The Budgetary Implications of Drug Prohibition February, 2010 Jeffrey A. Miron Department of Economics, Harvard University miron@fas.harvard.edu, 781-856-0086 The Criminal Justice Policy Foundation provided research funding for this report. Ting Zhang provided excellent research assistance. Executive Summary Government prohibition of drugs is the subject of ongoing debate. One issue in this debate is the effect of prohibition on government budgets. Prohibition entails direct enforcement costs and prevents taxation of drug production and sale. This report examines the budgetary implications of legalizing drugs. The report estimates that legalizing drugs would save roughly $48.7 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. $33.1 billion of this savings would accrue to state and local governments, while $15.6 billion would accrue to the federal government. Approximately $13.7 billion of the savings would results from legalization of marijuana, $22.3 billion from legalization of cocaine and heroin, and $12.8 from legalization of other drugs. The report also estimates that drug legalization would yield tax revenue of $34.3 billion annually, assuming legal drugs are taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco. Approximately $6.4 billion of this revenue would result from legalization of marijuana, $23.9 billion from legalization of cocaine and heroin, and $4.0 billion from legalization of other drugs. State-by-state breakdowns provide a rough indication of legalization’s impacts on state budgets, but these estimates are less reliable than those for the overall economy. Whether drug legalization is a desirable policy depends on many factors other than the budgetary impacts discussed here. Rational debate about drug policy should nevertheless consider these budgetary effects. The estimates provided here are not definitive estimates of the budgetary implications of a legalized regime for currently illegal drugs. The analysis employs assumptions that plausibly err on the conservative side, but substantial uncertainty remains about the magnitude of the budgetary impacts. I. Introduction Government prohibition of drugs is the subject of ongoing debate. Advocates believe prohibition reduces drug trafficking and use, thereby discouraging crime, improving productivity and increasing health. Critics believe prohibition has only modest effects on trafficking and use while causing many of the problems typically attributed to drugs themselves. One issue in this debate is the effect of drug prohibition on government budgets. Prohibition entails direct enforcement costs, and prohibition prevents taxation of drug production and sale. If drugs were legal, enforcement costs would be negligible and governments could levy taxes on the production and sale of drugs. Thus, government expenditure would decline and tax revenue would increase. This report estimates the savings in government expenditure and the gains in tax revenue that would result from replacing drug prohibition with a regime in which drugs are legal but taxed and regulated like alcohol and tobacco. The report is not an overall evaluation of drug prohibition; the magnitude of any budgetary impact does not by itself determine the wisdom of prohibition. The costs required to enforce prohibition, and the transfers that occur because income in a prohibited sector is not taxed, are nevertheless relevant to rational discussion of this policy. The policy change considered in this report—legalization combined with taxation and regulation—is more substantial than decriminalization, which means repealing criminal penalties against possession but retaining them against trafficking. The budgetary implications of legalization exceed those of decriminalization for three reasons.1 First, legalization eliminates arrests for trafficking in addition to eliminating arrests for possession. Second, legalization saves prosecutorial, judicial, and incarceration expenses; these savings are minimal in the case of decriminalization. Third, legalization allows taxation of drug production and sale. This report concludes that drug legalization would reduce government expenditure by $48.7 billion annually. Roughly $33.1 billion of this savings would accrue to state and local governments, while roughly $15.6 billion would accrue to the federal government. Approximately $13.7 billion of the 1 See, for example, the estimates in Miron (2002) versus those in Miron (2003c). 2 savings would result from legalization of marijuana, $22.3 billion from legalization of cocaine and heroin, and $12.8 from legalization of all other drugs. Legalization would also generate tax revenue of roughly $34.3 billion annually if drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco. Approximately $6.4 billion of this revenue would result from legalization of marijuana, $23.9 billion from legalization of cocaine and heroin, and $4.0 billion from legalization of all other drugs. The estimates provided here are not definitive estimates of the budgetary implications of a legalized regime for currently illegal drugs. The analysis employs assumptions that plausibly err on the conservative side, but substantial uncertainty remains about the magnitude of the budgetary impacts. The estimates are therefore ballpark figures that indicate what order of magnitude policymakers should expect from legalization. The remainder of the report proceeds as follows. Tables 1-3, which follow this page, contain the overall results. Sections II-IV explain the details of the estimation procedures. Section II estimates state and local expenditure on drug prohibition. Section III estimates federal expenditure on drug prohibition. Section IV estimates the tax revenue that would accrue from legalized drugs. Appendix Tables A-G2 provide supporting information. Table 1: Summary, Expenditures and Revenues from Drug Legalization, Billions 2008 Dollars Expenditures Revenues State/Local Federal Total State Federal Total All Drugs 33.1 15.6 48.7 11.5 22.9 34.3 3 Marijuana 10.4 3.4 13.7 2.1 4.3 6.4 Heroin/Cocaine 14.0 8.4 22.3 8.0 16.0 23.9 Other 8.9 3.9 12.8 1.3 2.7 4.0 Table 2: State-level Expenditures Attributable to Drug Prohibition, Thousands of 2008 Dollars State U.S. Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming D.C. All Drugs 33,073,887 313,549 116,275 726,561 228,660 6,702,333 446,064 419,524 135,684 1,900,918 938,005 145,905 122,439 816,824 423,855 207,761 228,652 353,285 497,331 89,802 754,044 653,011 1,072,759 461,801 198,638 429,144 89,920 138,043 329,189 90,380 1,188,087 224,437 3,098,525 655,779 42,005 1,246,621 293,826 401,440 1,360,778 120,058 300,609 59,553 496,435 2,054,726 230,837 50,623 761,143 636,733 140,523 530,635 76,355 73,803 Marijuana 10,388,188 100,131 34,443 233,046 72,495 1,867,180 145,243 130,534 43,920 573,366 310,130 46,860 38,595 235,025 137,940 70,088 77,999 126,689 164,253 28,988 236,791 197,228 347,068 158,081 65,774 148,004 28,729 48,801 103,775 31,701 369,391 67,030 1,113,015 219,151 13,757 400,132 99,299 126,294 408,624 40,517 105,957 20,713 166,077 644,477 68,339 16,421 245,653 198,843 43,512 170,580 24,729 22,800 4 Heroin/Cocaine 13,950,694 133,908 50,595 290,269 90,152 2,833,542 184,037 190,107 60,613 880,055 390,991 60,251 49,173 363,444 176,734 83,663 89,987 136,380 208,082 36,701 358,546 294,967 454,668 182,288 81,155 157,482 37,181 52,433 134,915 36,244 553,112 97,168 1,175,434 284,089 16,953 535,000 113,884 160,281 618,518 51,863 126,288 23,586 201,224 852,605 96,451 20,376 326,930 252,697 59,689 223,210 30,972 31,801 Other 8,844,688 79,299 31,150 202,764 65,864 2,128,345 116,480 98,610 31,068 446,197 236,293 38,689 34,585 217,721 108,903 53,867 60,520 90,000 124,681 24,053 158,269 160,366 270,310 121,132 51,589 123,394 23,945 36,720 90,278 22,375 264,865 60,088 808,277 152,123 11,266 310,684 80,455 114,604 332,745 27,601 68,192 15,212 128,835 556,330 65,888 13,792 188,058 184,764 37,224 136,472 20,600 19,146 Table 3: State Drug Tax Revenue- Population Method, Millions of 2008 Dollars State U.S. Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming D.C. All Drugs 11,448.31 175.87 25.89 245.22 107.72 1,386.64 186.34 132.08 32.94 691.44 365.39 48.60 57.49 486.71 240.56 113.27 105.71 161.06 166.40 49.66 212.53 245.14 377.38 196.94 110.86 223.02 36.50 67.28 98.09 49.64 327.55 74.86 735.27 347.92 24.20 433.31 137.41 142.98 469.61 39.64 169.00 30.34 234.46 917.73 103.23 23.44 293.09 247.07 68.45 212.31 20.09 22.33 Marijuana 2,138.47 32.85 4.84 45.81 20.12 259.02 34.81 24.67 6.15 129.16 68.25 9.08 10.74 90.91 44.94 21.16 19.75 30.08 31.08 9.28 39.70 45.79 70.49 36.79 20.71 41.66 6.82 12.57 18.32 9.27 61.18 13.98 137.34 64.99 4.52 80.94 25.67 26.71 87.72 7.40 31.57 5.67 43.79 171.43 19.28 4.38 54.75 46.15 12.79 39.66 3.75 4.17 5 Heroin/Cocaine 7,972.56 122.48 18.03 170.77 75.02 965.65 129.77 91.98 22.94 481.51 254.46 33.84 40.03 338.94 167.53 78.88 73.62 112.16 115.88 34.59 148.00 170.71 262.80 137.15 77.20 155.31 25.42 46.85 68.31 34.57 228.11 52.13 512.04 242.29 16.85 301.75 95.69 99.57 327.03 27.61 117.69 21.13 163.27 639.11 71.89 16.32 204.11 172.06 47.67 147.86 13.99 15.55 Other 1,337.28 20.54 3.02 28.64 12.58 161.97 21.77 15.43 3.85 80.77 42.68 5.68 6.71 56.85 28.10 13.23 12.35 18.81 19.44 5.80 24.83 28.63 44.08 23.00 12.95 26.05 4.26 7.86 11.46 5.80 38.26 8.74 85.89 40.64 2.83 50.61 16.05 16.70 54.86 4.63 19.74 3.54 27.39 107.20 12.06 2.74 34.24 28.86 8.00 24.80 2.35 2.61 II. State and Local Expenditure for Drug Prohibition Enforcement The savings in state and local government expenditure that would result from drug legalization consists of three main components: the reduction in police resources from elimination of drug arrests; the reduction in prosecutorial and judicial resources from elimination of drug prosecutions; and the reduction in correctional resources from elimination of drug incarcerations.2 There might be other savings in government expenditure from legalization, but these are minor or difficult to estimate with existing data.3 The omission of these items biases the estimated budgetary savings downward. To estimate the state and local savings in criminal justice resources, this report uses the following procedure. It estimates the percentage of state and local arrests for drug violations and multiplies this percentage by the state and local budget for police. It estimates the percentage of state and local felony convictions for drug violations and multiplies this percentage by the state and local budget for prosecutors and judges. It estimates the percentage of state and local incarcerations for drug violations and multiplies this percentage by the state and local budget for prisons. It then sums these components to estimate the overall reduction in state and local government expenditure. Under plausible assumptions, this procedure yields a reasonable estimate of the cost savings from drug legalization.4 5 2 This report addresses only the criminal justice costs of enforcing drug prohibition; it does not address any possible changes in prevention, education, or treatment expenses that might accompany legalization. The narrower approach is appropriate because the decision to prohibit drugs is separate from the decision to subsidize prevention, education and treatment. Drug legalization might nevertheless cause some reduction in government expenditure for demand-side policies. For example, legalization would likely mean reduced criminal justice referrals of drug offenders to treatment; this category accounted for 1550% of drug treatment referrals in 2006, depending on the drug category (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2006, Appendix Table D, p.14)). Thus, the approach adopted here implies a conservative estimate of the reduction in government expenditure from drug legalization. 3 For example, under current rules regarding parole and probation, a positive urine test for drugs can send a parolee or probationer to prison, regardless of the original offense. These rules might change under legalization, implying additional reductions in government expenditure. 4 The key assumption is that the technology is constant-returns to scale, so that average costs equal marginal costs. This equivalence is not necessarily accurate in the short-run or for small communities, but it is likely a good approximation overall. 6 State and Local Police Budget Due to Drug Prohibition The first cost of drug prohibition is the portion of state and local police budgets devoted to drug arrests. This report calculates that expenditure in two steps. It first calculates the percentage of drug arrests due to prohibition. It then multiplies this percentage by state and local expenditure on police. Table A calculates the fraction of state and local arrests due to drug prohibition. Line 1 gives the total number of state and local arrests in 2007. Line 2 gives the number of such arrests for drug law violations. Line 3 gives the fraction of arrests due to drug law violations, defined as Line 2 divided by Line 1. Line 4 gives the percentage of drug arrests due to sale or manufacturing violations. Line 5 gives the percentage of overall arrests due to sale/manufacturing violations, defined as Line 3 times Line 4. Line 6 gives the percentage of drug law violations due to possession violations. Line 7 gives the percentage of overall arrests due to possession violations, defined as Line 3 times Line 6. The information in Lines 5 and 7 is what is required in subsequent calculations, subject to one modification. Some arrests for drug violations, especially those for possession, occur because the arrestee is under suspicion for a non-drug crime but possesses drugs that are discovered by police during a routine search. This means an arrest for drug possession is recorded, along with, or instead of, an arrest on the other charge. If drug possession were not a criminal offense, the suspects in such cases would still be arrested on the charge that led to the search, and police resources would be used to approximately the same extent as when drug possession is a criminal violation.6 5 The report includes estimates of this expenditure for all illegal drugs and for specific drug categories. Given available data, however, the estimates for specific drug categories are less accurate than those for illegal drugs overall. 6 To the extent it takes additional resources to process an arrestee on multiple charges rather than on a single charge, there is still a net utilization of police resources in such cases due to prohibition. In addition, there is typically a lab test to determine the precise content of any drugs seized when there is an arrest on drug charges, implying utilization of additional resources due to prohibition. A different issue is that in some cases, police stops for non-drug charges that discover drugs and produce an arrest on drug charges might not have led to any arrest in the absence of the drug charge (e.g., because of insufficient evidence). 7 In determining which arrests represent a cost of drug prohibition, therefore, it is appropriate to count only those that are ―stand-alone,‖ meaning those in which a drug violation rather than some other charge is the reason for the arrest. This issue arises mainly for possession rather than for trafficking. There are few hard data on the fraction of ―stand-alone‖ possession arrests, but the information in Miron (2002) and Reuter, Hirschfield and Davies (2001) suggests it is between 33% and 85%.7 To err on the conservative side, this report assumes that 50% of possession arrests are due solely to drug possession rather than being incidental to some other crime. Thus the resources utilized in making these arrests would be available for other purposes if drug possession were legal. Line 8 of Table A therefore shows Line 7 divided by 2; this is the fraction of possession arrests attributable to drug prohibition.8 Table B uses the information in Table A, Lines 5 and 8, to calculate the police budget due to drug prohibition. Line 1 gives total state and local expenditure on police in 2006 (fiscal year). Line 2 gives the percent of arrests due to drug sale/manufacturing violations, equal to Line 5 of Table A. Line 3 gives police expenditure due to arrests for drug sale/manufacturing, defined as Line 2 times Line 1. Line 4 gives the percent of arrests due to drug possession violations, equal to Line 8 of Table A. Line 5 gives police expenditure due to arrests for drug possession, defined as Line 5 times Line 1. Line 6 gives total police expenditure due to drug violations, defined as Line 3 plus Line 5. State and Local Judicial and Legal Budget Due to Drug Prohibition The second main cost of drug prohibition is the portion of the prosecutorial and judicial budget devoted to drug prosecutions. A reasonable indicator of this percentage is the fraction of felony convictions in state courts for drug offenses. The second portion of Table B calculates the judicial and legal budget due to drug prohibition. Line 7 gives the state and local judicial and legal budget. Line 8 gives the percent of felony convictions 7 Lewis (2004) reports that the fraction of stand-alone arrests on all drug charges in the city of Syracuse, NY was 90.5% in 2002. 8 Gettman and Fuller (2003) obtain a similar estimate to that reported here for Virginia in 2001. 8 in state courts due to drug law violations.9 Line 9 gives the state and local judicial and legal budget due to drug prosecutions, equal to the product of Line 7 and Line 8. The Corrections Budget Due to Drug Prohibition The third main cost of drug prohibition is the portion of the corrections budget devoted to incarcerating drug prisoners. A reasonable indicator of this portion is the fraction of prisoners incarcerated for drug offenses. The third portion of Table B calculates the corrections budget due to drug prohibition.10 Line 10 gives the overall corrections budget. Line 11 gives the percent of state prisoners incarcerated for drug law violations.11 Line 12 give the corrections budget devoted to drug prisoners, equal to the product of Line 10 and Line 11. Overall State and Local Expenditure for Enforcement of Drug Prohibition Line 13 of Table B adds Lines 6, 9, and 12 to estimate total state and local government expenditure for enforcement of drug prohibition. The figures in lines 13 are overstatements of the savings in government expenditure that would result from legalization, for two reasons. First, under prohibition the police sometimes seize assets from those arrested for drug violations (e.g., financial accounts, cars, boats, land, and houses), with the proceeds used to fund police and prosecutors.12 Second, some drug offenders pay fines, which partially offset the expenditure required to arrest, convict and incarcerate these 9 This figure is not available by drug. The calculations assume that the fraction of felony convictions by drug equals the fraction of sale/manufacturing arrests by drug. 10 This report excludes the capital outlays portion of the corrections budget since the available data do not indicate the average rate of such expenditures. This biases the estimates downward. 11 This figure is not available by drug. The calculations assume that the fraction of prisoners by drug equals the fraction of sale/manufacturing arrests by drug. 12 Most seized assets are ultimately forfeited. 9 offenders. The Appendix shows that this offsetting revenue has been at most $0.5 billion per year in recent years at the state and local level. Line 14 therefore shows the net state and local expenditure on drug prohibition for 2008 after subtracting out revenue from seizures and fines.13 For all drugs, the estimate is $33.1 billion; for marijuana, $10.4 billion; for cocaine and heroin, $14.0 billion; and for other drugs, $8.9 billion.14 15 State-by-State Estimates Tables A1-A2 and B1-B5 provide state by state breakdowns of all the estimates provided in this section. These should be regarded as subject to more uncertainty than the national estimates due to data limitations. III. Federal Expenditure for Drug Prohibition Enforcement This section estimates federal expenditure on drug prohibition enforcement to be $16.5 billion in 2007.16 17 18 Adjusting this number for inflation between 2007 and 2008 gives an estimate of $17.1 billion for 2008. 13 Since these data are not available by drug, the estimates assume that seizure and fine revenue are roughly proportional to gross expenditure. 14 Inflation rate data used throughout the paper are for the CPI - All Urban Consumers (Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#data). 15 As a check, it is useful to compare the estimate provided here to that derived from an alternative methodology. ONDCP (1993) reports survey evidence on drug prohibition enforcement by state and local authorities for the years 1990/1991. Adjusting these data for inflation and the percent attributable to drug prohibition yields an estimate similar to that reported above. 16 This consists of expenditure in the following categories: Department of Defense ($1,242.7 million); Department of Homeland Security ($2,934.8 million and $65.0 million for other expenditures); Department of Justice ($2,921.1 million and $4,996.7 million for other expenditures); ONDCP ($421.7 million); Department of State ($1,125.7 million and $3.0 million for other expenditures); Department of Transportation ($2.7 million and $25.7 million for other expenditures); Department of Treasury ($57.3 million and $1,546.8 million for other expenditures); DC Court Services and Offender Supervision ($78.5 million); Department of the Interior ($6.6 million); and The Federal Judiciary ($1,025.3 million). See National Drug Control Strategy (2009), pp.14 & A1 at http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/ publications/policy/10budget/fy10budget.pdf. 10 As with state and local revenue, this figure should be adjusted downward by the revenue from seizures and fines. The Appendix indicates that this amount has been at most $1.5 billion in recent years, implying a net savings of about $15.6 billion. Table C allocates this $15.6 billion to different drug categories using the percentage of DEA drug arrests by drug. The fourth line of Table C shows that approximately $3.4 billion of the federal expenditure on drug prohibition is due to marijuana prohibition, $8.4 billion to cocaine and heroin, and $3.9 billion to other drugs. IV. The Tax Revenue from Legalized Drugs In addition to reducing government expenditure, drug legalization would produce tax revenue from the legal production and sale of drugs. To estimate the revenue, this report employs the following procedure. First, it estimates current consumer (retail) expenditure on drugs under prohibition. Second, it estimates the expenditure likely to occur under legalization. Third, it estimates the tax revenue that would result from this expenditure based on assumptions about the kinds of taxes that would apply to legalized drugs. 17 Murphy, Davis, Liston, Thaler and Webb (2000) examine the methods used by ONDCP to estimate this expenditure. They conclude that methodological problems render parts of the estimates biased, by substantial amounts in some cases. However, these issues do not imply major qualifications to the data considered here. Murphy et al. find that the anti-drug budgets of the Coast Guard and the Bureau of Prisons are accurate reflections of the resources expended while the reported expenditure of the Department of Defense probably underestimates its anti-drug budget. The overestimates that they identify occur for demand-side activities. 18 The 2003 National Drug Control Strategy adopts a new methodology for estimating the federal drug control budget. This new methodology implies a substantial reduction in supply side expenditure (ONDCP 2002, pp.33-34). For the purposes of this report, however, the old methodology is more appropriate. For example, the new approach excludes expenditures on incarceration of persons imprisoned for drug crimes. 11 Expenditure on Drugs under Current Prohibition The first step in determining the tax revenue under legalization is to estimate expenditure on drugs under current prohibition. ONDCP (2001a, Table A, p.3) provides estimates of this expenditure for 2000. These estimates rely on a range of assumptions about the drug market, and modification of these assumptions might produce a higher or lower estimate. There is no obvious reason, however, why alternative assumptions would imply dramatically different estimates of current expenditure on drugs. This report therefore uses the ONDCP figures as the starting point for the revenue estimates presented below. Table D, line 1, gives the ONDCP estimates for 2000. Line 2 gives these estimates adjusted for inflation and use rates between 2000 and 2008.19 Expenditure on Drugs under Legalization The second step in estimating the tax revenue that would occur under legalization is to determine how expenditure on drugs would change as the result of legalization. A simple framework in which to consider various assumptions is the supply and demand model. To use this model to assess legalization’s impact on drug expenditure, it is necessary to state what effect legalization would have on the demand and supply curves for drugs. This report assumes there would be no shift in the demand for drugs.20 This assumption likely errs in the direction of understating the tax revenue from legalized drugs since the penalties for possession potentially deter some persons from consuming. Any increase in demand as a result of legalization, however, would plausibly come from casual users rather than heavy users since heavy users are the ones 19 Usage rates have increased slightly between 2000 and 2008. Prevalence rates for usage of all illicit drugs have increased from 30.8% to 33.8%; for marijuana usage, from 27.9% to 28.6%; for cocaine, from 5.4% to 6.0%; for heroin, from 0.4% to 0.5%; for other drugs, from 11.6% to 14.3%. See Monitoring the Future 2009, pp. 151, http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/vol2_2008.pdf. 20 To be explicit, the assumption is that there is no shift in the demand curve. If the supply curve shifts, there will be a change in the quantity demanded. 12 with strong desire to consume drugs and are therefore already consuming despite prohibition. Any increase in use might also come from decreased consumption of alcohol, tobacco or other goods, so increased tax revenue from legal drugs would be partially offset by decreased tax revenue from other goods. Forbidden fruit effects from prohibition might also tend to offset the demand decreasing effects of penalties for possession. Thus, the assumption of no change in demand is plausible, and it plausibly biases the estimated tax revenue downward.21 Under the assumption that demand does not shift due to legalization, any change in the quantity and price would result from changes in supply conditions. Two main effects would operate (Miron 2003a). On the one hand, drug suppliers in a legal market would not incur the costs imposed by prohibition, such as the threat of arrest, incarceration, fines, asset seizure, and the like. This means that, other things equal, costs and therefore prices would be lower under legalization. On the other hand, drug suppliers in a legal market would bear the costs of tax and regulatory policies that apply to legal goods but that black market suppliers normally avoid.22 This implies an offset to the cost reductions resulting from legalization. Further, changes in competition and advertising under legalization can potentially yield higher prices than under prohibition. The magnitude of legalization’s impact on price is therefore likely to differ across drugs given differences in supply conditions and in the degree to which prohibition is enforced. For marijuana, the best available evidence comes from comparisons of prices between the U.S. and the Netherlands. Although marijuana is still technically illegal in the Netherlands, the degree of enforcement is substantially below that in the U.S., and the sale of marijuana in coffee shops is officially tolerated. The regime thus approximates de facto legalization. Existing data suggest that retail prices in the Netherlands 21 Regulation aimed at drug use and sale (e.g., age limits on purchase or licensing and zoning restrictions on sale) might also reduce demand relative to prohibition because legal sellers face a stronger incentive to obey such regulation than underground sellers, who are already hiding their actions from authorities. 22 The underlying assumption is that the marginal costs of evading tax and regulatory costs is zero for black market suppliers who are already conducting their activities in secret. 13 are roughly 50-100 percent of U.S. prices.23 24 This report assumes that legalized prices for marijuana would be 50% of current prices. For cocaine, available evidence suggests that prices might fall to 20% of the current level; for heroin, the evidence suggests it might fall to 5% of the current level (Miron 2003a).25 For other drugs, this report assumes that prices fall to 5% of the current level.26 Table D, line 3, shows these assumptions. The effect of any price decline that occurs due to legalization depends on the elasticity of demand for drugs.27 Evidence on this elasticity is limited because appropriate data on drug price and consumption are not readily available. Existing estimates, however, suggest an elasticity of at least -0.5 and plausibly more than -1.0.28 29 Estimates for other drugs, as well as for alcohol and tobacco, generally suggest an 23 MacCoun and Reuter (1997) report gram prices of $2.50-$12.50 in the Netherlands and $1.50 - $15.00 in the U.S. They speculate that the surprisingly high prices in the Netherlands might reflect enforcement aimed at large-scale trafficking. Harrison, Backenheimer, and Inciardi (1995) note that ONDCP data on marijuana prices in the U.S. are similar to prices charged in Dutch coffee shops. ONDCP (2001b) reports a price per gram for small-scale purchases of roughly $9 per gram in the second quarter of 2000, while EMCDDA (2002) suggests a price of 2-8 Euros per gram, which is roughly $6 on average. Various web sites that discuss the coffee shops in Amsterdam suggest prices of $5 - $11 per gram in recent years. These comparisons do not adjust for potency or other dimensions of quality. 24 Clements and Daryal (2001) report marijuana prices for Australia that are similar to or higher than those in the United States. Since Australian drug policy is noticeably less strict than U.S. policy, this observation is consistent with the view that legalization would not produce a dramatic fall in price. 25 The results in Miron (2003a) on legalized drug prices come from two kinds of evidence. The first is analysis of the relation between farm gate prices and retail prices for ―similar‖ goods such as coffee or chocolate. The second is examination of prices for legal versions of currently illegal drugs, such as those for medical versions of cocaine and opiates like morphine. 26 The report assumes a 5% value for other drugs because direct evidence is not available, and this assumption errs on the conservative side. 27 The elasticity of demand is the percentage change in the quantity demanded that results from a one percentage point change in the price. For example, an elasticity of -0.5 means that if price falls by 10%, the quantity demanded will increase by 5%. An ―elastic‖ demand curve is one for which the elasticity is large (in absolute value). 28 See Nisbet and Vakil (1972). Their estimates that use survey data imply price elasticities of -0.365 or 0.51 in the log and linear specifications, respectively, while the purchase data imply price elasticities of 1.013 and -1.51. The estimates based on purchase data are plausibly more reliable. Moreover, as they note, these estimates are likely biased downward by standard simultaneous equations bias. Clemens and Daryal (1999) estimate a price elasticity of -0.5 for drugs using Australian data. Estimates of the demand for ―similar‖ goods (e.g., alcohol, cocaine, heroin, or tobacco) suggest similar elasticities. 14 elasticity in the range of -0.5 to -1.0. If the demand elasticity equals -1.0, then expenditure will remain constant or increase. If demand is less elastic, then expenditure will decline.30 This report assumes an elasticity of -0.5, as shown in Table D, line 4. Table D, line 5, shows the implications of these assumptions about the decline and price combined with an elasticity of -0.5 for the amount of expenditure that would occur for legalized drugs, assuming the economic activity in legalized drugs markets is subject to standard income and sales taxation. The estimates in line 5 do not assume the presence of a sin tax on legalized drugs. Tax Revenue from Legalized Drugs To estimate the tax revenue that would result from drug legalization, it is necessary to assume a particular tax structure. This report assumes that legalized drugs would be taxed at rates comparable to alcohol and tobacco. This means that the legalized drug market would be subject to sin taxation as well as standard income and sales taxation.31 Imposing a high sin tax can force a market underground, thereby reducing rather than increasing tax revenue. Existing evidence, however, suggests that relatively high rates of sin taxation are possible without generating a black market. For example, cigarette taxes in many Pacula, Grossman, Chaloupka, O’Malley, Johnston and Farrelly (2000) summarize the literature on the relation between drug use and factors that can affect use, such as legal penalties. They conclude the evidence is mixed but overall indicates a moderate response of drug consumption to ―price.‖ The papers summarized do not provide measures of the price elasticity. The results reported by Pacula et al. suggest an elasticity of drug participation between 0.0 and -0.5; this understates the total elasticity, which includes any change in consumption conditional on participation. The literature since Nisbet and Vakil is thus consistent with the elasticity estimate assumed above. 29 30 The phrase ―if demand is less elastic‖ can be read as ―if demand is less responsive (to price).‖ 31 Schwer, Riddel and Henderson (2002) estimate the tax revenue from marijuana legalization in Nevada assuming ―sin taxation.‖ Their estimates are not readily comparable to those presented here because they consider the situation in which one state legalizes marijuana while other states and the federal government prohibit marijuana. The same comment applies to Bates (2004), who estimates the tax revenue from marijuana legalization in Alaska. Easton (2004) estimates the tax revenue from marijuana legalization in Canada under the assumption of sin taxation. His estimates are comparable but modestly higher than those presented here, adjusted for the different size of the U.S. and Canadian economies. Caputo and Ostrom (1994) provide estimates for the overall economy that are similar to those obtained here. 15 European countries account for 70–80 percent of the price (US Department of Health and Human Services 2000). To estimate the revenue from sin taxation, this report assumes that state and local plus federal governments impose excise taxes on legalized drugs at a rate equal to 50% of the retail price. This implies that excise taxation accounts for 33% of the final price to consumers.32 33 An excise tax of 50% that is imposed on top of the legalized, retail price would increase expenditure by 25% given an assumed elasticity of -0.5. Line 7 of Table D shows total expenditure on legalized drugs under these assumptions, while Line 8 shows the revenue from sin taxation.34 Legalized drugs would also generate tax revenue because the income earned would be subject to standard income and sales taxation. The amount of income earned is roughly equal to the amount of 32 Note that in many European countries, tobacco taxation accounts for 70-80% of the retail price. 33 These assumptions imply an amount of sin taxation as a percent of expenditure that is similar to what currently occurs in the U.S. for alcohol and tobacco. In 2007, federal excise tax receipts from alcohol and tobacco were $8.6 billion and $7.6 billion, respectively (See Table 457 of U.S. Census 2009, http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0457.pdf), and state and local excise tax receipts from alcohol and tobacco were $5.7 billion and $15.8 billion, respectively (See Appendix Table A of U.S. Census 2007, http://www2.census.gov/govs/estimate/0700ussl_1.txt). This implies total excise taxation on alcohol and tobacco of $14.3 billion and $23.4 billion, respectively. In this same year, consumer expenditure on alcohol and tobacco were $54.9 billion ($457 per consumer unit for 120,171 units) and $33.8 billion ($323 per consumer unit for 120,171 units), respectively (See U.S. Department of Labor 2007, ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ce/ standard/2007/cusize.txt). These figures imply that excise taxation accounts for roughly 26% (alcohol) and 69% (tobacco) of expenditure. 34 These amounts are not necessarily attainable given the characteristics of drug production. Small scale, efficient production is possible, so the imposition of a substantial tax might encourage a portion of the market to remain underground. Whether such production is illicit depends on the details of a legalization law. Plausibly, growing small amounts for personal use would not be subject to taxation or regulation, just as growing small amounts of vegetables or herbs is not subject to taxation or regulation. The evidence suggests that the magnitude of such production would be minimal. In particular, alcohol production switched mostly from the black market to the licit market after repeal of Alcohol Prohibition in 1933. The assumption of a constant demand elasticity in response to a price change of this magnitude is also debatable; more plausibly, the elasticity would increase as the price rose, implying a larger decline in consumption and thus less revenue from excise taxation. . 16 expenditure. For most legal goods, tax revenue as a fraction of expenditure is approximately 30%.35 This figure includes the sales taxation of roughly 5% imposed by most state governments as well as income taxation imposed by state and federal governments. This 30% tax share is consistent with the estimates derived above on the relation between prices under prohibition and prices in a legalized market since those prices were based on comparisons that incorporated any costs of legal goods due to standard taxation. This 30% should be applied to an amount equal to 75% of the legalized, pre-sin-tax expenditure. This is because while the sin tax raises expenditure given that demand is inelastic, the 50% higher price combined with an elasticity of -0.5 leads to a 25% reduction in expenditure. Assuming constant costs therefore means that expenditure should be 75% of pre-sin-tax expenditure. Table D, lines 9 and 10, provide these calculations. Table D, line 11, adds the revenue from sin taxation and standard income/sale taxation to provide estimates of the total tax revenue that would accrue from a regime in which drugs are legal but taxed and regulated similarly to alcohol and tobacco. For all drugs, the estimate is $34.3 billion; for marijuana, $6.4 billion; for cocaine and heroin, $23.9 billion; and for other drugs, $4.0 billion. State-by-State Estimates Tables G1 and G2 provide state by state breakdowns of all the estimates provided in this section. These should be regarded as subject to more uncertainty than the national estimates due to data limitations. Table G1 assumes that state-level expenditure on drugs is proportional to population. Table G2 utilizes the state-level estimates of drug consumption rates contained in http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k7state/AppB.htm#TabB-1. 35 In 2001, total government receipts divided by GDP equaled 29.7%. See the 2003 Economic Report of the President on-line, http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy04/pdf/2003_erp.pdf, Tables B-1 and B-92, pp. 276 and 373. 17 V. Summary This report has estimated the budgetary implications of legalizing drugs and taxing and regulating them like other goods. The estimates provided here are not provided as definitive estimates of the budgetary implications of a legalized taxation and regulation regime for currently illegal drugs. The analysis has attempted to employ reasonable assumptions that err overall on the conservative side, but substantial uncertainty remains about many details. The estimates are therefore intended as ―ballpark‖ figures that indicate what order of magnitude policymakers should expect. 18 References Baicker, Katherine and Mireille Jacobson (2004), ―Finders Keepers: Forfeiture Laws, Policing Incentives, and Local Budgets,‖ manuscript, Department of Economics, Dartmouth College. Bates, Scott W. (2004), ―The Economic Implications of Marijuana Legalization in Alaska,‖ Report for Alaskans for Rights & Revenues, Fairbanks, Alaska. Caputo, Michael R. and Brian J. Ostrom (1994), ―Potential Tax Revenue from a Regulated Drug Market: A Meaningful Revenue Source,‖ American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 53, 475-490. Clements, Kenneth W. and Mert Daryal (2001), ―Marijuana Prices in Australia in 1990s,‖ manuscript, Economic Research Centre, Department of Economics, The University of Western Australia. Council of Economic Advisers (2003), Economic Report of the President, Washington D.C.: United States Government Printing Office. Accessed at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy04/pdf/2003_erp.pdf. Durose, Matthew and Patrick A. Langan (2003), Felony Sentences in State Courts, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justices Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ 198821. Easton, Stephen T. (2004), ―Marijuana Growth in British Columbia,‖ Public Policy Sources, Fraser Institute Occasional Paper #74. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2002), Annual Report 2002. Accessed at http://annualreport.emcdda.eu.int/pdfs/2002_0458_EN.pdf. Gettman, Jon B. and Stephen S. Fuller (2003), ―Estimation of the Budgetary Costs of Marijuana Possession Arrests in the Commonwealth of Virginia,‖ Center for Regional Analysis, George Mason University. Harrison, Lana D., Michael Backenheimer, and James A. Inciardi (1995), ―Cannabis use in the United States: Implications for Policy,‖ in Peter Cohen and Arjan Sas, eds., Cannabisbeleid in Duitsland, Frankrijk en do Verenigde Staten, Amerstdamn: Centrum voor Drugsonderzoek, Universiteit van Amsterdamn, 231-236. Lewis, Minchin (2004), Report on the Syracuse Police Department Activity for the Year Ended June 30, 2002, Department of Audit, City of Syracuse. MacCoun, Robert and Peter Reuter (1997), ―Interpreting Dutch Cannabis Policy: Reasoning by Analogy in the Legalization Debate,‖ Science, 278, 47-52. Miron, Jeffrey A. (2002), ―The Effect of Marijuana Decriminalization on the Budgets of Massachusetts Governments, With a Discussion of Decriminalization’s Effect on Drug Use,‖ Report to the Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts, October. Miron, Jeffrey A. (2003a), ―Do Prohibitions Raise Prices? Evidence from the Markets for Cocaine and Heroin,‖ Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(3), 522-530. 19 Miron, Jeffrey A. (2003b), ―A Critique of Estimates of the Economic Costs of Drug Abuse,‖ Report to the Drug Policy Alliance, July. Miron, Jeffrey A. (2003c), ―The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Legalization in Massachusetts,‖ Report to Change the Climate, August. Murphy, Patrick, Lynn E. Davis, Timothy Liston, David Thaler, and Kathi Webb (2000), Improving AntiDrug Budgeting: Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Nisbet, Charles T. and Firouz Vakil (1972), ―Some Estimates of Price and Expenditure Elasticities of the Demand for Marijuana Among U.C.L.A. Students,‖ Review of Economics and Statistics, 54, 473475. Office of National Drug Control Policy (1993), State and Local Spending on Drug Control Activities, Washington, D.C.: ONDCP Office of National Drug Control Policy (2001a), What America’s Users Spend on Illegal Drugs, Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates. Office of National Drug Control Policy (2001b), The Price of Illicit Drugs: 1981 through Second Quarter of 2000, Washington, D.C: Abt Associates. Office of National Drug Control Policy (2009), National Drug Control Strategy, Washington, D.C.: ONDCP. Accessed at http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/ 10budget/fy10budget.pdf. Pacula, Rosalie Liccardo, Michael Grossman, Frank J. Chaloupka, Patrick M. O’Malley, Lloyd D. Johnston, and Matthew C. Farrelly (2000), ―Drug and Youth,‖ NBER WP #7703. Reuter, Peter, Paul Hirschfield, and Curt Davies (2001), ―Assessing the Crack-Down on Drug in Maryland,‖ manuscript, University of Maryland. Schwer, R. Keith, Mary Riddel, and Jason Henderson (2002), ―Fiscal Impact of Question 9: Potential State-Revenue Implications,‖ Center for Business and Economic Research, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. U.S. Census Bureau (2009), Federal Budget Receipts by Source: 1990 to 2008. Accessed at http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0457.pdf. U.S. Census Bureau (2008), Federal, State, and Local Governments: State and Local Government Finances: 2005-2006. Accessed at http://www.census.gov/govs/www/estimate06.html. U.S. Census Bureau (2008), Federal, State, and Local Governments: Tax Collections, State Government Tax Collections. Accessed at http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0435.pdf. U.S. Census Bureau (2007), Local Government Finances by Type of Government and State: 2006-2007. Accessed at http://www2.census.gov/govs/estimate/0700ussl_1.txt. U.S. Census Bureau (2008), Population Change and Estimated Components of Population Change. Accessed at http://www.census.gov/popest/national/files/NST-EST2008-alldata.csv. 20 U.S. Census Bureau (2008), State and Local Government Finances by Level of Government and by State. Accessed at http://www.census.gov/govs/estimate/0600ussl_1.html. U.S. Department of Health and Humans Services (2000), Reducing Tobacco Use: A Report of the Surgeon General, Tobacco Taxation Fact Sheet. Accessed at http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/sgr_2000/00_pdfs/CDC-60100788-Tax.PDF. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2007), State Estimates of Substance Use from the 20062007 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health, Washington, D.C.: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. Accessed at http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k7state/AppB.htm#TabB-1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2009), Monitoring the Future, Volume II: College Students & Adults Ages 19-45, 2008, Maryland, Bethesda: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Accessed at http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/vol2_2008.pdf. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2008), Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) Highlights – 2006, Washington, D.C.: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Statistics. U.S. Department of Justice (1995), Crime in the United States, Washington, D.C.: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniformed Crime Reporting Program. Accessed at http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/crime/. U.S. Department of Justice (2009), Federal Drug-Related Arrests, United States, 2003-2008, Washington, D.C.: National Drug Intelligence Center. Accessed at http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs31/31379/appendb.htm#TableB1. U.S. Department of Justice (2006), Crime in the United States, Washington, D.C.: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniformed Crime Reporting Program. Accessed at http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/cocoon/NACJD/STUDY/23780.xml. U.S. Department of Justice (2007), Crime in the United States: Estimated Number of Arrests, Washington, D.C.: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniformed Crime Reporting Program. Accessed at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_29.html. U.S. Department of Justice (2007), Crime in the United States: Persons Arrested, Washington, D.C.: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniformed Crime Reporting Program. Accessed at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/arrests/index.html. U.S. Department of Justice (2007), State Court Sentencing of Convinced Felons, 2004: Estimated Number of Felony Convictions in State Courts, Washington, D.C.: Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Accessed at http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/scscf04/tables/scs04101tab.htm. U.S. Department of Justice (2008), Prisoners in 2007: Estimated Number and Percent Distribution of Prisoners under Jurisdiction of State Correctional Authorities (Bulletin NCJ 219416), Washington, D.C.: Federal Bureau of Investigation. Accessed at http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t600012005.pdf. 21 U.S. Department of Labor (2007), ―Size of consumer unit: Average annual expenditures and characteristics,‖ Consumer Expenditure Survey, Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Accessed at ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ce/standard/2007/cusize.txt. U.S. Department of Labor (2009), ―Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers,‖ Washington D.C.: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Accessed at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#data. Wright, D. (2002), State Estimates of Substance Use from the 2000 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Volume I, Findings (DHHS Publication No. SMA 02-3731, NHSDA Series H-15), Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Statistics. 22 Appendix Table A: Percentage of Arrests Due to Drug Prohibition, 2007 1. Total Arrests 2. Arrests, Drug Violations 3. % of Arrests, Drug Violations 4. % of Drug Arrests, Sale/Manufacturing 5. % of Total Arrests, Sale/Manufacturing 6. % of Drug Arrests , Possession 7. % of Total Arrests, Possession 8. 0.5 × % of Arrests, Possession All Drugs 14,209,365 1,841,182 12.96% 17.50% 2.27% 82.50% 10.69% 5.34% Heroin/ Cocaine Marijuana Synthetic Other 7.90% 1.02% 21.50% 2.79% 1.39% 5.30% 0.69% 42.10% 5.46% 2.73% 1.50% 0.19% 3.30% 0.43% 0.21% 2.80% 0.36% 15.60% 2.02% 1.01% Sources: 1. Total arrests and arrests for drug violations: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_29.html. 2. Drug violation and sale/manufacturing percentages: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/arrests/ index.html. Appendix Table B: State and Local Expenditures Attributable to Drug Prohibition, Billions of 2008 dollars 1. Police Budget All Drugs 86.48 2. Percent of Arrests, Sale/Manufacturing Violations Heroin/ Cocaine Marijuana Synthetic Other 2.27% 1.02% 0.69% 0.19% 0.36% 1.96 0.89 0.59 0.17 0.31 4. Percent of arrests, Possession Violations 5.34% 1.39% 2.73% 0.21% 1.01% 5. Police Budget, Possession Violations 6. Police Budget, Drug Violations 7. Judicial Budget 4.62 6.44 40.27 1.20 2.08 2.36 2.85 0.18 0.40 0.87 1.25 8. Percent of Felony Convictions, Drug Violations 9. Judicial Budget, Drug Violations 10. Corrections Operating Budget 34.00% 13.69 68.54 15.15% 6.10 9.64% 3.88 2.85% 1.15 6.34% 2.56 11. Percent of Prisoners, Drug Charges 12. Correct. Budget, Drug Violations 19.50% 13.37 8.69% 5.95 5.53% 3.79 1.63% 1.12 3.64% 2.49 13. Gross State/Local Expenditures, Drug Prohibition 33.50 14.13 10.52 2.66 6.30 14. Net State/Local Expenditures, Drug Prohibition 33.07 13.95 10.39 2.63 6.22 3. Police Budget, Sale/Manufacturing Violations Sources: 1. The data on felony convictions are from Durose and Langan (2007, p.2). 2. The data on prisoners are from http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t600012004.pdf. 3. The data on budgets are from http://www.census.gov/govs/estimate/0600ussl_1.html. 4. Budgets were originally reported for 2005-2006 and were converted to 2008 dollars with http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#data. 24 Appendix Table C: Federal Drug Prohibition Expenditure, Billions of 2008 Dollars All 1. Federal Expenditure (2008) 2. Number of DEA arrests (2007) 3. Percentage of DEA arrests, by Drug 4. Federal Expenditure, by Drug Marijuana 15.6 26,550 100.00% 15.60 5,700 21.47% 3.35 Cocaine 12,104 45.59% 7.11 Heroin 2,116 7.97% 1.24 Other 6,630 24.97% 3.90 Sources: 1. The data on the fraction of DEA arrests by drug are from http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs31/31379/appendb.htm#TableB1. 2. Federal expenditures were originally reported in 2007 dollars and were adjusted for inflation to 2008 dollars with http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/10budget/fy10budget.pdf. 25 Table D: State and Federal Tax Revenues from Legalized Drugs, Billions of 2008 Dollars 1. Consumer Expenditure by Drug, 2000 2. Consumer Expenditure by Drug, 2008 3. Assumed Percent Decline in Price 4. Assumed Elasticity 5. Percent Decline in Expenditure, Legalization 6. Consumer Expenditure, Legalization 7. Consumer Expenditure, Sin Taxation 8. Revenue from Sin Taxation 9. Consumer Expenditure Subject to Standard Taxation 10. Revenue, Standard Taxation 11. Tax Revenue 12. Federal Tax Collection 13. State Collection All Drugs 64.00 86.99 53.52 66.91 22.30 40.14 12.04 34.34 22.90 11.45 Marijuana 10.50 13.33 50.00 -0.50 25.00 10.00 12.50 4.17 7.50 2.25 6.42 4.28 2.14 Cocaine 35.30 48.58 80.00 -0.50 40.00 29.15 36.43 12.14 21.86 6.56 18.70 12.47 6.23 Heroin 10.00 15.48 95.00 -0.50 47.50 8.13 10.16 3.39 6.10 1.83 5.22 3.48 1.74 Other 7.80 11.91 95.00 -0.50 47.50 6.25 7.82 2.61 4.69 1.41 4.01 2.67 1.34 Sources: 1. http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/pdf/american_users_spend_2002.pdf. 2. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0435.pdf. 3. Consumer expenditures were originally reported in 2000 dollars and were adjusted for inflation to 2008 dollars with http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#data and for increase in drug usage based on estimates from Monitoring the Future. 26 Appendix Table E1: State by State Arrest Data (Alabama – New Hampshire) State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida* Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota* Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Arrests Drug Violation Total Total Arrests Arrests 199,688 17,308 38,578 1,767 321,503 36,050 101,694 12,486 1,540,894 292,263 225,099 19,250 120,182 15,812 41,350 5,908 1,126,395 79,003 333,657 49,400 213,219 19,507 73,896 5,851 191,268 1,085 215,449 23,363 114,816 9,156 73,904 8,060 63,884 12,538 173,584 23,056 57,731 5,731 296,861 55,401 296,861 21,303 312,777 34,306 215,671 19,167 85,271 11,709 297,234 39,152 28,136 1,805 83,957 10,117 167,412 14,660 38,396 3,005 Sale/Manufacturing Arrest All Drugs 1,316 302 5,015 2,031 45,961 2,061 2,354 2,139 17,269 10,954 6,259 605 192 4,747 781 1,310 1,682 4,145 1,276 13,242 6,021 7,723 6,161 1,556 5,089 153 1,084 2,729 508 Cocaine 661 109 1,675 478 16,885 858 1,523 1,367 12,823 3,839 683 54 108 2,189 179 317 534 1,979 431 9,597 4,068 3,256 619 669 608 20 189 1,004 111 Marijuana 131 108 1,645 634 14,821 657 678 581 4,047 4,033 4,013 215 75 1,556 381 568 744 1,199 440 2,666 1,508 3,152 3,966 424 1,803 86 307 731 334 Synthetic 172 32 811 238 0 122 84 66 263 687 38 14 5 450 12 24 70 280 121 848 267 210 53 212 789 17 153 432 27 Possession Arrests Other 352 53 884 681 14,255 424 69 125 135 2,395 1,523 322 4 552 209 401 334 687 284 131 178 1,105 1,523 251 1,889 30 435 562 36 All Drugs 15,992 1,465 31,035 10,455 246,302 17,189 13,458 3,769 61,734 38,446 13,250 5,246 893 18,616 8,375 6,750 10,856 18,911 4,455 42,159 15,282 26,583 13,006 10,153 34,063 1,652 9,033 11,931 2,497 Cocaine 4,664 304 3,192 1,145 83,727 2,692 5,838 896 28,940 10,744 3,386 106 312 3,502 749 980 1,512 4,449 663 19,142 5,372 6,444 2,809 2,507 2,758 46 395 1,647 301 Marijuana 9,524 864 17,888 5,711 59,132 11,245 6,652 2,582 31,360 22,984 7,079 3,328 542 11,695 6,237 4,364 7,290 11,728 2,814 22,028 8,717 16,288 7,642 5,578 21,247 1,269 7,062 7,118 1,905 Synthetic 1,023 146 3,366 596 0 349 525 109 755 2,421 510 97 12 1,114 137 131 580 1,111 326 492 538 805 480 758 1,709 57 226 2,355 99 Other 781 151 6,589 3,003 103,443 2,903 443 182 676 2,297 2,273 1,715 27 2,305 1,252 1,275 1,474 1,623 652 497 655 3,046 2,075 1,310 8,349 280 1,350 811 192 Appendix Table E1: State by State Arrest Data (New Jersey – Wyoming) Arrests State New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming D.C. Total Arrests 383,797 78,484 345,251 407,663 27,359 256,718 161,719 147,335 467,655 26,966 213,355 18,014 304,793 1,087,325 120,167 16,731 313,457 248,676 46,835 421,093 39,808 5,933 Drug Violation Total Arrests 52,875 6,673 63,058 43,711 1,870 35,808 22,338 19,234 58,944 3,492 31,952 1,715 43,459 145,585 10,263 1,602 34,498 29,192 4,884 25,968 3,128 80 Sale/Manufacturing Arrest All Drugs 12,730 2,552 6,112 6,966 283 4,472 3,245 1,788 20,744 588 5,964 181 10,998 15,925 1,400 245 7,319 3,569 1,042 6,096 302 12 Cocaine 8,907 1,534 2,913 4,220 33 2,301 518 531 13,411 363 3,406 18 4,081 4,637 577 87 3,909 667 435 2,631 29 2 Marijuana 3,062 322 1,113 2,365 139 1,381 1,272 552 5,310 183 1,749 112 4,115 1,753 267 80 2,157 1,347 342 2,371 151 8 Synthetic 447 626 171 149 13 177 923 49 1,340 19 106 10 845 7,972 75 16 450 706 88 401 89 0 Possession Arrests Other 314 70 1,915 232 98 613 532 656 683 23 703 41 1,957 1,563 481 62 803 849 177 693 33 2 Sources: 1. Uniform Crime Reports Drug Arrest Data 2007. 2. Florida* (1995): http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/crime/. 3. Minnesota* (2006): http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/cocoon/NACJD/STUDY/23780.xml. 28 All Drugs 40,145 4,121 56,946 36,745 1,587 31,336 19,093 17,446 38,200 2,904 25,988 1,534 32,461 129,660 8,863 1,357 27,179 25,623 3,842 19,872 2,826 68 Cocaine 17,043 237 7,713 10,965 52 9,745 2,781 2,907 12,887 809 6,550 65 6,802 36,764 1,491 153 6,752 2,528 704 1,856 114 13 Marijuana 20,179 2,947 37,173 22,746 1,217 16,928 11,845 8,493 19,799 1,922 16,850 1,282 19,038 67,916 3,935 836 17,537 12,960 2,344 15,319 2,046 52 Synthetic 935 592 734 1,046 50 1,015 2,743 802 1,849 55 632 39 1,904 9,038 330 78 532 3,800 375 742 333 0 Other 1,988 345 11,326 1,988 268 3,648 1,724 5,244 3,665 118 1,956 148 4,717 15,942 3,107 290 2,358 6,335 419 1,955 333 3 Appendix Table E2: State by State Sale/Manufacturing and Possession Data (Alabama – New Hampshire) % of Total Arrests, Sale/Manufacturing State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida* Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota* Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire All Drugs 0.66% 0.78% 1.56% 2.00% 2.98% 0.92% 1.96% 5.17% 1.53% 3.28% 2.94% 0.82% 0.10% 2.20% 0.68% 1.77% 2.63% 2.39% 2.21% 4.46% 2.03% 2.47% 2.86% 1.82% 1.71% 0.54% 1.29% 1.63% 1.32% Heroin/ Cocaine 0.33% 0.28% 0.52% 0.47% 1.10% 0.38% 1.27% 3.31% 1.14% 1.15% 0.32% 0.07% 0.06% 1.02% 0.16% 0.43% 0.84% 1.14% 0.75% 3.23% 1.37% 1.04% 0.29% 0.78% 0.20% 0.07% 0.23% 0.60% 0.29% Marijuana 0.07% 0.28% 0.51% 0.62% 0.96% 0.29% 0.56% 1.41% 0.36% 1.21% 1.88% 0.29% 0.04% 0.72% 0.33% 0.77% 1.16% 0.69% 0.76% 0.90% 0.51% 1.01% 1.84% 0.50% 0.61% 0.31% 0.37% 0.44% 0.87% 1/2 * % of Total Arrests, Possession Synthetic 0.09% 0.08% 0.25% 0.23% 0.93% 0.05% 0.07% 0.16% 0.02% 0.21% 0.02% 0.02% 0.00% 0.21% 0.01% 0.03% 0.11% 0.16% 0.21% 0.29% 0.09% 0.07% 0.02% 0.25% 0.27% 0.06% 0.18% 0.26% 0.07% 29 Other 0.18% 0.14% 0.27% 0.67% 0.93% 0.19% 0.06% 0.30% 0.01% 0.72% 0.71% 0.44% 0.00% 0.26% 0.18% 0.54% 0.52% 0.40% 0.49% 0.04% 0.06% 0.35% 0.71% 0.29% 0.64% 0.11% 0.52% 0.34% 0.09% All Drugs 4.00% 1.90% 4.83% 5.14% 7.99% 3.82% 5.60% 4.56% 2.74% 5.76% 3.11% 3.55% 0.23% 4.32% 3.65% 4.57% 8.50% 5.45% 3.86% 7.10% 2.57% 4.25% 3.02% 5.95% 5.73% 2.94% 5.38% 3.56% 3.25% Heroin/ Cocaine 1.17% 0.39% 0.50% 0.56% 2.72% 0.60% 2.43% 1.08% 1.28% 1.61% 0.79% 0.07% 0.08% 0.81% 0.33% 0.66% 1.18% 1.28% 0.57% 3.22% 0.90% 1.03% 0.65% 1.47% 0.46% 0.08% 0.24% 0.49% 0.39% Marijuana 2.38% 1.12% 2.78% 2.81% 1.92% 2.50% 2.77% 3.12% 1.39% 3.44% 1.66% 2.25% 0.14% 2.71% 2.72% 2.95% 5.71% 3.38% 2.44% 3.71% 1.47% 2.60% 1.77% 3.27% 3.57% 2.26% 4.21% 2.13% 2.48% Synthetic 0.26% 0.19% 0.52% 0.29% 0.00% 0.08% 0.22% 0.13% 0.03% 0.36% 0.12% 0.07% 0.00% 0.26% 0.06% 0.09% 0.45% 0.32% 0.28% 0.08% 0.09% 0.13% 0.11% 0.44% 0.29% 0.10% 0.13% 0.70% 0.13% Other 0.20% 0.20% 1.02% 1.48% 3.36% 0.64% 0.18% 0.22% 0.03% 0.34% 0.53% 1.16% 0.01% 0.53% 0.55% 0.86% 1.15% 0.47% 0.56% 0.08% 0.11% 0.49% 0.48% 0.77% 1.40% 0.50% 0.80% 0.24% 0.25% Appendix Table E2: State by State Sale/Manufacturing and Possession Data (New Jersey – Wyoming) % of Total Arrests, Sale/Manufacturing State New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming D.C. All Drugs 3.32% 3.25% 1.77% 1.71% 1.03% 1.74% 2.01% 1.21% 4.44% 2.18% 2.80% 1.00% 3.61% 1.46% 1.17% 1.46% 2.33% 1.44% 2.22% 1.45% 0.76% 0.20% Heroin/ Cocaine 2.32% 1.95% 0.84% 1.04% 0.12% 0.90% 0.32% 0.36% 2.87% 1.35% 1.60% 0.10% 1.34% 0.43% 0.48% 0.52% 1.25% 0.27% 0.93% 0.62% 0.07% 0.03% Marijuana 0.80% 0.41% 0.32% 0.58% 0.51% 0.54% 0.79% 0.37% 1.14% 0.68% 0.82% 0.62% 1.35% 0.16% 0.22% 0.48% 0.69% 0.54% 0.73% 0.56% 0.38% 0.13% Synthetic 0.12% 0.80% 0.05% 0.04% 0.05% 0.07% 0.57% 0.03% 0.29% 0.07% 0.05% 0.06% 0.28% 0.73% 0.06% 0.10% 0.14% 0.28% 0.19% 0.10% 0.22% 0.00% 1/2 * % of Total Arrests, Possession Other 0.08% 0.09% 0.55% 0.06% 0.36% 0.24% 0.33% 0.45% 0.15% 0.09% 0.33% 0.23% 0.64% 0.14% 0.40% 0.37% 0.26% 0.34% 0.38% 0.16% 0.08% 0.03% All Drugs 5.23% 2.63% 8.25% 4.51% 2.90% 6.10% 5.90% 5.92% 4.08% 5.38% 6.09% 4.26% 5.33% 5.96% 3.69% 4.06% 4.34% 5.15% 4.10% 2.36% 3.55% 0.57% Sources: 1. Uniform Crime Reports Drug Arrest Data 2007. 2. Florida* (1995): http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/crime/. 3. Minnesota* (2006): http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/cocoon/NACJD/STUDY/23780.xml. 30 Heroin/ Cocaine 2.22% 0.15% 1.12% 1.34% 0.10% 1.90% 0.86% 0.99% 1.38% 1.50% 1.54% 0.18% 1.12% 1.69% 0.62% 0.46% 1.08% 0.51% 0.75% 0.22% 0.14% 0.11% Marijuana 2.63% 1.88% 5.38% 2.79% 2.22% 3.30% 3.66% 2.88% 2.12% 3.56% 3.95% 3.56% 3.12% 3.12% 1.64% 2.50% 2.80% 2.61% 2.50% 1.82% 2.57% 0.44% Synthetic 0.12% 0.38% 0.11% 0.13% 0.09% 0.20% 0.85% 0.27% 0.20% 0.10% 0.15% 0.11% 0.31% 0.42% 0.14% 0.23% 0.08% 0.76% 0.40% 0.09% 0.42% 0.00% Other 0.26% 0.22% 1.64% 0.24% 0.49% 0.71% 0.53% 1.78% 0.39% 0.22% 0.46% 0.41% 0.77% 0.73% 1.29% 0.87% 0.38% 1.27% 0.45% 0.23% 0.42% 0.03% Table F1: State and Local Expenditures Attributable to Drug Prohibition, Thousands of 2008 Dollars (Alabama – New York) State Total Police Expend Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York 1,010,521 235,305 1,851,136 552,637 14,322,369 1,315,954 989,928 312,680 6,483,472 2,145,788 304,808 302,081 4,113,112 1,136,130 622,894 694,335 723,889 1,276,450 242,032 1,755,018 1,830,259 2,551,657 1,415,049 613,738 1,289,460 208,558 365,562 972,507 300,019 3,292,430 556,188 8,296,127 Expend on S/M 6,660 1,842 28,875 11,037 427,200 12,049 19,390 16,175 99,399 70,446 8,948 2,473 4,129 25,032 4,237 12,308 19,059 30,480 5,350 78,286 37,122 63,005 40,423 11,199 22,077 1,134 4,720 15,853 3,969 109,205 18,085 146,867 Expend on Possession 40,464 4,468 89,346 28,408 1,144,669 50,244 55,426 14,250 177,669 123,625 9,471 10,723 9,602 49,084 22,718 31,708 61,506 69,531 9,339 124,620 47,110 108,433 42,667 36,538 73,886 6,123 19,666 34,654 9,756 172,193 14,602 684,185 Police Expend on Drug 47,123 6,310 118,221 39,445 1,571,870 62,293 74,816 30,425 277,068 194,072 18,418 13,196 13,731 74,116 26,955 44,016 80,566 100,011 14,688 202,906 84,231 171,438 83,090 47,737 95,963 7,257 24,385 50,507 13,725 281,399 32,687 831,052 Total Judicial Expend 390,040 194,851 920,992 238,110 8,498,999 517,981 641,939 161,244 2,309,232 968,946 268,042 162,201 1,306,906 458,859 314,297 315,661 421,019 560,995 109,781 733,173 982,020 1,256,107 668,032 214,983 491,310 136,407 155,687 483,712 125,327 1,508,391 273,938 3,585,521 % Felony Conviction, Drug Violations 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 34.00% 31 Judiciary Expend on Drug Violations 132,614 66,249 313,137 80,957 2,889,660 176,114 218,259 54,823 785,139 329,442 91,134 55,148 444,348 156,012 106,861 107,325 143,146 190,738 37,326 249,279 333,887 427,077 227,131 73,094 167,046 46,378 52,934 164,462 42,611 512,853 93,139 1,219,077 Corrections, Expend Total % Corrections, Drug Violations Corrections, Expend on Drug Violations 707,079 231,920 1,562,201 570,381 11,937,225 1,094,584 676,367 267,678 4,427,551 2,188,003 196,132 285,557 1,894,067 1,021,669 393,028 411,678 687,983 1,092,480 199,760 1,598,165 1,248,025 2,503,398 808,056 412,222 880,528 192,060 320,590 607,643 180,596 2,098,716 520,630 5,582,538 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 19.50% 137,880 45,224 304,629 111,224 2,327,759 213,444 131,892 52,197 863,372 426,661 38,246 55,684 369,343 199,225 76,640 80,277 134,157 213,034 38,953 311,642 243,365 488,163 157,571 80,383 171,703 37,452 62,515 118,490 35,216 409,250 101,523 1,088,595 Gross S/L Expend 317,617 117,784 735,988 231,627 6,789,288 451,851 424,967 137,445 1,925,580 950,174 147,798 124,028 827,422 429,354 210,456 231,618 357,869 503,783 90,967 763,827 661,483 1,086,677 467,792 201,215 434,712 91,087 139,834 333,459 91,553 1,203,501 227,349 3,138,724 Net S/L Expend 313,549 116,275 726,561 228,660 6,702,333 446,064 419,524 135,684 1,900,918 938,005 145,905 122,439 816,824 423,855 207,761 228,652 353,285 497,331 89,802 754,044 653,011 1,072,759 461,801 198,638 429,144 89,920 138,043 329,189 90,380 1,188,087 224,437 3,098,525 Table F1: State and Local Expenditures Attributable to Drug Prohibition, Thousands of 2008 Dollars (North Carolina– Wyoming) State North Carolina Total Police Expend Expend on S/M Expend on Possession Police Expend on Drug Total Judicial Expend % Felony Conviction, Drug Violations Judiciary Expend on Drug Violations Corrections, Expend Total % Corrections, Drug Violations Corrections, Expend on Drug Violations Gross S/L Expend Net S/L Expend 2,095,971 35,815 94,461 130,276 600,309 34.00% 204,105 1,691,822 19.50% 329,905 664,287 655,779 115,942 1,199 3,363 4,562 65,336 34.00% 22,214 80,892 19.50% 15,774 42,550 42,005 2,941,418 51,239 179,521 230,760 1,784,326 34.00% 606,671 2,181,354 19.50% 425,364 1,262,795 1,246,621 735,199 14,752 43,400 58,152 307,680 34.00% 104,611 691,663 19.50% 134,874 297,638 293,826 Oregon 1,026,248 12,454 60,759 73,213 402,509 34.00% 136,853 1,008,112 19.50% 196,582 406,648 401,440 Pennsylvania 2,773,025 123,004 113,256 236,261 1,605,559 34.00% 545,890 3,057,854 19.50% 596,281 1,378,432 1,360,778 Rhode Island 313,248 6,830 16,867 23,697 165,799 34.00% 56,372 213,056 19.50% 41,546 121,615 120,058 South Carolina 934,259 26,116 56,899 83,015 262,375 34.00% 89,208 678,394 19.50% 132,287 304,509 300,609 South Dakota 144,450 1,451 6,150 7,602 66,888 34.00% 22,742 153,751 19.50% 29,982 60,325 59,553 Tennessee 1,323,771 47,766 70,492 118,258 569,200 34.00% 193,528 979,947 19.50% 191,090 502,876 496,435 Texas 5,333,115 78,109 317,978 396,087 2,178,068 34.00% 740,543 4,844,888 19.50% 944,753 2,081,384 2,054,726 Utah 609,163 7,097 22,465 29,562 320,809 34.00% 109,075 488,178 19.50% 95,195 233,832 230,837 Vermont 148,706 2,178 6,031 8,208 63,130 34.00% 21,464 110,808 19.50% 21,608 51,280 50,623 Virginia 1,899,930 44,362 82,369 126,731 793,351 34.00% 269,739 1,920,758 19.50% 374,548 771,018 761,143 Washington 1,453,032 20,854 74,859 95,712 728,947 34.00% 247,842 1,545,840 19.50% 301,439 644,994 636,733 North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma West Virginia 259,108 5,765 10,628 16,392 211,019 34.00% 71,746 277,985 19.50% 54,207 142,346 140,523 Wisconsin 1,568,674 22,709 37,014 59,723 604,648 34.00% 205,580 1,395,976 19.50% 272,215 537,519 530,635 Wyoming 180,971 1,373 6,424 7,797 91,543 34.00% 31,125 197,050 19.50% 38,425 77,346 76,355 D.C. 539,470 1,091 3,092 4,183 78,637 34.00% 26,736 224,827 19.50% 43,841 74,760 73,803 86,477,797 1,861,200 4,582,710 6,443,910 40,274,839 34.00% 13,693,445 68,541,664 19.50% 13,365,625 33,502,979 33,073,886 Total Sources : 1. Police Expenditure and Judicial Budget: 2005-2006 State Government Finance Data, US Census: http://www.census.gov/govs/www/estimate06.html. 2. Felony Convictions: http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/scscf04/tables/scs04101tab.htm. 3. Corrections Budget: http://www.census.gov/govs/www/estimate06.html; http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t600012005.pdf. 4. Budgets were originally reported for 2005-2006 and were converted to 2008 dollars with http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#data. 32 Table F2: Expenditures Attributable to Heroin/Cocaine Prohibition, Thousands of 2008 Dollars (Alabama – New York) State Alabama Alaska Arizona Total Police Expend Expend on S/M Expend on Possession Police Expend on Drug Total Judicial Expend % Felony Conviction, Drug Violations Judiciary Expend on Drug Violations Corrections, Expend Total % Corrections, Drug Violations Corrections, Expend on Drug Violations Gross S/L Expend Net S/L Expend 1,010,521 3,345 11,801 15,146 390,040 15.15% 59,076 707,079 8.69% 61,423 135,645 133,908 235,305 665 927 1,592 194,851 15.15% 29,513 231,920 8.69% 20,146 51,251 50,595 1,851,136 9,644 9,189 18,834 920,992 15.15% 139,496 1,562,201 8.69% 135,706 294,035 290,269 Arkansas 552,637 2,598 3,111 5,709 238,110 15.15% 36,065 570,381 8.69% 49,548 91,321 90,152 California 14,322,369 156,943 389,115 546,058 8,498,999 15.15% 1,287,280 11,937,225 8.69% 1,036,966 2,870,304 2,833,542 Colorado 1,315,954 5,016 7,869 12,885 517,981 15.15% 78,455 1,094,584 8.69% 95,085 186,424 184,037 989,928 12,545 24,044 36,588 641,939 15.15% 97,230 676,367 8.69% 58,755 192,573 190,107 Connecticut Delaware 312,680 10,337 3,388 13,725 161,244 15.15% 24,422 267,678 8.69% 23,253 61,400 60,613 Florida 6,483,472 73,809 83,289 157,097 2,309,232 15.15% 349,762 4,427,551 8.69% 384,614 891,473 880,055 Georgia 2,145,788 24,689 34,548 59,237 968,946 15.15% 146,759 2,188,003 8.69% 190,068 396,064 390,991 304,808 976 2,420 3,397 268,042 15.15% 40,598 196,132 8.69% 17,038 61,033 60,251 Hawaii Idaho 302,081 221 217 437 162,201 15.15% 24,567 285,557 8.69% 24,806 49,811 49,173 Illinois 4,113,112 2,322 3,355 5,677 1,306,906 15.15% 197,947 1,894,067 8.69% 164,534 368,159 363,444 Indiana 1,136,130 11,543 9,234 20,777 458,859 15.15% 69,500 1,021,669 8.69% 88,751 179,027 176,734 Iowa 622,894 971 2,032 3,003 314,297 15.15% 47,604 393,028 8.69% 34,142 84,749 83,663 Kansas 694,335 2,978 4,604 7,582 315,661 15.15% 47,811 411,678 8.69% 35,762 91,154 89,987 Kentucky 723,889 6,051 8,566 14,617 421,019 15.15% 63,769 687,983 8.69% 59,764 138,150 136,380 Louisiana 1,276,450 14,553 16,358 30,910 560,995 15.15% 84,970 1,092,480 8.69% 94,902 210,782 208,082 242,032 1,807 1,390 3,197 109,781 15.15% 16,628 199,760 8.69% 17,353 37,177 36,701 Maryland 1,755,018 56,737 56,583 113,320 733,173 15.15% 111,048 1,598,165 8.69% 138,830 363,198 358,546 Massachusetts 1,830,259 25,081 16,560 41,641 982,020 15.15% 148,739 1,248,025 8.69% 108,414 298,794 294,967 Michigan 2,551,657 26,563 26,285 52,848 1,256,107 15.15% 190,253 2,503,398 8.69% 217,466 460,567 454,668 Minnesota 1,415,049 4,061 9,215 13,276 668,032 15.15% 101,182 808,056 8.69% 70,194 184,653 182,288 Maine Mississippi 613,738 4,815 9,022 13,837 214,983 15.15% 32,562 412,222 8.69% 35,809 82,208 81,155 Missouri 1,289,460 2,638 5,982 8,620 491,310 15.15% 74,415 880,528 8.69% 76,490 159,525 157,482 Montana 208,558 148 170 319 136,407 15.15% 20,661 192,060 8.69% 16,684 37,663 37,181 Nebraska 365,562 823 860 1,683 155,687 15.15% 23,581 320,590 8.69% 27,849 53,113 52,433 Nevada 972,507 5,832 4,784 10,616 483,712 15.15% 73,264 607,643 8.69% 52,785 136,665 134,915 New Hampshire 300,019 867 1,176 2,043 125,327 15.15% 18,982 180,596 8.69% 15,688 36,714 36,244 3,292,430 76,409 73,102 149,512 1,508,391 15.15% 228,465 2,098,716 8.69% 182,312 560,288 553,112 556,188 10,871 840 11,711 273,938 15.15% 41,491 520,630 8.69% 45,226 98,428 97,168 8,296,127 69,997 92,669 162,666 3,585,521 15.15% 543,072 5,582,538 8.69% 484,945 1,190,684 1,175,434 New Jersey New Mexico New York 33 Table F2: Expenditures Attributable to Heroin/Cocaine Prohibition, Thousands of 2008 Dollars (North Carolina– Wyoming) State North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Total Police Expend 2,095,971 Expend on S/M 21,697 Expend on Possession Police Expend on Drug 28,188 49,885 Total Judicial Expend % Felony Conviction, Drug Violations 600,309 15.15% Judiciary Expend on Drug Violations 90,924 Corrections, Expend Total % Corrections, Drug Violations 1,691,822 8.69% Corrections, Expend on Drug Violations 146,966 Gross S/L Expend 287,775 Net S/L Expend 284,089 115,942 140 110 250 65,336 15.15% 9,896 80,892 8.69% 7,027 17,173 16,953 2,941,418 26,364 55,828 82,192 1,784,326 15.15% 270,259 2,181,354 8.69% 189,490 541,941 535,000 735,199 2,355 6,321 8,676 307,680 15.15% 46,602 691,663 8.69% 60,084 115,362 113,884 Oregon 1,026,248 3,699 10,124 13,823 402,509 15.15% 60,965 1,008,112 8.69% 87,573 162,361 160,281 Pennsylvania 2,773,025 79,522 38,208 117,730 1,605,559 15.15% 243,182 3,057,854 8.69% 265,630 626,542 618,518 Rhode Island 313,248 4,217 4,699 8,916 165,799 15.15% 25,112 213,056 8.69% 18,508 52,536 51,863 South Carolina 934,259 14,915 14,341 29,255 262,375 15.15% 39,740 678,394 8.69% 58,931 127,926 126,288 South Dakota 144,450 144 261 405 66,888 15.15% 10,131 153,751 8.69% 13,356 23,892 23,586 Tennessee 1,323,771 17,725 14,771 32,496 569,200 15.15% 86,213 979,947 8.69% 85,126 203,834 201,224 Texas 5,333,115 22,744 90,160 112,904 2,178,068 15.15% 329,896 4,844,888 8.69% 420,867 863,666 852,605 Utah 609,163 2,925 3,779 6,704 320,809 15.15% 48,591 488,178 8.69% 42,407 97,702 96,451 Vermont 148,706 773 680 1,453 63,130 15.15% 9,562 110,808 8.69% 9,626 20,641 20,376 Virginia 1,899,930 23,693 20,463 44,156 793,351 15.15% 120,163 1,920,758 8.69% 166,853 331,172 326,930 Washington 1,453,032 3,897 7,386 11,283 728,947 15.15% 110,408 1,545,840 8.69% 134,284 255,976 252,697 West Virginia 259,108 2,407 1,947 4,354 211,019 15.15% 31,961 277,985 8.69% 24,148 60,463 59,689 Wisconsin 1,568,674 9,801 3,457 13,258 604,648 15.15% 91,582 1,395,976 8.69% 121,266 226,106 223,210 Wyoming 180,971 132 259 391 91,543 15.15% 13,865 197,050 8.69% 17,117 31,374 30,972 D.C. 539,470 182 591 773 78,637 15.15% 11,911 224,827 8.69% 19,530 32,214 31,801 86,477,797 863,187 1,214,277 2,077,463 40,274,839 15.15% 6,100,131 68,541,664 8.69% 5,954,094 14,131,688 13,950,695 Total Sources: 1. Police Expenditure and Judicial Budget: 2005-2006 State Government Finance Data, US Census: http://www.census.gov/govs/www/estimate06.html. 2. Felony Convictions: http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/scscf04/tables/scs04101tab.htm. 3. Corrections Budget: http://www.census.gov/govs/www/estimate06.html; http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t600012005.pdf. 4. Budgets were originally reported for 2005-2006 and were converted to 2008 dollars with http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#data. 34 Appendix Table F3: Expenditures Attributable to Marijuana Prohibition, Thousands of 2008 Dollars (Alabama – New York) State Total Police Expend Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York 1,010,521 235,305 1,851,136 552,637 14,322,369 1,315,954 989,928 312,680 6,483,472 2,145,788 304,808 302,081 4,113,112 1,136,130 622,894 694,335 723,889 1,276,450 242,032 1,755,018 1,830,259 2,551,657 1,415,049 613,738 1,289,460 208,558 365,562 972,507 300,019 3,292,430 556,188 8,296,127 Expend on S/M 663 659 9,472 3,445 137,759 3,841 5,585 4,393 23,294 25,937 5,737 879 1,613 8,205 2,067 5,336 8,430 8,817 1,845 15,761 9,297 25,714 26,022 3,052 7,822 637 1,337 4,246 2,610 26,268 2,282 26,745 Expend on Possession 24,098 2,635 51,497 15,518 274,811 32,870 27,396 9,762 90,253 73,906 5,060 6,802 5,828 30,836 16,918 20,500 41,303 43,121 5,899 65,114 26,872 66,439 25,070 20,074 46,087 4,703 15,375 20,674 7,443 86,554 10,442 446,620 Police Expend on Drug 24,761 3,294 60,969 18,963 412,570 36,711 32,981 14,156 113,548 99,843 10,797 7,681 7,441 39,041 18,985 25,837 49,733 51,938 7,743 80,875 36,169 92,154 51,092 23,126 53,909 5,341 16,711 24,921 10,052 112,821 12,724 473,364 Total Judicial Expend 390,040 194,851 920,992 238,110 8,498,999 517,981 641,939 161,244 2,309,232 968,946 268,042 162,201 1,306,906 458,859 314,297 315,661 421,019 560,995 109,781 733,173 982,020 1,256,107 668,032 214,983 491,310 136,407 155,687 483,712 125,327 1,508,391 273,938 3,585,521 % Felony Conviction, Drug Violations 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 9.64% 35 Judiciary Expend on Drug Violations 37,588 18,778 88,756 22,947 819,050 49,918 61,864 15,539 222,541 93,377 25,831 15,631 125,947 44,220 30,289 30,420 40,574 54,063 10,580 70,656 94,637 121,051 64,378 20,718 47,348 13,146 15,004 46,615 12,078 145,364 26,399 345,537 Corrections, Expend Total 707,079 231,920 1,562,201 570,381 11,937,225 1,094,584 676,367 267,678 4,427,551 2,188,003 196,132 285,557 1,894,067 1,021,669 393,028 411,678 687,983 1,092,480 199,760 1,598,165 1,248,025 2,503,398 808,056 412,222 880,528 192,060 320,590 607,643 180,596 2,098,716 520,630 5,582,538 % Corrections, Drug Violations 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% 5.53% Corrections, Expend on Drug Violations 39,081 12,818 86,345 31,526 659,784 60,499 37,384 14,795 244,716 120,933 10,840 15,783 104,687 56,469 21,723 22,754 38,026 60,383 11,041 88,332 68,980 138,366 44,662 22,784 48,668 10,615 17,719 33,585 9,982 115,998 28,776 308,553 Gross S/L Expend 101,430 34,890 236,070 73,435 1,891,404 147,128 132,228 44,490 580,804 314,154 47,468 39,096 238,075 139,730 70,997 79,011 128,332 166,384 29,364 239,863 199,786 351,571 160,132 66,628 149,924 29,102 49,434 105,121 32,112 374,183 67,899 1,127,455 Net S/L Expend 100,131 34,443 233,046 72,495 1,867,180 145,243 130,534 43,920 573,366 310,130 46,860 38,595 235,025 137,940 70,088 77,999 126,689 164,253 28,988 236,791 197,228 347,068 158,081 65,774 148,004 28,729 48,801 103,775 31,701 369,391 67,030 1,113,015 Appendix Table F3: Expenditures Attributable to Marijuana Prohibition, Thousands of 2008 Dollars (North Carolina– Wyoming) State North Carolina Total Police Expend Expend on S/M Expend on Possession Police Expend on Drug Total Judicial Expend % Felony Conviction, Drug Violations Judiciary Expend on Drug Violations Corrections, Expend Total % Corrections, Drug Violations Corrections, Expend on Drug Violations Gross S/L Expend Net S/L Expend 2,095,971 12,159 58,473 70,633 600,309 9.64% 57,852 1,691,822 5.53% 93,509 221,994 219,151 115,942 589 2,579 3,168 65,336 9.64% 6,296 80,892 5.53% 4,471 13,935 13,757 2,941,418 15,823 96,979 112,802 1,784,326 9.64% 171,956 2,181,354 5.53% 120,566 405,324 400,132 735,199 5,783 26,925 32,707 307,680 9.64% 29,651 691,663 5.53% 38,229 100,587 99,299 Oregon 1,026,248 3,845 29,579 33,423 402,509 9.64% 38,790 1,008,112 5.53% 55,719 127,933 126,294 Pennsylvania 2,773,025 31,486 58,700 90,187 1,605,559 9.64% 154,728 3,057,854 5.53% 169,011 413,926 408,624 Rhode Island 313,248 2,126 11,163 13,289 165,799 9.64% 15,978 213,056 5.53% 11,776 41,043 40,517 South Carolina 934,259 7,659 36,892 44,551 262,375 9.64% 25,285 678,394 5.53% 37,496 107,332 105,957 North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma South Dakota 144,450 898 5,140 6,038 66,888 9.64% 6,446 153,751 5.53% 8,498 20,982 20,713 Tennessee 1,323,771 17,872 41,343 59,215 569,200 9.64% 54,854 979,947 5.53% 54,163 168,232 166,077 Texas 5,333,115 8,598 166,557 175,155 2,178,068 9.64% 209,901 4,844,888 5.53% 267,782 652,839 644,477 Utah 609,163 1,354 9,974 11,327 320,809 9.64% 30,916 488,178 5.53% 26,982 69,226 68,339 Vermont 148,706 711 3,715 4,426 63,130 9.64% 6,084 110,808 5.53% 6,124 16,635 16,421 Virginia 1,899,930 13,074 53,148 66,222 793,351 9.64% 76,455 1,920,758 5.53% 106,162 248,840 245,653 Washington 1,453,032 7,871 37,863 45,734 728,947 9.64% 70,249 1,545,840 5.53% 85,440 201,423 198,843 259,108 1,892 6,484 8,376 211,019 9.64% 20,336 277,985 5.53% 15,365 44,076 43,512 Wisconsin 1,568,674 8,833 28,534 37,366 604,648 9.64% 58,270 1,395,976 5.53% 77,157 172,793 170,580 Wyoming 180,971 686 4,651 5,337 91,543 9.64% 8,822 197,050 5.53% 10,891 25,050 24,729 D.C. 539,470 727 2,364 3,092 78,637 9.64% 7,578 224,827 5.53% 12,426 23,096 22,800 86,477,797 551,755 2,301,542 2,853,297 551,755 9.64% 3,881,294 3,881,294 5.53% 3,788,376 10,522,967 10,388,193 West Virginia Total Sources: 1. Police Expenditure and Judicial Budget: 2005-2006 State Government Finance Data, US Census: http://www.census.gov/govs/www/estimate06.html. 2. Felony Convictions: http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/scscf04/tables/scs04101tab.htm. 3. Corrections Budget: http://www.census.gov/govs/www/estimate06.html; http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t600012005.pdf. 4. Budgets were originally reported for 2005-2006 and were converted to 2008 dollars with http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#data. 36 Appendix Table F4: Expenditures Attributable to Synthetic Prohibition, Thousands of 2008 Dollars (Alabama – New York) State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York Total Police Expend 1,010,521 235,305 1,851,136 552,637 14,322,369 1,315,954 989,928 312,680 6,483,472 2,145,788 304,808 302,081 4,113,112 1,136,130 622,894 694,335 723,889 1,276,450 242,032 1,755,018 1,830,259 2,551,657 1,415,049 613,738 1,289,460 208,558 365,562 972,507 300,019 3,292,430 556,188 8,296,127 Expend on S/M 870 195 4,670 1,293 132,498 713 692 499 1,514 4,418 54 57 108 2,373 65 225 793 2,059 507 5,013 1,646 1,713 348 1,526 3,423 126 666 2,510 211 3,835 4,436 4,109 Expend on Possession 2,588 445 9,690 1,619 0 1,020 2,162 412 2,173 7,785 365 198 129 2,937 372 615 3,286 4,085 683 1,454 1,658 3,284 1,575 2,728 3,707 211 492 6,840 387 4,010 2,098 8,819 Police Expend on Drug 3,459 640 14,360 2,913 132,498 1,733 2,854 911 3,687 12,203 419 255 237 5,310 437 841 4,079 6,144 1,191 6,468 3,305 4,997 1,922 4,254 7,130 337 1,158 9,350 598 7,845 6,534 12,928 Total Judicial Expend 390,040 194,851 920,992 238,110 8,498,999 517,981 641,939 161,244 2,309,232 968,946 268,042 162,201 1,306,906 458,859 314,297 315,661 421,019 560,995 109,781 733,173 982,020 1,256,107 668,032 214,983 491,310 136,407 155,687 483,712 125,327 1,508,391 273,938 3,585,521 % Felony Conviction, Drug Violations 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 2.85% 37 Judiciary Expend on Drug Violations 11,099 5,545 26,208 6,776 241,853 14,740 18,267 4,588 65,713 27,573 7,628 4,616 37,190 13,058 8,944 8,983 11,981 15,964 3,124 20,864 27,945 35,745 19,010 6,118 13,981 3,882 4,430 13,765 3,566 42,924 7,795 102,032 Corrections, Expend Total % Corrections, Drug Violations 707,079 231,920 1,562,201 570,381 11,937,225 1,094,584 676,367 267,678 4,427,551 2,188,003 196,132 285,557 1,894,067 1,021,669 393,028 411,678 687,983 1,092,480 199,760 1,598,165 1,248,025 2,503,398 808,056 412,222 880,528 192,060 320,590 607,643 180,596 2,098,716 520,630 5,582,538 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% 1.63% Corrections, Expend on Drug Violations 11,540 3,785 25,496 9,309 194,824 17,864 11,039 4,369 72,261 35,710 3,201 4,660 30,912 16,674 6,414 6,719 11,228 17,830 3,260 26,083 20,369 40,857 13,188 6,728 14,371 3,135 5,232 9,917 2,947 34,253 8,497 91,111 Gross S/L Expend 26,098 9,970 66,064 18,998 569,174 34,338 32,160 9,868 141,660 75,486 11,247 9,532 68,339 35,042 15,795 16,542 27,288 39,938 7,575 53,414 51,618 81,599 34,120 17,099 35,482 7,353 10,821 33,032 7,112 85,021 22,826 206,070 Net S/L Expend 25,764 9,843 65,218 18,754 561,885 33,898 31,748 9,742 139,846 74,519 11,103 9,410 67,464 34,593 15,593 16,331 26,939 39,426 7,478 52,730 50,957 80,553 33,683 16,880 35,027 7,259 10,682 32,609 7,021 83,932 22,534 203,431 Appendix Table F4: Expenditures Attributable to Synthetic Prohibition, Thousands of 2008 Dollars (North Carolina– Wyoming) State North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Total Police Expend Expend on S/M 2,095,971 766 Expend on Possession 2,689 Police Expend on Drug 3,455 Total Judicial Expend % Felony Conviction, Drug Violations 600,309 2.85% Judiciary Expend on Drug Violations % Corrections, Drug Violations Corrections, Expend Total 17,083 1,691,822 1.63% Corrections, Expend on Drug Violations 27,612 Gross S/L Expend 48,150 Net S/L Expend 47,533 115,942 55 106 161 65,336 2.85% 1,859 80,892 1.63% 1,320 3,340 3,298 2,941,418 2,028 5,815 7,843 1,784,326 2.85% 50,776 2,181,354 1.63% 35,601 94,220 93,013 735,199 4,196 6,235 10,431 307,680 2.85% 8,756 691,663 1.63% 11,288 30,475 30,085 Oregon 1,026,248 341 2,793 3,134 402,509 2.85% 11,454 1,008,112 1.63% 16,453 31,042 30,644 Pennsylvania 2,773,025 7,946 5,482 13,428 1,605,559 2.85% 45,689 3,057,854 1.63% 49,906 109,023 107,626 Rhode Island 313,248 221 319 540 165,799 2.85% 4,718 213,056 1.63% 3,477 8,735 8,624 South Carolina 934,259 464 1,384 1,848 262,375 2.85% 7,466 678,394 1.63% 11,072 20,386 20,125 South Dakota 144,450 80 156 237 66,888 2.85% 1,903 153,751 1.63% 2,509 4,649 4,590 Tennessee 1,323,771 3,670 4,135 7,805 569,200 2.85% 16,197 979,947 1.63% 15,993 39,996 39,483 Texas 5,333,115 39,101 22,165 61,266 2,178,068 2.85% 61,980 4,844,888 1.63% 79,072 202,318 199,727 Utah 609,163 380 836 1,217 320,809 2.85% 9,129 488,178 1.63% 7,967 18,313 18,079 Vermont 148,706 142 347 489 63,130 2.85% 1,796 110,808 1.63% 1,808 4,094 4,041 Virginia 1,899,930 2,728 1,612 4,340 793,351 2.85% 22,576 1,920,758 1.63% 31,348 58,264 57,518 Washington 1,453,032 4,125 11,102 15,227 728,947 2.85% 20,743 1,545,840 1.63% 25,229 61,200 60,416 West Virginia 259,108 487 1,037 1,524 211,019 2.85% 6,005 277,985 1.63% 4,537 12,066 11,911 Wisconsin 1,568,674 1,494 1,382 2,876 604,648 2.85% 17,206 1,395,976 1.63% 22,783 42,865 42,316 Wyoming 180,971 405 757 1,162 91,543 2.85% 2,605 197,050 1.63% 3,216 6,983 6,893 D.C. 539,470 0 0 0 78,637 2.85% 2,238 224,827 1.63% 3,669 5,907 5,831 86,477,797 251,795 146,181 397,977 40,274,839 2.85% 1,146,085 68,541,664 1.63% 1,118,647 2,662,709 2,628,606 Total Sources: 1. Police Expenditure and Judicial Budget: 2005-2006 State Government Finance Data, US Census: http://www.census.gov/govs/www/estimate06.html. 2. Felony Convictions: http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/scscf04/tables/scs04101tab.htm. 3. Corrections Budget: http://www.census.gov/govs/www/estimate06.html; http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t600012005.pdf. 4. Budgets were originally reported for 2005-2006 and were converted to 2008 dollars with http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#data. 38 Appendix Table F5: Expenditures Attributable to Prohibition of Other Drugs, Thousands of 2008 Dollars (Alabama – New York) State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York Total Police Expend 1,010,521 235,305 1,851,136 552,637 14,322,369 1,315,954 989,928 312,680 6,483,472 2,145,788 304,808 302,081 4,113,112 1,136,130 622,894 694,335 723,889 1,276,450 242,032 1,755,018 1,830,259 2,551,657 1,415,049 613,738 1,289,460 208,558 365,562 972,507 300,019 3,292,430 556,188 8,296,127 Expend on S/M 1,781 323 5,090 3,701 132,498 2,479 568 945 777 15,403 2,177 1,316 86 2,911 1,134 3,767 3,785 5,052 1,191 774 1,097 9,015 9,993 1,807 8,195 222 1,894 3,265 281 2,694 496 46,016 Expend on Possession 2,588 445 9,690 1,619 0 1,020 2,162 412 2,173 7,785 365 198 129 2,937 372 615 3,286 4,085 683 1,454 1,658 3,284 1,575 2,728 3,707 211 492 6,840 387 4,010 2,098 8,819 Police Expend on Drug 3,757 784 24,059 11,860 613,241 10,964 2,393 1,633 2,723 22,789 3,802 4,822 376 8,988 4,530 9,757 12,136 11,019 2,557 2,244 3,117 21,439 16,800 6,521 26,305 1,260 4,833 5,620 1,031 11,221 1,719 182,094 Total Judicial Expend 390,040 194,851 920,992 238,110 8,498,999 517,981 641,939 161,244 2,309,232 968,946 268,042 162,201 1,306,906 458,859 314,297 315,661 421,019 560,995 109,781 733,173 982,020 1,256,107 668,032 214,983 491,310 136,407 155,687 483,712 125,327 1,508,391 273,938 3,585,521 % Felony Conviction, Drug Violations 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 6.34% 39 Judiciary Expend on Drug Violations 24,745 12,362 58,430 15,106 539,195 32,862 40,726 10,230 146,503 61,472 17,005 10,290 82,913 29,111 19,940 20,026 26,710 35,591 6,965 46,514 62,302 79,690 42,381 13,639 31,170 8,654 9,877 30,688 7,951 95,696 17,379 227,473 Corrections, Expend Total 707,079 231,920 1,562,201 570,381 11,937,225 1,094,584 676,367 267,678 4,427,551 2,188,003 196,132 285,557 1,894,067 1,021,669 393,028 411,678 687,983 1,092,480 199,760 1,598,165 1,248,025 2,503,398 808,056 412,222 880,528 192,060 320,590 607,643 180,596 2,098,716 520,630 5,582,538 % Corrections, Drug Violations 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% 3.64% Corrections, Expend on Drug Violations 25,728 8,439 56,842 20,754 434,347 39,827 24,610 9,740 161,101 79,613 7,136 10,390 68,917 37,174 14,301 14,979 25,033 39,751 7,268 58,151 45,411 91,089 29,402 14,999 32,039 6,988 11,665 22,110 6,571 76,364 18,944 203,126 Gross S/L Expend 54,230 21,584 139,331 47,720 1,586,783 83,654 67,729 21,603 310,326 163,873 27,943 25,502 152,207 75,274 38,770 44,762 63,879 86,361 16,791 106,908 110,829 192,218 88,583 35,159 89,513 16,902 26,375 58,418 15,554 183,280 38,041 612,693 Net S/L Expend 53,536 21,308 137,546 47,109 1,566,460 82,582 66,862 21,326 306,351 161,774 27,586 25,176 150,257 74,310 38,274 44,189 63,061 85,255 16,576 105,539 109,409 189,756 87,449 34,709 88,367 16,686 26,037 57,669 15,354 180,933 37,554 604,846 Appendix Table F5: Expenditures Attributable to Prohibition of Other Drugs, Thousands of 2008 Dollars (North Carolina– Wyoming) State North Carolina Total Police Expend Expend on S/M Expend on Possession Police Expend on Drug Total Judicial Expend % Felony Conviction, Drug Violations Judiciary Expend on Drug Violations Corrections, Expend Total % Corrections, Drug Violations Corrections, Expend on Drug Violations Gross S/L Expend Net S/L Expend 2,095,971 1,193 2,689 6,303 600,309 6.34% 38,085 1,691,822 3.64% 61,559 105,947 104,590 115,942 415 106 983 65,336 6.34% 4,145 80,892 3.64% 2,943 8,072 7,968 2,941,418 7,024 5,815 27,923 1,784,326 6.34% 113,202 2,181,354 3.64% 79,371 220,495 217,671 735,199 2,419 6,235 6,337 307,680 6.34% 19,520 691,663 3.64% 25,167 51,024 50,371 Oregon 1,026,248 4,569 2,793 22,833 402,509 6.34% 25,536 1,008,112 3.64% 36,681 85,050 83,960 Pennsylvania 2,773,025 4,050 5,482 14,916 1,605,559 6.34% 101,860 3,057,854 3.64% 111,263 228,039 225,118 Rhode Island 313,248 267 319 953 165,799 6.34% 10,519 213,056 3.64% 7,752 19,223 18,977 South Carolina 934,259 3,078 1,384 7,361 262,375 6.34% 16,646 678,394 3.64% 24,684 48,691 48,067 North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma South Dakota 144,450 329 156 922 66,888 6.34% 4,244 153,751 3.64% 5,594 10,760 10,622 Tennessee 1,323,771 8,500 4,135 18,743 569,200 6.34% 36,111 979,947 3.64% 35,656 90,511 89,351 Texas 5,333,115 7,666 22,165 46,762 2,178,068 6.34% 138,181 4,844,888 3.64% 176,286 361,230 356,603 Utah 609,163 2,438 836 10,314 320,809 6.34% 20,353 488,178 3.64% 17,763 48,429 47,809 Vermont 148,706 551 347 1,840 63,130 6.34% 4,005 110,808 3.64% 4,032 9,877 9,750 Virginia 1,899,930 4,867 1,612 12,013 793,351 6.34% 50,332 1,920,758 3.64% 69,889 132,234 130,540 Washington 1,453,032 4,961 11,102 23,469 728,947 6.34% 46,246 1,545,840 3.64% 56,247 125,962 124,348 259,108 979 1,037 2,138 211,019 6.34% 13,387 277,985 3.64% 10,115 25,640 25,312 Wisconsin 1,568,674 2,582 1,382 6,223 604,648 6.34% 38,360 1,395,976 3.64% 50,794 95,377 94,156 Wyoming 180,971 150 757 907 91,543 6.34% 5,808 197,050 3.64% 7,170 13,884 13,707 D.C. 539,470 182 0 318 78,637 6.34% 4,989 224,827 3.64% 8,181 13,488 13,315 86,477,797 326,952 146,181 1,247,652 40,274,839 6.34% 2,555,123 68,541,664 3.64% 2,493,953 6,296,728 6,216,082 West Virginia Total Source: 1. Police Expenditure and Judicial Budget: 2005-2006 State Government Finance Data, US Census: http://www.census.gov/govs/www/estimate06.html. 2. Felony Convictions: http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/scscf04/tables/scs04101tab.htm. 3. Corrections Budget: http://www.census.gov/govs/www/estimate06.html; http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t600012005.pdf. 4. Budgets were originally reported for 2005-2006 and were converted to 2008 dollars with http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#data. 40 Appendix Table G1: State Drug Tax Revenue - Population Method in Millions of 2008 Dollars State All States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming D.C. Population 303,467,891 4,661,900 686,293 6,500,180 2,855,390 36,756,666 4,939,456 3,501,252 873,092 18,328,340 9,685,744 1,288,198 1,523,816 12,901,563 6,376,792 3,002,555 2,802,134 4,269,245 4,410,796 1,316,456 5,633,597 6,497,967 10,003,422 5,220,393 2,938,618 5,911,605 967,440 1,783,432 2,600,167 1,315,809 8,682,661 1,984,356 19,490,297 9,222,414 641,481 11,485,910 3,642,361 3,790,060 12,448,279 1,050,788 4,479,800 804,194 6,214,888 24,326,974 2,736,424 621,270 7,769,089 6,549,224 1,814,468 5,627,967 532,668 591,833 Proportion of Population 100.00% 1.54% 0.23% 2.14% 0.94% 12.11% 1.63% 1.15% 0.29% 6.04% 3.19% 0.42% 0.50% 4.25% 2.10% 0.99% 0.92% 1.41% 1.45% 0.43% 1.86% 2.14% 3.30% 1.72% 0.97% 1.95% 0.32% 0.59% 0.86% 0.43% 2.86% 0.65% 6.42% 3.04% 0.21% 3.78% 1.20% 1.25% 4.10% 0.35% 1.48% 0.27% 2.05% 8.02% 0.90% 0.20% 2.56% 2.16% 0.60% 1.85% 0.18% 0.20% All Drugs 11,448.31 175.87 25.89 245.22 107.72 1,386.64 186.34 132.08 32.94 691.44 365.39 48.60 57.49 486.71 240.56 113.27 105.71 161.06 166.40 49.66 212.53 245.14 377.38 196.94 110.86 223.02 36.50 67.28 98.09 49.64 327.55 74.86 735.27 347.92 24.20 433.31 137.41 142.98 469.61 39.64 169.00 30.34 234.46 917.73 103.23 23.44 293.09 247.07 68.45 212.31 20.09 22.33 Heroin 1,738.44 26.71 3.93 37.24 16.36 210.56 28.30 20.06 5.00 105.00 55.49 7.38 8.73 73.91 36.53 17.20 16.05 24.46 25.27 7.54 32.27 37.22 57.31 29.91 16.83 33.87 5.54 10.22 14.90 7.54 49.74 11.37 111.65 52.83 3.67 65.80 20.87 21.71 71.31 6.02 25.66 4.61 35.60 139.36 15.68 3.56 44.51 37.52 10.39 32.24 3.05 3.39 Marijuana 2,138.47 32.85 4.84 45.81 20.12 259.02 34.81 24.67 6.15 129.16 68.25 9.08 10.74 90.91 44.94 21.16 19.75 30.08 31.08 9.28 39.70 45.79 70.49 36.79 20.71 41.66 6.82 12.57 18.32 9.27 61.18 13.98 137.34 64.99 4.52 80.94 25.67 26.71 87.72 7.40 31.57 5.67 43.79 171.43 19.28 4.38 54.75 46.15 12.79 39.66 3.75 4.17 Cocaine 6,234.11 95.77 14.10 133.53 58.66 755.09 101.47 71.93 17.94 376.52 198.97 26.46 31.30 265.04 131.00 61.68 57.56 87.70 90.61 27.04 115.73 133.49 205.50 107.24 60.37 121.44 19.87 36.64 53.41 27.03 178.37 40.76 400.39 189.46 13.18 235.95 74.82 77.86 255.72 21.59 92.03 16.52 127.67 499.75 56.21 12.76 159.60 134.54 37.27 115.61 10.94 12.16 Sources: 1. State population estimates (2008): http://www.census.gov/popest/national/files/NST-EST2008alldata.csv Other 1,337.28 20.54 3.02 28.64 12.58 161.97 21.77 15.43 3.85 80.77 42.68 5.68 6.71 56.85 28.10 13.23 12.35 18.81 19.44 5.80 24.83 28.63 44.08 23.00 12.95 26.05 4.26 7.86 11.46 5.80 38.26 8.74 85.89 40.64 2.83 50.61 16.05 16.70 54.86 4.63 19.74 3.54 27.39 107.20 12.06 2.74 34.24 28.86 8.00 24.80 2.35 2.61 Appendix Table G2: State Drug Tax Revenue - Consumption Method in Millions of 2008 Dollars Use Proportion State All States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming D.C. All Drugs 100.000% 1.319% 0.298% 2.389% 0.991% 13.541% 2.192% 1.123% 0.302% 5.706% 2.941% 0.389% 0.456% 3.828% 2.174% 0.632% 0.837% 1.391% 1.455% 0.512% 1.603% 2.575% 3.693% 1.758% 0.847% 1.912% 0.404% 0.486% 0.947% 0.524% 2.278% 0.769% 7.164% 2.669% 0.161% 3.650% 1.250% 1.559% 3.517% 0.530% 1.188% 0.219% 2.211% 6.549% 0.712% 0.289% 2.582% 2.704% 0.541% 1.877% 0.187% 0.291% Marijuana 100.00% 1.20% 0.31% 1.96% 0.93% 9.43% 2.20% 1.06% 0.28% 6.64% 4.06% 0.47% 0.55% 3.93% 2.03% 0.88% 0.78% 1.31% 1.40% 0.31% 1.76% 2.10% 3.23% 2.12% 0.92% 2.57% 0.37% 0.65% 0.65% 0.42% 3.49% 0.56% 6.40% 4.11% 0.19% 4.15% 1.37% 1.13% 3.45% 0.36% 1.23% 0.34% 1.87% 12.64% 0.76% 0.17% 2.49% 1.67% 0.42% 2.86% 0.17% 0.23% Cocaine 100.00% 1.29% 0.26% 2.85% 0.87% 12.31% 2.15% 1.16% 0.30% 5.81% 3.43% 0.35% 0.36% 4.23% 1.93% 0.74% 0.87% 1.25% 1.56% 0.41% 1.83% 2.68% 2.80% 1.64% 0.66% 1.79% 0.31% 0.47% 0.85% 0.47% 2.25% 0.76% 7.44% 3.06% 0.15% 3.99% 0.93% 1.23% 3.40% 0.60% 1.28% 0.19% 2.36% 7.75% 0.85% 0.25% 2.82% 2.30% 0.59% 1.83% 0.18% 0.42% Tax Revenue Other* 100.00% 1.56% 0.23% 3.10% 1.20% 12.68% 1.94% 0.98% 0.29% 6.12% 2.77% 0.31% 0.44% 3.68% 2.23% 0.67% 0.90% 1.44% 1.79% 0.37% 1.69% 2.29% 3.32% 1.45% 0.95% 2.12% 0.32% 0.50% 0.93% 0.40% 2.25% 0.67% 6.07% 2.86% 0.14% 3.42% 1.44% 1.38% 3.34% 0.50% 1.23% 0.18% 2.78% 8.31% 0.81% 0.22% 2.43% 2.58% 0.65% 2.05% 0.18% 0.25% All Drugs*** 11,448.31 151.02 34.16 273.54 113.41 1,550.18 250.90 128.51 34.60 653.21 336.67 44.48 52.26 438.28 248.84 72.36 95.84 159.28 166.60 58.57 183.55 294.83 422.81 201.29 96.97 218.91 46.23 55.63 108.45 60.01 260.75 88.01 820.18 305.60 18.43 417.87 143.15 178.46 402.69 60.73 135.99 25.08 253.18 749.75 81.55 33.08 295.61 309.60 61.98 214.92 21.40 33.27 Marijuana 2,138.47 25.59 6.53 41.91 19.87 201.74 46.97 22.57 6.07 142.05 86.75 10.09 11.73 83.98 43.44 18.72 16.69 28.05 30.02 6.64 37.68 44.94 69.04 45.43 19.67 54.99 7.94 13.87 13.97 9.03 74.60 11.92 136.81 87.88 4.02 88.70 29.23 24.09 73.73 7.75 26.29 7.28 39.94 270.39 16.34 3.67 53.35 35.76 8.97 61.12 3.72 4.82 Cocaine 6,234.11 80.54 16.28 177.67 54.49 767.73 133.74 72.53 18.76 362.34 213.96 21.59 22.66 263.93 120.04 45.94 53.95 77.79 97.43 25.46 113.79 167.00 174.55 102.31 41.17 111.28 19.29 29.13 53.19 29.18 140.31 47.42 464.05 191.04 9.54 248.79 58.23 76.88 211.85 37.12 79.71 11.96 146.90 483.02 53.16 15.86 175.63 143.55 36.65 114.16 11.26 25.94 Other* 9,309.84 145.64 21.27 288.16 111.91 1,180.76 180.89 90.82 26.57 569.64 257.47 28.76 41.24 342.95 207.41 61.97 83.94 134.40 166.84 34.78 156.99 213.44 309.30 135.42 88.03 197.02 29.91 46.12 86.45 37.09 209.19 62.47 565.06 265.89 13.24 318.24 134.26 128.75 310.91 46.50 114.77 16.47 259.04 773.66 75.38 20.66 226.49 239.84 60.62 190.73 16.56 22.86 Sources: 1. Use proportion (2007): http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k7state/AppB.htm#TabB-1. *Illicit Drugs Other Than Marijuana include cocaine (including crack), heroin, hallucinogens, inhalants, or prescription-type psychotherapeutics used nonmedically; these estimates are based on data from original questions. **All Drugs include marijuana, cocaine (including crack), heroin, hallucinogens, inhalants, or prescription-type psychotherapeutics used nonmedically. ***Does not include prescription-type psychotherapeutics used nonmedically. 42 Appendix: Revenue under Prohibition from Seizures and Fines Seizures: In 2007, U.S. attorneys received $1.3 billion of forfeiture. This overstates revenue related to drugs because the figure includes seizures for all reasons, such as violation of gun laws, intellectual property laws, and the like. There may also be double-counting between the DEA seizures and the U.S. Customs seizures. State and local data on forfeiture revenue are not readily available Baicker and Jacobson (2004), however, estimate using a sample of states that state forfeiture revenue per capita was roughly $1.14 during the 1994-2001 period. This implies aggregate state forfeiture revenue of $342 million. Adjusting for inflation implies a number around $400 million. Fines: In 2007, the total quantity of fines and restitutions ordered for drug offense cases in U.S. District Courts was just under $38.1 million.36 Assuming the ratio of state/local to federal fine/restitution revenue is similar to ratio of state/local to federal seizure revenue implies that state and local fine/restitution revenue from drug cases is about $10 million. 36 See http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t531.pdf. 43