ECON LECTURE FAVORS LEGALIZED NARCOTICS

Jeffrey Miron '79, one of the nation's foremost libertarian thinkers, brought
economic analysis to focus on the issue of drug legalization last Thursday as
he launched the department of economics' annual lecture series.

In the hour-long talk, mandatory for Economics 1 students, Miron argued that
drug prohibition's large costs to society are not outweighed by the dubious
advantages conferred by lowered drug consumption. Miron, a professor of
economics at Boston University, said he hoped that even if some audience
members did not agree with his conclusions, they would attempt to appreciate
the economic arguments he presented.

Miron began the lecture by addressing a typical defense of prohibition --
including its purportedly beneficial effects on crime, health and societal
wellbeing -- which he then proceeded to rebut by demonstrating that prohibition
causes more harm than drugs themselves.

Prohibition costs the government over $33 billion to enforce each year, which
is more than the federal budget for education, according to Miron. "The policy
does not eliminate the demand or supply of drugs but simply forces buyers and
sellers to an underground market," he said.

Miron went on to argue that underground or "black" markets act differently from
regular markets. In creating them, the government deprives itself of valuable
tax revenues as well as an opportunity to regulate the quality and potency of
the drugs being exchanged. Furthermore, when disputes arise in black markets
and there are no legal systems to turn to, violent crime is often the only
recourse, he said.

While unwavering in his negative assessment of prohibition's costs, Miron
allowed that "interdiction is modestly effective" and that prohibition can curb
drug consumption -- which, he said, is its only conceivable redeeming aspect.

He proceeded, however, to downplay the negative aspects of drug consumption,
arguing instead that rational drug consumption is no different from the
rational consumption of McDonald's fast food or any other product. Addiction,
he said, is a foreseeable consequence of drug use, and users would exercise
restraint if they did not wish to become addicted.

While it was difficult to find an economics student who disagreed with Miron's
economic arguments, a number of students found his approach simplistic.

"He didn't say anything original," said Carolyn Sha '04, an economics major. "I
know it was meant for intro students, but he would gloss over some of his
arguments by saying, `It's obvious that ...'"

Etan Cohen '07, an Economics 1 student, said, "I didn't buy his conclusion. I
think we should be taught to care for one another as a society, not just do
whatever's best for ourselves as individuals. It was good to see his arguments,
but there's more to it than economics."

Cohen expressed appreciation, however, for the relevance of the talk to current
affairs. "It was a current event that we were able to see both sides of. That
was interesting," he said.

The next speaker to be presented by the economics department will be F.M.
Scherer, who will discuss the Microsoft antitrust case.