Milton Friedman: Legalize It! - Page 10

In the first graph, the data is missing for the prohibition period. If you add in illegal consumption, the picture would be much different.

And... from your article:

"the behavior of cirrhosis after repeal fails to suggest a large effect of Prohibition"

"Beyond the results presented here, additional results in Dills and Miron (2001)which account for the effects of state prohibitions, pre-1920 federal anti-alcohol policies, alcoholic beverage taxes, income and other factorsdemonstrate consistently that Prohibition had a small, statistically insignificant, and possibly even a positive effect on cirrhosis."

Just looking at your graph, also, cirrhoisis was on the downslide before prohibition, and it flattened out during prohibition. It looks to me like prohibition caused people to drink more from your graphs.

So now we're reduced to arguing that Prohibition was a SUCCESS?



Sounds a tad apologetic to me....

Yes, and that's all from a clearly anti-prohibition author. My point in using that was that even they acknowledge that there was a drop-off in use and health problems. They explain it away by taking into account other factors, as they would given that they're trying to prove that prohibition is bad.

If you look at any neutral source about Prohibition, you'll see something like this:

From the Wikipedia article on Prohibition.

I'm not saying it was a success. "Success" depends on what your goals were in the first place. e1618978 made a very specific point, that alcohol use didn't change at all with prohibition. I just don't think that's accurate. It's why alcohol and tobacco use are so much more widespread today than illegal drug use: There are disincentives to using illegal drugs that are not present for legal drugs.

I'm not against decriminalization of marijuana; I just think you have to go in with your eyes open. Again, if you look at this Miron/Friedman report, they are talking about the budgetary implications, and they acknowledge that marijuana use would probably go up. No self-respecting economist would say otherwise.

In addition, I find the whole idea that you can save money on legalization kind of superfluous. I mean, we could make murder legal too, and save on all the costs associated with prosecuting that crime. In the end, you have to decide on some other basis, IMO.

Just because I'm in a researchy kind of mood, I found some stats on drug use from the NIH National Survey on Drug Use.

This link indicates that about half of Americans 12 or older have used alcohol in the past 30 days, which is about 120 million people.

This link says that about 30% of Americans 12 or older have used tobacco in the past month, which is about 71 million people.

This links says that about 6% of Americans 12 or older used pot in the past month. That's about 15 million. It also shows that about 9 million people, or 4% of the population, used some other illegal drug besides pot in the past month.

Alcohol: 50% use it
Tobacco: 30% use it
Pot: 6% use it
Any other illegal drug besides pot: 4%

It looks to me like, in general, people use legal drugs and don't use illegal ones.

OK. What is your point, BRussell?

Most Americans don't drink moonshine, which means that what alcoholic beverages they do drink have regulated ingredients, and a level of quality control. One side of this issue often neglected is the ability for the government to require a certain level of quality control on goods that are sold to the population... Effectively, this means sale of marajuana and perhaps other drugs that have known amounts of chemicals within them...

Regardless, fundamental to this entire question is not the danger to self because people make the conscious choice to do drugs or not, but danger to others, and marijuana is in the same category of alcohol and cigarrettes as compared to some of the heavier drugs like meth.

BRussell, people are going to die and almost always the vast majority of these deaths are going to be caused by actions the person takes rather than by random chance. Even genetic disposition to disease does not mean that the environment the individual places themselves into isn't going to be most influential on the development of the disease: for instance, sickle cell patients have far better outcomes if they live in more humid environments, and this is a choice the patient makes.

Of your list of top reasons why people die in this country, all but germs (even getting sick/not seeking care when sick has a significant degree of choice) are caused by direct human intervention in their own lives... Choosing to drive, fucking some one picked up at a bar, smoking for 40 years, drinking for 40 years, eating at mcdonalds for 40 years... etc etc etc...

Shit, I need to have a point?

I just don't think legalization would be all roses like some advocates suggest. The fact is, drugs are bad for you, and illegality reduces drug use. To think there would be no negative consequences and all positive consequences from legalization is, IMO, misguided.

I agree with you that today, the vast majority of health problems are behavioral. But I think it's undeniable that behavior is strongly influenced by external factors. Tobacco and alcohol have been around forever, but it was only when they were mass produced and marketed that they became serious health problems. And I think the recent reductions in tobacco use have resulted largely from the widespread bans on public smoking as well as the increased taxes that have increased the price.

alcohol is the more commonly used/abused drug because of the culture as well as the law. in this case, i think the law allows alcohol because the culture demands it; instead of the idea that people just want to get twisted on whatever is legal.

i agree, legalization won't be all great and dandy. there'll be some pitfalls, a few false steps, a mess of accidents and probably horrible abuses. when the netherlands legalized, they saw a noticeable and immediate increase in use, which tapered off and reverted nearly back to the prior use rates after a few years. i don't believe that users are restricting themselves based on law. i smoke. its illegal.

interesting stats. keep in mind they are recent use, not "ever". Imagine for a moment that every person who ever smoked pot was caught the first time, and served several years in prison.


thats not really accurate. the psychoactive effects of marijuana and alcohol are similar insomuch as they both do effect the mind. But, the high from pot aint nothing much like the high from alcohol. the respiratory effects are quite similar to tobacco, more so than the similarity between alcohol+pot. if you smoke pot for long enough, you will die from lung cancer, just like a ciggie smoker. you don't have to smoke pot though. you can eat it.