Good article today from a columnist who gets it. He is arguing for the legalization of drugs for budgetary reasons. He writes,
"How many police officers and sheriff's deputies are involved in investigating and solving crimes involving illegal drugs? And arresting and transporting and interrogating and jailing the suspects?
How many prosecutors and their staffs spend time prosecuting drug cases? How many defense lawyers spend their time defending drug suspects?
How many hours of courtroom time are devoted to drug trials? How many judges, bailiffs, courtroom security officers, stenographers, etc., spend their time on drug trials?
How many prison cells are filled with drug offenders? And how many corrections officers does it take to guard them? How much food do these convicts consume?
And when they get out, how many parole and probation officers does it take to supervise their release?"
A Harvard economist estimates that the war on drugs costs 44 billion while potential tax revenue is 33 billion. Essentially the war on drugs costs us 77 billion dollars a year.
Now, there are 303 million people in the US and according to the IRS, 140 million people paid taxes in 07 (and presumably a similar number in 08). This means that the cost of the war on drugs is $254.13 per person and $550 per taxpayer. Violence in Mexico and the US would decrease if drugs were sold in liquor stores and not in back alleys street corners to be fought over. The temptation for public officials to accept bribes and aid in the drug trade in Mexico, the US, or anywhere else is gone.
We've been reading about what lousy shape our economy is in and how no one has any money, wouldn't it be nice if everyone had an extra $254.13 in their pockets?
Its time to cut our losses in the war on drugs. No one wins.
1 comment:
I agree completely. The conditions to end this prohibition are very similar to the end of alcohol's prohibition (bad economic times). Such discussion seems great to intellectuals who can see systems of consequences and young people who can see how things could be different without total anarchy, but we must not forget there are so many people who are just not open to change because things have been a certain way for them for a long time (Prop.8 supporters). Will the aid to our budget have to wait till our situation is "bad enough" to be a forceful argument? Why do we have to be reactionary in this way instead of doing things for the right reasons like preservation of personal freedom or maintaining limited government.
What a shame that it takes a crisis to bring the support for change that should be the result of rational analysis and reanalysis of our social systems.
Post a Comment