In December 2013, Uruguay legalized marijuana, Earlier, in 2012, Colorado and Washington legalized marijuana under the laws of their states, and 21 additional states and the District of Columbia have now decriminalized or allowed medical use of marijuana. Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001, and the Netherlands has practiced de facto legalization for marijuana for decades. More broadly, many countries have de-escalated their "Wars on Drugs." Indeed, President Obama hinted strongly in a recent interview that he supports marijuana legalization. [continues 690 words]
For decades, the U.S. debate over drug legalization has pitted conservatives against libertarians and some liberals. A few conservatives have publicly opposed the drug war, but most either endorse it or sidestep the issue. Yet vigorous opposition to the drug war should be a no-brainer for conservatives. Legalization would not only promote specific policy objectives dear to conservative hearts, it is also consistent with core principles that conservatives endorse in other contexts. Legalization would be beneficial in key aspects of the war on terror. Afghanistan is the world leader in opium production, and this trade is highly lucrative because U.S.-led prohibition drives the market underground. The Taliban then earns substantial income by protecting opium farmers and traffickers from law enforcement in exchange for a share of the profits. U.S. eradication of opium fields also drives the hearts and minds of Afghan farmers away from the U.S. and toward the Taliban. [continues 575 words]
State and federal governments face a daunting fiscal outlook. The national debt stands at 60 percent of GDP, its highest level since World War II. Under current projections this ratio will rise to more than 75 percent of GDP by 2020 and continue increasing thereafter. States are also facing severe budget shortfalls. Politicians and the public express concern about the debt, but standard proposals for expenditure cuts or tax increases garner little support. Understandably, therefore, some politicians, commentators, interest groups, and citizens have embraced unconventional approaches to closing fiscal gaps, such as legalizing drugs. [continues 686 words]
Conservatism and Opposition to the Drug War Should Go Hand in Hand. For decades, the U.S. debate over drug legalization has pitted conservatives on one side against libertarians and some liberals on the other. A few conservatives have publicly opposed the drug war (e.g., National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr.), but most conservatives either endorse it or sidestep the issue. Yet vigorous opposition to the drug war should be a no-brainer for conservatives. Legalization would not only promote specific policy objectives that are near and dear to conservative hearts, it is also consistent with core principles that conservatives endorse in other contexts. [continues 662 words]
In November 2010, California voters will consider a ballot initiative that would legalize marijuana in the state. The proposed law includes restrictions on sale and use, such as a minimum purchase age of 21, but the bill gives marijuana roughly the same legal status as alcohol. Early polls suggest the measure will pass, although full-scale debate has not yet occurred. Marijuana legalization is a far bigger step than decriminalization or medicalization, which have already occurred in California and other states. Decriminalization legalizes possession of small amounts of marijuana, but it does not eliminate the underground market or permit easy taxation. Medicalization is closer to legalization, but it still leaves producers and consumers in a legal gray area and collects less revenue than legalization. Should California, or the country, legalize marijuana? [continues 621 words]
I. Introduction AROUND the world, the legal status of commodities such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin differs dramatically from that of nearly all other goods. Most commodities are subject to substantial regulation and taxation, but the production, distribution, sale, and possession of illegal drugs are prohibited outright. Violation of these prohibitions is punishable by lengthy jail terms, and many governments devote enormous resources to enforcing these prohibition regimes. The presumed justification for the special legal treatment of drugs is that drug use causes substantial harm both to drug users and to society generally. According to conventional wisdom, drug use diminishes the productivity of the drug user, encourages violent and nonviolent crime, contributes to moral degradation, damages the public purse, harms unborn children, etc. The prohibition of drugs is assumed necessary to reduce the consumption of drugs and thereby reduce the ills caused by drug consumption. [continues 2196 words]
III. The Normative Analysis of Drug Prohibition I now present what economists call a normative analysis of drug prohibition, meaning one that asks whether prohibition is preferable to legalization. As a starting point, I note that most effects of prohibition are, in and of themselves, negative (for example, increased crime, redistributions to criminals, greater corruption, diminished civil liberties). The most important exception is prohibition's effect on drug consumption. This effect might not be large, and it might even be perverse (because of the forbidden fruit effect, for example). But there is little dispute that this is the key issue: if prohibition fails to reduce consumption, it is unambiguously inferior to legalization. If prohibition reduces consumption, the bottom line depends on how one views this effect and on the magnitude of prohibition's negative consequences. [continues 3801 words]
Hollywood movies are not widely noted for their educational value. But in a searing depiction of drug trafficking and the war on drugs, the movie "Traffic" teaches much about the folly of drug prohibition. Even if "Traffic" does not win the Oscar for Best Picture of the Year, it deserves the title Most Important Picture of the Year. Lesson 1: Prohibition, not drug consumption, causes the violence often attributed to drugs. "Traffic's" rival Mexican drug organizations resort to cold-blooded murder because unlike ordinary business firms they have no legal, nonviolent means to resolve disputes. In the United States, the murder rate skyrocketed during alcohol prohibition but fell once prohibition ended. Statistical research suggests that eliminating drug prohibition in the United States today would reduce the murder rate by 50 percent. [continues 628 words]
HOLLYWOOD movies are not widely noted for their educational value. But in a searing depiction of drug "Traffic"king and the war on drugs, the movie "Traffic" teaches much about the folly of drug prohibition. Even if "Traffic" does not win the Oscar for best picture of the year; it deserves the title most important picture of the year. Lesson 1: Prohibition, not drug consumption, causes the violence often attributed to drugs. The rival Mexican drug organizations in "Traffic" resort to cold-blooded murder because unlike ordinary business firms they have no legal, non-violent means to resolve disputes. In the United States, the murder rate skyrocketed during alcohol prohibition but fell once prohibition ended. Statistical research suggests that eliminating drug prohibition in the United States today would reduce the murder rate by 50 percent. [continues 586 words]
Biernson's Review Of The Evidence On Marijuana'S Effects Is Highly Skewed We requested Prof. Jeffrey A. Miron to reply to the article which appeared in our last issue about the dangers of marijuana. Prof. Miron is the founder of the Bastiat Institute, a libertarian think tank in Wellesley and a professor at Boston University. Needless to say, the author of the original article, George Biernson and others, are anxious to reply to Prof. Miron in our next issue. We hope this exchange will allow you to sharpen your views on the subject. - Massachusetts News [continues 2236 words]
This is not to say legalization would eliminate all drug-related problems. No policy is capable of doing that. But legalization would have clear and substantial benefits, with little increase in the problems related to drug use itself. Without endorsing full legalization, about 500 distinguished signers affirmed in an open letter to the United Nations this month that the international drug war now causes more harm than drug abuse does. The foundation of the case for legalization is the indisputable yet oft-ignored fact that drug prohibition does not eliminate drug markets or drug use. Instead, it simply moves them underground. Drug prohibition does raise some costs of doing business for suppliers, and it probably reduces demand by some consumers. [continues 1089 words]
