Drug war not worth price
December 6, 2011
Five years ago last month, Milton Friedman died at age 94. To the very end, the Nobel Prize-winning economist was astute, tireless and wonderfully avuncular. Thanks to the Internet, his commentaries on subjects ranging from greed to slavery to the Great Depression myth and many other topics can be enjoyed forever.
Of course, great thinkers have been recording their thoughts in books for millennia. And Friedman was no exception. But there’s no denying the immediacy and intimacy of video. Wouldn’t we have loved to click on Edmund Burke, Alexander Hamilton or Cicero and watch them talk about their ideas? If you do dip into the Friedman oeuvre, start with his exchange with Phil Donahue!
Nothing would be easier than to invoke the great Friedman as the sage of limited government. He was certainly that. If he were commenting on America’s current predicament, he would doubtless prescribe a radically smaller public sector.
But Friedman poses challenges to conservatives as well as liberals. He opposed, for example, the war on drugs. That’s right. Friedman was for legalization of all drugs, not just marijuana.
It’s a position embraced by only one candidate for president, Ron Paul. Rep. Paul holds some ludicrous views. He seems to believe, for example, that if we were just nicer to the Iranians, we wouldn’t need to fret about their acquisition of nuclear weapons. Still, Paul deserves full credit for endorsing drug legalization. Friedman would approve.
Governments in the United States, federal and state, spend an estimated $41.3 billion annually to prevent people from ingesting substances we deem harmful, though many unsafe ingestibles – you know the list – remain legal. Half of all federal prisoners are serving sentences for drug offenses, along with 20 percent of state prisoners.
In 2009, there were 1.7 million drug arrests in the United States. Half of those were for marijuana. As David Boaz and Timothy Lynch of the Cato Institute noted, “Addicts commit crimes to pay for a habit that would be easily affordable if it were legal. Police sources have estimated that as much as half the property crime in some major cities is committed by drug users.”
Drug money, such as booze money during Prohibition, has corrupted countless police, Drug Enforcement Administration agents, Border Patrol agents, prosecutors and judges. Drug crime has blighted many neighborhoods. America’s appetite for drugs has encouraged lawlessness and violence in many neighboring countries, most recently in Mexico, where its drug violence is spilling north.
Because illegal drugs are unregulated, their purity is unknowable – accounting for thousands of overdose deaths and injuries. Since we maintain drug prohibition to protect people from their own foolish decisions, those overdose deaths must weigh in the balance, too.
Drug prohibition, Friedman pointed out, keeps the price of drugs artificially inflated and amounts to a favor by the government to the drug lords. “The role of the government is to protect the drug cartels,” as he provocatively phrased it. Due to our interdiction efforts, Friedman explained, it’s enormously costly for a small competitor to attempt to import drugs. This ensures that only the big operators with large fleets of planes, heavy weapons, etc., can compete.
Prohibition makes it unnecessarily cumbersome for cancer patients and others to receive painkillers and other drugs. A misplaced fear of addiction sometimes leads doctors and other health care providers to underprescribe pain medicine. Meanwhile, any high schooler can score whatever drugs he wants on the way to gym class.
Harvard economics professor Jeffrey Miron estimates that if drugs were legal and taxed, the U.S. and state treasuries would receive $46.7 billion in added revenue while saving $41.3 billion in expenditures.
What is the downside to legalization? Friedman acknowledged the possibility that legalization might result in some increase in drug addiction. There was, after all, an uptick in alcoholism after Prohibition was repealed. But not all victims are created equal. The child, Friedman notes, who is killed in a drive-by shootout between drug gangs is a total victim. The adult who decides to take drugs is not.
Let’s stipulate that some unknown number of Americans will become addicts after legalization who otherwise would not have. We must ask whether the terrible price we are now paying – in police costs, international drug control efforts, border security, foregone tax revenue, overdose deaths, corruption and violence – is worth it.
Mona Charen is a columnist for Creators Syndicate.
MOBILE
Moaner Charen wrote this? Really? Weird, I can usually tell her work before I get down to the credit line; here, I had no idea. Maybe it’s because this piece lacked her trade mark vitriol?
Mars must be in retrograde; I can’t believe that I agree with her, again!
; )
In 1987, I was taking classes in alcohol & drug studies. One of my professors said the very same thing as above, they should legalize drugs. I thought he was crazy until he explained the same points as Milton Friedman and each year that went by, I have agreed more. Unforturnately, it will much harder to overturn the legalization of drugs now than it would have been then as many of the jails are privately run now with their own lobbiest. I wouldn’t put it past the drug cartels to have their lobbiest too. As you well know, money talks more than people getting killed in drug wars and, the insanity & injustices that have gone on the past 30 years revolving around drugs and that’s just in the legal system.
By the way, I’m 65 and no stary eyed kid and, am also 30 years a recovering alcoholic.
Ms. Charen provides further evidence that repealing prohibition is now an issue that is increasingly defined by substantive, empirical argument rather than by political party allegiance or ideology.
The only people who maintain their fidelity to the prohibition agenda are those with financial interest in the status quo and an increasingly small handful who have not yet unpacked the prohibitionists’ propaganda in the light of day. The former are short sighted in what they perceive to be their self interest and Ms. Charen is stimulating the thinking of the latter through this article.
Thank you Ms. Charen for being committed to the evidence on this issue.
Ed Byrnes
People are dying in Mexico by the thousands in large part because of our demand for drugs. Charen is right (among others) in calling for a different approach to the drug problem. I agree; what we are doing now is clearly not working.
Just as many Republicans and conservatives were slow to understand Ron Paul’s principled stand for individual freedom regarding what they consume, many are also slow to comprehend the futility of our undeclared wars and nation building.
Ron Paul wants to let sovereign nations alone to make their own way.
There are many now that are chomping at the bit to clean our books with a nice war with Iran. If Iran is a clear imminent threat to us, or attacks us, then congress will declare war and Iran would be eviscerated. I don’t think they want that.
Many people are coming to realize that the neocons and RINO’s are the ones that are out of step.
Legalizing drugs and making them cheaper ( if possible) does not correlate to less crime in order to obtain drugs. You can give a cocaine addict a kilo and I will guarantee they still want more.
I for one think the Drug War is Awesome!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AduRbYQXXL8&feature=channel_video_title
They say the even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then. So it stands to reason that Mona Charen would write something I agree with once in a while.
Maybe this will mean more conservative minds will open to the obvious.
davidrotz, the issue at this point is not how much drugs the addicts will use, but rather how much harm they will do to the rest of us to get it. It’s not even simply a matter of price. If legal drugs were the same price as illegal ones are now, and the illegal ones distributed today were still available at today’s prices, users would still buy the legal ones in order to A) stay out of trouble and B) be certain of the quality of the product.
Any argument in favor of maintaining prohibition of the unhealthful recreational drugs that are illegal today is an equally good argument in favor of outlawing the unhealthful recreational drugs that are currently legal. We all know how well that worked out when they tried it.
If Mona gave as much thought to the “problem” of Iran’s nukes as she did to the drug war, she’d realize Paul is right on Iran also.