Legalize Drugs: The Facts

One of the largest and most intrusive parts of the US government is the war on drugs. Like the prohibition on alcohol before it, I believe it has done more harm than good. I advocate for the complete legalization for all drugs, but any step in that direction is satisfactory. I recognize that this is a radical suggestion, but it is something I firmly believe is in the best interest of my community, my country, and the entire human society. Let me also state that I have never and never intend on trying illegal drugs. My interest in this topic is purely academic. That said, here is a list of 20 reasons why I think all drugs should be legalized:

1) Addicts are patients, not criminals. They need help, not prison.

2) At it's most basic level, addiction is a choice. Admittedly the choice is difficult, but with community assistance I believe drug addiction will decrease. Take drug users out of the shadows and into a welcoming community.

3) Drug legalization has been successful in other countries, most notably Amsterdam. Portugal is well known for its successful drug decriminalization. Portugal did not become an international drug trade as had been feared and the number of drug overdoses actually decreased. In fact, lifetime use of many drugs is lower in Portugal than in most European nations.

4) Our drug war is having a detrimental effect on other countries, particularly those in Latin America. In Mexico this year there have been over 6,000 drug related murders and since America uses half of the world's cocaine we are at least partially responsible. The Mexican government has had to militarize its local police to help fight the power drug gangs.

5) American drug dealing youth are hurt economically and physically by the illegal drug trade.

Update: Decreasing the power of organized gangs will also increase high school graduation rates.

6) The current illegal drug farms are bad for the environment. One reason is because growers constantly fear legal action, so they often farm on hidden public land that isn't necessarily good for agriculture. Also, because it is likely they won't be farming the land in the future, they have no incentive to keep it productive.

7) It distracts police from doing other work. The United States spends an estimated $44.1 billion annually in enforcing drug laws.

8) Children can still be protected in the same way they are will cigarettes and alcohol. By making the market more open, youth will have to get their drugs from pharmacies, not street corner thugs. Because recognized businesses have more to lose, they are more likely to follow age limit laws.

9) Currently illegal drugs make up a large portion of the underground economy. It is currently the largest cash crop in California. Legalizing can bring in significant tax money to this bankrupting state. Though the number is unclear, the taxes will be in the billions of dollars. Those excess revenues can be used to subsidize drug treatment programs.

10) Drug king pins benefit most from the ban. Currently they are able to use violence to keep out competition and charge monopoly prices. If legalized, they cannot compete with legitimate businesses. Or even better, they go to work for them and get a real job.

11) More drugs do not necessarily mean more violence. 6 out of 10 people in state prison for a drug offense have no history of violence. The drug trade is more violent because it is illegal.In the underground market violence, not law, is how you protect your business.

12) Prisons and the money spent on them would decrease. The United States has 5% of the world's population and a quarter of the world's prison population. Drug crimes accounted for 21% of state prisoners and 55% of all federal prisoners. That's over half a million people out of productive jobs and into taxpayer care. About 1/4 of the prison population is there for drug related crimes.

13) Stronger drugs laws actually encourage risk taking, making drugs stronger.

14) The war on drugs is also a war on race. Only about 12% of the America is black, 1/3 of prisoners are black. Although only 14% of illegal drug users are black, they represent half of those in prison for drug offenses.

15) As barriers to use come down, so will prices. And as prices decrease, use will go up. However, prices will not decrease as much as you might think. For example cocaine price will only decrease by 2 to 5 times.

16) American support for it is increasing and is higher than it has been in generations. Almost half of American support the legalization of marijuana.

17) Some law enforcement organizations and many economists support legalization.

18) These drugs are probably less addictive than you think. Over 95% of those who claimed to have used crack and meth are not regular users.

19) Illegal drugs fund terrorism. Afghanistan's Taliban benefits from the underground and unregulated drug market.

20) This war is not winnable. The global illegal drug is worth an estimated $400 billion, 8% of all international trade. Drug dealers come and go but the market will exist forever. You cannot stop the supply without stopping the demand. The profit incentive is stronger for criminals than for police. You cannot shut down the market without severely limiting personal liberty.

The core of this debate is whether the benefits outweigh the costs. I understand that most people don't want to live in a country where people are allowed to use whatever substance they desire. But I also think many people aren't satisfied with living in a country where people can't. The more popular a drug is (think marijuana) the more obvious the costs are and more I think we can benefit from legalization. If nothing else, hopefully I've made the trade offs more obvious. Stay tuned for the second installment, Legalize Drugs: The Story.

Quit While You're Way Behind

Instead of being a search for truth, often this blog feels like a justification for what I'm already doing. Everything from talking fast to teaching high school and being poorer. The most interesting things are often those that explain an already existing pattern. As you know, my diversified New Year's Resolution failed miserably. Perhaps it was for the best:

Three studies examined associations between goal disengagement and goal reengagement tendencies and indicators of physical health (e.g., health problems, cortisol rhythms, sleep efficiency). Based on research showing that goal adjustment tendencies are associated with subjective well-being, the authors predicted that people who are better able to disengage from unattainable goals and reengage with alternative goals also may experience better physical health.

Notice this is talking about unattainable goals. I've yet to decide if my original goals were attainable considering my motivations and mental accounting of the costs and benefits. I'll let you know in my mid-year resolution check up.

Economics of Multiple "Babydaddy"

Here's a controversial explanation:

I noticed that uneducated mothers tend to have children from several fathers. I tended to blame this on their ignorance and shortsightedness, but apparently there is a very rational reason for this. Risk diversification.

Jinyoung Kim makes an evolutionary argument about mothers being ex-ante uncertain about the human capital of their children. In particular when the mother is less educated, she was to diversify the human capital risk of her children by having several fathers. In other words, monogamy is only a good idea if you are reasonably sure the children will all have good characteristics and are thus worth investing human capital into.

The logic works, especially for those whose children form their retirement.

Real Political Impact

A good friend of mine who lives in D.C. recently posted some first hand accounts of Tea Party protests. It was helpful in getting a better understanding of the movement. It also got me wondering just how helpful protesting is in creating political change. My gut feeling is not that successful. Unless you number in the millions or have a incredibly famous charismatic leader and very specific goals, I'm not convinced protesting has much impact. I've also mentioned that voting has little impact on political outcomes and that political involvement is more about consuming something than producing it. So what's the politically motivated to do? How do you change policy without being lost in the crowd? Politician Omar Ahmad says that the best way, is the old-fashioned way:

Here's the TED Blog to keep you updated of new talks.

Economics of Stand-up Comedy

Patent and copyrights are supposed to reward successful creators, thereby encouraging more creation. Without these protections, many fear, creations would be stolen before they were profitable, resulting in less creation. Here is an example where the market creates its own rules to limit creative theft:

In this paper, we analyze how stand-up comedians protect their jokes using a system of social norms. Intellectual property law has never protected comedians effectively against theft. Initially, jokes were virtually in the public domain, and comedians invested little in creating new ones. In the last half century, however, comedians have developed a system of IP norms. This system serves as a stand-in for formal law. It regulates issues such as authorship, ownership, transfer of rights, exceptions to informal ownership claims and the imposition of sanctions on norms violators. Under the norms system, the level of investment in original material has increased substantially. We detail these norms, which often diverge from copyright law's defaults. Our description is based on interviews with comedians, snippets of which we include throughout the paper.

Our study has implications for intellectual property theory and policy. First, its suggests that the lack of legal protection for intellectual labor does not entail a market failure by necessity, as social norms may induce creativity. Second, it suggests that the rules governing a particular creative practice affect not only how much material is created, but also its kind. Third, we suggest that comedians' IP norms system emerged over the past half century as technological change increased the benefit of having property rights in jokes and concomitantly reduced the costs of enforcing those rights. Fourth, we note that stand-up's norms system recognizes only a limited set of forms of ownership and transfer. We suggest that the system's crude rights structure is driven by the fact that effective enforcement requires that ownership be clear to the community. Lastly, social norms offer a way to regulate creative practices that do not sit well within IP law's one-size-fits-all mold. They do so, moreover, without imposing on society the costs of disuniformity in the formal law, including legal complexity and industry-driven lobbying.

Here is a perfect example.

Limited Manners

Fellow Durham blogger, Justin Wehr, recently threw out the idea that politeness limits social risk and that by doing so it decreases intimacy. In the sense that manners are masking what you would naturally do, I whole heatedly agree. Following societal rules is less likely to result in tension, but it's also less likely to result in vulnerably. As I've mentioned before, resolved conflict is essential for intimate relationships. I don't want to do away with politeness all together. Introducing yourself when you meet, saying "excuse me" when you bump into someone, or knocking before you enter a room all help guide us in social situations. What I do desire is the decreased emphasis on outward trivial actions as relationships continue. For example, my wife and I had good friends over recently, but I didn't offer them a drink when they walked in. Instead, my friend got up, went to where the cups were and got his own. I had already proven to him in the past that I care about him. I don't need to prove it with cordiality. Manners are helpful navigation tools for potentially awkward situations, but as trust builds, manner should be dismantled. So if I do something that may normally be perceived as rude, let it be signal that I'm comfortable around you.

Diversifying Risk, Survivor Style

I haven't always been complimentary of reality television. And I'm certainly not very interested in spending my scarce time watching complete strangers live their lives, even when its sports. However, there is one reality TV show I have been keeping up with recently, Survivor. It combines strategy (outwit), athleticism (outplay), and wilderness survival (outlast). It takes regular people (or as regular as reality TV gets) and puts them in an irregular situations. The current season, Heroes vs. Villains, has the greatest players from the previous nineteen seasons, making it the best reality TV has to offer. Last week was no exception.

The two equal numbered competing tribes merged together. In a unbelievable turn of events the Villains found and lied their way into two immunity idols, which would protect a player from being voted off. However, they weren't sure which players to give the idols to. So, instead of playing one and hoping for the best, they opted to give out both idols, thereby diversifying their risk. Just like the stock market, you don't win by putting your eggs in one basket. Playing the second idol was like buying a derivative on the vote. If the first one failed, they wouldn't lose everything. And because people have prefer to avoid loss than to acquire gains, even if it doesn't work this time, generally this is the best choice. It turned out to be the right decision and the Villains now have a huge advantage. Of course, if you haven't kept up with show, you probably didn't follow all of that. Hopefully it has enticed you to catch up with the season at CBS.com, I guarantee you won't regret it.

Jesus Christ on the Radio?

Heard this radio show while driving recently:

Jesus is played by the show's producer, Neil Saavedra, who belongs to no denomination and who is "usually too tired to attend church after his program." Saavedra calls the program "interactive radio theater to teach people from all walks of life about the historical person of Jesus Christ." As a matter of practice, Saavedra refers to himself as "your holy host" and God as "my father," asks that people pray "to me," and that "the way to salvation is through belief in my sacrifice."

Of course he doesn't really believe he's Jesus, but does that make it okay? I'm going to say no, but listen for yourself. It's not specifically the pretending to be Jesus that feels blasphemous to me. After all, I'm not necessarily offended by the Passion of the Christ movie. It's that he speaks for Jesus, but uses his own wisdom. Many of the topics sounds more like a question for Dear Abby than for Jesus.

Hewlett-Packard High School

It's kind of a catchy name. Some in the county I live next to think it's a way to compensate for budget cuts:

The public school system is looking at $40 million less in funding for the upcoming school year, because of low revenue and state-mandated budget cuts.

Finding companies willing to pay for exposure at high school sporting events is one option officials should consider, board member Keith Sutton said Thursday.

They're not really looking to rename schools, but is it really such a bad idea? DISH, Texas did it and they seem to have benefited. After all, one of the professors who sat in on my thesis defense was Dr. Robert Tollison, BB&T Senior Fellow. As far as I know he never seemed bias in favor of the banking industry. Although there seem to be many corporations with attachments to primary schools, it's possible there could be a conflict of interest. Here's one article firmly against corporate sponsorship describing some unseemly practices:

classroom packets that promote Hershey's Chocolate or Kellogg's Rice Krispies; third graders practicing math by counting Tootsie Rolls; young children learning to read software that uses corporate logos like KMart, Coke, Pepsi, and Cap'n Crunch. Calvin Klein provides book covers along with tattoos sporting their logo CK!

There are definitely trade-offs. Is it worth promoting Hewlett-Packard in a word problem if you can cut class sizes in half? I guess the answer depends on how much the corporations asks for in exchange for funding.

The (Earth) Day After Tomorrow

Global apocalypse is a common subject for movies. Everything from zombies to mother nature herself threatens life on Hollywood's Earth. One of the more common depictions of human destruction is from nuclear holocaust. Good friend and reader Justin Scott recently pointed out a graphic that shows atomic weapons aren't as plentiful as we thought. You would need over a million nuclear bombs to destroy human life and the world only has about 10,000. That's less than 1% needed. This is not only good news for those of us that want to continue living, it also legitimises Obama's recent Nuclear Security Summit. At first I saw this as a political move to decrease global nuclear weapons from a number that could destroy the world three times to a number that could only do it twice. Instead, this is an important step in making all of us safer and more secure. If you're not convinced this is a big deal, note that this is one of the largest gatherings of world leaders since Franklin Roosevelt was president. So now that you know nuclear war probably won't kill you, go out and buy some chaos insurance and celebrate another Earth Day here and gone without global destruction!

Oh, and enjoy some amazing Earth photos from The Big Picture.