'Pragmatic' Objections to More Freedom

Tyler Cowen takes a look at marijuana (semi-)legalization at Bloomberg. After reviewing a report on the economic effects thereof, he wonders if it "wasn't such a great idea after all."

The report itself looks at economic effects as well as social effects that end up costing tax money via the welfare state. And some links at the article point to other potential objections to legalization:

• Too Many Preschoolers Are Eating Their Parents' Gummies: Lisa Jarvis
• Legal Marijuana Is Making Roads More Lethal: Editorial Board
• How New York's Marijuana Law Is Endangering Kids: Michael R. Bloomberg

You get the general drift, even without the good news/bad news of improving measures of economic health in states that have done this -- versus increases of such things as people with substance abuse disorders and chronic homelessness.

Relevantly, Cowen ends on the following note, which is interesting for a couple of reasons:

I remain of two minds on the entire question. My libertarian leanings lead me to strongly oppose throwing people in jail for what is essentially self-regarding behavior, in this case marijuana usage. Yet the empiricist in me can see that marijuana legalization has so far proved a disappointment.

It would be hard to use this latest research paper to persuade people that additional drugs should be legalized as well. And I would not be surprised if some governments decided to end their experiments with marijuana legalization. Unless you are a responsible user, how exactly does it make you better off? Looking only at the practical issues, what is the case for legalization?

The next step, then, is to come up with a more workable version of marijuana legalization. It won't be easy. [bold added]

I respect Cowen and regard him as one of the Good Guys overall, but I disagree that it has been partial legalization that has been the disappointment.

It is not the government's job to protect people from themselves, full stop. The fact that it does this regarding marijuana results in, to borrow a couple of terms from Bastiat, the seen (real or not) of fewer people using marijuana than otherwise, but at the cost of the unseen of numerous other less-debatable freedoms abrogated or being endangered by the very fact that we have the precedent of a law on the books that regulates our behavior "for our own good."

That said, Cowen is not wrong to note that in our current cultural context, people are likely to object to legalization for the kinds of reasons mentioned above.

I think that part of addressing those concerns is to note the problem I just did, but part will be to admit that, while, yes, some adults are going to hurt themselves if left fully free, that does not excuse putting everyone in chains.

Another part of the puzzle will be to consider what might happen in an even freer society. For example, might the "downward financial spiral" observed in some marijuana users be encouraged by the inherent moral hazard of the "safety net" of such things as welfare and free medical help for the indigent?

Wouldn't an adult with a less sure prospect of rescue be more likely to think twice about developing a drug habit? Ditto for chronic homelessness.

Charities could step in, but on the condition of the recipients' staying sober, and enforcement of property rights would make it impossible to set up the kind of festering encampments we see today. (Indeed, people permitting such on their own property would be incentived to clean them up lest their generosity result in their getting into trouble under nuisance law, for example.)

And people exposing minors to marijuana would face penalties for negligence or abuse. (Perhaps they already do, but with drugs legal long-enough, that would be the case, and it would be common knowledge.)

Finally, it is a reasonable question to ask if now is the right time for drug legalization. Should we focus on freeing up other parts of society (e.g., strengthening property rights or rolling back the welfare state) first, then revisit drug legalization when some of the perverse incentives (or lack of penalties) for drug use are weaker or nonexistent?

I have no interest in using it myself, but marijuana should become completely legal, sooner or later. Objections to legalization miss the point of what government is for on a fundamental level, be it by assuming that the government should protect people from themselves or by forgetting that improper government magnifies the problem of drug abuse via perverse incentives and at least partially protecting abusers from the consequences of their own actions. (And all this is made possible by redistribution of money belong by right to other people.)

When one examines this question from a consistently pro-freedom perspective, the conclusion that marijuana should be legal becomes inescapable not just because freedom is moral, but because it is practical: Harm to others would be punished and the power and creativity of personal freedom would be unleashed.

-- CAV