A multi-billionaire known for stirring up controversy (not that one—the other one) recently asserted we could reduce fentanyl deaths by simply legalizing the stuff. Apologists for the Big Drug Enforcement industry immediately responded with attempts to disprove the assertion. One of those attempts cited the experience of San Francisco “decriminalizing” some mood altering drugs and reducing penalties for possession of small quantities of others. But their attempt fails because “decriminalizing” drugs and reducing penalties for small quantities is very different from legalization.
Allowing small amounts while forbidding large ones naturally leads to a highly-profitable monopoly for a criminal gang. The criminals don’t need to worry about competitors because they just murder them. Meanwhile large volumes of dollars flow into drug enforcement and the number of people incapacitated by drugs skyrockets.
When something is legal, it is produced and distributed by easily-identified legitimate businesses that can be sued. The owners of legitimate businesses do not want to kill or disable their customers, and do not want to be sued or jailed. Legitimate providers cannot just murder their legal competitors. Competition forces them to improve quality and reduce cost. Criminal gangs depend on high-prices and limited competition; they cannot compete on price and quality with legitimate businesses.
Prior to Prohibition alcohol was a big problem. During Prohibition alcohol was a big problem. After Prohibition, alcohol is a big problem. Prior to the War on Drugs, drug abuse in the U.S. was a relatively minor, but growing, problem. During the 50-years of the ongoing War on Drugs, drug abuse has grown exponentially into a major problem. If we legalize and regulate drugs, drug abuse will not suddenly disappear, but it will emerge from the shadows into the light where we can address it in a more proactive manner.
Posted 2023/04/11