A seriously silly syllogism

I like Bryan Caplan, whose stuff I have read along with Arnold Kling’s at Econlib. But probably because I’m not an economist, I simply don’t read him enough to have a “favorite Bryan Caplan syllogism” as Megan McArdle does. Nevertheless, McArdle’s favorite Bryan Caplan syllogism is already my favorite:

I think the above syllogism typifies the approach of self appointed rulers holding Ph.D’s in Public Policy. When Progressivism was on the rise in the early part of the 20th century, such thinking became very influential, and today, it rules. Literally. Public Policy people are the ones who tell elected officials, legislatures, and courts what to do. All without ever being elected or appointed.

Right now, they have issued a Royal Proclamation that Something Must Be Done about Global Warming. And the something they want done consists of giving government (and their unelected apparatchiks)  unprecedented, virtually unlimited new powers to tell everyone what to do.

That’s because Global Warming is said to exist and is said to be a Problem. From there it follows that something can be done and therefore Something Should Be Done. The “Something” always means What We (the privileged Public Policy Ph.D. holders) Say.

Back in the early 1900s, they identified a different problem, but one which the experts said was just as much of an emergency. People took drugs, and became addicted to them.  This meant that something had to be done. That something took the form of transforming heretofore legal drug users into criminals. So because it had to be done, it was done.

Earlier, I struggled to come up with a single economic argument in favor of the drug war. I like to put myself on the other side and engage in hypothetical debates, but I could not come up with one single good economic argument in favor of the drug war.  Sure, you can say that the drug war creates jobs (DEA, police, prisons, courts, counselors), but these are mostly in the government sector, and in related areas like drug testing, and they are hardly major contributors to a thriving free market economy. Economically, the drug war is a net loss. It costs taxpayers far more than it brings in.

That government and government employees benefit from the drug war cannot be said to be an economic positive. Nor can the fact that the only other economic entity to benefit from the drug war consists of the drug suppliers. They reap huge artificial profits (enough to fund enemy armies) based on the illegality of otherwise low-value substances.

Unless I’m missing something, that’s it. The two groups that most benefit from the drug war are government (including related policy wonks) and drug dealers. I don’t see either as a plus. As to the millions who are incarcerated and who have to pay ridiculous prices for easily produced agricultural products, how is that a plus?

The only arguable economic factor worth considering is workplace performance. Employees who take drugs are a liability and end up costing their employers money. So do alcoholics. In a truly free market, both could be fired. What has that to do with the drug war? Under the current system, employees who are on drugs may steal from their employers to support their habits, but again, that only reflects the artificial price differential. If we go back in time to a theoretical drug-addicted employee in 1913 (when the Problem started because heroin and cocaine could be purchased over the counter),  it is very unlikely that he would stolen from his employer to pay for ten cent daily dose of legal heroin. But I would support the right of an employer, then and now, to fire, or not fire, any addicted employee.

So, the argument in favor of the drug war is not economic. It is moral.

But is it really?

Were the drug addicts before 1914 immoral? Society did not view them as such. Either taking an addictive substance is immoral or it is not. If it is immoral, are tobacco addicts immoral? Does morality hinge on what is and what is not illegal?

Or is that what we call “getting high” constitutes immorality? I don’t know, but I do know that thanks to the drug laws, a huge numbers of Americans have been labeled immoral and treated as criminals, even though that had no basis in American jurisprudence previously.  Marijuana (currently a Schedule I, highly “immoral” drug like heroin) was criminalized in 1937; what was the moral status of a marijuana user before that? According to Harry Anslinger (who lobbied for the Marihuana Act) marijuana users were degenerates. So what? Assume moral degeneracy is a Problem. Does every Problem dictate that Something Must be Done? And if something had to be done, why did that Something have to entail locking people up for years as felons?

It seems self apparent that if drug use is a problem, then making drug users criminals would only compound — and has compounded — the problem. (So has artificially increasing the price of drugs….)

So where is the moral argument?

Try as I might, I can only see immoral ones.

MORE: A commenter I have never heard from before says I should shut up about the drug war, and that my opposition to the war on drugs reminds him of the NPR’s love of Obama:

Like the opening words of any NPR radio news broadcasts are “President Obama…” the repetitive theme of the “drug prohibition blues” are repetitive, annoying and besides the point, which has been established, here, anyway. We get the message. Another topic, please.

Excuse me, but this is my blog, and I write about what I want, whenever I want.

Regarding the drug war, I often think  I have not been repetitive or annoying enough. But if I am annoying drug war supporters, perhaps I am doing my job.