As anyone who has taken even a high school-level economics class can attest, the laws of supply and demand are the most recognizable terms related to the field. Yet few people really understand the applications of these terms.
Most free markets are primarily demand-driven. That means that where there is demand, there will be supply. However, supply does not necessarily create demand.
A prime example of this is the United States’ war on drugs. Many of the policies that collectively make up this war are aimed at curbing the supply of drugs coupled with failing policies aimed at the demand. As a result, demand has stayed about the same, even increasing in some areas, while the supply has kept pace, though the suppliers have changed. As one supplier gets removed from the market, through whatever means, another supplier fills the gap.
This leads to the suppliers adapting and getting better and better at what they do. For example, this past week, the Drug Enforcement Administration discovered a nearly 500-foot-long tunnel across the border used for smuggling drugs into the country from Mexico. The tunnel exists because the demand exists.
Policies aimed at the supply side of the drug problem are needed, but they should not be the priority. After all, if there were no demand for illicit drugs, there would not be a supply.
So, what about the policies in place that are intended to decrease the demand? As it turns out, the effect is negligible, and in fact, many are having the opposite effect. For example, drug education campaigns, such as “Just Say No,” are actually increasing the demand for drugs in some demographics. This was pointed out before, in 1988.
Even worse, policies such as mandatory sentencing and three-strike rules are leading to increased incarceration rates, and the increased expenditures that go along with that. According to a 2010 study by Cato, almost 20 percent of state and local judicial budgets are spent on drug cases. This report estimates that the current war on drug’s policies cost the government $41.3 billion each year to implement. If you include potential tax revenues that are forgone, that number increases to $88 billion.
All of this shows that the current system is broken and in desperate need of reform. Disagreement over what said reform looks like is an issue, though.
For some, an out-of-sight-out-of-mind approach seems to be taken. As long as the drug problem isn’t affecting their worlds, then they see no reason to change the policies. This approach is common, unfortunately, in most policy issues.
To others, the best approach is a step-back approach, which is essentially legalizing and treating certain drugs like tobacco and alcohol while treating the rest of the drugs in a similar manner as they are now, with lesser sentencing laws.
Obviously, ignoring the problem is not the way to go, but the latter approach does not address the issues of demand.
While there may not be a perfect solution out there now, at the very least, our elected officials need to take a long, hard look at the war on drugs. The status quo is hurting America and her citizens.
Trenton Winford is a senior public policy leadership major from Madison.
