Chapter 16, Drugs, by Jeffrey A. Miron
Summary and Commentary
Illicit drugs, that is.
Presumably prescription pharmaceuticals are A-okay.
Actually, he doesn't think illicit drugs are much of a problem. It's the criminalization, illegality, and prohibition that is.
Miron proposes this solution: To LEGALIZE the production, distribution, sale, possession, and use of all illicit drugs, worldwide. "What?" you say?
Not just Peter Tosh says "Legalize It"
Well, to be fair, any set of auxiliary policies would be acceptable so long as the market is not driven underground, such as the current alcohol and tobacco laws, dui laws, age restriction, sin taxes, subsidized treatment, advertising restrictions, etc.
Drugs, as we all know, can be bad. They can seriously reduce health, productivity, cause traffic accidents and industrial accidents, harm fetuses, and diminish the public purse under gvt. funded healthcare. For starters.
But drug prohibition laws have their own problems: black markets, violence, corruption, aiding terrorism, the increased spread of HIV, diminished respect for the law, enriching criminals, unnecessary restrictions on the use of drugs as medicine, and excessive restrictions on civil liberties. Also, the cost of enforcement.
The challenge is to balance the evils of both, and legalization is the solution. Here's why:
1. Prohibition does not eliminate the market for illicit drugs. It simply creates a black market. To what extent, though, does prohibition reduce drug use? (demand: a-d) a) To the extent society has respect for the law, drug use would be diminished. He argues, however, that violation of other weakly enforced laws is widespread, such as speeding, tax evasion, blue laws, and sodomy. b) the penalties are mild and rarely imposed. c) the price going up due to illegality, and therefore lowering demand, seems to be minimal. d) the "forbidden fruit" effect might make demand for drugs even higher. (supply: e) e) black market drug suppliers face increased costs of manufacturing, transporting, and distributing drugs under the threat of police detection/while operating in secret. However, this is partially offset by the low marginal costs of evading tax laws and regulatory policies.
So, while he admits prohibition probably reduces drug consumption, as theory would dictate, he suspects it's not by much. Alcohol prohibition, for example, didn't have a dramatic effect on consumption. Cross-country comparisons between nations with strongly and weakly imposed prohibition show little evidence of higher drug consumption under weak enforcement. And variation in strength of enforcement in the United States over time has not corresponded with substantial fluctuations in drug consumption levels. He admits drug use might increase by 25%, however (but not by orders of magnitude, as some have charged).
In his view, this possible effect is not as bad as the sum effect of drug prohibition, which is characterized by these 10 elements: increased crime, harm to drug users, reduced product quality, enriched criminals, increased spread of HIV, medicinal use restrictions, compromised civil liberties, aiding terrorism, diminished respect for the law, and the direct costs of enforcement.
To explain:
1. Increased crime
Participants in illegal markets cannot resort to courts and lawyers to resolve disputes, and therefore turn to guns, increasing violent crime. The ups and downs of the homicide rate in the US over the past century coincide with the ups and downs of drug prohibition enforcement. Other commodities like prostitution and gambling are associated with violence only when they are prohibited. During US alcohol Prohibition, violent crime went up markedly, and upon repeal, went down just as dramatically. The case is clear.
In addition to homicide, corruption and theft and prostitution are encouraged by illicit drug prohibition laws and enforcement. Corruption, because participants evade law enforcement authorities, or pay them to look the other way, and theft/prostitution, because prohibition increases the price of drugs. Also, because criminal justice resources are diverted to enforcement of drug laws, deterrence of other kinds of crime suffers.
The usual claim that drug use causes crime doesn't hold (much) water, in his view. "The evidence provides little indication that drug use promotes violence or other criminal behavior."
2. Harm to drug users
Higher prices, legal penalties, more time spent buying drugs, and having to deal with criminals in order to do so. Becoming a criminal, in fact. (Side note: All this while possibly self-medicating, as some manage to do. Not that heroin, for example, could ever really be medication, though, right? Or could it...)
3. Reduced product quality
In the face of an illegal/black market, product quality is lower and more uncertain. Accidental overdoses and poisonings are much more likely, with variable quality and purity. In a legal market, consumers can punish suppliers with liability claims, bad publicity, avoiding repeat purchase, or complaining to private or government watchdog groups. These mechanisms are unavailable or less effective under drug prohibition.
4. Enriched criminals
Legal markets are subject to taxation, with tax revenues accruing to the gvt. (of course). In a black market, these revenues become profits, enriching that segment of society most willing to evade the law. How much money are we talking? Hundreds of billions of dollars annually worldwide. Gvts. could collect tens of billions in additional revenue by legalizing and taxing currently illegal drugs.
5. HIV spread
Increased drug prices under prohibition result in restricted sale of syringes, and increased incentive to inject, for a bigger bang for the buck. Sharing dirty needles spreads HIV, hepatitis, and other blood-borne diseases.
6. Medicinal restrictions
Marijuana, for example, alleviates nausea, pain, migraine headaches, muscle spasms, symptoms of glaucoma, epilepsy, ms, AIDS, and others. Doctors fear legal sanctions for over-prescribing opiates and so under-treat pain in cancer patients and others with chronic conditions.
7. Compromised civil-liberties
Drug crimes involve voluntary exchange, as he puts it. Enforcement relies on asset seizures, aggressive search tactics, and racial profiling, which strain accepted notions of civil liberties and generate racial tension.
8. Aiding terrorism
Prohibition provides major cash for countries like Columbia and Afghanistan. Terrorist groups sell protection to drug traffickers. Legalization wouldn't eliminate these groups, but would eliminate most of the profits that help fund terrorism. Public resentment of governments who do things like crop eradication, and sympathy for insurgent groups, would no longer be a problem.
9. Respect for the law
"All experience to date indicates that, even with draconian enforcement, prohibition fails to deter a great many persons from supplying and consuming drugs. This fact signals that laws are for suckers, so prohibition undermines the spirit of voluntary compliance that is essential to law enforcement in a free society."
10. Enforcement's direct costs
Police, prosecutors, judges, and prisons are expensive. Many drug users, even heavy users of hard drugs, use drugs responsibly. Calm, pain relief, high, and stimulation are all considered benefits by the users. In his view, externalities that harm innocent third parties, like driving under the influence, foetal harm, or additional expenditure on healthcare can and should be addressed by policies dealing with those externalities rather than targeting all drug use.
The CBA shows that legalization would produce net benefits to the world of $130 billion dollars a year, with a ratio of 3.71 (a net benefit of 2.2T under a 6% discount rate, and a net benefit of 4.1T under a 3% discount rate). He admits, however, that the benefit is uncertain. On the other hand, legalization might generate all the benefits with few of the costs.
He concludes with this clincher argument: Legalization would provide consistency across policies regarding alcohol, tobacco, and drugs. Most illicit drugs are no more harmful, if not substantially less harmful, than these legal substances, so consistency demands that these drugs be legal as well. (sidenote: I heard aspirin wouldn't be approved by the fda for otc use now, if it was a new drug, instead of a historically widespread-use pharmaceutical. Also, food, technically is a drug. McDonald's can be addictive, right?).
Here's an article that might put all this in perspective; link.
Here's an article on the effective USE of heroin; link.
No comments:
Post a Comment