One-Dimensional Thinking on Drug Legalization

by Logan Albright
Nov. 18, 2014

The libertarian movement is often dismissed as consisting of a bunch of hippy stoners who just want to take drugs and do whatever they want. Of course, this is an unfair and untrue generalization that ignores the centuries of political philosophy, ethics, and economic thought that underlie the modern definition of libertarianism, yet it is not hard to see why this misconception persists. Popular libertarian outlets like Reason Magazine prioritize marijuana legalization, and libertarian figures in popular culture, like Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of South Park, feed into this narrative.

I, as a non-drug using libertarians, have therefore experienced frustration with the emphasis on what, for me personally, has always been a very low priority issue. People should be free to use drugs, sure, but it's not something I was willing to spend a lot of time talking about while there are problems like the welfare state, socialized health care, global warfare, economic stagnation, and the countless other ways in which government ruins people's lives other than simply denying them the chance to get high.

But this attitude, and the attitudes of all the non-libertarians who condemn us as narcissistic hedonists, suffers from a one-dimensional analysis. The assumption is that the main – or indeed the only – effect of drug legalization is that more people would be able to use drugs. This is not a particularly attractive proposition to those who do not enjoy drugs or the company of those who use them, even though on principle we think prohibition is wrong.

But this way of thinking is short sighted. The drug war is responsible for an astonishing amount of social ills, with an impact far broader than on the end consumers. In Thomas DiLorenzo's book, Organized Crime: the Unvarnished Truth about Government, he recounts a conversation with a former student who became director of emergency medicine at an urban hospital, he reported that about 90 percent of his time was dealing with gang violence stemming from the illegal drug trade.

It's anecdotal, but even if that number is remotely applicable to other hospitals, the health care cost of the drug war is enormous, as well as the opportunity cost of resources being devoted to gunshots and stabbings instead of the fighting of disease. No one gets shot over cigarettes. No one gets stabbed in disputes about liquor. Drug dealers resort to violence because they have no access to the court system to resolve disputes. If we are genuinely concerned about the cost of health care, we could reduce it overnight by legalizing recreational drugs.

This far from the only social benefit from ending the war on drugs. In addition to lower health care costs resulting from less violence (which should be an end in itself anyway), the dangers of the drugs themselves would be diminished. In The Economics of Prohibition, Mark Thornton describes the way in which drug prohibition incentives producers to increase drug potency. Transporting illegal drugs is risky, which makes it expensive. Smaller packages, then, maximize revenue while minimizing risk and expense. A kilogram of low potency marijuana costs the same to ship with a much higher profit margin than a kilogram of high potency heroin, so drug suppliers tend to favor the latter over the former. Legalized drugs would have to serve the desires of consumers, most of whom don't want to die. Just as nobody goes blind from alcohol anymore, like they tended to due during the Prohibition Era, fewer people would oversdose on licit substances.

Of course, yet another benefit would be the alleviation on the prison system. Not only would non-violent offenders cease to have their lives ruined and reputations tarnished by prison sentences, but we would free up resources to deal with violent criminals who deserve to be behind bars.

Finally, a legal drug market would greatly diminish the influence of foreign drug cartels who are responsible for a great deal of international tension, death, and suffering. Again, we don't see scotch distillers stocking up on automatic weapons or engaging in human trafficking. Prohibition creates all these problems.

These are all things that should be considered when we think about the drug war. It's not just about letting stoners get stoned – it's clear at this point that no law can actually prevent this. It's about creating a drastically less violent society, with spillover effects that benefit all of us.
_
Logan Albright is a writer and economist in Washington, DC.