Jeffrey Miron
A new study argues that recent drug decriminalizations in Oregon and Washington caused substantial increases in drug overdoses.
Is this plausible? And does it imply that prohibition is better than legalization?
Yes, and no.
Decriminalization means the elimination of criminal penalties for drug possession. Legalization means the elimination of criminal penalties for production and sale.
Standard economics suggests that decriminalization, by reducing the full price of purchasing drugs, shifts demand outward, implying greater use.
This causes, because production and sale are still illegal, a larger underground market and therefore more of the associated negatives. These include increased violence, because black market participants cannot resolve disputes with courts and lawyers, and additional overdoses, because quality control is difficult in black markets.
Thus, the study’s result makes sense. But rather than supporting prohibition, it shows that full legalization—rather than decriminalization—is the right path. Indeed, if policy legalizes only one side of the market, it should be the supply side rather than the demand side. A related point is that legalization must not include excessive regulation and taxation; that just recreates the black market.
A possible qualification is that some decriminalizations seem to have avoided increased violence or overdoses. The likely explanation is that in these instances, policy de-escalated supply-side enforcement along with decriminalization.
Cross-posted from Substack.
