Drug legalization: Wrong lesson of Prohibition

Drug legalization's benefits would not outweigh its costs, a careful examination of history reveals

October 09, 2011|By Kevin A. Sabet

Prohibition — America's notoriously "failed social experiment" to rid the country of alcohol — took center stage this past week as PBS broadcast Ken Burns' highly acclaimed series on the subject. And already, it has been seized on by drug-legalization advocates who say it proves that drug prohibition should be abandoned.

But a closer look at what resulted from alcohol prohibition and its relevance to today's anti-drug effort reveals a far more nuanced picture than the legalization lobby might like to admit.

As argued by Harvard's Mark Moore and other astute policy observers, alcohol prohibition had beneficial effects along with the negative ones. Alcohol use plummeted among the general population. Cirrhosis of the liver fell by 66 percent among men. Arrests for public drunkenness declined by half.

Yes, organized crime was emboldened, but the mob was already powerful before Prohibition, and it continued to be long after.

No one is suggesting that alcohol prohibition should be reinstated. Americans have concluded that the right to drink outweighs public health and safety consequences. But it is important to remember that the policy was not the complete failure that most think it was, and so we should be wary of misapplying its lessons.

If our experience with Prohibition was a nuanced one, then it is surely a stretch to apply the so-called conventional wisdom associated with it to help us shape policies on other intoxicants today. Still, a favorite argument of drug-legalization supporters is that because "we all know" alcohol prohibition failed, drug prohibition is destined to fail too. Given modern America's thirst for liquor, it is a clever political maneuver to link the two policies in this way. But notwithstanding one's position on the success or failure of alcohol prohibition, there are key differences between that policy and modern-day drug enforcement that render a comparison almost useless for serious policy analysis.

First, it should be remembered that unlike illegal drugs today, alcohol was never prohibited altogether. Laws forbade the sale and distribution of liquor, but personal use was not against the law. Second, alcohol prohibition was not enforced in the way today's drug laws are. Congress and the executive branch were uninterested in enforcing the law. Even many prohibitionists felt that the law was so effective, it did not need enforcement. Police, prosecutors, judges and juries frequently refused to use the powers the law gave them. In 1927, only 18 of the 48 states even budgeted money for the enforcement of Prohibition, and some states openly defied the law.

The key difference between alcohol and drug prohibition, however, lies in the substance itself. Alcohol, unlike illegal drugs, has a long history of widespread, accepted use in our society, dating back to before biblical times. Illegal drugs cannot claim such pervasive use by a large part of the planet's population over such a long period of time.

What lessons should we be taking from America's experiment with Prohibition to inform our drug policy? One is that when a substance is legal, powerful business interests have an incentive to encourage use by keeping prices low. Heavier use, in turn, means heavier social costs. For example, alcohol is the cause of 1 million more arrests annually than are all illegal drugs combined. Indeed, alcohol use leads to $180 billion in costs associated with health care, the criminal justice system and lost productivity; alcohol taxes, on the other hand — kept outrageously low by a powerful lobby — generate revenue amounting to less than a tenth of these costs.

Even so, drug-legalization advocates try to capitalize on our country's current budget woes and use the potential for new tax revenue as a key argument in favor of repealing drug laws. But as author Daniel Okrent, whose research into Prohibition inspired Mr. Burns' series, wrote last year, "The history of the intimate relationship between drinking and taxing suggests … that … [people] indulging a fantasy of income tax relief emerging from a cloud of legalized marijuana smoke should realize that it is likely only a pipe dream."

If our experience with legal alcohol provides us with any lesson for drug policy, it is this: We have little reason to believe that the benefits of drug legalization would outweigh its costs.

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.