Prohibition?
Per Rob’s request, I am here to espouse the paleo-liberal position on the prohibition of various mood-altering substances. I will make my argument rhetorically with what empirical support I can provide. But this blog takes the phrase “off-the-cuff” rather seriously. So, here we go.
Relaxing the criminalization of opium would mitigate a large source of funding for terrorist enterprise. Whenever the law stands against the free-trading of goods or services, it makes the cost of business increase substantially. Without getting too technical, one must simply imagine the extra precautions, insurances, and cares taken to avoid any legal entanglements when trading in black markets. Also, the increased risk of losing large portions of inventory due to legal seizure inflates prices in illegal markets. This makes the market price of outlawed drugs far higher than they would be without legal prohibition.
It is also true that opiates fund terrorism. It is estimated that Afghanistan is directly responsible for over 70% of the world’s heroin production. There is no doubt that large sums of money finds a path to funding terror-related activities. Therefore, de-criminalizing opium production would afford several solutions. First, it would cause the prices to decline dramatically. The markets would become far more competitive, driving economic profits to zero (for those non-economists, that means a market rate of return on investment). Second, we could produce opium and heroin domestically and regulate the industry as we see fit. This would offer a viable alternative to Afghan drugs. Just like you see “fair-trade” items listed at local retailers you’d see “non-terror” drugs advertised. People are clearly willing to pay a premium for organic foods and fair-trade coffee beans so why not home-grown opium? Ending the war on opiates would deflate the financial tires of terrorist organizations.
Decriminalization would make drugs safer to use. The nature of a black market is one of high risk and high reward. Any individual purchasing items in an illegal market runs the risk of fines, jail time, etc. The idea of going down to the county lock-up to make some new friends isn’t appealing to most drug users. So, they seek to get the most “bang for the buck” when buying drugs. That’s one explanation for the progressive nature of drug use. The longer you use drugs, the greater the risk of being apprehended by law enforcement. Regardless, when the big gain, big risk element is pervasive in drug markets it only makes sense that narcotic producers would do anything to make their product have an extra kick. Whether that’s lacing joints with formaldehyde or mixing drug cocktails in dangerous proportions, they’ll give it a shot to make their product worth the risk of buying it. This could easily be changed if drugs weren’t illegal. People would have every incentive to find safe drugs as opposed to the most hardcore kick they can find.
Decriminalization would make inner-cities a safer place. When was the last time you heard on the news “Local used car salesman suspect in drive by shooting”? Likely never, the thought is laughable. Certainly not as often as we hear news break about drug-related violence. Due to the extra risks involved in the drug trade, violence is a common occurrence to protect “turf” for drug sales. Any compromise in market share for a drug dealing organization must be avoided at all costs. There is no option for legal recourse in drug dealing. If someone steals from you, you must defend your property (although illegal) with force. Back to the proverbial state of nature.
Also, black markets attract a certain type of person: one who breaks the law. So, in an illegal market you have a high concentration of young urban troubadours more than willing to break the law. There’s no doubt that these characters have a greater affinity for violence than the barista at your local Starbucks. Ending the illegal drug trade through de-criminalization would make violence far less dramatic in urban environments. There’s no reason to “bust a cap” when all you need to do is dial 9-1-1 to protect your property.
There are a few reasons why looking into altering the laws against drugs and ending our war on them might have a few benefits. Anyone convinced?
2 comments:
I had to look up barista. how the heck did you know that word? also, where are you hearing troubadour in this sense? are you trying to make the reach that most gang-bangers are also amateur rap artists (and travel from one welfare state to another)?
On legalization, the reduced crime and terrorism arguement is a strong one, but the difficulty (and chaos in the criminal world) of a transition is probably the hardest step.
Also, just imagine all of the Target Marketesque advertising we'd all have to suffer after the initial Hoorah by the potheads. It'd be self-righteous 20 somethings and celebrities every other commercial telling us how bad the decisions in our lives are.
"There’s no reason to 'bust a cap' when all you need to do is dial 9-1-1 to protect your property."
But seriously Steve, why call 9-1-1 when you can "bust a cap"?
That's interesting reading about all of the hidden incentives and benefits of legalization. I thought conservatives were supposed to think rigidly in black and white and not catch the nuances of economics.
Post a Comment