Thursday, October 16, 2014

Meth, Intervention, and Black Market---Juan Vasquez

It has been estimated that in the United States the costs of all addictive drug enforcement are almost $40 billion per year. Methamphetamine is the second most used illegal drug in the United States, behind marijuana. Abusing drugs like these does not only have significant costs to the individual, but there are public health costs that include child maltreatment, foster care, environmental damage, and hospitalization from overindulgence. The DEA’s mission, besides lessening the direct damages of drug abuse, is reducing these said externalities.  Unlike many other abused drugs, meth is manufactured with precursor ingredients available to many without restrictions.  By restricting the availability of these precursor ingredients, the quantity of meth will decrease and price will increase, thus limiting the use for many abusers of this drug initially. However, this form of intervention will open up the possibilities for black markets.
The most active ingredients in the production of methamphetamine are either ephedrine or pseudoephedrine. To combat the production of meth, in 1988 congress passed the Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act, which was a policy that gave the DEA authority to the wholesale distribution of these precursors. There was one major loophole in this policy however: all tablet forms of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine were exempt.  Due to this specific lack of detail in policy, congress enacted the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996, which required registration of all forms of precursors used to synthesize methamphetamine. In the short run this policy proved extremely effective as prices of the drug increased dramatically, but in the long run, after the temporary disruptions to meth producers have died down, it is uncertain whether these precursor interventions are effective.      

Government interventions against drugs are initially very effective; however, in attempt to eliminate externalities, intervention creates the black market. This can be seen as a negative externality as well because the black market provides these precursors that the government is trying to get rid of and continues to harm society. Due to this inevitable response to government interventions against drugs, it is hard to gauge whether they are really worth the expenditure. With that said, as long as there is any sort of positive feedback from interventions than there is a valid argument to have them.

- Juan Vasquez

No comments:

Post a Comment