THE FUTILITY OF DRUG PROHIBITION

Since the recent death of economist Milton Friedman, I've been
thinking about the times that my life crossed paths with his. I've
got a photograph on my bookshelf of me with him at the conference of
the Drug Policy Foundation in 1991. In that year we gave him our most
prestigious award, a lifetime achievement award named in honor of
noted philanthropist and Chicago commodities trader, Richard Dennis.

When we gave Dr. Friedman the award it was controversial. Many in the
reform movement are liberal Democrats who are offended by Friedman's
view that "the government solution to a problem is usually as bad as
the problem." But, no doubt all in the drug policy reform movement
would agree with that statement when it is applied to the
government's never-ending war on drugs.

As Friedman correctly said: "Most of the harm that comes from drugs
is because they are illegal."

Indeed, Friedman came to the conclusion about the futility of drug
prohibition early.

When President Nixon started the modern war on drugs he wrote a
column in Newsweek criticizing the policy.

He warned that it would not reduce addiction but instead would
promote crime and corruption repeating the mistake of alcohol
prohibition. He concluded: "So long as large sums of money are
involved-and they are bound to be if drugs are illegal-it is
literally hopeless to expect to end the traffic or even to reduce
seriously its scope.

In drugs, as in other areas, persuasion and example are likely to be
far more effective than the use of force to shape others in our
image." See "Prohibition and Drugs."

In 1989 when drug czar Bill Bennet was escalating the drug war on
behalf of President George H.W. Bush, Friedman wrote an open letter
in the Wall Street Journal reminding him that the problems he was
trying to combat were the made worse by prohibition. He warned that
crack was a product of prohibition correctly pointing out "it was
invented because the high cost of illegal drugs made it profitable to
provide a cheaper version." He concluded the letter:

"Moreover, if even a small fraction of the money we now spend on
trying to enforce drug prohibition were devoted to treatment and
rehabilitation, in an atmosphere of compassion not punishment, the
reduction in drug usage and in the harm done to the users could be dramatic.

"This plea comes from the bottom of my heart.

Every friend of freedom, and I know you are one, must be as revolted
as I am by the prospect of turning the United States into an armed
camp, by the vision of jails filled with casual drug users and of an
army of enforcers empowered to invade the liberty of citizens on
slight evidence." See "An Open Letter to Bill Bennett," April 1990.

Friedman's view of the harms from drugs was not only the wasted money
-- now about $1 billion per week -- but more so the destruction of
inner cities, racially unfair incarceration, corruption of the
police, wars in Colombia, Mexico and other countries that cost
thousands of lives and the corruption of foreign economies as well as
our own. The drug war has spurred the largest prison system in
history with more than 2 million behind bars -- one in four of the
world's prisoners residing in the land of the free. As Friedman
pointed out: "Had drugs been decriminalized, crack would never have
been invented and there would today be fewer addicts... The ghettos
would not be drug-and-crime-infested no-man's lands... Colombia,
Bolivia and Peru would not be suffering from narco-terror, and we
would not be distorting our foreign policy because of it."

When Friedman gave his key note address at the Drug Policy Foundation
conference in 1991 he did not limit his talk to drug policy.

He put forward a wider ranging analysis that covered a host of issues
- -- schools, housing, medical care and the post office.

Of course, this just added to the controversy around his nomination.
But it was an opportunity to hear a perspective that no doubt held
important truths on the limits and fallibility of government --
truths that could lead to more sensible approaches whether you
completely agreed with Friedman or not. (You can read a transcript of
his speech and the questions and answers here.

Friedman also appeared on a television show we produced, America's
Drug Forum, and I crossed paths with him at two conferences at the
Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and with Arnold Trebach
edited a book on the writings of him and psychiatrist Thomas Szasz.
He always put forward a clear vision and persistent attitude.

Indeed, his persistence is something all advocates can learn from --
he went from being ignored and shunned to winning the nobel prize for
economics and being an adviser to presidents. His life should give
all of us hope that change is possible, indeed it is inevitable, and
if we persist change will move in our direction.