There is a common meme on the American right that can be synthesized as simply as:
Government Regulation = Causes More Problems > Than It Solves
Because I and many others reading this are very critical of the American Rightwing's tropes and memes, it occurred to me that I wanted to examine more closely a very similar meme that exists on the left:
Government Prohibition/Control of Substances = Black Market for Prohibited/Controlled Substances = Causes More Problems > Than It Solves
DISCLAIMER: I am not in favor of the current War On Drugs prohibition of various designated controlled substances.
I just want to examine whether the aforementioned equation is the argument we should use against prohibition. (Against which there exist many good arguments against.)
In California, due to the drought, we have a substance that is getting increasingly regulated. As the equation predicts; a black market has sprung up to supply paying customers with what they can't acquire legally.
Black Market for Water
Does the mere existence of a black market for a government regulated activity or substance, on its own, present enough justification to throw up our hands and say, "NO! The government should not do this because there's a black market that now exists because of this regulation!" or are there more factors to consider?
Now let's just go further along the logical extent of this argument.
We treat the black market for heroin use among adults as the priority and so we get rid of the black market and any 18 year old can now buy high purity heroin at any liquor store or pharmacy.
As many of you know, with alcohol, people under the drinking age frequently will ask someone over the drinking age to buy alcohol for them and pay a surcharge to the person. Most local and state governments carry a penalty for furnishing alcohol for a minor. This is a black market that would also come into existence if heroin was legal but only for legal adults.
Is that acceptable? Should the existence of this black market be incentive enough to make heroin legal for 16 years olds? 15 year olds? 13 year olds? 10 year olds? 5 year olds?
Or should the metric be more nuanced than that? Should the consequences of dealing with and having a black market be weighed against the public good?
I would say in California, water regulations are needed, and more of them are needed, and any black market should get confronted, because it's a justified public action.
Nationwide, Marijuana's availability is not onerous enough (to put it too generously to the prohibition crowd) to justify the existence of a black market.
Heroin? I don't know. (Ok, well, I don't think it should ever be legal for five year olds to do Heroin. Neurological development and such.)
My point is, I believe that there are things that government does that are worth doing, even though these policies create black markets.
In different parts of the world:
Child Pornography is Illegal=There is a black market for it.
Alcohol is Taxed=There is sometimes a black market for alcohol.
Automatic Weapons are illegal or extremely regulated=There is a black market for automatic weapons.
Many medications are illegal to purchase without a prescription=There is a black market for these drugs.
Water use is regulated=There is apparently a black market for water.
----------------
So, are there things that are worth having the government do on our behalf, even if it can't be airtight in their enforcement, even if criminals step into the gap? Or should the mere specter of black markets be enough to deter us from government regulation?
I, for one, am skeptical that this libertarian argument is the right argument for the American Left to use against prohibition of drugs.*
*Especially since the right uses this same exact argument against much of the left's preferred policy prescriptions in favor of government regulation of access to firearms.