smaller percentage of tax dollars is being spent in regions for which the money was initially intended. For example, the program’s 2005 budget had grown 813.4 percent from 1990, from $25 million to $228.4 million. Yet, funds for the Southwest border region — a crucial area to stop the import of drugs from Mexico — dropped from 44 percent of total HIDTA funds in 1990 to 25 percent in 1997.

States without a serious drug trafficking problem begged for HIDTA funds to control local drug problems, such as the emergence of methamphetamine (meth) labs all over the U.S. However, approximately 80 percent of meth available is “Mexican meth,” a cheaper version that’s been smuggled across America’s borders. With federal resources pulled away from the Southwest border, it is not surprising that such a large percentage of meth can be traced back to Mexico.

Many states show an increase in drug busts after an injection of HIDTA funding (usually meth or marijuana-related), but rarely show a decrease in drug trafficking, drug-related crime, or production of drugs. In Arizona, drug-related crimes are on the rise, despite federal funding pouring into the state. California still accounts for 75 to 90 percent of the illegal meth production in the U.S. even though it receives a sizeable chunk of federal anti-drug spending.

Members of Congress would rather secure HIDTA funds for home districts than fight drug trafficking at the most crucial points. Despite the millions spent annually in the war on drugs, the drug trade is on the rise. ONDCP should be sending money to states where the majority of drugs enter the U.S., which still happen to be the original five areas targeted by HIDTA.

President Bush’s solution is to streamline drug control programs. His proposal to remove HIDTA from the jurisdiction of ONDCP is wise, given the office’s track record of wasting tax dollars on media advertising, deficient anti-drug trafficking programs, and fighting state legislation.

The debate around HIDTA reveals another consequence of pork-barrel politics in the war on drugs: Local law enforcement becomes dependent on federal aid to fight homegrown drug suppliers. Members of Congress appear bent on keeping alive the HIDTA cash cow. The House Appropriations Committee has already ignored the president’s request to transfer HIDTA to DOJ, and also included funding for Byrne grants. Hopefully, the Senate Appropriations Committee will agree with the president, which could be the beginning of the end of ONDCP’s wasted efforts in the war on drugs.

"Up in Smoke: ONDCP’s Wasted Efforts in the War on Drugs” is available at www.cagw.org.