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.
Not to be a pain but...
If Al Gore, in his 'extra chromosome" comment was referring to his opponents, how can that be racist, when his perceived opponents are of every race, sex, and nationality?
The ONDCP is the Office of National Drug Control Policy. It is headed by the "Drug Czar". It is basically a propaganda office, required by law to support the current federal drug policy. That's why they send people to the states to campaign against MM reform initiatives. Now think about that. In a supposedly self-governing country where the government responds to public opinion we have a government agency who's stated mission is to influence and form public opinion.
Sure they do. But since they're responsible about it, you never hear about it.
"Negative impact" is too broad an exception ... ugly people have a negative impact on society, but it's not proper for government to force masks on them.
So you'd let the government decide what behavior is irrational, and ban it? Sounds like a recipe for totalitarianism to me; the Soviets were known for declaring dissidents mentally ill, i.e. irrational, and institutionalizing them.
I've had personal experience with alkies who, when they wake up, tip bottoms up. Is that sufficient reason to ban alcohol?
The crime is harm to children whether it is done while using pot, alcohol, or nothing at all (which is most common). We need to have laws against actions, not inanimate objects. All pro-weed-probition arguments apply to a much stronger extent to alcohol. So pro-weed-probition supporters are stuck with supporting completely inconsistent, hypocritical and misguided logic or they are forced into supporting alcohol prohibition.
A person is responsible for their own wrongdoings whether they are under the influence of alcohol, weed, or stupidity.
Would you illogical bigots just give it a rest?
Thankfully your school bus driver can now only legally negotiate your steep hills and curves while on alcohol.
Can't you people see your arguments are inconsistent and nonsensical.
Do "responsible adults" drink alcohol (a much more dangerous and physically addictive substance)?
Can't you people see your arguments are silly, bigoted, and inconsistent.
There are far more people who wake up and drink up (alcohol) - so, you are either for alcohol prohibition or you hold a very hypocritical, inconsistent, and illogical position.
BTW: Do you call all people who drink alcohol drunks? Or do you save that bit of bigotry only for marijuana?
You are talking about alcohol - correct? You are a alcohol prohibition warrior?
I make this argument over and over and because of it the Prohibition Warriors on Free Republic tell me I am not conservative (at least under their warped definition)
The Prohibition Warriors actually believe Mommy-government social engineering laws are "conservative"
What do you think about... The Contact High? Do you think children in a room with adults smoking pot; get high too? By proximity? Do you think there should be an "age" limit on purchasing and using pot? (Putting aside the "medical" aspect for the moment.)
Of course I would - just as I have problems with grownups giving alcohol to kids or grownups giving cigarettes to kids or grownups giving pornography to kids or grown ups giving the keys to their car to children. This really has no direct or exclusive relationship to the Wild Wood Weed. MaryJane is not the only thing I feel should not be given to kids.
Especially, other people's kids? That's an action.
Just as giving alcohol to other people's kids is an action.
I'm trying not to laugh -- but I do wonder... with all this talk about second hand smoke, there usually isn't "second-hand alcohol vapors" to affect anyone else.
If you don't want to get a second-hand buzz, don't stand near people smoking weed (and I don't think smoking weed on an airplane is a good idea although it would likely improve the experience). If you don't want somebody saying stupid things to you or trying to pick a fight with you, don't hang around people drinking alcohol.
What do you think about... The Contact High? Do you think children in a room with adults smoking pot; get high too? By proximity?
Well, it is illegal to bring your kids to some bars and I don't bring my kids in to watch while I have sex with my wife so I think this type of issue is already being dealt with. The arguments sound as thought some believe if they make pot legal they will also remove everybody's brain. But taking your statement seriously - it is illegal to give kids alcohol and when pot is legal the same will most likely be true so if your kids are getting high from your second-hand weed smoke, you are breaking the law (but you are going to have to smoke weed like Bob Marley or Snoop Dogg if you are going to get people high with second hand smoke)
Do you think there should be an "age" limit on purchasing and using pot? (Putting aside the "medical" aspect for the moment.)
Absolutely. Unemancipated children do not have the same rights as emancipated adults.
BTW: when they ended alcohol prohibition (see: War on Booze) and made alcohol legal in the 1933 - did you ask the same questions? (play along, I am pretty sure you were not alive back then but you get the point)
You can believe what you want, but if you really believe Department of Justice spends money, time and law enforcement resources chasing down guys for MJ, you don't have a clue.
I'll figure it out for you, and if you qualify, chain you to my basement wall for whatever period of time is necessary to bring you around to a rational point of view.
Now, tell me about that government part. I always love to hear how the government would never permit me to do that!
Probably.
Use of that word implies that you "believe" drugs, and that could be a problem. (LMAOROTF).
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.