A study by Harvard University, signed by over 500 economists led by Nobel Prize winner in economics, exposes the true costs of the ban.

During the past year released a study commissioned by the reform group Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) to economist Dr. Jeffrey Miron, Harvard University. The survey question was: how much is in the United States prohibiting the consumption of marijuana, and how much you could save if you replaced the ban by a control scheme and taxes?. The idea is to compare the current policy with a scheme similar to that used for snuff and alcohol.

After months of work, the study's findings speak for themselves: 7,000,000,000 (seven billion) dollars could be saved each year, and in addition to those savings, it could raise 6,000,000,000 (six billion) of extra dollars in taxes. The methodology used and all data used for this calculation are available online at www.prohibitioncosts.org

In addition to its author, more than 500 economists led by Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman, have signed both the study and endorse its conclusions and its recommendation: the war on drugs is extremely expensive, does not generate significant benefits for society, and there considerable evidence that the ban creates harmful side effects.

These side effects include the prohibition creates a business on the sidelines of the law, without any control, which pays no taxes and is run by gangs through violence and corruption. They also include a high percentage of racial minority youth, Hispanic and African-spend some time in jail, mostly on charges related to possession of smaller amounts of marijuana.

Friedman, one of the most fervent defenders of capitalism, not basa their demand for legalization on the grounds of individual freedom. Rather, says the economist, it is a matter of humanity. It is inhumane to continue with a policy that causes more deaths than lives supposedly saved, and it is inhumane to deny medical marijuana to patients who need it.

The term of the ban has different expressions, and includes the complete decriminalization like in Holland, or some intermediate options such as creating groups of distribution of marijuana for medical use (as in Canada and some U.S. states), or change imprisonment for a fine if the amount is small (as in some cities in England).

In all cases the results also support a conclusion of common sense: the "war on drugs" is a terrible deal for countries embarking on it, and there is no reason not to give marijuana the same treatment gives the alcohol and snuff: regulation and taxation. The theory and practice point to the need for an informed discussion about changing the prohibitionist scheme, costly and ineffective, an approach to address the problem of drug addiction from a rational perspective, public health and education.

Article extracted from Chato