government's infamous drug war is the controversy of mandatory minimum sentencing for drug crimes. On one side there are people who would argue for them because, in the words of Brad Bailey, executive director of the Governor's Alliance Against Drugs in Florida, "the very act of dealing drugs is violence against the community and should be punished like other violent crimes."1 On the other side, there people who are against them for several reasons, some of which are economic and some that are in defense of people that are victims of unfair sentencing. Given the evidence that was available from other sources and that was given in class, it is clear that mandatory minimum sentences are misused far too often.
In May 1997, RAND Corporation completed a study over a period of 15 years of the effects of cocaine reduction through the methods of mandatory minimums, conventional enforcement (i.e., more arrests and shorter sentences), and treatment of heavy users. The study found that mandatory minimums reduced national cocaine usage by 13 kilograms, while conventional enforcement reduced use by 27 kilograms, and treatment reduced use by 100 kilograms.2 So from an economic perspective, long mandatory sentences are more costly. With the $1.4 billion that the U. S. spent on the justice system in 1999 3, it would be far better to put the money into methods that get better results. .
Since the enactment of mandatory minimum sentencing for drug users, the Federal Bureau of Prisons budget increased by more than 1,350%, from $220 million in 1986 to about $3.19 billion in 1997. A large portion of the money spent on long prison sentences is being wasted, instead of being spent on the people who are contributing much more to the spread of drugs. Because drug-related crime is often economically motivated, incarceration has little effect on the flow of money because it decreases drug use but drives up drug prices.