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.
I think it won't be done for two very simple reasons.
1. Marijuana is one of the largest cash crops in the US. It is big enough to make a significant dent in many State economies, not to mention banks and other financial institutions. Think in terms of what would happen to the farm belt if they lost all their income from wheat and corn.
2. Those currently making money from the WOD would take a pay cut.
The recombinant DNA trick will be done by people who don't care!
"People that use marijuana are a group of people and you claim each and every one is irresponsible."
They 100% are.
Again, I think you miss the point. Among the people whose jobs will be affected by such an economic loss are elected officials. They are the ones who would have to OK such a hare-brained scheme.
OK here is a scenario. Let's put it to a vote of "we the people" of each individual state. I hope that a couple of states would pass it (for arguments sake)...say California becomes a test state for the rest of the nation (for 10 years). No federal money from the rest of us going into it that has anything to do with this crop. No exporting it allowed. Everything self contained within the state. They get to keep all of the revenues generated and bear all the costs associated. I think California would be on a highway (no pun intended) to hell faster than it is now. I am all for it. What say you?
Any one who argues for an original intent interpretation of the Constitution is implicitly arguing for the federal "unregulation" of drug use, at least until it's properly authorized.
I think California would do well for itself fiscally and otherwise. I also am all for it.
Exactly what alleged "experience" is it that suggests this? (Datum: my 72-year-old father, who probably never saw marijuana and certainly never used it, thinks it should be legalized and regulated.)
Before or after we spread the gene that prevents microorganisms from creating alcohol?
It's got nothing to do with any fundamental 'understanding' about the issue; in fact, both sides (pro and LE in private) agree on the same points: that it's both a waste of money and has a corrupting influence.
The point is that there is an entire 'industry' built upon the DOA. People have mortgages, pensions, 401s, etc., who are completely dependent on this business maintaining (if not growing) its current economic presence.
The current effort in the war on drugs is an evolution of those positions. However, most of the news on mj since then and the imossiblity og government action stamping out drug use has swung the popular opinion toward legalization, not to mention the expense of trying to stop people from getting high. Lastly, most of us recognize the hypocracy of the difference between the approach to alcohol and to mj.
This statement by Friedman is another nail in the coffin for the laws trying to regulate people's personal pleasure.
You have no credibility if you continue to do so.
You have no credibility if you continue to do so use USDOJ figures.
There, I fixed it.
I fixed it more.
Besides, stuff goes on all the time of which the politicians are only dimly aware.
Look, if George Washington knew then what we know now there'd been a federal agency in charge of regulating lead based paint!
You are denying the value of knowledge and understanding of processes and materials. We've learned a lot since your 79 year old mother first toked up.
Alcohol is required in many biological processes. Your stuff isn't.
I fixed it more.
Indeed!
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.