The Origin of Singaporean Crime Policy

It’s actually not so easy what to say here. Arguments about how people should be free to put whatever substances they want in their bodies aren’t likely to cut much ice with Lee Kuan Yew, nor are arguments that deny the deterrent effect of criminalization. And while the argument Scott presents might show why it’s a bad idea to impose the death penalty for drug dealing, it isn’t an argument for legalization.

Your best bet would be to argue that drug prohibition empowers gangs and organized crime, by giving them a revenue stream that would otherwise be unavailable. A comparison to alcohol prohibition in the U.S. might be apt here.

Blackladder is right. I was arguing against the death penalty for drug trafficking, not for legalization.

I forgot to mention that the answer to the legalization depends on Lee Kuan Yew’s (and moreover Singapore’s) preferences and ideology. Milton Friedman’s appeal to individual freedom and liberty may not go far with Lee Kuan Yew and Singapore’s people. Though, as Prof. Caplan has pointed out in a prior post, people there seem very receptive to economic arguments for legalization. A sensible economic argument for reducing the punishment may be the first step toward that end.

What about Steve Sailer’s claim that Singapore is a success?

It seems to me that only a small portion of people would be deterred from bringing labor or capital to Singapore due to the draconian punishment. Drug users might be deterred if they are desirable immigrants and the cost of their habit is high.

Many pot smokers who work smart and hard would be desirable. Is the price of pot higher in Singapore than neighboring countries? If not, then the best argument for legalization is that the policy doesn’t reduce drug use or trade.

I don’t know the actual drug crime situation in Singapore. If it’s nil or next-to-nil, then I honestly wouldn’t have a very strong case to make. My case would boil down to “personal choice,” though I frankly don’t give a rat’s patootie about letting people shoot bug spray into their veins.

Rather, I think the main rationale for legalizing drugs in America is because addiction is widespread enough, and demand is so inelastic, that it virtually guarantees the criminal situation we have. In America, it seems to me that drugs are most destructive because of the crime that’s sprung up around it, not from the actual drug abuse. And the crime only exists because:

A) prices are high, attracting lots of “entrepreneurs” and encouraging users to commit robbery to pay for their drugs
B) being a black market, dealers willing to use, violence, coercion, blackmail, extortion, thuggery, etc. to make money will thrive where honest dealers will be driven out

Make it legal, the price comes down, users don’t have to resort to crime, it’s a normal “white” market so thuggish producers will be driven *away* rather than the opposite, and crime levels go down. Those who would otherwise be drug trafficking criminals won’t simply “go into other modes of crime” as has often been proposed (as if there were a fixed amount of crime to be committed), but will have to get real jobs or become *minor* criminals. The economic logic behind drug legalization in America, where crime rates are high because of it, is impeccable. But I don’t know about an area where drug use and thus crime hasn’t really taken hold. I think the argument isn’t so strong there.

Scott Wentland’s argument about drug dealers killing witnesses is off base. Drug dealing is a consensual crime, so the witnesses are customers, partners and suppliers. If they rat on you, they’re already protected by the police by the time you can retaliate. When the police catch you in a sting they can shoot you easily enough before you resist.

Kuliani beat me to the immigration effect: if valuable potential immigrants want drugs badly enough, then that is a competitive disadvantage. On the other hand, many people like the security of knowing their kids won’t become addicted to drugs or waste time smoking pot, and I would expect that the net effect would be in favor of prohibition. The only plausible exception would be marijuana, but you could restrict access to government-inspected or operated shops for high-value immigrants who specify their maximum requirements when they immigrate.

I think my best LKY-pragmatic argument against the mandatory death penalty for drugs would be the possibility of suspending sentences in exchange for participation in dangerous medical experiments.

Question: Suppose you were Milton Friedman trying to convince Lee Kuan Yew to legalize drugs. What would you tell him?

Oh, I’d probably say something to the effect that every friend of freedom must be revolted by the prospect of turning Singapore into an armed camp, by the vision of jails filled with casual drug users and of an army of enforcers empowered to invade the liberty of citizens on slight evidence.

Singapore is such a weird (in a mostly good way) place.

Item: social deviancy is just different. For at least 20 years one of the ways people have taken out their frustrations is to pee on elevators.

http://beconfused.com/2004/07/13/singaporeurine/

They used to put pictures in the Straits Times.

One interesting thing: Malaysia imposes exactly the same penalty (death for possessing anything besides the minutest quantities of drugs). It’s definitely not because of Lee Kuan Yew. I’m not sure which Prime Minister had the death penalty for drugs enacted, but Mahathir Mohamad was similarly affected by the Japanese occupation growing up, so that could be another interesting data point.

“Suppose you were Milton Friedman trying to convince Lee Kuan Yew to legalize drugs. What would you tell him?”

I would say that he could, at the same time, legalize drugs and penalize people who commit crimes under the influence of drugs with death penalty. If he really believes in the deterrent effect of death penalty, I don’t see any reason that he could give to oppose this new scheme.

You could tell them that even though they execute people every year they still have a drug trade. For heavens sakes, if hanging people doesn’t stop the sale of drugs, what will?

Judging from the harshness of the anti-drug laws, which can penalize property owners and bystanders, Singapore has made a clear social choice to reject drug use. If I were Milton Friedman, I would respect their choice and find ways to create thousands of small city-states in America.

Question: Suppose you were Milton Friedman trying to convince Lee Kuan Yew to legalize drugs. What would you tell him?

I’d probably start with “Help, help, get me out of this coffin!”