Look, I'm all for legalization of drugs. I don't recommend consuming what are currently illegal drugs; I've never done so myself, and hope when legalized such drugs are never used, although I'm not so naive to believe that is possible. But even if I'm all for the legalization of drugs, although lacking any personal interest to use such drugs myself, I wish the "legalize it" crowd would let one claim go.
Listening to Tom Woods interviewing a guy from Reason TV the other day, I heard the false argument that drug prices would not drop in the event narcotics were legalized.
That's preposterous, and flies in the face of free market theory. Of course prices will drop if an item is legalized. For one, the cost of evading authorities will disappear. Secondly, competition, fueled by the removal of moral restrictions, will increase. Increased competition always drops prices. Thirdly, legalization would unquestionably increase the number of interested parties. This is where I think many proponents of legalization go wrong. They claim every existing drug user is already in the market. I disagree. I'm sure there other people out there who think like me. I would never use drugs if illegal, but maybe if they were illegal I'd try some light, relatively harmless drug. I drink alcohol occasionally, and that's no worse than marijuana, so why not try a brownie full of THC? (I actually wouldn't, just because I've got a heckuva streak going here, and why break it at this point?)
So prices will drop. Arguing otherwise might be convenient for proponents of legalization, but it's not accurate. The correct point to make is not that prices will drop, but that they will remain high and that the difference between the cost of production plus profit will be captured in tax revenues. It's rare to hear a libertarian argue for taxation, but if ever there were a place for the US to engage in taxation, it's in activities considered dangerous, like drugs (including booze and tobacco). Of course, I'd prefer the taxation be done at the state level, and concentrated on activities which are harmful to the public not individuals, but I'll take what I can get.
The left hook point to make after the quick jab of the "increased revenues"argument, is that these revenues would go to treating drug addiction. This plays right into the hands of the statists who want to regulate, medicate, and incarcerate everyone-- money is coming friends, through legalization! Just legalize drugs and you can expand your counseling sessions and social worker enrichment programs and all the other unnecessary appendages of the state which presently exist to address drug addiction but do so poorly and with a lack of funding.
The DEA would tell you "we already make hundreds of millions by chasing down the profits of drug users." But why make hundreds of millions when we could make tens of billions? As long as the DEA is still seizing stuff, it's profitable, which means we're not capturing all of those lost profits.
As I type this, and I swear this is true, iTunes has gone from playing "Eple" by Royksopp to "Equal Rights" by Peter Tosh, which is certainly a sign that I'm on to something. Preach on Peter. Preach on.
Sensible libertarian views on nearly everything- except foreign affairs.