On Gangs, Drugs, Crime and Poverty

Here is an incredibly interesting article from the Times on the experience of a former foster child and gang member who escaped her situation to eventually graduate college and become an author, a homeowner and a mother. And all the while staying intimately connected with her former life and helping others in similar unfortunate circumstances. The article alone, with no additional commentary, is well worth a read.

Explaining to her daughter why her “uncle”, a gang leader in the Bloods, was in prison, the woman said the following:

“I told her, don’t worry about it, he didn’t do anything bad. He just got caught up selling drugs.”

On the surface this seems like an alarmingly blase description of drug dealing. But is it? Americans have an unusual propensity to label any sort of drug related activity as reprehensible. The consequences of this anti-drug obsession has been pretty unambiguously negative in terms of fostering a subculture of drug sellers and users; thereby creating a breeding ground for crime, poverty, addiction and so on.

I am by no means the first to make the argument, but I support near universal drug legalization. I cannot think of a single public policy effort that would be as effective at delivering such a sweeping blow to crime, poverty and every other related plight disproportionately effecting minorities and inner-city poor.

First of all, in terms of adverse effects and cost, are prescription painkillers and other legalized, but regulated drugs really all that distinguishable from illicit drugs? It is not remotely inconceivable that the private market with some government control could more safely and effectively manage drug trade.

Secondly, there is no reason to think that by legalizing drugs you are endorsing more heavy drug use. It is not at all clear to me that more people will use drugs once they are legalized. The cost of illicit drugs now is primarily the risk of incarceration and violence. It is possible to eliminate those negative costs which have serious externalities and feedback effects and replace them with a tax that will price drugs at a level where demand is relatively the same or lower than under current conditions. Revenue and money saved in the justice system can then be invested toward addressing the issues of addiction, health, poverty, etc. In other words, we could spend money helping people with drug problems rather than throwing them in prison or condemning them to a life of crime and degeneracy.

I’ve never really explicitly make this argument before. What am I missing?

Update: Check out this video by Jeff Miron (HT: Mankiw)