bivonic
02-26-2003, 09:48 AM
The basic arguments for drug legalization are set forth pretty well in this Op-Ed piece.
<a target=\"_blank\" href=http://econ.bu.edu/miron/images/legalbg.pdf>The Case for Drug Legalization</a>
Jeffrey A. Miron, Professor of Economics
Department of Economics, Boston University
Boston Globe; June 21, 1998
Pop quiz: What government policy can single-handedly lower the crime rate, curtail the demand for guns, reduce the spread of AIDS, ameliorate race relations, enhance respect for the law, and shrink the deficit?
Answer: The legalization of all currently illegal drugs.
This is not to say legalization would eliminate all drug-related problems. No policy is capable of doing that. But legalization would have clear and substantial benefits, with little increase in the problems related to drug use itself.
The foundation of the case for legalization is the indisputable yet oft-ignored fact that drug prohibition does not eliminate drug markets or drug use. Instead, it simply moves them underground. Drug prohibition does raise some costs of doing business for suppliers, and it probably reduces demand by some consumers. But substantial drug consumption persists even in the countries that work hardest at prohibition, and this fact means prohibition has enormous adverse consequences for society.
Perhaps the most imporant negative consequence is increased crime. While it is incontrovertible that many criminals consume drugs, this fact in no way demonstrates that drug use causes crime. Instead, the available evidence suggests that drug prohibition causes most drug-related crime, via several mechanisms. Prohibition prevents buyers and sellers of drugs from using the criminal justice system to resolve disputes, so these persons use violence instead. Prohibition also diverts criminal justice resources from the deterrence of nondrug crime, as when nondrug offenders are released early to ease drug-war-induced prison overcrowding. And prohibition facilitates the corruption of police, judges, and politicians, partly because huge profits are at stake, partly because the legal channels of influence are not available to black market suppliers.
The increase of crime through prohibition implies another unwanted side effect, an increased demand for guns. Not only do black market suppliers tend to arm themselves heavily, since, unlike suppliers of legal commodities, they cannot resolve commercial disputes by using lawyers, but the increased violence amid prohibition implies a greater demand for guns from the rest of society, as law-abiding citizens purchase arms for self-defense. The increased violence also brutalizes society.
Prohibition also means diminished health for drug users and even some nonusers. In a black market, drug users face heightened uncertainty about the quality and purity of the drugs they purchase, plus an incentive to consume drugs using techniques, such as injection, that are unhealthy but give the biggest bang for the buck. These characteristics of illegal markets lead to accidental poisonings and overdoses, plus the sharing of contaminated needles and increased transmission of AIDS. In a legal drug market, inadvertent overdoses and accidental poisonings would be rare. Moreover, aided by lower drug prices and the legal sale of syringes, more users would practice safer means of taking drugs, obviating the question of whether governments should fund programs such as needle exchange.
A still further harm of prohibition is heightened racial tension. In any society, the underground sector attracts especially those persons who believe that their chances for advancement in the legal sector are limited by racism, poor schooling, and the like. In the United States, this means that blacks and some immigrant groups have participated disproportionately in the drug trade, not because they are more likely to use drugs nor because they are inherently less law-abiding, but because it has been rational for them to do so. But this over-representation of blacks and immigrants in the drug trade tends to validate negative stereotypes, and it means that police, even if nonracist, enforce prohibition especially against these groups. This fuels perceptions of selective enforcement and exacerbates racial animosity.
Another intangible but critical consequence of drug prohibition is diminished respect for the law. Under prohibition, millions of citizens sell and use drugs with relative impunity, while the rest of society bears witness. Everyone, therefore, learns that laws are for suckers: Those who evade usually get what they want. People are thus encouraged to violate other laws or social norms, whenever it is convenient to do so. This \"disrespect for the law\" can destroy a free society, since governments cannot maintain order and civility without widespread, voluntary compliance with the law.
On top of all these deleterious effects, using prohibition to deter drug consumption means society cannot levy sin taxes on sales of drugs or collect income taxes from those working in the trade. This means drug suppliers and drug users - persons deliberately breaking society\'s rules - gain at the expense of taxpayers generally, rather than contributing their fair share. Of course, sin taxes on drugs would have to be moderate, or they would themselves generate a black market and all the attendant undesirable consequences. But widespread experience with alcohol and cigarettes suggests substantial taxes can be imposed without generating significant evasion.
Substitution of a moderate sin tax for prohibition thus turns drug profits into tax revenues while simultaneously reaping diverse additional benefits for society. And the costs of enforcing a moderate sin tax would likely be small in comparison with the costs of enforcing prohibition; most of the necessary apparatus already exists for the collection of alcohol and cigarette taxes, and voluntary compliance with a sin tax is far less costly to drug users than the abstinence required under prohibition. The beneficial tax and expenditure effects of outright legalization help explain why this policy is preferable to decriminalization - under which small-scale possession and purchase are permitted but production and sale are still outlawed - since decriminalization by itself does little to convert the untaxed, black market for drugs into a legal, taxable one.
Of course, the problems of prohibition might be tolerable if it were highly effective in reducing the harms caused directly by drug consumption, or in deterring drug use by minors. But prohibition appears to reduce drug use mainly among casual users, whose consumption imposes little cost on society, while failing to deter drug use by more determined users, whose consumption accounts for the lion\'s share and is more likely to harm users and others. The forbidden-fruit allure that prohibition creates might well encourage initial experimentation with drugs by teenagers, who are particularly vulnerable to drugs\' negative consequences. Even when prohibition does deter harmful drug use or keeps teenagers away from drugs, this often results in greater alcohol consumption (rather than a diminished \"gateway\" effect), with similar or more deleterious consequences. The critical question therefore asks the extent to which prohibition reduces abusive kinds of drug consumption or prevents adolescent drug use. The answer, according to abundant evidence, is not much.
The case for legalization of drugs is overwhelming. This conclusion does not presume that legalization will be accompanied by increased government funding for drug treatment, or even that existing funding must continue; the desirability of subsidized drug treatment is a logically separate issue, which requires its own analysis. Nor do the preceding arguments imply that full legalization is the only policy change that would be beneficial; certain partial steps toward legalization - imposing fewer restrictions on the medical provision of drugs, or legalizing marijuana only, for example - would shrink the black market and thus produce substantial gains. But dispassionate analysis of the evidence leaves little doubt regarding the folly of current policy, and it suggests just as clearly the appropriate direction for change.
<a target=\"_blank\" href=http://econ.bu.edu/miron/images/legalbg.pdf>The Case for Drug Legalization</a>
Jeffrey A. Miron, Professor of Economics
Department of Economics, Boston University
Boston Globe; June 21, 1998
Pop quiz: What government policy can single-handedly lower the crime rate, curtail the demand for guns, reduce the spread of AIDS, ameliorate race relations, enhance respect for the law, and shrink the deficit?
Answer: The legalization of all currently illegal drugs.
This is not to say legalization would eliminate all drug-related problems. No policy is capable of doing that. But legalization would have clear and substantial benefits, with little increase in the problems related to drug use itself.
The foundation of the case for legalization is the indisputable yet oft-ignored fact that drug prohibition does not eliminate drug markets or drug use. Instead, it simply moves them underground. Drug prohibition does raise some costs of doing business for suppliers, and it probably reduces demand by some consumers. But substantial drug consumption persists even in the countries that work hardest at prohibition, and this fact means prohibition has enormous adverse consequences for society.
Perhaps the most imporant negative consequence is increased crime. While it is incontrovertible that many criminals consume drugs, this fact in no way demonstrates that drug use causes crime. Instead, the available evidence suggests that drug prohibition causes most drug-related crime, via several mechanisms. Prohibition prevents buyers and sellers of drugs from using the criminal justice system to resolve disputes, so these persons use violence instead. Prohibition also diverts criminal justice resources from the deterrence of nondrug crime, as when nondrug offenders are released early to ease drug-war-induced prison overcrowding. And prohibition facilitates the corruption of police, judges, and politicians, partly because huge profits are at stake, partly because the legal channels of influence are not available to black market suppliers.
The increase of crime through prohibition implies another unwanted side effect, an increased demand for guns. Not only do black market suppliers tend to arm themselves heavily, since, unlike suppliers of legal commodities, they cannot resolve commercial disputes by using lawyers, but the increased violence amid prohibition implies a greater demand for guns from the rest of society, as law-abiding citizens purchase arms for self-defense. The increased violence also brutalizes society.
Prohibition also means diminished health for drug users and even some nonusers. In a black market, drug users face heightened uncertainty about the quality and purity of the drugs they purchase, plus an incentive to consume drugs using techniques, such as injection, that are unhealthy but give the biggest bang for the buck. These characteristics of illegal markets lead to accidental poisonings and overdoses, plus the sharing of contaminated needles and increased transmission of AIDS. In a legal drug market, inadvertent overdoses and accidental poisonings would be rare. Moreover, aided by lower drug prices and the legal sale of syringes, more users would practice safer means of taking drugs, obviating the question of whether governments should fund programs such as needle exchange.
A still further harm of prohibition is heightened racial tension. In any society, the underground sector attracts especially those persons who believe that their chances for advancement in the legal sector are limited by racism, poor schooling, and the like. In the United States, this means that blacks and some immigrant groups have participated disproportionately in the drug trade, not because they are more likely to use drugs nor because they are inherently less law-abiding, but because it has been rational for them to do so. But this over-representation of blacks and immigrants in the drug trade tends to validate negative stereotypes, and it means that police, even if nonracist, enforce prohibition especially against these groups. This fuels perceptions of selective enforcement and exacerbates racial animosity.
Another intangible but critical consequence of drug prohibition is diminished respect for the law. Under prohibition, millions of citizens sell and use drugs with relative impunity, while the rest of society bears witness. Everyone, therefore, learns that laws are for suckers: Those who evade usually get what they want. People are thus encouraged to violate other laws or social norms, whenever it is convenient to do so. This \"disrespect for the law\" can destroy a free society, since governments cannot maintain order and civility without widespread, voluntary compliance with the law.
On top of all these deleterious effects, using prohibition to deter drug consumption means society cannot levy sin taxes on sales of drugs or collect income taxes from those working in the trade. This means drug suppliers and drug users - persons deliberately breaking society\'s rules - gain at the expense of taxpayers generally, rather than contributing their fair share. Of course, sin taxes on drugs would have to be moderate, or they would themselves generate a black market and all the attendant undesirable consequences. But widespread experience with alcohol and cigarettes suggests substantial taxes can be imposed without generating significant evasion.
Substitution of a moderate sin tax for prohibition thus turns drug profits into tax revenues while simultaneously reaping diverse additional benefits for society. And the costs of enforcing a moderate sin tax would likely be small in comparison with the costs of enforcing prohibition; most of the necessary apparatus already exists for the collection of alcohol and cigarette taxes, and voluntary compliance with a sin tax is far less costly to drug users than the abstinence required under prohibition. The beneficial tax and expenditure effects of outright legalization help explain why this policy is preferable to decriminalization - under which small-scale possession and purchase are permitted but production and sale are still outlawed - since decriminalization by itself does little to convert the untaxed, black market for drugs into a legal, taxable one.
Of course, the problems of prohibition might be tolerable if it were highly effective in reducing the harms caused directly by drug consumption, or in deterring drug use by minors. But prohibition appears to reduce drug use mainly among casual users, whose consumption imposes little cost on society, while failing to deter drug use by more determined users, whose consumption accounts for the lion\'s share and is more likely to harm users and others. The forbidden-fruit allure that prohibition creates might well encourage initial experimentation with drugs by teenagers, who are particularly vulnerable to drugs\' negative consequences. Even when prohibition does deter harmful drug use or keeps teenagers away from drugs, this often results in greater alcohol consumption (rather than a diminished \"gateway\" effect), with similar or more deleterious consequences. The critical question therefore asks the extent to which prohibition reduces abusive kinds of drug consumption or prevents adolescent drug use. The answer, according to abundant evidence, is not much.
The case for legalization of drugs is overwhelming. This conclusion does not presume that legalization will be accompanied by increased government funding for drug treatment, or even that existing funding must continue; the desirability of subsidized drug treatment is a logically separate issue, which requires its own analysis. Nor do the preceding arguments imply that full legalization is the only policy change that would be beneficial; certain partial steps toward legalization - imposing fewer restrictions on the medical provision of drugs, or legalizing marijuana only, for example - would shrink the black market and thus produce substantial gains. But dispassionate analysis of the evidence leaves little doubt regarding the folly of current policy, and it suggests just as clearly the appropriate direction for change.