Milton Friedman: Legalize 'em all

MicroBalrog

New member
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n878/a08.html
Newshawk: Herb
Rate this article Votes: 3
Pubdate: Thu, 2 Jun 2005
Source: Forbes Com (US Web)
Copyright: 2005 Forbes Inc.
Website: http://www.forbes.com/breakingnews/
Author: Quentin Hardy, Manager of the Silicon Valley Bureau, Forbes
Cited: The report, "The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition" http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/mironreport.html
Cited: Marijuana Policy Project http://www.mpp.org
Cited: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/news/press05/051805.html
Referenced: Inside Dope http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n1667/a03.html
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Milton+Friedman

MILTON FRIEDMAN: LEGALIZE IT!

SAN FRANCISCO, CA - A founding father of the Reagan Revolution has put his John Hancock on a pro-pot report.

Milton Friedman leads a list of more than 500 economists from around the U.S. who today will publicly endorse a Harvard University economist's report on the costs of marijuana prohibition and the potential revenue gains from the U.S. government instead legalizing it and taxing its sale. Ending prohibition enforcement would save $7.7 billion in combined state and federal spending, the report says, while taxation would yield up to $6.2 billion a year.

The report, "The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition," ( available at www.prohibitioncosts.org ) was written by Jeffrey A. Miron, a professor at Harvard , and largely paid for by the Marijuana Policy Project ( MPP ), a Washington, D.C., group advocating the review and liberalization of marijuana laws.

At times the report uses some debatable assumptions: For instance, Miron assumes a single figure for every type of arrest, for example, but the average pot bust is likely cheaper than bringing in a murder or kidnapping suspect. Friedman and other economists, however, say the overall work is some of the best yet done on the costs of the war on marijuana.

At 92, Friedman is revered as one of the great champions of free-market capitalism during the years of U.S. rivalry with Communism. He is also passionate about the need to legalize marijuana, among other drugs, for both financial and moral reasons.

"There is no logical basis for the prohibition of marijuana," the economist says, "$7.7 billion is a lot of money, but that is one of the lesser evils. Our failure to successfully enforce these laws is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people in Colombia. I haven't even included the harm to young people. It's absolutely disgraceful to think of picking up a 22-year-old for smoking pot. More disgraceful is the denial of marijuana for medical purposes."

Securing the signatures of Friedman, along with economists from Cornell, Stanford and Yale universities, among others, is a coup for the MPP, a group largely interested in widening and publicizing debate over the usefulness of laws against pot.

If the laws change, large beneficiaries might include large agricultural groups like Archer Daniels Midland and ConAgra Foods as potential growers or distributors and liquor businesses like Constellation Brands and Allied Domecq, which understand the distribution of intoxicants. Surprisingly, Home Depot and other home gardening centers would not particularly benefit, according to the report, which projects that few people would grow their own marijuana, the same way few people distill whiskey at home. Canada's large-scale domestic marijuana growing industry ( see "Inside Dope" ) suggests otherwise, however.

The report will likely not sway all minds. The White House Office of Drug Control Policy recently published an analysis of marijuana incarceration that states that "most people in prison for marijuana are violent criminals, repeat offenders, traffickers or all of the above." The office declined to comment on the marijuana economics study, however, without first analyzing the study's methodology.

Friedman's advocacy on the issue is limited--the nonagenarian prefers to write these days on the need for school choice, calling U.S. literacy levels "absolutely criminal...only sustained because of the power of the teachers' unions." Yet his thinking on legalizing drugs extends well past any MPP debate or the kind of liberalization favored by most advocates.

"I've long been in favor of legalizing all drugs," he says, but not because of the standard libertarian arguments for unrestricted personal freedom. "Look at the factual consequences: The harm done and the corruption created by these laws...the costs are one of the lesser evils."

Not that a man of his years expects reason to triumph. Any added revenues from taxing legal marijuana would almost certainly be more than spent, by this or any other Congress.

"Deficits are the only thing that keeps this Congress from spending more" says Friedman. "Republicans are no different from Democrats. Spending is the easiest way to buy votes." A sober assessment indeed.
 
It's about time somebody besides NORML started telling the truth about drugs and drug laws instead of the spoon-fed, govt-approved propaganda we get from the usual suspects. :mad:
 
why is it that an average hard working American can have his career and life pretty much destroyed by getting caught with one joint, yet millions of people who SNUCK INTO THE COUNTRY, can run the streets with impunity?
 
It's about time somebody besides NORML started telling the truth about drugs and drug laws instead of the spoon-fed, govt-approved propaganda we get from the usual suspects

Like, say, John Stossel? Or Peter McWilliams? :)
 
Like say John Stossel? Or Peter McWilliams?

I was referring more to the usual govt suspects like DEA, ONDCP, and other alphabet agencies that stand to lose from drug legalization.
 
Look for a major step in that direction (and other stupid legislation passed via the Commerce Clause) if/when Ashcroft v Raich is judged the right way. :)

(The case deals with the unconstitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act, as an improper expansion of the Commerce Clause. While this case is about Medical Marijuana, it has ramifications on a LOT of areas, including even federal restrictions on firearms.)
 
Look for a major step in that direction (and other stupid legislation passed via the Commerce Clause) if/when Ashcroft v Raich is judged the right way.

And what caliber do you suggest I should use to harvest the flying non-kasher mammals?
 
why is it that an average hard working American can have his career and life pretty much destroyed by getting caught with one joint, yet millions of people who SNUCK INTO THE COUNTRY, can run the streets with impunity?

Because this is America!
 
Legalize it, just make the penalties for doing something horrible the same or even more harsh as it were for alcohol.

'Sides, if your dumb enough to smoke anything, well, go ahead. The point is its your choice to screw up your life.
 
jonathon,
I'm 100% with you. Question: When someone is loaded to the point of being impaired while driving, shooting or operating equipment, how do you measure it? How do you set the limits? Etc?
dean
 
Look for a major step in that direction (and other stupid legislation passed via the Commerce Clause) if/when Ashcroft v Raich is judged the right way.

You never know what they are going to do, but this report on the oral arguments didn't exactly give me hope that it will be decided in favor of the classical interpretation of the commerce clause...

Randy Barnett, law professor from Boston University, argued on behalf of Raich. He was allowed a minute to introduce his argument and was then continually peppered with hostile questions. Barnett said there was no "economic activity" in the case, but one justice after another would challenge that statement. "If the feds could reach the wheat used on a farm in Wickard," Scalia kept asking, "why not marijuana consumed by patients in California?"

For reference, here is the 9th Circuit's decision in Raich:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0315481p.pdf

and in Stewart:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0210318p.pdf

and here is the cert petition linking the two cases:

http://www.mp5.net/info/wilson.pet.app.pdf
 
One good Milton Friedman citation deserves another!

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jacobsullum/js20020726.shtml

The renowned economist Milton Friedman, who turns 90 on July 31, once gave a talk at a Washington, D.C., conference sponsored by the Drug Policy Foundation. His title: "The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise."

To understand why that was a bold approach, you need to know a little bit about DPF (which has since been absorbed into the New York-based Drug Policy Alliance). Although DPF was officially open to critics of the war on drugs from across the political spectrum, the crowds at its conferences tilted decidedly to the left.

Friedman's audience could not be counted on to view "socialist" as an epithet.
 
why is it that an average hard working American can have his career and life pretty much destroyed by getting caught with one joint, yet millions of people who SNUCK INTO THE COUNTRY, can run the streets with impunity?

The mian reason is that people keep voting for statists intead of statesmen.

I didn't vote for Bush. I voted for freedom.
 
Well, see, if you vote for anyone but a Statist, you're "throwing your vote away". Vote for a Libertarian, and the supporters of Statist R will insult you for "handing your vote to Statist D", and vice versa.
 
Yes, and then you have to listen to then cry when the elected hero screws them.

People are stupid. They keep the status quo. Never vote for an incumbant.
 
Status quo: not such a bad idea...

Declaration of Independence

Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
 
Milton Friedman leads a list of more than 500 economists from around the U.S. who today will publicly endorse a Harvard University economist's report on the costs of marijuana prohibition and the potential revenue gains from the U.S. government instead legalizing it and taxing its sale. Ending prohibition enforcement would save $7.7 billion in combined state and federal spending, the report says, while taxation would yield up to $6.2 billion a year.
At first glance I see - or smell - a rat. If we are going to save 7.7 BILLION a year - we do not need a tax on top of that. If they do tax it, the budget will get bigger, and the excuse to increase the tax revisited on a regular basis. Meaning back to square one; product costs too much, people steal, smuggle or produce. Presto, another black market. Another "crime problem" and the BATfmen will simply increase in number - and budget.

If they are going to legalize it and save the 7 Billion plus, great; the "war" is a cherade. The biggest import/exporters, dealers and pushers rarely get nailed. It is evident after many decades that it is a protected market that needs the monopolies breaking up. Deregulation should do that nicely. ;)
 
It's a start. Now when do we talk about ending the equally futile war on not-so-soft and hard drugs?
 
Back
Top