Harold Pollock has a nice summary at The Incidental Economist and he points to a compendium in the Lancet. On incarceration:
Third, modeling studies, such as those pioneered at RAND, have consistently shown that increasing imprisonment is a very expensive way to increase prices in established drug markets — findings from empirical studies are generally not encouraging about the potential success of such control methods. For example, Kuziemko and Levitt estimate that an increase in the number of prisoners detained on drug-related offences in the USA from 82 000 to 376 000 between 1985 and 1996 increased retail cocaine prices by only 5‒15%.
On supply disruption:
Fifth, supply shocks can substantially reduce drug availability, purity, use, and harms in consumer countries — e.g., metamfetamine precursor controls, the Taliban opium ban, the 1989‒90 war on Colombian drug traffickers, and the Australian heroin shortage. These successes often stem from a convergence of fortuitous circumstances that governments can rarely reproduce by design. Occasionally they follow deliberate actions such as introduction of legislation to regulate precursor chemicals involved in illicit drug preparation, although results are not always predictable or simply generalisable. However, their success lasts for only as long as it takes the market to adapt….
The fact that there are so few findings showing how government policies on the demand side of the War on Drugs affect supply and availability is yet another reason why the War on Drugs must end or at least be drastically reduced.
At the very least, the demand-side of the War on Drugs must end, especially given the counterproductive results of federal policy.
The War on Drugs = Epic Fail.
That was an interesting post. How come those guys at The Incidental Economist can be so right about illegal drugs and so wrong about everything else?
The war on drugs is a failure … until they incarcerate the dealer who is trying to sell drugs to your kid.
An argument for drug legalization is that the elasticity of demand for addictive drugs is rather inelastic (i.e. people will do anything to support a drug habit so tax revenue would be large). An argument against drug legalization includes negative externalities, including theft to support a drug habit.
People will also do anything for a buck – especially if they have few other ways to make a living. Thus, shocks in supply will result in higher prices. Any action to reduce supply results in a price increase. A price increase results in more producers. It doesn’t sound like a problem that’s easily solved by incarceration – or mandatory rehab for that matter.
Very informative points, Devon.
Regarding the supply side of the War on Drugs, even if the U.S. and other countries combat drug production vigorously in those places (i.e. opium in Afghanistan), other areas of the planet may see an uptick in drug production as the supply drops.
I agree with Tom. The Incidental Economist posters are usually are usually pro-government and anti-individual. But this post was very good.