war on drugs

Due to some of my research the past few days I have come to some conclusions.

One.
The use of methamphetamines is on the rise. I get this conclusion from the increase in the amount of labs in the past years, even though all the numbers people have is a few years old. One is that federal and state prisoners reported use was somewhat higher as seen in this report. Which data is a little bit old but it shows the increase. It also shows some other things which I'll get to later.
Everyone thinks that due to the new law on the sale of pseudophedrine and ephedrine containing substances is now limited and monitored, that this slows down the production of amphetamines. Well it does, but it does not hinder the production of meth. Especially methamphetamine hydrochloride, also known as 'ice'. This speculation goes against the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration but I really don't know how they get their numbers, so I really don't take their numbers into account. For if they do surveys how do they pick who to survey? And who would really answer truthfully on the matter of doing illegal drugs?

Two.
There are cheaper ways to fight the war on drugs then through interdiction efforts, and trying to destroy them at their source. As this list of facts shows in relation to cocaine. The second item states that at least 75% of all shipments must be intercepted in order to make the trafficking of cocaine non-profitable. And seeing as how there still seems to be enough cocaine to go around I do not think that is happening. Even better yet is the sixteenth item on the list which states that instead of trying to eradicate it at the source, which would cost 783 million. The US could spend 34 million on treatment centers and eradicate the demand for the drugs. Which is an interesting item I'll come back to in my next point. Now these numbers only refer to cocaine, however I feel the principle is valid for all drugs that we are attempting to stop from entering our country. And that idea is the idea of spending money to provide treatment to people so that they won't want the drugs instead of spending all our money trying to eradicate the drug itself and failing miserably. Here is the current cost. What better way to have spent that money then wasting it away. When you could lower the demand for drugs at a much lower cost.

Three.
In my previous point I made the point that it was cheaper to set up treatment centers then try to fight the war on drugs the way it has been going. But it would be cheaper and probably to the betterment of our society if treatment centers were used in another way. According to this same report as earlier, around half of the prisoners in State and Federal lockup in 2004 met the criteria for substance dependence. And around 50% State prisoners had at least three prior sentences. And in fact nearly half of them were on payrole or probation when they got arrested.
What this says to me is that they were addicted to whatever, and so therefor kept doing the things that got them in trouble. That report states that around 45% took part in drug classes. But what if they were sentenced to a thirty day facility for their first drug charge? I don't know if it would work, and thats why I'm only saying for the first charge, after that they can go to jail like everyone else. But wouldn't that be cheaper in the long run if it did work for say only 50%. That would mean 50% less people to have to pay for their stay in jail or prison.

So there are my conclusions, if anyone even reads this leave a comment.