The Corner

The Economics of Prop 19

Possession of marijuana is said to be “illegal” — even tiny amounts in the privacy of your own home. That obviously does not mean that pot has been effectively banned. It simply means that an unlucky few who happen to get caught can be subjected to capricious, heavy-handed punishment.

The most that this quixotic façade of illegality could possibly accomplish is to raise the price of marijuana by restricting supply (e.g., by destroying local or imported plants). The higher price might reduce demand, but that same result could also be accomplished with taxes, as in the case of tobacco and alcohol. In the latter case, the lucrative profits stemming from restricted supply go to the government; with marijuana, they go to foreign and domestic drug lords and pot farmers.

By restricting supply and thus raising prices, prohibition enforcement is essentially a taxpayer-financed subsidy for the marijuana industry. Unlike other “sin taxes,” prohibition of pot acts as a price-support program for marijuana farmers and distributors. There is also a “risk premium” added to the retail price, because marketing marijuana involves some danger of being sent to prison. When combined with the subsidy resulting from restricted supply, the risk premium provides an irresistible temptation to those most willing to accept big risks in exchange for big rewards, such as violence-prone gangsters. Such people don’t mind selling to children either. Unlike legal firms with liquor licenses, there is no disincentive to sell to minors.

If possession of marijuana were decriminalized, it could finally become susceptible to effective regulation, including taxation and licensing. And police, courts, and prisons are scarce and valuable resources. To the extent that those resources continue to be wasted in propping up marijuana profits, they will not be available to curtail violent crimes with real victims.

But what makes sense economically can sometimes be the opposite of what makes sense politically, and there are powerful interests that want prohibition preserved.

In 1983, Clemson economist Bruce Yandle came up with the phrase “bootleggers and Baptists” to describe how moralists can be duped into making common cause with those who profit from the prohibition of liquor. The pretense of prohibiting marijuana attracts the same sorts of strange bedfellows.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told the Huffington Post that senior Mexican government officials have lobbied U.S. leaders against legalizing marijuana in California. Why? The authors of a recent Rand Corporation study conclude that Proposition 19 “would effectively eliminate Mexican drug-trafficking organizations’ revenues from supplying Mexican-grown marijuana to the California market.” That suggests some benefit to California marijuana growers (though they too fear a lower price) at the expense of the Mexican economy. Unsurprisingly, California beer and beverage distributors, fearing new competition, are lobbying against Proposition 19. So is a police group, Public Safety First, that fears less loot from auctioning off property seized in drug raids.

The simple economics of supply, demand, and risk all guarantee the futility of attempting to use prohibition to restrict supply and raise risk, with the unintended consequence of boosting drug cartels’ profits from smuggling. In short, Prop 19 is very good economics.

Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute, and the author of Income and Wealth.

Alan Reynolds — Mr. Reynolds, NR’s economics editor from 1972 to 1976, is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of Income and Wealth.

Most Popular

Elections

A Hard Look at Those Post-Election Legal Efforts

On the menu today: Michigan certifies its vote totals; the General Services Administration starts the transition; and it’s time for a hard, unflinching look at the president’s post-election legal efforts. What Did the President Get from His Legal Team? Michigan and Georgia have certified their election ... Read More
Elections

A Hard Look at Those Post-Election Legal Efforts

On the menu today: Michigan certifies its vote totals; the General Services Administration starts the transition; and it’s time for a hard, unflinching look at the president’s post-election legal efforts. What Did the President Get from His Legal Team? Michigan and Georgia have certified their election ... Read More
History

From Hate to Heroism

Welcome to “The Tuesday,” a weekly newsletter about language, culture, politics, and, lately, relentless book-hawking. To subscribe to “The Tuesday” and receive it in your inbox, please follow this link. From Hatred to Heroism Daniel Cordier, when he was young and getting started in life, did not seem ... Read More
History

From Hate to Heroism

Welcome to “The Tuesday,” a weekly newsletter about language, culture, politics, and, lately, relentless book-hawking. To subscribe to “The Tuesday” and receive it in your inbox, please follow this link. From Hatred to Heroism Daniel Cordier, when he was young and getting started in life, did not seem ... Read More
Elections

It’s Only ‘Free and Fair’ When We Win

Indeed, this is astonishing: https://twitter.com/felixsalmon/status/1331295033325219840 In 2018, after two years of media spinning tales about shady Russian infiltrators in our government, 67 percent of Democrats believed that Putin’s gremlins had bored into our voting machines and altered the outcome ... Read More
Elections

It’s Only ‘Free and Fair’ When We Win

Indeed, this is astonishing: https://twitter.com/felixsalmon/status/1331295033325219840 In 2018, after two years of media spinning tales about shady Russian infiltrators in our government, 67 percent of Democrats believed that Putin’s gremlins had bored into our voting machines and altered the outcome ... Read More

The Coup That Wasn’t

Donald Trump is not done challenging the results of the 2020 election in court, and he is by no means done complaining. But there will be no “coup.” Any prospect of Trump remaining in office without a legal process that declares him the recipient of more legal votes in the decisive states has now evaporated. ... Read More

The Coup That Wasn’t

Donald Trump is not done challenging the results of the 2020 election in court, and he is by no means done complaining. But there will be no “coup.” Any prospect of Trump remaining in office without a legal process that declares him the recipient of more legal votes in the decisive states has now evaporated. ... Read More