Do we really want to do the same with drugs and prostitution?

I don't believe that prostitution is really a victimless crime, since I don't think it could possibly be regulated into anything resembling safety. How many harmful viruses either are not, or cannot, be tested for? I'd say the majority. And some bacteria won't grow in culture. Despite the popular myth, it isn't possible to certify someone as 'clean' or have totally 'safe' sex. Especially if kissing is involved. Nearly all people harbor some strain of herpes-family virus, some of which are spread through saliva. Substrains of these viruses can be harmful and take a toll on people's health. Why this isn't discussed more often is beyond me. In school, I was told that chlamydia was the most common STD. Not true. And spreading disease silently is essentially a form of assault. So I just can't buy into the notion that prostitution should be grouped with other victimless crimes. (Of course, I'm not sure how well it would scale into a major industry either, unless you allowed 'guest workers' since the 'product' can't really be mass produced like porn or drugs. )

However while I'm not a user, there seems to be a decent argument for legalizing marijuana.

The best argument seems to be that use really is a victimless crime. Or, if we say that it's not victimless because use detracts from better pursuits, we could then make a similar case for banning sports broadcasting on TV. Sports watching isn't a productive activity. Is sports watching a gateway activity to drinking and obesity-related behaviors? Where do we draw the line on improving people based on statistics and correlation?

The second best argument is that prohibition, unless I've been mislead, seems to have been a pretty unproductive experiment. The most effective way to reduce drug use seems to be to reduce demand in the same way that public pressure finally did for cigarettes (which are still taxed, despite the existance of cigarette companies) rather than trying to ban the substance via fiat. If I were a cigarette company, I'd love to be taxed. It gives the government an interest in the continued legality of my controversial business, even if public pressure prevents explicit endorsement.

Reducing drug supply is currently incredibly difficult, expensive, and, if effectively done, invasive. If we see it as in our interest that people not use drugs, I don't think coercion is an effective substitute for persuasion.

Hey Tim,

I have one or two rather insignificant blogs I occasionally post on. When I read here that Planned Parenthood condoms were problematic, I figured I'd share the info. I got the following interesting response from one poster;

Planned Parenthood condoms have broken at least 10 times with me in the past. Fortunately that was with my ex-fiance. We started buying condoms after that.

The biggest question I have is whether legalizing marajuana would reduce the profit motive involved in growing it. Since it's a weed that used to sell at a price higher than that of gold by weight (I haven't been in touch with the current market price in a few years...), would allowing people to cultivate their own cut down on the profit motives of growers and smugglers?

Taxing marajuana would also be an interesting proposition, since it is, well, a weed, and it's preparation is not too taxing. Tobacco, on the other hand, is quite the pain to prepare – just ask anyone who's done any work on a tobacco farm. So marajuana growing is more easily turned into a decentralized industry, requiring another enforcement arm to make sure it stays centralized so it is taxable – oh, wait, we just ended up where we started, except instead of the DEA it's now the MGA or something.

The main incentive I see for legalizing marajuana, however, is to replenish the number of domestic construction workers. :-)

Another interesting aspect to the legalize and tax it mentatlity is the number of arbitrage situations that it creates. The tobacco companies aren't the only ones interested in cigarette taxes, other groups, like Hezbollah really like them too, since they differ from state to state. Or the interesting arbitrage between Massachutets and New Hampshire over alcohol. (The first exit on Interstate 95 in New Hampshire is a liquor store, not a road with a liquor store, just a liquor store.)

Also, there's a converse follow-up that Ryan W seems to have pointed out, in that having a tax on the vice would give the government incentive to keep the vice around, since it's found a new source of the crack it needs so badly. (painful pun intended)

Also, just as a side note for further research on this issue, are policies such as Singapore's, where pornography is illegal, but prostitution is regulated. (And in shopping malls. Ick.)

Is there any reliable way of demonstrating how many abortions were performed per year prior to Roe v. Wade so we can compare the per-person increase?

Ryan: Of course, I'm not sure how well [prostitution] would scale into a major industry either...

Now there's a set of billboard and late-night TV ads I really don't want to see...

... unless you allowed 'guest workers' since the 'product' can't really be mass produced like porn or drugs...

Of course it can. Starbucks isn't a product, it's a service. (If it were a product, people would be buying it in a grocery store.) Yet there's a Starbucks on almost every street corner. All it takes is recruitment, training, marketing, and location, location, location. And a catchy name.

Okay, now I don't want to think anymore about where this parallel is going...

The best argument seems to be that use really is a victimless crime.

Really? Will pot smokers legally be allowed to drive? Are we going to drug-test those receiving unemployment benefits? Will we continue to provide munchies for them whether they work or not? And what about their healthcare? And feeding their offspring?

It might be a "victimless crime" in a pre-industrial non-welfare state, but that's not the case here and now, with serious users.

Is sports watching a gateway activity to drinking...

If it isn't, you'd better call Coors, Miller, and Budweiser and break the news: they're wasting their money. I'm sure they'll be impressed with your research, as I expect they've never done any before throwing millions behind that idea. ;-)

... and obesity-related behaviors?

If you broaden this question to "TV watching", I'll answer "yes". I expect TV watching does correlate positively with obesity.

(Um, are you arguing against or for my proposition here? I'm getting kind of confused now. ;-))

I should also think that a decade of too much TV would do a lot less damage to one's motivation and cognitive abilities, once going cold turkey, than a decade of regular pot smoking.

The second best argument is that prohibition, unless I've been mislead [sic], seems to have been a pretty unproductive experiment.

I have no idea. Like you, I've been led to believe the same. However, I'm now at the point where I question most of my "received wisdom". (FDR was our savior in all ways, y'know, including repealing prohibition.)

I would guess drinking really was reduced under prohibition (I can't see how it could have been otherwise) as well as the associated social costs.

As to the argument that it massively incrased crime, well, I'm somewhat skeptical. Yes, there were gangsters. But I can't help but notice they were still quite busy and powerful in the postwar years, too.

So the question is whether the positives outweighed the negatives, and I don't really think we have any clear estimate on that, though most assume we do.

If I were a cigarette company, I'd love to be taxed. It gives the government an interest in the continued legality of my controversial business...

Ryan, be afraid: you're starting to think like a conservative. And the beauty is that you don't actually pay those taxes -- just the consumer.

If we see it as in our interest that people not use drugs, I don't think coercion is an effective substitute for persuasion.

Substitute? Is iron a substitute for metal? Unless you have complete enforcement, coercion is a form of persuasion. How many people don't pay any of the income taxes they owe? Do you think that would be lower if the government used mere "persuasion"?

And I can't say I'm shocked about the response re. "Unplanned Pregnancy" (oops, sorry, I meant "Planned Parenthood"; ironic, no?).

---

The Zapman: The biggest question I have is whether legalizing marajuana would reduce the profit motive involved in growing it.

There's a profit motive behind every legal product, so I don't see why this would be different. It would reduce the profitability for small growers, and increase profits for large corporate growers.

Liberals subject everything to static analysis, but it's my observation that libertarians frequently suffer the same pitfall. Part of the appeal of pot is its illegality. So, the argument goes, we legalize it, and consumption drops.

Well, not quite. Cigarettes are still popular among young people. And people attracted to the 'illegal' aspect will turn to something else. And we'll have this debate all over again util the government ends up subsidizing heroin and crack cocaine.

So marajuana growing is more easily turned into a decentralized industry...

Don't be sure. Medicine should be, by all rights, a 'decentralized' industry. But the AMA certainly makes that untrue. The recording industry should be "decentralized" -- but where large corporations can use the government to sequelch competition, they will. And lets remember how the FDA worked, for years, to shut down the nascent supplement and vitamin industry.

One pot goes corporate, the first thing you'll see are "purity laws" being applied, shutting down small growers. Sure, you can grow for yourself, if you have the time an effort, but selling unregulated product will still be illegal.

Next, they'll "free-base" the product, as has been done with nicotine. If you think the marijuana plant has high THC levels now, you ain't seen nothing yet. How addictive can we tolerate?

And let's not forget the endless marketing, with pot companies trying to catch kids as they become sixteen.

Oh right, that never happens now with alcohol companies, right?

The main incentive I see for legalizing marajuana, however, is to replenish the number of domestic construction workers. :-)

Precisely. :-) Except that we already now have an unlimited employment pool -- and unemployment benefits. And (effectively) guaranteed healthcare.

Also, there's a converse follow-up that Ryan W seems to have pointed out, in that having a tax on the vice would give the government incentive to keep the vice around...

I'm not trying to petulant, but I actually pointed that out in the article above. See the last big blue excerpted block and the sentence afterwards.

And nobody seems to have noticed my central argument: that it would create a new lobbying force with a vested interest in keeping government big and in charge.

Which I will point to again, as I think it's important to consider.

>Will pot smokers legally be allowed to drive?

If the money that currently goes towards keeping marijuana illegal was turned

specifically to preventing DUIs, I'd be more supportive.

I'm disturbed by the whole 'legislation by correlation' trend. Granted, it may be

needed in some cases like with crystal meth, but it seems a very slippery slope.

Behavior A should be made illegal since it tends to correlate with behavior B.

>Are we going to drug-test those receiving unemployment benefits?

I'd be all for that.

>And what about their healthcare?

>And feeding their offspring?

I'm not a big fan of public healthcare. But I assume that the people who feed a

person's offspring and pay their healthcare would be the same folks who would feed

their offspring and provide them with healthcare if those same people were in jail for

having marijuana now. Or if you taxed marijuana, then the answer would be that the

people paying for these things would be the users of the drug. As opposed to now, where

we bear the burden. The problem with draconian legislation is that sometimes the cure

may be worse than the disease.

Sorry for the messed up tags

How many people don't pay any of the income taxes they owe?
Do you think that would be lower if the government used mere "persuasion"?

Let me rephrase what I said earlier, since it isn't clear that I addressed your point. Coercion, and especially incarceration, is a high moral price to pay for anything. With taxation, I think the price is warranted. With War on Marijuana, far less so.

And sure, coercion is a subset of persuasion in a mafia sort of way. "Don't do that or we'll hurt you." But if that's the only argument that you can give, it tends to breed resentment.

Also, with taxation, the idea is of the sort that "you should help the group." Theoretically, laws preventing the use of marijuana are there, in large part, to keep people from hurting themselves. Given that marijuana isn't addictive (though it is habit forming, by many accounts) it seems that rational arguments against it should be more effective. Or else we assume that people are irrational and incapable of living their own lives without coercion from an enlightened government. But where does that school of thought lead? The case against marijuana is never really made. Instead we get programs like D.A.R.E., a sort of 'peer pressure' group that really avoids the issue.

If you have to use coercion to prevent people from 'hurting themselves' it's worth reconsidering whether you're really acting in their best interests.

To recount:

Tim: Will pot smokers legally be allowed to drive?

Ryan: If the money that currently goes towards keeping marijuana illegal was turned specifically to preventing DUIs, I'd be more supportive.

Tim: Are we going to drug-test those receiving unemployment benefits?

Ryan: I'd be all for that...

Tim: And what about their healthcare?

Ryan: I'm not a big fan of public healthcare...

My point here wasn't so much to ask Ryan's feelings on these subjects (or mine, or anyone else's) but to ask whether these we -- as society -- would actually be likely to do these things. If not, we're living in a fantasy world when we seem to seriously offer such policies.

I don't think, for example, we could moved from a socialized state to one that isn't before we legalized drugs. Legalizing drug use, for example, seems far more likely than getting rid of socialized medicine. And if that's so, then we can't just call drug use a "victimless crime", since any harm done the individual does to himself will be paid for, at great cost, by others.

If we legalize any drug, experience shows us its use will increase. Given that, if we don't have an effective way to prevent people from driving under the influence of that drug (or at least test for it), then we're creating a new class of traffic accident victims -- creating agony and suffering for them, and costs (again) for everyone.

My point is that I don't hear legalization advocates asking these relatively simple, next-step questions, much less providing coherant, believable answers and cost estimates.

My progressive friends tend to be more libertarian leaning.

It would be interesting to see which candidates they choose, and how they rationalize it. That's one of the reason Republicans can't run as Democrats-lite -- if they don't at least offer fiscal responsibility, there's nothing to attract such voters to them.

Collectively, the Republican party isn't very bright. (Mind you, I have an even worse opinion of Democrats... but for rather different reasons. Republicans are bad when they don't believe in their alleged values -- in contrast, Democrats are bad when they actually do.)

I think that if it cost more to collect taxes than was generated in tax revenue, that the process would be self defeating.

I agree with you entirely. But it seems to me you're dodging my question: Which is more effective at preventing use, 'coercion' or 'persuasion'? E.g. "illegality" or "education"?

You can't just skip that and move into cost. If you don't know at least a relative effectivness differential, you can't calculate tradeoffs, as you appear eager to do here. Haphazardly, I might add, since you've again failed to address or estimate the counterbalancing social costs I've highlighted, again, above.

I'm not trying to pick on you (but how many other illustrations can I so conveniently point to?), but this kind of highlight-one-effect thinking is a hallmark of liberalism -- and, much to my surprise, also libertarians (to a lesser degree). I wrote this article (and one more in the queue) in response to this dawning realization.

I don't deny one minute the cost you've raised. I'm just saying it's hardly the end of the story, and that the proposed solution (complete legalization) is hardly the only available response.

Under the laws of fifteen states, you can get a life sentence for a nonviolent marijuana offense. And the average sentence for a convicted murder in this country is about six years.

I agree entirely that some of our sentencing is rather stupid. The relative harm of drug use (absent an accompanying manslaughter or murder charge, of course) should not be treated as greater than homicide. (And this is not just true in drug laws, but many kinds of other offenses, too.)

But I'm not arguing against all possible kinds of sentencing reform, nor suggesting we should all emulate these 15 states you've highlighted. I'm simply opposing the view that there should be NO sentence at all for marijuana (much less other drugs, like crystal meth or crack), and no laws against distribution.

There are plenty of other options available to us here: lighter sentences (duh!), loss of privileges (e.g. driving, voting), education (of doubtful use in my book, but I'm always willing to experiment in one region or state), different types of punishments, greater pentalities for distribution and lesser ones for consumption, etc.

But that's a nuanced view, not the one my libertarian friend, above, offered. And not the one most libertarians are (apparently) capable of offering. The thinking goes: "Jail times too long -- therefore legalization." "Too much money and harm associated with current enforcement strategies -- therefore legalization."

It's a bit like saying "Your job won't guarantee you a good retirement! So join Amway!" Well, the first part may even be right, but it doesn't automatically lead us to the second part. There are more options, and other, neglected, tradeoffs to consider.

I'm concerned with pot being peddeled to little kids, of course, but that happens now. The stuff is pervasive already.

True. But you're again not responding to my contention that it would be even worse if we legalized it. Cigarettes are legal, but it doesn't seem to have stopped the youngest age groups from being the biggest consumers -- despite the illegality.

That might still be true if cigarettes were illegal, but I have no doubt the absolute numbers would be quite a bit smaller.

If we're worried about the size of various lobbies, we might ask; what market share would marijuana dig into? Pfizer's maybe? Granted, it's not a zero sum game.

It would dig into the lobby of these people called "voters". Which do you think is harder: to get gambling started in a state, or to end it? If the latter, then there's a power diffential there which represents the total power lost by each voter and gained by that lobby.

I lived in Missouri before we had gambling. We had refernedum after referendum trying to make gambling legal. Time and time again, people voted "no". No to casinos. No to slot machines. No, no, no.

Finally, the industry won. How? They proposed gambling ONLY be allowed on riverboats, ONLY when they were on a river, not on land, and ONLY if they were playing "games of skill" like poker and blackjack, not "games of chance." (Missouri has veneration for its Riverboat gambling tradition.) The voters accepted that because it sounded like it might be a nice draw for a few small groups of tourists.

Yet now there are casinos (brimming with slot machines and other "games of chance") across the state -- and highways saturated with billboards demanding we go gamble. How did that happen? Did the voters suddenly change their mind?

No, their elected representatives responded to industry pressure, and allowed what the voters had explicitly rejected repeatedly: games of chance in stationary casinos. And forget putting any measures banning gambling on the ballot ever again. Once the money was there, politicians couldn't afford to listen to the voters' expressed preferences. Even though the votes were in a majority against these things, and were once offered over and over, now that gambling is part of the power structure, that decision will never be offered again.

And, getting back to your first point, Pfizer would be in ideal position to capitalize on many kinds of legalized drugs. You'd probably grow their lobby, not cut into it. So imagine the spectre of Pfizer as marketer of mind-addling recreational intoxicants, as well as antidepressants.

Consider, if you will, that set of incentives. A virtual "misery industry." (Perhaps they'd be tempted to support bad legislation just to expand their market -- i.e. depressed people.) (And I'm not even anti-pharma!)

Anyways, I'd be fine boycotting companies that advertised marijuana, especially to kids. That'd be a lot more cost effective than the 'war on drugs.'

See what I mean? Our only two options are apparently legalize it entirely (leaving only 'boycotts'), or accept the worst excesses of the current situation.

Why, if a child misbehaves, we either need to kill her or do nothing.

I agree with you entirely. But it seems to me you're dodging my question: Which is more effective at preventing use, 'coercion' or

'persuasion'? E.g. "illegality" or
"education"?

I imagine that coercion + persuasion would be more effective in terms of actual rates of behavior, of course. And anything that increases

the price of a drug, including illegality, will decrease usage. (not that I think the type of 'persuasion' the government engages in is

particularly effective. But use of, say, crack has declined remarkably in part because of the bad reputation that it got on 'the street')

However I don't personally know anyone who didn't use marijuana specifically because of it's illegality. Those friends of mine who didn't

use pot typically also didn't drink. I've only heard of one or two people in my lifetime who had used pot under circumstances where it was

legal (i.e. in Amsterdam) but not where it was illegal. I'll buy the notion that marijuana users would use more of the stuff if it were

legal. I've known people whose use was decreased by economic factors. Because of these experiences, I don't have any reason to believe

that coercion tremendously reduces the number of people who have tried marijuana. I'll believe that it has some effect at reducing

frequency of use, and maybe age of first use.

You can't just skip that and move into cost.

Why not? If use goes up, taxes paid for said use go up. Heck, once the illegal distribution channels were gone you could probably tax the

drug to a higher price than what it's at now.

Dude! What's going on with your posted comments? They've very weirdly chopped up. You cutting and pasting from a cheap text editor?

Ah, yes. I thought I'd carefully removed all the odd breaks, previewed, but then copied and pasted to and from textpad + wordwrap (to save the file in case there was an error posting) before I hit post. Sorry if your eyes are bleeding.