The Unintended Consequences of Drug Prohibition

The law of unintended consequences has been around for ages. According to the Encyclopedia of Economics, the law of unintended consequences is that the actions of people, and especially politicians, always have affects that are unanticipated or unintended (Norton). The great economist Adam Smith theorized that people acting in their own self-interest creates the positive unintended consequence of more prosperity and wealth for others. Although positive unintended consequences can occur, many unintended consequences are harmful. No policy in modern America better represents the law of unintended consequences than drug prohibition. The prohibition of drugs has created numerous harmful unintended consequences. In their quest to end drug use, politicians have created more crime, destroyed black communities, made drug use more dangerous, and denied people helpful medical remedies. One of the largest unintended consequences of the war on drugs has been increasing crime. Although crime rates have been on the decline since the war on drugs was launched, numerous scholars attribute this to other factors and believe that the crime rate would be much lower in the absence of drug prohibition. One type of crime the war on drugs has increased is property crimes. There is strong relationship between drug addicts and property crimes, such as burglary and petty theft. The reason for these crimes is the inflated price that drugs sell for in the black market. As users build up dependence, these inflated prices leave poor addicts with few options to feed their addictions other than crime. Many addicts sell drug themselves to fuel their addiction, but a significant amount also get drug money through property crimes. According to the Bureau of Justice, in 1997, 19% of state prisoners and 16% of federal prisoners committed their most recent offense to obtain money to buy drugs (Bureau of Justice Statistics 1997, 5). According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, 32% of people in prison for burglaries

and 27% in prison for robberies committed their crime to get money for drugs. It is important to note that it was not the drugs that made these people commit crimes; rather it is their need to get money for drugs. In the absence of the inflated black market prices it is likely that fewer of these property crimes would be committed. A Canadian government report came to similar conclusion stating that the belief that a drug addict is necessarily a criminal is wrong (156). The commission goes on to state that the addict who is able to obtain an adequate supply of drug through legitimate channels and has adequate funds can be a productive member of society, difficult to distinguish from other persons (156). What is far more troubling than the property crime created by drug prohibition is the violence created by it. The violence resulting from black market is arguably the most serious unintended consequence of drug prohibition. Just as murders drastically increased during alcohol prohibition, drug prohibition has resulted in a large increase in murders. During the early 90s, economist Milton Freidman estimated that over 10,000 murders a year were committed in the United States because of drug market disputes (1991). More recently, Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron has estimated that the war on drugs has increased the murder rate in the United States by 25%-50% (2000). Violence occurs in the black market primarily due to black market disputes. Unlike legitimate companies, those involved in the drug trade have no legal remedy to enforce contracts or mediate disputes. This leads to drug sellers, and especially drug organizations, using violence in order to resolve disputes. Black market violence is not unique to the drug trade. Economist Hernando de Soto discovered this same phenomena while studying unlicensed street vendors involved in the informal trade sector in his native country of Peru. Although violence occurs to a lesser extent in informal trade markets, de Soto noted that people involved in

informal trade in Peru resorted to violence as a means to enforce contracts in the absence of other dispute resolution systems (167). Although black market violence can be committed by drug users or independent sellers, much of it is committed by organized criminal organizations. Like alcohol prohibition before it, drug prohibition has created an enormous amount of organized crime. Many of these organizations exist solely to make money from drug trafficking or weapons used by drug dealers. It is an expensive process to discreetly get illegal drugs from their production point into the United States. Forming large organizations allows drug traffickers to reach economies of scale, decreasing costs and increasing profits. Furthermore, organizing allows drug organizations to better defend themselves against rivals. Those involved in the drug trade cannot rely on law enforcement to protect them. This causes many drug dealers to purchase weapons and invest in protection services in order to keep themselves, their valuable product, and ultimately their profits safe. Furthermore, drug organizations use these weapons to increase their market share. Drug organizations cannot use normal means to increase their market share, such as advertising, due to the illegality of the business. This leads to many of them using violence to increase their market share. According to economist Walter Williams, this is the result of perverse incentives created by the drug war that encourages entry [into the market] by suppliers who are more ruthless, innovative, and have a lower regard for civility and the law (262). Furthermore, this type of incentive structure typically makes the most violent organizations the most successful. Due to the violence caused by drug dealers, especially drug organizations, one might think focusing on pursuing drug dealers would decrease violence; however, this actually increases violence. A study using several decades of data, published in the International Journal of Drug Policy, found that intervention in drug markets by law enforcement led to increased gun violence

and a higher homicide rate (Werb et al. 6). This increased violence is an unintended consequence caused by the market fragmentation created by the arrest of other drug dealers. This results in the remaining members of the trade using violence to maintain and increase their market share. There is widespread agreement that law enforcement efforts have sparked these types of violent drug market clashes in Mexico (Werb et al. 6). Along with creating a large amount of drug related crime, the war on drugs increases crime unrelated to drugs. The drug war increases crime by diverting a finite amount of resources to narcotics enforcement. When money is used to fund narcotic enforcement, this money cannot be used for other police activities. According to basic theory of the economics of crime, whether or not a criminal will commit a crime is the result of a cost benefit analysis in the criminals head. Economists believe that if the benefit of the crime is higher than the cost of the crime the criminal will commit the crime. The largest factor in determining the cost of committing the crime is the probability that the criminal will be caught times the expected cost of punishment (ECP) if caught. By diverting resources from the enforcement of other laws, drug enforcement lowers the probability that one will be caught for committing a crime, thus increasing crime. A study of court cases in Los Angeles County found that between 1990 and 1994 only 47% of murders were prosecuted, compared to 80% prior to the war on drugs in the late 1960s (Gray 70). Of those prosecuted in the early nineties, only 16% resulted in murder convictions and another 14% resulted in manslaughter convictions (Gray 70). This decrease in the probability that one will be punished for a crime as serious as murder likely results in even more crime; yet this study merely states the probability of getting caught is lower, and did not study whether or not this increased crime. However, additional studies suggest what the economic theory of crime predicts; that lowering the probability a criminal will be caught increases crime. A 1992 study

found that policing practices focusing on drug crimes caused property crime to increase in Florida (Benson 689). The main reason cited for this increase is that drug enforcement lowered the probability that one would be caught committing a property crime (Benson 690). Along with increasing crime, another unintended consequence of drug prohibition is that it has made drug use more dangerous for those who choose to break the law. The war on drugs has made drug use more dangerous in several ways. One way the war on drugs has made drug use more dangerous is by making it a black market good. Due to their illegal status, illegal drugs are sold in an unregulated black market. The biggest impact this has had is causing deaths due to poisoning or drug overdoses. In the unregulated black market, the quality or drugs can vary greatly, thus the consumer does not always know the potency of the drug he or she is consuming. This can lead to accidental overdose when one receives a dose of drugs much stronger than what they normally take, yet they unknowingly consume the same amount because they are unaware of the potency difference. According to data from the Center for Disease Control, excluding suicides, nearly 75% of the deaths caused by illegal drugs in 2004 were due to accidental overdose (2007). Many of these are likely the result of fluctuating drug purity in the black market. If drug users could purchase drugs of a known purity many of these deaths probably would not occur. Another unintended consequence of the drug war that has made drug use more dangerous is the spread of disease. Injection drug users can spread blood borne illnesses, such as HIV and hepatitis, if they share needles. Intravenous drug use is a major cause of HIV and AIDS in the United States. According to the Center for Disease Control, approximately 36% of HIV or AIDS cases are the results of injection drug use (2005). This number is as high as 50% in places with high rates of heroin use such as New York City (MacCoun 22). The drug war unintentionally

increases the spread of blood borne disease by artificially restricting the purchase of clean needles. By making it harder for intravenous drug users to find clean needles, the war on drugs has caused drug users to share needles and spread disease, which can then be spread to non-drug users. Furthermore, the war on drugs compounds the spread of disease by encouraging injection as a delivery method for drugs. The artificially low supply of drugs created by drug prohibition significantly inflates the price of drugs. The inflated black market price creates the incentive for drug users to get the biggest bang for their buck, and seek the most efficient method possible to administer their drugs. Unfortunately, the most efficient way to administer a drug (injection) is also the most dangerous and addictive way to administer it. In his book Drug War Heresies, Robert MacCoun notes that recent shifts to snorting and smoking heroin in the United States are related to the sharp decline in the price of heroin (126). In the absence of the drug war, the price of drugs would be much cheaper and a smaller percentage of drug users would use them intravenously. Furthermore, clean needles would be available for those who continued to inject drugs and needle sharing and the spread of diseases would diminish. Drug prohibition has also unintentionally made drug use more dangerous by making people afraid to get help if they believe they or their friends are overdosing. There are many instances of people refusing to seek necessary medical help because they are afraid to get into trouble. In May of 1999, former Dallas Cowboys offensive lineman Mark Tuinei died of an overdose on heroin and a stimulant because his friend was scared to seek medical attention (Gray 128). Former basketball phenom Len Bias also died because of his friends fear. Bias died from an allergic reaction to cocaine. He may have lived through the experience; however, Bias friends waited until after his third convulsion to seek medical attention because they were afraid that either they or he would be arrested (Gray 129). Many of the deaths that occur under similar

circumstances would not happen in the absence of drug prohibition. Additionally, these deaths could be averted with the protection of Good Samaritan laws, in which those in trouble or their friends cannot be prosecuted for bringing someone in medical trouble to the hospital. The Good Samaritan policy at Cornell University resulted in twice as many emergency calls from underage drinkers without alcohol abuse increasing (Lewis 333). This study looked at underage drinkers instead of drugs, but both are illegal activities. It is likely that drug users may use this law even more as the severity for getting caught with drugs is higher than underage drinking, deterring an even larger number of people from currently calling to help those in drug related emergencies. In addition to making the use of illegal drugs more dangerous, the war on drugs has had the unintended consequence of denying people substances that may be medically beneficial to them. The government classifies several substances as a Schedule I drugs, meaning they have no medical value, which recent evidence shows could be medically beneficial. The benefits of marijuana for medical use have been well documented, but despite this scientific evidence the federal government still classifies marijuana as having no medicinal value. Marijuana can be beneficial for glaucoma, wasting syndrome, multiple sclerosis, fibromyalgia, and several other conditions. A group of Spanish researchers recently discovered that THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, destroys cancer cell without damaging healthy cells (Mozes). However, because of its illegality in many countries, medical research is limited and researchers are not exactly sure why THC has this impact. This knowledge could be very beneficial in future cancer research; however, due to the war on drugs it will be much longer until they know they answer. Although marijuana is the most widely known illegal drug with medicinal benefits, it is not the only illegal drug that is beneficial. MDMA, commonly known as ecstasy, was originally used successfully

by therapists in treating mental illness. A recent study shows that when combined with therapy, after only two uses MDMA successfully cured 83% of people who suffered from severe posttraumatic stress disorder which no other drug on the market could treat (Jones). Psilocybin mushrooms and LSD have been shown to relive cluster headaches, which had no known treatment. A 2006 study found that psilocybin mushrooms stopped cluster headache attacks in 22 of 24 patients and LSD stopped attacks in 7 of 8 patients (Sewell 1). Although they are not panaceas and have some negative side effects, marijuana, MDMA, LSD and psilocybin could all be used to treat conditions for which no legal remedy exists. However, because of their illegality, people with these conditions are forced to needlessly suffer. No analysis of the unintended consequences of drug prohibition is complete without mentioning the impact of the drug war on African Americans. Although the drug war has had many unintended consequences, the largest unintended consequences have been on minority communities, and especially African-American communities. All of the detrimental consequences from the drug war apply even more so to blacks. African-Americans make up just thirteen percent of the drug using population, yet they account for fifty-eight percent of imprisoned drug offenders (Gibbs and Leech 65). Selective enforcement of the drug laws has led to this massive increase in the African-American prison population. Furthermore, AfricanAmericans serve longer prison terms than whites who commit the same crimes, largely due to the sentencing disparity between powder and crack cocaine and mandatory minimum sentences. Prior to mandatory minimum sentencing, the average sentence for a black person was eleven percent higher than that of a white person, but just four years after mandatory minimums were put in place the average sentence for blacks was forty-nine percent higher than whites (Gibbs and Leech 63). The war on drugs is also responsible for a large amount of the massive increase of

black children living in single parents families. Since the war on drugs began in the early eighties, the number of black children growing up fatherless has skyrocketed from 14% to over 70% (Gibbs and Leech 63). One in nine black children currently has a parent that is incarcerated, a rate that has quadrupled in the last 25 years (Pew 18). Currently, a young black man without a high school diploma is more likely to be incarcerated than have a job (Pew 13). The negative impact of the drug war on the African American community is unquestionable. The evidence provided here is in no way exhaustive; it is merely a small aspect of the drug wars unique impact on the black community. A complete assessment of the impact of the war on drugs on black communities would require a much longer analysis. The war on drugs has resulted in an enormous amount of unintended consequences. The drug war has increased both property and organized crime. It has perpetuated violence and turned many inner city neighborhoods into virtual warzones. In its focus on law enforcement it has increased the harm caused by drugs by making drug use more dangerous. The hard line stance against drugs has prevented medical research and denied people treatment that could be medically beneficial. The war on drugs has altered the family structure of black families, sent millions of young black men to prison, and destroyed black communities. Although this paper contains many examples of the unintended consequences of the war on drugs, it is far from exhaustive. The drug war has caused police corruption, the destabilization of countries, and the overcrowding of American prisons among other harms. In the end we must ask ourselves if the policy intended to cure our nation from the scourge of drugs is in fact worse than the disease.

Works Cited
Benson, Bruce L., Iljoong Kim, David W. Rasmussen, and Thomas W. Zuehlke. (1992). Is Property Crime Caused by Drug Use or Drug Enforcement Policy? Applied Economics 24.8 (1992): 679 692. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners. 1997, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, January 1999. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 2005. Vol. 17. Rev ed. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2007. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. CDC WONDER On-line Database, compiled from Compressed Mortality File 1999-2004 Series 20 No. 2J, 2007. De Soto, Hernando . The Other Path : The Invisible Revolution in the Third World. New York: Harper & Row, 1989. Freidman, Milton. Interview with Randy Paige. America's Drug Forum. Schaffer Library of Drug Policy, 1991. Gibbs, Terry, and Garry Leech. "Race and Class Dimensions of the War on Drugs: A Humanitarian Crisis." Rutgers University Journal of Law and Urban Policy 3.1 (2009): 62-74. Print. Gray, James. Why our Drug Laws have Failed and What We can do about it : A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs. Philadelphia, Pa: Temple University Press, 2001. Jones, Jessica M.D. MDMA May Have Role in Treatment of PTSD. PsychCentral. 20 July 2010. Web. Lewis, Deborah K. and Timothy C. Marchell. "Safety First: A Medical Amnesty Approach to Alcohol Poisoning at a U.S. University." International Journal of Drug Policy 17.4 (2006), 329-338. MacCoun, Robert. Drug War Heresies : Learning from Other Vices, Times, and Places. Cambridge, U.K. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Miron, Jeffrey. (2000, April). Economics of Drug Prohibition and Legalization. Speech presented at the University of California San Diego. San Diego, California

Mozes, Alan. Active Ingredient in Marijuana Kills Brain Cancer Cells. Health News. 1 April 2009 Web. The Non-Medical Use of Drugs: Interim Report of the Canadian Government's Commission of Inquiry. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971. Norton, Rob. Unintended Consequences. The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Web. 3 May 2011 Office of National Drug Control Policy. Drug-related Crime Fact Sheet. March 2000 Web. The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2010. Collateral Costs: Incarcerations Effect on Economic Mobility. Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts. Sewell, Andrew, John Halpern, and Harrison Pope. (2006). "Response of Cluster Headache to Psilocybin and LSD". Neurology 66 (12): 19202. Werb, D., et al. Effect of Drug Law Enforcement on Drug Market Violence: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Drug Policy (2011), Web. Williams, Walter. More Liberty Means Less Government : Our Founders Knew This Well. Stanford, Calif: Hoover Institution Press, 1999. .