Milton Friedman: Legalize It!

FORBES.COM WEEKLY NEWSLETTER , JUNE 06, 2005 ^ | 06.02.05, 12:01 AM ET | Quentin Hardy

[Che Chihuahua]

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.

[Che Chihuahua]

A common tactic used by those with a weak substantive position is to accuse their opponent of some rhetorical foul that they themselves are committing. While accusing me of the sin of uttering "ad hominems," you've done nothing but utter weak arguments laced with ad hominem attacks. Even without the "ad hominems," your arguments thus far are deplorably weak.

Your weakest argument by far, is that the Founding Fathers by their silence on the issue of dope smoking intended no Federal involvement. They were also silent on the issues of terrorism, employee pensions, broadcast radio and television regulation, kiddie porn, securities fraud, wire fraud, product liability, and the existence of organized crime. Does that mean they intended no Federal involvement with those issues either?

Although they were among smartest men of all time, the Founding Fathers weren't psychics. But being as smart as they were, a reasonable person, i.e., a non-Libertarian, could conclude that they wrote a dynamic document flexible enough to meet changing conditions.

Of course there are those that believe in the anarchy brought about by social and economic Darwinism. It is also an oxymoron to believe the Libertarian position that if drugs were legalized (a) people would use drugs responsibly, (b) the government would spend the money wisely on "cool" programs like those that put food in people's bellies, and (c) that crime will end simply because we play Enron accountant games and decide a crime doesn't exist because we say so. Like it or not, drugs, even the legal ones like alcohol and prescription drugs generate crime of various types. Fraudulent prescriptions, counterfeit drugs, and DUIs come to mind. Unless you plan to offer free drugs, some people will probably resort to crime to support their legalized drug habit.

As for "imprisoning people who violated nobody's rights." That is a total scam argument. However, here's a real ad hominem attack for you: While some people might drink alcohol or use drugs "responsibly," there's a whole lot that won't, like the jerk that killed my relative while stoned on a controlled substance. How's that for appealing to a personal prejudice? Or should I "love" the sin and "hate" the sinner? I bring this point up only because I've had enough of reading self serving and nebulous arguments in favor of irresponsible self indulgence.

The risk to society and to me personally of drug legalization is, and was not worth the high social and personal costs. This is especially true, if such drug legalization were to be based upon your dubious interpretation of the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers. Smoke or self indulge in good health. But if you do so, please don't drive on taxpayer supported streets and highways. You'd violating our right to personal safety. The Tenth Amendment notwithstanding, the rest of us really can't afford the cost of a reckless self indulgent exercise of "personal" freedom.

[Last Visible Dog]

BTW, the poster-poseur was calling me a "do-gooder" without knowing the basis for my beliefs. S/he adamantly defended drug use, while piously and emphatically maintaining that s/he was not a drug user. My main gripe with the laissez-faire, pro-legalization libertarian argument is that it is an unreasoned, primarily emotional and self-centered approach, "My personal freedom, yadda, yadda, yadda." These arguments are much like those used by an adolescent when he tries to tell his parents to treat him like an adult without assuming the responsibilities.

That is utter nonsense. Liberty is not an "emotional and self-centered approach" - it is the core concept for the founding of this country.

Laws based on racism and propaganda are unreasoned.

I find it amazing that you are actually claiming the position of liberty is "unreasoned" and "emotional" - while laws based on lies and pure nonsense are just dandy with you. Give me one reason why marijuana should be illegal that does not apply twice as much toward alcohol and tobacco (you can't).

[Last Visible Dog]

Your weakest argument by far, is that the Founding Fathers by their silence on the issue of dope smoking intended no Federal involvement. They were also silent on the issues of terrorism, employee pensions, broadcast radio and television regulation, kiddie porn, securities fraud, wire fraud, product liability, and the existence of organized crime. Does that mean they intended no Federal involvement with those issues either?

More nonsense. Many of the founding fathers (Jefferson, Washington) grew marijuana - they were not silent, they activity cultivated the plant. Your claim to the argument being the "weakest" is not supported by the facts but very little to do with reefer madness marijuana laws have anything to do with facts.

[mugs99]

Federal control is the reason health care costs are through the roof

Your right.
Health care was 1.5% of GDP in 1960. It passed 15% in 2000 and is still climbing.

[absolootezer0]

better yet, let the LEOs STAY LEOs working more for patrolling streets, and send surplus (by surplus i mean ALL) batfe employees to border control.

[Last Visible Dog]

It is also an oxymoron to believe the Libertarian position that if drugs were legalized (a) people would use drugs responsibly, (b) the government would spend the money wisely on "cool" programs like those that put food in people's bellies, and (c) that crime will end simply because we play Enron accountant games and decide a crime doesn't exist because we say so.

You are two inches away from clueless. Some recreational drugs are legal - alcohol, which causes more damage and impact to our society than all other recreational drugs combined times two, is legal. ALL reasons to make marijuana illegal apply to a greater extent to alcohol - this blows giant holes in your argument and proves marijuana is illegal based on racism, lies, propaganda, and the alcohol industry protecting market share.

[Last Visible Dog]

As for "imprisoning people who violated nobody's rights." That is a total scam argument.

So you are for people being locked up who do not violate anybody's rights and you are against liberty. Sounds like you may be a radical socialist in denial.

However, here's a real ad hominem attack for you: While some people might drink alcohol or use drugs "responsibly," there's a whole lot that won't, like the jerk that killed my relative while stoned on a controlled substance. How's that for appealing to a personal prejudice?

I don't think you understand what ad hominem means because that is not an ad hominem statement. Ad hominem is Latin that translates as "to the man or to man" - the logic fallacy of ad hominen relates to attacking the person rather than their position - it has nothing to do with personal prejudice (at least not as a logic fallacy). I find this interesting since you were just trying to lecture somebody else about them not understand what ad hominem meant - I think maybe you need to look up the term.

As for your story - I know four times that many people that have died directly from alcohol - are you fighting to make alcohol illegal or do you hold a hypocritical inconsistent position?

Or should I "love" the sin and "hate" the sinner? I bring this point up only because I've had enough of reading self serving and nebulous arguments in favor of irresponsible self indulgence.

So you want Mommy-Government to make laws against self-indulgence. Like I said, you are against liberty and for social engineering "Mommy-Government" laws.

[absolootezer0]

you know, it really spurises me that the government BANS MJ rather than SUPPORTING it. if they're trying to go socialist, would they want as many people as possible in a state of placidness? isn't it easier to control a culture that's docile?

[Last Visible Dog]

But Libertarians, I now realize, are on a lifelong rebellion against Mommy and Daddy. Why? Because Libertarians don't want anybody that reminds them of Mommy and Daddy to tell then what to do and because Libertarians are BIG people now! Ritalin for everyone!

BTW Che, this statement of yours is an ad hominem attack - you are attacking people that believe in liberty personally, you are not addressing their positions. Seems you fancy yourself to be a mind reader because you claim to be able to tell what a large group of people "actually" think.

[Last Visible Dog]

Finally, Dr. Friedman's economic argument for legalization is based on a false assumption that government will save or wisely spend the money that would have gone to a wasteful program.

Your statement is nonsense and unsupported. Clearly you are a reefer madness propaganda parrot that feels they don't even need to present supporting evidence.

We spend BILLIONS to lock up people for a victimless crime and you have presented no evidence that we would not save this money. Milton Friedman is an economic genius so if you plan to attack his statements you better bring more to the table than the Joe Isuzu "You can take my word on it" nonsense.

BTW: the space program never ended and the Vietnam War was wrapped into military spending and military spending did not in any way end. If reefer madness ends, so does the billions we waste on it.

[Last Visible Dog]

you know, it really spurises me that the government BANS MJ rather than SUPPORTING it. if they're trying to go socialist, would they want as many people as possible in a state of placidness? isn't it easier to control a culture that's docile?

...but currently our society is either too drunk to care or in mental limbo from dangerous antidepressants - weed might actually bring clarity.

[absolootezer0]

ROFL .. good point, with all the paxil and zoloft and such out there, gov't doesn't need us on pot.

[Last Visible Dog]

Try looking up ad hominem sometime in the dictionary and find out what it really means before you use the term. It's intellectually lazy and dishonest to rely on the overused ad hominem rhetorical defense as your argument in chief.
You would have been correct in your accusation, if for example, I had only argued that dope shouldn't be legalized because I once saw a dirty hippie smoking it.

Che you are wrong. That is not what the logic fallacy ad hominem means. Like all your arguments in thread - you are big on know-it-all chest thumping but woefully weak on facts. You attempt to lecture someone on the "true" meaning of ad hominem while you are demonstrating you don't "know an ad hominem attack from an adenoid"

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument [aimed] at the person", but usually translated as "argument to the man"), is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself or an argument pointing out an inconsistency between a view expressed by an individual and the remainder of his or her beliefs.
Wikipedia

[Last Visible Dog]

Sorry, Miltie. Your John Hancock a'int worth $hit these days. Smoke pot and you will go to jail. It's the law, and it will not change.

ExtremeUnction: (circa 1855) "People should be allowed to own Negroes - slavery is the law of the land and it will not change"

(warning: the previous statement is an extrapolation)

[Last Visible Dog]

do you reasonably believe that Founding Fathers understood and intended a "right" to get stoned

Absolutely. The following passage is basically the foundation of our country (it is from the Declaration of Independence, you should read it some time):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Jefferson says I have the unalienable Rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If I choose at any time to pursuit happiness by partaking of the herbs God gave for use to use - it is none of your freakin business nor is it the role of government to be my Mommy and to decide what I can and can not do in my pursuit of happiness as long as it does not effect somebody else's unalienable right. The founders did not make laws against inanimate objects - laws against inanimate objects are for weak-minded people that need the government to be their Mommy (IMHO).

The government has a history of drifting from the ideals that founded this country (slavery, Prohibition, etc) but IMHO it is the role of conservatives to work to conserve the principles on which this country was founded - not just go along with it because the government says so and the government is our Mommy and always right.

[Junior_G]

I have no problem with decriminalizing the stuff, but how on earth are anti-pot laws racist?

[Last Visible Dog]

I have no problem with decriminalizing the stuff, but how on earth are anti-pot laws racist?

Marijuana was legal in this country for all but the last 68 years. The first marijuana law in this 'country' was in 1619 when the Jamestown Colony order all farmers to grow weed. Tensions with Mexicans-Americans started to flair in the 1900's with the revolution in Mexico and the activities of Pancho Villa. Mexicans used weed more than non-Mexicans. The first state laws were directed at Mexicans. Later people became worried about evil jazz music that was said to come from Latin Americans and black jazz musicians (using weed). During the depression relations with Mexicans deteriorated because they were seen to be taking away jobs. Racist America saw marijuana as a Negro and Mexican problem. A news paper editorial in 1934 put it this way: "Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."

So there was an environment of racism toward Negroes and Mexicans and weed became a target. Harry J. Anslinger, the first director of he Bureau of Narcotics explained the justification for marijuana Prohibition this way:

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."

"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."

"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."

"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."

"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing"

"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."

"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

So based on racism, lies, and propaganda - Anslinger, with some helpful yellow journalism from William Randolf Hearst, gave us reefer madness racist lies and marijuana Prohibition .

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

be sure to check out post 81 in this thread

[BlackbirdSST]

Because I had a family member killed by a driver under the influence of a controlled substance.

Bummer! I've had friends and family killed by, eeee gads, someone that was totally sober. Make use of my tagline. Blackbird.