Thursday, June 14, 2012

Prohibition: Why It Doesn't Work


I first published this piece at RevoluTimes on November 17, 2011
If you’re looking to start a screaming match with a parent, your neighbor, or just the average American, nothing will test their temper like calling for the end of the War on Drugs. Though drug legalization has found a somewhat stronger voice in recent years, the majority of Americans are far from supporting an end to the federal government’s role in drug policy. Most proponents of prohibition are certainly well-intentioned citizens seeking to relieve the nation’s drug-related woes; but an understanding of the market economy reveals such good intentions are paving a road to hell.
For four decades the U.S. government has waged what Nixon called, “a global war on the drug menace”. Nixon claimed that drug abuse in America was “public enemy number one” and swore to launch an unprecedented “all-out offensive”. (Hat Tip Reason.com) He stayed true to that promise but the results of this war, (and it is indeed a real war) leaves one wondering if those wishing for its continuation aren’t puffing on the Magic Dragon themselves.
Forty years and $1 trillion later , Washington has still failed to overcome the laws of economics. This is not to say they’ve suddenly had a change of heart but it is becoming increasingly clear that such a notion as a war to end drug abuse is as patently absurd as the rest of America’s wars. As a gentleman on the History Channel’s documentary, Marijuana: A Chronic History said, “I wish the government would declare a war on hot chicks. They’d be everywhere!” Indeed sir, indeed.
I understand it may be difficult for many to consider illicit drugs in strictly economic terms but this is essential if we are to have an honest discussion on drug addiction, crime and their causes.
A drug is simply a good. Simply because someone finds drug use deplorable does not negate its being a good that is made available to meet demands. This is economics 101. Where there is a demand for something, someone somewhere will provide for that demand to make a profit. Ironically, some of the staunchest supporters of the drug war are self-described “conservatives” who claim to revere the free market, while simultaneously demonstrating an utter inability to understand its most basic precepts.
Declaring prohibition on the buying and selling of certain substances may sound good on the surface to some, but it actually increases the value of these substances due to their scarcity; thereby encouraging new prospects to enter the market for it. Imagine a prohibition on bread, would Americans stop seeking to purchase and consume bread? To those who may claim bread is perfectly healthy and is no comparison to an illegal drug, you’re missing the point. Whether or not you think someone should consume bread or marijuana, the demands of those who wish to purchase and consume these goods are not going to vanish. Indeed, if bread were going to be outlawed tomorrow, millions of Americans would buy as much bread as they can tonight because its value would skyrocket.
This is what leads to an increase in drug trafficking. The greater the scarcity of the good and the harsher the penalty for violating drug laws, the more expensive the drug becomes due to the increased risk on the part of the drug traffickers and dealers. This creates the greatest incentive to those seeking to make a large amount of money in a short period of time, hence the ever-increasing number of drug dealers.
One of the most common objections to legalizing drugs is that the drug trade itself is responsible for the large amount of crime that surrounds the drug trade. First, even if this were true studies have shown the War on Drugs to be a failure as violence and drug abuses have increased since its inception. But this assertion isn’t true to begin with. Have you ever seen Budweiser and Miller have a gunfight in the streets to protect their turf? Of course not. These businesses have a legal framework with which to compete. Drug cartels on the other hand, form and create violence to protect their investments because they have no peaceful mechanism under the rule of law to settle disputes between competitors. As individuals seek to fulfill their self-interest, those involved in the drug trade are going to protect their investments at all costs; without the protection of law, the only recourse is violence.
Yet another misconception concerning drug-related crime is that its causes stem from addiction. While it’s certainly true that many drug users become desperately addicted to their preferred substances, it is not the addiction itself that leads to crime. It is commonly understood and accepted that cigarettes are extremely addictive and dangerous to an individual’s health; but when was the last time you heard of anyone holding up a convenience store for a pack of Marlboros?
Individuals use economic reasoning on a daily basis whether they realize it or not.
Just as you consider a cost/benefit analysis of where to purchase groceries or whether to drive across the country or take a plane, drug users weigh their options as well. If given the choice to buy drugs from a potentially violent dealer at an artificially high price or from a legitimate business, the buyer will take the legal, peaceful and cheaper route every time. This is why the drug cartels themselves are some of the strongest supporters of drug prohibition. It was no coincidence the mafia and bootleggers began to die out as did the violence they initiated once prohibition of alcohol was lifted.
An often overlooked unintended consequence of the drug war is the incentive it creates for drug cartels and users to seek more potent and more dangerous drugs. Because of the risk of violence and arrest involved in drug trafficking and purchasing illegal drugs, drug users want a bigger bang for their buck. This causes those seeking an intoxicant to try more addictive and dangerous drugs because of the greater intensity of the high. Some studies suggest a slight increase in the potency of marijuana has occurred since the beginning of the War on Drugs as well as great increases in the use of harder drugs such as cocaine and heroin. There were similar results during alcohol prohibition as many drinkers began purchasing more hard liquor instead of beer.
Despite the economic case that prohibition has never, nor ever will work, many will still object that legalizing drug use would create a society of apathy that would grow comfortable with drug abuse and addiction as it became the social norm. I have two questions for them:
1. What has prohibition done to keep this from happening, if not made it worse?
2. At any point in your life have you ever encountered a co-worker, friend, or family member, anyone who sincerely felt that being an alcoholic was healthy, acceptable, or not detrimental to a person’s overall well-being? I’ve known many addicts in my life and even they emphatically condemn their destructive habits. Alcoholism is not accepted by society, it’s recognized as a dangerous and rampant disease; and yet we don’t lock alcoholics up in cages.
Amsterdam and Portugal have led the way in implementing more rational drug policies without seeing an increase in crime or drug use; in fact in some cases these factors decreased by simply recognizing that drug abuse is a disease, not a crime and addicts must be treated not imprisoned.

No comments:

Post a Comment