Should Drugs be Illegal?

by Joanthan Kerr and Walter Block
April 1999

At present, in the United States, many different drugs such as cocaine, heroin, crack, ice and marijuana are illegal. This seems reasonable, as substances such as these can be addictive, mind-altering, and in some cases lethal. However, the United States out to legalize these and other drugs in spite of these facts. This is not to advocate the use of these drugs - they are harmful, both physically and emotionally. But legalization will help to alleviate our drug problem, while helping the American economy.

In his defense of the current prohibition, the former director of the Office of Drug Control, William J. Bennett wonders about a world with legal drugs. He asks, "Would crack be legal? How about PCP? Or smokable heroin? Or ice? Would they all be stocked at the local convenience store?" (Bennett p. 224). The answer to Bennett's questions is a definitive yes, because it will make the world a better place.

There are millions of people in our country who are addicted to narcotics. Will drug use rise significantly as a result of legalization? Bennett argues, "The lesson is clear: If you're in favor of drugs being sold in stores like aspirin, you're in favor of boom times for drug users and drug addicts. With legalization, drug use will go up, way up." (Bennett p. 225). He voices a legitimate concern, as no one wants to see these products become even more widespread in an already drug-infested society.

But the evidence suggests that the demand for illegal drugs is inelastic with respect to their cost. This means that as price plummets, as it would under legalization, quantity purchased will increase only by a small amount, if at all. More often than not, people act in accordance with their own moral code before they comply with written laws. At present, people who want to use drugs are able to locate them relatively easily. Obviously if drugs were available at every corner store it would become more convenient to buy them, but this effect is not as far reaching as it might seem. People from all societal circles use and nearly everyone knows somebody who has access to illegal drugs, so we are able to purchase drugs easily enough at present. Similar is the lack of respect of today's youth for the legal drinking age of 21. Despite its illegality, the majority of underage college students find a way to purchase alcohol. Students who choose not to drink, in general, do not abstain from that activity as a result of its illegality. One's reasons for abstinence are usually personal (family history), or involve a concern for one's physical and emotional health. This, if the legal drinking age were suddenly reduce to, say 18 years old, there is little reason to believe that those between this age and 21 would markedly increase their consumption. This age category already can drink pretty much as it pleases.

The same is true in the case of illegal drugs - people can now find them if they wish. When it comes to doing something that is illegal the old maxim applies, "Where there is a will, there is a way." In a similar manner, then, when drugs become (fully) legalized those with a desire for them will hardly step up their purchases. This segment of society is already pretty well satiated.

A basic tenet of economic thought is that only one trades when he values the item he will receive more than the item he will give up. Upon making such a trade, one must weigh the risks versus the rewards. For instance, if you were to freely purchase a rhubarb for one dollar, you would value the rhubarb more than a dollar while the vendor would value the dollar more than the rhubarb (Block p. 689). The same basic formula holds true when we apply this insight to the drug users and sellers. When a deal is transacted, both parties involved value what they receive more than what they give up. The purchaser of the drug values it more than the money, while the dealer values the money more than the drug. The exchange would not take place otherwise.

Some might argue that the cases are not analogous. For certain special problems arise. When a person becomes addicted to a drug like heroin, he feels the need to use it often enough to satisfy his addiction. The cost of the drug becomes relatively insignificant. An addict would purchase heroin whether it was in his price range or not. Let us presume, for the moment, that the price of a weekly supply is $1,000. If this is the case, then the addict needs $1,000 in order to satisfy this habit. But the average heroin addict is far less productive than a non-addict, and he majority of non-addicted Americans do not earn $1,000/week at their places of employment. In order to support a habit, the addict must have disposable income of a whopping $52,000/year allotted to heroin alone. The drive to use such drugs is so powerful that the addict becomes willing to resort to other illegal and often violent measures.

If the United States were to legalize drugs, their price would plummet. Instead of having to take your life into your own hands to find an illegal drug dealer, you could go to your local heroin store. The main reason large-scale drug dealers make great amounts of money is because of the great risks that they are forced to take in order to conduct business. If someone is caught selling drugs, they are subject to immense fines and considerable time in prison - to say nothing of the risk of a violent death. No one in their right mind would sell illegal drugs for a "salary" at minimum-wage level. When the dealer plies his trade, he is compensated not only for the cost of the drugs but also for the transaction costs involved in the sale. These transaction costs would diminish astronomically if the nation were to legalize drugs. At one fell swoop, this would destroy the lucrative nature of underground sales. Purveyors, many with great entrepreneurial ability, would find meaningful jobs, and general productivity would increase.

The reduction of these transaction costs would produce another benefit to society as a whole. As a recent economics Nobel Prize winner notes, "the victims of drugs fall into two classes: those who choose to use drugs and innocent victims - who in one way or another include almost all the rest of us. Legalization would drastically reduce the number of innocent victims" (Friedman p. 58). If drugs were legalized, causing transaction costs to diminish, the cost of drugs would drop sharply. The cost of a heroin addict's weekly supply might drop to that of a nicotine addict's expenditure on cigarettes, chewing tobacco, and the like. If this phenomenon were to occur, then the society as a whole would benefit, as crime would drop considerably. Addicts would not need to rob, cheat, and steal to pay drug dealers who themselves are taking tremendous risks. Therefore, America would see an improvement in its standard of living, as violent crime and invasions of property would fall drastically. Given the inelasticity of demand for drugs, this decrease in the price of drugs would not likely cause a major rise in their use.

Another benefit of legalization would be a decrease in the incidence of infectious viruses (such as HIV) that are spread by sharing needles intravenously, as there would be a new market for legitimate drug paraphernalia. One expert notes that, "... about 25 percent of all AIDS cases here and in Europe, as well as the large majority of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-infected heterosexuals, children and infants are believed to have contracted the disease from illegal intravenous drug use" (Nadelman p. 23). The days of people struggling to find any sharp (and often infected object to inject their drugs with would be over; safe needles would become as easy to find as cigarette holders. This health improvement alone would save the United States billions of dollars in the long run, and might be an important impetus in alleviating a deadly, world-wide epidemic.

Legalizing drugs, then, would save the United States a large sum of money, but what about the fight to stop drug use? Several different programs could be set up with the savings that the nation would enjoy as a result of drug legalization. The nation could use some of the billions of dollars it would save to promote better programs on the effects of addictive and mind-altering drugs. The United States could also utilize these funds by creating more hospitals for people who are affected by drug addiction. In addition, the nation could conduct more research to find out how to treat those who are addicted to these drugs; this disease could be treated as such instead of as a crime.

W. Bennett, "Mopping Up After The Legalizers: What the Intellectual Chorus Fails to Tell You", Washington Times, December 15, 1989 p. 225.

W. Block, "Drug Prohibition: A Legal and Economic Analysis" Journal of Business Ethics, 1993

M. Friedman, "Bennett's 'Public Policy Disaster' is Already Here", Letters-to-the-Editor, Wall Street Journal, September 29, 1989; 'from Letter to the Editor', Wall Street Journal, September 29 p. 58.

Nadelman, E: "Drugs; The Case for legalization", Washington Post October 8, p.23.

Jonathan Kerr was one of Walter Block's students at Holy Cross University.