Thursday, November 16, 2006

Milton Friedman Link An Open Letter to Bill Bennett by Milton Friedman, April 1990 In Oliver Cromwell's eloquent words, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken" about the course you and President Bush urge us to adopt to fight drugs. The path you propose of more police, more jails, use of the military in foreign countries, harsh penalties for drug users, and a whole panoply of repressive measures can only make a bad situation worse. The drug war cannot be won by those tactics without undermining the human liberty and individual freedom that you and I cherish. You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are a scourge that is devastating our society. You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are tearing asunder our social fabric, ruining the lives of many young people, and imposing heavy costs on some of the most disadvantaged among us. You are not mistaken in believing that the majority of the public share your concerns. In short, you are not mistaken in the end you seek to achieve. Your mistake is failing to recognize that the very measures you favor are a major source of the evils you deplore. Of course the problem is demand, but it is not only demand, it is demand that must operate through repressed and illegal channels. Illegality creates obscene profits that finance the murderous tactics of the drug lords; illegality leads to the corruption of law enforcement officials; illegality monopolizes the efforts of honest law forces so that they are starved for resources to fight the simpler crimes of robbery, theft and assault. Drugs are a tragedy for addicts. But criminalizing their use converts that tragedy into a disaster for society, for users and non-users alike. Our experience with the prohibition of drugs is a replay of our experience with the prohibition of alcoholic beverages. I append excerpts from a column that I wrote in 1972 on "Prohibition and Drugs." The major problem then was heroin from Marseilles; today, it is cocaine from Latin America. Today, also, the problem is far more serious than it was 17 years ago: more addicts, more innocent victims; more drug pushers, more law enforcement officials; more money spent to enforce prohibition, more money spent to circumvent prohibition. Had drugs been decriminalized 17 years ago, "crack" would never have been invented (it was invented because the high cost of illegal drugs made it profitable to provide a cheaper version) and there would today be far fewer addicts. The lives of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent victims would have been saved, and not only in the U.S. The ghettos of our major cities would not be drug-and-crime-infested no-man's lands. Fewer people would be in jails, and fewer jails would have been built. Columbia, Bolivia and Peru would not be suffering from narco-terror, and we would not be distorting our foreign policy because of narco-terror. Hell would not, in the words with which Billy Sunday welcomed Prohibition, "be forever for rent," but it would be a lot emptier. Decriminalizing drugs is even more urgent now than in 1972, but we must recognize that the harm done in the interim cannot be wiped out, certainly not immediately. Postponing decriminalization will only make matters worse, and make the problem appear even more intractable. Alcohol and tobacco cause many more deaths in users than do drugs. Decriminalization would not prevent us from treating drugs as we now treat alcohol and tobacco: prohibiting sales of drugs to minors, outlawing the advertising of drugs and similar measures. Such measures could be enforced, while outright prohibition cannot be. Moreover, if even a small fraction of the money we now spend on trying to enforce drug prohibition were devoted to treatment and rehabilitation, in an atmosphere of compassion not punishment, the reduction in drug usage and in the harm done to the users could be dramatic. This plea comes from the bottom of my heart. Every friend of freedom, and I know you are one, must be as revolted as I am by the prospect of turning the United States into an armed camp, by the vision of jails filled with casual drug users and of an army of enforcers empowered to invade the liberty of citizens on slight evidence. A country in which shooting down unidentified planes "on suspicion" can be seriously considered as a drug-war tactic is not the kind of United States that either you or I want to hand on to future generations. Milton Friedman passed away today at the age of 94. 5:57:19 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

The Debate I thought last night's debate went exceptionally well. The crowd really seemed to enjoy it, and both debaters did a good job. Unfortunately as moderator, I had to insure an even playing field and couldn't get into it myself -- even though there were times that I was absolutely itching to do so. The most I could do is force someone to a more direct answer if they were dodging the question (which I did a few times). Kudos to William Otis, who flew out from Washington to take part in the debate. He is Counselor to the Administrator of the DEA -- a political appointment who provides advice to Karen Tandy. He was quite nice and seemed sincere in his efforts -- a combination of really believing a lot of what he said (partly due to a lack of detailed knowledge or understanding), along with repeating the DEA line in a number of areas (even though his own personal preferences might not go that far). I was impressed by the fact that Otis was open to correction of factual errors in his information. During the debate, he said that Marinol did not cause a person to get high. When I told him that was incorrect, he said he'd be happy to look that up and change what he said in the future (Marinol's site doesn't specifically say that it gets you high but that the effects included "dizziness, feelings of exaggerated happiness, paranoid reaction, drowsiness, and thinking abnormally.") Mr. Otis also several times mentioned the dangers of marijuana and driving, citing a Memphis "study" that has been widely rejected for its methodology. When I brought this up after the debate, he agreed to investigate it further. Some of the more outrageous moments in the debate included the following claims by William Otis Drug dealers would benefit from legalization. There is no difference between "use" and "abuse" for illegal narcotics. Mostly I felt that Mr. Otis could benefit from a lot more actual information. I think that he lives in a bit of a propaganda bubble and needs to read more about the drug war (although that might make it more difficult for him to do his job). I was surprised to learn, for example, that he was unaware that President Bush had actually campaigned in 2000 on letting the states choose regarding medical marijuana. Bryan Brickner, representing the other side, had a delightful approach -- not so much focusing on lots of details (although he had them), but rather painting a picture -- of individual freedom and the promise of America, and the marvelous life of marijuana user Louis Armstrong, and the shattering of America's promise through the non-sensical arrest and incarceration of people for... using drugs. There were tons of points that I wanted him to cover that he didn't, and yet he was keeping the message clear and clean, which was more important. Sometimes you can't give people all your points or you overwhelm them -- something that Bryan seemed to understand well. Bryan Brickner was the clear winner in my mind (not only on style, but on actual substance). All in all, a great experience. A big thanks to the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Federalist Society and the Coalition of Student-Professionals for Social Change (and Shaleen). 9:10:29 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []