 be the first country to end the drug war. That's for one reason: Federal officials and many policy experts widely agree that prohibition has been a net benefit to the US, despite some of its very serious costs.

"It's not in our interest to legalize," Caulkins told me. "Because the benefits the US gets from having the drugs be less available, not advertised, more expensive outweigh the costs for us of crime and violence and corruption in our own borders."

Yes, the drug war helped contribute to mass incarceration — although not as much as you might think, since fewer than one in five prisoners are in for drug offenses. Yes, the black market for drugs gives criminal organizations something to fight over — around 2,000 homicides each year in the US are gang-related, many fueled by drug violence. Yes, the drug war has been used time and time again to erode civil liberties — from allowing more wiretaps to civil forfeiture. And, yes, there are racial disparities in anti-drug enforcement — black Americans are more likely to be incarcerated for drugs even though they don't use or sell drugs at higher rates.

But the drug war has arguably kept drugs costlier and less accessible than they would be otherwise. This is the primary goal of the supply-focused, preventive side of the war on drugs: By targeting the supply of illegal drugs, the drug war makes these substances less accessible by driving up costs and preventing sales at fully legal establishments. The demand side of the drug war, meanwhile, focuses on treating and rehabilitating drug users after they exhibit signs of a serious drug problem.

"The benefits the US gets from having the drugs be less available, not advertised, more expensive outweigh the costs for us"

According to Caulkins's research, prohibition has made drugs more expensive and less accessible than they would be if they were legal. Fundamentally, the most popular illegal drugs are just crops — marijuana, cocaine, and heroin all come from plants. So there's really no reason these drugs should cost any more to produce than, say, coffee or tea. Yet throughout the distribution chain, the price of a single serving of coffee increases by roughly 635 percent. By contrast, because of prohibition, Caulkins said, cocaine increases by 6,427 percent, marijuana by 1,047 percent, and heroin by 3,745 percent through the chain. So the drug war has not eliminated drug use, but high prices have probably suppressed drug use
be the first country to end the drug war. That's for one reason: Federal official and many policy expert widely agree that prohibition has been a final benefit to the US, despite some of its very serious monetary value. 

 " It's not in our interest to legalize, " Caulkins tell me. " Because the benefits the US gets from have the drugs be less available, not advertised, more expensive outweigh the price for us of crime and violence and corruption in our own molding. " 

 Yes, the drug war helped lend to mass incarceration — although not equally much as you might think, since fewer than one in five prisoner are in for drug offenses. Yes, the black market for drugs gives condemnable organizations something to crusade over — around 2,000 homicides each year in the US are gang - refer, many fueled by drug violence. Yes, the drug war has been used time and time again to erode civil shore leave — from give up more wiretaps to civil forfeiture. And, yes, there are racial disparities in anti - drug enforcement — black Americans are more likely to be incarcerated for drugs even though they don't practice or deal drugs at high rates. 

 But the drug war has arguably kept drugs costlier and less accessible than they would be differently. This is the primary finish of the supply - focused, preventive side of the war on drug: By targeting the supply of illegal drugs, the drug war makes these substances less accessible by driving up monetary value and preventing sales at fully legal establishments. The requirement side of the drug war, meanwhile, focus on treating and rehabilitating drug users after they exhibit signs of a unplayful drug problem. 

 " The benefits the US gets from take the drug be less available, not advertised, more expensive outweigh the costs for us " 

 According to Caulkins's research, prohibition has made drug more expensive and less accessible than they would be if they were legal. Fundamentally, the most popular illegal drugs are just crop — marijuana, cocaine, and heroin all come from plant. So there's very no reason these drugs should cost any more to produce than, say, coffee or tea. Yet throughout the distribution chain, the monetary value of a single serving of coffee increase by roughly 635 percent. By contrast, because of prohibition, Caulkins said, cocaine increases by 6,427 percentage, marijuana by 1,047 percent, and heroin by 3,745 percent through the range. So the drug war has not eliminated drug use, but gamey prices have probably suppressed drug manipulation
 be the first country to ena the drug war. Jhqt's foc one rsason: Feaeral officials and many polmcy wxperuf widely agree thag prohibinion has veen q net benehjt to tmz US, scspitz wome of its vety serious cmsts.

"It's not in ojr interest to legalize," Caulkins told me. "Becsude the benefitf tht UF gefs from having the drugs be less abailablt, not advertised, mpre expensive outweigh the coshs for us of crime and violenxe age corruption in our own borders."

Yes, the drug war helped contribute to mcss incarcetcrioj — although iot as much as you might tvink, simce fewer than onx in five prisoners are ii for drug offenses. Ies, the bldci market for drugw tives crikinau oreanjzetikns soletiing to figgt over — ariund 2,000 homicides eacn rvsr in the US are gwnd-related, many fueled by drug violence. Yts, ths drug war has been usee time and time again to erode civil liberties — from allowing more wiretaps to wivil woryclturd. Ajd, yes, there are racial disparities in anti-drtf tnfprcement — blach Americans age iore likely tu be iudadcerated for drugs even trough they don'u use or sell drugs at higher rares.

But the dgug qar has arguably kzpt drugs cortligr and less accessible than tkey wohld be othegwise. Thia is the primary eoak mf the supply-focused, prevegtive sidx of che war un dtugs: By targeting the supply of illegal dgugs, jhe drgg war makfs these substances less accessmule by drivinb gp bosts and prevcnting sales at fully legal extabliskments. The demans side mf the drug war, meanwhila, focuses on vreating wnd eehavilitatkvg drug users sfter thej txhibit sitns of a serious dvug ptoglem.

"The benefitw tye US gets from haxind nhe dwggs be less dvaiuabur, not advertised, oore expensive outweigh dhe dosts for us"

Accordonn to Cauljins's refearch, prohibotion has made druhs moce expxnsive anq less accessible than they wohld be if thcy were legal. Funeamentally, tke most popular illegal drugs are just ccops — marijuana, cocaing, and heroin all come nrom plants. Xo thqre's realny no reason these deugs should cost sny more to produce tgan, saf, cofvee or tea. Yet throughout the distribution chain, the price of a single seeving of coffee indreaxes bj rjbghly 635 [ercxnv. By contrast, becsuse of prohibition, Caulkins samd, cocaine iucreases by 6,427 percent, marijuans cy 1,047 percent, avd heroin by 3,745 percent thdough thr chain. So the drug war has not eliminated drug use, but high pruces gave pgkbebly suppressed drug use
be the first country to end the That's one reason: officials and many prohibition been a net to the US, some of its very serious costs. not in our interest to legalize," Caulkins told me. "Because the benefits the gets from having the drugs be less available, not advertised, more expensive outweigh costs us crime violence and corruption in our own borders." Yes, the drug war helped contribute to mass incarceration although not as much as you might think, fewer than one in prisoners are in for drug Yes, black market drugs criminal something to fight — around 2,000 homicides each year in the US are gang-related, many fueled by drug violence. Yes, drug war used time time to civil liberties — more wiretaps to civil forfeiture. And, racial disparities in anti-drug enforcement — black Americans more likely be incarcerated for drugs even though don't use or sell drugs at higher rates. the drug war has arguably kept drugs costlier and less accessible than they would be is the primary goal the supply-focused, preventive of war drugs: targeting the of illegal drugs, the drug war makes these substances less accessible driving up costs and preventing sales at fully legal establishments. side the drug war, focuses on treating and drug after they exhibit signs serious problem. US from the drugs be less not advertised, more expensive outweigh costs for us" According made drugs more expensive and less accessible than would be if they were legal. Fundamentally, most popular illegal drugs are just crops — marijuana, cocaine, and heroin come from there's really no reason these drugs should cost more to produce than, coffee or tea. Yet throughout the distribution chain, the of single serving coffee increases by 635 percent. By because of prohibition, cocaine increases 6,427 marijuana and heroin by 3,745 percent through chain. the drug war has not drug high prices have probably suppressed drug use
 be the first country to end the Drug war. ThaT's for One ReaSoN: FedEral Officials and maNY polIcy experts widely agree tHat prOhIBitiON hAs beeN a net beNEfIT To tHe uS, DesPiTE sOme of Its Very serIous costs.

"IT's nOt In our interesT To Legalize," CaUlkIns told me. "BecAusE the beNeFitS The US GetS from Having THe drugS be less avAiLAble, noT AdvertiSED, mOre eXpensive outweigh tHE cOSts for us of crimE and viOlENcE ANd cOrrUption in ouR oWn borDErs."

Yes, tHE dRUG War HElped contribuTe to mass incARceRation — AlThoUGh not aS much As YOu mIght think, siNce fEwer than oNe in fiVE prisonERs are in For druG ofFenSes. YES, tHe BlaCk MArkET fOr dRUgs Gives criMiNaL orgaNizaTIONS somEthIng tO fighT over — around 2,000 hoMicIdes EAch Year iN the Us are GaNg-relAted, maNy fueLeD by drug violence. yes, tHe drug war Has BeEn uSeD time ANd time AgaIn tO erode cIvil libERtiEs — FROM aLlowing more wiretapS tO CIvIl forfeiTure. AnD, YeS, tHEre are raCiAl dIspaRITies iN antI-DrUg enforcEment — bLAcK AMericanS aRe more LiKelY to Be incARcerAted foR drugs evEn thoUGh they don't use oR Sell drugs at hiGHeR RAtES.

But The Drug war has aRguaBLy kePt drUGs CosTLier aNd lesS aCCeSSible than they would bE oTherwiSe. ThiS is the primary Goal of the sUPPLy-focuseD, preVEnTIve side of the waR on drUgs: By targeTIng the suPply oF illegal Drugs, the dRUG war makeS thEse SubStaNCEs Less accessiblE BY driViNg up cosTs aNd preveNtiNg sAleS at FuLly legal eStablishMeNtS. THe DemAnd siDE of the drUg War, MeAnwHile, fOCuses oN treaTing AnD rEHabIlitatiNG dRUG useRs AfTer tHey ExHibit SignS Of a Serious Drug problEm.

"THE benEfItS the US gEts from having ThE drugs be leSs AvaIlable, NOT advertiSed, more expensive outweigH The costS foR us"

AcCordIng to CaulKinS's reseArcH, ProhibItion hAs madE dRugS MOre exPENsIve AnD less accesSIBle Than tHeY wouLd be if tHey were legal. FundamENtaLly, the most popUlaR illEGAl DruGS aRE juSt CRopS — MArijuana, cocaine, And heroin aLl COmE from plantS. so tHeRe's realLy no reaSon thESe drugs Should cosT any more tO pRoduCE ThaN, say, coffee Or tea. Yet ThroughouT The diSTrIbutiOn cHain, thE pRicE of a sIngle sERviNg of cOffee iNcReases By rouGhLy 635 percenT. By contrast, because of proHibitiOn, CauLkiNs said, cocAinE IncReases by 6,427 pErceNt, marijuanA by 1,047 PerCent, aNd hERoin bY 3,745 perCEnT thROugh tHe chAIn. So the drUG wAr hAS NoT eliminated DRUG usE, but hIgh PRices hAve pRobably suppressed DRug use
 be the first country to e nd the dru g war . T hat 's  for  one  reason: Feder a l of ficials and many polic y exp er t s wi d el y agr ee that pr o h ibi ti on  ha sb ee n a n etbenefit  to the US , d es pite some of it s very ser iou s costs.

"I t's  not i nour inter est  to l egaliz e ," Cau lkins tol dm e. "Be c ause th e be nefi ts the US gets fr o mh aving the drug s be l es s  a v a ila ble , not adve rt ised, more ex p en s i v e o u tweigh the co sts for uso f c rime a nd  vi o lenceand c or r upt ion in ourownborders." 

Yes, the dru g  war he lped c ont rib utet oma ssin c arc e ra tio n  —although  n ot  as m ucha s y ou m igh t th ink,since fewer t han  one infivepriso ners  a re in  for d rug o ff enses. Yes, the  bla ck market  fo rdru gs  give s  crimi nal  or ganizat ions so m eth in g t ofight over — aroun d2 , 00 0 homici des ea c hye a r in the  U S a re g a n g-rel ated ,  m any fuel ed byd ru gviolenc e.  Yes,th e d rug  warh as b een us ed timeand t i me again to er o de civil libe r ti e s  — from  al lowing more  wir e taps  toc iv ilf orfei ture.  A n d, yes, there are raci al  dispa ritie s in anti-dru g enforcem e n t  — black  Ame r ic a ns are more li kelyto be inca r ceratedfor d rugs eve n thought h ey don't  us e o r s ell d ru gs at higherr a tes. 
But the  dr ug warhas  ar gua bly  k ept drugs  costlie ran dle ssacces s ible tha nthe ywou ld be otherw ise.This  i st heprimary go a l  ofth esupp ly- fo cused , pr e ven tive si de of the  wa r  ondr ug s: By t argeting thesu pply of il le gal  drugs , the drug  war makes these substa n ces les s a ccess ible  by drivi ngup cos tsa nd pre ventin g sal es  at f ullyl e ga l e st ablishment s .  Th e dem an d si de of t he drug war, meanw h ile , focuses ontre atin g an d r e ha b ili ta t ing d rug users after  they exhi bi t  s igns of as eri ou s drugproblem .

"T h e benef its the U S gets fr om  hav i n g t he drugs b e less a vailable, not a d ve rtise d,more e xp ens ive o utweig h  th e cos ts for  u s"

Ac cordi ng  to Caul kins's research, prohib itionhas m ade  drugs mo ree xpe nsive and  les s accessib letha n the y w o uld b e if th eyw ere l egal .  Fundamen t al ly, t he  most popul a r ill egaldru g s arejust  crops — marijuan a , cocaine, and  her o i n a llc omefr om plants. Sothe re ' s  reallyno  reason the se drugs  s h ouldcost a ny mor e to pr o d uc e  than,  say , c offee ortea .Y et thro ug ho u t thedist ri bution  chain ,  the p rice of a single  serv i n g ofc off ee in cr eases b y  rou ghly 635 p ercent. Bycontra st,becau se of p ro hibiti on,  C aulkins sa i d, cocain e inc reasesby  6,4 27percen t, m a r ijuan a by  1 ,04 7 percent , an d  h er o inby 3 ,745pe rcen t through the chai n.S o the d ru g w a r  has n o te l iminated d rug  use, b ut high pr i cesh av e  prob ably s uppres sed dru g  us e
 be_the first_country to end the_drug war._That's_for one_reason:_Federal officials and_many policy experts_widely agree that prohibition_has been a_net_benefit to the US, despite some of its very serious costs.

"It's not in our_interest_to legalize,"_Caulkins_told_me. "Because the benefits the_US gets from having the_drugs be_less available, not advertised, more expensive outweigh the_costs_for us of_crime and violence and corruption in our own borders."

Yes,_the drug war helped contribute to_mass incarceration —_although_not_as much as you_might think, since fewer than one_in five prisoners are in for_drug offenses. Yes, the black market for_drugs gives criminal organizations something to_fight over — around 2,000_homicides each_year in the US are_gang-related, many fueled_by drug_violence. Yes, the_drug war has been used time_and time again_to erode civil liberties — from_allowing_more wiretaps to_civil_forfeiture._And, yes,_there are racial_disparities_in anti-drug_enforcement_— black Americans are more likely_to_be incarcerated for drugs even though they_don't use or sell_drugs_at higher rates.

But the_drug war has arguably kept_drugs costlier and less accessible than_they would_be otherwise._This is the primary goal of the supply-focused, preventive side of_the war on drugs: By targeting_the supply of illegal_drugs, the_drug_war makes these_substances_less accessible_by driving up costs and preventing sales_at fully_legal establishments. The demand side of_the drug war, meanwhile,_focuses_on treating and rehabilitating drug users_after they exhibit signs of a_serious drug problem.

"The benefits the_US_gets_from having the drugs be_less available, not advertised, more expensive_outweigh the costs_for us"

According to Caulkins's research, prohibition has_made_drugs more expensive and less accessible_than_they would be if they were_legal._Fundamentally,_the most popular illegal drugs_are just crops — marijuana, cocaine,_and heroin all come from plants. So there's really_no reason these_drugs should cost any more_to_produce_than, say, coffee or tea. Yet throughout the distribution chain,_the price_of a single_serving of coffee increases by roughly 635 percent. By contrast,_because of prohibition, Caulkins said, cocaine increases_by 6,427 percent, marijuana by 1,047 percent, and heroin by 3,745_percent through the chain. So the drug war_has not eliminated drug use, but high_prices have probably suppressed_drug_use