February 6, 2008
Legalize, regulate, educate and rehabilitate
I have argued on a number of occasions in this blog for the legalisation of the production and consumption by competent adults of all currently illegal drugs/substances that do not induce behaviour likely to cause significant harm to others. It should remain illegal to sell potentially harmful substances to children and the mentally incompetent. Education, regulation and, for those who succumb and regret it, treatment and rehabilitation are the appropriate drug policy of the government. But those competent adults who insist on the right to fry their brains ought not have the government stand in their way, although their friends should.
The ignorant moralists who tend to make policy in this area are, however, pushing hard in the opposite direction. Just today’s newspapers had two stories, one from the UK, the other from Afghanistan, to show that the forces of ignorance and darkness are on a winning streak.
In the UK, the mild weed we used to partake of in the 1960s and 1970s appears to have been displaced to a large extent by the much more powerful ’skunk’ variety. Partly in response to this, partly in response to medical research demonstrating a link between cannabis use and psychosis, but mainly because of a tabloid-driven urge to appear strong on crime and on the causes of crime, the Brown government is now considering reclassifying cannabis as a Class B rather than Class C drug, increasing the maximum penalty for possession from two years to five. That proposal is insane. Convicted criminals are being released from jail early because jails are bursting at the seams, and the government wants to go after a few million reefer friends? Full legalisation and regulation would permit standardisation and quality control the way we have for alcohol and tobacco today. Criminalising the production and consumption of substances that do not cause behaviour likely to harm others should be the province of the Taliban, not of a 21st century UK government.
The US authorities, obviously incapable of learning from past mistakes in the Andean countries, want to start widespread aerial spraying of opium poppies in Afghanistan. In support of its proposal, the US cites a recent study by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. This reports that the Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan were becoming more involved in the drugs trade. The opium crop in Afghanistan is estimated to have grown by 17 percent last year.
Would intensive aerial spraying of the poppy crops, even if it succeeded in destroying much of the crop, achieve the purpose of weakening the insurgency by lowering the revenue base of the Taliban? Almost certainly not. In the short run reduced supply meeting an inelastic demand would increase prices and revenues. Very soon, cultivation would move to new areas, just as it did when aerial eradication of coca plants was used in Colombia.
In addition to strengthening the revenue base of the Taliban, the spraying would also reduce support of poppy farmers for the government of President Hamid Karzai. They have no realistic alternative livelihood. Destroying their crops and poisoning their land is hardly going to win hearts and minds in Helmand. Fortunately, the allies of the US in Afghanistan, as well as the Karzai government, are strongly opposed to this demented US proposal. I hope they will have the backbone to tell the US authorities to forget it.
The obvious solution is to legalise the growing of poppy, the production of opium and its derivatives and their sale to competent adults. This would deprive the Taliban of their revenue base. In the process it would also deprive the worldwide criminal community of an easy source of rent.
Sale to minors would of course remain illegal, as the sale of alcohol to minors is today. Education on the health hazards of opium, heroin etc. should be expanded. Sensible regulation can reduce the health risks associated with impurities, variable concentrations and content etc. Better treatment and rehabilitation should be available for those who succumb and want to kick the habit.
“The obvious solution is to legalise the growing of poppy, the production of opium and its derivatives and their sale to competent adults. This would deprive the Taliban of their revenue base. In the process it would also deprive the worldwide criminal community of an easy source of rent.”
The US needs a new “growth industry”. Some have been advocating alternative energy as an economic driver, but why not drugs?
The US dept of Ag would have a field day helping to develop this exciting new industry.
Posted by: groucho | February 6th, 2008 at 9:24 pm | Report this commentIsn’t the strength of marijuana now a response to its very illegality? Since it must be grown, harvested, and transported without being detected by the police or customs agents, there is a strong incentive to make it more portable. The way to do this with marijuana is to realize that you aren’t selling a plant, but a high. If that high can be packaged in a smaller volume of plant matter, the risk of interception by the authorities is reduced. Costs saved, more profit all around. Adam Smith and various pot-heads happy.
Posted by: RWB | February 6th, 2008 at 10:14 pm | Report this comment“the mild weed we used to partake of in the 1960s and 1970s appears to
have been displaced to a large extent by the much more powerful ’skunk’
variety”
He is somehow implying that stronger marijuana (higher THC%) is more
harmful. It is actually less harmful because you don’t have to inhale as
much to get the same effects. When you consume pot you consume just
enough to get the effects you want. Also evolution takes a long time, so
his claim is completely false. Marijuana is no more potent today than it
was 1000 years ago. All marijuana growers can do is cross existing
marijuana strains to get new ones…sort of like breeding dogs. (Breed
all you want with existing dogs but there’s no way you can come up with
one that could be strong as a horse.) What he may be suggesting is
availability of more potent strains has increased but that is hard to
prove. The genetics available in the world are no different and in any
case a higher THC concentration is better.
“those competent adults who insist on the right to fry their brains
ought not have the government stand in their way, although their friends
should.”
Marijuana does not fry the brain and I think friends should encourage
each other to use it in moderation. There are positive health effects
including relieved muscle tension, regularity with respect to number 2,
elimination of insomnia, and a whole host of other positive
health-related effects..Furthermore incidence of depression among mild
users is lower than among non-users . THC is in no way toxic, unlike
alcohol which is a poison that has to be removed by your liver. Alcohol
has a lethal dose and THC does not. Alcohol abuse causes problems such
as violence, destruction of property and death. THC abuse at worst makes
the person fall asleep and wake up the next day with no hangover. With
moderate usage it causes relaxation, a sense of euphoria, and an
increase in appreciation for all stimuli.
“Partly in response to this, partly in response to medical research
demonstrating a link between cannabis use and psychosis, but mainly
because of a tabloid-driven urge to appear strong on crime and on the
causes of crime, the Brown government is now considering reclassifying
cannabis as a Class B rather than Class C drug, increasing the maximum
penalty for possession from two years to five. ”
The link between marijuana and psychosis is weak. There seems to be an
accelerating effect to developing schizophrenia if the person has family
history of it. Other than that there is no link. The rest of his article
makes sense, but marijuana and other drugs won’t be legalized because
too many people are employed. The DEA gets a huge amount of funding
which gives people jobs. The more people being locked up, the more
lucrative opening private prisons is. That’s right, the United States
has private prisons. People are profiting off of people going to jail.
Can you say conflict of interests? I find it surprising that Buiter as
an economist could not see that huge profits involved in waging an
un-winnable war.
Nice article but Willem Buiter does not really have his facts straight
Posted by: Mark Bulmer | February 7th, 2008 at 2:58 pm | Report this commentabout marijuana or insight into what is going on with the war on drugs
in general. I can’t see how if guns, alcohol and cigarettes are legal
that you could think the government cares about your health.
The BoE cuts interests rates but you write about the legalization of drugs?! Willem, what do you know about the preference sets of central bankers that we don’t?
Posted by: NM | February 7th, 2008 at 3:19 pm | Report this commentAlso,
Great Britain jumps on the bandwagon every time the United States does something. First the War on Terrorism and now the War on Drugs. Canada on the other hand is forced on the bandwagon because DEA chiefs come up here threatening to stop border traffic. (This, in my opinion, is what prevented marijuana from being decriminalized in Canada in 2002, when the Canadian Senate report concluded it should be legalized.)
Posted by: Mark Bulmer | February 7th, 2008 at 4:16 pm | Report this commentI like your writings Willem…
Posted by: ranjit | February 9th, 2008 at 9:55 pm | Report this commentquite stimulating… novel ideas…
Find myself incessantly checking for newer posts (notwithstanding some of the opinionated and arrogant comments posted by readers, to your column :-))
Thank You!!
With the deterioration of credit markets around the world, a unique “cash crop only” such as marijuana becomes more valuable or precious. With marijuana’s supply and demand more closely linked as a result of pure competition, the inefficient financial services cost (i.e. inflation) associated with other consumables are thankfully (for potsmokers) avoided. Can you imagine paying all the senior managers/CEO of Marijuana Inc.(think CVS or Walgreens) millions of dollars in salaries. Or how about their bankers in London 6% on new money raised to build unecessary retail distribution outlets (current drug dealing out of the house is much more cost effective for the final price). Can you imagine the high costs of retail distribution (think Starbucks and $4 Lattes) for Marijuana Inc. drive thru locations. Also, the insurance industry would most certainly have their next growth industry if Pot was legal which would also tax the final price. The marijuana market is most likely 100% asset secured, as Wall Street has not been able to create “Pot” derivatives to leverage the asset base with paper money. Such an asset secured industry (no debt) is certainly better for the long-term stability of the industry itself.
Posted by: Doug Wolkon - Author of The New Game | February 10th, 2008 at 2:44 am | Report this commentThere is growing evidence that predisposition to addiction is genetically driven. Prof Buiter, who by his own admission has been smoking pot, does not seem to have gotten into stronger drugs or become addicted. This could simply reflect that the luck of the genetic lottery has given him good genes (as far as addiction is concerned). It would be interesting to get the perspective of recovered addicts on drug legalization. In general, when it comes to drugs, the decision to consume is somewhat more complex than “competent adults who insist on the right to fry their brain”. Drug consumption is more prevalent, if less visible to middle class observers, in inner city ghettoes than among the middle classes, simply because the poor, uneducated, unemployed or homeless are more likely to engage in risky behavior. If our society did not produce exclusion, homelessness, poverty, violence, perhaps there would be a case for legalizing drugs out of belief in the inherent goodness of “free choice”. Meanwhile, keepings drugs illegal is probably the most practical way to contain the failings of our society. And to anyone who has gone through the experience of raising teenagers, the idea that making drugs available to them in the way alcohol or tobacco are available (through illegal) is not going to cause harm is utter nonsense.
Posted by: Domi | February 10th, 2008 at 5:35 am | Report this commentThe medical world is desperate for opiates. To solve the Afghan problem we need simply to offer a fair price for the opiates that the Afghans grow (lower than the Taliban might pay but in return we offer protection and the rule of law). Long term we concentrate on encouraging agricultural development so they can grow other equally profitable crops.
Also agree that we need to legalise, regulate and tax use over here - just as we do with alcohol. The “war on drugs” is as futile as the “war on chocolate” - people want it - they are prepared to go to great lengths (expense and threat to freedom) to get it - stop wasting police money chasing chimera’s - decriminalise and you remove a key plank of the narco-terrorist-mafia’s game plan.
Posted by: Huw Sayer | February 12th, 2008 at 3:18 pm | Report this commentMostly I agree, but like Domi, I’d be concerned about teenage kids getting hold of stuff that might make them even more difficult to deal with than their hormones already do. Presumably crack cocaine would count as a substance that DID “induce behaviour likely to cause significant harm to others” simply because of its addictiveness and its users consequent resort to crime in order to fuel their habit? Or is the assumption that it would be so cheap if legalized that this would not occur?
Posted by: VE Bott | February 14th, 2008 at 9:49 am | Report this comment