Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Milton Friedman: Legalize It! (The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition)
Forbes.Com ^ | June 2, 2005

Posted on 06/02/2005 4:40:30 AM PDT by Wolfie

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: bongbrigade; cary; donutwatch; miltonfriedman; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 481-486 next last
To: shellshocked

So you'd let employers fire boozers?


101 posted on 06/02/2005 7:54:40 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: IamConservative
Hmm... I had been thinking along the lines of Afghanistan switching crops over to Pot, and selling on the market. Of course, some of the workers may be required to "test" the product while working on the job. But I can see the income, the sheer income to Afghanistan -- to turn Afghanistan into a thriving center of freedom, and private industry.

But now in consideration of your post: You've made a superb point. Further since the majority of the big bucks in the Axis of evil is made off "harder" stuff, would the Axis of evil network be begging for the business? And would these newer industries allow them in? Probably not. But indeed the Coalition of the Willing would need to be there to brace against a bloody coup from the "usual" suspects quite adept at very hostile "takeover" was kept at bay, if not simply directly dealt with.

Quite possibly, also, our US "local" growers of pot will wish to go to Afghanistan, and help build their economy. Could probably teach them a great deal about various seed crops.

102 posted on 06/02/2005 7:55:00 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Alia
You still haven't explained waht single-lobers means.

Is that some kind of insult?

103 posted on 06/02/2005 8:00:13 AM PDT by ActionNewsBill ("In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: ActionNewsBill
Would you potheads just give it a rest!

" Will you and the other drug warriors MYOB?"

We will when you stop shoving your druggie agenda into our faces!

104 posted on 06/02/2005 8:02:31 AM PDT by Redleg Duke (Don't let Terri's death be in vain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: ActionNewsBill
Is that some kind of insult?

Not at all.

105 posted on 06/02/2005 8:06:01 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost

Joke.


106 posted on 06/02/2005 8:07:33 AM PDT by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: ActionNewsBill

Ain't government wonderful?


107 posted on 06/02/2005 8:08:07 AM PDT by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: dljordan

I dig---that was shorthand for me laughing.


108 posted on 06/02/2005 8:08:23 AM PDT by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

I know that marijuana legalization does not seem high up on the list for some people. I don't smoke it, and personally I am against it. But, everyone should think about this:

If it wasn't for the violence surrounding the illegal drug trade, would there be any large movement for taking away your guns?

If it wasn't for all the cash surrounding the drug trade, would cops be pullng people over randomly on the highway looking to take the money without due process of anyone who has too much cash?

If it wasn't for the drug war, would cops be executing so many no-knock warrants and occasionaly breaking down the wrong door?

If it wasn't for the drug war, would federalism have been done so much damage in the courts in the last 20 years?

The fact is that I am against the drug war not because it affects my "right" to smoke pot, but because it affects my right to own a gun, and it affects my right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure, and because it threatens the very concept of federalism that underpins our republic.


109 posted on 06/02/2005 8:13:35 AM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
The fact is that I am against the drug war not because it affects my "right" to smoke pot, but because it affects my right to own a gun, and it affects my right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure, and because it threatens the very concept of federalism that underpins our republic.

Well said, Rodney.

110 posted on 06/02/2005 8:34:01 AM PDT by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke

Would legalization of pot mean more money, or less money for terrorists and criminals?


111 posted on 06/02/2005 8:39:22 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Alia

Not with Tort Reform. :)


112 posted on 06/02/2005 8:42:58 AM PDT by soundandvision
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

Oh, I'm not so sure about that actually. Some people don't want the hassle and some people have a particularly good 'green thumb' (no pun intended) and make stuff has way more punch than anything I might have smoked in my younger days, say 10 or 12 years ago.


113 posted on 06/02/2005 8:44:50 AM PDT by soundandvision
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Alia

"JJust an idle question: When "Pot Luck" stores spring up all over the land.. can they be sued for "false advertising" of its wares?"

Since my wife just bought a hairnet claiming to "make hair grow faster and stronger", I'm guessing not. ;-)

As H. G. Wells said, "Advertising is legalized lying".


114 posted on 06/02/2005 9:10:13 AM PDT by PreciousLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: shellshocked

"Drug use affects workplace performance and performance should always be a firing offense, but the law seems to also indicate that drug use affecting workplace perofrmance isn't a legitimate offense."

First of all, I question your assertion that "Drug use affects workplace performance", assuming you're referring to off-hours drug use.

Secondly, would you include alcohol and tobacco in the same category? Hangovers affecting employees are a well documented workplace problem.

Know anyone that was fired for being hungover at work?


115 posted on 06/02/2005 9:13:17 AM PDT by PreciousLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke

"We will when you stop shoving your druggie agenda into our faces!"

No one is "shoving an agenda in your face". We just want to live in a free country, where an individual is solely responsible (and liable) for his actions, as long as they don't harm others. Plus, the War on Drugs is clearly a waste of money, time, and human potential (on both sides).


116 posted on 06/02/2005 9:17:25 AM PDT by PreciousLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

"So you'd let employers fire boozers?"

Not because they are boozers, but because a boozer will always be caught drunk or under the influence at work, or their performance will suffer due to the stupid nature of their drinking. I don't care if a person is drunk every night, but the second it affects their work performance, from missing work to having an inability to pay attention, they are gone.


117 posted on 06/02/2005 9:25:37 AM PDT by shellshocked (They're undocumented Border Patrol agents, not vigilantes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty

"Know anyone that was fired for being hungover at work?"


Yeah. I fired a guy for it. He drank every night. So long as it didn't affect his performance there was no problem. I canned the guy the day he showed up and was unable to pay attention due to his boozing it the night before.


118 posted on 06/02/2005 9:29:01 AM PDT by shellshocked (They're undocumented Border Patrol agents, not vigilantes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: shellshocked

"Yeah. I fired a guy for it. He drank every night. So long as it didn't affect his performance there was no problem. I canned the guy the day he showed up and was unable to pay attention due to his boozing it the night before."

Fine job, I have no problem with that at all. I'd apply the same standards of "ability to perform your job" to any such situation.


119 posted on 06/02/2005 9:42:41 AM PDT by PreciousLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: soundandvision

Tort reform had to do with "frivolous lawsuits".


120 posted on 06/02/2005 10:33:56 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 481-486 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson