Drug War Crimes: The Consequences of Prohibition

110 Pages·2004·3.321 MB·English

by  Jeffrey A. Miron

Drug War Crimes
The Consequences of Prohibition
Drug War Crimes
The Consequences of Prohibition
Jeffrey A. Miron
The E INDEPENDENT
INSTITUTE
Oakland, California
Copyright ©2004 by The Independent Institute
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted
in any form by electronic or mechanical means now known or to be Invented,
including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval
systems, without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a
reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review. Nothing herein should be
construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Institute or as an
attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.
The Independent Institute
100 Swan Way, Oakland, CA 94621-1428
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.independent.org
ISBN: 0-945999-90-9
Cataloging-In-Publication Data available from the Library of Congress
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
6 THE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE is a non-profit.
The m INDEPENDENT
non-partisan,scholarly research and educational organization
I INSTITUTE
thar sponsors comprehensive <tudies of the political economy
^ J [ ll of critical social and econom c issues.
The politicization of deci‘ion-making in society has too
often confined public debate to the narrow reconsideration of existing policies. Given the
prevailing influence of partisan interests, little social innovaiion has occurred. In order to
understand both the nature of and possible solutions to major public issues, The Independent
Institute's program adheres to the highest standards of independent inquiry and is pursued
regardless of political or social biases and conventions. The resulting studies are widely
distributed as books and other publications, and are publicly debated through numerous
conference and media programs. Through this uncommon independence, depth, and clarity,
The Independent Institute expands the frontiers of our knowledge, redefines the debate over
public issues, and fosters new and effective directions for government reform.
FOUNDER & PRESIDENT Nathan Glazer Simon Rottenberg
HARVARD UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF
David J. Theroux
MASSACHUSETTS
Ronald Hamowy
UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA, Paul H. Rubin
RESEARCH DIRECTOR
CANADA EMORY UNIVERSITY
Alexander Tabarrok Steve H. Hanke Bruce M. Russett
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
YALE UNIVERSITY
SENIOR FELLOWS Ronald Max Hartwell
Pascal Salin
OXFORD UNIVERSITY
Bruce L. Benson UNIVERSITY OF PARIS,
Ivan Eland James J. Heckman FRANCE
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Robert Higgs Arthur Seldon
Richard K. Vedder H. Robert Heller INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC
INTERNATIONAL PAYMENTS AFFAIRS, ENGLAND
INSTITUTE
ACADEMIC ADVISORS William F. Shugharr II
Lawrence A. Kudlow UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI
Martin Anderson KUDLOW & COMPANY
HOOVER INSTITUTION Joel H. Spring
Deirdre N. McCloskey
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW
Herman Belz UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS,
YORK, OLD WESTBURY
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND CHICAGO
Vernon L. Smith
Thomas E. Borcherding J. Huston McCulloch
GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
CLAREMONT GRADUATE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL Richard L. Stroup
Forrest McDonald
Boudewijn Bouckaert UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF GHENT, Thomas Gale Moore Thomas S. Szasz
BELGIUM HOOVER INSTITUTION STATE UNIVERSITY OF N.Y.,
SYRACUSE
James M. Buchanan
Charles Murray
GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY AMERICAN ENTERPRISE Robert D. Tollison
Allan C. Carlson INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI
HOWARD CENTER William A. Niskanen Arnold S. Trebach
Robert D. Cooter CATO INSTITUTE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Michael J. Novak, Jr. Gordon Tullock
BERKELEY AMERICAN ENTERPRISE GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
Robert W. Crandall INSTITUTE
Richard E. Wagner
BROOKINGS INSTITUTION June E. O’Neill
GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
Richard A. Epstein BARUCH COLLEGE
Sir Alan A. Walters
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO Charles E. Phelps
AIG TRADING CORPORATION
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER
B. Delworth Gardner
BRIGHAM YOUNG Paul Craig Roberts Walter E. Williams
UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE FOR POLITICAL ECONOMY GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
George Gilder Nathan Rosenberg Charles Wolf
DISCOVERY INSTITUTE STANFORD UNIVERSITY RAND CORPORATION
THE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE
100 Swan Way, Oakland, California 94621-1428, U.S.A.
Telephone: [phone] facsimile: 510*568-6040
Email: info^independent.org Website: www.independent.org
Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
Chapter 2 The Economic Analysis of Drug Prohibition 7
Chapter 3 The Effect of Drug Prohibition 25
on Drug Consumption:
Evidence from Alcohol Prohibition
Chapter 4 Prohibitions and Violence 43
Chapter 5 Is Prohibition Good Policy? 59
Chapter 6 Alternatives to Prohibition 75
and Other Policies Toward Drugs
Chapter 7 Conclusion 87
References 89
Index 103
About the Author 109
List of Illustrations
Tables
Table 3.1 States passing state-level prohibitions 29
before federal prohibition
Table 3.2 Percentage of population age 15 and over 40
using illicit drugs, late 1990s-2003
Table 4.1 Homicide rates, 1993-1996 52
Table 5.1 Illicit drug use in lifetime, past year, and past mondi 67
among persons age 12 or older: Percentages, 2002
Figures
Figure 3.1 U.S. cirrhosis death rates, 1900-1997 27
Figure 3.2 U.S. cirrhosis death rates, 1910-1940 28
Figure 3.3 U.S. cirrhosis death rates in 31
states without prohibition before 1919
Figure 3.4 U.S. cirrhosis death rates in 31
states adopting prohibition before 1919
Figure 3.5 U.S. cirrhosis death rate 32
and alcohol consumption, 1916-1917
Figure 3.6 Pounds of opium entered for consumption 38
annually 1885-1926, per capita
Figure 4.1 U.S. homicide rate 47
Figure 4.2 Expenditure for enforcement of alcohol 49
and drug prohibition, dollars per capita
To my father, who is a libertarian,
and my mother, who is not.
1
Introduction
Drug prohibition in the United States is now almost
eighty years old. Federal law first prohibited cocaine, heroin, and
related drugs in 1914, and marijuana in 1937. In recent years gov­
ernment expenditure for prohibition enforcement has exceeded
$33 billion annually', with law enforcement authorities making
more than 1.5 million arrests per year on drug-related charges
(Miron 2003b). In the United States, there are now more than
318,000 persons behind bars for violations of drug prohibition,
more than the number of persons incarcerated for all crimes in the
United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain combined.1
What does the United States gain from this incredible invest­
ment of resources? Prohibitionists believe drug use would soar if
drugs were legal, and they regard any increase as undesirable per se.
Prohibitionists also assert that drug use causes crime, diminishes
health and productivity for drug users, encourages driving and in­
dustrial accidents, exacerbates poverty, supports terrorism, and
contributes generally to societal decay. Thus, advocates claim, pro­
hibition benefits drug users and society alike.
I argue here that drug prohibition, rather than drug use, causes
most ills typically attributed to drugs. I show that prohibition’s abil­
ity to reduce drug use is modest rather than dramatic, so any ben­
efits of reduced consumption are moderate at best. I demonstrate
that prohibition has a range of negative consequences, including
increased violence, reduced health for drug users, transfers to crim­
inals, and diminished civil liberties; thus, prohibition exacerbates
2 | Drug War Crimes
many of the problems it allegedly solves. I explain that reduced
drug use is not, in general, an appropriate goal for government pol­
icy. And I demonstrate that, even if a policy-induced reduction in
drug consumption is desirable, prohibition is a terrible choice for
achieving this goal.
I base these conclusions on an economic analysis of drug pro­
hibition. This analysis uses economic reasoning to determine the
likely effects of prohibition on drug use, crime, health, productiv­
ity, product quality, and other outcomes. The analysis also exam­
ines evidence on how drugs and drug policy influence each of these
outcomes. There is room for scientific disagreement about some of
this evidence. But dispassionate examination supports the argu­
ments for drug legalization rather than those for prohibition.
The remainder of the book proceeds as follows.
Chapter 2 reviews the standard economic analysis of prohibi­
tion. The discussion is “positive” rather than “normative,” mean­
ing it identifies the effects of prohibition without taking a stand on
'whether prohibition is good or bad. The usual defense of prohibi­
tion assumes it substantially reduces drug use and, by so doing,
.lowers crime and improves the health and productivity of drug
users. The analysis here shows, however, that prohibition-induced
reductions in drug consumption are not necessarily large or even in
the “desired” direction. Moreover, prohibition can increase rather
than decrease crime and diminish rather than enhance health and
productivity. In addition, prohibition can generate numerous un­
desirable consequences such as corruption, infringements on civil
-liberties, wealth transfers to criminals, unwarranted restrictions on
medicinal uses of drugs, and insurrection in drug-producing coun­
tries. And these unintended consequences are possible even if pro­
hibition has a substantial impact on drug use.
This positive analysis of prohibition therefore suggests two
issues are central to the normative analysis of prohibition. The
first is whether prohibition’s effect on drug consumption is
“ small” or “large,” and the second is whether prohibition in­
Introduction | 3
creases or decreases crime. If the prohibition-induced change in
drug consumption is small, any benefits that might result from re­
duced consumption are also small, implying the costs of prohibi­
tion almost certainly exceed the benefits. If prohibition increases
rather than decreases crime, then it causes one of the main prob­
lems it attempts to alleviate, raising questions about prohibition
even if it substantially reduces drug use. Thus, these two issues
deserve special attention.
Chapter 3 addresses the effect of prohibition on drug con­
sumption by examining cirrhosis death rates during the Prohibition
period. Although not identical to current drug prohibition in
structure or enforcement, alcohol prohibition is a natural labora­
tory for studying the effects of drug prohibition on drug con­
sumption. Debates over prohibition routinely cite this episode as
supporting one side or the other, but previous analyses have not
controlled adequately for factors other than prohibition that might
have influenced cirrhosis. The analysis here indicates alcohol prohi­
bition had a modest effect on alcohol consumption, which implies
drug prohibition has a modest effect on drug use. Auxiliary evi­
dence from a variety of sources suggests the same conclusion.
Chapter 4 examines the effect of drug prohibition on violence.
Prohibition advocates claim drug use causes violent behavior, while
prohibition critics claim prohibition generates violence by forcing
drug markets underground. These claims are not mutually exclu­
sive, but it is important to determine if one or the other predomi­
nates in practice. The chapter addresses these competing claims by
first examining homicide rates over the past century in the Unitec
States. The evidence that alcohol prohibition had a modest impact
on alcohol consumption suggests drug prohibition has a modest
impact in reducing violence, but this evidence is not by itself deci­
sive. The chapter shows that both drug and alcohol prohibition co­
incided with increases in the homicide rate, consistent with the
view that under prohibition, market participants substitute guns for
lawyers in the resolution of disputes. The chapter then discusses the