It's really not

DEA budget 2B in 2018

Cash + property that can be liquidated: 340M in 2018

The implication is that it's profitable for the contractors, not for the public.

It's profitable for the footsoldiers, just not the taxpayer. Pro cops get paid bank.

It means the public lost 2.34B and DEA gained 2.34B

There are a lot of people on HN that would take serious issue with any implication that any given tax dollar has anything less than a net-neutral effect for the taxpayers as a whole.

Oddly they seem to keep really quite when the topic of the war on drugs comes up.

To be fair saying something is not profitable doesn't mean that it isn't a net-benefit for the country.

I personally don't think that our current approach to drugs produces a net-benefit, but figuring out the true effects of alternatives is really not simple at all.

It's a zero sum game, though. One profit is another's loss.

Not in terms of lives lost. The war on drugs is a waste of money, time, and lives.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radic...

I completely agree. I was responding to this:

> It's a very profitable waste of resources.

Which implied that someone was profiting from the war on drugs, and my point was that many people lose in the war on drugs.