Drug War Crimes: The Consequences of Prohibition

By Jeffrey A. Miron
Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute, 2004

With the publication of Drug War Crimes, Jeffrey Miron continues to bring his voice as a libertarian economist to debate on drug policy. From this standpoint, he elaborates his key argument that the social ills widely attributed to illegal drugs result largely from their prohibition, rather than from their use per se. Although this argument echoes many longstanding critiques of prohibition, Miron distinguishes himself from mainstream opponents to the drug war by taking the avowedly libertarian position that “reduced drug use is not, in general, an appropriate goal for government policy” (p. 2). He minces no words in calling for the outright legalization of all drugs, rather than their decriminalization or medicalization, and advocates treating them like any other consumer good (p. 5, & Chs. 6-7). Even more controversially, Miron opposes all forms of state intervention to reduce drug use, from subsidized treatment to sin taxes and restrictions on advertising (pp. 79-83).

The core of Drug War Crimes, however, is devoted less to elaborating Miron’s libertarian model of total legalization than to a nuanced economic analysis of prohibition-based policies and their consequences. I found his analysis particularly insightful for its elucidation of various interacting dynamics of supply and demand in illegal drug markets, which usually escape consideration (Ch. 2). Miron focuses on these dynamics to refute the common assumption that prohibition drives prices to stratospheric levels, and also uses them to demonstrate convincingly that the effects of prohibition on rates of drug consumption are negligible (Chs. 2-3).

The book impressed me less favorably at other points, where Miron clings myopically to the formalities of economics at the expense of appreciating the human reality enciphered in his analysis. From my dual perspective as an academic and street cop, I was especially troubled by Miron’s gross underestimation of the horrific ills immediately attributable to drug use (esp. Ch. 5). Presenting these ills as abstract “externalities” (pp. 61ff.) may comport with the conventions of economic analysis, but it indicates a detachment from the everyday lives of drug users that mars an otherwise subtle discussion.

By downplaying the prevalence and causation of “externalities,” Miron falls into the same trap as many other anti-prohibitionists, who justly criticize the shrill language of moral panics and political scare tactics, but then go too far in glossing over manifest human suffering. For example, in questioning the connection between the use of drugs (both legal and illegal) and violence, Miron pursues a line of thought that is syllogistically valid but empirically specious (Ch. 5). Not least of all, I am thinking of the calamity of methamphetamine use, which Miron wholly overlooks, despite its burgeoning prevalence across North America.

Drug War Crimes nonetheless demands the attention of anyone concerned with drug policy. Given Miron’s ideological perspective, the book presents a head-on challenge to many conservative prohibitionists, who cannot ignore how their position on drugs conflicts with an otherwise uniform devotion to market deregulation and the logic of caveat emptor. In this regard, Miron unintentionally demonstrates that, in the end, the actions of drug users and governments alike defy the logic of utility and cost-benefit analysis. It is the sociopolitical, cultural, and moral complexity of this defiance that ultimately makes the crisis of drug use so profoundly formidable.