Can You Make the Case for the Drug War by Pointing out a Bad Effect of the Drug War?

By David R Henderson.

"Earlier this week, I was discussing the drug war with a free-market, very libertarian economist. I was opposing it. He said that although he used to favor legalizing drugs, he no longer does. What changed his mind? The horrible consequences of fentanyl in Oregon.

He pointed to the deaths that had occurred because fentanyl was relatively easy to obtain on the street. I responded that you can’t judge the effects of making something legal by pointing to a case where they’re illegal and just assuming that the effects of making them legal would be the same as the effects of keeping them illegal.

First, fentanyl is illegal, even in Oregon, and was illegal even before the legislature reversed some decisions in 2024. Second, the very fact that it’s sold on the street rather than in pharmacies or even Walmart is due to its illegality. If it were truly legal, consumers would know more about what they’re getting and would, therefore, be less likely to overdose.

A good way to see that is to look back to the Prohibition era. Very few people would say that the fact that people could easily get booze in speakeasies meant that producing and selling liquor were legal. They weren’t. Also, because liquor was illegal, you didn’t always know what you were getting. Producers had less incentive than otherwise to establish brand names and advertise. When the production and sale of liquor were legalized in 1933 (thanks, FDR, for one of the few good things you contributed to), deaths from alcohol poisoning fell. It’s reasonable to expect similar consequences from completely legalizing fentanyl."