this post was submitted on
2,144 points (59% like it)
6,895 up votes 4,751 down votes
shortlink:

gifs

unsubscribe360,371 readers

623 users here now

Links to amusing, interesting, or funny .gifs from the web! .gif format submissions only, please!

How to make your own animated gifs?

Please try not to repost and post reaction gifs in /r/reactiongifs.

Looking for a specific gif? Try /r/gifrequests

Direct image links preferred! Avoid pages that have other extraneous material besides the gif like headers, banners, ads, etc. And please, no blogspam. URL-shorteners are NOT allowed!

Witty titles optional. nsfw when necessary; this implies the comments within will be too.

Nudity and obscene material goes into /r/nsfw_gifs - No exceptions. If it can get you fired then it should not be here. Failure to comply will result in removal of post and banning.

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

2143
2144

The War on Drugs: 40 years of an unchanging 1.3% addiction rate, a $1.5 trillion price tag and counting (imageshack.us)

submitted ago by PhilMcKrackin

top 200 commentsshow all 235
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]salisburymistake 602 points603 points ago

Using that graph, one could argue that we've had to spend increasingly more every year to keep the addiction rate as low as it is.

[–]harky 121 points122 points ago

Oh statistics, so... easily distorted. :P

Also fun:

Population: 208m -> 314m (66% increase)
Value of dollar: 1$ (1970) = 5.66$ (2010)

The graph shows us in 1970 paying ~.5b for ~2.7m people and ~20b for ~4m people. So we went from 185$ a person to 883$ is 1970 dollars, or 1035$ to 5000$ in 2010 dollars.

Other fun things to check out are adjusting the chart to reflect the percentage of spending. .5b in 1970 was ~.26% of spending, 20b in 2010 was ~.56% of spending. Only an increase of .3%! Hurrah!

[–]eyecorporations 28 points29 points ago

but that's a 215% increase...215%!!! Think of all the PBS we can get for 215%.

[–]harky 15 points16 points ago

That's a fair point. We should really calculate all government spending based on how many Seasame Streets can be produced for the cost. 63.8 billion for the F22 program sounds acceptable, but would it change your mind if you knew that was over 7,000 Seasame Streets. That's a lot of streets! Ah-ah-ah.

[–]IntentToContribute 11 points12 points ago

THATS... THATS LIKE 16 BIG BIRDS

[–]aPandaIsNotASandwich 2 points3 points ago

Ugh, if there's that many, you know they're gonna want a union, an then they'll demand a union for their snuffaluffagus...es. Snuffaluffagi? Eh... I dunno.

[–]twotonearmy04 3 points4 points ago

Snuffaluffagoxen maybe?

[–]necrodude 1 point2 points ago

Get my gun...

[–]pendomatic 2 points3 points ago

the money they're taking out of non-dependent, public service, is such a joke, compared to where the majority of our spending/debt is. If we were pinching pennies across the board, it'd be one thing. Though what they're doing is creating a false dilemma to campaign on.

[–]KookyGuy 0 points1 point ago

We could hire more Big Birds!

[–]titan413 27 points28 points ago

Let me just put that in graph format.

[–]AdamEdge -1 points0 points ago

Are you...a wizard or something

[–]smackfrog 5 points6 points ago

oh man...good one

[–]skipharrison 163 points164 points ago

Also, 1% of the population in 1970 is different that 1% of the population in 2000.

[–]NIQ702 201 points202 points ago

2,033,920 in 1970 and 2,821,624 in 2000.

[–]skipharrison 139 points140 points ago

huh. well, that was enlightening. I expected the difference to be larger. So, i guess my point is kinda moot.

[–]NIQ702 66 points67 points ago

I dunno, I think the difference is pretty large, that's just about 40% more people in 30 years (though, the difference is only 0.02% of the population of America).

[–]KaziArmada 46 points47 points ago

Overall, the jump in spending doesn't justify the amount of people.

[–]NIQ702 18 points19 points ago

For sure, can't argue with that.

[–]YoureTheVest 4 points5 points ago

You're behind the times, man, there was a census in 2010. They counted 308,745,538 people.

[–]NIQ702 2 points3 points ago

I know there is, but skipharrison mentioned 2000 so that's what I used.

[–]cptawesome11 0 points1 point ago

Where'd you get your information? I got 3,661,056 in 1970 and 5,065,594 in 2000. Which is significantly more than what you're stating.

[–]Lewke 23 points24 points ago

Also inflation.

[–]titan413 6 points7 points ago

Inflation doesn't work for the whole graph. But from 1991 on, it has basically just kept pace with inflation, looks like.

[–]Piss_Legislator 5 points6 points ago

that is of no matter - if that stat is true (I doubt either are) it suggests that regardless of effort put toward prohibition - the addiction rate of the US population will stay the same. Doesnt matter if it is 1.3% of 1000 or 1.3% of 69 billion thousand bazillion jazillion hundred.

[–]samsonizzle 9 points10 points ago

Not to mention the blue line is called a RATE, which implies that this is a percentage of the population becoming addicted PER unit time...

It doesn't make much sense to compare a quantity to a rate, they both should be quantities. The blue line should measure number of addicted per capita or something like that. You would likely see a line with a positive slope for the blue line then...

[–]r_slash 0 points1 point ago

The blue line should measure number of addicted per capita

Pretty sure that's what it measures, regardless of the name "addiction rate." I don't think it's measuring the number of new addicts every year.

[–]Stonecutter[!] 0 points1 point ago

That's why it is shown as a percentage and not simply the number of people addicted to drugs. The percentage is more meaningful when comparing statistics over a 40 year period of time.

[–]GAMEchief 0 points1 point ago

While that's true, such things as drug addiction are measured on per capita scales, not total numbers. Percentages would be the appropriate way to measure this.

load more comments (2 replies)

    [–]arco_1 22 points23 points ago

    Or that the "War on Drugs" is, despite it's costs, completely ineffective.

    The prison industry has an interest in full prisons, that's why you have them.

    Countless consumers had their careers/lifes destroyed, and the unfathomable violence in Central- and South-America seems to have no end. Not just men, children and women too get killed/raped/tortured pretty much daily. And that's no coincidence, this situation is directly related to the "War on Drugs".

    Despite all that money, misery, violence, political pressure.. the average american is still 4 times more likely to consume Cocaine in his life, compared to the next closest country on this list "New Zealand".

    Amazing how many trillions have been wasted by the United States in the last 2-4 decades...

    It's also interesting how many times Nixon's name pops up when you try finding the roots of some of these mistakes.

    [–]salisburymistake 33 points34 points ago

    I agree. I was merely pointing out that this graph can easily be misconstrued to convey the opposite of its intent.

    [–]Mrcnutty 5 points6 points ago

    It's true. Nothing here shows that if the 1.5 trill hadn't been spent then we would be looking at a 20% addiction rate or something ridiculous like that right now.

    Also we don't know what dollar value is being used.

    [–]private_pants 4 points5 points ago

    It's a vaguely similar situation to..... you guessed it! Treatment of idiopathic scoliosis! Kids get scoliosis, and get put in a large spinal brace. If the angle of the scoliosis gets WORSE by less than 5 degrees, it is counted as a success. The problem worsening does not necessarily mean the intervention is wasted. Without the brace, the curve would progress a lot more. Without the 1.5 trillion, the drug problem may have gotten much worse.

    Edited for speeling.

    [–]mardob 0 points1 point ago

    If they had spent twice as much the amount of user could have risen to 2.6%

    It also says that 98.7% never use drugs.

    But all in all I choose to believe it means that 1.3% of the population is hard core uncorrupted, and wont change their opinion even greasing them down with money.

    Come to think of it; - perhaps the money went elsewhere?

    [–]ReverendSaintJay 3 points4 points ago

    It also says that 98.7% never use drugs.

    There is a huge difference between "smoke weed" and "suck a dick for weed money".

    [–]AlwaysDefenestrated 2 points3 points ago

    Yeah this is addiction rate, not drug use rate. That would be a much higher number.

    [–]bobisterbezreal 1 point2 points ago

    The point being made is that, since the graph can be interpreted as showing both one point and the opposite, it doesn't really show us anything at all. The evidence it purports to provide is consistent with both positive and negative narratives of the war on drugs.

    Not to say that I don't agree with your other points.

    [–]arco_1 0 points1 point ago

    People took drugs 5000 years ago and people take drugs today, from tobacco, over alcohol, to weed and worse stuff. Why would you expect a big change in addiction rate over a few decades? Because you spend a few 100 Million $ to burn a few weed-farms in Mexico, or burn some coca fields in Peru/Colombia?

    USA has never really had a clue how to deal with drug addictions. I think it was in the 80s when they put political pressure on us (Switzerland) because we tried a new way to deal with hopeless heroin addicts. They were telling us that we encourage drug consumption and stuff like that. After a few years it turned out that the situation of those addicts improved many times. The rate of commited crimes by addicts plummeted, aids-rates plummeted, the amount of syringes on the streets plummeted.
    The success was so clear that other countries emulated our programm. Heroin has pretty much disappeared as a commonly used drug in switzerland. That is only one of many examples considering the failures of the "oppression"-system.

    Another of the many examples you could see in Holland. The weed consumption wasn't really higher than in the countries around it, despite the fact that you could walk in many places and leave with 5g of great weed/hash.

    [–]NickTheNewbie -1 points0 points ago

    Yeah, man. Fuck legitimate statistical analysis. I wanna get hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh.

    [–]arco_1 0 points1 point ago

    I don't think there's any way you can analyse the war on drugs and have a positive result.

    If people want to smoke a joint, let them. I don't see the difference to Vodka and the likes.

    load more comments (4 replies)

      [–]Stonecutter[!] 2 points3 points ago

      You could look at it that way. Or you could say that all that money we are spending is doing little to no good.

      [–]powprodukt 2 points3 points ago

      One could also argue that Drug Control Spending is not correlated with the Addiction Rate.

      [–]Phallic 6 points7 points ago

      That could easily be refuted using overseas experiments with decriminalisation.

      Of course, you always run the risk of running into the conversational brick wall that is: "Oh, sure, it might work in other countries, but it couldn't possibly work in this country. That's why we shouldn't even try it or even try to learn anything from it."

      [–][deleted] ago

      [deleted]

      [–]yogi89 3 points4 points ago

      healthcare?

      [–]Ratajski 1 point2 points ago

      That logically fallacious argument has always irritated me. It's such a passive acceptance of lower standards. It's just like when someone says that life's not fair. Essentially they're saying that since things are the way they are, there is no point in trying to change them for the better. And people that think like this seem to think that everyone else has the same attitude. They're the same people who will claim that decriminalization (or legalization) of marijuana is a cop out because it's only a reaction to the fact that people will use it regardless of its' legal status. Of course, that view is born out of the misguided concept that marijuana is a "gateway drug", which is in turn only true because it is illegal. It's amazing how they craft arguments supporting the legislation that created the problem. Such circular reference. So recursive.

      [–][deleted] -1 points0 points ago

      Wow wall o' text ahoy...

      [–]haackedc 2 points3 points ago

      That's an interesting point... what would one have to do to show that the money spent was also ineffective?

      [–]Rasalom 0 points1 point ago

      Addiction isn't fought with SWAT and laws.

      [–]salisburymistake 0 points1 point ago

      Exactly. Sub out addiction for conviction and the correlation will be unmistakeable.

      [–]BlueNoyb -2 points-1 points ago

      I was thinking the same thing.

      load more comments (3 replies)

        [–]reapthewhirlwind 86 points87 points ago

        Can I get a source for these statistics?

        [–]rAxxt 35 points36 points ago

        I don't know where the statistics come from, but I'm pretty sure OP yoinked that graph from this trailer for a documentary that people are trying to get produced:

        http://www.reddit.com/r/Marijuana/comments/119w5f/project_1315_incredible_documentary_trying_to_be/

        [–]wothcloth 42 points43 points ago

        numbers from a documentary?

        definitely inaccurate.

        [–]heretoplay 1 point2 points ago

        I don't think you have to go that far. It's on the internet it has to be true. You don't need sources here.

        [–]SomeSpareChang 8 points9 points ago

        http://imgur.com/XBTSs

        [–]FCOS 7 points8 points ago

        You're the first person I've seen in a while who has used that image and not been torn apart

        [–]SomeSpareChang 7 points8 points ago

        It's been awhile since I've seen it so I gave it a shot. I just wish I had the eyes rolling gif.

        [–]dude_u_a_creep 0 points1 point ago

        Wait, how do you wish you had a .gif? Its the fucking internet man, go out and get it

        [–]JavaLSU 6 points7 points ago

        I'm wondering the same thing. What is included in that budget?

        [–]topplehat 9 points10 points ago

        Is a gif not good enough for you?!

        [–]logen99999 20 points21 points ago

        Hey this is reddit, i need one super generalized graph that succinctly illustrates a point that doesn't consider a vast multitude of other factors and gets a ton of upvotes.

        seriously, how is this any better the the propaganda we see on fox news?

        [–]doitleapdaytheysaid 1 point2 points ago

        Its not. Fact is everywhere you go, people will find a way to manipulate data to spread their ideology. This site loves to hammer fox, but every news source we have does the same thing. Its a good thing fox exists in the media just as its a good thing we have comments on reddit to give both sides of the argument.

        [–]cibiri313 -2 points-1 points ago

        http://www.reddit.com/r/trees/comments/11b4mz/the_war_on_drugs_40_years_of_an_unchanging_13/c6l2uwq

        [–]jett_jackson 91 points92 points ago

        These numbers are bullshit. Even if we had been spending $20B per year EVERY year since 1970, it still only adds up to $800B. Where does $1.5 trillion come from?

        [–]sammew 47 points48 points ago

        The amount spent on the graph may be a quarterly or monthly statistic. $1500 billion over 42 years would be on average, 3 billion a month.

        That being said, until OP posts statistics to back up the picture, it is pretty meaningless.

        [–]Madrawn 11 points12 points ago

        Maybe inflation adjusted? I'm guessing here.

        [–]cibiri313 5 points6 points ago

        http://www.reddit.com/r/trees/comments/11b4mz/the_war_on_drugs_40_years_of_an_unchanging_13/c6l2uwq

        [–]Poopmin 0 points1 point ago

        I want to personally thank you for being an intelligent, informed person.

        [–]spermracewinner 0 points1 point ago

        Where does $1.5 trillion come from?

        Some it from you.

        [–]jammerjoint -1 points0 points ago

        This needs more upboats. I'm not a big fan of the war on drugs, but I can't stand shit like this.

        [–]shitmyselfagain 1 point2 points ago

        Just came in here to post this. Bullshit. If inflation was included to show the $1.5 Trillion, then it should be the $ amount for every year on the graph. But then it wouldn't have as dramatic an upswing so why bother, right? Misrepresentation of data pisses me off even when it's showing something I agree with.

        [–]OhCaptionMyCaption 50 points51 points ago

        I'm not a big supporter of the war on drugs...but when you adjust for inflation, spending has only doubled since 1986.

        Also, there are so many other factors (like new highly addictive drugs entering the market) that maybe this is actually proof that it is working...it's impossible to tell when only looking at addiction rates and spending rates

        [–]Levoamphetamine 7 points8 points ago

        These new highly addictive drugs often enter the marketplace as a result of prohibition because they can be used as substitutes for other illegal drugs.

        [–]Robotochan 1 point2 points ago

        Did you also account for a larger population?

        [–]seajokay -1 points0 points ago

        New drugs entering the market? Oh say, how over 1/3 of the population is now addicted to PRESCRIPTIONS.

        [–]Sevsquad 0 points1 point ago

        are you seriously saying that more than 33% of america is addicted to prescription drugs? do you have ANY idea how wrong that is? (hint: very)

        [–]Ajzzz -1 points0 points ago

        Compared to heroin?

        [–]OhCaptionMyCaption 11 points12 points ago

        Heroine still exists, so that group of people that still exist. Then you add that number to the people who are addicted to new drugs (prescription opiate addiction has been big, and is a completely different demographic)

        [edit] I'm obviously not basing this off statistical numbers, so I'm not saying it is necessarily fact. I'm just saying that without more info, we shouldn't assume that a stagnant addiction rate is a bad thing.

        [–]sammew 1 point2 points ago

        But you are assuming the people who used drug x remained constant, while the people using new drug y increased. It could be that people switched form one drug to the other, or are using both. It could also be that, while drug y is on the rise with new users, drug x is on the fall with deaths.

        [–]seajokay 0 points1 point ago

        Heroin? Where? Nelly

        [–]musicsoccer 20 points21 points ago

        I'm sure that 1.3% addiction rate is only for one drug. Smoking, Alcohol, Marijuana are much much higher than that.

        [–]Scarjaka 32 points33 points ago

        Marijuana

        Be careful. Some redditors might attack you for speaking ill of their beloved drug.

        [–]ihunyack 9 points10 points ago

        Not physically dependent, just mentally. Like I have to smoke when I wake up and before bed and the occasion I don't have trees I get very anxious and depressed. All I can focus on is finding more trees before it's bedtime.

        [–]Fedcoshark 19 points20 points ago

        And you find this okay?

        [–]ihunyack 16 points17 points ago

        not at all. I'm working on it.

        [–]PowderedToasty 4 points5 points ago

        It's certainly no reason to throw him in jail, wouldn't you agree?

        [–]Fedcoshark 12 points13 points ago

        I agree with you fully considering that caffeine does the same thing to you. I'm 100% for legalizing but to say there is no negatives is absolute bullshit.

        [–]PowderedToasty 3 points4 points ago

        No one said there were no negatives, just that it wasn't physically addictive.

        load more comments (1 reply)

          [–]UnreachablePaul 0 points1 point ago

          Just like me wants to fap

          [–]cibiri313 0 points1 point ago

          http://www.reddit.com/r/trees/comments/11b4mz/the_war_on_drugs_40_years_of_an_unchanging_13/c6l2uwq

          Here's my breakdown

          [–]thinkpadius 5 points6 points ago

          source or gtfo

          [–]qbasicer 26 points27 points ago

          1.3% of the population, but the population keeps increasing (just like spending), you're comparing a percentage to a solid figure. Make the blue line an actual population amount and then we'll talk.

          [–]this_sort_of_thing 22 points23 points ago

          No, you'd still want to keep the rate. Perhaps make the green line a percentage/per capita based.

          [–]vexom 2 points3 points ago

          That is exactly the same thing. Either you multiply the addiction rate by the number of people, or divide the cost by the number of people.

          [–]verrtex 5 points6 points ago

          So, you say that the number of addicted people grows with the costs spend on the fight with the drugs? Then the point of the original poster is even more convening.

          [–]qbasicer 17 points18 points ago

          I would say the spending grows as the the number of people addicted grow.

          or you look at the $ spent per capita fighting drugs.

          In 1970, there were 203,392,031 people in the US. 1.3% of that is 2,644,096 addicts. It's hard to tell from the graph, but it looks like 500m was spent, or $189.10 per addict.

          In 2010, there were 308,745,538 people in the US. 1.3% of that is 4,013,692 addicts. Looks like 20b was spent, or $4,983 per addict.

          Is the numbers adjusted for inflation? I'll assume not, just for sake of discussion.

          $189.10 in 1970 is $1049.76 in 2012 dollars. So the spending has increased 4.7x per addict since 1970.

          One can make assumptions as to why that's happened, but it's probably safe to assume that the drug cartels invested more money on fighting back through various means that required more spending.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

          Yeah a spending as a percentage of GDP or per capita would be much more accurate than this.

          That being said, the war on drugs is perpetual and will and probably already has failed, nothing was quite as convincing as seeing Milton Friedman speak out against it.

          An economist and not some hippy with an agenda? WHAT IS THIS?

          [–]ALiborio 1 point2 points ago

          I think this view is becoming more mainstream. Our country is in huge debt so seeing money being wasted on a "war" we cannot win and hasn't produced many results. Many states have decriminalized marijuana already and more are working towards legalizing medical marijuana.

          My personal view is that people will use drugs whether or not they are legal. Legalize or at the very least decriminalize to reduce the downsides of the war on drugs.

          [–]BreSput 7 points8 points ago

          Graph is misleading. Addiction rate should be number of addicts in 100,000 persons; cost should be inflation controlled amount spent PER YEAR.

          [–]Dienekes00 13 points14 points ago

          Yeah, once you take population growth, inflation, the proliferation of new, engineered party drugs (and new fuck-up drugs), better and more ubiquitous drug distribution channels, and a growing laissez faire attitude about drugs in the general populace and put all that together you realize that this graph is not making the point you want to make. In fact, that static users line is starting to look pretty damn impressive.

          I'm not actually for the war on marijuana. I think it should be taxed and tarrifed like tobacco and alcohol and have that money put to good use. However, I totally support the suppression of most other drugs and this graph seems to purport that the "war on drugs" may well be going much better than I thought it was...

          [–]MountainDewFountain 0 points1 point ago

          The "War on Drugs" is an abomination to personal freedom and counterproductive to it's original goals. Having something be against the law will not stop people from using it. The U.S. has created a black market and high value demand for drugs of increased potency and all that trade goes to funding criminal activities. It makes the users of a harmless drug like Cannabis associate is users as criminals. The "war on drugs" is an industry, and it's sickening.

          [–]firebadmattgood -3 points-2 points ago

          How is population growth relevant in a statistic that is normalized for population? Similarly, how does inflation factor into this? edit - derp.

          [–]xfloggingkylex 7 points8 points ago

          Who the fuck uses imageshack?

          [–]menasan 12 points13 points ago

          imgur link = http://i.imgur.com/L6W7Z.gif

          [–]kraftymiles 4 points5 points ago

          One Word: Portugal

          [–]Lonadar 6 points7 points ago

          If it hasn't raised then it's probably working.

          [–]chinkpak 0 points1 point ago

          Salaries AM I RIGHT!?

          [–]divorso 2 points3 points ago

          cool animated graph? it must be the truth !!

          [–]Alltheclever1Rtaken 7 points8 points ago

          Seems to me the spending on drug control IS working.

          [–]thinkpadius 5 points6 points ago

          Well, they've become really good at spending money if that's what you mean.

          [–]Alltheclever1Rtaken 2 points3 points ago

          Well it looks to me that the money spent has stopped any increase in drug use from happening.

          [–]entropy_0 0 points1 point ago

          Alcohol.

          [–]manguenejc 0 points1 point ago

          Sure, but whose to say it was going to increase? It could have stayed around 1.5% like it did from 1970 to 1982, before we started the massive spending. Then you could argue no program should be put in place at all because the addiction rate is just going to stay the same either way.

          [–]mbleslie 2 points3 points ago

          Most economists think that in the US the legalization of all narcotics would produce an extra 5 million addicts. Of course, crime would drop.

          I don't like when people pretend that crime laws don't have any good effect. THey do, but the question is, do we like the trade-offs that come with drug laws: increased violent crime, increased spending for law enforcement?

          [–]ragamufin 0 points1 point ago

          Its interesting to speculate about what cost there would be to society if we had another 5 million junkies.

          They certainly wouldn't be robbing people, or killing people over drugs, because the drugs would be dirt cheap.

          I'd imagine the biggest extra cost would be the additional emergency healthcare, but the big question is of course if the corresponding savings from decreased crime offsets that...

          [–]mrsanyee 0 points1 point ago

          the place for this money is here http://www.equities.com/news/news-headline-story?dt=2012-10-10&val=580314&d=1&cat=headline

          [–]Mixed-Signals 0 points1 point ago

          Is this adjusted for inflation?

          [–]Kozzle 1 point2 points ago

          You forgot to incorporate the black market revenue derived from the war on drugs

          [–]LiNGOo 2 points3 points ago

          whatever the source of these informations is, I googled for an inflation calculator:

          Ta-daaa, $3B in the year 1986 are $17,56B now, so the actual increase is 12,5% ... wooooooow! -.-

          [–]yangar 1 point2 points ago

          Serious question: What do you propose as the best solution to this waste of money?

          And I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana btw.

          [–]Kintali 0 points1 point ago

          What if the addiction rate stayed the same because of the price increasing?

          [–]godwin2010 1 point2 points ago

          This information is ABSURDLY misleading due to the fact that it is in % of the population. If you keep in mind that the population in the US grew almost 1.5X between 1970 and 2012 (205 million people to 300 million people), yes spending still out grows the population but at a less astounding rate. However, now take into account inflation (this is assuming that the statistic was not in nominal dollars) and the amount you are spending due to population growth and is almost aligned perfectly. You know what they say 85.669283820% of statistics are made up on the spot.

          [–]drednaught 1 point2 points ago

          Coming to a theater near you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0atL1HSwi8

          [–]keith_weaver 0 points1 point ago

          War on Poverty: 40 years of growing dependency rate and who knows how much spent...... Yeah? So what?

          [–]Legio_X 0 points1 point ago

          Does that graph account for inflation in spending? 2 billion in 1970 is significantly more in 2012 dollars.

          [–]PokemasterTT -1 points0 points ago

          Good job USA.

          [–]ChiefBromden 1 point2 points ago

          wow, it took 1.5 trillion just to keep it from rising! This just shows how much addiction would have spread if they hadn't begun the war!!! If they only had 3 trillion, and put more effort into it, I bet it would lower.

          [–]iantheoreo 1 point2 points ago

          That's pretty small-minded; if we just stopped funding against the "War on Drugs", the rate of drug use would just sky rocket way past 1%.

          [–]biobot93 0 points1 point ago

          any chance i can get a source on this? i would love to use it in a research paper

          [–]meowmers54 0 points1 point ago

          Kind of like this:

          http://jaypgreene.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/inflationadjustedcostk-12achievement1.jpg

          [–]incredibolox 0 points1 point ago

          Yeah but come on, drugs have gotten a lot better in the past few decades. I'm pretty sure the two lines overlapping coincides with the actual appearance of crack, which was so cheap it just spread like wildfire.

          [–]Slimeaux05 0 points1 point ago

          Just Say No worked really well.

          [–]hiphoprising 1 point2 points ago

          If you use a percentage on one end, you should use a percentage on the other.

          [–]ubermechspaceman 0 points1 point ago

          can someone explain what happened in '88/'89 ?

          [–]drivers205 0 points1 point ago

          what about the 2 extra billion people that where born ?

          [–]lobstercombine -1 points0 points ago

          I've always thought the best policy is drugs and hugs.

          [–]mlydon89 0 points1 point ago

          id like to see the arrest rate of african americans layered in there as well

          [–]nottalentedduh -1 points0 points ago

          I would like to point something out: alcohol is legal, yet the idiots who start drinking at a very young age are growing and growing.

          It's not about privatization, it's about being an idiot. And you could say "well fuck! It's THEIR problem, so you should mind your own business!", actually no.

          I will not talk about how smoking or drinking to escape from issues is wrong and immoral, I'll just throw this at you: drug addict gets overdose, drug addict goes to hospital, drug addict will cost money to the hospital and space stolen from people who got injuries not caused by them being selfish dicks.

          Yeah yeah, downvotes to the left because durr I dared to say that drugs are bad durrr

          [–]MyMindisElevated 0 points1 point ago

          job creation

          [–]evange 0 points1 point ago

          Methamphetamine is available by prescription under the name Desoxyn, for treating narcolepsy and ADHD, but only one company is allowed to make it. A prescription will cost a person with no insurance about $500 a month, not counting doctor's visits. The same amount of dextromethamphetamine can be purchased on the street for about $100, or manufactured by an individual for about $10.

          [–]jamo711 1 point2 points ago

          it's not a war. wars end.

          [–]P1NGU 0 points1 point ago

          Inflation?

          [–]eternityablaze 0 points1 point ago

          What no one understands is...

          If we could only spend 5 trillion dollars on the drug war, then it would work!

          Don't you know? If a solution isn't working, its because not enough money was invested in that solution.

          --This is how government works.

          [–]presser84 0 points1 point ago

          curious to see drug related death per-capita not the addiction rate. Also is alcohol part of this or only illegal drugs?

          [–]cibiri313 1 point2 points ago

          Posted this in /r/trees...

          Let's see how many downvotes I get for posting actual data instead of an animated graph...

          So as far as I can tell, "drugsnotthugs.com" (which redirects to a documentary kickstarter page... hmmm...) doesn't have any citations for this 1.3% addiction rate other than it was the rate under Nixon. Most of the meta analyses I'm seeing are giving a much higher 12 month prevalency for ANY addiction problems than 1.3%. The DSM-IV cites a 1995 national survey which gives marijuana dependence (addiction) a lifetime prevalency of 5% and a 12 month prevalency of 1.2%. This obviously is not factoring in other substances (nicotine and caffeine are almost never cited) or non substance addictions (gambling, shopping, sex).

          "Addiction rate" could refer to anything. Different substances have different rates of addiction, and different mechanisms of addiction (physiological vs. psychological). Marijuana is largely not believed to be physically addictive, but may be psychologically so. I agree that the drug war has failed, and most drugs should be decriminalized (I don't feel this way about bath salts, krocodil, heroin, benzos, etc.) but this graph is bullshit, and means nothing without citation.

          I'm an ent who works as a mental health therapist at a chemical dependency center. Addiction is a real problem, and people can indeed become addicted to marijuana. This is serious business to me. I believe addiction should be treated as a public health concern instead of a legal matter. Propaganda exists on both sides of this issue, and people need to look deeper before forming opinions. Don't let confirmation bias affect you. Here's some recent data[1] from SAMHSA.gov (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration) about the rates of substance use, substance dependence, and substance abuse (which are all separate things, btw.) It even has pretty graphs!

          It cites: "In 2011, an estimated 20.6 million persons (8.0 percent of the population aged 12 or older) were classified with substance dependence or abuse in the past year based on criteria specified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV). Of these, 2.6 million were classified with dependence or abuse of both alcohol and illicit drugs, 3.9 million had dependence or abuse of illicit drugs but not alcohol, and 14.1 million had dependence or abuse of alcohol but not illicit drugs."

          "Between 2002 and 2010, the number of persons with substance dependence or abuse was stable, ranging from 21.6 million to 22.7 million"

          This would support the idea that SD/SA are relatively stable (over approx. the last decade) which seems to be the general point of this graph. Nonetheless, 1.3% seems to be a number pulled out of the air as far as I can see. I'm not even going to look into the drug control spending numbers, as that's not my area of expertise.

          "The number of persons with marijuana dependence or abuse did not change between 2002 and 2011"

          [–]gazer89 0 points1 point ago

          Not an American, but isn't it more a sovereignty issue? Controlling Americans' addictions isn't just why you're doing this, right?

          [–]galanix 0 points1 point ago

          A better measurement for the right vertical axis (drug spending) would have been percentage of GDP or percentage of budget.

          [–]SkeezySevens 0 points1 point ago

          what if this "war on drugs" is just a front for someone stealing, a lot of money.

          [–]thefamous1 1 point2 points ago

          Fuck your animated graph

          [–]article134 0 points1 point ago

          quick question: let's say the feds do call an end to this 'War On Drugs', how does that affect our everyday lives? Does that just mean our tax dollars go to decreasing the national debt instead of being dumped into the war on drugs? How would the average citizen be particularly affected?

          [–]Riotdrone 0 points1 point ago

          Ya blew it.

          [–]rderekp 0 points1 point ago

          You know, the “war” isn’t about stopping addiction, right? It’s about fighting illegal activities and violence.

          [–]i_love_younicorns 0 points1 point ago

          Are you talking about all drugs or just marijuana? I'm a recovering cocaine addict and alcoholic and I'm curious. I'd say the rate of addiction in methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine users is far higher (pun intended?) than 1.3%.

          [–]magicalsealion -1 points0 points ago

          Makes me really dislike drug addicts and dealers. They make the police's job harder, our nation spend more money to have you stop, all while ruining your life and others.

          [–]drf_ 0 points1 point ago

          Why the fuck are people focusing on these pseudomath exercises instead of digging up records of how many drugdependent individuals exist in the states, substract them fro.. oh shit i forgot this werent the place for rational thought.

          [–]godlesspinko 1 point2 points ago

          It's not about fighting drug abuse, it's about criminalizing normal behavior for the profit of the few and violent.

          [–]DroodEdwin 0 points1 point ago

          Legalize drugs, just don't give any hand outs to the people who choose to do them

          [–]CigaretteJuice 0 points1 point ago

          so thats how good crack is

          [–]jeffxl 0 points1 point ago

          Just say no

          [–]Coolbreezy -1 points0 points ago

          See, it's an industry. Why would all those people want to be out of a job? It's like the cure for cancer. So many people make a living out of finding a cure, who wants to be out of a job?

          [–]babygutz 0 points1 point ago

          Shoulda put line for how much the government recoups off the prison inmates.

          [–]audacious1 0 points1 point ago

          see those bumps and dips? try and say 'unchanging' again

          [–]quoque 0 points1 point ago

          I'd love to see the same graph with a drug usage line replacing drug addiction.

          [–]MuteReality 0 points1 point ago

          Why is anyone arguing over the amount of users? The percentage is what matters, and if the massive spending increase had ANY affect at ALL, you'd see users drop or spike at some point.

          Am I right here?

          [–]miketdavis -3 points-2 points ago

          The war on drugs is overt racism. Black men won a war for civil rights, so the white men put them all in prison.

          I can't even make this shit up. Addicts are overwhelmingly white, by total number of addicts. Prisons are packed with black men. Black men now can't vote. Is that clear to anyone else?

          [–]broyoumad 4 points5 points ago

          The internet. You Sir, belong here.

          [–]lurker_becomes_lurkd 1 point2 points ago

          Yeah the white devil forced them to commit crimes! Fucking mind-controlling whitey!

          [–]Whiskeypants17 1 point2 points ago

          shhhhhhh don't let whitey know that we know

          [–]Jisaw 0 points1 point ago

          Addicts are overwhelmingly white, by total number of addicts.

          Wouldn't percentage be more accurate? Total number is very misleading when comparing blacks and whites, as the total number of whites far exceeds total number of blacks. I'm not disagreeing with your overall point, however.

          [–][deleted] ago

          [deleted]

          [–]ragamufin 4 points5 points ago

          cars that run on clean, natural, environmentally friendly HEROIN!

          [–]thegreatgload 1 point2 points ago

          This chart should not be used as a cry against the drug war. Who's to say that the War on Drugs hasn't kept the addiction rate so low?

          [–]jhaluska -1 points0 points ago

          You can't win a war against Drugs. Wars against terrorism, drugs, communism, etc never end since ideas are bulletproof.

          [–]Darktidemage -1 points0 points ago

          I find it weird how folks talk about the "price tag" in one breath but then they talk about all the incentive and profit made off the war in the next breath.

          The prison industry, alcohol industry, law enforcement industry, military weapon sales and training sales and consulting sales to latin america are all sources of PROFIT from the war. These needs to be weighed AGAINST the "price tag" but they are just ignored in the equation. Why?

          The war on drugs is perpetuated because it is MAKING money. If it cost 1.5 trillion trust me it would end. It's an morally bankrupt endeavor forced on the population by profiteers, but it does not cost us money at the same time.

          It's like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. people say "it's bankrupting the country" and then fucking turn around and say we did it for Oil. Those are mutually exclusive ideas. We either did it for profit OR we did it at a cost, not BOTH.

          [–]acog 5 points6 points ago

          We either did it for profit OR we did it at a cost, not BOTH.

          Not true. It matters when there are different parties doing the spending vs. getting the revenues. So when taxpayers fund a for-profit prison, and that prison rakes in a ton of dough, it may be zero-sum in that dollars in = dollars out, but the problem is that we taxpayers are the ones spending and the prison owners are the ones raking it in.

          [–]ragamufin 1 point2 points ago

          THIS. Were talking about taxpayer SPENDING, but the profits from everything goes to private industry.

          [–]Cloughtower 1 point2 points ago

          The problem here is the 'we'.

          [–]ragamufin 1 point2 points ago

          Iraq and Afghanistan cost money in the sense that taxpayer dollars and loans to the federal government funded them. The profit from securing and stabilizing fossil fuel assets goes almost exclusively to the private sector.

          [–]leafeator -4 points-3 points ago

          Thanks Regan.

          [–]coffinoff 3 points4 points ago

          It goes back a bit farther than that but, yeah. Federal government in general needs to stop declaring stupid wars on its own citizenry.

          [–]liberterrorism 3 points4 points ago

          Comedian Brian Regan? What does he have to do with the war on drugs?

          [–]etherreal -1 points0 points ago

          You mean Nixon.

          [–]fanboat -1 points0 points ago

          Clearly if they hadn't increased spending in this manner, over 200% of the population would be addicted to drugs by this point

          load more comments (6 replies)

            Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

            REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

            π Rendered by PID 30807 on app-112 running bd731f1.