You are here
Local Government Dependency on Drug Asset Forfeiture in Texas
Monday, July 21st, 2008
Robert Wechsler
The drug war is not really about drugs, it's about addiction. And
dependency is what powers addiction.
As it turns out, dependency is also what powers the drug war, at least in Texas. Local government agencies, and often local governments themselves, are dependent on the money that comes from asset forfeitures related to the drug trade. We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars.
Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.
Not only does such dependency lead to abuses in how the money is spent, as discussed in a recent Economist article, but it can also lead to abuses in the drug war itself, since local agencies and governments have such a strong incentive to track down drug assets or to push for the guilt of those whose assets have been taken. Even if this were never done, the appearance of impropriety is powerful, and the trust of people in their police and district attorneys is undermined. In addition, dependency on this money skews the priorities of law enforcement toward the drug trade.
The federal government places its drug money in a special fund. Other states do the same thing. Texas law only requires that the money be used "for law-enforcement purposes," but according to the article, some of the money finds its way into general local government operations.
The Economist reports one particularly egregious abuse: the expenditure of drug money on a margarita machine and other liquor for a party at the county fair (the district attorney's office won the prize for the best margarita). Drug money spent on drugs sends the message that the drug war is not about the drugs or the addiction, but about which kind of drug abuse can best profit local government agencies. In addition, the D.A. denied using drug funds for a while before finally admitting it, saying that the county's drug fund was at his discretion.
According to the article, another D.A. took his staff to Hawaii, and another bought campaign commercials.
Texas law on drug asset forfeiture has created a serious dependency by local governments on drug money, and it has also created a temptation to abuse the system for one's personal interest. With respect to government ethics, the law is every bit as nasty as heroin.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
As it turns out, dependency is also what powers the drug war, at least in Texas. Local government agencies, and often local governments themselves, are dependent on the money that comes from asset forfeitures related to the drug trade. We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars.
Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.
Not only does such dependency lead to abuses in how the money is spent, as discussed in a recent Economist article, but it can also lead to abuses in the drug war itself, since local agencies and governments have such a strong incentive to track down drug assets or to push for the guilt of those whose assets have been taken. Even if this were never done, the appearance of impropriety is powerful, and the trust of people in their police and district attorneys is undermined. In addition, dependency on this money skews the priorities of law enforcement toward the drug trade.
The federal government places its drug money in a special fund. Other states do the same thing. Texas law only requires that the money be used "for law-enforcement purposes," but according to the article, some of the money finds its way into general local government operations.
The Economist reports one particularly egregious abuse: the expenditure of drug money on a margarita machine and other liquor for a party at the county fair (the district attorney's office won the prize for the best margarita). Drug money spent on drugs sends the message that the drug war is not about the drugs or the addiction, but about which kind of drug abuse can best profit local government agencies. In addition, the D.A. denied using drug funds for a while before finally admitting it, saying that the county's drug fund was at his discretion.
According to the article, another D.A. took his staff to Hawaii, and another bought campaign commercials.
Texas law on drug asset forfeiture has created a serious dependency by local governments on drug money, and it has also created a temptation to abuse the system for one's personal interest. With respect to government ethics, the law is every bit as nasty as heroin.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
