The current presidential election cycle has brought about the discussion of countless debates on budgetary issues. Fiscal conservatives point to entitlement reform and welfare are the primary cause of the country’s economic woes. Liberals blame endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. No politician has directly brought to the attention of the American public the expense of our zero tolerance drug policy and the implications it has for the pocket books of the taxpayer.

Each time we declare war, whether on drugs, poverty or ISIS, little thought goes into the fiscal consequences of such an action. The political popularity of declaring war often outweighs the benefits of rational debate. The need for short-term political gain trumps thoughts long-term economic health. Zero tolerance resonates and scapegoating drug users provide the ideal foothold for any campaign that needs additional political muscle. Rationality is not the dominant political strategy.

Two schools of thought exist in addressing drug abuse. The first follows prohibition era thinking whereby outlawing drugs and severely punishing its use will deter abuse and thereby improve society. The second treats drug use as a medical addiction. Users are treated for a disease.

Research suggests that for every dollar spent on the treatment of a drug addiction seven are spent to incarcerate that user under our laws. The chances of recidivism and thus potential for future economic expense is much lower when employing treatment rather than incarceration.

In countries such as Sweden, where a drug addiction is treated as a disease rather than criminal offense, the issue of drug abuse does not carry the same public expenditure that it does in the United States and other expenditures such as violent crime and high incarceration rates are comparatively smaller.

In the United States, the fear of condoning substance abuse overshadows the practical means of combating it. As a result, taxpayers shell out millions of dollars per inmate per year and the federal government spent $15 billion in 2010 enforcing the zero tolerance policy (with some estimates even higher). If we want balanced budgets, higher quality of life, and an immediate and substantial reduction in violent crime, start by ending the war on drugs.

Unfortunately, using such rational thinking does not make for a great soundbite and the political forces at work are not yet strong enough to incentivize the wars surrender. So how can such a politically outrageous task be accomplished?

First, a cultural and attitudinal shift will have to occur. Addicts must no longer be regarded as criminals, the causes of widespread societal drug usage must be addressed, and the treatment of individuals with a drug addiction must return to reflect a common decency among fellow Americans. These factors alone have the potential to reduce the use of drugs nationwide. Politicization of the policies effects emphasizing mass incarceration and a suspension of rights must be the dominant argumentative paradigm. After the electorate has been primed to accept such changes, politicians must be rid of the influence of special interests whose seek to perpetuate the war on drugs.

Until the opportunity arrives where such changes can occur, the poor will be the takers, the addicts will be criminals, and taxpayers will continue to spend billions of dollars on an unwinnable war. Let us plant the seeds of change now and begin having the debate we so desperately need.