this post was submitted on
1,222 points (68% like it)
2,227 up votes 1,005 down votes
shortlink:

funny

subscribe2,576,623 readers

8,057 users here now

Reminder: Political posts are not permitted in /r/funny. Try /r/PoliticalHumor instead!

NEW! No gore or porn (including sexually graphic images). Other NSFW content must be tagged as such

Welcome to r/Funny:

You may only post if you are funny.

Please No:

  • posts with their sole purpose being to communicate with another redditor. Click for an Example.

  • Screenshots of reddit comment threads. Post a link with context to /r/bestof or /r/defaultgems if from a default subreddit instead.

  • Posts for the specific point of it being your reddit birthday.

  • Politics - This includes the 2012 Presidential candidates or bills in congress. Try /r/politicalhumor instead.

  • Rage comics - Go to /r/fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu instead.

  • Memes - Go to /r/AdviceAnimals or /r/Memes instead.

  • Demotivational posters - Go to /r/Demotivational instead.

  • Pictures of just text - Make a self post instead.

  • DAE posts - Go to /r/doesanybodyelse

  • eCards - the poll result was 55.02% in favor of removal. Please submit eCards to /r/ecards

  • URL shorteners - No link shorteners (or HugeURL) in either post links or comments. They will be deleted regardless of intent.

Rehosted webcomics will be removed. Please submit a link to the original comic's site and preferably an imgur link in the comments. Do not post a link to the comic image, it must be linked to the page of the comic. (*) (*)

Need more? Check out:

Still need more? See Reddit's best / worst and offensive joke collections (warning: some of those jokes are offensive / nsfw!).

Please DO NOT post personal information. This includes anything hosted on Facebook's servers, as they can be traced to the original account holder.

If your submission appears to be banned, please don't just delete it as that makes the filter hate you! Instead please send us a message with a link to the post. We'll unban it and it should get better. Please allow 10 minutes for the post to appear before messaging moderators

The moderators of /r/funny reserve the right to moderate posts and comments at their discretion, with regard to their perception of the suitability of said posts and comments for this subreddit. Thank you for your understanding.

CSS - BritishEnglishPolice ©2011

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 ›

1221
1222

How to blow 1.5 trillion dollars (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by noeatnosleep

all 115 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]DasWeasel 80 points81 points ago

This is so funny!

[–]zoomdaddy 27 points28 points ago

It's even funnier when you're high!

[–]SeaOfAnarchy 1 point2 points ago

So we should stop enforcing armed robbery laws since the amount of money stolen typically pales in comparison to the amount of resources aimed at catching the culprits

[–]ThirdDegreeRape 9 points10 points ago

Armed robbery has direct victims.

Drug users do not count as victims, they chose to take the drugs.

[–]Skurvy2k 6 points7 points ago

Armed robbers are violent offenders, your average Joe selling weed out of his home isn't.

[–]alienbringer 0 points1 point ago

But a crackhead perpetrating armed robbery to pawn off to get more crack is a violent offender.

[–]lilgreenrosetta 2 points3 points ago

Which is why it is a good idea to differentiate between weed and crack. This has been proven to work in many European countries. The US with its many for-profit prisons however still thinks it is a good idea to lock someone up for years over a few grams of pot, at a staggering cost to the taxpayer.

[–]Castigar2000 0 points1 point ago

Uh, no, I'm sure if we stopped enforcing that there'd be a whole lot more robberies, the point here is that increased spending on substance control has no correlation to rate of addiction, meaning people are going to find a way to get high no matter how much you try to prevent it.

[–]lilgreenrosetta 0 points1 point ago

Absolutely right. So let's increase the money we spend on enforcing armed robbery laws to about 15 trillion over 40 years. And then look back, see armed robberies are at exactly the same level as they are now and then claim the money was well spent.

[–]SeekretSquirrel -3 points-2 points ago

Too funny for /r/funny but not too funny for /r/politicalhumor

[–]IAMARedPanda 1 point2 points ago

That's weird it says "Reminder: Political posts are not permitted in /r/funny. Try /r/PoliticalHumor instead!" three cm above

[–]PenisSizedNipples -3 points-2 points ago

Maybe if you got high and watched it again it would be funny?

[–]mmortenson11 88 points89 points ago

One part of the chart is in percentages, while the other is in absolute dollars... Doesn't account for inflation at all. Pretty deceptive graph...

[–]Helium_ninja 6 points7 points ago

The population has also increased by about 100,000,000 in that time.

[–]AluminiumSandworm 0 points1 point ago

I'd modify the chart, but I'm too lazy.

[–]kpd315 34 points35 points ago

have you ever thought that the increase in spending in someway helped keep the drug level addiction somewhat flat...just saying, but wow thats lot of munnies

[–]lilgreenrosetta 5 points6 points ago

A guy is walking through the park, putting salt and pepper on bananas and throwing them into the bushes. A woman comes up to him and asks him why he's doing that. He says 'it's to keep away the lions'. The woman says, 'but there are no lions in the park!'. Whereupon the man answers 'See? It's working!'

[–]sokratesz 1 point2 points ago

Is there any evidence that it would have been rising without all that spending?

[–]kpd315 10 points11 points ago

I really don't know, I was just commenting because people tend to believe anything with charts without thinking of the other side. But idk what the money is used for but if its for security and to stop drug trafficking, I believe it has helped.

[–]aqualung09 0 points1 point ago

No, and thusly, it's a moot point.

[–]Swarthily 3 points4 points ago

as is the chart.

[–]terriblecomic 0 points1 point ago

just world fallacy

[–]MrMunchkin -4 points-3 points ago

Keeping the actual usage "flat" would mean that the percentage goes down... The population is 1/3rd more now than it was in 1970.

Which means 1% of the population in 2011 is approximately 1.1 million more people than in 1970. I wouldn't consider another 1.1 million drug users "keeping it flat".

[–]lilgreenrosetta 2 points3 points ago

Well I'm sorry but that's how percentages work, which is why the graph uses the word 'rate' not 'number'. You wouldn't say the cancer rate or motor vehicle accident rate is going up if the percentages stayed the same.

[–]HecticHeretic 10 points11 points ago

Wait how is that $1.5trillion even at $20B for 40 years that is only $800B or $0.8 trillion and it clearly isn't at $20B throughout the period.

[–]I_been_had_reddit 5 points6 points ago

Maybe they consider inflation? The question mark is to indicate I'm just taking a guess, not to add a snarky emphasis.

[–]HecticHeretic 3 points4 points ago

If they accounted in inflation (which admittedly I forgot about), it still doesn't add up but it does make it a lot closer to the figure.

[–]I_been_had_reddit 5 points6 points ago

So you are saying the number is still a little too...high?

[–]HecticHeretic 1 point2 points ago

Aye, taking a wild guess but the total that would come up when adjusting for inflation would be from $500b-$700b

[–]MrMunchkin 6 points7 points ago

Damn, you were pretty accurate.

  • Year * $1 economic value in 2011 * Policy cost * 2011 economic value
  • 1970 $14.50 500,000,000 $7,250,000,000.00
  • 1971 $13.40 500,000,000 $6,700,000,000.00
  • 1972 $12.20 500,000,000 $6,100,000,000.00
  • 1973 $10.90 750,000,000 $8,175,000,000.00
  • 1974 $10.10 1,000,000,000 $10,100,000,000.00
  • 1975 $9.22 1,000,000,000 $9,220,000,000.00
  • 1976 $8.27 1,000,000,000 $8,270,000,000.00
  • 1977 $7.44 1,000,000,000 $7,440,000,000.00
  • 1978 $6.58 1,500,000,000 $9,870,000,000.00
  • 1979 $5.89 1,500,000,000 $8,835,000,000.00
  • 1980 $5.41 2,000,000,000 $10,820,000,000.00
  • 1981 $4.83 2,000,000,000 $9,660,000,000.00
  • 1982 $4.64 2,000,000,000 $9,280,000,000.00
  • 1983 $4.27 2,000,000,000 $8,540,000,000.00
  • 1984 $3.84 2,500,000,000 $9,600,000,000.00
  • 1985 $3.58 2,500,000,000 $8,950,000,000.00
  • 1986 $3.38 3,000,000,000 $10,140,000,000.00
  • 1987 $3.19 3,500,000,000 $11,165,000,000.00
  • 1988 $2.32 5,000,000,000 $11,600,000,000.00
  • 1989 $2.96 7,000,000,000 $20,720,000,000.00
  • 1990 $2.60 10,000,000,000 $26,000,000,000.00
  • 1991 $2.52 11,000,000,000 $27,720,000,000.00
  • 1992 $2.38 12,000,000,000 $28,560,000,000.00
  • 1993 $2.26 12,000,000,000 $27,120,000,000.00
  • 1994 $2.13 12,000,000,000 $25,560,000,000.00
  • 1995 $2.04 13,000,000,000 $26,520,000,000.00
  • 1996 $1.93 14,000,000,000 $27,020,000,000.00
  • 1997 $1.81 15,000,000,000 $27,150,000,000.00
  • 1998 $1.72 16,000,000,000 $27,520,000,000.00
  • 1999 $1.61 17,500,000,000 $28,175,000,000.00
  • 2000 $1.52 18,000,000,000 $27,360,000,000.00
  • 2001 $1.47 19,000,000,000 $27,930,000,000.00
  • 2002 $1.42 19,500,000,000 $27,690,000,000.00
  • 2003 $1.35 19,500,000,000 $26,325,000,000.00
  • 2004 $1.27 19,500,000,000 $24,765,000,000.00
  • 2005 $1.20 19,500,000,000 $23,400,000,000.00
  • 2006 $1.13 19,500,000,000 $22,035,000,000.00
  • 2007 $1.08 19,500,000,000 $21,060,000,000.00
  • 2008 $1.05 20,000,000,000 $21,000,000,000.00
  • 2009 $1.08 20,000,000,000 $21,600,000,000.00
  • 2010 $1.04 20,000,000,000 $20,800,000,000.00
  • 2011 $1.00 20,000,000,000 $20,000,000,000.00
  • TOTAL: 407,250,000,000
  • TOTAL W/ INFLATION: $747,745,000,000.00

[–]HecticHeretic 1 point2 points ago

Damn well done, that's some damn fine work.

[–]Dyolf_Knip 0 points1 point ago

Dunno, but the annual costs presented are vastly understated, and get even worse when you start counting in secondary effects and opportunity costs. It's like the chart does nothing but sum up the DEA's budget, which isn't even close to the true cost.

Something like 1/4th of all prisoners in the US are there on drug charges. 3 million prisoners, ~$30,000 per prisoner per year, that alone is $22 billion, with probably that amount again for prisoners there because of the drug war, if not for drugs directly (junkie who has to resort to crime to pay the black-market-inflated price for his next fix, the kids who grow up to be felons because one or both parents wound up in prison for drugs, etc, etc). Factor in all the police narcotics departments nationwide, the SWAT teams which exist pretty much only because of the drug war, time and personnel needed to run the courts for the 800,000 marijuana possession arrests each year. And that's not even getting into the tax money that could be earned from legal pot.

No, conservative estimates for the War on Drugs start at $100 billion a year. At that rate, it's trivially easy to rack up $1.5 trillion, and all to wage a war against your own population. WW2 was cheap in comparison.

[–]HecticHeretic 0 points1 point ago

I don't claim to be an expert on drug law, I was just comparing the stats that were presented on the screen. The real cost could be wildly higher or lower than what it actually shows.

[–]kaboomtastic -1 points0 points ago

Maybe it's the total of what they had payed in that timeline.

[–]iamnos 0 points1 point ago

Not according to that graph. Like the parent post said, the graph is for forty years, and the highest point is $20 Billion. That's a max of $800 billion. Realistically, its less than 1/2 filled in, which brings the total down to $400Billion, or less.

[–]kaboomtastic 0 points1 point ago

Ah, it was just a guess. But, that confused me as well.

[–]xampl9 3 points4 points ago

It's not about drug control, it's about payments to police & military suppliers.

[–]mint-bint 0 points1 point ago

Exactly. Where does everyone think this money goes?! That's around $15 Trillion into the economy.

[–]Starkai 5 points6 points ago

ha its not funny its sad

[–]Scarynig 15 points16 points ago

THEN WHY DID YOU LAUGH? THEY SHOULD CALL YOU STARLIAR. OR LIARKAI. OR STLIARKAIAR.

[–]kaboomtastic 4 points5 points ago

You are a scarynig.

[–]oh_livre 11 points12 points ago

i dont find this funny at all.
should have posted it in /r/politics or /r/politicalhumor

[–]HecticHeretic 1 point2 points ago

/r/dataisbeautiful might appreciate it as well.

[–]MrF33 8 points9 points ago

They would probably be angry at how shoddy the data is.

This is a classic example of fitting data to a perception. As opposed to using data to determine the way we understand something.

Edit: After actually going over to /r/dataisbeautiful, they probably wouldn't be angry, the standards of what constitutes accurate and legitimate data over there, to put it kindly, are not up to generally accredited scientific standards.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]tastesliketurtles 8 points9 points ago

Being that drugs are a political issue it's more closely related to that than /r/funny, not to mention this has been posted numerous times in /r/trees and /r/Drugs/.

And no, it's really not funny.

[–]honeynoats 1 point2 points ago

This isn't funny. It's doesn't make you laugh. It's slightly amusing, or sad, or whatever, but it's not funny.

[–]LateralThinkerer 3 points4 points ago

Simple economics: Drug spending keeps police budgets and authority expanding, and creates artificial scarcity, keeping drug profits high. Win-win.

[–]csiz 3 points4 points ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

[–]Dinkleburg238 1 point2 points ago

The biggest flaw I see with this is that drug trade has advanced over the past 40 years and each year they have to spend more and more to keep the drugs where they are. I bet that if they kept spending the same amount of money every year the exact opposite would happen. However I am neither an expert in the budget nor do I have an extensive knowledge into the drug trade. This is just my, what seems, logical thought on why this happened.

[–]TJY31391 2 points3 points ago

Drugs are bad mmkuuay

[–]InformedIgnorance 0 points1 point ago

Is this adjusted for inflation?

[–]Villain_of_Brandon 1 point2 points ago

That is ridiculous. However to be completely accurate, there will need to be adjustments for inflation. As well as population growth means they need to reach more people, and thus that will cost more. So I think the best way to measure this would be Adjust this graph for inflation, and also graph population growth with it.

[–]costabrava11 0 points1 point ago

And Romney wants to cut PBS

[–]Swaampy 1 point2 points ago

Tbh the fact that the drug addiction rate didn't drastically increase means the spending is worth it, despite the fact of there being no decrease its still a positive graph from my point of view.

[–]Disco_Bloodbath 0 points1 point ago

It's because the drugs are scarier. Oh, and the terrorists.

[–]claudesoph -1 points0 points ago

You should post this somewhere it belongs so that it can get upvotes that it deserves.

[–]PariahFish 0 points1 point ago

How about you put in another line showing increasing drug proliferation around the world, or even drug purity? fail.

[–]Stuthedog -1 points0 points ago

Remember your Riemann's Sums people, this is not remotely anywhere near 1.5 trillion.

[–]OnceIHadACookie 0 points1 point ago

How to blow up a repost

your move

[–]trnddwn33 0 points1 point ago

They are the 1%

[–]QWOPtain 1 point2 points ago

Hah. Blow. Drugs.

[–]xB1akey 0 points1 point ago

'That's nonsense, history has shown there are natural fluctuations'

[–]hirajo 0 points1 point ago

So many questions: Who made this statistic? is inflation taken into account? and why isn't the money from addiction before the drug controlling started? there was still money being used on drugs??? IM SO CONFUSED ?! Are these facts presented in politics?

[–]FBoaz 0 points1 point ago

Any clue how they determined the nation's addiction rate?

[–]honeynoats -1 points0 points ago

Get this shit out of here.

[–]Zalkota -1 points0 points ago

Yes, but that 1.5 million also could have stopped the spread of addiction. I am not taking sides, but your graphs proves very little.

[–]expertunderachiever 0 points1 point ago

Ooh ooh, can we do the graph of lost productivity due to people being strung out on drugs?

[–]Now_Panic 0 points1 point ago

Irony: Spending hockey-sticks in 92 and really starts to level off about 2000. The same 8 years that Bill "I smoked but I didnt inhale" Clinton was in office. :O

[–]Fangsinmybeard 0 points1 point ago

Graph is wrong, LOL. Should be a hyperbolic curve.

[–]DrunkenKatamari 0 points1 point ago

Mazin!

[–]razerdoh 0 points1 point ago

1,5trillion over 30 years (FTFY)

[–]Omgahhh 0 points1 point ago

I'm not ganna lie, I had "NEVER DO DRUGS" instilled in me at a young age and I'm grateful for it. May there have been some "streched truths", exaggerations, and overkill. Sure.

But I've never wanted to mess around with that shit.

[–]jim-_- 0 points1 point ago

as a person born in 1983 I can't help but feel responsible for this, you see I asked for a lot of shit as a baby and child and I probably asked for some of this shit.

[–]NeonRedSharpie 0 points1 point ago

Can we also point out that this percentage of the US population is actually a growing number? The comments that have already been posted state that the total cost is actually closer (roughly) to $800 billion. Also, the US population from 1970 to 2011 has grown over 50% (203,392,031 in 1970 to 308,745,538 in 2010). The 1.5% of the population has grown over 50% as well (3,050,880 to 4,631,183). This is also only counting people that are addicted, not casual users.

[–]Wierco 0 points1 point ago

so the percentage is stable? That is interesting.

[–]NeonRedSharpie 0 points1 point ago

From the best I could tell, at the start (1970) the graph began close to 1.3% and at the end it rose to around 1.4%. I used 1.5% for dirty math. If the OP can find the actual statistics (assuming they exist) we can do a better analysis.

[–]Wierco 0 points1 point ago

In the Netherlands about 1% (excluding alcohol and nicotine) So it is rather stable.

[–]NeonRedSharpie 0 points1 point ago

I got the trendline of the graph to be, using only 3 powers for simple math:

y = -0.0012x3 + 0.0774x2 - 0.7535x + 2.2288

[–]Humping_a_cheesecake 0 points1 point ago

You're not considering the fact that drug addiction rates may have spiked, had spending to prevent it not been increased.

[–]erikgil 0 points1 point ago

'86 - The year of Just Say No.

[–]Wierco 0 points1 point ago

Drugs will always be bought/needed Why not sell the confiscated drugs to the market? win/win situation. So: for sale in Antwerpen Belgium 8000kg coke with a slight banana flavor.

[–]onespeedgo 0 points1 point ago

as an American I am offended that people believe we only spend 2 billion on drugs per year

[–]herrakonna 0 points1 point ago

They didn't blow it. How else were they going to build the police state?

[–]bastian1343 0 points1 point ago

Why does the addiction rate seem to go up around the Olympics years? Roids? Or is it that it's election season and no one can handle the pressure?

[–]skorpiolt 0 points1 point ago

I'm sorry, would you prefer it being the other way around?

[–]tjdavids 0 points1 point ago

I was under the impression that 3 of 5 Americans had a physical dependence on caffeine.

[–]brekehan 0 points1 point ago

Don't believe every graph you see on the internet.

Also, I really wonder exactly how "drug addicts" are counted? I can walk down the street and point out more than 10 heroin addicts that probably don't have a DL, a mailbox, and could care less about voting.

[–]amasterplan 0 points1 point ago

brings a whole new meaning to the term "I am the 1%"...

[–]terriblecomic 0 points1 point ago

Drugs not hugs? Why wouldn't you want hugs??

oh

[–]ibethisguy 0 points1 point ago

It only hit 20 billion on the graph.

[–]chapinrandlett 0 points1 point ago

that doesnt... no, precent of drug useres isnt the same Y as dolars spent... they just randlomly threw it up, nice try though internets

[–]ghost_311 0 points1 point ago

Move this shot to r/politics...bitch!

[–]finch749 1 point2 points ago

Wasn't this on reddit yesterday?

[–]timmyhunter3 1 point2 points ago

"How to blow 1.5 trillion dollars" or snort it. Or fuck people up that are trying to snort it...

[–]mhen1234 0 points1 point ago

I think the gov't should legalize drugs and just tax the hell out of it. Also, legalize prostitution. Let it be a small business, tax them as well. It'll help pay back the national debt if nothing else.

[–]BobArdKor 0 points1 point ago

What about inflation though ?

[–]mhen1234 0 points1 point ago

I suppose the gov't can just print more more money for one and secondly, outspread the releasing of the legalized products to prevent that and hyperinflation as well. The goal is to have an expeditious increase in the economy.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]Inteli_Gent 4 points5 points ago

It maxess out at 20 billion. The 1.5 trillion is indicating the entire highlighted area, representing the spending over 40 years.

[–]Dyolf_Knip 1 point2 points ago

Still doesn't add up. $20B * 40 years would barely be half the $1.5T, and it's not.

That said, they really have spent trillions on the drug war, it's just this chart doesn't even come close to showing the true costs.

[–]lukeallyn -2 points-1 points ago

not funny or accurate.

[–]BobArdKor -2 points-1 points ago

But did you consider inflation ?

[–]NoSoulNoland 0 points1 point ago

you can thank nancy reagan for that. that was her first lady cause "JUST SAY NO" http://www.reaganfoundation.org/her-causes.aspx

[–]schattenteufel -2 points-1 points ago

Drug addictions rates didn't increase. Mission: accomplished.
*(That's what supporters would say)

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 4581 on app-62 running bd731f1.