Are We Ready to Legalize Drugs? And Other FREAK-quently Asked Questions (Ep. 151)
(Photo: Neeta Lind)
Our latest podcast is called “Are We Ready to Legalize Drugs? And Other FREAK-quently Asked Questions.” (You can download/subscribe at iTunes, get the RSS feed, or listen via the media player in the post. You can also read the transcript; it includes credits for the music you’ll hear in the episode.) Once again, Stephen Dubner and Steve Levitt take questions from you, our readers and listeners.
In this installment, Joseph Fogan wants to know about the hidden costs of the war on drugs. The latest Gallup poll shows that 58 percent of Americans favor marijuana legalization (compared to just 12 percent in 1969). Are we really ready to legalize drugs in more than just a few states? And if the answer is yes, what will police do all day? Here’s what Levitt had to say:
We know there are a lot more police officers in places with more crime. So if there was no crime to deal with, there wouldn’t be many police officers. I mean, if you think about firefighters — talk about putting yourself out of a job, there aren’t any fires anymore. I don’t know what firefighters do all day. You could imagine that if all the crime went away, the police would end up looking a lot more like firefighters than they would like police officers. And we just wouldn’t need that many of them around.
This episode also features pitches from not one, but two listeners with ideas for how to help the ailing United States Postal Service; a discussion about whether putting video cameras in classrooms might improve low-performing schools; and we doff our caps to listener Ryan Harris, who asks “why don’t people wear hats anymore?”
The great thing about our FAQs (you can listen to earlier episodes here, here, here, here, here and here) is that we never really know what Levitt will say; he has some truly unusual ideas. And thanks to all of you for all the good questions – keep them coming!
Seth Newsome
Interesting discussion all around, but I feel you really missed some important points about the post office. I'm not always a fan of the Heritage Foundation, but I found they have a pretty good run-down of the facts affecting the post office these days.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/10/can-the-postal-service-have-a-future
1. They can't change their fundamental business model even if they wanted to. There is a legal restriction that gives them a monopoly for certain types of deliveries, but restricts them from any "non-postal" business. Would the "certified email" idea count or not? Could lead to legal trouble for them.
2. The post office has to go running to Congress to make any changes in their business. Despite supposedly being an independent company now, they can't change their rates, their operating hours, their level of service, or much of anything serious without running to a dysfunctional group like the US congress.
3. They are required to pre-fund employee retirement benefits over a ridiculously short time frame. Congress gave them a mandate to pre-fund decades worth of pension benefits within a 10 year window. This isn't the only reason they are struggling, but this requirement came in the middle of all their other challenges that you mentioned.
I just wanted to bring this up because it really felt like you dropped the ball on this discussion, repeating received common wisdom about the post office failure instead of diving into the more nuanced discussion of their current problems.
josephine barajas
Why doesn't somebody make a reality show that helps feed the hungry people in the USA. Now that would be worth watching.
strayan
It simply makes no sense that some plants are unlawful to consume (e.g. coca, poppy, cannabis etc) whilst others are lawful to consume (e.g. grapes, tobacco and nutmeg). It's like saying it should be 'illegal to consume beef and pork (because too much red meat and fatty bacon is bad for your health) but legal to consume chicken and lamb' and then 'why should we legalise beef and pork when we have enough problems caused by the meats we already have i.e. fried chicken and lamb kebabs!'
Would it be sensible to punish people who prefer beefsteaks instead of fried chicken? Why is it okay to punish people who chose to consume a different psychoactive plant to the majority of people?
NZ
If it makes no sense to you, it's probably because you're not looking at the actual arguments put forward in defense of drug prohibition. I'm not saying I agree with those arguments, but they do have a logic to them even if they fail to be net-positive in the real world:
Drug prohibition has never been primarily expressly about protecting people from their own bad habits--that is only a byproduct. Eating too much bacon may give you heart problems, but it isn't going to impact your ability to drive your car safely or do your job well or raise your kids in a wholesome environment.
Also, it's hard to correlate beef and pork consumption with anything very useful from a law & order perspective. Carrying drugs around in public, meanwhile, is strongly correlated with other criminal activity.
Another aspect of the war on drugs is that it's always been mainly About The Children. The Progressives who started the war on drugs a century ago were mostly uppity feminists. In the mid-century, it was Concerned Moms groups who urged the government to crack down on LSD and marijuana. In the 1980s it was Nancy Reagan doing the same thing with her "Just Say No" campaign.
Meanwhile, most sensible people don't have a problem letting kids consume meat, even fried meat.
(Actually, scratch that: today, it's Michelle Obama stepping in telling kids "Let's Move" and what to eat, because apparently she knows better than their parents.)
Inner City Teacher
As a career changer coming from the business world to the most challenged middle schools in NYC, I look with a Freakonomic eye at what's going wrong in these schools. I've even gone from teaching in underperforming neighborhood schools to a school designed for overaged kids, meaning kids who have been left back again and again.
Cameras in class would have many pros and cons but those kids who are unable to sit and sustain desk work for a full period would not suddenly be "fixed" because cameras are there, thet would probably stop showing up. What the NYC Dept of Ed fears worse than anything would be parents and the public finding out how many kids have issues that are not being met.
Attention and focus issues are rampant, whether kids have been classified or not, but the underlying cause for dysfunction in class leads back to the home and the draconian high stakes testing regime these kids grew up with. Cameras will show the 'leaders' stirring up the 'followers' and even decent teachers unable to stem the tide of misbehavior because there is no longer anything left to hold over the heads of the most defiant kids.
goonerish
US postal service might indeed go bust soon. And listening to the alternative ideas suggested, I was reminded about India Post, the postal service in India. There too, the postal service was facing a decline. They then reinvented themselves. India Post now provides savings account facility, life insurance policies and also has an independent recognised bank under them. They also act as a data collection repository for the government. The postal service there is now getting back to life from being in coma for some time.
ESPOB
I think you missed the mark on the segment about the USPS. It isn't like private-sector businesses or even like its competitors in parcel delivery, in that it is constitutionally mandated and answerable to the U.S. Congress, and is not free to make its own business decisions. The USPS charges the same rate to send a letter everywhere because it is required to, and it has to get congressional approval for many business decisions that FedEx and UPS are free to handle as they see fit, for better or for worse. Recently the USPS tried to cut Saturday delivery, and Congress declared that they were required to provide it. UPS and FedEx deliver on Saturdays, but only for their more expensive expedited services and for an additional charge on top of that.
UPS and FedEx also charge more for delivery to residential addresses as opposed to commercial ones, charge more for rural areas than for urban ones or destinations with higher service density, closer to their hubs, etc. So clearly that isn't too complicated to manage. The USPS just isn't allowed to do it that way for the most part. They do offer a small variety of "regional rate" boxes but these are only available under certain specific circumstances. UPS and FedEx rates are probably not a perfect representation of the actual difference in cost between delivery to different addresses; they are probably more a balance between the difference in cost and what customers will accept. And it does not take an ideal or perfect correlation to still be an improvement on a flat fee.
Eric
The "pay for e-mail" model already exists. You are able to sign your e-mail with a certificate (or use smart cards, or tokens). Those certificates cost something, companies exist that create and sell smart cards, and RSA, for one, makes a lot of money off of tokens. In fact, having a system that processes the certificates, issues certificates, etc cost quite a lot. And organizations that value having an e-mail signed so that you can verify the e-mail came from someone in particular pay that cost. You, as an individual, can do it too. Verisign will sell you a certificate!
Again, the USPS missed the boat. And while yes, the U.S. Congress has helped keep the USPS tied up in red tape so that it missed all those boats, there could have been someone at the USPS that realized they were missing those boats and done something to cut the red tape. But there were too many who thought that the Congress would always be there to help make the USPS viable. Neither rain, nor snow, just too big to, ahem, fail.
Dave A
Wow, I cringed through most of the discussion on the USPS and its rates. It's amazing how an organization that touches the lives of virtually every person in the US every day is so badly misunderstood. I guess that's a PR issue.
The USPS's Universal Service Obligation (USO), as called for in the US Constitution, is usually interpreted to mean that the USPS must provide universal service at a uniform rate for "first class mail", which is why a letter or "flat" are charged the same rate whether they're going to across the street or across the nation. The USPS does, however, use zone-based pricing for package services; the further a package is going, the more it costs.
Also, as a point of interest, the USPS invented Express Mail (overnight delivery service) in 1970, a full year before FedEx was founded in 1971. Express Mail from the USPS was experimental until approved as a permanent service/class of mail in 1977.
Travis
Was listening to this ... regarding the health of the USPS. I often laugh how no one remembers the short lived Prodigy, Aol and CompuServe. These services used to thrive and CHARGE per email!?! Can you believe that? Yes, computer companies copied the USPS and how quickly did these companies fail due to innovation in the marketplace. AOL is the last survivor - and this is because they shifted their business model (many times) to innovate, and adapt to the marketplace. Yes, people still have @aol.com addresses however I highly doubt that most of their income is coming from this.
My memory is fuzzy but it was something like $15/month for unlimited dial-up internet service + 30 emails/per month. Additional emails were 5 or 10cents a pop. How many emails do you send daily? or Texts?
Vance
True Story.
Airline pilot here. I was fired from a major airline for not wearing a hat.
...And then the guy who fired me - quit a few days later.
They come in varying flavors and intensities, but the world is full of people who like to hurt others. Usually it is for some anachronistic, procrustean belief like a hat that they cling to.
So, thanks for your discussion on the silliness of hats. Gave me a chuckle....
SuperBF
I'm amazed how simple the thinking on pot was on freakanomics. I mean, c'mon. I listen to Freakonomics for something more in depth that a couple of guys talking by the water cooler what they "think" - I can get that at work.
Particularly crazy was thinking that the harm caused by pot is only from the laws. That is like saying, well the harm from speeding comes from the money people lose in speeding tickets.
No mention of how the amount of tax you need to make worthwhile to society, will drive it back underground. No mention of the increased supply as companies are allowed to industrial farm pot. No mention of the increased marketing that will come from trying to unload the increased supply. No mention of the increased investment, demanding return will lead to more creative ways of selling it. No mention of all this combining to create an environment where new users are going to be needed, and new users of pot = teens of course.
I mean, how can you avoid all these complicated issues while just joking around that you probably wouldn't do it while golfing, but would enjoy it occasionally. Wow, so informative. Thanks.
You sound like a Doctor pushing cigarettes in the 60s.
Please if you are going to a show on pot, do some research, get some facts, do some thinking economically of how it is going to work, and what the world will look like after.
No wonder the people who think it is no big deal to de-regulate the pot industry and let the mass marketing begin is going up. Shows like yours are pretty much the pot industry talking points and nothing more. They only voice that has been heard on this matter really are just the guys who stand to profit.
Disappointed my Freakonomics couldn't do better.
Daniel
I'm kind if surprised that you guys didn't know this: John F. Kennedy killed the hat. More properly speaking, he set the fashion trend of not wearing hats. Before Kennedy, most men wore hats. After Kennedy, most men did not.
And as long as I'm posting: I agree that drug laws do more harm than good. I think the modern drug laws were passed when prohibition was repealed because law enforcement wanted something to do. Of course the prison industry (selling supplies to prisons, and occasionally running private prisons) are a powerful lobby for more and harsher prison terms, as these increase their profits. Most prisoners in the U.S. should never have been put there. If we only imprisoned violent offenders and thieves, we'd probably have 1/10 the prison population we have today.
Dan D'Errico
Hi! In one of your recent podcasts, you discussed what might be done to improve the postal service. There are two issues which you did not mention that may explain the problems the service faces and they are both political, not financial.
First of all, Congress has singled out the Postal Service to pre-fund its retirement benefits. Instead of a pay as you go system, all lot of the income of the service is being put asideasretirement benefits for employees who have not been born yet. Second, the Postal Service has made numerous attempts to modernize and take on more challenges buts these attempts have been thwarted by Congress as well.
Now you might ask why legislators would like to hinder the service or see it fail. I believe the answer is twofold. First, conservative members of Congress believe that "no government is the best government", so this is a great chance to harm a governmental service. Second, I believe that the postal service may have the largest amount of union members in the country. The ability to decimate the service and then blame the unions and the government for the failures is a win-win. And then the private sector can use this failure as a rallying point to privatize the mail service and award huge contracts to cronies and financial backers.