THE HIGH COST OF PROHIBITION

Milton Friedman is no dopehead.

But that's his hallowed name atop the list of more than 500
economists who've signed an open letter asking our Drug War-addled
politicians to stop the prohibition of marijuana and instead legalize
it and tax it.

The petition asks the president, Congress and state officials to wake
up, smell the ganja and look honestly at "The Budgetary Implications
of Marijuana Prohibition," a report recently done by Harvard
economics professor Jeffrey Miron.

Miron's research shows that if we came to our senses and stopped
arresting 700,000 of our fellow Americans for mostly minor marijuana
offenses each year, federal and local governments could garner $10
billion to $14 billion in savings and new tax revenues.

About $7.7 billion would be saved on enforcement costs, says Miron,
an expert on drug-related crime who conducted his report for the
Marijuana Policy Project, a group that works to liberalize marijuana laws.

If pot were taxed like pop, Miron estimates revenues of at least $2.4
billion. Tax pot like society's most hurtful drugs -- booze and
tobacco -- and revenues could be $6.2 billion.

So far, Miron said Wednesday, his petition has created some publicity
but hasn't exactly gotten Washington's drug generals shaking in their
boots. Since early June he's been on a few talk shows, and Friedman,
who's long advocated legalizing all drugs, told Forbes magazine,
"There is no logical basis for the prohibition of marijuana."

Miron, like Friedman, believes our current war on (some) drugs does
far more harm to society than good. Openly libertarian, Miron said
his research sought to answer two things:

Do prohibition laws really reduce consumption of the commodity that's
prohibited?

And is the crime associated with illegal drugs generated by the drugs
themselves or the prohibition of them?

The effect of tough drug laws on drug consumption is not zero, but is
"relatively minor," Miron said. "The claim that people like the Bill
Bennetts make that there would be 80 million addicts if we legalized
drugs just doesn't stand up to any evidence or any scrutiny."

As for the causes of drug crime, Miron said his research "very much
suggests that it is prohibition. It's not drug-consumption-related,
it's fighting-over-disputes-in-the-illegal-drug-trade-related. And
that's a result of prohibition, not a result of the drug."

In other words, "If we banned Ben & Jerry's ice cream, there'd be
drive-by shootings over Ben & Jerry's."

Matthew Marlin is an economics professor at Duquesne University who
signed Miron's petition with pleasure. Like all good libertarians, he
doesn't believe there is a valid moral argument for prohibiting
adults from using drugs -- or alcohol or guns or anything else that's
potentially dangerous to society if ill-used.

But like all good economists, Marlin has been trained to think in
terms of benefits and costs. "That's how we look at the world," he
said. "If you follow us, economists are always arguing back and forth
about benefits and costs -- the Kyoto treaty versus reduced economic
growth, free trade, etc.

"We're split down the middle on everything, but you don't see us
split down the middle on drug prohibition. It's a case where it's
clear that the costs of prohibition exceed the benefits."

If only more politicians thought like economists, the chances of ever
fixing our stupid, harmful and immoral drug policy might not be so dismal.