Legalizing Drugs in the United States.

A senior research fellow at Stanford University, Milton Friedman isn’t the first person one would think would advocate the legalization of drugs. He has won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics Science and has received medals of science and freedom from the United States government. Yet, this famous economist has pushed for drugs to be legalized in the United States. Why does he believe this way, and what has changed his rationale over the years to thinking that decriminalizing drugs would benefit the whole of North American society?

In one article written in 1989, Friedman addresses a letter to former government official Bill Bennett on the topic of drugs. At the time, Bennett and President George Bush supported a drug prohibition plan that would, according to Friedman, require “more police, more jails, use of the military in foreign countries, harsh penalties for drug users, and a whole panoply of repressive measures." In a later interview, Friedman states that America would have half the prisons and prisoners, ten thousand fewer homicides in a year, less inner-city poverty, and less harmful drugs if drugs were decriminalized. In Friedman’s mind, legalizing drugs makes the most economic sense.

Drug prohibition has driven individuals from mild drugs to powerful drugs, according to Friedman. It was the Prohibition of the Great Depression that made alcohol so ragingly popular and poisoned the lives of so many; perhaps it is the prohibition of drugs in this postmodern time that has increased their popularity. Friedman says “alcohol and tobacco cause many more deaths in users than do drugs." He also says that the government could spend money that would have gone to additional policemen and more jail cells on drug rehabilitation centers and drug education centers. This, he says, will promote love and compassion while simultaneously lowering the number of drug users in the world. The worst that could possibly happen by legalizing drugs, according to Friedman, would be that “there very likely would be more people taking drugs [but] that’s not by any means clear."

Spoken like a true economist. Friedman seems to only see the economic benefits of decriminalizing drugs in the United States. To him, crack dealers are entrepreneurs, and crack babies aren’t nearly as common as “alcohol babies.” It is a matter of free choice in the market and consumer sovereignty. Friedman would be a proponent of the sixth principle of economics, which states that “markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity” (Mankiw 8). Drug use could possibly be contained if the market were under governmental—as opposed to drug lords’—control. He looks at statistics to back up his belief that alcohol use dropped after the Prohibition and to show the drug usage in Holland. However, what he forgets is that statistics and numbers are not the same as real-life experiences.

At one point, Friedman cites that “crack” would not have been invented had drugs been legalized in North America. This point is well played. Methamphetamines, for instance, were created because other drug forms were more difficult to come by. Meth is one of the most addictive and deadliest drugs on the market. Also, if drugs were legalized, kids may not have bought paint, rubber cement, Nyquil, or over-the-counter drugs with the goal of getting high off of them.

Legalizing drugs might decrease the number of inner-city deaths involving drug wars and might decrease the number of powerful drugs, yes. But he neglects to mention the effects that drugs have on ones body. A person who is doing drugs can become violent and may hallucinate. He or she may do irrational things such as pull out a gun and shoot an innocent person. The legalization of drugs would make behavior like this more common. How would this benefit society as a whole?

Besides, legalizing drugs could become one more stumbling block for the faith of others. The Bible speaks against putting ungodly substances into ones body. Would Christians really bring others into the fold if they are constantly high off of drugs? This would be highly unlikely.

Friedman seems to be taking an idealized approach to decriminalizing drugs. He looks at the analytical and statistical facts and makes assertions that aren’t yet plausible in America. Perhaps countries such as Holland are seeing progress in the way of drug legalization, but I have heard horror stories surrounding that too. One hears of individuals flying to Holland simply to partake in marijuana and other drug forms. If drugs were legalized in the United States, foreigners would come to visit simply to do drugs here as well.

Yet, Friedman’s points are thought out well enough—in some ways—to be almost convincing. How scary to think that such an argument is practically convincing. It all comes down to the ethics of the issue, however. Would it really be ethical to let young children smoke marijuana or to have drug paraphernalia shops on every street corner?

These articles are old, but it seems that this topic could continue to pop up in governmental issues for years to come.