The underground market for drugs is like any other market economy. Like all other markets, it is governed by the forces of supply and demand. When speaking about these concepts, it is valuable to have a concrete definition to return to. Supply, as defined in “Essentials of Economics” is “The ability and willingness to sell (produce) specific quantities of a good at alternative prices in a given time period, ceteris paribus.” (Schiller, 50). Similarly, demand is “The ability and willingness to buy specific quantities of a good at alternative prices in a given time period, ceteris paribus.” (Schiller, 50).
Regrettably, the demand for drugs is considered to be relatively inelastic (at least in the short term). As a result, an increase in prices,
…show more content…
This is achieved by the police force, acting as an instrument of government against drug production. Their aim is to arrest as many individuals as is conceivable. This is their attempt to reduce supply in order to decrease the equilibrium quantity of the drugs bought and sold on the market. This policy requires maximum spending, and results in minimal returns. It is also ineffective, as its objective is to halt the exchange between willing buyers and sellers, which is both costly and ineffective. Consumers seek alternative, or substitute means of satisfying their wants, that are both risky and expensive. Banning a product simply drives the market underground, prices are higher than they otherwise would, and quality and diversity as well as quantity decreases. Attempting to halt the market process, that exchange between willing buyers and sellers is practically impossible. Lucrative profits in the illegal drug industry brings more individuals into the trade. When government agencies and law enforcement eliminate small time sellers and suppliers, they are maintaining the monopolies of the cartels. Supply is reduced, and prices go up, leading to increased income for the remaining suppliers. In this scenario, both production and supply are constrained. Large producers and sellers have a monopoly of sale. They create their own …show more content…
It must be consistent in its application. Prohibitive systems have failed in this regard, they are rife with inconsistencies even in what constitutes an illegal drug. Is there really that much difference between marijuana and cigarettes? Or alcohol? All of them have been proven to be addictive with consistent use, and all produce some negative externalities. Prohibition results in only moderately reduced levels of drug consumption. Simply put, high costs and numerous negative externalities outweigh the small benefits that restrictive policies produce. With this in mind, the natural conclusion is that a restrictive, prohibitionist policy is a poor means to the objective of reducing drug use. After all, economics is the study of how best to allocate scarce resources among competing
Legalizing the use of soft drugs would help bolster the U.S. economy, partially because the government would have the ability to tax these drugs. This includes marijuana used for medicinal purposes, which, according to a 1995 article in The Journal of the American Medical Association, can “counteract the toxicity of chemotherapy, treat migraines, minimize pain, and treat moderate wasting syndrome in AIDS patients.” The economy would also benefit from the legalization of drugs because fewer drug offenders would crowd the prisons, and the government could spend the money they saved from this reduction in prison populations on other public expenses. With drug busts running at 750,000 cases a year nationwide, (mostly for marijuana,) prisons are bulging, and those imprisoned for drug-related crime account for only a fraction of America’s drug users. In Elliot Currie’s essay, “Toward a Policy on Drugs,”...
Before the mid 1900’s the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act was formed to tax those making, importing or selling any derivative of opium or coca leaves. In the 1920s, doctors became aware of the highly addictive nature of opioids and started to avoid treating patients with them (Center, 2004). In 1924 heroin became illegal. However according to a history published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2003, anesthesiologists opened "nerve block clinics" in the 1950s and 1960s to manage pain without having to resort to surgery (Meldrum, 2003). This push for treating pain without surgery was a major factor in the opioid epidemic we see today. In 2008 the overdose death rate was almost four times the rate in 1999, and the sales of prescription pain relievers in 2010 were four times higher than in 1999 (Paulozzi et al, 2011). The substance use disorder treatment admission rate is also greater than in 1999, with it having been six times higher in 2009. Chasing Heroin’s claims surrounding the fear of prescribing pain medications is accurate as you see an increase in public policies surrounding opiate use in the early 1900’s. The climbing rates of overdose deaths and the increased amount of people seeking addiction treatment suggests that the fear of prescription opiates was
Almost one hundred years ago, prescription drugs like morphine were available at almost any general store. Women carried bottles of very addictive potent opiate based pain killers in their purse. Many individuals like Edgar Allen Poe died from such addictions. Since that time through various federal, state and local laws, drugs like morphine are now prescription drugs; however, this has not stopped the addiction to opiate based pain killers. Today’s society combats an ever increasing number of very deadly addictive drugs from designer drugs to narcotics to the less potent but equally destructive alcohol and marijuana. With all of these new and old drugs going in and out of vogue with addicts, it appears that the increase of misuse and abuse is founded greater in the prescription opiate based painkillers.
America's War on Drugs: Policy and Problems. In this paper I will evaluate America's War on Drugs. More specifically, I will outline our nation's general drug history and look critically at how Congress has influenced our current ineffective drug policy. Through this analysis, I hope to show that drug prohibition policies in the United States, for the most part, have failed.
Some of the most prominent economists already involved in the issue are Jeffrey Miron and Mark Thornton. One strand of the discussion comes from Jeffrey Miron 2004. He discusses the current battle with the regulation and legalization of drugs in the United States and provides an analysis of the problems associated with prohibition. Miron offers a balanced, sophisticated and in-depth analysis of the true costs, benefits, and consequences of strictly enforcing drug prohibition. He argues that the effects of prohibition on drug use have been modest at best and have numerous highly unfavorable detrimental side effects. Specifically, prohibition is shown to directly increase violence, even when it deters drug use. Miron's analysis leads to the alarming discovery that the more resources given to the war on drugs, the higher the homicide rate. He provides a cost-benefit analysis on several alternatives to the war on drugs. His conclusion is indisputable. He proclaims that any of the numerous and widely discussed alternatives are likely to be a substantial improvement over the current policy of total
Lately it seems that drug policy and the war on drugs has been in the headlines quite a lot. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the policies that the United States government takes against illegal drugs are coming into question. The mainstream media is catching on to the message of organizations and individuals who have long been considered liberal "Counter Culture" supporters. The marijuana question seems to be the most prevalent and pressed of the drugs and issues that are currently being addressed. The messages of these organizations and individuals include everything from legalization of marijuana for medical purposes, to full-unrestricted legalization of the drug. Of course, the status quo of vote seeking politicians and conservative policy makers has put up a strong resistance to this "new" reform lobby. The reasons for the resistance to the changes in drug policies are multiple and complex. The issues of marijuana’s possible negative effects, its use as a medical remedy, the criminality of distribution and usage, and the disparity in the enforcement of current drug laws have all been brought to a head and must be addressed in the near future. It is apparent that it would be irresponsible and wrong for the government to not evaluate it’s current general drug policies and perhaps most important, their marijuana policy. With the facts of racial disparity in punishment, detrimental effects, fiscal strain and most importantly, the history of the drug, the government most certainly must come to the conclusion that they must, at the very least, decriminalize marijuana use and quite probably fully legalize it.
Drug trafficking has been a massive concern between the borders of Mexico and the U.S. “since mid 1970s” (Wyler, 1). Drug trafficking is “knowingly being in possession, manufacturing, selling, purchasing, or delivering an illegal, controlled substance” (LaMance, 1). A dynamic relationship exists amongst Columbia, Mexico, and the U.S. the informal drug trafficking economy. This growing informal drug economy leads to many individuals creating a substantial living through this undercover market. These individual drug cartels monopolizing the trafficking market are a growing problem for the U.S economy and need to be located and controlled. If this trafficking continues, the U.S. informal economy will crush the growth of legal industries. The trafficking and abuse of drugs in the U.S. affects nearly all aspects of consumer life. Drug trafficking remains a growing issue and concern to the U.S. government. The U.S. border control must find a way to work with Mexico to overpower the individuals who contribute to the drug trafficking business. This market must be seized and these individuals must be stopped.
be beneficial.” In: Scott Barbour (Ed.), Drug Legalization: Current Controversies. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000, pp. 102-108.
A “drug-free society” has never existed, and probably will never exist, regardless of the many drug laws in place. Over the past 100 years, the government has made numerous efforts to control access to certain drugs that are too dangerous or too likely to produce dependence. Many refer to the development of drug laws as a “war on drugs,” because of the vast growth of expenditures and wide range of drugs now controlled. The concept of a “war on drugs” reflects the perspective that some drugs are evil and war must be conducted against the substances
With the opinion of the American people becoming more allowing of low-level drug use, and the successful monetary generation in states like Colorado, we are now seeing viable alternatives to spending billions of dollars in failed efforts to restrict drug use, unfair imprisonment of minorities, and a dependence of drug users on violent cartels. The opinions of society is ever-changing, and this will certainly have an effect on our drug laws an policies. It is apparent that the negative stigma surrounding recreational drug use -at least with marijuana- is slowly diminishing.
Sasha Abramsky, writing in the liberal magazine, the Nation, uses California as an example in which getting rid of the harsh drug policies would be a huge benefit to the economy. In the article titled “The War Against the ‘War on Drugs,’” Abramsky finds a correlation between the drug policies and incarceration rates. Abramsky writes about how some of the state’s political figures are finding that the war on drugs is “responsible for the spike in prison populations over the past thirty years” and they agree that the California’s drug policies “are not financially viable and no longer command majority support among the voting public” (18). Abramsky then goes on to discuss in the article how liberal politicians, Betty Yee and Tom Ammiano, are pushing for a bill to change the drug laws and legalize marijuana. Yee wants to excise “fees on business owners applying for marijuana licenses, impose an excise tax on sellers and charge buyers a sales tax” and if that is done the right way, she believes that the state could gain “about $1.3 billion a year”
The current situation of drug control in the United States is imperfect and inadequate. Millions of men and women, both young and old, are affected by illicit drug use. It costs the United States about $6,123 every second because of drug use and its consequences (Office). Moreover, 90 percent of all adults with a substance use disorder started using under the age of 18 and half under the age of 15. Children who first smoke marijuana under the age of 14 are five times more likely to abuse drugs as adults than those who first use marijuana at age 18. Finally, the children of alcoholics are four times more likely to develop problems with alcohol (Prevent). Current legislation that has to do with the United States’ drug control policy is the Controlled Substances Act, which regulates the manufacture, importation, possession, use, and distribution of certain substances (Shannon). In 1966, Congress passed the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act also known as the NARA. This legislati...
Using the resources and personnel given from the President’s drug policy, we can evaluate the efficiency of this policy. The increase in budget will aid in providing equipment, training, and staff to abolish the drug organizations. The statistical reports on the decrease of young drug-abusers have shown that the success of the President’s drug policy is effective.
Thies, C. F., & Register, C. (1993). Decriminalization of marijuana and demand for alcohol, marijuana and cocaine. The Social Sciences Journal, 30(4), 385-399.
65-92 Riga, Peter J. " Legalization Would Help Solve The Nation's Drug Problem. " Greenhaven Press. 52-54 Rosenthal, A.M. " The Case For Slavery." Kennedy, Kennedy, and Aaron 370-372 " Two Crucial Issues in the Argument for Drug Legalization."