I have a prediction: The War on Drugs officially started by President Nixon in the early 70's will shortly be abandoned. That's a good thing, and this entry will explain why.
Before I get to that, though, why do I think it will end? First, the Obama administration explicitly rejects using the term as unproductive. Second, there are several states that are flouting the federal prohibition, with great public appeal. Third, a substantial group on the Right (the Tea Party) has an ideology that goes squarely against the "war." I think the next Presidential cycle will see a movement to federally repeal the prohibition of marijuana, and that may well be accompanied by the ability to use any of the prohibited substances medically. At that point ... no more war. I hope the next step would be to decriminalize drug use altogether (at least for adults).
Now, on to why ending it is a good thing. In a nutshell, it has high costs for these: 1) Finance, 2) Liberty, 3) Defense, 4) Crime and safety, 5) Health, and 6) Environment.
1. Finance
A war on drugs requires laws to be written, then an administrative state to write the regulations. Then you have to hire DEA agents and other people to investigate, arrest, and prosecute. You end up incarcerating an extra million people every year, which requires jails and prisons, guards and administrators, and everything else you need to run them. It removes people from the workforce (though, admittedly, that might not be the strongest argument). This is not a trivial sum of money -- we are talking billions. To house inmates alone, it costs around $45k a year per inmate (http://www.ehow.com/about_5409377_average-cost-house-inmates-prison.html). If we reduce our prison population by 1MM a year, that is $45 billion dollars saved. (Not really, at first, because some of the numbers don't scale, but that would hold out in the long run, I suspect.)
On the other side of the balance sheet, the revenue for taxing drugs goes to criminal groups instead of to the government. The jobs are all illegal, and many are outsourced to foreign countries. In Canada, there was an estimate that marijuana alone would be $2B in revenue. We're Americans, so I bet we would get substantially more. Ahem.
2. Liberty
Wikipedia says that, "In 1994, it was reported that the 'War on Drugs' resulted in the incarceration of one million Americans each year." Wow. That's a million people who are in prison for activities that might hurt nobody besides themselves if not for them being declared crimes. (Yes, I know that some of them would probably find their way to prisons otherwise, but I think the study tried to control for that.)
There are several other minor liberties that would open up. For instance, a real generic Coke could exist because the coca plant could be used by more than one U.S. company. We could have a stronger market in hemp. More importantly, certain religious ceremonies could be more true to their conceptual underpinnings, without jumping through hoops and lobbying for specific exemptions. Obviously there are other products and services that are off the table now but might grow if not legally or questionable.
Oh, and people could get their buzzes on. Obviously a large chunk of people like to do that, and they are being prevented from doing so. That is a cost that should be considered.
3. Defense
The U.S. has been involved in fighting drug cartels in several countries, including Afghanistan and Colombia. There have been casualties there. But why are bad guys selling drugs? Because making such a desired group of commodities illegal creates a large black market, and powerful criminal groups take over lucrative black market materials. One of the larger problems with people crossing the Mexico-U.S. border is the drug trade.
Warlords around the world subsidize their incomes through selling drugs. Creating a regulated international market could substantially decrease their revenue and power.
4. Crime and safety
People addicted to drugs often commit crimes. One reason for this is that they cannot get high paying jobs, but another is that the drugs are so expensive. An open market would drive down the cost.
To me, the more important point is that we lock up "free love hippies" with murderers, rapists, and other hardcore criminals. The relatively innocuous guy that went in comes out with a new mindset, and possibly new methods.
And why did we stop caring that criminals get raped? I saw a credible report a few years ago that more men are raped each year than women, if you include prisons. Why is it acceptable to us, as a society, that men are raped in prison on a regular basis? How horrific and sad that we don't seem to care.
While I'm talking about marginalized groups, shadow cultures are created by having the best paychecks in the neighborhood flow from the drug lords. Those groups do not want to involve the police or other offices of the state in any way in their lives because their drug use/economy might be investigated, so crimes go unreported.
Oh, and if you stop chasing down the drugs and start focusing on other areas, your police have a much more targeted set of goals, the courts have more time, etc. Other crimes might decrease from that alone (but that's just a guess -- I have no report to back me on that one).
5. Health
It is absurd to allow most chemicals to be used freely, and many drugs on prescription, but to limit certain drugs to not even allow medicinal use. Regulation and study could make the effects of drugs better understood and make the drugs themselves more consistent (no more "bad batches").
6. Environment
The U.S. sprays large portions of forests in Central and South America would Roundup as part of the War on Drugs. Need I say more there?
The counter argument
There are some sound counter arguments. Drug use would probably go up if the moral norm created by illegality were lifted. More drug addicts might create more violence of both the accidental and purposeful type. Productivity might drop because of greater use of drugs. Children might be more likely to use them, creating harmful physiological and psychological side effects.
Those are all possible, and some are probable. But most could be mitigated. We could devote a tenth of the money we save from shutting down prisons to drug rehabilitation. Our legal system could do a better job dealing with various forms of intoxication. New ideas could develop. To me, the aggregate of harm caused by the war so far exceeds the likely harm of stopping it that I'm more than willing to toss the dice.
Conclusion
The War on Drugs is really expensive in several ways. We should find a fast resolution and turn our police force to those that harm others. I'm hopeful that we see some movement on this within the next four years.
What do you think?
Before I get to that, though, why do I think it will end? First, the Obama administration explicitly rejects using the term as unproductive. Second, there are several states that are flouting the federal prohibition, with great public appeal. Third, a substantial group on the Right (the Tea Party) has an ideology that goes squarely against the "war." I think the next Presidential cycle will see a movement to federally repeal the prohibition of marijuana, and that may well be accompanied by the ability to use any of the prohibited substances medically. At that point ... no more war. I hope the next step would be to decriminalize drug use altogether (at least for adults).
Now, on to why ending it is a good thing. In a nutshell, it has high costs for these: 1) Finance, 2) Liberty, 3) Defense, 4) Crime and safety, 5) Health, and 6) Environment.
1. Finance
A war on drugs requires laws to be written, then an administrative state to write the regulations. Then you have to hire DEA agents and other people to investigate, arrest, and prosecute. You end up incarcerating an extra million people every year, which requires jails and prisons, guards and administrators, and everything else you need to run them. It removes people from the workforce (though, admittedly, that might not be the strongest argument). This is not a trivial sum of money -- we are talking billions. To house inmates alone, it costs around $45k a year per inmate (http://www.ehow.com/about_5409377_average-cost-house-inmates-prison.html). If we reduce our prison population by 1MM a year, that is $45 billion dollars saved. (Not really, at first, because some of the numbers don't scale, but that would hold out in the long run, I suspect.)
On the other side of the balance sheet, the revenue for taxing drugs goes to criminal groups instead of to the government. The jobs are all illegal, and many are outsourced to foreign countries. In Canada, there was an estimate that marijuana alone would be $2B in revenue. We're Americans, so I bet we would get substantially more. Ahem.
2. Liberty
Wikipedia says that, "In 1994, it was reported that the 'War on Drugs' resulted in the incarceration of one million Americans each year." Wow. That's a million people who are in prison for activities that might hurt nobody besides themselves if not for them being declared crimes. (Yes, I know that some of them would probably find their way to prisons otherwise, but I think the study tried to control for that.)
There are several other minor liberties that would open up. For instance, a real generic Coke could exist because the coca plant could be used by more than one U.S. company. We could have a stronger market in hemp. More importantly, certain religious ceremonies could be more true to their conceptual underpinnings, without jumping through hoops and lobbying for specific exemptions. Obviously there are other products and services that are off the table now but might grow if not legally or questionable.
Oh, and people could get their buzzes on. Obviously a large chunk of people like to do that, and they are being prevented from doing so. That is a cost that should be considered.
3. Defense
The U.S. has been involved in fighting drug cartels in several countries, including Afghanistan and Colombia. There have been casualties there. But why are bad guys selling drugs? Because making such a desired group of commodities illegal creates a large black market, and powerful criminal groups take over lucrative black market materials. One of the larger problems with people crossing the Mexico-U.S. border is the drug trade.
Warlords around the world subsidize their incomes through selling drugs. Creating a regulated international market could substantially decrease their revenue and power.
4. Crime and safety
People addicted to drugs often commit crimes. One reason for this is that they cannot get high paying jobs, but another is that the drugs are so expensive. An open market would drive down the cost.
To me, the more important point is that we lock up "free love hippies" with murderers, rapists, and other hardcore criminals. The relatively innocuous guy that went in comes out with a new mindset, and possibly new methods.
And why did we stop caring that criminals get raped? I saw a credible report a few years ago that more men are raped each year than women, if you include prisons. Why is it acceptable to us, as a society, that men are raped in prison on a regular basis? How horrific and sad that we don't seem to care.
While I'm talking about marginalized groups, shadow cultures are created by having the best paychecks in the neighborhood flow from the drug lords. Those groups do not want to involve the police or other offices of the state in any way in their lives because their drug use/economy might be investigated, so crimes go unreported.
Oh, and if you stop chasing down the drugs and start focusing on other areas, your police have a much more targeted set of goals, the courts have more time, etc. Other crimes might decrease from that alone (but that's just a guess -- I have no report to back me on that one).
5. Health
It is absurd to allow most chemicals to be used freely, and many drugs on prescription, but to limit certain drugs to not even allow medicinal use. Regulation and study could make the effects of drugs better understood and make the drugs themselves more consistent (no more "bad batches").
6. Environment
The U.S. sprays large portions of forests in Central and South America would Roundup as part of the War on Drugs. Need I say more there?
The counter argument
There are some sound counter arguments. Drug use would probably go up if the moral norm created by illegality were lifted. More drug addicts might create more violence of both the accidental and purposeful type. Productivity might drop because of greater use of drugs. Children might be more likely to use them, creating harmful physiological and psychological side effects.
Those are all possible, and some are probable. But most could be mitigated. We could devote a tenth of the money we save from shutting down prisons to drug rehabilitation. Our legal system could do a better job dealing with various forms of intoxication. New ideas could develop. To me, the aggregate of harm caused by the war so far exceeds the likely harm of stopping it that I'm more than willing to toss the dice.
Conclusion
The War on Drugs is really expensive in several ways. We should find a fast resolution and turn our police force to those that harm others. I'm hopeful that we see some movement on this within the next four years.
What do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment