In honor of Milton Friedman, I’d like to see….
Milton Friedman’s significance to the world has been revealed in the bevy of obits that we’ve all read in the past week. Much of the effort has been focused on those aspects of Friedman’s ouvre that have become accepted wisdom — the importance of monetary policy, the negative income tax Earned Income Tax Credit, etc. ...
Milton Friedman's significance to the world has been revealed in the bevy of obits that we've all read in the past week. Much of the effort has been focused on those aspects of Friedman's ouvre that have become accepted wisdom -- the importance of monetary policy, the negative income tax Earned Income Tax Credit, etc. Here's an open invitation to readers -- which of Friedman's policy proposals that have not become accepted wisdom would you like to see implemented? My choice is not a difficult one -- it's a policy proposal that would manage to address U.S. foreign policy, economic development, the rule of law, crime, and race relations in one fell swoop..... Drug legalization If the United States were to legalize (and tax) illegal narcotics in the same manner that legal narcotics, like alcohol and tobacco, are treated, consider the effects on: U.S. foreign policy: Because of current policies regarding narcotics, the United States is stymied in promoting the rule of law in Afghanistan and several Latin American countries because farmers in those countries keep harvesting products that American cunsumers demand. Because this activity is crminalized, the bulk of the revenues from this activity enriches criminal syndicates and terrorist networks. All for a supply-side policy that does nothing but act as a price support for producers. Crime: What percentage of the criminal justice and penal systems are devoted to drug-related offenses (click here for some answers)? Even if the sums of money that were spent on drug enforcement activities were instead devoted to treatment, I have to think it would be money better spent. There are other benefits as well -- such as eliminating the racial bias that exists within drug sentencing guidelines at the federal level. There are two potential downsides to this move. First, actual drug use would likely increase -- but this can be dealt with via larger treatment budgets. Second, once this genie is out of the bottle, I suspect there's no going back. (For an extended argument against legalization, check out this Theodore Dalrymple essay from City Journal). That said, I think Friedman was right -- legalization is the best policy to implement. For more on Friedman's thoughts on the matter, click here, here and here.
Milton Friedman’s significance to the world has been revealed in the bevy of obits that we’ve all read in the past week. Much of the effort has been focused on those aspects of Friedman’s ouvre that have become accepted wisdom — the importance of monetary policy, the negative income tax Earned Income Tax Credit, etc. Here’s an open invitation to readers — which of Friedman’s policy proposals that have not become accepted wisdom would you like to see implemented? My choice is not a difficult one — it’s a policy proposal that would manage to address U.S. foreign policy, economic development, the rule of law, crime, and race relations in one fell swoop….. Drug legalization If the United States were to legalize (and tax) illegal narcotics in the same manner that legal narcotics, like alcohol and tobacco, are treated, consider the effects on:
U.S. foreign policy: Because of current policies regarding narcotics, the United States is stymied in promoting the rule of law in Afghanistan and several Latin American countries because farmers in those countries keep harvesting products that American cunsumers demand. Because this activity is crminalized, the bulk of the revenues from this activity enriches criminal syndicates and terrorist networks. All for a supply-side policy that does nothing but act as a price support for producers. Crime: What percentage of the criminal justice and penal systems are devoted to drug-related offenses (click here for some answers)? Even if the sums of money that were spent on drug enforcement activities were instead devoted to treatment, I have to think it would be money better spent.
There are other benefits as well — such as eliminating the racial bias that exists within drug sentencing guidelines at the federal level. There are two potential downsides to this move. First, actual drug use would likely increase — but this can be dealt with via larger treatment budgets. Second, once this genie is out of the bottle, I suspect there’s no going back. (For an extended argument against legalization, check out this Theodore Dalrymple essay from City Journal). That said, I think Friedman was right — legalization is the best policy to implement. For more on Friedman’s thoughts on the matter, click here, here and here.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Can Russia Get Used to Being China’s Little Brother?
The power dynamic between Beijing and Moscow has switched dramatically.
Xi and Putin Have the Most Consequential Undeclared Alliance in the World
It’s become more important than Washington’s official alliances today.
It’s a New Great Game. Again.
Across Central Asia, Russia’s brand is tainted by Ukraine, China’s got challenges, and Washington senses another opening.
Iraqi Kurdistan’s House of Cards Is Collapsing
The region once seemed a bright spot in the disorder unleashed by U.S. regime change. Today, things look bleak.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
