- 86
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2007
ok what i think is an important point to consider that Friedman breezes through given the nature of his audience is the following:
The legalization of drugs will result in many social changes, one of which is the fact that there will be no people in prison for possession-based charges. Thecost per year for the US Gov to keep an individual incarcarated varies betweetn 27000-30,000 dollars a year. Multiplying this number by the number of peoplearrested for possession based offenses - 1.5 to 1.6million a year, you get right under 50 BILLION. Up to 50 billion a year is spent on keeping drug users injaill (and this doesnt count the cost of maintaining those that are ALREADY in jail and are serving multi-year sentences.
Assume the following:
We legalize all drugs and tax them relatively heavily (enough to internalize whatever externality they may cause). This money is then used on police forcethroughout the country. The tax revenue will be in the tens of billions of dollars (if not more) undoubtedly. Using this tax revenue, coupled with the moneysaved from prison costs, the US Gov should be able to expand our police force to significantly greater sizes and can do so without imposing upon our freedom.Not only will this contain drug crime (and its tough to argue that a 100billion dollar increase in police expenditure wont), but it will also reduce crimesthat are not drug related. Once it is legalized, it becomes "corporate" exactly like how alcohol is now. This will cripple gangs and cartels bothdomestically and internationally as it accounts for a significant portion of their funds, once again contributing to reducing crime.
Rex brought up the point that legalizing it would cause the price to drop significantly, and this is 100% right. So if the drug industry becomes morecompetitive, users are able to afford their drug more easily and it would become priced just like any other consumption good - I mean really, how much does itCOST to grow weed? The price drop will be huge. Friedman mentioned the point that most of these drugs do not cause you to go on a violent rage but ratherpacify and sedate you. The issue, however, is what they will do to get their drug when they are not high and that is where the role of the police force coupledwith the price drop come in.
And in a comparative context, the effect alcohol has on people is considerably worse than most drugs. Maybe not in its addictive qualities, but in the range ofsocial costs its undoubtedly comparable.
On a personal note, I use no drugs in any way (i barely drink lol). I just think that the role of govnt should be contained. This is just an explination of thepoint friedman was making with greater detail.
The legalization of drugs will result in many social changes, one of which is the fact that there will be no people in prison for possession-based charges. Thecost per year for the US Gov to keep an individual incarcarated varies betweetn 27000-30,000 dollars a year. Multiplying this number by the number of peoplearrested for possession based offenses - 1.5 to 1.6million a year, you get right under 50 BILLION. Up to 50 billion a year is spent on keeping drug users injaill (and this doesnt count the cost of maintaining those that are ALREADY in jail and are serving multi-year sentences.
Assume the following:
We legalize all drugs and tax them relatively heavily (enough to internalize whatever externality they may cause). This money is then used on police forcethroughout the country. The tax revenue will be in the tens of billions of dollars (if not more) undoubtedly. Using this tax revenue, coupled with the moneysaved from prison costs, the US Gov should be able to expand our police force to significantly greater sizes and can do so without imposing upon our freedom.Not only will this contain drug crime (and its tough to argue that a 100billion dollar increase in police expenditure wont), but it will also reduce crimesthat are not drug related. Once it is legalized, it becomes "corporate" exactly like how alcohol is now. This will cripple gangs and cartels bothdomestically and internationally as it accounts for a significant portion of their funds, once again contributing to reducing crime.
Rex brought up the point that legalizing it would cause the price to drop significantly, and this is 100% right. So if the drug industry becomes morecompetitive, users are able to afford their drug more easily and it would become priced just like any other consumption good - I mean really, how much does itCOST to grow weed? The price drop will be huge. Friedman mentioned the point that most of these drugs do not cause you to go on a violent rage but ratherpacify and sedate you. The issue, however, is what they will do to get their drug when they are not high and that is where the role of the police force coupledwith the price drop come in.
And in a comparative context, the effect alcohol has on people is considerably worse than most drugs. Maybe not in its addictive qualities, but in the range ofsocial costs its undoubtedly comparable.
On a personal note, I use no drugs in any way (i barely drink lol). I just think that the role of govnt should be contained. This is just an explination of thepoint friedman was making with greater detail.
