Forums → WEPR → Legalising Drugs-A Brave New World?

Prohibition Has Failed

On February 26th 1909 foreign diplomats gathered in Shanghai for the first ever international effort to take on narcotics. In the subsequent 100 years, there have been numerous attempts through international treaties and organisation to end the drugs trade.

In 1998 the UN General Assembly committed to achieving a ''drug free world'' and to ''eliminating or significantly reducing'' the production of opium, cocaine and cannabis by 2008. This was a hugely irresponsible promise, as its chances of success were so negligible.

This week, a meeting in Vietnam of various statesmen will decide drug policy for the next decade. Unsurprisingly, it will bring more of the same, when in fact, the recent war on drugs, on a global scale, has been a catastrophe. It has created failed states out of developing nations and addiction has flourished in the developed world. This 100 year struggle has been murderous,illiberal and more importantly pointless, which is why, the best policy would be to legalise drugs. This is not to say it would benefit all involved. Certainly most producer nations would benefit, however the risks for consumer nations would vary, however, in my view more would gain.

Proof of Failure

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime claims that the drug market has ''stabilised'' meaning that more than 200m people worldwide, or to put that into perspective, 5% of the globe's adult population take drugs. The same amount as 10 years ago. Opium and Cocaine production is at the same level, whilst cannabis is higher. In the US consumption of cocaine has declined gradually from its early 80s peak, however it remains relatively high (more so than the mid 90s) and is rising in Europe.

However this is not for lack of trying. The US spends $40 billion each year attempting to eliminate the drugs supply, arresting 1.5 million people per year in the process. It puts around half a million of them behind bars; tough drug laws are the chief reason why 1 in 5 black Americans spend time locked up. The developing world fares much worse. In Mexico, since 2006, 800 policemen and soldiers have been killed, the annual overall death toll is currently at 6000. The leader of one of the many drug ridden nations, Guinea Bissau, was assassinated.

Ironically, it is the prohibition itself, that increases the profits of drug suppliers. The price of drugs is determined by the cost of distribution, not the cost of production. For example cocaine: the mark up between a coca field and a consumer is 5000%. Government actions, such as the dropping of pesticides on drug fields would raise the local price of coca dramatically, however it would have very little effect on the street price in the US or Europe, which is set by the cost of smuggling the drugs into said countries.

This example of government repression forces it to shift production sites, thus opium has moved from Turkey to Myanmar,Thailand and Southern Afghanistan, where it hinders the actions of the ISAF forces, attempting to defeat the Taliban. This suggests that the drug business is able to adapt to market disruption quickly and effectively.

The Rise of Global Gangsterism

The prohibition of the drugs trade has encouraged gangsterism on unheard scale. According to the UN's (somewhat inflated) estimate, the drug's industry is worth $320 billion per year. In the developed world it turns law abiding citizens into criminals (The youthful experiments with ''blow'' from a certain Barack Obama could have put him behind bars). It also increases the health risks associated with drugs, buying heavily adultered substances and using dirty needles, in turn spreading the risk of HIV and other diseases. Many addicts enter into a thrall like service with their dealers in return for drugs, at an extremely high risk to themselves. However it is the developing world that continues to suffer the brunt of the damage. Even in relatively developed nations such as Mexico find themselves in a brutal struggle against these gangsters.

The failure of the war on narcotics has induced a few of the more courageous officials to suggest shifting the focus from repression to ''harm reduction'' for example, public health, the supply of clean needles etc. This would emphasise public education on the matter and the treatment of addicts, whilst reducing the harrassment suffered by coca growers and ''soft'' drug consumers. This would be a progressive step, however it is doubtful such initiatives would receive adequate funding and it does not eliminate organised crime from the equation.

The Solution

Legalisation of drugs would change the very nature of the problem, from one of law and order, to one of public health, as it ought to be. Government regulation and tax of the trade, as well as the billions saved on law enforcement would enable public money to be spent on public education on the dangers of drugs, and the treatment of current addicts. The sale of drugs to minors, should of course remain banned. Drugs should be reclassified, and would merit different levels of taxation. This would be, admittedly niggly and imperfect, needing constant monitoring and hard to measure trade offs. The level of post tax prices should strike a balance between damping down use, and discouraging an illicit black market.

Selling this admittedly flawed idea to producer nations, would be fairly easy, where organised crime is seen as the bane of society. However consumer countries would be far more difficult to persuade. Americans and Europeans would see the benefit of this type of legislation for developing nations, and possibly its usefulness in the fight against terrorism, but what the adult voters would be concerned with, is their own children.

However that fear is based on an unproven premise; that more people would use drugs if they were legalised. There is no correlation between the harshness of drug laws and the incidence of drug taking. Nations with tougher stances on drugs, for example Britain and the US, have a higher number of drug takers, not fewer. Many officials blame this on cultural differences, however looking at fairly similar countries, tough rules make little difference to the number of users. For example liberal Sweden and harsh Norway have identical addiction rates. Legislation would reduce supply and demand (as the dangerous thrill factor would go). But admittedly it is difficult to argue that the sale of a product that is made more widely available, cheaper and safer would fall, and any honest legislator would be wise to assume that drug taking would rise.

However there are 2 key arguments, as to why prohibition should be scrapped, despite the possible rise in drug taking as a whole. The first being one of liberal principle. Some illegal drugs are indeed very harmful, however most are not (Tobacco is more addictive than virtually all of them). Most users, even of harder drugs like cocaine and heroin only do so infrequently, as a source of pleasure and enjoyment (as one would from a Marlboro or a Jack Daniels). The state should have no role to prevent them from doing so.

What about addiction? It partially falls under the first argument, as most of the harm is solely the user's. However addiction can and does inflict terrible pain upon the people in an addict's life, primarily their children as well as visiting numerous negative externalities upon the rest of society. This leads on to the second key argument: legalisation offers the chance to deal with addiction in the appropriate manner.

The reduction of information asymmetry-the provision of information on the health risks of surrounding drugs and appropriate price levels, governments would be able to steer consumers towards less harmful substances. Prohibition has enabled the proliferation of artificial drugs created in various laboratories. Legislation would encourage legitimate drug companies to improve the drugs consumers already use. The resources gained from tax and saved on repression would guarantee the treatment of addicts, an angle that would seem politically acceptable to major parties. The success of initiatives undertaken by administrations of developing nations in preventing its citizens smoking tobacco provides grounds for hope.

An Educated Guess OR Another Century of Misery?

Legislation would not drive gangsters completely out of drugs. Like alcohol and tobacco, each would suffer from tax aversion and rule subversion. It would not automatically fix failed states like Afghanistan. This solution is a messy one, but a century of failure argues for trying it.