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.
Wow! I was, at first, inclined to agree with him, but now that I read your post, I see the error of my ways. I now understand, because of your in-depth analysis, that Friedman has lost his mind. After seeing your brilliant point-by-point deconstruct of the arguments presented, I must admit that all the facts in the article are simply fantasies of a deranged soul, and that the exact opposite, therefore, must be true. Thank you.
Can ya imagine the college booksstore cashier counters featuring items for sale: Pens, Pencils, Dubes. Gives new meaning to "getting in on the same page with your mentor". Instead of "Monday Nights with Timothy Leary".. we can have whole classrooms devoted to "phwamming and tripping on the road", and then those classrooms devoted to studying the effects of pot on "conversation".
"Hey! I took Professor XXX's class on Pot 1. Er, was that Part 1. No no. It was Pol-Pot. I think it was about political pot but I didn't get the part about something 'camer rushe". Maybe it's a new type of lens for cameras. Yah! That's what it was about, dude. We learned about photography. It was really cool.
I would hope that your school district uses drug testing for drivers....I still cannot believe my company does not do it yet,we got the "no guns" signs on the doors already
You consider wasting $7.7 billion not particularly important?
Could it be that altering consciousness is instinctive - not only to humans but to others of all species as well?
If so, then wouldn't outlawing 'drugs' be the equivalent of making instinctive processes illegal? Thus, does this not make the WOD as reasonable as , perhaps, the War on Sex or the War on Sleep, perhaps even the War on Breathing?
Go back to the minors with this argument, rookie.
Why do people like you automatically assume the mere legality of something would mean that people who want to use that thing would use it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Beer is legal for adults over the age of 21. Plenty of people love beer, and drink it. Do you then assume all people who love and drink beer do so 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?
Milton Friedman signs onto pot legalization ping.
Why do some people pretend that drug users are rational and make reasoned decisions about their lifestyle.
"The war on drugs is so silly as to be a joke of multi-billion dollar proportions."
Except that it has had such horrible effects on our society. Thousands in prison needlessly, billions spent needlessly, and increased government powers including confiscation of private property. The police state aspects of "The War on Terror" would have been much less acceptable if Americans already hadn't been conditioned to similar excesses by "The War on Drugs". Nice to have wars that never end, and aren't winnable...think of the power that hands the government.
It needs to stop.
Excuse me?
"Well, I just can't wait till the school bus driver negotiates our steep hills and curves while on pot."
So I presume he's currently smashed on the legally available whiskey?
BTW, people intoxicated on cannabis are better drivers than drunks - studies have proven it.
I think he means that you sound like Yoda.
Pass the Kutchie man!
Would you potheads just give it a rest!
We declared War on Drugs (JEC)and we lost.
We declared War on Terrorism (GWB)and we..........
Point is, every one has personal life "experiences" with various subjects. You want pot made legalized, and OldFriend was cracking a joke. Not a joke, in my book. It happened. Lost numerous highschool chums in midst-party movement, around "suicide bend". And maybe they woulda still not made the "bend" high or not. But those Thai sticks back then, were mighty powerful. But maybe it was the opium burnt on an electric range and inhaled through a rolled up newspaper. Who knows.
Nonetheless, I think Buckley and Friedman are right - it is getting near time to unleash the Cracken.
With all the documentation surrounding the "pot is harmless" movement, it's time to stop forking out massive amounts of tax dollars to stop people from "doing what they are going to do regardless".
And yes, in the past, pot was neither legal nor illegal.
Remember those old rhubarbs from various "political identity movements"? cia unleashed CRACK on the black community in order to convict only "blacks"? Legalizing pot might just put a halt to those conspiracies.
Your post is a classic Ad Hominem. I guess you can't argue with his logic, so you deflect the focus onto him.
That's too bad, because some conservatives have a decent ability to defend the War on Drugs. You, OTOH, would lose, were you to pull that one in a formal debate.
Oops; Missed pinging you to post #58.
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.