Pubdate: Mon, 20 Dec 2010
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Page: A - 12
Copyright: 2010 Hearst Communications Inc.
Contact: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/submissions/#1
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/388
Author: Bruce Wydick
Note: Bruce Wydick is a professor of economics at the University of 
San Francisco.
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)

ADOPT LESSONS FROM SPORTS TO DECREASE DRUG DEMAND

The economics behind our government's war on drugs render it 
self-defeating. Our focus on reducing supply keeps drug prices high 
for drug lords, increasing their incentive to supply them and kill 
both competitors and the government officials trying to stand in 
their way. Thursday's announcement from Mexico that an astounding 
30,196 people have been killed in the country's 4-year-old war 
against the drug cartels should compel us to consider a new approach 
to the war on drugs.

There are essentially three ways to fight the drug problem:

. The supply-based approach, which has been the cornerstone of U.S. 
anti-narcotics policy since the Nixon administration in 1969, has 
irresponsibly passed the blame for our drug-consumption problem onto 
suppliers in other countries. This makes for great politics, but 
attempts at supply reduction will never solve the drug problem.

Undeniably, our supply-based policy has had extraordinary impacts: It 
has caused drug mobsters to infiltrate the political and justice 
systems of Latin American countries such as Mexico, Guatemala and 
Colombia, turning them into cesspools of corruption and violence. The 
number of deaths in Mexico from the offensive against the drug 
cartels far exceeds the U.N. definition of a civil war. Supply 
interdiction is rooted in a nonsensical economic logic that operates 
in lockstep with the interests of the drug cartels: It keeps the 
market profitable and worth killing for.

. Legalization, an alternative proposed by civil libertarians, but 
politically unviable as the majority of Americans have serious qualms 
about legalizing recreational drugs. If legalizing marijuana can't 
pass in California, a more widespread legalization of drugs at a 
national level has about the chance of a bong at a Bible study.

. A demand-side approach, which offers a viable alternative to the 
futility of the supply-side approach and the moral apprehensiveness 
over legalization. It would reallocate resources from destroying drug 
cartels toward a combination of carrots and sticks to dissuade drug 
use. To work, it must involve testing, similar to what exists today 
in professional sports.

It might be possible to implement creative demand-based policies that 
are politically palatable. What if people who passed a free, random, 
non-mandatory drug test at a local clinic received a "clean card," 
yielding a tax credit of, say, $500. The clean card would become what 
economists call a "signal." Employers could surmise that those 
without one value getting high more than getting a generous tax 
credit. This would give users an incentive to clean up. No clean 
card? No welfare check, no driver's license. Ouch.

Demand reduction lowers drug prices and reduces incentives for 
violence. Moreover, a study by the Rand Corporation finds drug 
treatment to be 23 times as cost effective as eradication or rounding 
up drug dealers.

Critics will complain that the policy violates individual freedoms. 
In this respect, so does the requirement to serve on a jury or smog 
check your car. Individual freedoms have to be weighed against the 
common good. A new demand-based drug policy is arguably the greatest 
favor we could do our southern neighbors as well as ourselves. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake