Economic arguments for drug law reform Arguments for and against drug prohibition

1 economic arguments drug law reform

1.1 creation of drug cartels
1.2 effect on producer countries
1.3 prohibition of hemp industry

economic arguments drug law reform

the united states efforts @ drug prohibition started out $350 million budget in 1971, , in 2006 $30 billion campaign. these numbers include direct prohibition enforcement expenditures, , such represent part of total cost of prohibition. $30 billion figure rises dramatically once other issues, such economic impact of holding 400,000 prisoners on prohibition violations, factored in.

the war on drugs extremely costly such societies outlaw drugs in terms of taxpayer money, lives, productivity, inability of law enforcement pursue mala in se crimes, , social inequality. proponents of decriminalization financial , social costs of drug law enforcement far exceed damages drugs cause. instance, in 1999, close 60,000 prisoners (3.3% of total incarcerated population) convicted of violating marijuana laws behind bars @ cost taxpayers of $1.2 billion per year. in 1980, total jail , prison population 540,000, one-quarter size today. drug offenders accounted 6% of prisoners. according federal bureau of prisons, drug offenders account 51%.

it has been argued if government legalised marijuana save $7.7 billion per year in expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. also, marijuana legalization yield tax revenue of $2.4 billion annually if taxed other goods , $6.2 billion annually if taxed @ rates comparable on alcohol , tobacco.

the creation of drug cartels

mass arrests of local growers of marijuana, example, not increase price of local drugs, lessens competition. major retailers can handle massive shipments, have own small fleet of aircraft, troops defend caravans , other sophisticated methods of eluding police (such lawyers), can survive regulation of free market government

[…] because s prohibited. see, if @ drug war purely economic point of view, role of government protect drug cartel. s literally true.

effect on producer countries

the united states war on drugs has added considerably political instability in south america. huge profits made cocaine , other south american-grown drugs largely because illegal in wealthy neighbouring nation. drives people in relatively poor countries of colombia, peru, bolivia , brazil break own laws in organising cultivation, preparation , trafficking of cocaine states. has allowed criminal, paramilitary , guerrilla groups reap huge profits, exacerbating serious law-and-order , political problems. within bolivia, political rise of current president evo morales directly related grassroots movement against us-sponsored coca-eradication , criminalization policies. however, coca has been cultivated centuries in andes. among various legitimate uses, coca leaves chewed mild stimulant & appetite suppression effects, , steeped tea known reduce effects of human altitude sickness. rural farmers in poor regions in coca has historically been cultivated find @ difficult , potentially violent intersection of government-sponsored eradication efforts, illegal cocaine producers & traffickers seeking coca supplies, anti-government paramilitary forces trafficking in cocaine source of revolutionary funding, , historical hardships of rural subsistence farming (or typical alternative – abandoning land , fleeing urban slum). in regions, farmers coca , other crops destroyed u.s.-sponsored eradication treatments (usually sprayed air varying degrees of discrimination), whether or not farmers directly supply cocaine trade, thereby destroying livelihoods. agricultural producers in these countries pushed further grow coca cocaine trade dumping of subsidised farming products (fruit, vegetables, grain etc.) produced western countries (predominantly , eu agricultural surpluses) (see bbc reference, below), reduces prices otherwise receive alternate crops such maize. net effect can depression of prices crops, can both make farmer s livelihood more precarious, , make cocaine producers coca supplies cheaper.

after providing significant portion of world s poppy use in heroin production, afghanistan went producing practically no illegal drugs in 2000 (following banning taliban), cultivating as 90% of world s opium. taliban believed heavily supported opium trade there.

furthermore, sale of illegal drugs produces influx of dollars outside formal economy, , puts pressure on currency exchange keeping dollar low , making export of legal products more difficult.

prohibition of hemp industry

the war on drugs has resulted in outlawing of entire hemp industry in united states. hemp, special cultivar of cannabis sativa, not have significant amounts of psychoactive (thc) substances in it, less 1%. without realizing plant had been outlawed several months prior, popular mechanics magazine published article in 1938 entitled new billion-dollar crop anticipating explosion of hemp industry invention of machines process it. recently, governmental refusal take advantage of taxing hemp has been point of criticism. hemp has large list of potential industrial uses including textiles, paper, rope, fuel, construction materials, , biocomposites (for use in cars example). hemp has drawbacks, however, 1 being long fibers in hemp part of outer bast, , has contributed hemp having modest commercial success in countries (for example in canada) legal harvest hemp.

the seed of hemp plant highly nutritious. rare plant, contains essential amino acids. rare food, source of alpha-linolenic acid, omega 3 fatty acid deficient in diets.