The starting point is the observation that most effects of prohibition, such as increased violence and corruption, are unambiguously negative.Read more at location 1065
The key issue, therefore, is prohibition’s impact on drug consumption.Read more at location 1066
One view of drug consumption—the one assumed in the standard economic paradigm—is that people consume drugs because they think such consumption makes them better off.Read more at location 1071
they voluntarily choose to consume drugs. Similarly, under this view, it does not matter whether drugs are addictive or if consumption adversely affects health or productivity;Read more at location 1074
The rational model of consumption was long believed to be inconsistent with many observed behaviors related to drug consumption, such as addiction, withdrawal, relapse, and the like.Read more at location 1076
Theoretical work by Becker and Murphy (1988) shows that the rational model is potentially consistent with these phenomena, and a body of empirical work has had some success in fitting the model to data.Read more at location 1077
This does not mean the rational model is an accurate description of all drug consumption, but it undermines the presumption that all drug use (or other addictive consumption) is necessarily irrational.Read more at location 1079
If one assumes the rational model describes most drug consumption, then the normative analysis of policies to reduce drug consumption is simple: any policy-induced reduction in drug use is a cost rather than a benefit. TheRead more at location 1081
such a policy harms drug users without benefiting anyone else.Read more at location 1084
many drug users are rational. Millions of people enjoy the high associated with marijuana; others value the pain relief or mental calm produced by opiates; still others appreciate the stimulation of cocaine. In this respect, consumption of prohibited drugs is no different from consumption of alcohol, gambling, or fatty foods.Read more at location 1087
the appropriate goal for policy is not elimination of all drug consumption,Read more at location 1092
consumption can harm innocent third parties and thus be excessive from society’s perspective, even if this consumption is individually rational.Read more at location 1098
drug consumption can impair one’s ability to drive a car or operate heavy machinery; it can adversely affect the health of the fetus; or it can cause additional use of publicly funded health care.Read more at location 1100
One commonly discussed externality from drug consumption is automobile accidentsRead more at location 1105
the magnitude of this externality is not obviously large, and several controlled studies conclude that marijuana has a smaller detrimental effect on driving performance than alcohol.Read more at location 1107
A different possible externality is harm to the unborn fetusRead more at location 1109
existing evidence is mixed, and this evidence suffers severe methodological problems in any case.6 Many studies that document a correlation between drug use and negative pregnancy outcomes control imperfectly for other relevant factors such as use of alcohol and tobacco, access to prenatal care, income, presence of a father, or nutrition. Moreover, these studies do not control for unmeasured characteristics that plausibly correlate with drug use and also affect pregnancy outcomes (e.g., concern for the fetus). In addition, any negative effects of drug use are not obviously different from those of legal goods such as alcohol or cigarettes.Read more at location 1111
A different possible externality from drug use is workplace accidentsRead more at location 1116
The evidence that illicit drugs play an important role in causing such accidents is at best mixed, and alcohol is implicated at least as often as illicit drugs (National Research Council 1994: 144–152). Kaestner and Grossman (1998) examine the relationship between drug use and workplace accidents. For males they find weak evidence that drug users have a higher accident rate than non-users; for females, they find no evidenceRead more at location 1117
the externality-causing potential of drug consumption does not distinguish it from a broad array of other goods. As noted, the consumption of alcohol can impair driving ability or cause industrial accidents. The consumption of tobacco or saturated fat can increase the likelihood of using publicly funded health care. Driving on public roads exacerbates congestion and increases the travel time of others. Staying up late to watch television causes fatigue, thereby diminishing productivity or increasing the chance of accidents. Over-the-counter medications such as antihistamines cause drowsiness, which increases the likelihood of accidents. Saving too little for retirement places a burden on others by increasing eligibility for old-age medical or income insurance. And these are but a few examples.Read more at location 1122
Further, calculating the net externalities from drug consumption is potentially tricky. For example, the net effect of any unhealthy activity is ambiguous, since actions that shorten life mean less use of Social Security and Medicare.7 And the externality logic, if applied consistently, has implications that society is likely to find awkward. For example, any choice that lowers one’s income causes a negative externality, since lower income means lower tax payments. This means that someone who decides to be public-interest lawyer rather than a high-priced corporate attorney is imposing an externality.Read more at location 1129
First, there is the loss of utility experienced by those whose consumption the intervention reduces.Read more at location 1137
For example, driving a car that generates pollution harms those who live nearby, but it benefits the driver of the car.Read more at location 1138
A second cost of policies designed to reduce drug consumption is the direct cost of enforcing the policy.Read more at location 1141
In some cases this is relatively minor; for example, it would not require substantial expenditure to enforce a moderate tax on legalized drugs,Read more at location 1142
Other policies, however, require substantial enforcement expenditureRead more at location 1143
In particular, prohibition enforcement currently costs about $33 billion per yearRead more at location 1144
The third cost of policies is any indirect consequences generated by the policy. Again, moderate interventions such as a nonprohibitory tax have modest auxiliary consequences;Read more at location 1145
Even when policy can reduce externalities by more than any costs created, this rarely involves eliminating the activity. The standard textbook presentation shows that appropriate policy balances the reduction in externalities against the deadweight loss of the policy (e.g., Mankiw 2001: 207–220).Read more at location 1152
For example, driving a car generates pollution, so there is a case for policies that reduce the amount of driving (e.g., taxes on gasoline) or the amount of pollution (e.g., emissions standards). These policies, however, do not prohibit driving;Read more at location 1154
A different reason that externalities do not necessarily justify policies to reduce drug use is that reduced drug consumption might translate into increased use of other substances that have similar or greater externalities.Read more at location 1161
Prohibition aims to eliminate all drug consumption rather than targeting externality-causing consumption.9 Prohibition has enormous enforcement costs and generates huge externalities. Moreover, prohibition has a limited impact on drug consumption and appears to reduce casual rather than heavy consumption (Basov, Jacobson and Miron 2001).Read more at location 1165
some consumers are irrational and therefore make inappropriate choices about drug consumption.10 In particular, myopic consumers might fail to account for the addictiveness and long-term negative consequencesRead more at location 1172
existing research suggests drugs are far less addictive than is commonly asserted. Likewise, many legal goods are just as addictive.Read more at location 1179
High continued use rates do not necessarily suggest addiction; if people who consume a good find they like it and therefore consume it frequently, the continued use rate is high even if there is no addiction.Read more at location 1181
The fact that continued use rates for marijuana, which is not regarded as physically addictive, are similar to those for crack, which is regarded as highly addictive, also challenges the more extreme claims about addictiveness of drugsRead more at location 1187
Likewise, the continued use rates for alcohol and tobacco are even higher than those for illegal drugs.Read more at location 1189
use rates for other legal goods (e.g., chocolate, caffeine) are perhaps even higher.Read more at location 1190
A different measure of addictiveness is the degree to which consumers use a particular substance casually or irregularly.Read more at location 1191
a sizeable percentage of heroin users consume only occasionally, without becoming heavy usersRead more at location 1193
Further evidence that addiction is far less important than typical portrayals comes from the experience of returning Vietnam veterans. Robins, Davis, and Nurco (1974) report interviews of veterans eight to twelve months after their return from Vietnam. They find that most addicted veterans gave up their narcotic use voluntarily before departure or after a short, forced treatment period at departure.Read more at location 1229
Thus, although there is no question that drugs can be addictive, there is also no question that stereotypical characterizations are seriously inaccurate. And the potential for addiction from drugs is not obviously different from that of legal goods such as alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, and myriad other goods.Read more at location 1237
All drugs carry some health risk, but the degree to which illegal drugs are physically detrimental is far less than generally portrayed, provided they are consumed under safe circumstances.Read more at location 1241
The Merck Manual, a standard reference book on diagnosis and treatment of diseasesRead more at location 1243
“people who have developed tolerance [to heroin] may show few signs of drug use and function normally in their usual activities. . . . Many but not all complications of heroin addiction are related to unsanitary administration of the drug.”Read more at location 1244
“there is still little evidence of biologic damage [from marijuana] even among relatively heavy users.”Read more at location 1246
Many of the health risks discussed for all drugs result from overdoses or adulterated doses,Read more at location 1248
standard depictions of the health consequences of drug use is reliance on data sources that are systematically biased toward those who suffer the worst consequences. One example is data from clients of drug treatment programs.Read more at location 1250
Peanuts are an excellent food source that enhances health for most consumers, yet for persons who are allergic they can be deadly.Read more at location 1258
A second alleged harm of drug use is reduced income or likelihood of employment. According to this view, drug use inhibits concentration, coordination, motivation, and other factors that contribute to successful job market experience.Read more at location 1264
drug use reduces U.S. productivity by tens of billions of dollars per year (Harwood, Fountain, and Livermore 1998).Read more at location 1266
The problem is that drug use and wages are both plausibly correlated with unmeasured individual characteristics such as optimism, motivation, sociability, creativity, risk aversion, and the like. Thus, a finding that drug use and wages are correlated can reflect the influence of these omitted characteristics.Read more at location 1271
In addition, the results do not consistently support the conclusion that drug use is associated with lower wages. Instead, a persistent puzzle is that drug use is often associated with higher wages.17 The relation between drug use and certain other labor market outcomes, such as employment status or hours worked, is more frequently found to be negative, but even for these outcomes there are many “paradoxical” results.Read more at location 1275
In addition, prohibition might exacerbate the effects of myopia. Prohibition potentially glamorizes drug use in the eyes of those too shortsighted to consider the long-term consequences. Thus, even if attempts to reduce drug consumption are warranted by myopia, prohibition is unlikely to be the right approach given its huge enforcement costs and negative external effects.Read more at location 1289
Prohibition causes increased violence, some of which affects innocent bystanders caught in drive-by shootings or bomb attacks in Colombia.Read more at location 1298
Prohibition increase the number of children born HIV-infected because it fosters restrictions on the availability of clean needles.Read more at location 1299
Prohibition means that peasants in Latin America, including some who do not grow coca, have their crops destroyed by aerial spraying of pesticides.Read more at location 1300
Prohibition prevents seriously ill patients from using medicines that can alleviate their suffering.Read more at location 1301
prohibition means that criminals get rich at the expense of society generally.Read more at location 1302
Thus, from the moral perspective, prohibition is probably the worst choice for addressing the harms related to drugs,Read more at location 1302
