Who Benefits From The Controlled Substance Act?

The purpose of this post is to expand on Michelle Alexanders analysis of the prison system in American, and the negative incentives that perpetuate social injustice. As it turns out, some of the countries biggest and wealthiest organizations or unions benefit from the illegality of marijuana and other drugs, creating a web of money and power that takes little account for the publics best interest. The Controlled Substance Act is often marketed as a humanitarian act, a barrier that prevents the unraveling of our moral framework. But one has only to implement a simple Google search and it becomes evident that, like nearly everything else in American politics, there exist profound financial incentives behind the prohibition of specific substances. This conflict of interest between the prevailing trends of American culture and the industries that fund its governance has given rise to aggressive political agendas that are tailored to the specifics of the latter.

The four decades of schedule 1 drug prohibition have presented several special interest groups with unique opportunities for significant monetary gains. What is particularly disconcerting is that leading proponents for prohibition are the police unions. This is an immediate red flag because the humanitarian air with which they address the public is merely a facade for their aggressive attempts to bolster federal funding. Take John Lovell for example, who was hired in 2009 as a police lobbyist to help battle the ballot initiative, Prop 19, that would legalize marijuana and ultimately and generate millions in tax revenue for the state of California. Following the death of Prop 19: Lovell went on to represent the California police unions in both the Marijuana Suppression Program and the Campaign against Marijuana Planting. His lobbying techniques subsequently reallocated $9.7 million of federal money into the war on drugs. Lovell benefited from over $300,000 in cash payouts from various police unions in return for his successful lobbying techniques. The rest of the federal money was presumably used for the purchase of new equipment and training new law enforcement personnel. All of this, for the sake continuing the war on pot cultivation and consumption, a war that over 65% of Americans have deemed a failure in recent polls. Through the actions of the Californian police unions and John Lovell, it is becoming glaringly obvious that the war on drugs is being exploited to garner excessive financial resources. Rather, the local police and respective lobbyist have manufactured an efficient method for exploiting the federal government and American taxpayers.

            The local police agencies are not the only federally funded beneficiaries of the Controlled Substance Act. The Drug Enforcement Administration is nearing its fourth decade in service and has grown to exceed 5000 active federal agents with an annual budget of nearly $2.5 Billion. As far as its commitment to the war on drugs, in 2005 alone, the DEA seized $1.4 billion in drug related assets and $477 million worth of illegal narcotics. At first glance this seems significant but when compared with the total percentage we manage to stop that I stated earlier, it is clear that we are over funding a losing battle.  

As Michelle Alexander makes clear at the start of chapter two, the prison industry is a business first and a correction facility second. Very little correction is in fact garnered under these conditions, which is a perfectly logical business model if the prisoners also serve as your source of income. The Correction Corporation of America (CCA) is the world’s largest private prison company and manages over 60 facilities nationwide. Many of the 90,000 inmates housed in these prisons were involved in low-level drug crimes, and each CCA facility contains its own substance rehabilitation center. If the conflict of interests is not glaringly apparent, I don’t know what is. It is for this very reason that throughout the last two decades, the CCA has dished out over $18 million lobbying for even more restrictive drug and immigration laws. The private prison industries’ reliance on the small time offender is so significant; it has become an active component of their public business strategy.

The following is an excerpt taken from their 2010 report to shareholders. “The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws,” This statement alone sheds light on two prevailing truths associated with the drug laws. The first is that they are good for business, regardless of the impact this has on the rights of the American people. The second is the extent to which these incentives influence the policy that is drafted by our elected officials. At present, the war on drugs has stimulated the growth of a for profit correction industry that aggressively influences legislative procedure through monetary compensation. It does this in an attempt to maximize convictions, and retain current inmates, neither of which is a legitimate attempt to combat drug trafficking or help fight addiction. If you are thinking to yourself, “shouldn’t that be the goal of the any correction facility?” you are correct, but that would be bad for business.

The influence of pharmaceutical giants such as Johnson & Johnson and Bristol Meyers Squib on the political agenda of elected officials is vast. This is particularly the case in relation to substance control, most notably, marijuana. Next to the police unions, big PhARM is the second largest opponent of marijuana legalization on Capitol Hill. The reason for this is purely economical: as a plant, the production of marijuana cannot be patented. This drastically undermines the incentives for production, as the potential for competition would be vast. Although the medicinal application of marijuana is under funded many pharmaceuticals fear that its legalization would drastically undermine the market for common pain medication such as Advil or Vicodin. Lacking sufficient incentives for production, marijuana has thus been condemned as a threat to the business of drug manufacturers nationwide. It is for this reason that the pursuit of further medicinal application continues to go unfunded. This will be the case for as long as the Controlled Substance Act holds precedent; because lobbying for further substance prohibition as opposed to allowing further competition is the most lucrative business strategy.

Well, Im getting tired, but let us not forget the more consumer driven side to those fighting drug (specifically marijuana legalization) Drug cartels (they would lose business), paper makers (hemp is a worthy competitor) and cigarette manufactures (who also view it as a threat to business)