Rejoinder
to Prof. Perlstein on Legalizing Drugs in New Orleans
DIGG THIS
In this article,
I made the case that the best way to stop the horrendous murder
rate in New Orleans is to legalize drugs. Prof. Perlstein of Loyola
New Orleans offers several
criticisms of my argument, for which I thank him. His scholarly
and thoughtful reply gives me the chance to clarify and further
expand on my thesis.
1. My faculty
colleague starts off on somewhat of a false note, claiming that
"Block doesn't believe the population of drug abusers would
increase." But I never said any such thing in the article he
is criticizing, nor in any of my other publications on this subject.
My view is the very opposite. Indeed, I stated on 1/26/07:
"Just as Las Vegas evolved from a stretch of desert into a
world class city when it was the only one to offer gambling, so
will the Big Easy surpass its previous preeminence (it was once
the leading city in the entire South) when it alone offers legal
drugs. This industry all by itself, will put us back on the map."
There will be millions of drug addicts who will flock to
the Big Easy were we to institute such a humane proposal; the more
the better as far as I am concerned. This, at least, was the experience
of the English during their all too brief period of legalization.
People came there from all over the British Dominions to avail themselves
of this bit of economic freedom.
But these
are not at all the sorts of people Perlstein wants to see repopulating
Crescent City, not top drawer at all. He calls them "desperados…
the most unstable, unhealthy and criminally inclined segment of
the population." And, in this, he is correct, at least superficially.
The point is, that these poor souls are at present exactly as this
"criminal justice journalist" describes them. But they
are not human garbage. Nor is it very "progressive"
to view them in any such manner. Rather, they are victims
of a cruel and unjust drug prohibition law. Their plight stems almost
entirely from this evil legislation. Under legalization, they would
bloom, as do newly watered flowers after a period of drought.
2. Why
is this? It is because drug prohibition radically raises its price.
The desperation of the addict stems from the fact that apart from
a few rich athletes, doctors, singers and actors, the only way this
price may be paid is through prostitution, or drug pushing or robbery.
According to one estimate "a gram of 100% pure heroin … would
be cut 10 to 15 times and sell for about $2,000. But take
it away from the black market, make it legal, and heroin is a pretty
cheap drug. The British
National Health Service (NHS) pays about $10.00 for this gram
of heroin." In my view, the latter figure is perhaps ten
times too high. NHS is a socialist organization. On the free market
it would sell for about $1.00. If feeding a drug habit cost
about as much as eating a few candy bars per day, these people,
these human beings, could lead quasi-normal lives. They could
have ordinary jobs. Without the desperate search for the next "fix"
and the wherewithal to finance it, this flotsam and jetsam would
be turned in one fell swoop into productive members of the New Orleans
community.
It was
once said of Israel that there was a perfect match between a people
without land, and a land without people. To discuss that point would
take us way too far afield. But no words could more accurately describe
addicts in the U.S., and indeed in the entire world, on the one
hand, and the territory of what used to be New Orleans. Perlstein
may not appreciate this, but there are acres and acres, no, square
mile after square mile, of empty abandoned houses just waiting
for people to repair and occupy them. We are in desperate need
of new occupants, who would be willing to work, and this describes
to a "T" drug addicts no longer in thrall to exorbitant
black market drug prices.
The point
is, Perlstein is very much in error in his second argument, too.
Here he maintains that I am failing to take into account what "A
first-year criminology student can tell you" namely "that
most burglars and robbers are stealing to feed a drug habit."
Of course they are. But this stems, solely, from the astronomical
prices paid for substances that grow like weeds. And this in turn
is entirely a function of prohibition. Their prices would
be very low under free enterprise, and there would thus be
no more reason for anyone to engage in crime to support an addiction.
Increased
crime is a great danger according to my critic, especially at a
time when "the overwhelmed New Orleans police department can't
keep up with stray shoplifters." Of course, the cops can’t
deal with petty theft, let alone the more serious kind: they are
too busy hassling, arresting and incarcerating people for the non-crime
of polluting their own bodies. Some 60% of all inmates are in prison
due to drug "crimes." Were drugs legalized, and the police
free to stop real crimes, they would undoubtedly do a far better
job of dealing with them.
3. My Loyola
colleague labels as a "fiction" my contention that "An
inordinate amount of these (New Orleans murders) consists of drug
dealers shooting each other in turf wars." Perhaps journalist
professors do not read newspapers, or consult crime statistics.
Perhaps
Prof. Perlstein could begin his research with this. To pick
one quote at random from the hundreds of news stories listed therein:
"They call themselves the Lemon Crew, the Scorpions, Tiny Rascals
and 60 Lansdowne Crips, and there are dozens of others, laying claim
to blocks and neighborhoods across the city. They
are Philadelphia's gangs, and some are extraordinarily violent,
contributing to the surge in shootings and murders engulfing the
city." Want something closer to home, maybe from the Times
Picayune? Here:
"Saying an increase in violent crime on the West Bank is the
result of post-Katrina gangs "fighting over turf," Jefferson
Parish Sheriff Harry Lee on Wednesday showed off several high-powered
weapons, including a possible grenade launcher, various narcotics
and $31,000 in cash that investigators confiscated Monday in a drug
raid in Waggaman."
4. Dr.
Perlstein objects to legalizing drugs in New Orleans on the ground
that we are already "fragile enough as it is" in terms
of psychological and health services. But, once again, addicts are
in their present dire straights only because of prohibition and
the resultant inordinately high drug prices. Eliminate these, and
virtually all of these problems recede. As for "newbie cocaine
and heroin users," I have already answered this objection,
but will happily do so again: Anyone who wants to, can shoot up
right now. There is surely no one, at present, who refrains from
drug use simply because of prohibition. At least, under legalization,
no one would go to school yards and try to hook youngsters, as at
present.
5. My intellectual
opponent is not at all impressed with New Orleans following the
path blazed by Las Vegas. Why, the latter doesn’t even have any
major league sports franchises. Were drugs legal here, "people
would leave New Orleans in droves." What? They are not already
doing that, due to the fact that we are fast becoming the murder
capital of the country? If the status quo in this regard continues,
we will soon lose the Hornets and the Saints in any case. Prof.
Perlstein doesn’t seem to realize that the Big Uneasy is already
emptying out. Posit no more murders, at least not the overwhelming
majority of them that are drug gang turf related. Imagine a few
million additional peaceful citizens rebuilding and then occupying
our hundreds of thousands of empty dwellings. Think of New Orleans
with a larger population than Dallas and Atlanta combined.
In his conclusion,
my learned colleague, I fear, contradicts himself. On the one hand,
he admits, he concedes, that the "‘war on drugs’ is a dismal
failure." On the other hand, he adamantly rejects a possible
breakthrough. The federales owe us big. They don’t seem to be disposed
to pay us back with coin of the realm. Maybe, just possibly, they
can be embarrassed into allowing us a free enterprise zone in this
regard. But Perlstein dismisses this proposal as something that
should have been written "for entertainment purposes only,"
as an "April Fools joke."
Those empty
hulks of houses will only become "drug dens" under present
prohibition, their likely fate. Under legalization in sharp contrast,
large numbers of people who are slowly dying horrendous deaths will
be able to get their lives back together again. Does not Dr. Perlstein
have any sympathy for their plight? And in so doing, they will go
a long way toward curing our own malaise: economically, spiritually,
psychologically, and, most important, in radically reducing our
horrendous murder rate.
 Our
horrendous murder rate is due to drug gangs shooting it out with
each other over turf. Under legalization, this stops forthwith,
just as it did when prohibition of alcohol ended. "Progressives"
should be appalled.
 Perhaps
he opposes a free market in drugs for New Orleans alone. We are
too brittle, too helpless in the aftermath of Katrina. Where, then,
should this legalization take place? In the entire country? Not
too likely. In some city that is doing reasonably well? None would
likely take what so many people regard as a leap in the dark. Legalization
has to occur somewhere, and no more likely place for this
is our own New Orleans. Perlstein dismisses this proposal as something
that should have been written "for entertainment purposes only,"
as an "April Fools joke." But it is our present
policy that is ludicrous.
February
17, 2007
Dr.
Block [send him mail] is a
professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior
fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending
the Undefendable.
Copyright
© 2007 LewRockwell.com
Walter
Block Archives
|
