How to Beat Terrorists

Willem Buiter says we should legalize drugs if we want to disable terrorist networks:

Legalise drugs to beat terrorists, by Willem Buiter, Commentary, Financial Times (Free): The UK government is considering reclassifying cannabis from a class C drug to a class B drug, carrying higher penalties for using and dealing. As an economist with a strong commitment to personal liberty and responsibility, my preference would be to see all illegal drugs legalised. The only exception would be substances whose consumption leads to behaviour likely to cause material harm to others.

Following legalisation, the production and sale of these drugs should be regulated to ensure quality and purity. They should also be taxed, as are tobacco products and alcoholic beverages...; more money should be spent on the rehabilitation of addicts. Ideally legalisation should occur simultaneously in a number of neighbouring countries...

The principle-based argument for legalisation is that behaviour that harms others ought to be criminalised, not behaviour that hurts only the person engaged in it. It is not the government’s job to protect adults of sound mind from the predictable consequences of their actions.

If the public is ill-informed about the consequences of drug taking, there is an educational role for the state. Children should be protected..., as they are from tobacco and alcohol. ... Parents should be paternalistic, but when it comes to mentally competent grown-ups the state should not be. ...

A pragmatic argument against criminalising drugs is that criminalisation creates vast rents and encourages criminal entrepreneurs to use violence, intimidation, bribery, extortion and corruption to extract these rents. Another pragmatic argument is that it is pointless to waste resources fighting a war that cannot be won. The losing war on drugs wastes resources that could be used to fight terrorism and other crimes.

Another important argument for legalising, in particular, all cultivation of poppy and of coca (and their illegal derivatives) is that this would take away a vital source of income and political support for terrorist movements, including the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and Colombia’s Revolutionary Armed Forces (Farc) and various paramilitary groups.

The United Nations estimates that opium production in Afghanistan grew to more than 6,000 metric tonnes last year with a value exceeding $3bn. ... A significant portion of the profits flows to the Taliban... They combine extortion and threats of violence towards the poppy farmers with the sale of protection to these same farmers against those who would destroy their livelihood, mainly the Nato allies and the Afghan central government.

Following legalisation, the allies in Afghanistan could further undermine the financial strength of the Taliban and al-Qaeda by buying up the entire poppy harvest. If a sufficient premium over the prevailing market price were offered, the Taliban/al-Qaeda middleman could be cut out altogether... Winning the hearts and minds of poppy growers and coca growers is a lot easier when you are not seen as intent on destroying their livelihood. ...

If opium and heroin were legalised, the allies’ stash could be sold to regulated producers/distributors of opium, heroin and other formerly illegal poppy derivatives. Our chemical and pharmaceutical industries, and indeed our cigarette manufacturers, would be well-positioned to enter this trade. The profits made by the allies on the sale of the stash could be turned over to the Afghan government. It surely makes more sense for the government to tax the poppy harvest than for the Taliban to do so.

So legalise, regulate, tax, educate and rehabilitate. Stop a losing war, get the government off our backs, beat the Taliban and deal a blow to al-Qaeda in the process. Not a bad deal!

I'm fairly libertarian on these issues. For example, I don't like seat belt or helmet laws for adults. The usual argument beyond the "preventing people from hurting themselves" case for intervention (which I don't buy - I think people are the best judge of their own utility) is that it imposes costs on the rest of us, e.g. a motorcycle wreck causes a visit to the emergency room and that raises insurance costs for everyone. But I would rather simply shift the entire cost to the individual in such cases with stiff penalties for failing to meet that obligation. Sure, there would be cases where people couldn't pay and the rest of us have to pick up the tab, but that's a price I'll pay to keep the government from telling me what to do. If people want to risk killing themselves riding motorcycles without helmets, it's not a choice I'd make and not a choice I hope they'd make, but if they want to take the risk, including the financial risk, that's up to them (we could have no helmet insurance so that those who don't wear helmets could share the financial risks among themselves and be ensured of covering the cost of an accident; similarly there could be no-seat belt insurance, though I'd have to think about whether this insurance should be required before allowing these liberties).

I feel the same about drugs, let people do what they want and if they cause problems, then hold them responsible for their behavior. If children are neglected, if accidents are caused, if health costs rise, if whatever, hold the individual responsible. I've never understood why one person's inability to control themselves should limit what others are allowed to do.

I know many of you see me as an advocate of government intervention, so let me add a few words about that becasue it is related, though this is a bit off the cuff. I think a key part of liberty, of freedom, is that everyone have equal opportunity (to the extent possible), and equalizing opportunity can involve government policies such as providing access to education, redistributing income, providing health care (especially to children), and so on.

More directly related to economics, I also think equal opportunity requires competitive markets and I am much more willing than those who identify themselves as libertarians to recommend that the government step in with a solution (perhaps market-based, but an intervention nevertheless). Similarly for other types of market failures beyond monopoly power, I think there is a role for the government to play to ensure that externalities are focused on the individuals who cause them (I am less free if I am required to pay  your bills), to provide public goods, to ensure that informational asymmetries are resolved (e.g. through truth in labeling laws, full disclosure laws in real estate sales), and so on. My difference with libertarians, I suppose, is that I don't think all these problems will correct themselves if left alone, at least not in the kind of time frame I have in mind, and I believe that government can do good by stepping in and correcting the problems. I see the government as a vehicle for attaining equal opportunity, freedom, and liberty instead of standing in the way of such ideals. The government should not always step in, and that shouldn't be our knee-jerk response to every problem. When the markets work, let them, and when the government does more harm than good by stepping in, it should leave things alone. But there is a positive role for government to play in many cases and we shouldn't have a knee-jerk reaction against it either.

Comments

[TigerPaw]

It's a long overdue sensible approach but it will never happen. This is for the same reason that slowing down the military/industrial complex is virtually impossible - there's too much money to be made in the Sisyphean task of drug interdiction. The other reason of course is the large group of people who believe it to be their duty to run the lives of others. The US experiment in prohibition comes to mind.

Of course there's nothing to stop governments from offering the Afghan farmers money for their crops now and then simply destroy collected crops. It would cost less than the military approach and it would still cut the legs out from under the rebels. But that's not something the current mindset can comprehend.

[DILBERT DOGBERT]

I propose the cost of insurance for autos and motorcycles be included in the cost of registration of cars and licencing of drivers. We would have to subsidize those who require a car and whose income is too low. Interesting idea but most likely would some hidden snag that I can't see now.

[DILBERT DOGBERT]

TigerPaw,
I just read your post and thought that buying up the crop would just raise the street price and encourage more production. Sort of an ever increasing uncontrolled do loop in programming terms.
Same with legalization. Lowering the price would encourage increased use which would stabilize at some supply demand point. Tax it too high and you are back to encouraging under the table production.
I think it would be hard to get us to go for this experiment.
The devil we know is preferable to the devil we don't know.

[donna]

But then what will fund the CIA?

[robertdfeinman]

The issue that hasn't been addressed is what happens when a person's irresponsible behavior causes harm to others. So a guy doesn't wear his helmet but because of this he causes a more severe accident which harms others.

Saying that this can be fixed by his paying recompense is an economic, not a humanistic, argument. Money can't fix everything and avoiding the risk in the first place must be weighed in when the choices are made.

The second part is that those promoting unhealthful lifestyles have more resources at their disposal than those opposing them. After 50 years we still have young people taking up smoking. There have been enough studies of the power of advertising to know that this can be used to foster bad behavior. Appealing to education sounds good, but has a poor track record.

I certainly think that decriminalizing marijuana is long overdue. Even justice Stevens said so recently. The more addicting drugs present a public health problem, because addicts are no longer rational actors and the libertarian ideals don't really apply.

I don't think that the majority of constraints put on people in the US are too taxing. Let's not take this too far. Wearing a seat belt of a helmet is a trival matter. Getting vaccinated so that you don't become a carrier requires a minor inconvenience to promote the general good. Sometimes in a mature society people just have to accept the restrictions that have evolved. Certainly we have nothing currently which is as much of an imposition as the draft or as the compulsory service which exists in many other countries.

Let's have a little less selfishness and a bit more selflessness.

[Mark Thoma]

Vaccinations come under the market failure exception. As with national defense where the optimal solution for the individual is for everyone else to pay - you get full benefits at zero cost - the optimal solution from an individual's perspective for vaccinations (if there is any risk at all, and there is) is for everyone else in the world be vaccinated but you. You can't possible catch it from a anyone else, but there's no risk (cost) to you. Because of this effect, intervention is required. Some will get vaccinations for the sake of protection in any case, but this effect stops the market from achieving maximum social benefits.

[realpc]

If all drugs become legal, that means you would no longer need prescriptions from MDs. Anyone could buy strong addictive narcotics and painkillers. There are drugs available now that are much more addictive than anything that existed before. Do you really want to remove all control over these chemicals?

And if you still want to control certain substances, I don't know where you would draw the line. How can you decide if a drug might make people harm others?

Marijuana isn't very harmful and should be legal. But I can't imagine making all drugs legal. We have enough trouble with alcohol, and at least it's natural and not concocted in a laboratory. New drugs are developed all the time and we don't know all their long-term effects.

Libertarians want to legalized drugs because it's consistent with their far-out extreme distrust of central government. Mark Thoma, and other progressives, are not being consistent or honest with themselves on this issue. You want the central government to be paternalistic in some ways but not in others.

I said marijuana should be legal but on second thought -- don't we already have enough trouble with second hand tobacco smoke?

But at least marijuana and alcohol are natural substances. It's bad enough that the drug companies are making fortunes on their new toxic substances. Can you imagine if anyone could buy them without a prescription?

Our society is out of control with its use of legal and illegal drugs. Legalizing all of them could make it even worse.

Maybe it should be decided by the states. I don't think any states would remove all the controls anyway.

[mdm]

Mark,

I completely agree with you.

And...

>realpc says...

>If all drugs become legal, that means you would no longer >need prescriptions from MDs.

Huh?

Oh and...

>You want the central government to be paternalistic in >some ways but not in others.

Yes, it is called pragmatism. It is better than the hard-lined ideologies that are getting us nowhere inside the beltway.

[realpc]

">If all drugs become legal, that means you would no longer >need prescriptions from MDs.

Huh?"

So you would legalize them all, but still require prescriptions for some? How would that end the war on drugs? You would still have an illegal prescription drug market.

Which of the currently illegal drugs would require prescriptions if they were legalized? All except marijuana?

Legalization of drugs is meaningless if prescriptions are still required.

[robertdfeinman]

Mark Thoma:
I agree with your vaccination remark, but this just pushes the issue down one level. What will be the mechanism to determine which things are in a market failure condition?

I would say that elections are in such a position right now, for example. The cost of running elections has gotten so high that qualified people can not afford to enter the "market". But every attempt to make the cost generalized gets swatted down by a) rich candidates b) people who want to own candidates c) media outlets and consultants who are profiting from the status quo and d) the supreme court which still thinks that freedom of speech = freedom to spend money.

For every example we could come up with (CAFE standards, sugar subsidies, health insurance) we will find the same divergence of opinion. Personally I have no solution, but the present system seems pretty haphazard.

[Arne (not anne)]

Where should the line be drawn? I can see legalizing marijuana. I can't see legalizing crack or heroin. What about cocaine or meth? Thoughts?

[James Killus]

I believe that people who are "libertarian" on helmet laws have never had to deal with the results of that position:

The Guy on the Bike

The cost/benefit utility for drug laws is different, and as there are very few drugs with a worse potential set of outcomes than alcohol, which is legal (and "The Great Experiment" failed pretty miseraably), there aren't many rational arguments for the current setup.

I might be persuaded that meth should remain illegal (and certainly its manufacture is a danger to any local environment), but I'd be interested in some different approaches to its regulation than are now employed.

[mdm]

realpc,

Why not legalize marijuana and regulate it? You can remove the criminal profit motive by flooding the market with suppliers, regulate it, tax it, etc.

"So you would legalize them all, but still require prescriptions for some? How would that end the war on drugs? You would still have an illegal prescription drug market."

Do we have a major illegal prescription drug market problem? Hmmm... maybe if the Republican's let people negotiate drug prices, you know the free market thing to do, then there wouldn't be one.

[BJ Feng]

Libertarians want decriminalization of drugs for the same reason as the poster. A person should be free to choose if it doesn't harm others directly. This is what liberty is all about. I'm surprised why this issue hasn't gotten more traction, especially when you consider that a great number of our prisoners are in for minor drug offenses.

I think a large part of the anti-legalization crowd is made up of law enforcement who stand to lose employment and resources if the war against drugs were ever to end. The DEA is always clamoring for more money and resources, even though their enforcement has little effect. With the legalization or decriminalization of drugs, the DEA would be disbanded, and you know how hard it is to eliminate any government agency or branch once they've been created.

[CL- Oregon Girl]

realpc-- Why don't we just make alcohol illegal, cigarettes illegal and fast food illegal? Then we can make sure no one gets hurt.

[CL- Oregon Girl]

strychnine is natural too....

[napablogger]

Mark, I totally agree with you, allow freedom within the bounds of common sense, which mostly is about grave harm to others should not be allowed. What is grave? That is the debate.

People have to realize that freedom is more important than the possibility of harm to other people or some abstract possibility of harm.

A friends small child was very upset and she had to drive somewhere and wanted to hold her child in her lap while she drove to comfort her. But she risked being thrown in jail as a child abuser if she did so. Why in the hell are we letting the government run our personal lives "for our own good"?

[napablogger]

Oregon girl, don't forget that bad attitudes do a lot of harm. Sarcasm, anger, flippant comments, all need to be controlled by the government because they lead to stress and therefore huge medical costs to all of us.

It is amazing to me that liberals who not only claim to be for freedom but also to hate the rich are so quick to restrict individual liberties in the name of saving money.

[Daniel Zaccariello]

The article says:
Another important argument for legalising, in particular, all cultivation of poppy and of coca (and their illegal derivatives) is that this would take away a vital source of income and political support for terrorist movements, including the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and Colombia’s Revolutionary Armed Forces (Farc) and various paramilitary groups.

But I don't see how legalizing a drug's use takes away income from terrorist groups. Is it that a legalized market means legal competition, which would drive down prices? If it becomes a legal market, it is difficult to say how the market will grow (or not). That is to say, it is hard to say that legalizing drugs will reduce (or increase) that source of revenue.

I suppose you could make a case that the act of growing a crop for refinement into a drug can't be illegal twice over (as a drug and as a source of income for terrorists). But then, how do you control how a legal business spends its money? I mean, a terrorist group could set up several legal fronts, launder the money, etc. It would seem you'd be gaining individual liberty, but you'd need to restrict and regulate the resulting industry so much that I'd be cautious about singing the praises of a legal drug market as a tool for saving money and as a counterterrorism policy.

What am I missing?

[realpc]

Wanting to legalize drugs is just a progressive tradition that goes back to the 1960s. It's based on affection for pot-smokers and resentment towards cops. I think it's about that simple. Because there is very little logic or consistency in the position. They never say which drugs would be legal and how the decisions would be made.

Alcohol is the most abused drug because it's legal and therefore affordable and easy to get. Do you want crack to be just as available as alcohol? If not, then your plan to legalize drugs is full of holes.

But crack is not the worst drug these days. New artificial drugs are coming out all the time and who knows what kind of psychotic states they might cause in some users.

It's bad enough that half the population is already zonked out on mind-altering prescriptions. But progressives like drugs, I guess. It's a big part of their tradition.

And by the way, yes I know that mind-altering drugs have been used by our species forever. But they were natural chemicals found in plants, and they were used in restricted, predefined rituals. People didn't just go about their daily lives zonked on chemicals.

So if you want the drug companies to be free to flood our society with interesting new mind-altering chemicals, then go ahead and legalize drugs. I mean, why not, half the kids in school are on Ritalin anyway. America is madly in love with drugs.

I don't see anything wrong with moderate occasional use of natural drugs like alcohol or marijuana, and especially caffeine. But you have to define what you mean by "drugs." Do you want Oxycodone to be sold in convenience stores? If not, then you do not really want to legalize drugs.

[mdm]

realpc,

I'm sure you have empirical evidence to back up your lofty claims that
1. legalization of drugs is a progressive tradition and
2. (lol... sorry... it is just so ludicrous) it stems from affection for pot and resentment of cops
3. legality is a sufficient condition for easy attainment of a product and its affordability
4. half the population is "zonked out" on mind altering prescriptions
5. the correlation between the legalization of a good and everyone using it is perfect
6. natural chemicals that are used in "restricted, predefined?" rituals were use by our species, they weren't "zonked out," but we somehow society would be if we not used natural chemicals in "restricted, predefined" ways
7. the overall implication that use of mind altering chemicals is somehow bad, wrong, or immoral... oh wait alcohol, marijuana, and caffeine are ok with "moderate occasional use
8. drug companies would flood the market with new drugs whether or not a market for the drugs existed and people would use them... the obvious consequence of half of America's kids using ritalin or is it America's mad love of drugs that results in such consequences
9. again, somehow because something is legalized means it cannot be regulated... it must be completely available... say at convenience stores for example...
9. people don't possess the self control and responsibility their consumption demands
10. the government could in no way punish people for any wrongs committed when people aren't responsible for their consumption
11. the legalization of drugs and the regulation of the sale of Oxycodone are mutually exclusive...

[James Killus]

Oh hell, here we go round the same carousel one more time. Tell you what, let's make recreational drugs compulsory. Yeah, that's the ticket. Anyone who can't drive heavy machinery while high is a wuss, and should be scrubbed from the gene pool ASAP. Besides, compulsory intoxication will make casual sex easier, and I'm all for lots more casual sex. And orgies, lots of orgies, where people get body painted in dayglo colors, and we listen to music loud enough to damage our hearing. Then we'll read some underground comix, do some more dope, and have more casual sex with whoever drops in, so to speak, as it were, or, more accurately, as it never actually was.

"There is no stopping a dope-sniffing rhinoceros." -- National Lampoon, circa 1970

[mdm]

James,

It is a tired debate.

I believe a participated in a zero sum game with all the back and forth with realpc.

[reason]

Mark,
with regard to seat belts, I always thought the argument was about compulsory third person personal insurance. Are you saying people could wave their right to have their medical expenses paid if they were involved in accident and the other person was at fault? I wonder how many people would realise that was what they were doing. Boy what a boon for insurance company lawyers! Insurance and the fine print. Big problem (for another time).

[reason]

P.S. with respect to the previous comment. I have a sneaking suspicion that if the roads were private, the rules on seatbelts would be even tighter UNLESS people sign away their rights to sue for anything. I think Mark, you are mistaking the nanny state for the nanny road owner.

[realpc]

"the legalization of drugs and the regulation of the sale of Oxycodone are mutually exclusive..."

Then what do you mean by "legalization of drugs?" How would it be any different than it is now? If you still could not get Oxycodone, etc., without a prescription then you have not really changed anything. Morphine is legal now, with a prescription, but illegal heroin is still sold. So how would things change if heroin were legal with a prescription?

Yes, I think emotional factors are involved. Because it does not make sense. I would like to hear your logical explanation, if you have one.

[supersaurus]

seatbelts:

if both of us are in the back seat and I wear my seatbelt but you don't there can be consequences for me due to your bad decision, i.e. in an accident where the car is hit from the side a 200lb bag of bones with a rock on top (you) may end up hitting me at high speed. this isn't hypothetical: I was once involved in such an accident in a car that didn't have seatbelts installed; two of us bounced off each other in the middle of the car and the head-knocking was the main source of injury.

what is the libertarian solution here? suppose the party with the seatbelt on is 14 years old and the other is an adult? the adult is to pay for injuries sustained by the 14 year old after the fact?

[Farrar Richardson]

Mark Thoma -

I agree in principle with your "original position" which, if I understand you and Rawls correctly, is that laws should not restrict the liberty of rational persons if their behavior is not harmful to others.

Other commenters have already raised a number of problems with this, most recently that not wearing seatbelts, or helmets can be harmful to others, as well as oneself. Similar objections can be raised regarding the use of narcotics or alcohol.

In the case of narcotics, alcohol or nicotine addicts, one can also raise the question of whether they are in fact rational persons, and whether they need protection as do children or those suffering from mental illness.

Other practical problems arise if and when universal health care is enacted. I don't know if Lafayette has left us on vacation or if he is mad at us, but a while back he advocated higher premiums for those who persisted in dangerous or imprudent practices. This seems reasonable, but how do you enforce it? I suppose you could require compulsory physical exams, which would also be a restriction on individual liberty. The physical exams would reveal the use of narcotics or other products bad for the health. But what about those who refused helmets or seatbelts, or insisted on climbing Mt Blanc without a guide?

Anyway, you impose the highest premium on those who persist in dangerous practices or don't show up for their physical exams. But these are often the same people who are least likely to pay their premiums and live outside the economy.

So you still have a number of people who show up at the emergency room without medical insurance and whose expenses must be covered by "law abiding citizens".

Or the bike rider who didn't want to wear his helmet one nice day and got a concussuion. If he had not admitted this dangerous practice during his last exam, would his medical coverage be invalid? If so, he would then be obliged to pay for his care out of his pocket. But suppose he were incapacitated as a result of his accident?

Perhaps these last two case types will turn out to be insignificant under a Universal health plan, but I dunno....

[James Killus]

There was much food for thought in our little encounter, much of it not relevant here, but there is one thing that came to me with considerable force: the guy who stepped onto the bike was not the guy that I was dealing with. People can yammer all they want about how it’s “their business” if they want to risk their lives, etc. etc. and I might be tempted to agree on principle. But it isn’t just “their business.” It’s also the business of whoever comes out the other side, the guy who isn’t them any longer, but who has a vague memory of having been them, once upon a time. And it’s the business of every waitress they’ll ever scare, and every guy who’ll ever have to walk them home.