More and more people are starting to question the so called "War on Drugs" and its true costs to society. In this above video, a Harvard (yes 'the' Harvard) professor of economics argues that around $77 billion could be saved if Marijuana was legalized. This issue has been a hot topic recently with videos like Ron Paul discussing Marijuana on Larry King. My question is: If Prohibition did not work in the 1920s with alcohol, how do we expect prohibition to work today with drugs?
This is a very interesting topic to myself because I use to scoff at arguments that drugs should be legalized. "How can we legalize hard drugs?" I would ask, "There has to be a limit to what people are allowed to take shouldn't there?". But then one has to ask, with prescription drugs now the fourth leading cause of death in america, is the system really working?
You can look at the issue a few different ways. One way is to say that by legalizing drugs would add enormous revenue to the government by way of taxes on the drugs, and by the amount of funds not spent on fighting drug cartels. Another way is to argue about the benefits drugs like marijuana have in treating pain especially in cancer patients, and how it lacks the dangerous side-effects of most prescription drugs. But I think the most important way to look at the issue is it is a matter of personal choice.
By creating a law the government is simply saying all the obvious side effects of drug abuse (loss of job, broken family relations, deteriorating health, addiction, extreme money cost, death...) are not enough for people. Instead the State has to pile on fines and jail time to add to such costs. But instead of all cost being put squarely on the individual who decides to take drugs, all of society has to pay for one persons choice through the funding of the "War of Drugs". But its ludicrous. If a person thinks they can avoid all the inherent costs already associated with taking drugs, what is a fine or jail time to them? If they think they can avoid the inherent costs, then they most assuredly think they can avoid any state induced costs. Why do I have to pay for a choice someone has already decided to take regardless of a law? I shouldn't because the State has no right to force someone not to make that choice.
By taking drugs, that person has made the choice to accept the costs inherent with drug use, and that is their choice to make. It is obvious that a 'law' does not keep someone from not making such a choice or we wouldn't spend billions fighting drug use. Whenever the State tries to tell people they cannot do something, they usually do exactly that. We should have learned our lesson with the failed policy of alcohol Prohibition (at least that was Constitutionally amended unlike the current drug prohibition). People will not stop taking drugs because of a law, just like people will not stop speeding or stealing because its against the law. The only way to effectively combat such aberrant behavior is through education and letting people make choices on their own. Sometimes letting someone fail is the only way they can learn. The freedom to fail is how we can only truly succeed.
