Pubdate: Thu, 22 Nov 2001
Source: Japan Times (Japan)
Copyright: 2001 The Japan Times
Contact:  http://www.japantimes.co.jp/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/755
Author: Hiroshi Ohta And Michael L. Lahr
Note: Hiroshi Ohta is professor of economics at Aoyama Gakuin
University and Michael L. Lahr is associate professor, Rutgers, the
State University of New Jersey
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)

PROTECTING THE PUBLIC FROM THE THREATS OF TERROR AND DEPRESSION

Money Wasted Fighting The Unwinnable War On Drugs Would Be Better Spent On 
Antiterror Security Measures

Special to The Japan Times

In his Sept. 30 New York Times article, "The Fear Economy," MIT economist 
Paul Krugman warned that the American public should be prepared for a 
possible deflationary spiral comparable to the Great Depression of the 
1930s and Japan's milder but chronic depression of the 1990s. A major 
depression could certainly result from the psychological fear triggered by 
the present terror. So Krugman tried to assure the American public that the 
collapse of the twin WTC towers should be less devastating to the economy 
in monetary terms than has been any of "America's recent natural disasters" 
- -- such as severe hurricanes or earthquakes.

He is right. Even in terms of human casualties the present body counts, 
while in thousands, are not really so high relative to other avoidable 
causes of death. For example, the annual death toll from smoking in the 
United States alone amounts to about an awesome 400,000, including 53,000 
dying from passive smoking, according to the New England Journal of Medicine.

If an economic depression is imminent, if it is indeed related to the 
public psychology, and if because of this the public feels a need to 
"escape," then we have a better proposition. While Krugman's "unorthodox 
remedies" seem to include letting the Bank of Japan print and disperse 
money, our own heretical proposal is to revamp the contemporary prohibition 
on drugs. It may sound far-fetched, but it could succeed in "killing two 
birds with one stone" or perhaps even no stone at all.

Regarding the Sept. 11 attacks, it is far more important to know what has 
really happened rather than to know what to call them. This is because 
there is a fine distinction between knowing the name of something and 
knowing something. Reacting to what has happened by calling it a "cowardly 
act" or a "war," we are only likely to provoke those supporting the 
attackers into calling it a "sacred war," so that the suicide attackers 
themselves become martyrs.

Punishing those organizations and individuals responsible for the attacks 
is unlikely to hinder the possibility of future "cowardly acts" unless 
those who want to become "martyrs" are somehow eliminated prior to their 
martyrdom.

Six decades ago, the Japanese public had been firmly indoctrinated into 
believing that they were waging a "sacred war" against the "goblin beasts." 
They failed to stop their kamikaze attacks and bamboo lancing despite, 
regardless of, or even all the more because of the devastating atomic 
bombings. Thus it was not only the Japanese but also the Allies who were 
fortunate that the Showa Emperor had the courage to surrender 
unconditionally to the Allies and to order the Japanese public to stop 
fighting. Indeed, rather than what moniker to lend to the series of 
terrorist attacks, we instead need to seek an understanding of what is at 
their root in order to effectively counter such acts in the future.

Rather than counter them, however, such foul play ought to be prevented or 
avoided altogether. And while nothing can be terror- proof, we could easily 
allocate far more resources to airport and airplane security. But will we 
be able to pay for such security enhancement?

We believe that allocating resources presently devoted to the so- called 
war on drugs could fund some measure of terror prevention. This terror 
prevention, however, should be distinguished from the "war on terror," 
which is a terrible error. The latter is no more rational a manner to 
regain public security than is continuing the war on drugs. Both waste 
immeasurable resources -- legal infrastructure, labor force, taxpayers' 
money, and above all human lives.

According to Gwynne Dyer, a London-based journalist, $450 billion a year 
(almost 10 percent of world trade) flows into the hands of "professional 
criminals," who have become "rich enough to subvert entire countries." His 
observation appeared in The Japan Times July 26, less than two months prior 
to the attacks in the U.S. But lest the reader misunderstand Dyer's main 
thrust, we hasten to add, his article was titled "Legalization: The Drug 
War's Best Weapon." He notes that heroin is a highly addictive substance, 
but cigarettes are "even more addictive and a grave health hazard to boot."

What would then happen if narcotics less hazardous than cigarettes were 
legalized? Thomas Szasz, an American psychiatrist, answers this question by 
raising this simple question: Don't we know that if opioids were 
deregulated and sold in the open market, thieves would have no more reason 
to steal opium from pharmacies than they have to steal onions from 
supermarkets?

Why are opioids stolen? It is because they are worth a lot on the black 
market. Why are they worth a lot? It is because they are regulated. Who 
wants drug controls then? Our hypothesis: Both professional criminals and 
professional noncriminals. The latter's vested interest lies in the 
production of legal drugs on the one hand and the war on drugs on the other.

We see no reason why smoking (apparently more deadly and even more 
addictive than is heroin) is politically and legally sanctioned, while 
lesser evils to society at large are totally unacceptable. As a natural 
economic consequence of drug regulations, some American pharmacies 
reportedly do not even carry opium-based pain-relief pills for fear of theft.

Who benefits from such regulations the most? Our wild speculation: The 
tobacco industry does. If other drugs, which are less of a societal health 
hazard than nicotine and which are more effective in making people "high" 
or "stoned" were legalized, then certainly fewer people would die from 
their consumption. If, indeed, any such presently illicit drug was 
legalized on par with nicotine and caffeine, so that proper hazard warnings 
were provided, then we suspect that the public -- including smokers, 
nonsmokers and smokers-to-be alike -- would be better off.

The only other clear losers, other than illicit drug dealers, would be 
those in the tobacco industry. And even they could seek employment and 
profits elsewhere, although they would no longer enjoy the "quasi rent" 
that they have gained at the expense of a net overall loss to society.

Thus, the war on terrorism and the war on drugs seem to us to be inexorably 
intertwined, albeit perversely, through vested interests in the tobacco 
industry. The tobacco industry, as the producer of a legal drug, has 
incentives to keep other potentially competitive drugs from becoming 
legalized. It has incentives to lobby for the drug war and, to the extent 
that it succeeds, operators in the drug-related black market keep raking in 
hundreds of billions of dollars every year.

These operators include opium magnates in the Middle East (e.g. 
Afghanistan) and the drug lords in South and Central America, as well as 
their local distributors. And only a small fraction of the take of this 
worldwide net of organizations needs to be invested in controlling some 
poor, sick minds to undertake subversive activities.

One means of their control appears to be through religious fanaticism; such 
groups are at large everywhere. Only a few years ago a number of graduates 
from Japan's "Ivy League" universities dispersed sarin gas in Tokyo's 
subway for some unfathomable cause, being allegedly indoctrinated by a 
religious leader who to this day insists on his innocence because he is 
"unsighted," albeit enlightened.

We would not be surprised if drug money caused some of the dive in world 
stocks just before and after the Sept. 11 incident. If it was, then the war 
on drugs should be fought all the more by legalization, gradually at least, 
if not right away. Further, money and human resources allocated to law 
enforcement in the war against drugs need not be reduced, only reallocated 
to airport security or elsewhere as needed. They could also be increasingly 
allocated to drug education, prevention of passive smoking, etc.

In light of the aforementioned staggering death tolls from smoking, it is 
about time that even the Japanese (who allegedly cannot say "no") say "no" 
to this ongoing tragedy.

Finally, if nonnicotine-based drugs were legalized with proper warning 
labels and instructions, the mass of people whose labor is now misallocated 
or not used could avoid premature death caused by the consumption of legal 
narcotics and also possibly become engaged in economically productive 
activities.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Terry Liittschwager