Fighting Terrorism By Legalizing Drugs

Daniel Drezner is pointed by Mark Thoma to the Financial Times, where Willem Buiter explains how we can fight terrorism by legalizing drugs:

A pragmatic argument against criminalising drugs is that criminalisation creates vast rents and encourages criminal entrepreneurs to use violence, intimidation, bribery, extortion and corruption to extract these rents. Another pragmatic argument is that it is pointless to waste resources fighting a war that cannot be won. The losing war on drugs wastes resources that could be used to fight terrorism and other crimes.

Another important argument for legalising, in particular, all cultivation of poppy and of coca (and their illegal derivatives) is that this would take away a vital source of income and political support for terrorist move- ments, including the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and Colombia’s Revolutionary Armed Forces (Farc) and various paramilitary groups.

The United Nations estimates that opium production in Afghanistan grew to more than 6,000 metric tonnes last year with a value exceeding $3bn. It is the origin of more than 90 per cent of the world’s illegally consumed opiates.

A significant portion of the profits flows to the Taliban, who act as middlemen in the opium business. They combine extortion and threats of violence towards the poppy farmers with the sale of protection to these same farmers against those who would destroy their livelihood, mainly the Nato allies and the Afghan central government.

Following legalisation, the allies in Afghanistan could further undermine the financial strength of the Taliban and al-Qaeda by buying up the entire poppy harvest. If a sufficient premium over the prevailing market price were offered, the Taliban/al-Qaeda middle-man could be cut out altogether, and thus would lose his tax base. Winning the hearts and minds of poppy growers and coca growers is a lot easier when you are not seen as intent on destroying their livelihood.

Of course, there are plenty of other reasons to legalize drugs, and Buiter acknowledges some of those as well:

The principle-based argument for legalisation is that behaviour that harms others ought to be criminalised, not behaviour that hurts only the person engaged in it. It is not the government’s job to protect adults of sound mind from the predictable consequences of their actions.

If the public is ill-informed about the consequences of drug taking, there is an educational role for the state. Children should be protected from drugs, as they are from tobacco and alcohol. So should the mentally ill and mentally incapacitated. Parents should be paternalistic, but when it comes to mentally competent grown-ups the state should not be. It is not the responsibility of the state to ensure our “happiness” – whatever that is. That is the road to a Brave New World.

He could have mentioned, but didn't, the extreme social ills of drug-centered gang and mob violence, the burden of imprisoning so many people for committing victimless "crimes," and the resources saved by ending the imprisonment of those people, as well as slashing the government bureaucracy dedicated to hunting and arresting those who illegally peddle drugs. Plus the revenue which could be had by legalizing and taxing the drugs. Plus the social health benefits caused by government testing and regulation, thus preventing unsafe drugs from hitting the street. Etc.

It's a great article. Obviously, the case for legalization is much stronger than simply as a mechanism of combating terrorism, but that argument is persuasive enough on its face to open up the debate in broader contexts than has been previously done.