The dire warnings about the effects of pot legalization failed to pan out. But that has not stopped drug warriors from arguing that a soft on drugs approach would be disastrous. Consider this recent article in the OC Register:
So in 2014, with the best of intentions, voters passed Proposition 47. This reduced a great many drug-related offenses from felonies to misdemeanors, and kept a great many low-level drug offenders out of jail. The money saved on incarceration would go into effective addiction treatment, among other things, reformers said.
Since then, there has been an interesting, and perhaps tragic, convergence of events:
Drug offense arrests have plunged 85% — from 137,054 in 2014 to 20,574 in 2022, according to data from the California Department of Justice.
While drug overdose deaths have more than doubled — from 4,519 in 2014 to 10,410 in 2022, according to data from the California Department of Public Health.
Sounds bad! But what happened in other states?
In 2014, California had only 9.6% of all drug overdose deaths in the US, despite having 12% of the US population. (Are you surprised, given what you see reported in the media?) In 2022, that figure actually fell slightly—to 9.5%. So there’s no evidence that California’s drug crime liberalization had any impact on overdose deaths. (National data is from here and here.)
Portugal’s drug decriminalization program (which was adopted in 2001), is another example often cited as a failure. So how is Portugal doing 20 years later?
Drug overdose deaths per million in Portugal are relatively low by Western European standards, and are less than half the rate of neighboring Spain. In fairness, things have gotten worse in the last three years, as spending on treatment programs was cut back. So Portugal is far from perfect. But it’s certainly not an example of a failed program:
In 1999, Lisbon carried the moniker of the “heroin capital of Europe.” Consequential diseases such as HIV infection reached an all-time high in 2000, with 104.2 new cases per million people. . . .
By 2018, Portugal’s number of heroin addicts had dropped from 100,000 to 25,000. Portugal had the lowest drug-related death rate in Western Europe, one-tenth of Britain and one-fiftieth of the U.S. HIV infections from drug use injection had declined 90%. The cost per citizen of the program amounted to less than $10/citizen/year while the U.S. had spent over $1 trillion over the same amount of time. Over the first decade, total societal cost savings (e.g., health costs, legal costs, lost individual income) came to 12% and then to 18%.
Oregon is another often cited example of drug decriminalization that failed. But there’s not much evidence that drug overdose trends there are any worse than they would have been without decriminalization:
The decriminalization of low-level drug possession in Oregon was not associated with a statistically significant increase in drug-related deaths during the first year after that policy took effect, according to a study reported today in JAMA Psychiatry. The researchers reached a similar conclusion regarding fatal overdoses in Washington, where simple possession was decriminalized as a result of a February 2021 decision by the Washington Supreme Court.
Keep in mind that even if state level drug decriminalization had no effect on aggregate drug deaths in America, you would still expect studies to show an increase in drug deaths in the individual state that decriminalized. That’s because the decriminalization of drugs in a single state will draw drug users from other states. But those external effects are typically not picked up in empirical studies. This means that national drug decriminalization is likely to look even more effective than decriminalization in a single state.
And finally, most of the benefits from the full legalization of drugs do not occur with decriminalization. The illegal and often violent drug trade continues to operate. Overdose deaths due to poor quality drugs continue to occur. If there are public policy weaknesses in other areas, such as maintaining public order, those problems may get worse if drug users migrate to your state from elsewhere:
Three years ago, Oregon voters approved a groundbreaking ballot initiative that eliminated criminal penalties for low-level drug possession. The result of that “reckless experiment,” New York Times columnist Bret Stephens claims, has been a “catastrophe” featuring increases in “opioid overdose deaths,” “shooting incidents,” and public nuisances such as discarded needles, “human feces,” and “oral sex.”
Stephens’ assessment, which draws heavily on a story by Times reporter Jan Hoffman that was published on Monday, combines legitimate concerns about drug addiction and public order with misleading implications based on out-of-context statistics.
READER COMMENTS
john hare
Dec 3 2023 at 5:03am
To me, one of the most compelling arguments for full legalizations is that it defunds the criminal networks. From the individuals out for an easy buck to the multinational cartels. How much of the problems in Mexico are funded by American drug demand?
Not to mention the percentage of cops, lawyers, judges, prison guards, and others that could do something more productive with their time.
Scott Sumner
Dec 3 2023 at 12:15pm
I agree.
Matthias
Dec 6 2023 at 9:47pm
Yes, the drug producers are victims of organised crime just as anyone else.
If drugs are legalised, the producers and distributors have access to the legal system to protect themselves from extortion and other threats.
steve
Dec 3 2023 at 11:42am
I think there are at least three things that are muddying the water on pot legalization. First, when they make it legal they regulate and tax it so heavily people still end up buying some illegally. I am OK with some kind of sin tax but make it more like alcohol and mostly let markets set the price. Second, when you do it state by state or by city you end up, as you point out, with people going there just so they can buy drugs. Last, when states/cities say they will use the money from taxes to increase treatment programs that largely falls through quickly.
Steve
Scott Sumner
Dec 3 2023 at 12:15pm
Good points. I would add that the main factor in the black market is not the tax—which is not that high—it’s the restrictive regulations that makes it very expensive to produce pot. There’s no reason why the cost of production could not fall by 90% with true legalization (including removal of federal laws.)
Warren Platts
Dec 7 2023 at 12:51pm
That’s pretty much right: I hear you can purchase weed for $15 an ounce on the Allegheny Indian Reservation in New York where there are no regulations to speak of, whereas in Denver, the average price is $150/oz.
Ahmed Fares
Dec 3 2023 at 3:25pm
re: what is seen and what is not seen
Here in Canada, health care is run by the provinces and the budget allows a certain number of ambulances. An ambulance that is busy responding to an overdose victim is an ambulance that is not available for dealing with say a stroke victim. The extra delay for a stroke victim causes a worse outcome than would otherwise be the case. Here, harm reduction for drug users shifts the harm onto someone else. That latter doesn’t show up in the drug war statistics.
e.g.
Lack of ambulances left 92-year-old woman waiting for help, Toronto paramedics’ union says
For the second time this month, the Toronto Paramedic Union issued a code red alert — indicating there were no transport ambulances available in the city.
Mike Merriman, the paramedic services unit chair for Toronto Civic Employees Union Local 416, says the alert was triggered Monday evening, when a 92-year-old woman fell unconscious. The call was considered high-acuity and life-threatening, he said.
He says Toronto Paramedic Services sent a lone medic in a SUV, who was stationed almost half an hour away from her. By the time the medic arrived and requested transport help, the service had no units to send, prompting them to request a vehicle from Peel Region instead — all things that cost the patient more time away from hospital, Merriman said.
Matthias
Dec 6 2023 at 9:52pm
You could make the same argument about any users of ambulances. Eg other people with heart attacks also take up space in the ambulance.
Ultimately, the number of ambulances is not a fixed god given number. They can run more ambulances, if there’s demand.
(Tax activities like drug use or obesity, if you need to finance the ambulances. Or just charge people to use an ambulance, and use that to finance them. Insurance can sort it out and convert random actual costs into charges based on life style.)
Stan Greer
Dec 3 2023 at 4:07pm
Not sure how significant this fact is for the argument that CA’s share of U.S. overdose deaths holding steady between 2014 and 2021 (2022?) means legalization doesn’t increase overdose deaths, but an honest and careful commentator would have acknowledged that, since CA’s population has declined in recent years, while the U.S. population has risen, CA’s share of the U.S, population was smaller in 2021/2022/this year than in 2014.
I’m not sure how much smaller, cause I haven’t checked. But I’m not the one who pretends to be a know-it-all about the impact of drug legalization.
Scott Sumner
Dec 4 2023 at 1:09am
That’s not going to make a significant difference.
Stan Greer
Dec 4 2023 at 5:11pm
Well, I have readily available data for 5-17 year olds in 2012 and 2022, which I collected for a wholly different purpose.
Definitely a very high share of drug ODs are 13-17 years old.
CA’s share of the entire 5-17 age bracket in the U.S. fell from 12.4% to 11.85 in 2022.
Two more years than 2014 to 2022, but probably the share was around 12.3% in 2014.
That’s a 0.5 percentage point drop, compare to a 0.1 percentage point drop in the share of drug OD’s.
I don’t have all the data, but it seems obvious enough to me that the point you overlooked, and whose importance you now dismiss, is likely enough to show that ODs in CA actually rose somewhat faster in CA than nationwide.,
You also ignored the fact that there is a nationwide trend towards legalization, but that’ a matter for another day.
Jon Murphy
Dec 4 2023 at 5:28pm
I dunno, man…these magnitudes are rounding errors. I doubt the change is statistically significant, and even if it is, it’s unlikely to be practically significant. Effect size matters and you’re talking minute effects.
Scott Sumner
Dec 5 2023 at 12:19am
Go back and look at the quote I was responding to, and ask yourself who has the better argument.
Scott Sumner
Dec 5 2023 at 12:22am
“Definitely a very high share of drug ODs are 13-17 years old.”
Wrong:
“Many Americans are familiar with the opioid epidemic headlines dominating the news. A likely byproduct of the overall disruptions and stress induced by the COVID-19 pandemic, preventable opioid overdose deaths increased 41% in 2020 and another 18% in 2021. The 35- to 44-year age group is experiencing the most opioid overdose deaths – 20,137 – a 20% increase from 2020, and a 73% increase since 2019. Currently, 71% of preventable opioid deaths occur among those ages 25 to 54, and the number of deaths among individuals 55 and older is growing rapidly. Few opioid deaths occur among children younger than 15.”
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/drugoverdoses/#:~:text=The%2035%2D%20to%2044%2Dyear,and%20older%20is%20growing%20rapidly.
Jon Murphy
Dec 4 2023 at 8:04am
Not significantly, like Scott said. California’s share has fallen by about 0.5 percentage points during that time, and most of that decline in the past year.
I agree with Scott. I think your putting more weight on this fact than it deserves.
Stan Greer
Dec 3 2023 at 4:12pm
Moreover, based on what I know, it is highly probable that the decline of CA”s total population share sincc 2014 is much greater among people 15-50 years old,, who I am guessing constitute the overwhelming majority of drug fatalities, than it is generally. That would make Sumner’s error more egregious.
steve
Dec 4 2023 at 8:06pm
Peak OD age group is 26-39. The majority of people leaving are older.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/california-fleeing
Steve
Lizard Man
Dec 3 2023 at 9:26pm
What caused the decline in opiate addicts in Portugal? From what I have read, legalization of marijuana at the state level has been correlated with in increase in the number and percent of people in those states who are heavy users. Which has made me skeptical that legalization is really that great of an idea, as people being intoxicated all the time is at the very least a huge drain on productivity. But if you can both legalize drugs while simultaneously decreasing drug addiction four-fold, that would really be the best of both worlds.
Scott Sumner
Dec 4 2023 at 1:12am
The negative effects that drug warriors actually warned us about, such as increased use by teenagers, has not happened. By your logic, alcohol should be illegal, as there’s far more alcohol intoxication than marijuana intoxication.
Jon Murphy
Dec 4 2023 at 8:08am
Are people “intoxicated all the time?” There’s a significant difference between a “heavy user” and “intoxicated all the time.”
Example: the government defines heavy drinking as having at least two drinks in a night. But, depending on numerous factors, having two drinks hardly makes one intoxicated.
So, define your terms and let’s see the evidence.
Matthias
Dec 6 2023 at 9:55pm
You talk about addiction, but then mention statistics of use. Those two are not the same.
You can enjoy steak without being addicted to steak. Same with other consumables.
Btw, easier access to marijuana might conceivable make opioids less appealing. (I don’t know what’s the evidence here.)
Alex
Dec 3 2023 at 9:27pm
Canada legalized cannabis and nothing happened.
With regards to decriminalization, I never understood that. How can you legalize posession but not sales?
There is an argument against decriminalization: like you say most of the benefits from the full legalization of drugs do not occur but opponents of legalization can use it as an example of how bad legalization would be.
Matthias
Dec 6 2023 at 9:57pm
There are lots of other laws that treat possession of something different from its sale.
Eg in many jurisdiction you pay stamp duty for trading property, but not for owning property.
David S
Dec 4 2023 at 6:04am
A friend of mine who recently visited Portland, Oregon described how the state’s drug decriminalization measures has turned the downtown area into an open-air drug den– to the detriment of residents and business owners. The lesson there is that public safety measures still need to be enforced for the benefit of everyone. It’s a difficult balancing act. Severe prohibition can create an environment of corruption and violence. Complete decriminalization lets addicts act with impunity.
Scott Sumner
Dec 4 2023 at 4:07pm
I think the underlying problem in places like Portland and SF is that they don’t enforce the underlying laws on “petty crimes” (like shoplifting and harassing people). Do that, and legalization will work much better.
Matthias
Dec 6 2023 at 9:59pm
We can look at alcohol for an example.
Alcohol is widely legal to trade and consume. But many places still have rules against public drunkenness and even consumption of alcohol in public.
Similar legal frameworks would probably work for other drugs.
Knut P. Heen
Dec 4 2023 at 8:32am
I do not like the premise of this debate. Obviously, you get less drug-related deaths if you put all the addicts in prisons (without supply of drugs). The question is whether that is the type of society we want or not. I favor legalization of drugs, but I do not favor the use of drugs. Prison is not the only way to stop the use of drugs.
Stan Greer
Dec 4 2023 at 5:15pm
Drug fatalities as a share of the most vulnerable population, to be precise, rose more rapidly in CA than nationwide, contrary to what Sumner implies.
Jon Murphy
Dec 4 2023 at 5:30pm
What do you mean by “most vulunerable population”?
Matthias
Dec 6 2023 at 10:00pm
Exactly.
And why would a death amongst the non-most-vulnerable population count less?
Steve Hankin
Dec 6 2023 at 6:10pm
Allow drug companies the freedom to develop safer versions of existing drugs and you will see a drastic drop in deaths Likewise allow drug companies the freedom to develop less addictive versions of existing drugs and you will see less addiction.
Comments are closed.