Drug War Crimes: The Consequences of Prohibition

Rating:
Summary: At War With Ourselves
Review: The interesting thing about economics is the lack of emphasis on intention. Economists don't care what the intent of the policy is, only the outcome. The result of this all-consuming focus is that economic analyses have a fascinating way of seeing past wishful thinking. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Jeffrey Miron's analysis of narcotics prohibition, Drug War Crimes: the Consequences of Prohibition. Nearly everyone agrees that the United States has a drug problem, and our government arrests 1.5 million people a year fighting it. Is prohibition making the problem worse?

Miron certainly thinks so. Although the book is nominally objective, Miron's personal opinions on the issue are clear. This is not necessarily a criticism - to paraphrase Howard Zinn's argument in A People's History of the United States, the large body of evidence that has been built up in support of drug prohibition compels a one-sided account in order to balance the scales.

The argument goes like this: abridging the rights of citizens to use drugs is morally questionable in the first place; even if you decide that eliminating drug use is a noble aim of the government, the negative consequences of prohibition outweigh its positives; even if they didn't, outright prohibition is the worst way to go about achieving this goal. So why do we spend $33 billion a year on it?

Many negative effects of drug use are self-evident, such as increased corruption, the spread of infectious disease through the sharing of needles, and the transfer of wealth to criminals. Two questions, however, warrant extended analysis: To what extent does prohibition lower consumption? And what is the effect of prohibition on violence? Miron's analysis suggests that prohibition reduces consumption by only about 20%, while leading to dramatic increases in violence.

Some of these arguments are quite convincing, others aren't, while still others are neither, either due to moral subjectivity or to a lack of data. Nearly all of them, however, are thought provoking, and some are shocking. In an example rich with parallels to drug prohibition, Miron describes actions taken by the U.S. government during the 1920s. Knowing that individuals would attempt to use industrial alcohol to produce moonshine, congress ordered industries to change their method of alcohol production, making it unsuitable for ingestion. While their decision to poison their own citizens probably convinced some not to brew their own alcohol, thousands of others became ill or died.

As an example of the tenor of Drug War Crimes, consider the section exploring the idea of rational drug. The section argues that the negative effects of many drugs have been widely exaggerated. In support of this assertion, Miron cites a study of the consumers of certain products, including narcotics. The study finds that the percentage of consumers still using narcotics five years after the study began is similar to that of many legal products. Miron then concludes that heroin, say, is roughly as addictive as chocolate. Given the considerable legal, social, and health incentives to quit using drugs, this hardly seems a reasonable conclusion. But it's interesting, and it's an argument no one else is making.

A larger problem with the analysis is that the case against prohibition is, to some extent, academic. Every country on earth prohibits drugs; if any country were to change that policy, it would become a worldwide drug factory, not to mention violate international law and trade agreements.

Nevertheless, Miron didn't set out to write a book about politics - he wrote a policy analysis, and while his lack of neutrality will surely bother some readers, his overall conclusions are sound. He knows that in many of his arguments, there is no clear answer. The point is that "prohibition has enormous costs with, at best, modest and speculative benefits.... The goals of prohibition are questionable, the methods unsound, and the results are deadly." Given the available evidence, this appears undeniable. What to do instead is a tougher question.