From: [philsm t h] at [teleport.com] (Phil Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.oregon,alt.drugs,or.politics,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: 'The Oregonian' gets it wrong
Date: 21 Nov 1995 07:56:42 GMT
'The Oregonian'
To: Letters to the Editor
Nov. 19, 1995
To the Editor:
"National crime rate drops for third straight year" ('The Sunday
Oregonian,' Nov. 19, p. A15) takes a very short-term view to say
repeatedly that the rate of violent crime in America is declining
significantly. The syndicated story does this by comparing just-released
1994 crime figures to those of 1989 instead of, let's say, 1959. For
example, the report states that "The murder rate continued its recent
decline, similarly sinking to its lowest level since 1989, 9 murders per
100,000 people." The reality, which I believe most people appreciate
subjectively, is that the murder rate has remained at around 9.2 per
100,000 (plus or minus 1) over the past twenty years.
There is compelling evidence that about half of the homicides and
violence we are now experiencing are directly attributable to drug
prohibition. The following are homicide rates for the years prior to,
during, and following Prohibition of alcohol in the United States,
according to "Murder Statistics from Statistical Abstract of the
United States," U.S. Department of Commerce.
The ten years Prohibition Prohibition
preceding begins 1920 ends 1933
Prohibition
1910 - 4.6 1920 - 6.8 1933 - 9.7
1911 - 5.5 1921 - 8.1 1934 - 9.5
1912 - 5.4 1922 - 8.0 1935 - 8.3
1913 - 6.1 1923 - 7.8 1936 - 8.0
1914 - 6.2 1924 - 8.1 1937 - 7.6
1915 - 5.9 1925 - 8.3 1938 - 6.8
1916 - 6.3 1926 - 8.4 1939 - 6.4
1917 - 6.9 1927 - 8.4 1940 - 6.3
1918 - 6.5 1928 - 8.6 1941 - 6.0
1919 - 7.2 1929 - 8.4 1942 - 5.9
1930 - 8.8 1943 - 5.1
1931 - 9.2 1944 - 5.0
1932 - 9.0
Note that at its height, the homicide rate under Prohibition was similar
to modern homicide and non-negligent manslaughter rates as recorded
in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. After decreasing every single year
after Prohibition for 11 years, the homicide rate stabilized in the 1940s
through mid-1960s. Then it began rising again and has hovered around
9.2 per 100,000 (plus or minus 1) over the past twenty years - a period
that corresponds with the expansion of the war on drugs under presidents
Johnson, Nixon and then Reagan/Bush.
While the locally-written sidebar revealed that homicides in Oregon
actually rose from 141 to 148 and crimes against people increased 2.9
percent in 1994, I am concerned that your story's statements that things
are getting better might suggest to uninformed readers that our rapid
growth in prisons, three-strikes laws and punitive policies are having
a significantly beneficial effect. Clearly, they are not. As FBI Director
Louis Freeh says in your story, "the ominous increase in juvenile crime,
coupled with population trends, portend future crime and violence at
nearly unprecedented levels."
Economist Milton Friedman did a study on contemporary prohibition and
concluded that decriminalizing medicine would create an America with
"half the number of prisons, half the number of prisoners, ten thousand
fewer homicides a year [and] inner cities in which there's a chance for
these poor people to live without being afraid for their lives." (See
"Interview with Milton Friedman on the Drug War.")
I encourage you to make this information available to your readers.
(I will send a copy of the 14-page interview by email to
[O--di--s] at [aol.com], but it can also be found on the World Wide Web at
http://calyx.com/~schaffer/MISC/friedm1.html)
Phil Smith
Northeast Portland
http://calyx.com/~schaffer/MISC/friedm1.html
"Interview with Milton Friedman on the Drug War
"
The following is an excerpt from "Friedman & Szasz On Liberty and Drugs."
It is from a 1991 interview on "America's Drug Forum," a national public
affairs talk show that appears on public television stations. Randy Paige
is an Emmy Award-winning drug reporter from Baltimore, Maryland; Professor
Milton Friedman has been a Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution
on War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford since 1977, and is considered the
leader of the Chicago School of monetary economics. Professor Friedman won
the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science in 1976, and is also the
recipient of the National Medal of Science and the Presidential Medal of
Freedom by the U.S. government in 1988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paige: Let us deal first with the issue of legalization of drugs. How do
you see America changing for the better under that system?
Friedman: I see America with half the number of prisons, half the number of
prisoners, ten thousand fewer homicides a year, inner cities in which
there's a chance for these poor people to live without being afraid for
their lives, citizens who might be respectable who are now addicts not
being subject to becoming criminals in order to get their drug, being able
to get drugs for which they're sure of the quality. You know, the same
thing happened under prohibition of alcohol as is happening now.
Under prohibition of alcohol, deaths from alcohol poisoning, from poisoning
by things that were mixed in with the bootleg alcohol, went up sharply.
Similarly, under drug prohibition, deaths from overdose, from
adulterations, from adulterated substances have gone up.
Paige: How would legalization adversely affect America, in your view?
Friedman: The one adverse effect that legalization might have is that there
very likely would be more people taking drugs. That's not by any means
clear. But, if you legalized, you destroy the black market, the price of
drugs would go down drastically. And as an economist, lower prices tend to
generate more demand. However, there are some very strong qualifications to
be made to that.
The effect of criminalization, of making drugs criminal, is to drive people
from mild drugs to strong drugs.
Paige: In what way?
Friedman: Marijuana is a very heavy, bulky substance and, therefore, it's
relatively easy to interdict. The warriors on drugs have been more
successful interdicting marijuana than, let's say, cocaine. So, marijuana
prices have gone up, they've become harder to get. There's been an
incentive to grow more potent marijuana and people have been driven from
marijuana to heroin, or cocaine, or crack.
Paige: Let us consider another drug then, and that is the drug crack.
Friedman: Crack would never have existed, in my opinion, if you had not had
drug prohibition. Why was crack created? The preferred method of taking
cocaine, which I understand was by sniffing it, snorting it, became very
expensive and they were desperate to find a way of packaging cocaine...
Paige: The entrepreneurs?
Friedman: Of course, they're entrepreneurs. The people who are running the
drug traffic are no different from the rest of us, except that they have
more entrepreneurial ability and less concern about not hurting other
people. They're more irresponsible in that way. But they're in business and
they're trying to make as much as they can. And they discovered a good way
to make money was to dilute this crack with baking soda or whatever else--I
mean, cocaine, whatever else they do--I don't know the procedure--so that
they could bring it out in five dollar and ten dollar doses.
Paige: Let's talk about that more in a minute. But with regard to crack,
considering the fact that it's very addictive and considering the fact
that...
Friedman: That's very dubious. It is addictive, but I understand from all
the medical evidence that it's no more addictive than other drugs. In fact,
the most addictive drug everybody acknowledges is tobacco.
Paige: Well, let me rephrase that then. All of the information I've seen on
it suggests that it is a drug which is very pleasurable.
Friedman: Absolutely, no doubt.
Paige: And the effect of it is also very short.
Friedman: Yes.
Paige: And it is very expensive because multiple doses cost a lot of money.
My question is: If drugs were legalized and if crack cocaine were available
at a low cost, could it not be devastating in that it is so pleasurable, I
am told, that more people could get it and stay on it for longer periods of
time?
Friedman: Well, maybe. Nobody can say with certainty what will happen along
those lines. But I think it's very dubious, because all of the exper- ience
with legal drugs is that there's a tendency for people to go from the
stronger to the weaker and not the other way around, just as you go from
regular beer to light beer. That's the tendency that there is: from cigar-
ettes without filters to low-tar, filtered cigarettes, and so on. But I
can't rule out that what you're saying might happen, but, and this is a
very important but, the harm that would result from that would be much less
than it is now, for several reasons. The really main thing that bothers me
about the crack is not what you're talking about, it's the crack babies,
because that's the real tragedy. They are innocent victims. They didn't
choose to be crack babies any more than the people who are born with the
fetal alcohol syndrome.
Paige: As you now, we are already experiencing epidemic proportions of
that. One out of every four babies going into one hospital, I can tell you,
in Maryland is addicted.
Friedman: But I'll tell you, it isn't that crack babies are necessarily
addicted, but they tend to come in at low birth weight, they tend to come
in mentally impaired, and so on. But you know that the number who do that
from alcohol is much greater. So, the same problem arises there. That's
what bothers me.
Now suppose you legalized. Under current circumstances, a mother who is a
crack addict and is carrying a baby is afraid to go the prenatal treatment
because she turned herself into a criminal, she's subject to being thrown
in jail. Under legalized drugs, that inhibition would be off. And, you
know, even crack addicts, mothers, have a feeling of responsi- bility to
their children.
And I have no doubt that under those circumstances, it would be possible to
have a much more effective system of prenatal care, a much more effective
system of trying to persuade people who are on drugs not to have children
or to go off drugs while they have children.
Paige: Let us turn to the early genesis of your belief that the drug laws
may not be working the way the nation would hope them to. Tell me about the
elements that you saw early on that changed your mind or changed your way
of thinking.
Friedman: Well, I'm not saying "changed." I would rather say "formed" my
way of thinking, because I do not recall at any time that I was ever in
favor of prohibition of either alcohol or drugs. I grew up--I'm old enough
to have lived through some part of the Prohibition era.
Paige: And you remember it?
Friedman: I remember the occasion when a fellow graduate student at
Columbia from Sweden wanted to take me downtown to a restaurant for a
Swedish meal and introduced me to the Swedish drink aquavit. This was a
restaurant at which this Swedish fellow had been getting aquavit all during
Prohibition; they had been selling it to him. And this was just after the
repeal of Prohibition. We went there and he asked them for some aquavit.
They said, "Oh, no, we haven't gotten our licence yet." And finally, he
talked to them in Swedish and persuaded them to take us into the back where
they gave us a glass of aquavit apiece. Now that shows the absurdity of it.
Prohibition was repealed in 1933 when I was 21 years old, so was a teenager
during most of Prohibition. Alcohol was readily available. Bootlegging was
common. Any idea that alcohol prohibition was keeping people from drinking
was absurd. There were speakeasies all over the place. But more than that.
We had this spectacle of Al Capone, of the hijackings, of the gang wars...
Anybody with two eyes could see that this was a bad deal, that you were
doing more harm than good. In addition, I became an economist. And as an
economist, I came to recognize the importance of markets and of free choice
and of consumer sovereignty and came to discover the harm that was done
when you interfered with them. The laws against drugs were passed in 1914,
but there was no very great enforcement of it.
Paige: That was the Harrison Act?
Friedman: The Harrison Act. There was no very great enforcement of it until
after World War II, by which time I had been able to see the harmful
effects of price control, of rent control, of other attempts for government
to interfere with market things. So, it never occurred to me to be in favor
of it.
Paige: Was there any single event, anything you happened to witness that
made an impression upon you or was it...
Friedman: No, there was no single event. It was a cumulative effect.
Paige: Of course, you know that there are those who say that when
Prohibition was over with, consumption dramatically increased and that it
would be a...
Friedman: I beg your pardon, that's simply not true. That's not a fact.
What is true...
Paige: It has been argued. That has been argued.
Friedman: You have statistically reported figures in the books on the
amount of alcohol consumed. That went up sharply right after Prohibition,
but that was "illegal" alcohol consumption. If you take, as I have done,
the chart of alcohol consumption before and after Prohibition, alcohol
consumption after Prohibition came back roughly to where it was before,
and, over the course of the period since then, if anything, alcohol con-
sumption has been going down not in absolute terms, but relative to the
population and relative to the growth of income.
For a time, it went up rather slowly, along with income, with one except-
ion. During WW II, it shot way up. But that's what happened during WW I. Of
course, you never would have gotten Prohibition if you hadn't had all the
young men away in France when the vote was taken, so that the women had an
extraordinary influence on it. But the same thing happened during WW II.
And then after WW II, it settled down again. And more recently, the con-
sumption of alcohol has been going down on a per capita basis. So, it
simply is not true that there was a tremendous increase.
Friedman: So far as drugs itself is concerned, some years ago, Alaska
legalized marijuana. Consumption of marijuana among high school students in
Alaska went DOWN. The Dutch, in Holland, do not prosecute soft drugs, like
marijuana, and they would prefer not to prosecute hard drugs, but they feel
impelled by the international obligations they've entered into, and
consumption of marijuana by young people has gone down. And, equally more
interesting, the average age of the users of hard drugs has gone up, which
means they're not getting any more new recruits.
So, the evidence is very mixed. But I have to admit that the one negative
feature of legalizing drugs is that there might be some additional drug
habbits. However, I want to qualify that in still another way.
The Child who's shot in a slum in a pass-by-shooting, in a random shooting,
is an innocent victim in every respect of the term. The person who decides
to take drugs for himself is not an innocent victim. He has chosen himself
to be a victim. And I must say I have very much less sympathy for him. I do
not think it is moral to impose such heavy costs on other people to protect
people from their own choices.
Paige: For us to understand the real root of those beliefs, how about if we
just talk a minute about free market economic perspective, and how you see
the proper role of government in its dealings with the individual.
Friedman: The proper role of government is exactly what John Stuart Mill
Said in the middle of the 19th century in "On Liberty." The proper role of
government is to prevent other people from harming an individual. Govern-
ment, he said, never has any right to interfere with an individual for that
individual's own good.
The case for prohibiting drugs is exactly as strong and as weak as the case
for prohibiting people from overeating. We all know that overeating causes
more deaths than drugs do. If it's in principle OK for the government to
say you must not consume drugs because they'll do you harm, why isn't it
all right to say you must not eat too much because you'll do harm? Why
isn't it all right to say you must not try to go in for skydiving because
you're likely to die? Why isn't it all right to say, "Oh, skiing, that's no
good, that's a very dangerous sport, you'll hurt yourself"? Where do you
draw the line?
Paige: Well, I would bet that former drug czar William Bennet, some other
folks along those lines, would probably suggest that the present sale and
distribution of illegal drugs is, in fact, an enterprise which harms
another person and the government has to step in...
Friedman: [Simultaneously] It does harm a great many...
Paige:...to protect the vulnerable.
Friedman: It does harm a great many other people, but primarily because
it's prohibited. There are an enormous number of innocent victims now.
You've got the people whose purses are stolen, who are bashed over the head
by people trying to get enough money for their next fix. You've got the
people killed in the random drug wars. You've got the corruption of the
legal establishment. You've got the innocent victims who are taxpayers who
have to pay for more and more prisons, and more and more prisoners, and
more and more police. You've got the rest of us who don't get decent law
enforcement because all the law enforcement officials are busy trying to do
the impossible.
Friedman: And, last, but not least, you've got the people of Colombia and
Peru and so on. What business do we have destroying and leading to the
killing of thousands of people in Colombia because we cannot enforce our
own laws? If we could enforce our laws against drugs, there would be no
market for these drugs. You wouldn't have Colombia in the state it's in.
Paige: Is it not true that the entire discussion here, the entire drug
problem is an economic problem to...
Friedman: No, it's not an economic problem at all, it's a moral problem.
Paige: In what way?
Friedman: I'm an economist, but the economics problem is strictly tertiary.
It's a moral problem. It's a problem of the harm which the government is
doing.
I have estimated statistically that the prohibition of drugs produces, on
the average, ten thousand homicides a year. It's a moral problem that the
government is going around killing ten thousand people. It's a moral
problem that the government is making into criminals people, who may be
doing something you and I don't approve of, but who are doing something
that hurts nobody else. Most of the arrests for drugs are for possession by
casual users.
Now here's somebody who wants to smoke a marijuana cigarette. If he's
caught, he goes to jail. Now is that moral? Is that proper? I think it's
absolutely disgraceful that our government, supposed to be our government,
should be in the position of converting people who are not harming others
into criminals, of destroying their lives, putting them in jail. That's the
issue to me. The economic issue comes in only for explaining why it has
those effects. But the economic reasons are not the reasons.
Of course, we're wasting money on it. Ten, twenty, thirty billion dollars a
year, but that's trivial. We're wasting that much money in many other ways,
such as buying crops that ought never to be produced.
Paige: There are many who would look at the economics--how the eco- nomics
of the drug business is affecting America's major inner cities, for
example.
Friedman: Of course it is, and it is because it's prohibited. See, if you
look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the
government is to protect the drug cartel. That's literally true.
Paige: Is it doing a good job of it?
Friedman: Excellent. What do I mean by that? In an ordinary free
market--let's take potatoes, beef, anything you want--there are thousands
of importers and exporters. Anybody can go into the business. But it's very
hard for a small person to go into the drug importing business because our
interdiction efforts essentially make it enormously costly. So, the only
people who can survive in that business are these large Medellin cartel
kind of people who have enough money so they can have fleets of airplanes,
so they can have sophisticated methods, and so on.
In addition to which, by keeping goods out and by arresting, let's say,
local marijuana growers, the government keeps the price of these products
high. What more could a monopolist want? He's got a government who makes it
very hard for all his competitors and who keeps the price of his products
high. It's absolutely heaven.
Paige: Of course, you know that there are conspiracy theorists who suggest
it's there for a reason, and that's because governments are in cahoots with
the drug runners; you wouldn't say that.
Friedman: No, it's not. I don't say that at all. You know, over and over
again in government policy, good intentions go awry. And the reason good
intentions go awry is because you're spending somebody else's money.
Paige: Many would say that a lot of your theories are grounded in the
notion of personal interest; if it is in an individual's personal interest
to do something, he or she will do that.
Friedman: That's not a theory, and there's nobody who will deny it. Is
there anybody who will deny that you can expect every person to pursue his
own personal interests? Now those personal interests don't have to be
narrow. Mother Theresa is pursuing her own personal interest just as much
as Donald Trump is pursuing his. But they're both pursuing the personal
interest.
Paige: Some would say that that notion--that personal interest is what
propels societies as well as people--is a heartless philosophy and that the
underclass would not fare well under that kind of a notion. You've heard
that before.
Friedman: Yes, of course. But the evidence is so overwhelming. The only
countries in the world in which low income people have managed to get a
halfway decent level of living are those which rely on capitalist markets.
Just compare the quality of life, the level of living of the ordinary
people in Russia and ordinary people in, I won't say the U.S., but in
France, in Italy, in Germany, in England, or in Hong Kong. Compare Hong
Kong with mainland China.
Every society is driven by personal interest. Mainland China is driven by
personal interest. The question is: How is personal interest disciplined?
If the only way you can satisfy your personal interest is by getting
something that other people want to pay for. You've got to...
Page: Or by forcing down other people's throats at the point of a gun, I
suppose.
Friedman: If you can do it.
Paige: At the extreme.
Friedman: At the extreme. But that won't get their cooperation. You may be
able to kill them. You may be able to take their wealth. But it won't
create any more wealth. So, the only societies which have been able to
create broadly based relative prosperity have been those societies which
have relied primarily on capitalist markets. That's true whether you take
Hong Kong versus mainland China, East Germany versus West Germany,
Czechoslovakia before WW II and current. You cannot find a single exception
to that proposition.
Adam Smith put it best over two hundred years ago, when he said people who
intend only to pursue their self-interest are led by an invisible hand to
promote the public interest even though that was no part of their
intention. Mr. Ford did not develop the Ford car for the public interest.
He did it for his private interest.
Paige: But Adam Smith also saw a role for government, for example, in the
administration of justice, didn't he?
Friedman: So do I. I am not a zero government person. I think there is a
real role of government. And one of the reasons I object to so many of the
things that government has gotten into is that it prevents government from
performing its proper role. A basic role of government is to keep you from
having our house burgled, to keep you from being hit over the head. And
because the larger fraction of our law enforcement machinery is devoted to
the war on drugs, you haven't got that kind of safety.
Paige: But, of course, there is clearly the argument that if the police
come and pick up a person who is addicted to a drug and does not have the
money to buy those drugs, then they're also taking a potential burglar off
the street who's going to come and get my house, right? Friedman: They are,
but they'll be more of them coming on, as we know, and besides what are you
going to do with them. Are you going to house them? A majority of those
people who are arrested are simply arrested for possession, they're casual
users.
Paige: However, the sixty-five, seventy-five-year-old woman who looks out
her window and sees drug dealers out in the street and she sees them
carrying guns and selling drugs thirty feet from her front door has a right
to call police and say, "I want these people off the street."
Friedman: Absolutely.
Paige: And police should take them off the street. Correct?
Friedman: Absolutely. But it's a mistake to have a law which makes that the
main function of the police. I don't blame the police. I don't blame that
woman. I don't blame the drug dealers.
Paige: In what way?
Friedman: We put them in a position where that's the thing to do. When we
say to a young man in the ghetto, "Look, you get a reasonable job at
McDonald's or anyplace else, you'll make five, six, seven dollars an hour.
But on the other hand, here's this opportunity to peddle drugs in the
street." Why does the juvenile have the opportunity? Because the law is
easier on juveniles than it is on adults.
Paige: But how would you see legalization affecting poor in this country?
Friedman: The poor? It depends on which poor. But in the main, legalization
as such would not have a major effect on the poor. It would provide better
opportunities for the poor by rendering the inner cities safe and a place
where you might have some decent, proper business. It would provide an
opportunity to do more to improve schooling. The deterior- ation of the
schooling, which is another case of ineffective socialism, has as much to
do with the problems in the inner city as drugs do. Drugs aren't the only
thing at work.
But I don't believe that legalization should be viewed primarily as a way
to help the poor. Legalization is a way to stop--in our forum as citizens--
a government from using our power to engage in the immoral behavior of
killing people, taking lives away from people in the U.S., in Colombia and
elsewhere, which we have no business doing.
Paige: So, you see the role of government right now as being just as deadly
as if Uncle Sam were to take a gun to somebody's head.
Friedman: That's what he's doing, of course. Right now Uncle Sam is not
only taking a gun to somebody's head, he's taking his property without due
process of law. The drug enforcers are expropriating property, in many
cases of innocent people on whom they don't have a real warrant. We're
making citizens into spies and informers. We tell people to call up, you
don't have to give your name, just give your suspicions. That's a terrible
way to run what's supposed to be a free country.
Paige: Let us turn in the final few minutes then to specifically what your
vision is then. Under your system, if you could make a wish and have it
come true, what system would that be? How would you legalize drugs? How
would you go about doing that?
Friedman: I would legalize drugs by subjecting them to exactly the same
rules that alcohol and cigarettes are subjected to now. Alcohol and cigar-
ettes cause more deaths than drugs do, by far, from use, but many fewer
innocent victims. And the major innocent victims, in that case, are the
people who are killed by drunk drivers. And we ought to enforce the law
against drunk driving, just as we ought to enforce the law against driving
under the influence of marijuana, or cocaine, or anything else.
But I would, as a first step at least, treat the drugs exactly the same way
we now treat alcohol and tobacco, no different.
Paige: You know what Representative Charles Rangel (D-New York) would say.
Friedman: I have heard Charles Rangel. He's a demagogue, who has had no
relationship between what he says and the interests of his own constitu-
ents. His own constituents, the people he serves, are among the people who
would be benefited the most by legalization of drugs. Charles Rangel is
pursuing his own self-interest.
Paige: Forgive me for throwing out a name, but I just wanted to mention a
typical response to that would be if you treat it like alcohol, you're
talking about full-page ads in magazines with cocaine. You're talking about
TV advertisers. You're talking about buying cocaine...
Friedman: I beg your pardon. TV advertising is forbidden today for alcohol.
Paige: For hard liquor, that's all.
Friedman: For hard liquor. And I say treat this the same way as you would
treat Alcohol. So, presumably such ads would be forbidden for this.
But, of course, in any event I'm not prohibiting anybody from reading Mr.
Rangel, and his ideas are at least as dangerous as those full-page ads
you're talking about.
Paige: What scares you the most about the notion of drugs being legal?
Friedman: Nothing scares me about the notion of drugs being legal.
Paige: Nothing.
Friedman: What scares me is the notion of continuing on the path we're on
now, which will destroy our free society, making it an uncivilized place.
There's only one way you can really enforce the drug laws currently. The
only way to do that is to adopt the policies of Saudi Arabia, Singa- pore,
which some other countries adopt, in which a drug addict is subject to
capital punishment or, at the very least, having his hand chopped off. If
we were willing to have penalties like that--but would that be a society
you'd want to live in?
Paige: Do these notions seem obvious to you?
Friedman: Yes. I have thought about them for a long time. I have observed
behavior in this country and in other countries for a long time. And I find
it almost incredible how people can support the present system of drug
prohibition. It does so much more harm than good.
Paige: If it is obvious, why is it that you're in such a minority,
particularly among...?
Friedman: Of course. Very good question. And the answer is because there
are so many vested interests that have been built up behind the present
drug war. Who are the people who are listened to about drugs? The people
who have the obligation to enforce drug laws. They think they're doing the
right thing. They're good human beings. Everybody thinks what he's doing is
worth doing. Nobody is doing it for evil motives. But it's the same thing
all over the government.
Paige: Wouldn't you agree that fear is one of the strongest supports for
the existing drug laws? Fear that, without them, the bottom would fall out.
Friedman: Yes, but it's a fake fear and it's a fear that is promoted.
Listen to what the former drug czar, Mr. Bennet, said. First of all, he
stated that consumption of alcohol after Prohibition has gone up three or
fourfold or something. He was wrong, just factually wrong. He's made all
sorts of scare talk about how many new addicts there would be. He's never
provided a single bit of evidence, never provided any examples of any other
place or anything. But why? Because he's got a job to do.
Paige: Vested interests, you're saying.
Friedman: Vested interests, self-interest, the same self-interest that
people object to in the market. But in the market, if you start a project
and it goes wrong, you have to finance it out of your own pocket.
Paige: Last question. You have grandchildren.
Friedman: Absolutely.
You have a two-year-old granddaughter.
Friedman: Yes.
Paige: And her name is?
Friedman: Her name is Becca.
Paige: When you look at Becca, what do you see for her and for her future?
Friedman: That depends entirely upon what you and your fellow citizens do
to our country. If you and your fellow citizens continue on moving more and
more in the direction of socialism, not only inspired through your drug
prohibition, but through your socialization of schools, the socialization
of medicine, the regulation of industry, I see for my granddaughter the
equivalent of Soviet communism three years ago.
Paige: Do you worry about drugs affecting your granddaughter somehow?
Friedman: I don't worry about drugs, but I worry about government doing
something about drugs. I do not worry about her getting addicted to drugs.
She has good parents. Her parents will provide her with good role models...
Paige: I just mean the violence surrounding the drug trade, just the...
Friedman: The violence is due to prohibition and nothing else. How much
violence is there surrounding the alcohol trade. There's some, only because
we prohibit the sale of alcohol to children, which we should do, and
there's some because we impose very high taxes on alcohol and, as a result,
there's some incentive for bootlegging. But there's no other violence
around it.
[End]