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 would never suggest "there ought to be a law" based upon what I saw happening to others in high school as a kid. Laws are not something adults pass to spare children the sometimes painful effects of being human in an industrialized nation. You might as well pass a law against fog or cloudy days or traffic jams.
Yeah, hearsay...just like this little gem proposed and implemented by a "Republican President.
Bush plans to screen whole U.S. population for mental illness
Not only that. But, Afghanistan is trying to quell the "poppy" industry. Once pot is legalized, perhaps they'd switch their crop over to pot. Can you imagine the oasis that would rise in Afghanistan? I can.
"Yup. He was around when the evil black jazz singers were seducing the innocent young white girls with that nasty stuff. /s"
Yep, we had to do something to preserve the purity of the white race. It was all laid out in "Reefer Madness", an excellent portrayal of the problem.
Why do some people think it's their or the gooberment's business to tell citizens how to run their private lives?
lol! o.kay.
Will you and the other drug warriors MYOB?
How do you know he/she isn't doing that now? Don't they have drug testing where you live?
But on the down-to-earth side; adults who are stoned and responsible for the harm to children -- will happily pay the lawsuit fees and "civil charges" against the stoner and their families, maybe even their corporations. It's all about freedom. And the privacy of what you do in your own time. If it adversely affects others -- pro-stoners will happily pay for the rest of their lives, out the nose. O.K.
You must be in charge of the Red Herring attacks.
I think zc meant that the testimony itself (which not giving could land you in prison) would be hearsay, not the Bill is in Congress.
Huh? Stoned adults who hurt anyone, let alone children, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Do those who do this---regardless of their state of inebriation at the time of the crime---not get punished where you live?
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe it's because we've read replies in this very forum from legalizers who say that they can do anything, to include driving, "as well or better" while stoned.
Even I saw the sarcasm in that one.
LOL!!!! I'm from California. Do I really gotta go detail by detail with you on this matter?
During CA's last "attempt to legalize pot" -- you know who was most against this? The small-time, local growers. The init lost; but only because Democrats and their voters couldn't make up their minds...
One man who first spread myths about marijuana is Harry J. Anslinger, who was appointed director of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (predecessor of the Drug Enforcement Agency -DEA- of today).
He was a man who hated jazz music and tried to get jazz musicians herded up into prison for smoking the sacred herb.
The time dilation effect of THC probably helped introduce extra beats into jazz music. But Anslinger didn't like jazz and he hated marijuana even more. At first, Anslinger declared marijuana caused users to go crazy and commit violent acts. As a result of his testimony, persons who used pot could use the insanity defense to get a less charge to murder.
Later on, after doctors testified at a second hearing regarding marijuana, Anslinger recanted his earlier testimony, conceding the sacred herb probably didn't cause insanity or violent behavior, but added that it could lead to opium use.
This is how the gateway myth originated.
P.S. George Soros sponsored that "legalize pot" bill in CA. He was MOST displeased...
I can think of a lot of reasons for decriminalizing pot but expanding the federal governments tax base and thus the federal government or any government for that matter ain't one of them.
I have mixed feelings over de-criminalizing opiates (I go back and forth) but I do not hesitate in saying pot should be legal.
It's the most sensless drug policy we have and a needless waste of tax payer money to fight it. I've made many arguements about free will and free markets and prohibition... all of which I don't want to go into long form, here.
Needless to say, it should be legal and there is absolutely no reason that you or I (I don't smoke or drink, anything) shouldn't be able to obtain this product without fear of prosecution. In short, legalize it.
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.