The casual reader will assume both lines are rates, since that is the way these things are usually done, and think we’re now spending 10x as much as were were back in 1984. In fact, in real money, we’re spending about 4x as much.

The case against the War on Some Drugs can be made without deceptive tactics.

pgt

Both from the governmental outlays, and the siezures they are allowed to auction off.

2. Not everyone can handle getting fucked up.
3. One or more tries at rehab can help some of those who can’t handle getting fucked up.

All we can do is be realistic about people’s drive to alter their mental state and provide funding for treatment.

I would say though that the root of the problem is the law, not the enforcement. Underground competition decreases the price in dollars, but it increases the price in blood. Legalization is far, far superior to decriminalization, socially speaking.

In other words, if a dollar in 1970 was more than 40 times more valuable than a dollar today, AND this chart wasn’t adjusted for inflation, we could say that drug spending has actually decreased while still maintaining addiction levels — testifying to the efficiency of law enforcement. (it’s not, so we can’t. But it’s always a good question to ask)

Once you’ve committed to keeping drug sales underground, you need to spend money to prevent all of the murder and exploitation that comes with the trade and distribution, not to mention the white-collar crime and political corruption that result from the fact that trafficking is so profitable that it’s the only obvious use for so much cash.Toleration and decriminalization are effective strategies in reducing the power of traffickers, but legalization is a death blow. The number of people who experience addiction might go up initially, but as a society we are more than capable of handling the legalization of drugs. Once you’re allowed to have meaningful conversations out in the open and the stigma of criminality is gone, prevention and early-intervention of addiction will become far, far more accessible and effective. 

The effect of the legalization of marijuana alone in the United States would have a completely transformative effect in Mexico (the primary source of funding for Mexican cartels is grass). One of the many, many costs of prohibition here is the risk of murder and the climate of terror across the border where we’ve outsourced our production. Cartels could never compete with a legal market in the US, they’re income and their power would be decimated.

The price of drugs is high due to enforcement. This is what makes the drug traffickers rich. The value of these drugs in an unregulated market would be about the value of ibuprofen or caffeine. Eliminate Prohibition and you eliminate the gangsters and cartels.

An increase in trafficking requires an increase in spending, unless you think that increased trafficking isn’t worth spending money on (again, assuming that all money spent against users and small dealers is wasted and that you could be much more effective, for free, through legalization).

There’s enough money in the illegal drug market in the US that if left unchecked, could garner a lot of political power for people who care even less for general societal well-being than the ones who currently have all the power.

Again, nothing shown here indicates that the money was spent effectively, but there’s also no reason to believe it shouldn’t have been spent at all.

1) Spending cuts down addiction
2) Increased trafficking increases addiction

So, if the spending did not predate the increased trafficking, then the addiction rate must have increased. This is not observed. Thus, both of these assumptions are wrong. I’ve already explained why #1 is wrong. You can work out why #2 is wrong.

This doesn’t mean the money was effective, but, importantly, it doesn’t mean the opposite either.

This is actually a really complicated issue that the OP graph does nothing for. Here’s a graph that suggests that the spending was tracking an increase in drug use:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_cJVzEsrhDqY/S_aqj1vHmjI/AAAAAAAAAaU/q4d0qbSLlDM/s1600/emergency+room+mentions+drugs+US+graph.gif

Here’s another graph:

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/proportion.png

You’ll notice that the line showing black homicides (both victims and culprits) tracks the spending increase. This is a result of both more drugs entering the poorest urban communities and more money for racially biased policing.

In any case, the fact that the spending was tracking a real change in drug use is not debatable.

There’s no reason to believe (from this graph) that the spending wasn’t completely effective.

If there was a spike in inward drug-trafficking (which there has been) then it would make sense that expenditures would need to go up in order to maintain the baseline, not only to keep addiction down, but more importantly to stop traffickers from becoming even wealthier (and enjoying the political power that inevitably comes wherever there is a massive demand for drugs and inadequate law enforcement response). Rest assured, drug expenditures do successfully introduce both risk, additional expenditure and diminution of political power for cartels (it’s important to note here that all the costs incurred by arresting and imprisoning people with small amounts of drugs are dollars completely wasted). 

The reality is that we can inflict complete and total damage to traffickers more or less immediately and at more or less zero cost anytime we choose, by allowing these substances to sold openly. This will, of course, happen eventually. It’s just a question of how much money we’ll waste in the meanwhile.