Nothing astounding about that. But there came a moment that people should have found truly astounding. Both the former czar and Mr. Barr agreed that one of first things we need if the War on Drugs is to succeed once and for all is “drug-free prisons”!

Drug-free prisons? They aren’t drug-free now?

Of course they’re not. How many Americans know that?

That prisons are still not drug-free sheds new light on the War on Drugs. After all, if they can’t keep drugs out of prisons, how do they expect to eliminate them from society at large?

Think about it. In prison the inmates are under constant surveillance. Their lives are controlled, theoretically, down to the minutest detail. Their contact with the outside world is subject to the strictest scrutiny. And yet prisoners have no trouble getting any drug you can name.

How can that be? Obviously, they get help from the very people who are watching them so closely. The corruption of prison guards is an old story. There has never been a time when prison guards and even higher-ups were not tempted by bribes to at least look the other way while prisoners did things they were not supposed to do. We know, for instance, that mobsters have continued running their criminal operations from behind bars.

That prison officials would permit, and even enable, inmates to get illegal drugs was predictable for the simple reason that drug dealing is highly lucrative. There’s plenty of money available to bribe officials with. And it is precisely their illegality that makes dealing drugs so profitable. How’s that for irony?

We live in a dreamland when it comes to the War on Drugs. We pretend that all government has to do to make drugs disappear from society is to declare them illegal. If they don’t disappear, it’s because the War on Drugs isn’t being fought fiercely enough or with enough money.

That isn’t analysis. It’s wishful thinking.

The application of economic principles will indicate where the drug warriors and their supporters go wrong. First, there is a demand for drugs. That is nothing new. In every society from time immemorial there has been a demand for intoxicants and narcotics. Most of the people who have used those substances have done so responsibly. A small percentage have not. At this late date in human history, it is unlikely that the demand for drugs will vanish.

Second, where there is demand, there will be supply. If people are willing to pay for a product, others will be willing to provide it. If the buyers want drugs badly enough, they will be prepared to compensate the sellers for any dangers involved in providing them. The sellers will be prepared to do what is necessary to reap the big profits, including bribing officials who would otherwise stand in their way.

The logical conclusion, amply supported by long experience, is that if the government declares drugs illegal, they won’t disappear, but will simply become the province of the black market. But that creates worse social problems than the drugs. Since disputes in the black market cannot be settled peacefully in court, those who are least reluctant to use violence will rise to the top of the drug trade. Thus outlawing drugs inevitably increases the level of violence in society. Further, as we have seen, black-market profits will be used to corrupt law enforcement — not only prison guards, but policemen, customs officials, judges, and the military. The same thing will happen in foreign countries where the U.S. government tries to prosecute its war. The Washington Post reported recently that in Peru, one of the U.S. government’s partners in the War on Drugs, more than a dozen generals have been arrested on suspicion of drug-related corruption.

The next time you hear the drug czar proclaim success, just say to yourself: “They can’t keep drugs out of prisons.”

Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va. (www.fff.org), and editor of Ideas on Liberty magazine.

Send to a friend