[Eran]

Marijuana criminalisation is very topical these days. It is easy to find many references to the cost of the "war on Marijuana" (or War on Drugs more generally).

Most opponents of the War on Drugs focus on outright costs of law enforcement, and the cost to society associated with imprisoning countless people for non-violent offences (or offences which only become violent due to criminalisation itself).

More thoughtful and comprehensive accounts elaborate additional areas of cost. For example, Count the Costs lists several types of costs, including:

Development & Security
Public Health
Human Rights
Discrimination
Crime
Environment
Economics

But even that list, comprehensive as it is, misses the primary cost of the War on Drugs.

The primary cost is the loss of enjoyment from drug consumption by people who are either fully or partially deterred from consuming drugs because of their illegal status. The technical economic term is "consumer surplus" - the amount by which the value placed on a product by a consumer exceeds the actual cost of the product. When a product is banned, that consumer surplus often remains hidden.

The potential consumer surplus associated with the consumption of recreational drugs is the primary, hidden and rarely-discussed cost of the War on Drugs.

[Cartertonian]

You're right to open with marijuana because the jury remains permanently out on whether or not it is any more harmful than legal substances like nicotine and alcohol. Personally, I think the relatively isolated cases of marijuana causing problems stem from it exacerbating pre-existing conditions, often brought on by abuse of more dangerous substances, and that is the issue for me in respect of the war on drugs.

You'll be aware, both from the PC scores in my sig and many of my posts, that I tend toward the libertarian end of that particular axis, but I do draw the line at suggestions that people should be 'liberated' to do as they please in relation to substance misuse. I would happily see marijuana taken out of the equation by legalisation because, in my view, it's illegality and the circumstances that thus dictate its procurement involve individuals in having to engage with the drug-dealing lowlife community to obtain it, leaving them open to adverse influence and/or temptation to try other, much more dangerous substances. Furthermore, part of the appeal of drugs to many is their illegality. Now, you could see that as an argument for legalisation but I suspect that if all drugs were legalised, a proportion of users would want to find an alternative that gave them the same buzz of 'illicit-ness' and danger that they wouldn't get from a neat, packaged, approved dose of a formerly illegal drug.

[Heisenberg]

The primary cost is the loss of enjoyment from drug consumption by people who are either fully or partially deterred from consuming drugs because of their illegal status.

Yes, it's a crying shame when people are deterred from "enjoying" a heroin or crack addiction. If only we could legally make money out of it!

Most opponents of the War on Drugs focus on outright costs of law enforcement, and the cost to society associated with imprisoning countless people for non-violent offences (or offences which only become violent due to criminalisation itself).

This is a myth. The number of people in prison for purely non-violent drug offences is vanishingly small. The vast majority of them are imprisoned for a number of other crimes as well.

About 40,000 state and federal inmates have a current conviction involving marijuana; perhaps half of them are in prison for offences involving marijuana alone. The vast bulk of these inmates were involved in distribution; less than 1 percent of state and federal inmates are serving time for marijuana possession alone--and in many of those cases, the possession conviction was the result of a plea bargain involving the dismissal of more serious charges. Jacqueline Cohen of Carnegie Mellon University has shown that prisoners whose conviction charge was drug possession actually had more serious histories of violence than those convicted of violent crime; it takes an extraordinary criminal history to lead a judge to sentence someone to prison time for just possessing drugs, especially for just possessing modest quantities of marijuana.

The "war on drugs" truly is the dystopian tyranny of our age.

[Nunt]

This is a myth. The number of people in prison for purely non-violent drug offences is vanishingly small. The vast majority of them are imprisoned for a number of other crimes as well.

The "war on drugs" truly is the dystopian tyranny of our age.

According to the quoted paragraph, most people are imprisoned for selling rather than just possession. However, selling drugs is not a violent crime.

Anyway, the fact that many drug users/sellers also commit other crimes only shows that drug criminilisation creates criminality rather than reduces it.

[Heisenberg]

Anyway, the fact that many drug users/sellers also commit other crimes only shows that drug criminilisation creates criminality rather than reduces it.

It doesn't show that at all. It could show that violent criminals are more likely to become involved with drugs than law-abiding people.

Correlation is not causation.

[Eran]

Still, the causal relationship between illegality and violence is indisputable.

During Prohibition, alcohol dealers were violent. Today, they aren't.

[Nunt]

It doesn't show that at all. It could show that violent criminals are more likely to become involved with drugs than law-abiding people.

Correlation is not causation.

The causation is logically necessary. If drugs weren't illegal, then there wouldn't be any drug related crimes. There would be nothing to commit crimes about. Why is the drug trade so violent? Because only criminals trade in drugs and they have no peaceful means of solving conflicts. If drugs weren't illegal, then normal shops like pharmacies or maybe even supermarkets would sell drugs. Those shops would use the legal system for conflict resolution rather than violence. There is nothing inherently violent about selling marijuana, its just an herb that has mind altering and addictive properties. Such goods are being sold legally today: tobacco and alcohol.

By criminlizing drugs, the only people that would deal in drugs are criminals. So basically, you are giving criminals a monopoly over an entire industry.

[quetzalcoatl]

The causation is logically necessary. If drugs weren't illegal, then there wouldn't be any drug related crimes.

There would still be DUI related crimes. The fallback argument of drug warriors will always be the public safety aspect - "Why legalize one more drug so that motorists are endangered?" or "What about drug use in industrial accidents?"

These arguments are talking points that mask the real reason the drug war will never end in the U.S.: it is the primary conduit of new customers for its massive prison-industrial complex (is there anyone who doesn't know it has grown to be the largest in the history of the world?). This system absorbs a wide swath of the permanently unemployed; it will be necessary to expand it as work force participation continues its inevitable decline.

[slybaldguy]

Yes, it's a crying shame when people are deterred from "enjoying" a heroin or crack addiction. If only we could legally make money out of it!

So what if someone fucks up their life as a result of a bad choice. Legalising all drugs is a win-win for society; it will reduce crime and the costs associated with it, increase tax revenues and will most likely have an eugenic effect.

[Nunt]

There would still be DUI related crimes. The fallback argument of drug warriors will always be the public safety aspect - "Why legalize one more drug so that motorists are endangered?" or "What about drug use in industrial accidents?"

Sure, but I am not proposing to legalize DUI. We don't need the outlaw all use of drugs to combat to use of drugs behind the wheel. Same with alcohol really. Without having to spend resources on the war on drugs, we could probably do a lot more to prevent drunk/intoxicated driving.

If you are really concerned about traffic safety, then you should want to use resources for traffic safety. Criminilizing drugs is just a very ineffecient way of trying to improve traffic safety. The DEA had about 11000 employees in 2009. If you were to use that budget to hire 11000 traffic cops,....

[nucklepunche]

So what if someone fucks up their life as a result of a bad choice. Legalising all drugs is a win-win for society; it will reduce crime and the costs associated with it, increase tax revenues and will most likely have an eugenic effect.

I've often sort of debated this back and forth. In general I do not believe government should ever outlaw something simply to protect people from themselves. If I were totally convinced that drug users would simply die out without having any negative externality on society I would be the first in line to say legalize them all. The fact of the matter is that not just anybody tries hard drugs like heroin, it is common knowledge how bad drugs like that are yet the fact that somebody would choose to take them reveals high levels of stupidity and short term focus. While there are plenty of stories of people turning their lives around the vast majority do not.

That being said I am not convinced that drug users are an island unto themselves. Even in a legal drug market drugs will cost money and it will be tough for a hardcore drug addict to hold down a job. In a perfect libertarian society with no social safety net you could make the case that they will simply "die out." Yet even in todays society with a welfare state we have a certain class of people who does not play by the rules, these people are called criminals. Even if all victimless crimes were legal, there would still be property crimes, robbery, muggings, extortion, fraud etc. Addicts even today use these means to fuel their addiction and would do so if drugs were legal.

Basically here is my drug policy if I were supreme ruler of the world.

Marijuana would not be a criminal offense, instead people would be able to apply for marijuana user cards and acquire a certain amount from licensed dispensaries. I do not support the system of simply being able to walk into a store and buy marijuana like Colorado and Washington and my reasons why not could take a post unto themselves, but are beside the point.

Use of other illegal drugs like hard drugs and unlicensed prescriptions would be dealt with in drug courts instead of traditional criminal courts. Offenders would be required to undergo drug treatment at either in-patient or outpatient facilities depending on the severity as to be determined by the court. This would be accompanied by frequent testing and probation. Those completing the program would get any criminal charges expunged.

Traffickers and dealers would continue to face criminal penalties ranging in severity depending on a case by case basis. I would however do away with mandatory minimum sentences for ALL drug related crime so the decision about how to sentence would be left in the hands of the judge. This connects to my further views on prison reform. I favor incentives for those in prison to earn privileges in prison and early release with good behavior. Those who behave badly in prison or who fail to take advantage of their opportunities will serve 100% of their sentence, those who work in prison to move away from the criminal past will have the opportunity to get out earlier. Simple as that.

[SolarCross]

"just as every cop is a criminal and all the sinners saints.."
- Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones.

Is governance a victimless crime? No. Very harsh penalties need to be meted out against those who abduct, steal, assault and kill their fellow human beings for the sado-masocistic fun of it. It is a matter of rightful self-defence and therefore justifiable.