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