« New blog on organizations and markets | Main | Knowledge and the Wealth of Nations »
Is drug tourism good?
Mexico may be decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of the following drugs:
Cocaine. Heroin. LSD. Marijuana. PCP. Opium. Synthetic opiates. Mescaline. Peyote. Psilocybin mushrooms. Amphetamines. Methamphetamines.
The list is here. If this goes through (even if Fox doesn't apply it to U.S. citizens, enforcement may dry up) we would be outsourcing some of our drug dealing to the Mexicans. Why risk legal trouble in the States when you can go crazy over spring break in Cancun? I am not sure the nominal price will be lower, given transport costs. But if you are afraid of the law, you will have new and better drug options.
If you think the problem is isolated doses of drug-taking, and that the law is what deters people at home, our drug problem will get worse. If you think the problem is the secondary effects of the drug trade, such as gang involvement and crime, things will get better.
If this new option gets you to start trying drugs, you might opt for recreational, non-addictive drugs. Heroin is out, if only because it is hard to get back to Mexico for each fix. That appears to fit the better-case scenario.
If you can go crazy, absolutely crazy, in Cancun or Tijuana, is that a substitute for or complement to domestic drug-taking?
Is substitution more likely if people take drugs for "signalling" or for "experimentation" reasons?
Which is a bigger problem: how stoned you are, or how many days you are stoned for?
Do U.S. prostitutes feel that Thailand stimulates demand for their product? I suspect not.
Let us say such a change in Mexico would have beneficial effects on the U.S. drug problem. Might we not also consider "drug law holidays"; periodically you could take all the drugs you want without legal penalty, but this lasts only for five days during the year?
Every year Tower Records used to have a big post-Christmas sale. During the year I bought many fewer CDs.
If periodic sales would boost rather than lower long-term demand, won't current drug dealers already be using such sales? In which case some extra sales are likely to diminish demand...?
Posted by Tyler Cowen on May 8, 2006 at 05:43 AM in Law | Permalink
Comments
The vast majority of people who use illegal recreational drugs do so as a recreation and not an addiction. The "one sniff, hooked for life" people are straight-up wrong about the nature of recreational drug usage.
As an analogy, do you think the excesses allowed in Vegas help control those excesses elsewhere? More generally, is it easier to be virtuous if you are allowed to cheat on occasion with minimal long-term negative consequences? I think so. That definitely works with dieting - those who lose weight and keep it off long-term allow themselves to indulge occasionally and within reason.
Having said all that, I don't think I'd try cocaine, heroin, or LSD just because it's legal. Neither would most people who don't use, I would think.
- Josh
Posted by: Wild Pegasus at May 8, 2006 7:34:31 AM
Almost everything you need to know about the actual law is here:
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/drug_policy_/2006/05/more_absurdity.php
Also, the amounts were absolutely tiny. For instance, 5 grams of marijuana. Ohio lets you have 3 oz. (There are 28 grams to the ounce.)
Posted by: c-cipher at May 8, 2006 7:37:25 AM
The punishment for small amounts of drugs is lienient enough and so unlikely to be enforced that I can't see this affecting the US drug trade very much.
Posted by: josh at May 8, 2006 8:25:39 AM
Wouldn't the difficulty of returning to Mexico for your next fix be exactly why a law-abiding person *would* try heroin there under the proposed laws--if already inclined to try it, that is? Such a drug-tourist would already be lashed to the mast, so to speak.
Periodic legality finds an analogue in festivals the world over, of course, during which behavior otherwise frowned-upon is not only tolerated but actively encouraged. Generally people pretty much stick to the schedule in my experience.
Posted by: jlilly at May 8, 2006 11:37:58 AM
Is funny to watch how most of the media present this.
The antinarcotics law has for a long time, since 1994, a clause that prevented being jailed by drugs, if it were the first time and the drug were for personal use.
http://info4.juridicas.unam.mx/ijure/fed/8/207.htm?s=
In 2004, Fox sent changes to the antinarcotics law with the purpose of clearing to the drug trafficking the reserved character of federal crime.
It means, more cops to fight the drugs cartel!. More corruption too, by the way.
The house of representatives approved the changes, but it decided to specify the exact amounts of what is personal use.
This specification, is what it has generated all the "desmadre" around the law.
With the result, that Fox decided to veto a law sent by his own administration.
¿WTF?
Posted by: Sergio G. at May 8, 2006 11:48:31 AM
"If periodic sales would boost rather than lower long-term demand, won't current drug dealers already be using such sales?"
Suppose periodic sales boosted long-term demand, but that an individual drug-dealer would only capture a small portion of that increased demand, with the rest benefiting his competitors. Then we have a classic externality problem -- the drug dealers would like to coordinate on periodic sales, but each has an incentive to free-ride on competitors' discounts. Under this view, Mexico's decriminalization solves the drug dealers' problem.
I have no idea is this accurately describes the situation, but it certainly demonstrates that we cannot infer that periodic sales don't boost demand from the fact that drug dealers don't do such sales now.
Posted by: Steven at May 8, 2006 12:09:31 PM
What makes the entire conversation so surreal is the profound lack of concern for the ramifications of the suggested policies on the most vulnerable groups of people (young, poor, troubled backgrounds, etc). Saying "most people will just dabble" is almost as dumb as it gets. But I think Cowen's piece actually does get a little dumber.
Posted by: Brian at May 8, 2006 2:29:59 PM
I find it interesting that nobody even raised the question of why are the drugs illegal in the first place? I believe that we need to begin decriminalizing many of the "recreational" drugs. The money spent on law enforcement and jailing the dealers would be better spent (or not taxed at all in the first place) than chasing such a small population. Tax the drugs at a rate that more than pays for the small % that get addicted to obtain anti-addiction services. Decriminalizing the drugs will more than pay for itself with little or no harm to society. I was repeatedly offered LSD and cocaine all thru college and afterwards. I just did not have any desire to try it. The legality or illegality had no bearing on my decision.
Posted by: Murphy at May 8, 2006 2:36:17 PM
I always thought that the main reasons that drugs were illegal wasn't that drugs per se were "inherently evil" but that (admittedly stereotypically, and without much quantitative evidence)
(a) employees on drugs weren't productive,
(b) drivers on drugs (alcohol included, of course) are a public menace,
(c) people on drugs "set a bad example" for pure, innocent youngsters who were making rational decisions of whether to take drugs or not.
From the US perspective, having all these drug events happen OUTSIDE the US, while people are on vacation, away from work, their cars, and other US citizens' children, seems ideal.
Thought experiment #1: If drugs weren't addictive, wouldn't the USA applaud this act by Mexico?
Thought experiment: For non-addictive drugs on the list...refer to your answer to Thought Experiment #1 and ask "How about allowing this in certain well-defined, presumably rural areas of the USA?"
Posted by: RationalFool at May 8, 2006 2:45:35 PM
Steroids already are legal in Mexico, or at least are very easy to obtain with minimal risk, but that doesn't do much for Americans because 'roids have to be used in cycles lasting several weeks in order for one to derive any benefits from them. Of course Americans can buy large quantities in Mexico and try to bring them home, but then they've got to deal with smuggling them across the border and the serious consequences of getting caught.
Anyway, based on this situation I would expect the new Mexican law to be most useful with respect to people who restrict their use of drugs to rare occasions, rather than habitual users
Posted by: Peter at May 8, 2006 5:50:20 PM
Doesn't this increase the likelihood that addicts near the border will cross the border and STAY across the border? Isn't that an improvement--to have junkies in mexico rather than in San Diego, for example?
Posted by: anonymouse at May 8, 2006 9:50:48 PM
Why the focus on the U.S. effects of this law? What about the effects on Mexico?
Posted by: Paul N at May 8, 2006 9:56:50 PM
What can happen is that all the junkies with trust funds will
move to Mexico. Then who will the drug dealers sell to, to pay
for their own drugs?
Posted by: wkwillis at May 9, 2006 5:23:42 AM
"What makes the entire conversation so surreal is the profound lack of concern for the ramifications of the suggested policies on the most vulnerable groups of people (young, poor, troubled backgrounds, etc). "
You mean the ones most likely to get shot when the homicide rate gets pushed up by prohibition?
Getting people shot to keep idiots from hurting themselves is a very poor trade-off in my book.
Posted by: Ken at May 9, 2006 11:10:00 AM
Did I miss some development? I had heard President Fox will not sign this bill last thursday.
Posted by: anomdebus at May 9, 2006 3:46:25 PM
Drug tourism is hardly a new thing. Long before the hippie hashish trail of the '60s, which covered much of the globe, bohemians were going to "artist colonies" in Mexico to smoke marijuana and eat peyote. Earliest reference I've seen dates to the 1940s.
Posted by: triticale at May 9, 2006 3:46:48 PM
Murphy, I wonder how you can be sure that illegality had no effect on your refusal of those drugs. When can people reliably tell you the reasons why they do something? We are complex beasts. Few people admit to being affected by advertising, either.
Addiction treatment is unfortunately inefficient and expensive compared to prevention. I think this has to do with the nature of addiction. (I've translated an article on that here. Might as well advertise it.)
One other thing you fail to see is that society is harmed through a lot more than the abusers. It is often the "moderate" users that cause accidents. The tax on drugs would have to be huge to pay for all damages.
I worry about the legal narcotics industry that would appear. Judging from the experiences with other legal, highly harmful substances (tobacco and alcohol), I fear they would be little better than the mafia. Making the business legal won't make it less immoral, so it will still attract the ruthless.
I recommend, as I do to all proponents of liberalisation, the online book "The psychology of getting high", which isn't about legality at all, by the way, it's just an introduction to the field from a scientist in addiction treatment. If you think treatment is a good idea, you should listen to what the therapists say.
Posted by: Harald Korneliussen at May 10, 2006 6:31:17 AM
"My choice is what I choose to do,
And if I'm causing no harm, it shouldn't bother you.
Your choice is who you choose to be,
And if you're causin' no harm, then you're alright with me."
-Ben Harper
live by this and no one will have any problems
Posted by: charlieB at May 19, 2006 12:07:28 PM
Harald, the online book you cite is a joke. It contains a few valid psychological observations, but even those are elementary, not particularly enlightening. It's mostly anti-drug propaganda written by someone with no clue. In particular, the methodology described for the opiate studies demonstrates a lack of basic understanding of what these drugs do and how addiction works.
Of course a large number of people might find opiates unpleasant the first few times they used them! The brain often has to "learn" how to deal with a new drug before the psychic effects become stabilized. The process is different for different people and different drugs, but I guarantee that if you give heroin to your study group for a long enough period, you'll find a lot more than 2% will soon start reporting the experience as pleasant... a *LOT* more. Christ, why do you think entire wars are fought over this stuff? Their conclusions are just ridiculous.
Probably my favorite quote is this one: "A blind test with participants lacking experience with LSD, confirmed that the drug may trigger numerous psychic symptoms. Most participants found the effects were unpleasant."
I think anyone with any real experience with LSD would find that comical. Let's find someone with no idea what LSD is about, tell them nothing about it, and dose them in a hospital environment. Gee, what a surprise, the experience is "unpleasant"! Hah!
The whole point of LSD (for any right thinking person) is not to simply "get high", but to enable your mind to function in ways it normally cannot. It can be a life changing positive experience, but it needs to be approached with care and consideration.
The author(s) have no idea what responsible recreational drug use is all about... they have decided up front that no such thing can possibly exist.
Posted by: MG at Jun 23, 2006 4:41:33 AM
mooi leerling ^^^ beroemdheden pornovideos ^^^ lingerie cielo ^^^ ridicolo fighetta ^^^ le plus frais ose quarante cinq ^^^ bureau transsexuels ^^^ enseignante vingt ^^^ trente quatre insignifiant ^^^ piu carino studentessa sex ^^^ nicer agente di polizia anale fotti ^^^ gudomlig asiatisk prostituerad ^^^ amator gruppen i fred ^^^ comprensivo fighette amore ^^^ poor spirited segretaria fotti ^^^ vagin martine baise ^^^ bukkake kussende madchen ^^^ orgasmi ennenkaikkea naida ^^^ sheivaus imaisu huora ^^^ kjolig attraktiv blond ^^^ fin brystvorte ^^^ omorfoteri koritsi praxi ^^^ dikeos asiatis avnanismos ^^^ pere bisexuel ^^^ plus chaud papa cliche ^^^ tolmiros mama ^^^ kafto tolmiros mama ^^^
Posted by: levan at Sep 8, 2006 4:25:25 AM
I doubt the words of Luzkhov "In Singapore, there is no drug addiction". How far it is true? Did people stopped killing people, though execution is the punishment. In the same way the addicts never fear about execution.
I heard about Medical Tourism, but "Drug Tourism" is something new for me. I know people travel all the way to Goa, India for spending time along with drugs. Why people travel long distances to get drugs? Are they cheap there?
Posted by: Cosmetic Dentist London at Sep 28, 2008 7:01:50 AM
Posted by: at Oct 14, 2008 1:29:40 AM
I someone travels to another country because of substance abuse , most likely they will get hooked at some point and will have no control to wait to go somewhere legal.
Posted by: Jack Reed at Nov 22, 2008 6:16:25 PM
I am really confused with this sentence 'conclusions are just ridiculous'.
Posted by: glasgow cosmetic surgery at Mar 3, 2009 6:06:19 AM
I think medical tourism is promoted in most of the countries as it helps both the promoters and patients. But about drug tourism its strange enough.
Posted by: kingston dentists at Mar 17, 2009 8:40:02 AM
