Archived Story

Legalize today: It makes economic sense

Published 11:00pm Wednesday, December 5, 2012

The world is becoming more and more tolerant towards recreational drug use, and the US is behind the world trend. Pot, for example, is legal in Amsterdam, and drug possession across most of Europe is treated with greater acceptance and softer punishments than in the US. Closer to home, we have examples of how attitudes about drug use are a changin’: up in Vancouver, Canada, “heroin shooting galleries” exist to assure safe injections of illicit drugs. And, even in the US, there are pockets of greater tolerance: in the Fall 2012 elections, for example, the states of Colorado and Washington legalized recreational marijuana use.

Cooling it on the drug war and giving people a little more freedom is right from a moral standpoint and makes a lot of economic sense too. The War on Drugs has been a failure because it obstructs free, voluntary exchange between consenting individuals. Though many people find consumption and production of drugs to be despicable, the actual exchange is “victimless”: no party is hurt in the exchange itself. The violence and crime related to drugs comes from the fact they are banned: legalize the market for marijuana, heroin, or crystal meth, and crime from the legal drug trade will be equal to the amount of crime coming from the Starbucks coffee trade (i.e., near zero!).

Contra Jason Whitlock, who equated the National Rifle Association with the Ku Klux Klan and blamed the NRA for “loading up our community with drugs,” the federal government’s War on Drugs is the main cause for crime in the drug market. By preventing people from acquiring products—sex, drugs, gambling—in formal markets, the War on Drugs pushes them into the informal economy. Banning the exchange of drugs doesn’t stop the activity, but, rather shifts it underground. Instead of a safe, clean exchange above ground, we end up with the ugly outcomes we read about in the news: drug dealers, who have to be violent and armed to the hilt to survive, become the suppliers. But, since there’s no rule of law or property rights to protect production, the market is uncertain and prone to violence and wacked products.

Our experience with Prohibition, which lasted from 1920 to 1933, is a tragic example of what happens when the government bans something valued by consumers. Alcohol remained available, but it was supplied by gangsters like Al Capone and Bugs Moran instead of Anheuser-Busch and Seagrams. Gangsters emerged to protect turf and assure large, concentrated profits for their distribution operations. After Prohibition was repealed in 1933, violence related to alcohol trades dropped and exchange came above ground. The difference wasn’t the people, but, rather the policies: criminalizing products people want doesn’t end well for society, and Prohibition serves as an important reminder of what not to do.

European countries like the Netherlands and Portugal have, to some extent, come to realize the drug war is pointless. Rather than chase after suppliers, they have decriminalized and focused the resources being eaten up by enforcement on rehabilitation and awareness campaigns. The savings to taxpayers are tremendous; the quality of drugs for users is more predictable; and the overall safety for the average person is far greater than it otherwise would be.

It’s high time Americans take a page from the Europeans or look back at their own experience with Prohibition. Alabama policymakers, in particular, could use looking at what we’re doing to drug offenders: Our drug laws are some of the strictest in the country, and just think of all the tax dollars and productivity being eaten up by imprisoning young drug offenders. More relaxed drug laws do not lead to societal collapse; as counterintuitive as it may seem, looser drug laws, instead, make society safer, better, and a little more fun.

Scott Beaulier is Executive Director of the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

 

  • Pingback: Wars of Others – Huffington Post (blog)

  • OldSchoolPike3Worker

    Using this logic, why stop at legalizing drug use? Why not legalize gambling? It’s a victimless crime as well, right? The answer is that drug use is not “victimless.” I wonder if this writer has spent any time in law enforcement? Legalizing drugs, while it would instantly remove the crimes of possession, and distribution, would at the same time cause a dramatic increase of crimes committed by addicts that can’t finance their drug habits, or crimes committed by users under the influence of drugs. Just because drugs would be legal, they still wouldn’t be free. Addicts sooner or later run out of money and many resort to stealing to feed the habit.

    And another thing, if we are going to be a society that provides universal health care coverage to everyone that lives here, we can’t afford the medical care cost associated with drug use.

    Report comment

    • bangbang

      The crime shouldn’t be the use of the substance, but the actual action of stealing. By your logic alcohol shouldn’t be legal for anyone because others are irresponsible.

      Report comment

      • trumpetlibertarian

        Very much the truth. If we’re going to lock people up for something, why don’t we at least make sure that we at least do it for a legitimate crime? The trade and use of drugs in and of itself is by it’s very definition a non-violent crime. We wouldn’t lock people up for trading and using sugar would we? The same should apply with any good.

        Now, if you want to prosecute someone for theft, murder, etc., that’s fine. But do it for that and not for what it’s tied to. That makes about as much sense as prosecuting a guy who murdered his neighbor, but not for the murder, but rather for the anger towards his neighbor.

        Report comment

        • trumpetlibertarian

          Also, I would like to point out to OldSchool that I know several people in law enforcement that would strongly disagree with you, so that particular argument, at least in my mind, is invalid.

          Report comment

  • chatwithchuck

    The future of Alabama lies with it’s youth. Educate and organize those 18 to 34 years in age for the burden is mostly theirs to bare. Propagandist will proudly boast their failed efforts; the best they can give you for not smoking marijuana is, “because I told you so!” “Marijuana smells funny” and must be detrimental; what smells funny is the intolerant holier then than thou set trying to hang onto the status quo.

    As the winds of change blow, freedom, liberty and full citizenship awaits hundreds of thousands of Alabamians who choose the far less harmful substance than alcohol that is marijuana. The truth is out, smoked marijuana does not make men of color rape your white wives and daughters as purported; that ignorant garbage is our shame to bare. At every level of government the laws are ours to change and change they shall!

    Report comment

  • Pingback: In Case You Missed It… Lately on Kosmos

  • OldSchoolPike3Worker

    Why have speed limits on roadways then? If I am able to drive 65mph in a 35mph zone and maintain control of my vehicle, why not wait until an accident actually happens before giving me a ticket?

    Trumpet, I have known hundreds of law enforcement people over the years. Your statement that law enforcement supports the legalization of drugs is like saying that the garbage men want more trash thrown in the streets so they will have to pick up even more of it.

    The world is going coo koo!

    Report comment

    • bangbang

      If someone is speeding they are putting others at risk. If someone displays erratic driving behavior or drives under the influence the punishment should be severe. If someone is using a substance recreationally it is possible to use it in ways that do not put others at risk.

      Once again, by your logic alcohol should not be legal. Do you believe alcohol should be illegal?

      Report comment

    • trumpetlibertarian

      Don’t misquote me. I never said that all law enforcement supports it. I just said that I know several who do. All I’m saying is that to make the judgement call that just because you’re in law enforcement, you’ll support keeping drugs illegal is highly erroneous. Some of the understand the myriad of problems associated with prohibitions.

      And yes, I would also be in favor of of getting rid of speed limits. First of all, some of them are absolutely ridiculous (there are several spots where 20 or even 30 mph is way too slow). Secondly, they’re not really effective (how many people do you know that speed; pretty much everyone right?). Now granted, some people drive like bats out of hell. I’m not denying that. But if they’re able to handle it and don’t cause any problems, why not allow them to do so? If they do cause problems, punish them for that, but I don’t think that people should be ticketed simply for trying to economically use their time. In addition, cops could actually use their time more effectively instead of sitting on the side of the road just waiting to give someone a ticket. There’s no sense in preemptively punishing someone for a crime they may not even commit (assuming a situation where speeding is not a crime).

      Report comment

  • Choctawhatchee Riverkeeper

    I often disagree with Scott especially when it he is attacking environmental regulations and looking like a shill for the Koch brothers when he does so.

    However on the issue of drugs he is right on. By making drugs contraband it increases what those in the drug trade can earn and increases drug activity. Prohibition of alcohol sales was a disaster and prohibition of drugs is also a disaster. Legalize drugs in a step-wise manner starting with weed, tax it and keep sales to minors illegal just as for alcohol. Weed causes far less health problems than alcohol and IS NOT a gateway drug.

    Report comment

  • Pingback: From Skid Row to High Street: CEO uses past experiences to become business …

Editor's Picks