Against a Strict and Interpretation of the Constitution

“Strict Constructionism holds to the meaning of words and phrases used when they were written down.”[1] There is one reason; of course there are others such as the Constitution’s vague language, for why the Constitution should not be strictly interpreted.

The reason of which I speak is that strictly interpreting the Constitution means that a female cannot become president. The president, in the Constitution, is referred to as “he.” For example, in Article II, Section 1, “He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years….” Further in Article II, Section 1, “In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death….” There are several other examples in Article II, sections 1, 2, and 3 where the president is referred to as being a male. On the contrary, there is no mention of “woman” in describing the president’s powers. By the very nature of strict constructionism a female can never become President of the United States.

This brings me to my point. Strict contructionism ignores changes in society. In terms of females, this method of interpretation ignores the fact that society’s view towards the capabilities of women has been altered.

Of course the vast majority of people do not adhere to a pure strict constructionist interpretation, to which have been referring. However, any judge whose judicial philosophy is that of a less than a pure constructionist judicial philosophy may run afoul with such advances in society as to stifle that advancement. This is because he/she may interpret the Constitution more on a pure constructionist terms on a particular issue.

The problem with strict constructionism is that it prevents women form becoming President of the United States. In broader terms, this method of constitutional interpretation can inhibit changes that can positively affect society.

[1] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism

The Problem with Self-interest and an Argument Supporting Bureaucracy

Libertarians/Classical Liberalists like to focus on the concept of self-interest. Often times, self-interest is confused by selfishness. Most acts of self-interest, though, are not considered selfish. However, when one’s self-interest is based on selfishness, there can be adverse effects upon society. As well be seen through my analysis, bureaucracies are necessary to offset the said adverse effects.

I will provide an example to illustrate why self-interested acts that are based on selfish behavior lead to adverse effects on society. Let us say there is a person, Able, who invents a poisonous concoction that, when consumed by humans, is instantly fatal. Let us also say that Able is also able to develop an effective marketing strategy; a marketing strategy that advertises this poison not as a poison but as a miracle drug. Furthermore, this marketing is so effective that it leads to millions of people consuming this “miracle drug.” Although millions of people die as a result of this, Able receives millions of dollars from its sale. At the same time, Able emigrates to a country that does not hold an extradition treaty with the U.S., which allows Able to escape both the civic and criminal court systems.

This situation can have a disastrous impact upon society besides the millions of people who died. This has the effect of producing a sense of distrust, against pharmaceutical companies, among those who were not duped into using the “miracle drug,” which hinders them from consuming drugs beneficial to their health. This further has the effect of hindering innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. The same can be said about any industry, which can adversely impact innovation in those industries, which prevents improvements in efficiency, which hinders productivity, which ultimately prevents the expansion of wealth.

This is where bureaucratic agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) come into play. The FDA and other agencies are able to establish regulations that emplace preventative measures so that situations like the one above, and its consequences, do not occur.

Self-interested acts, when formed by selfish behavior, can lead to adverse effects on society. The way to prevent this, it seems, is through bureaucracy.

Against the Privatization of Social Security

Privatizing Social Security could have adverse effects upon those who depend on this program. This is because the private sector may not provide adequate funds to meet the financial needs of those who depend on Social Security. Because of this, Social Security should not be privatized.

If Social Security was privatized, people would have more income since they would be paying fewer taxes. However, as I noted in an earlier essay[1], there are two groups of people who will be negatively affected if Social Security was privatized. The two groups are the disabled and those whose incomes are too low to allow them to save for retirement. Of course there will be organizations set up to direct funds to these two groups, and there will be altruists who will donate to these organizations. The question is will there be enough funds donated by altruists to provide an adequate standard of living to those two groups? I do not think there will be for one reason.

Let us say that everyone consumes, saves, and/or donates to charities (charities that do not provide aid to the two groups discussed) the exact same amount prior and after the privatization of Social Security. Do you think that everyone will donate their additional income from the abolition of the Social Security tax to charities that deal with the two groups discussed? Chances are this will not occur. (Even if this did occur, there would not be enough income to maintain the same standard of living for the two groups because charities expend part of the received donations to cover their incurred expenses.) This is because the poor and low middle class will spend the additional income to cover their costs. At the same time, the upper middle class and upper class may want to use their additional incomes to consume, save, or donate to other charities.

An objection to my previous point is that people, especially the upper class and wealthy, will allocate their pre-privatization of Social Security income to aid the two groups discussed. However, these altruists may not find doing this utility maximizing. They may rather donate the majority of their income to other charities, to consume their income, or to save their income. All the while, they are donating an amount of their income to charities that aid the two groups so that the aggregate amount that goes to these charities does not provide an adequate amount of funds to pa decent living. Even if they chose to donate an adequate amount of income to provide a decent living to the two groups, they have less income to consume, to save, or to donate to other charities. This in effect has its negative consequences, in which I will not embark.

Social Security should not be privatized. This is because there is a chance that the private sector will not provide an amount of income that guarantees an adequate standard of living to those who depend upon Social Security.

[1] see http://myoponions.blogspot.com/2005/08/repairing-social-security.html

The Problem With Anarchy

Anarchy is the absence of a state and where people govern each other through voluntary corroporation. The problem with anarchy is that it can lead to disrespect for property rights. Because of this, anarchy is an incorrect form of governance.

Why can anarchy lead to disrespect for property rights? It is because there are no laws, no police to enforce laws concerning property rights, and no court system to alleviate any disrespect towards property rights. In short, there is no remedy for a powerful, wealthy person who assumes other people’s property. Because a wealthy person has adequate financial resources, he/she has the ability to establish a security force, or some other security measure, to protect his/her newly assumed property. Conversely, those who are not as wealthy may not have the financial resources to protect their property.

Anarchists may object to this in one of two ways. (There may be other of course.) One such objection is that the less wealthy can band together to protect themselves against intrusions from the wealthy. This can result in situations found in Somalia and pre-9/11 Afghanistan where there are/were competing warlords.

A second objection is that there will be social mores guarding against such violations of property rights. The problem with this is that mores are violated all the time. Who is to say that mores protecting property rights will not be violated?

Anarchy is an incorrect form of governance. This is due to the inability of anarchy to protect property rights.

On the Democratization of the Middle East

Recently, I attended a seminar given by the Institute for Humane Studies. During this seminar, several pro-libertarian/classical liberalist professors presented lectures concerning various topics. One of the professors, Daniel Drezner, an Associate Professor who specializes in international relations at the University of Chicago, made an argument supporting the war in Iraq. (You can view Drezner’s blog at http://www.danieldrezner.com/blog/.) His reason was that this is the only way to democratize Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. I utterly disagree with this claim. My reason is that the Iraqis have no stake in their newly implemented government. I, however, contend that the way to democratize the Middle East is through developing a new source of energy to replace oil and through globalization.

The war in Iraq will not aid in democratizing Iraq and ultimately the Middle East. This is because, simply, the Iraqis did not bring democracy to Iraq themselves. In other words, they do not have a stake in the new attempt at democracy. It was not their blood but the blood of mainly Americans and British that brought an attempt at democracy in Iraq. To illustrate, let us say you invest hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions of dollars, into some business. Are you not going to actively monitor that investment to ensure it results in profitable success? Iraqis did not provide the investment for an Iraqi democracy.

Now, you may say that the U.S. was successful in installing democracy in Japan following World War II. However, there is a significant difference between Japan and Iraq. Japan is a society that is highly homogenous. This homogeneity makes it much easier for compromise, which is a characteristic inherent in democracies, to occur. Iraq, in contrast, is not a homogenous society. It is composed of three competing and disagreeing religious groups: the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds. Disagreement over religious beliefs will make it difficult for compromise to occur. On the other hand, had they had the chance to band together to bring democracy to Iraq, the story would be different. The reason is they would have been able to establish a relationship in which they would be working together.

Oil is a source of power in the Middle East. If there is anything that will create the momentum need for a movement towards democracy, it will be removing this source of money and power. This needs to be done through establishing a new and reliable source of energy to replace oil. This would effectively decrease the demand for oil, which will decrease the price of oil. The result is there is less money going to the Middle Eastern authoritarian leaders. Less money means less power. Consequently, this will make it easier for the people to revolt.

Globalization will also aid in the democratization of the Middle East. Almost all of the Middle East countries are closed off to the rest of the world. One of the benefits of globalization is the spread of ideas. If these closed off countries could open up, new ideas, such as the principles of democracy, can exported to those closed Middle Easter countries.

The war in Iraq will most likely not lead to a successful democratization in Iraq and ultimately the Middle East. This is because Iraqis do not have a stake in the new attempt at democracy. The only way to do so is through decreasing the influential power of oil, through globalization, and possible through other avenues other than war.

Is the Welfare Problem Solvable Through Privatization?

Privatizing welfare will not solve the problems associated with welfare. [1]

To explain why I believe privatizing welfare will not solve the welfare problem, I will look at panhandlers.[2] Panhandlers, it has been reported and is well known, earn hundreds of dollars on a daily basis from altruistic people, which can be considered the private sector. The consequence of this is that panhandlers do not have an incentive to actively search for a real job.

To illustrate, let us assume that a panhandler begs for money on the streets for seven days a week. At the same time, he/she receives $200 a day from altruistic people. This panhandler earns $1400 a week (or $5600 a month or $72,800 a year) and does not pay taxes on this income. I, on the other hand, will make about $1500, which is taxable, a month when I will begin my life in the Navy. Is there not something wrong with this picture? This panhandler is making almost as much in one week as I will make in a month in the Navy. Where is the incentive to work? The private sector does not provide the incentive to work in this case.

When looking at how the private sector deals with panhandlers, it seems that privatizing welfare will not solve the welfare problem.

[1] The welfare problem of which I speak is encouraging people on welfare to work.
[2] Panhandlers are people who beg for money on the street.

Is Offshore Outsourcing Good For America?

In this essay I will analyze offshore outsourcing[1] and its effects. Offshore outsourcing will reduce prices and it will shift resources to more efficient industries. On the basis of my forthcoming analysis, offshore outsourcing is good for America.

Under offshore outsourcing, a firm in the U.S. (or any other country for that matter) contracts with a firm in another country to perform some service or a firm will have factories in another country to produce something such as parts for a product. An example of the former are the call centers located in India. An example of the latter is an automobile manufacturer having automobile parts produced in another country. The purpose of this is that it reduces costs for a particular firm, since it is obviously cheaper to produce these outsourced services in another country. The result of this is that it keeps prices low, which consequently benefits the consumer. This allows consumers to move to a higher indifference curve, which improves consumers’ utilities.

Offshore outsourcing has another benefit. It frees up resources in this country to be used for other things. Why is this so? The reason is offshore outsourcing is the result of cheaper costs of producing certain services and goods in foreign countries. The result is that the U.S. has additional resources in the amount totaling the difference between the cost of producing a good or service in a foreign country. These leftover resources can then be used to establish new industries or can be used to support industries that are more efficient than those being outsourced to foreign countries. The result of this will be the development of new jobs to replace those jobs outsourced.

Lastly, it seems outsourcing is due to comparative advantage. Comparative advantage is based on relative costs. According to the comparative advantage theory, a country should produce the good that is relatively cheaper. To illustrate, two countries, A and B, can make two goods, X and Y. Country B can produce X and Y cheaper than what can Country A produce X and Y. At the same time, Country A can produce X cheaper than Y and Country B can produce Y cheaper than X. According to comparative advantage, Country A should produce X and Country B should produce Y. The result is Country A will have a surplus of X and will be able to export that surplus to Country B for Y. Conversely, Country B will have a surplus of Y and will be able to export that surplus to Country A for X. The result of this is that both countries are producing the good in which they have a comparative advantage. Furthermore, they are producing the good that they can produce in the most efficient manner. Because efficiency leads to an improvement in productivity, and improved productivity leads to an increase in wealth. This ultimately improves the wealth of both countries.

We see the comparative advantage at work when firms outsource jobs to foreign countries. This is because it appears that it is relatively cheaper to produce certain goods and services in foreign countries such as India. The result is, I repeat, American firms not outsourcing are the most efficient in the country. Consequently, this efficiency leads to an improvement in productivity, which leads to an increase in wealth in the U.S. Also, resources can be diverted from the industries being outsourced to newer industries in which the U.S. commands a comparative advantage. This serves to further improve wealth by expanding efficiency and productivity.

Outsourcing positively affects the American economy. It will reduce prices, which allows consumers to expand their consumption and thus increases their utility. It also allows society to shift resources to more efficient industries, which results in an increase in wealth for society. One last point, any policy designed to hinder outsourcing is a policy based and marketed on ignorance and is a policy that does nothing but hurt the American economy.

[1] Outsourcing is where a company contracts out to another company to perform some action it once performed.

Repairing Social Security

Most people, when asked the question “What is Social Security?” will usually respond by saying that Social Security is a form of government retirement assistance. It is much more than just that. For one thing, Social Security provides a source of income for those who are too disabled to work. Secondly, Social Security is a redistribution program. It redistributes income from unmarried to married couples, from single people to married people, and from the wealthy to the indigent, of which the latter I will focus. Privatizing Social Security will have unseen, negative consequences on the economy. As a result, Social Security should not be privatized.

If Social Security were to be completely privatized, how would the disabled, who are unable to work, be able to obtain an income in order to live? Would the disabled have to go onto welfare? Or would the government implement a new program to take care of the disabled?

I will first examine the welfare option. This option would be fruitless because under the current welfare regime, which is the Temporary Aid for Need Families (TANF) program, welfare recipients can only receive welfare benefits for a maximum of five years. Because of this, I will assume that the government amends TANF to provide an exemption for the disabled. I will also assume that tax rates remain constant. I will further assume that the level of non-disabled welfare recipients remains constant. My last assumption is that the block grants the federal government provides to the states under TANF will remain unchanged.

Keeping these assumptions in mind, what will be the result of Social Security being privatized? The first effect would be an increase in demand on the welfare system. This produces negative consequences of privatizing Social Security. These negative consequences will especially be felt by the states. There are two types of states I will consider: those states that are required to have a balanced budget and those states that are not required to have a balanced budget. In terms of states that are constitutionally required to have a balanced budget, such as Wisconsin, privatizing Social Security would lead to one of two things. In the first instance, the state will not increase its spending on welfare so that the share of welfare income among welfare recipients decreases, making them even worse off. In the other case, the state would have to cut spending in other programs, such as education, in order to maintain the welfare income of welfare recipients.

States in which there is not a balanced budget requirement have the same two options, and the same consequences, as states that are required to have a balanced budget. However, they also have a third option, which is a much freer ability to issue bonds. The problem with this option is that it increases the supply of bonds, which increases interest rates. This then produces a crowding out effect on investment. Theoretically speaking, this will last indefinitely. The reason is that, given that everything else is held constant, the state can only pay its bonds and the interest to those bonds by issuing more bonds. The result of this is that investment spending by both the consumer and the firm decreases due to the higher cost of investment (higher interest rates). The result of this is that capital (machinery, etc.) continues to depreciate, which leads to a loss of productivity, which leads to a decrease in wealth.

Now, I will assume that states can pay for the increasing cost of welfare only by increasing taxes. The result of this is a decrease in the amount consumers can spend and save. This can be particularly devastating to the economy since consumer expenditures are considered a driving force in the American economy. This has the effect of decreasing the consumers’ utility both in the current period and in future periods. At the same time, the wealthy are going to pay much more in income taxes than they would under the Social Security regime. The reason is under the Social Security regime, there is a cap on the amount of Social Security tax paid. This is not the same for income taxes. So, if income taxes increase by the same amount as was the Social Security tax rate, the wealthy would consequently pay more in taxes. Because, as it seems intuitive to me, the wealthy provide the vast amount of savings in the economy, this would increase interest rates as a result of a decrease in savings. This too will make it more difficult for firms to invest in capital. This leads to a decrease in efficiency and thus productivity, which decreases wealth.

The other option is for the government to set up a program that is similar to Social Security but tends only to the disabled. The benefit of this particular program is that it is less costly than the Social Security program. This seems to be the more viable option.

I will now analyze the effects on the elderly from privatizing Social Security. So, what will happen to those who have spent most of their lives in poverty and/or in the lower middle class strata if Social Security is abolished? Chances are this group lives from paycheck to paycheck. What this means is that a person/family uses each paycheck to cover the necessary costs of living. So, if a person/family are living from paycheck to paycheck, how will they be able to save for retirement? The fact is they cannot. Social Security is their only form of retirement. Abolishing Social Security will remove their only source of funds for retirement. The effect of this is that this group of people are forced to work well beyond their productive years. While they continue to work as they age beyond their productive years, they are becoming less productive. This affects the productivity of the firms for which they work, which effectively results in a decrease in wealth. This decrease in productivity also produces a cost on firms. This can then lead to those elderly being laid off. If this occurs, how will they be able to survive? Without exacting a financial burden on their children, they will either have to go on welfare or the government would have to set up a new program that tends only to the impoverished and the lower middle class elderly.

I will first look at the welfare option. As I have already mentioned, the group of people I have been analyzing have lived most of their lives in poverty or slightly above poverty. As a result, they probably have already been on welfare, and have probably received the maximum benefits allowed under TANF. (To reiterate, under TANF, welfare recipients can only receive benefits for a maximum of five years.) Again, how will this group be able to live? Now, if they are using welfare benefits for the first time while in retirement, what happens if they live longer than five years? Again, how will they be able to live? They cannot.

The other option is for the government to set up a welfare-like program for the elderly, or something that is similar to Social Security. The benefit of this is that if the benefits of this program are only to the group I have been discussing, then costs will be decreased as compared to the retirement benefits paid under the Social Security regime.

The effects of privatizing Social Security on the disabled and the indigent render that Social Security should not be privatized. Based on my assumptions, it seems that the best way to repair Social Security is to limit its benefits to the disabled and the elderly from the low and lower middle classes who lack the ability to save for retirement.

Is There a Right to Privacy in the Workplace?

Do employees have a right to privacy? More specifically, should employers be allowed to monitor their employees’ computer activities? To answer this question, I shall look at private property. I will also look at the effect of not monitoring the employees’ online activity. Looking at private property, and the result from misuse of company property, employees do not have the right to privacy in the workplace. (In this essay, I will focus on businesses monitoring their employees’ computer activities, such as surfing the internet for pornography.)

Employees do not have a claim to a right to privacy in the workplace. The reason is simply based on the notion of private property. When a business purchases office equipment, it becomes a part of its property. (The same can be said if a business leased its office equipment.) Because this is the business’ property, it has the right dictate the proper use of said equipment; just like if you lent something of yours to a friend, you would want to make sure that your property was properly used. Another attribute of property is that you have the right to monitor it. This same right applies to businesses.

Now, I will look at the effects of allowing employees to misuse company equipment. This analysis will add reason for why employees do not have a right to privacy in the workplace. When employees spend time surfing the internet for pornography instead of working, they place an additional cost burden upon the business for which they work. The cost is primarily seen in the lost of productivity that results. When an employee surfs the internet for pornography, he or she obvious is not working and is therefore not productive. Now, because this produces an additional and unnecessary cost, should not businesses be allowed to implement cost-cutting measures? And, it seems to me, is not the only way to do so is by monitoring employee activity?

Employees do not have a right to privacy in the workplace. There are two reasons for this. First, businesses own the office equipment. Because of this, they have the right to dictate the proper use of this equipment, and they have the right monitor to ensure proper use of the equipment. Second, misuse of the office equipment of businesses produces a cost for these businesses. As a result, businesses have the right to monitor their office equipment to ensure that costs are reduced.

The Wizard of Oz and Christianity

The movie The Wizard of Oz contains many references to Christianity.

The first reference is the Witch of the East, which symbolizes an angel. This witch is dressed in white clothing and is capable of flying. This witch also takes the appearance of beauty. In our culture, angels are also dressed in white, can also fly, and also appear beautiful.

The second reference to Christianity is the Wicked Witch of the West, which symbolizes Satan. In Christianity, Satan was once an angel. We see the reference to an angel in the Wicked Witch in that this witch is also capable of flight. There are two other things about this witch that links her to Satan. This witch dresses in black, which is the color people think of as being evil, and Satan is considered an evil being. The last reference to Satan is that the Wicked Witch attempts to subside into temptation. (She tries to get Dorothy’s ruby slippers. This is something I will discuss a little later.) We know that Satan is involved in tempting human beings by the story of Jesus being tempted in the New Testament.

The Wizard of Oz portrays God. The Oz, it is believed by the characters in the movie, is an all powerful being. Dorothy and her friends believe that he has the ability to grant them wishes, such as the Lion having courage and the Tin Man having a heart. This is something that we kind of expect or wish from God.

The last symbolic reference to Christianity is the ruby slipper. As I have already mentioned, the slipper represents temptation. In the movie, the Wicked Witch employs numerous tricks and what not to obtain the ruby slippers from Dorothy.

The movie The Wizard of Oz contains many references to Christianity. When these references are combined, especially that of Dorothy, the Wicked Witch, and the ruby slippers, they tell a moral story that is based on Christianity. That moral is that things turn out great for a person who does not slip into temptation. In the context of The Wizard of Oz, Dorothy never gave up her slippers to the temptation of the Wicked Witch. As a result, she was able to find herself back into Kansas.

A Problem With the Minimum Wage Law

In this essay, I will assume that the minimum wage law is, in general, a good thing. In other words, I am going to ignore the complaints from economists concerning the minimum wage. With this in mind, there is one problem that I see with the minimum wage law. That problem is the fact that the minimum wage law is universally applied.

The problem with the minimum wage law is that it is universally applied. This is where the problem in the minimum wage law exists, given the above assumption. The problem is that the minimum wage does not take into effect the varying costs of living across an area. So, in areas where there is a lower cost of living, the minimum wage law may induce an unnecessary higher labor cost in that particular. This acts to impose higher prices within that area than what the market would have dictated. (This would still be true with a minimum wage that is adjusted according to the cost of living index.) Consequently, this would negatively affect every living in that particular area since they would be facing higher prices, and thus they see a lower indifference curve than what they would have seen. This ultimately reduces each person’s utility.

On the other hand, in areas where there is a higher cost of living, the minimum wage law may be too low to provide an adequate standard of living. Although this would benefit everyone else not making minimum, since they would be facing lower prices, this would hurt those making the minimum wage. This is because they would not have the same purchasing power that they otherwise would have had if the minimum wage was correctly adjusted for the cost of living index.

Given that the minimum wage law is, generally, a good policy, it falls short on the fact that it is not set to match the cost of living in differing areas. It either induces a higher cost on employers in areas with a lower cost of living or it doesn't provide the necessary income, in areas where the cost of living is high, for those making the minimum wage to meet a standard of living considered adequate.

On Christianity

The purpose of this essay is to argue against the Christian Bible (or just Bible) and to show its falseness.

I have heard from a plurality of reputable sources that the Bible contradicts itself in a variety of issues. It also seems, and I may be wrong about this, that God provided the inspiration to the authors of the Bible’s different books. This is to say that God, with his posse of angels, told the Bible’s various authors what to write. Lastly, we view God to be infallible.

As I have already mentioned, the Bible contradicts itself on numerous issues. Something that is contradictory cannot have been written by or helped written by an entity that is infallible. This is simply because of the very nature of contradictions and infallibility. Basically, a contradiction exhibits fallibility. Consequently, it appears that the Bible is the work of human beings and not God.

To show that the Bible appears to be the work of human being I will compare the Christian Bible to the Torah, which is the Jewish Bible. (For the most part, the Torah is the Christian Bible’s Old Testament.) Both these Bibles contain the Book of Genesis. Within Genesis, there is the story of Adam and Eve. More specifically there is an instance where Adam and Eve are confronted by a serpent. In the Torah version of Genesis, the serpent that seduces Eve into consuming the forbidden fruit is just that, a serpent. However, in the Bible version of Genesis, the serpent takes the form of Satan. I find this to be strikingly funny in part because Christianity was founded by Jews who believed Jesus to be the Messiah. Why did these Jews, after years of following Jewish dogma, feel the need to transform the serpent into Satan? My answer is that they decided to exploit the uncertainty of what occurs after death in order to produce a fear (you will go to hell) in order to gain a following.

The Bible is a false book. It is a book full of contradictions. A contradiction is a characteristic of something that is fallible. Consequently, the Bible could not have been written by God who is by definition infallible. As a result, it appears that human beings, without the aid of God, wrote the Bible.

On the Legalization of Drugs

The following is a paper I wrote for a philosophy class this past spring (2005).

The prohibition of drugs in the United States is mostly based on paternalistic reasons. However, this paternalism seems to be unfounded and seems to be hurting America. Decriminalizing drugs will most likely lead to, among other things, a decrease in the crime rate, an improved American economy, and the cleaning up of drugs (in other words making drugs safer). At the same time, the various arguments supporting drug criminalization have problems that do not warrant drugs to be illegal. In considering the reasons for why drugs should be legalized and the problematic arguments for prohibition, I think drugs should be legalized.

There are several reasons for why drugs need to be legalized. The first reason for this is that the legalization of drugs will lead to a decrease in crime. There are several reasons for why this will likely occur. First, much of the crimes associated with drugs are linked to the black market. According to Mark Thornton, “[v]iolence is used in black markets and [in] criminal organizations to enforce contracts, maintain market share, and defend sales territory” (112). Legalizing drugs, and thus dissolving the black market, would remove these criminal activities, which decreases crime. Violence would no longer need to be used to enforce contracts. Instead, contracts can be enforced, like all legitimate contracts, through the legal system. In terms of maintaining market share and defending sales territory, we do not see legally existing entities using violence to obtain these two goals. For example, I do not recall the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Dell doing a drive-by shooting of the CEO of IBM.

Another reason for why legalizing drugs will decrease crime is that it removes a large portion of financial resources from inner-city street gangs. It is quite well known that gangs are associated with selling illegal drugs. The money gangs obtain from selling drugs is used to, among other things, purchase weapons. These weapons are then used, besides the three criminal activities associated with black markets, to commit other violent crimes, such as armed robbery. However, supporters of prohibition may say that gangs, as a result of losing revenue from selling drugs, would then commit other crimes in order to maintain their status. This is something I disagree with and I will discredit this a little later.

Legalizing drugs will also decrease the number of crimes committed by users who commit crimes in order to support their habit. The high drug prices associated with the black market has been attributed by many for a decent number of crimes committed by habitual users. This is because the black market artificially inflates drug prices, in part due to their illegality. These high prices make it more difficult for addicts to finance their habit. Consequently, they commit crimes in order to finance that addiction. Legalizing drugs will dissolve the black market and the high prices associated with the black market. In other words, drug prices will decrease. This extends the financial resources of addicts and decreases the need for those addicts to commit crimes in order to finance their habit. To illustrate, let’s say that I inhale an ounce of cocaine a day and that an ounce costs $100. At the same time, my weekly income is $500 a week. To finance my addiction, I would need to obtain $200 more in order to do so. One of the ways I can obtain this $200 deficit is through crime. As I have already stated, if drugs were legalized, drug prices would decrease. For the sake of this example, let’s say the price of an ounce of cocaine decreases to $50 on the legal market. Because of this, I now have a surplus of $150. With this surplus of income, I no longer need to commit crimes to finance my habit. From this, supporters of drug prohibition claim that the decreasing of drug prices could lead to an increase in the number of users. However, this is something I do not think will happen, which I will explain this later.

A final reason for why drug legalization will decrease crime is that it frees up police resources. Police Departments across the nation will no longer have to devote resources to disrupting the illegal drug market since it will no longer exist. This allows the police to focus resources on other crimes, which acts as a deterrent to crime. So, as I previously mentioned, if gangs shifted their revenue-seeking activity towards crimes not including the selling of drugs, they will be deterred from doing so because of the extra presence of police.

A second reason for why drugs should be legalized is that it will help the American economy[1]. This is because taxes will more than likely decrease. According to Boyum and Kleiman, “about 20% of all incarcerations involve drug law violations.” Legalizing drugs would ultimately free up space in prisons. This would decrease the cost of prisons, which creates a surplus in the revenue spent on prisons. This can translate into a decrease in taxes. If the tax decrease is applied to income taxes, then two things will occur. First, consumer expenditures, which is considered a driving factor in the American economy, will increase because people have more money in which to spend. Secondly, firms will be persuaded to upgrade their capital[2] through borrowing. This is because interest rates will decrease as a result of people saving more.[3] Because interest represents a cost to firms, a lower interest rate lowers the cost of borrowing. As a result, each firm becomes more efficient in its production.

A final reason for why drugs should be legalized is that the effects of a free, legal market will clean up the various illicit drugs. This is because, according to Thornton, “[t]he competition and discovery process that characterizes the development of a market promote solutions to the problem of drug abuse that prohibition seeks to solve” (150). Thornton further states that “[d]eadly products that survive in black markets would be eliminated” (150). In other words, drugs will become cleaner, instead of being mixed with other agents that can cause harm to the user. Proponents of prohibition argue that this will encourage more people to use drugs like cocaine and heroin, because the cleaning of these drugs removes a factor that deters people from using these drugs. However, even if cleaned, cocaine and heroin still run the risk of both addiction and death from overdosing. Thus, these two factors will still exist to restrain people from using cocaine, heroin, and other drugs.

There are several arguments for the prohibition of drugs that have problems. The first such argument comes from James Q. Wilson’s essay “Against the Legalization of Drugs.” In this essay, Wilson argues that the War on Drugs has kept the level of heroin addicts the same “for over 15 years” (295). According to Wilson, this is because heroin is an illicit drug. However, I offer another reason for why this has occurred. The level of heroin addicts has been level because we now more effectively know and teach to children the various hazards associated with heroin use (and the use of other drugs), such as a high rate of addiction, death from overdosing, and the contraction of diseases from sharing needles. This knowledge acts as a constraint against the use of heroin and other illicit drugs, which then has kept the level of heroin users at a constant level. To show this, we can look at data from the Department of Health and Human Services’ National Survey on Drug Use and Health. In particular, I will be looking at the data for lifetime use of drugs among those ages 12 to 17 in 2002. According to this data, 2.7% used cocaine, 5.7% used hallucinogens. In contrast, 36.8% used tobacco while 43.4% used alcohol. Since all these substances are illegal for those aged 12 to 17, their illegality cannot explain why there is a vast difference in the use of tobacco and alcohol and the use of cocaine and hallucinogens.[4] Instead, the disparity in the use of these substances can be explained by their respective consequences. Users of both cocaine and hallucinogens can see the negative effects, such as overdosing, at the offset of use. In contrast, the use of alcohol and tobacco have negative effects that extend more into the long-run. The survey also has data on alcohol and tobacco use for those aged 18 and older, in which 87.8% reported they had used alcohol in their lifetime and 77.3% had used tobacco in their lifetime.[5] From looking at this data, a prohibitionist would contend that because there is a dramatic increase in the use of alcohol and tobacco from those who cannot legally consume alcohol and tobacco to those who can, the same would happen with illicit drugs if they were legalized. However, I have already noted that the far more dangerous consequences associated with using illegal drugs would prevent this.

Another problematic pro-prohibition argument involves drug education programs. As I have previously stated, drug education programs, such as the Drug Awareness and Resistance Education (DARE) program, teach children about the negative effects of drug use. Wilson claims that “I wonder how credible such programs would be if they were aimed at dissuading children from doing something perfectly legal” (298). The problem with this claim is that, through health courses, schools have taught against alcohol and tobacco use, or at least have taught the consequences associated with using alcohol and tobacco. When I took health courses in both middle and high school, I never once questioned the credibility of these courses, and I would be willing to bet that I was not the only one.

Thomas Constantine has another problematic prohibitionist argument. He states that “[a]t the current time, American communities are being targeted by powerful international drug trafficking organizations.” Constantine further states that “[t]hey saturated U.S. cities with multi-ton quantities of cocaine and created an unprecedented demand. This was a case of supply driving demand.” There are three reasons for why this is problematic. First, supply just does not dictate demand. A firm can flood the market with an obviously highly defective product. It just does not entail that people will buy (demand) this product. To further illustrate, during my freshman year in college, a friend began selling marijuana. The supply of marijuana was there, but that did not influence me to buy and to start smoking marijuana.

Even if Constantine’s claim is true, the reason for why the United States has been flooded with illicit drugs is due to the black market. As I have previously mentioned, black markets inflate prices. This produces the incentive for suppliers of illicit drugs to flood a particular market. The reason is that suppliers receive a higher profit as a result of the artificially inflated prices that are due to the black market. To illustrate, if an ounce of cocaine in a legal market has a price of $50, and the cost of producing an ounce of cocaine is $40, then producers of cocaine see a profit of $10 per ounce of cocaine. Under a prohibitionist regime, I will assume that the price of an ounce of cocaine increases to $100. At the same time, the cost of producing an ounce of cocaine remains the same (at $40). The profit of a supplier of cocaine increases from $10 to $60 per ounce of cocaine. This larger profit under a prohibitionist regime provides the incentive to flood a market with cocaine and other illicit drugs. Consequently, if Constantine’s claim is true, prohibiting drugs is a self-defeating purpose.

The third reason for why Constantine’s argument that supply is driving demand is wrong is that it appears that demand is actually driving supply. According to a History Channel program entitled “Hooked on Illegal Drugs,” demand for illegal drugs skyrocketed during the 1960s and the 1970s. This was in part due to both the counterculture and the disco culture. This dramatic increase in the demand for drugs influenced South American drug producers to flood the United States market with illicit drugs in order to meet the increased demand. This shows a case of demand driving supply, and not supply driving demand.

In conclusion, drugs need to be legalized. Legalizing drugs will likely lead to three things, among others. First, legalizing drugs will likely decrease the crime rate. Second, this course of action will likely help improve the American economy. Lastly, a policy of decriminalization will make drugs cleaner. Furthermore, the various arguments in support of drug prohibition have many problems, which support my claim that drugs need to be legalized.

[1] I should note that I am an economics major.

[2] By capital I mean the factors of production, such as machinery, etc.

[3] When people save more, banks have more money. Because it is not beneficial for banks to just hold on to money, banks lower interest rates in order to influence consumers and producers to borrow and to dissuade consumers and producers from saving more.

[4] This data does run the risk of respondents incorrectly reporting using these substances. Consequently, the percentage of illicit drug use could actually be higher.

[5] The data reported did not have a category for those 21 and over who had used alcohol. Also, these percentages would be smaller if it had only included those who used alcohol and tobacco for first time when they were legally able to do so.

WORKS CITED

Boyum, David and Kleiman, Mark. “Breaking the Drug-Crime Link.” Public Interest.
Summer 2003. Proquest. 1 April 2005. http://proquest.umi.com/.

Constantine, Thomas A. “Drug Legalization Would Lead to Increased Drug Abuse.” 13
July 1999. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. 1 April 2005.
http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/ovcr.

“Hooked on Illegal Drugs.” History Channel. 20 April 2005.

LaFollette, Hugh, ed. Ethics in Practice. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2002.

Thornton, Mark. The Economics of Prohibition. Salt Lake City: University of Utah
Press, 1991.

United States. Dept. of Health and Human Services. Office of Applied Studies.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results from the
2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed Tables. September
2003. 10 April 2005. http://www.drugabusestatistics.samhsa.gov/%20nhsda/%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%202k2nsduh/2k2TabsCover.pdf
2k2nsduh/2k2TabsCover.pdf.