# Do you think the U.S.Gov. makes more money **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 28, 2006, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-u-s-gov-makes-more-money/370570 "2006-08-28T20:08:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![diggleblop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac91a4/32.png) [@diggleblop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/diggleblop)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2006, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-u-s-gov-makes-more-money/370570/1 "2006-08-28T20:08:32Z")
from drugs by keeping them illegal as opposed to them ever being legalized? In other words, which would make the Government more money, making them legal or keeping them illegal? Take into consideration of court fees and fines when someone is busted with large amounts of drugs that the court receives. I’m talking all drugs which are now illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2006, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-u-s-gov-makes-more-money/370570/2 "2006-08-28T20:11:07Z")
There’s not a doubt in my mind that keeping drugs illegal costs many billions more at all levels of government. I’ve never heard of anyone who suggests otherwise, and I’m not someone in favor of legalization. ---
**Author:** ![Papermache\_Prince](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f05b48/32.png) [@Papermache\_Prince](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Papermache_Prince)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2006, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-u-s-gov-makes-more-money/370570/3 "2006-08-28T20:23:00Z")
I find it hard to imagine that the government makes _any_ money from illegal drugs. I seriously doubt that the fines come close to paying the cost of prosecution alone, let alone the cost of incarceration or enforcement. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2006, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-u-s-gov-makes-more-money/370570/4 "2006-08-28T20:42:00Z")
I have no doubt that the bottom line would be that the government would make more money by legalization, both in taxes and in decreased need for enforcement, than its continued illegalization. However, to take a devil’s advocate position, one could argue that if drugs were legalized, abuse would become _so_ rampantly commonplace that the entire economy would suffer, and the government’s revenues with it. I don’t believe that, though: while I think that _all other things being equal_, basic productivity would suffer from increased abuse, it would be more than made up for by the “peace dividend” from decreased enforcement (not to mention the increase in economic output _per se_ since more drugs would be produced.) ---
**Author:** ![Smitty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Smitty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smitty)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2006, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-u-s-gov-makes-more-money/370570/5 "2006-08-28T21:17:19Z")
I don’t know if even basic productivity would go down to any appreciable degree. Let’s face it, those who want drugs can get them. If they were legal, I don’t think that use amongst those who are currently being productive would increase significantly. I believe it was PJ O’Rourke who said, “Getting fucked up is for those who are _already_ fucked up.” ---
**Author:** ![FRDE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e68b1a/32.png) [@FRDE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FRDE)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2006, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-u-s-gov-makes-more-money/370570/6 "2006-08-29T07:34:57Z")
We have the precedent of Prohibition. It led to criminality, and mass ‘contempt’ of the law. Taxation of drugs would probably be partially offset by loss of alcohol revenue, but the reduction in crime would (in my view) be the clincher. I would legalize them, on grounds of pragmatism. ---
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2006, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-u-s-gov-makes-more-money/370570/7 "2006-08-29T08:46:37Z")
Though the loss of productivity has been touched upon, I think we might be neglecting the increased health care costs that the government would have to pony up. We’re not just talking about marijuana here, but some serious drugs with very detrimental health effects. It might very well be cheaper for the government to ban heroin and lock up the users in order to prevent from having to provide the medical care that they are going to need later - especially if the number of heroin users increases as a result of lifting the ban. I can’t even begin to speculate on the numbers though. Has anyone, anywhere, done a non-biased study on the economics of this? **diggleblop** has put forth one hell of a fascinating question. ---
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2006, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-u-s-gov-makes-more-money/370570/8 "2006-08-29T08:56:41Z")
Let me add another thing to my previous post. **FRDE** brought up, and rightly so, that prohibition didn’t work. _However_, the government is slowly moving in the direction of banning tobacco. The costs incurred by the government in dealing with the health effects of nicotine consumption are quite large, and might be beginning to outweigh the monies it recieves through the taxes of tobacco production and sales. ---
**Author:** ![FRDE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e68b1a/32.png) [@FRDE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FRDE)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2006, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-u-s-gov-makes-more-money/370570/9 "2006-08-29T11:20:57Z")
[QUOTE=A Monkey With a Gun] Let me add another thing to my previous post. **FRDE** brought up, and rightly so, that prohibition didn’t work. _However_, the government is slowly moving in the direction of banning tobacco. The costs incurred by the government in dealing with the health effects of nicotine consumption are quite large, and might be beginning to outweigh the monies it recieves through the taxes of tobacco production and sales. [/QUOTE] I always thought that tobacco killed off older people. ---
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2006, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-u-s-gov-makes-more-money/370570/10 "2006-08-29T11:30:37Z")
[QUOTE=FRDE] I always thought that tobacco killed off older people. [/QUOTE] I suppose the Feds could make a bit of scratch by salvaging the ailing elderly for soylent green. !!! WTF? That was a joke, right? ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2006, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-u-s-gov-makes-more-money/370570/11 "2006-08-29T13:25:36Z")
Well, the government may not exactly make money from drugs being illegal, but it benefits many influential folks in many other ways. Illegal drugs encourage various other crimes, and by themselves create a handy red herring to allow huge amounts of funds to be poured into quasi-military law enforcement efforts, favoring both advocates of the agencies involved and their suppliers. Illegalization of drugs allows a handy - if hollow - platform for politicians to proclaim themselves “law-and-order” candidates. Dur to the privatization of various functions, illegal drugs support a vast - and growing - prison industry. In our wonderful society, some things are just worth more than mere money! ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-u-s-gov-makes-more-money/370570/12 "2006-08-31T05:36:18Z")
[QUOTE=FRDE] I always thought that tobacco killed off older people. [/QUOTE] Define old? > [@](#): > > About half of all tobacco deaths occur at ages 35 to 69, resulting in the loss of about 20 to 25 years of life, compared with the life expectancy of nonsmokers. Source: [Checking your browser - reCAPTCHA](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=dcp2.section.6704) > [@](#): > > Between 1950 and 2000, 44 per cent of deaths in middle age (35-69) in Scottish men were caused by smoking, peaking in the 1960s when tobacco caused half of all deaths in middle-aged men. Source: [Medical and health information | MedicalNewsToday](http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=20864) ---
**Author:** ![FRDE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e68b1a/32.png) [@FRDE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FRDE)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-u-s-gov-makes-more-money/370570/13 "2006-08-31T08:19:39Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by FRDE > I always thought that tobacco killed off older people. [QUOTE=Duckster] Define old? Source: [Checking your browser - reCAPTCHA](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=dcp2.section.6704) Source: [Medical and health information | MedicalNewsToday](http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=20864) [/QUOTE] Let us say 50+ for older people I’m a bit wary of medical ‘cause of death’ statistics Two of my close relatives died of advanced cancer, in both cases the cause of death was given as liver failure. Being a heavy smoker myself, I don’t consider it a particularly good idea, but I have a nasty suspicion that it is being used as some sort of lever by politicians and the medical profession. I only know one person whose death was purely smoking related, which may be anecdotal, but strikes me as rather interesting. ---
**Author:** ![flight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbce88/32.png) [@flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flight)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-u-s-gov-makes-more-money/370570/14 "2006-08-31T12:58:03Z")
[QUOTE=FRDE] Let us say 50+ for older people I’m a bit wary of medical ‘cause of death’ statistics Two of my close relatives died of advanced cancer, in both cases the cause of death was given as liver failure. Being a heavy smoker myself, I don’t consider it a particularly good idea, but I have a nasty suspicion that it is being used as some sort of lever by politicians and the medical profession. I only know one person whose death was purely smoking related, which may be anecdotal, but strikes me as rather interesting. [/QUOTE] If I understand you, you are saying that though there are increased health costs associated with the illnesses that come from smoking, people tend to lose many more years from their retirement rather than their more productive primary employment. Thus they save the government money in social services, end of life costs, and such. Gruesome, but possibly true. ---
**Author:** ![FRDE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e68b1a/32.png) [@FRDE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FRDE)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-u-s-gov-makes-more-money/370570/15 "2006-08-31T13:16:54Z")
[QUOTE=flight] If I understand you, you are saying that though there are increased health costs associated with the illnesses that come from smoking, people tend to lose many more years from their retirement rather than their more productive primary employment. Thus they save the government money in social services, end of life costs, and such. Gruesome, but possibly true. [/QUOTE] Yes is the short answer. I am not actually sure of health costs in the USA, but I have a strong suspicion that health costs are substantially higher for retired people. ---
**Author:** ![diggleblop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac91a4/32.png) [@diggleblop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/diggleblop)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-u-s-gov-makes-more-money/370570/16 "2006-08-31T17:43:14Z")
[QUOTE=Ludovic] However, to take a devil’s advocate position, **one could argue that if drugs were legalized, abuse would become _so_ rampantly commonplace that the entire economy would suffer** , and the government’s revenues with it. I don’t believe that, though: while I think that _all other things being equal_, basic productivity would suffer from increased abuse, it would be more than made up for by the “peace dividend” from decreased enforcement (not to mention the increase in economic output _per se_ since more drugs would be produced.) [/QUOTE] Touching on this statement, between the times prohibition was in effect up until it was lifted, were there studies done on alcoholism? In other words, did more people start drinking after it was made legal again? If so, what were the numbers? Hell, is it even fair to compare alcohol prohibition to drug prohibition? My personal feelings on this matter is that I’m a staunch supporter of legalization of all drugs. I believe lots of crime would be eliminated by doing so and the money wasted on trying to stop people who are _already doing drugs_ could be put into treatment and education. Just think about how many meth houses would be eliminated, think about how many meth house explosions that would no longer happen, no more crach houses, no more hidden grow rooms, no more drug raids. [http://www.cato.org/raidmap/](http://www.cato.org/raidmap/) But that’s neither here nor there. ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-u-s-gov-makes-more-money/370570/17 "2006-08-31T17:48:07Z")
[QUOTE=A Monkey With a Gun] Though the loss of productivity has been touched upon, I think we might be neglecting the increased health care costs that the government would have to pony up. We’re not just talking about marijuana here, but some serious drugs with very detrimental health effects. It might very well be cheaper for the government to ban heroin and lock up the users in order to prevent from having to provide the medical care that they are going to need later - especially if the number of heroin users increases as a result of lifting the ban. I can’t even begin to speculate on the numbers though. Has anyone, anywhere, done a non-biased study on the economics of this? **diggleblop** has put forth one hell of a fascinating question. [/QUOTE] How about a cite for this of some sort. What makes you think drug use would skyrocket if they were made legal? There’s more than legality keeping people from doing drugs - one big thing is that they generally make you into a crappy person.