« Mexico a Victim of Drug War's Success? | Main | Seattle Leading the Way »
March 04, 2005
Business Week Column Calls for Legalization
This week a column in the online edition of Business Week called for legalization. I don't know yet if it is also appearing in print Following is the text of our Drug War Chronicle article about the column, slated to be distributed tomorrow morning -- followed by some thoughts I have:
In a Monday column for the Internet version of Business Week, contributing economics editor Christopher Farrell called for legalizing currently illicit drugs and taxing them at very high rates. In his regular "Sound Money" column, Farrell called for "a new kind of drug war," arguing that, "The conventional one has been highly costly, with little return. Making narcotics legal -- and very expensive -- can reduce addiction and crime," he wrote.Citing Boston university economist Jeffrey Miron, Farrell wrote that government at all levels had spent $33 billion in prosecuting the drug war in recent years. "How is the return on that investment?" asked Farell. "Abysmal." Farrell cited the usual litany of disasters to make his case -- continuing strong demand for drugs, the growth of drug trafficking organizations, crime and corruption, overstuffed US prisons.
"It's time to consider a dramatic shift in policy," Farrell concluded. "Instead of the battle cry 'war on drugs,' let's try the mantra 'legalization, regulation, and taxation.' We should regulate narcotics just as we do cigarettes and alcohol, restricting sales to minors and imposing steep excise taxes... Indeed, the model for dealing with alcohol is instructive. Banning alcohol outright in the US was a public policy disaster. Ending Prohibition quickly cleaned up the liquor industry. Gangsters were denied a lucrative source of income, and violent crime associated with the business fell."
While the idea of legalization and regulation is not new, Farrell wrote, it has never been implemented because of fears that cheap legal drugs would create an army of addicts. The solution, Farrell opined, is to tax newly legalized drugs at rates so high that prices remain similar to current black market prices. Even though demand for drugs is relatively inelastic, it is not completely inelastic, he argued. Higher drug prices mean lower drug use levels.
"With the addition of a steep excise tax -- several hundred percentage points above the cost of wholesale production, for example -- the price of cocaine could be greater than the price the fruitless war on drugs supports. It's possible that consumption would be lower in a high-tax regime than it is in today's law-enforcement environment."
Farrell did not come to this conclusion easily, saying he did not look forward to heroin and cocaine being made available at the corner liquor store. "I know that the cost of drug abuse and addiction -- including nicotine and alcohol -- is already substantial, especially measured by increased health-care expenditures and lower worker productivity. And I have no wish to see the numbers of addicts increase. But there's the hope that with a carefully crafted new paradigm of legalization, there could be fewer users. That's positive. There's nothing positive to be derived from staying with the status quo."
In addition to writing the regular "Sound Money" column for Business Week, Farrell also hosts the nationally-syndicated "Sound Money" program for Minnesota Public Radio and contributes to National Public Radio's "Marketplace" program.
Obviously it's great that this column has run. While praising Farrell for raising the legalization issue, I also want to raise some cautions about the idea of ultra-high prices through taxation. "Vice taxes" to discourage drug use financially while keeping it legal are one option to consider. But if the price goes too high -- if it's as high or higher than current black market prices as Farrell has suggested -- the result will be a significant black market as buyers and sellers seek to avoid the high taxes. Not quite as terrible a black market as we have now, perhaps, but pretty bad.
My other caution is that a lot of the harm to addicts results from the high prices, which have a financially destabilizing effect on them, in serious cases literally driving people to homelessness, theft, prostitution, etc. So I think there are limits to how high we can wisely drive up the price.
Still, he called for legalization in the pages of a widely read publication read by the economically-focused, and my points are not intended to take away from that. Check out the column, which is titled "A New Kind of Drug War." There is a lot of interesting discussion and good statistics which are well worth examining. If anyone locates letter to the editor information, please post it here, as I was unable to find it.
- Dave Borden, DRCNet
Posted by dborden725 at March 4, 2005 12:51 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://stopthedrugwar.org/cgi-bin/mtype/mt-tb.cgi/25
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Business Week Column Calls for Legalization:
» Small Business Marketing: Sales Celebrity Brian Tracy Endorses Expert's New Book -- And the Book Comes With $600 Worth of Free Bonuses. . . No Joke
from The Business Blog
When small business marketing guru Brian Tracy endorses your new book, “it’s a good day,” says Dave Mason, the Canadian marketing expert whose book, "Marketing Your Small Business for Big Profits", launches on Thursday, Dec. 1. Tracy, an author a... [Read More]
Tracked on December 1, 2005 08:13 AM
» Drug Addiction from Drug Addiction
and get _ The U.S. government does not endorse or favor any specific commercial product or company. Trade, proprietary... [Read More]
Tracked on February 22, 2006 03:34 AM
» Drug Abuse Rehab from Drug Abuse Rehab
• for Phoenix House; John Spencer and Alcohol Treatment and Alcohol Treatment and where to spot the ri... [Read More]
Tracked on February 22, 2006 12:30 PM
» Drug Abuse Rehab from Drug Abuse Rehab
• for Phoenix House; John Spencer and Alcohol Treatment and Alcohol Treatment and where to spot the right direction. Here are... [Read More]
Tracked on February 22, 2006 03:10 PM
» Drug And Alcohol Abuse from Drug And Alcohol Abuse
or call 866-373-1253 or call 866-373-1253 or email to . 909 West 45th Street, Austin, TX 78758 . ... [Read More]
Tracked on February 23, 2006 12:04 AM
» Drug Abuse Rehab from Drug Abuse Rehab
• for Phoenix House; John Spencer and Alcohol Treatment and Alcohol Treatment and where to spot the right direction. Here a... [Read More]
Tracked on February 23, 2006 01:41 AM
» Drug And Alcohol Abuse from Drug And Alcohol Abuse
or call 866-373-1253 or call 866-373-1253 or email to . 909 West 45th Street, Austin, TX 78758 . 909 West 45th Street, Austin... [Read More]
Tracked on February 23, 2006 07:28 AM
» Drug Addiction from Drug Addiction
and get _ The U.S. government does not endorse or favor any specific commercial product or company. Trade, proprietary, ... [Read More]
Tracked on February 27, 2006 11:51 AM
Comments
There is nothing that can be done about "addiction" because addiction is a myth.
People take pain relievers to relieve pain. Period.
If your pain is not recognized by the government you are classed as an "addict".
The #1 unrecognized pain? PTSD.
Posted by: M. Simon at March 5, 2005 07:52 AM
The recently pulled DEA FAQ on Pain said that drugs do not cause addiction.
So what is it exactly that tthe DEA is protecting us from?
The pulled Pain FAQ demolishes the drug war. I'm surprised more activists are not studying it. It destroys the whole premise of the drug war.
BTW the DEA does not say what causes addiction. They are pretty clear that drugs don't do it.
Posted by: M. Simon at March 5, 2005 10:13 AM
I'm having a hard time seeing the difference between the drug cartel and the drug warriors. Although, the drug cartel gets their money from people who give it volunterily and the warriors force us to finance thier insanity. Also, the drug cartel gives thier costomers a product in return for money and the warriors give thier forced customers long prison sentances.
Posted by: Linda Otis at March 28, 2005 03:56 PM
There are both physical and psychological aspects of addiction... the body responds to an abnormally high level of a substance masquerading as a natural transmitter by reducing the sensitivity to it (a slow process)... if the body subsequently has a return to normal levels, the decreased sensitivity will make these levels inadequate to maintain function. This is physical addiction. It is 'fixed' the same way it was 'broken' by steadily reducing levels of the psuedotransmitter so the body will restore it's sensitivity, without undue withdrawl side effects. This method is illegal in the U.S. where it has been considered as coddling of addicts & supportive of addiction since the early 20th century when politicians began to think they should regulate medical practice, although ignorant of it's principals.
Unfortunately, there is also a psychological aspect to drugs that moderate pain. Our consciences are 'hardwired' as self-directed pain production. When we do something our consciences oppose, circuits are activated that produce the sensation of pain. "It hurt my feelings" can be literally interpreted. When anti-pain drugs are used to 'cure' a guilty conscience, or to quell the conscience altogether, we end up with a chemically induced psychopath, immune to their own conscience. Bad situation.
But treatment for addiction needs to address BOTH these aspects... the easy physical aspect (given legal freedom for substance maintainance) and the harder psychological aspect... the individual needs to see this is a really bad solution to a painful conscience... killing the conscience! Obvious to most of us is that the better solution is to modify the behavior that caused the guilt! One of those 'easier said than done' situations, obviously...
Posted by: Robert Sawdey at June 6, 2005 06:17 PM