In a proposal termed SABRE (Substance
Abuse Resistance Effort), Virginia Republican governor James Gilmore III is
asking the Virginia legislature to get tough in the state's war on drugs.
The governor's proposals include harsher penalties for drug users and drug
sellers.
No one, including Governor Gilmore, would
argue that the decades long war on drugs has been successful in achieving
its aims. Hardly a month goes by without law-enforcement officers'
announcing a new record drug bust, which would seem to be fairly powerful
evidence that the war isn't achieving what it's supposed to achieve.
And after all, if the war had already
achieved its goals, there would be no point in continuing it, much less
escalating it.
The purpose of measures such as those that
Governor Gilmore is proposing is to diminish both the demand for drugs and
the supply of drugs. On the demand side, the hope is that by increasing the
punishment a drug user faces if caught, the demand for drugs will be
reduced.
The analysis is similar on the supply
side. The hope is that drug sales will decline because drug sellers must now
face a harsher punishment if they're caught selling drugs.
All too often, however, the prospect of
facing increased punishment doesn't seriously affect drug users. For one
thing, many of them don't believe that they are the ones who are going to
get caught.
For another, their addiction often causes
them to continue consuming the drugs even though the price has increased;
it's what an economist would call an "inelastic demand curve," one in which
changes in price have a minimal effect on changes in demand.
Harsh penalties on the supply side also
have had little effect on the supply of drugs.
Why? Because as the price of drugs
and the profits from drug sales increase because of a constriction in supply
arising from stricter law enforcement, more people are induced to enter the
drug trade, which brings supply back up. That is why we see "regular"
people, such as airline workers, entering the illegal drug business.
Harsher enforcement of drug laws also has
a serious negative consequence in society. In order to get the money to pay
for the artificially higher-priced drugs, the user often resorts to violent
means-robberies, muggings, thefts, and the like.
(When was the last time you saw a wino
committing a robbery to get the money to pay for his habit?)
Why then do so many government officials
continue to call for an escalation of the drug war? Some officials are
well-intentioned. They honestly believe that their proposals will finally
stop people from ingesting harmful substances.
But should good intentions play a
role in public policy, especially when the policy has been tested for
decades and has not only failed but also has produced serious negative
consequences for society?
There's an alternative explanation,
however, for hasher drug war measures, one that is based on self-interest.
No one can now deny that the two financial beneficiaries of drug laws are
drug sellers, who make lots of money selling drugs, and government
officials, who make lots of money from asset forfeiture laws.
For example, in 1998, in Chesapeake,
Virginia, local prosecutors collected more than $160,000 in assets,
including $80,000 in cash.
The money was divided among the state, the
police department, and the prosecutors. State officials also get a piece of
the action when they help the DEA or FBI in a drug bust; this brought
$100,000 to Chesapeake over a three year period.
In Prince George's County, Maryland,
investigators recently discovered that the sheriff's department kept a cash
seizure of $45,000 hidden from county officials for seven years, in the hope
that the legislature would enact a law that would enable the sheriff's
department to keep the money.
In a free society, people should ask
why the state should have the power to punish someone for engaging in
self destructive behavior. People should also ask why a decades-long
war that has failed and that it is corrupting society should be escalated.
Recently New Mexico Republican governor Gary Johnson called for an
end to the war on drugs. Which state will lead the nation by being the first
state to do so?