In today's New York Times, Nicholas Kristof talks good sense about the so-called 'war on drugs.'
Drugs Won the War
Share
Previous post: Fancy empirical work
Next post: The Sport Has Many Players
where orders emerge
Previous post: Fancy empirical work
Next post: The Sport Has Many Players
{ 41 comments }
This has to be the best blog title I've ever seen. You just can't get straight to the point.
It is maximal information.
I mean MORE straight to the point. Sorry.
Consumers won the war.
I'm not downplaying the devastating negatives of the illegal drug economy, but it does reflect a healthy disrespect for a government overstepping its authority. Hopefully that attitude will help save us from Federal overreaching in other areas as well.
We are a nation of laws, but not laws uber alles. The Declaration of Independence is our national statement to that effect.
Meh. It wasn't really a 'war' on drugs. If no one's heart wasn't really in it then it wasn't really 'prohibition' either. I remember reading someone who said if people really wanted a war then Congress would have to declare war, habeas corpus could be suspended, some people caught dealing drugs might be charged with treason, and so forth . . .
The drug war is really just an excuse to eviscerate civil liberties, and it has worked beautifully in this respect. It will never go away. However, next time you find yourself debating it, ask this question; Why did banning alcohol require a constitutional amendment, but banning marijuana needed nothing more than a simple law?
Methinks pointed out, in a recent comment, the cozy relationship between regulators and the regulated in the arena in which she works.
Well it has long been obvious to me, going back to the early 1980s, that there is way too much public money being spent on the so-called drug war, money which goes into pockets unknown, for the drug war to be stopped. The same relationship exists in the drug war as it does in the money markets.
When a policy is failed to such a degree as the drug war and yet congress will not take another direction, you have to know that some of that money is making its way back into the pockets of the congress itself.
The government cannot stop the market, which is why prohibition does not work.
When I was in high school it was easier to get illegal drugs than legal alcohol.
Now that the FDA has the power to regulate tobacco, I'll bet that certain banned products will soon surface on the black market.
How ironic is that?
In their efforts to keep kids from trying nicotine, they will make it more readily available to kids!
For some people, illegality, the risk of imprisonment, the need to seek out shady people and the possibility of tainted drugs are enough to keep them from using. Legalization would undo those impediments and, as a result, *more* people would use currently illegal drugs. I believe that's a bad thing.
Surely, on this blog, I shouldn't have to point out the effect of effectively reducing the price of a good.
"Legalization would undo those impediments and, as a result, *more* people would use currently illegal drugs."
It's hard to believe that usage rates of drugs could get higher.
People know the negative consequences of using drugs, and that is holding usage rates where they are.
With the de-criminalization of drugs, you would likely see small increases in usage rates combined with large price decreases and resulting large crime rate decreases.
John,
The Canadian government thought declining tax revenues following increases in the cigarette tax indicated a great success in curbing smoking. It seems smokers just found a way to avoid the tax.
Chris O'Leary –
I find that argument unconvincing. How often does a "large price decrease" lead to only a "small increase in usage"? I don't know why drugs would be one of those quirky price-inelastic goods, but others may know better than me. Heck, at minimum, those who are addicted will find it much easier to feed that addiction.
I see no reason to believe that legalized drug usage will be significantly less prevalent than tobacco usage.
A better argument might be "Sure, usage will go up, and that will cause some additional societal damage. But, that addition will be more than offset by not having so many criminals in jail, less crime, etc…." That might be true, but it might not.
For some people, illegality, the risk of imprisonment, the need to seek out shady people and the possibility of tainted drugs are enough to keep them from using. Legalization would undo those impediments and, as a result, *more* people would use currently illegal drugs. I believe that's a bad thing.
Do you have any data to verify this argument?
It is my understanding that per capita marijuana use is lower among citizens of nations where it is legal than in the U.S.
Sam Grove –
No data that I've searched for. But, I have some anecdotal experience, and it seems to be common sense. It would be interesting to see some survey that asks "why don't you do drugs?"
IIRC, in western countries where pot's been legalized, the usage rate before legalization was significantly lower than the corresponding US usage rate. That would seem to indicate that the difference in usage was from a source other than legalization.
"For some people, illegality, the risk of imprisonment, the need to seek out shady people and the possibility of tainted drugs are enough to keep them from using. Legalization would undo those impediments and, as a result, *more* people would use currently illegal drugs. I believe that's a bad thing."
You completely disregard all the hidden costs to society of fighting a futile war against drugs. Drug use is distasteful to you so of course, it should be illegal, and costs be damned. You won't even count the costs, but I will.
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/08/17/drugWarVictims.html
The very concept of a drug war is anathema to a free society. It leads to ever increasing levels of official corruption, ever increasing enforcement costs, an increasingly entrenched special interest group that depends on the drug war to continue, and the obliteration of meaningful liberty for anyone. Shame on anyone who supports it.
To the opponents of the war on drugs:
I am totally opposed to the war on drugs. I think it has failed, it was morally wrong to begin with. I think it could be defended from a liberty perspective or a harm reduction one.
But… There are several issue that must be conceded:
* Legalisation would decrease price (& risk which can be considered a price) & increase quality & availability. It would be an anomaly for consumption to decrease. Consumption will almost certainly increase
* Limited decriminalisation (the most likely step) is a wildcard. It will have many of the (supposedly) negative effects such as increased use, while realising few of the gains from legalisation. The majority of the drug market will remain underground in the hands of criminals. From the harm reduction perspective, decriminalisation could be a net loss.
"Consumption will almost certainly increase"
Of course. That is the lesson of alcohol prohibition.
"Legalization would undo those impediments and, as a result, *more* people would use currently illegal drugs. I believe that's a bad thing.
Posted by: Chris | Jun 15, 2009 9:37:53 AM"
What we do about the drug problem is recognize that it is the users that create the problem.
No users, no sellers.
Then we make sure that all drugs are one hundred percent pure. Drug users, not expecting this, snort, smoke, inject, chew, swallow extra potent pure stuff, and then they OD.
With great fanfare we point out that doing drugs is a killer, sweep up the bodies, and cremate them.
Two things occur.
First people get to see the results of stupid actions and how it will effect them.
Second, we get rid of a lot of people at the lower end of the intellectual and fitness deficient end of the gene pool.
Nature wins. Humanity wins.
Now that I have had my fun, no Chris, legalization would not result in increased consumption of a substance that is already so readily available it might as well be displayed on sidewalk Kiosks.
For myself, it isn't cost that keeps me from doing coke, or meth, it is intelligence. I suspect that that is the case with most people.
Then there is the question for a freedom lover such as myself, "Do I have the right to tell others what to do with their own bodies?" My answer is no.
For those worried about crime or dangerous addiction, the answer is simply to never let the drug use be used as an excuse…ever, under any circumstance.
If Sam Grove can smoke or snort and not harm another soul, and perform his chosen function satisfactorily, then I see no reason to speak even a harsh word to Sam about his usage……(apologies Sam for using you as an example, you might not even take asprin for all I know.).
Government is your problem, not drugs.
I concede nothing. You do not have a right to tell others what they may or may not ingest. Society be damned. Most illegal drug users are merely pot smokers. They have a natural right to smoke pot. It is no more harmful than alcohol, and is actually less harmful in many respects. I'm disappointed, though, that no one wishes to debate the casualties of the WOD. Am I to assume that you agree that they were unnecessary, or do you think it is worth it for the state to murder innocents in the name of an un-winnable war?
Furthermore, so what if consumption increases? So. effing. what?
Here's a lengthy article on the issue on drugs by Paul Birch. It's rather lenghty but is a good read and bound to offend those on either side of the debate
:
http://www.paulbirch.net/AnalysisOfTheDrugProblem.html
Interesting read. However, his entire argument is based on the assumption that the collective majority has a right to impose itself onto the minority. He is wrong.
How did read in the 'collective majority imposing the minority' seanooski? Rather Paul Birch shows a problem with drug legalisation – if users are still harming others when drugs are legalised then they're still criminals who need to be dealt with. What's the democracy suggestion about? Unless you're referring to an 'anarchist utopia' where there's no government and the problem with a crime between a drug user and a victim is between the drug user and that victim and no one else except private defense insurance agencies (if any). But then just as drunkards aren't the best workers, why should drug users be model citizens? What if, in anarchotopia drugs are effectively prohibited by private housing estates because sober citizens are the most productive citizens and don't want users of any drug (including tobacco and alcohol) in their private estate just as non-smokers don't generally like hanging around smelly smokers let alone have one light up in a non-smoker's private residence? It could come full circle and drug prohibition has returned albeit in the private sphere this time.
"http://www.paulbirch.net/AnalysisOfTheDrugProblem.html"
The guy states that drugs are dangerous, admits that there is no proof that marijuana is dangerous, then says that it must be dangerous because drugs are dangerous.
A little too much "begging the question" for me.
* Legalisation would decrease price (& risk which can be considered a price) & increase quality & availability. It would be an anomaly for consumption to decrease. Consumption will almost certainly increase.
One effect noted about prohibition of substances is the increasing potency of said substances. It is easier to smuggle and transact concentrates than diluted forms.
This happened with alcohol, cocaine, and opium.
We can afford everything. Attempting to do so will break a nation.
Seanooski –
I was trying to bring up a counterpoint to the main argument in favor of legalization. To do that, I don't need to recite or even refute every argument in favor. It may be that those arguments outweigh mine, but I don't think so.
As to the whole "you can't be a free society and legalize drugs" argument, I don't subscribe to the extreme libertarian "I ought to be able to do whatever I want to with my body" position. What you do has externalities on me. For example, addiction to Meth has serious long-term impacts including brain damage, sometimes requiring long-term care. Who will pay for that care? (The "they'll pay themselves, or rot on the street" answer won't really fly.) What happens when somebody on PCP becomes violent and hurts people around them?
"what happens when somebody on PCP becomes violent and hurts people around them?"
I was recently visiting a city in Mexico, but had to put off my visit when the local drug lord engaged in a machine gun and RPG battle with the military.
Compared to the violence associated with the War on Drugs, a PCP user is pretty minor.
The high level of violence due to the Drug War not only kills lots of people in the US and Mexico, it also makes it difficult to obtain a useful education in most poor urban areas due to its distractions of easy profits and daily threat of violence.
"What happens when somebody on PCP becomes violent and hurts people around them?"
Where do you think more violent crime comes from, users of illegal drugs, or suppliers?
Where does the author Paul Birch state that "marijuana is harmless". What I found was:
Marijuana isn't safe
We often hear that marijuana should be legalised because it's harmless. Nobody ever died from smoking pot, we're told, and anyway it's obviously much safer than tobacco. There's a lot of truth in that. There's also a lot of falsehood.
It is true that, compared to tobacco, less of the hemp weed needs to be smoked to maintain a habit, so some of the health hazards may also be correspondingly less; but to be safer than something that will kill around 20% of the population is hardly a recommendation.
It is also true that no one drops dead from smoking a reefer — overdosing on marijuana is all but impossible — but then no one drops dead from smoking a cigarette either. That doesn't make tobacco safe. And it doesn't make marijuana safe.
Whilst you make a reasonable point Sam Grove but even though alcohol is legal people don't only drink light beer either. It would be sad irony if hard drugs would not have appeared if soft drugs had have stayed legal however hard drugs are here to stay (the cat's out of the bad, so to speak).
The obvious 'middle' solution would be the same as alcohol: drugs are legal to consume – if you can afford it, do it on your own time and premises that allow it, but, BUT, you can't harm others nor put yourself in a position of responsibility whilst high (just as you can't drink-drive). If there are certain people who still can't control their drug habit such that they are unemployable and commit crimes to support their habit then they'll find themselves constantly in trouble with the law just as now.
Besides I s'pose some say "when drugs are legal they'll be doctored to give the 'high' without any of the negative consequencees". There is only 'drug' that fits that safe category and that's caffeine.
It is true that, compared to tobacco, less of the hemp weed needs to be smoked to maintain a habit, so some of the health hazards may also be correspondingly less; but to be safer than something that will kill around 20% of the population is hardly a recommendation.
A drop of nicotine can kill an adult human.
There is also a lethal dose of alcohol and one for caffeine.
There is no known lethal dose for marijuana. I know of no one that claims marijuana is "harmless".
If there are certain people who still can't control their drug habit such that they are unemployable and commit crimes to support their habit then they'll find themselves constantly in trouble with the law just as now.
That may be, but a large part of that problem, for a lot of people with this issue, is due to prohibition pricing.
I have seen it with crack.
vikingvista —
Currently, probably suppliers. But, you're missing my point, which was more narrowly focused on the hyperlibertarian "What I do with my own body is my own business, so *piss off*" attitude.
A common argument against my point is a sideways attack — basically, "Sure, there are problems when you legalize drugs. But, the total harm is significantly lower." That may be true. Or, it may not. We just don't know what's going to happen if drugs are legalized. But, I do know that it will lower the barrier for *my kids* to use drugs, and that means more to me than 100 dead drug lords in Mexico City. [Despite sensational stories to the contrary, beer, sold in gas stations and grocery stores, is easier for a high school kid to get than crack.]
Personally, I think this is one of the few places that Sharia law has it right. Rapid death to those dealing drugs would quickly eliminate most of the problem at a much lower cost than the current war on drugs.
Personally, I think this is one of the few places that Sharia law has it right. Rapid death to those dealing drugs would quickly eliminate most of the problem at a much lower cost than the current war on drugs.
Chris,
Sharia Law has it backward. The suppliers are in business because of demand. Rapid death to those consuming drugs would be a more effective deterrent, if that's your goal.
I don't support either remedy.
I think this is one of the few places that Sharia law has it right. Rapid death to those dealing drugs would quickly eliminate most of the problem at a much lower cost than the current war on drugs.
You don't get to pick and choose. To hand over power to fanatics because of a certain consequence you favor means you have to go along with their whole agenda.
But, I do know that it will lower the barrier for *my kids* to use drugs,
If you want to reduce the chance that your kids will do drugs, then I urge to keep them out of public schools. Homeschool them to maintain the family relationship til they reach adulthood.
"That may be, but a large part of that problem, for a lot of people with this issue, is due to prohibition pricing.
I have seen it with crack." – Sam Grove.
Drugs will come down in price but will they be free? Alcohol isn't free just because it's legal. Alcohol still costs a lot because production costs hence is way more expensive than soft drinks (A.K.A. 'soda'). The price of drugs ought to come down a great deal but it will still cost money. If people get caught in a downward spiral of addiction to a particular drug where they lose their income then there's a good chance they'll commit crimes to suport their habits. By rights, the number of crimes would be fewer and farther between because the price is considerably lower. Then again, what happen if drug producers decide to see if they can grab patents on slightly modified versions of existing drugs? The price may start creeping up again. And what of FDA approval?
I think people who refuse to use turn signals should be executed. They are a menace to society. Speeders too, no matter how much over the limit it is (zero tolerance!). And if you live in Ohio, you should be executed for parking in your driveway. While we are at it, maybe we should execute the homeless, they seem to commit a lot of crime. Gosh, we can solve all our problems if we just execute enough undesirables!
Could you be more coherent in your viewpoint, sea? Who gets executed nowadays for speeding and so forth? On the other hand, do you believe private operators have the right to set rules? What if getting caught speeding saw you're banned from a private highway owner? Use another one? But he happens to own the roads and highways that gets you to point B in the shortest time? What if the majority of people who happen to private housing estates are Puritanical and support private drug prohibition? You'll find private housing estates that allow free-for-all drugs but they are all on the seedy side of the city? Don't tell you believe all decent private property owners in Libertopia are going to embrace a free-for-all attitude towards drugs?
Gil,
Are you a farmer?
Just wondering, because you are extremely talented at making straw men.
Seanooski –
If I had said "I think murderers should be put to death," would you have said the same thing? Your argument only makes sense if you believe that drug dealing is approximately the moral equivalent of failing to use a turn signal. You may believe that, but I suspect that you would be in the minority.
All –
It's interesting that many of the pro-drug arguments here are all about marijuana and not about the really serious stuff like Meth, Heroin or PCP. It may be that mj laws are far too strict, but that does not necessarily imply the same for those more serious drugs.
It's interesting that many of the pro-drug arguments…
Who said they were pro-drug?
The argument is that prohibition creates more problems than it solves.
The more addictive the drug, the greater the problems resulting from prohibition, because it increases the desperation of the addicted.
Maye there could be meth dens were speeders could run in squirrel cages and polish intricate metalwork, etc.
Okay Chris and Gil, I'm being a little facetious, you got me. I just thought it would be useful to point out that that is essentially the solution that the Paul Birch essay was putting forth, and it is extreme and unreasonable. The drug war has eroded the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, has it not? If you are found by the police to be holding a large amount of cash, it is subject to be seized merely for being suspected drug money. You are required to prove otherwise if you are to have any chance of recovering it, and even then recovery is unlikely. If your neighbor is suspected of dealing drugs, but the cops kick in your door by mistake and kill you, as has happened many times, the state is rarely held to account for that misconduct. That is official lawlessness perpetrated by the state and justified by this irrational fear of drug users. The Bill of Rights is essentially null and void if the state decides you are a drug user or dealer, whether you really are or not.
I'm not really an anarchist, but I put forth the extreme view of individual liberty because we too often forget that society is made of individuals, and our government was ostensibly created to protect individual rights. Most illegal drug users use marijuana. They are professionals and laborers, doctors, lawyers, construction workers and homemakers. They are productive members of society that are vilified unjustly and persecuted for their preferences. They have a right to be left alone. The harder drugs are used by a much greater minority, and their use should be viewed as a symptom of societal ills, not necessarily a cause.
As all this relates to markets, why can't we have some reasonable regulation of the drug market rather than a draconian prohibition that exacerbates the problems of drug use and drains society of resources that could be put to much better use?
{ 1 trackback }