"The number of cocaine users peaked in the early 1980s at about 9 million," states Rydell and Everingham in their study concerning the results of the U.
S.
attempting to limit cocaine usage.
In this study they broke down the programs that the U.
S.
uses to limit cocaine into four areas, source-country control, interdiction, domestic enforcement and treatment of heavy users.
These different programs are costing the U.
S.
hundreds of millions of dollars, and yet the returns that have been seen do not seem to reflect well on the amount of money spent.
The area of domestic enforcement, in which officers incarcerate drug dealers, takes up a huge percentage of the total dollar sum being spent of anti-cocaine measures.
However Rydell and Everingham argue that this is not the most effective measures, they use evidence to support their claim that the treatment of heavy users in the best way to lower the cocaine usage in America.
Only 34 million of the hundreds of millions spent on cocaine reduction goes to treating the heavy users.
When the data is looked at 13% of people who go through treatment never return to the heavy use of drugs.
Furthermore the vast majority of the addicts who go through rehab completely stop while in rehab or at least limit their intake while there.
Therefore whether or not they return to the drug the treatment has helped reduce the total intake of cocaine in the US, and when fewer drugs are sold on the market, due to a lapse in demand, the price of cocaine goes down because of the surplus in supply.
Although the price going down may not seem like a good thing it is far better than the opposite happening.
When drug lords are busted in America their supply is taken off of the market causing a shortage.
This leads to higher prices for the average consumer.
Finally the heavy drug addicts who cannot afford their fix anymore turn to theft and violence in order to procure money for their addiction.
Increase in the price of cocaine is the result of three of the four programs that the U.
S.
is using, with treatment as the sole program that does increase the price and drive addicts to theft and violence.
It is morally wrong for the U.
S.
to focus on the suppliers rather than the addicts who need our help.
However it is still unknown as to whether any of the four programs are helping the problem enough to constitute for the large amount of money put into them.
It is unclear as to whether treatment is the best of four ways, or the least inefficient of four inefficient programs.
Different options are available such a cutting back on domestic enforcement budget by 25% and adding that money to the treatment budget, which would triple its total budget.
One thing is certain however, if the U.
S.
is going to spend more money on its cocaine reduction then it should put its money into the treatment of addicts.