The Liberal Order blog - Now That the Hippies are Retiring . . .
. . . members of the American Association of Retired People (AARP) are increasingly for legalizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes.
Among the 1,706 adults age 45 and older who were polled in November, opinions varied along regional and generational lines and among the 30 percent of respondents who said they had smoked marijuana. AARP members represented 37 percent of the respondents.
Over all, 72 percent of respondents agreed "adults should be allowed to legally use marijuana for medical purposes if a physician recommends it." Those in the Northeast (79 percent) and West (82 percent) were more receptive to the idea than in the Midwest (67 percent) and Southwest (65 percent). In Southern states, 70 percent agreed with the statement.
Seventy-four percent of all those surveyed thought marijuana is addictive.
Although polling data on drug use is mixed, it is becoming less of a taboo as those born after 1945 make up a greater percentage of the population. Rand has the summary of a colloquium on illicit drug use and its future here.
Are there reasons to think drug problems and policy could change rapidly again over the next 5 to 20 years? We believe so. In this issue paper, we lay out some reasons behind our belief and its implications for current policy.
In response to assertions that legalizing (or de-criminalizing) illicit drugs will lead to an increase in drug use many libertarians counter that drug use would not increase all that much. I believe this to be false. The demand for marijuana, cocaine, and heroin (these three account for 90% of all illicit drug use) is certainly relatively inelastic (the real price of cocaine has decreased by about 50% since the mid 80s with only a moderate increase in use since then), but the exogenous change of de-criminalizing drugs will likely shift the demand curve out, at least moderately and more likely considerably through time.
Jeffery Miron's piece, "The Economic Case Against Drug Prohibition" is a persuasive argument against drug laws.
Froma Harrop makes a good public choice argument for why the DEA and other political interests will resist any easing of existing drug prohibitions.
Do the math: The DEA has nearly 11,000 employees and a $2 billion budget. America last year arrested 1.6 million people for nonviolent drug offenses. Half were for marijuana (with 80 percent for possession). The number of marijuana arrests, 734,000, nearly equaled the entire population of South Dakota. Imagine what legalizing marijuana would do to the DEA's cash flow.
Marijuana has yet to kill anyone, yet anti-drug advocacy groups like the Partnership for a Drug-Free America portray it as a scourge. And why not? Condemning marijuana helps score $20 million in annual revenues for the Manhattan-based nonprofit. Its president makes a quarter of a million, and the next five highest-paid employees rake in close to $200,000 apiece.
There's far less money in opposing the war on drugs. Just ask Jack Cole, a former undercover narcotics agent who helped found a group called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. The members are mostly cops, judges, corrections officers and former DEA agents who think the "war" amounts to throwing $69 billion down the rat hole. |
