ABSTRACT: Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize for Economics, states that today the State, with a prohibitionist legislation, is imposing a heavy tax on all citizens: a tax of violence, disorder, corruption and illegality, without, on the other hand, solving the drug addicts' problems.

(Radical News n.55 of 13 March 1989)

"In considering the reasons for legalization, it is necessary to make a clear distinction between drug addicts, who harm themselves, and a legal structure such as prohibition, which leads to severe damages for a much higher number of non-drug addicts. The legalization of drugs would first of all substantially reduce the number of non addicted victims of the drug phenomenon: people who are assaulted, people who are corrupted, for example. The law violated, the public order jeopardized by the corruption of the police forces, the concentration of all the repressive apparatus and of all the financial resources on this single sector of activity: this is the result of prohibition. There are millions of people who are not drug addicts and who suffer damages because of the system in force, not to mention the damage brought to the national political systems of countries such as Colombia and Peru. The cost of prohibition on drugs for non-addicts, and the increasing risk of being the victim of an assault, are the equiv

alent of taxes: they are costs imposed by the State. Once legalized, drugs could be sold through the normal retail sale circuits. For example in drugstores. There should be no tax or other controls on drugs. But there should be restrictions for the sale to minors. As far as the restriction on advertisement is concerned, I find both positions difficult. I tremble at the thought of a TV in which a charming young lady says: "My stuff will give you an ecstasy you have never felt before", but on the other hand I am always very skeptical toward restrictions on commercial freedom for general reasons of freedom of expression. But, apart from any hesitations, I have no doubts that legalization will not be possible without substantial restrictions to advertisement.

It is almost impossible to foresee exactly what the effects of legalization will be on the ways of use. Some of the factors of legalization tend to reduce the number of drug addicts, whereas others would tend to increase it. I have no idea as to which factor will prevail. At present, for example, a fundamental investment for a drug dealer is the creation of a new drug addict. Thus, it is convenient for him to give a non-consumer a couple of doses for free in order to make him rapidly become a fixed client, a sort of hostage. Because drugs are illegal, the client will not lose sight of the dealer. After legalization, this type of investment on people will cease existing. And this will no doubt cause a drop in consumption. In any case there is no doubt that legalization would lead to a drastic drop in market prices. Today the cost of the production of drugs, whether cocaine, marijuana or other drugs, is very low. The traffickers sell the substances at such a high price because of the costs involved in the corr

uption of top officials, and to make this market attractive to people who run the risk of being killed or ending in prison, etc. Thus, to reduce the cost of the substances at the origin would mean lower retail prices, which would bring to a tendency toward an increase of the demand. But there would also be an opposite effect on supply, and it is thus impossible to foresee what the result would be. An increase in the number of drug addicts is possible, and this is a negative effect. I believe that drugs cause an immense damage, but no law is void of negative effects. To judge any law, it is necessary to compare the positive consequences and the negative ones. Today we are imposing heavy costs on non-consumers, in the false conviction that we are helping drug addicts in this way. But this would not happen after legalization. And so, in spite of the fact that drug addicts should receive the same treatment of any other citizen - the same medical service ensured to any other person - I do not believe that they sh

ould receive a special treatment, comparable to the victims of other medical problems. In my opinion it is not fair to impose special taxes on non-drug addicts to make the drug addicts benefit from them. This would be the task not of the government, but of private voluntary associations, whose aim is the rehabilitation of drug addicts. No more than it is government's task to manage medical insurances. On the other hand, if the state has a welfare system, or a form of negative taxation, it would be available to the drug addicts as to any other citizen. We must not impress a stronger stigma on drug addicts than the one we impress on other victims. As I said in my article on drugs on Newsweek sixteen years ago, I think that adults, and by this I mean people we hold responsible - that is, all persons who have no special sickness and who are not below a certain age - should be responsible for their lives. I am a libertarian - a libertarian who believes in the limits of the state, I am not an anarchist - and my fu

ndamental goal is the freedom of all people to take their own decisions.