Question A:
All else equal, making drugs illegal raises street prices for those drugs because suppliers require extra compensation for the risk of incarceration and other punishments.
Responses
© 2025. Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets.
7%
0%
0%
0%
0%
44%
49%
Responses weighted by each expert's confidence
© 2025. Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets.
0%
0%
0%
39%
61%
Question B:
The Netherlands restrictions on “soft drugs” combined with a moderate tax aimed at deterring their consumption would have lower social costs than continuing to prohibit use of those drugs as in the US. (Click here for a summary of the Netherlands restrictions.)
Responses
© 2025. Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets.
7%
5%
0%
2%
24%
39%
22%
Responses weighted by each expert's confidence
© 2025. Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets.
0%
2%
20%
44%
35%
Question A Participant Responses
Participant |
University |
Vote |
Confidence |
Bio/Vote History |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Daron Acemoglu |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Only caveat (more drugs today increase addiction, demand and prices in the future) seems insufficient to reverse basic supply-demand result.
|
||||
 Alberto Alesina |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Joseph Altonji |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Alan Auerbach |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 David Autor |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
See AER paper by Carlos Dobkin and Nancy Nicosi on price effects of the U.S. government's disruption of the methamphetamine market
-see background information here |
||||
 Katherine Baicker |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Also depends on demand response - may be more consumers if legal, expanding demand - but that seems likely to be smaller than supply effect
|
||||
 Marianne Bertrand |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Raj Chetty |
Harvard | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Judith Chevalier |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Price increase isn't only due to risk-- constraints on production, costs of avoiding authority all raise MC.
|
||||
 Janet Currie |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 David Cutler |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
"All else equal" seems to imply something about taxation if legal.
|
||||
 Angus Deaton |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Not sure what is "all things equal," such as demand being constant, taxation of legal drugs, etc.
|
||||
 Darrell Duffie |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Aaron Edlin |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Illegality leads to high prices and crime.
|
||||
 Barry Eichengreen |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Ray Fair |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Pinelopi Goldberg |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Claudia Goldin |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Supply shifts to the left b/c of a host of factors including paying off authorities and related drug supply restrictions (plus added costs).
|
||||
 Austan Goolsbee |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Michael Greenstone |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Robert Hall |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
I claim no expertise on this subject but the proposition is basic economics
|
||||
 Bengt Holmström |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Caroline Hoxby |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Kenneth Judd |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Anil Kashyap |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Basic micro economics
|
||||
 Pete Klenow |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
 Edward Lazear |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Quantities also adjust because of the effect on demand but the supply price is higher when drugs are illegal.
|
||||
 Jonathan Levin |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Or reduces quality. Presumably illegality also reduces demand, but assuming cost increase is the more relevant & applying Econ 1.
|
||||
 William Nordhaus |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Maurice Obstfeld |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Cecilia Rouse |
Princeton | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Emmanuel Saez |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 José Scheinkman |
Columbia University | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Consumers also face risk of punishment, but the evidence is that the effect on suppliers dominates - substantially raising street prices.
|
||||
 Richard Schmalensee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Basic micro. Illegality also rules out some efficient forms of production & distribution.
|
||||
 Hyun Song Shin |
Princeton | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 James Stock |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Nancy Stokey |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Richard Thaler |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
A test of whether the panel is awake.
|
||||
 Christopher Udry |
Northwestern | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Luigi Zingales |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
Question B Participant Responses
Participant |
University |
Vote |
Confidence |
Bio/Vote History |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Daron Acemoglu |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
The US war on drugs appears to be a total and very costly failure, so alternatives have to be tried and this one seems to have worked well.
|
||||
|
Alberto Alesina |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Joseph Altonji |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Alan Auerbach |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
David Autor |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol. Criminal enforcement for minor marijuana infractions is a waste of societal resources.
|
||||
|
Katherine Baicker |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Depends on "social costs" and how harms of drug use, effect on crime, policing efforts, tax revenue enter social welfare function.
|
||||
|
Marianne Bertrand |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Raj Chetty |
Harvard | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
|
Judith Chevalier |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Too many poorly measured factors to have real certainty about this.
|
||||
|
Janet Currie |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
This is an empirical question. Depends ion how the law affects social acceptance of drugs, whether soft drugs are gateway drugs, etc.
|
||||
|
David Cutler |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Angus Deaton |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Darrell Duffie |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Aaron Edlin |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
The current regime of drug enforcement has unacceptably high cost in crime and prison
|
||||
|
Barry Eichengreen |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Ray Fair |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Pinelopi Goldberg |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
yes, especially if combined with an anti-drug campaign similar to the campaign against smoking in the U.S.
|
||||
|
Claudia Goldin |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Depends on how "moderate" the tax is.
|
||||
|
Austan Goolsbee |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Michael Greenstone |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
very difficult to judge. presumably, usage would be higher. does reduced productivity of users count as a social cost?
|
||||
|
Robert Hall |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
My limited understanding is that there is evidence of harm from cannabis.
|
||||
|
Bengt Holmström |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Caroline Hoxby |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
The evidence on this is very unclear because many of the consequences are not only hard to estimate, but hard to value. See Pudney papers..
-see background information here -see background information here |
||||
|
Kenneth Judd |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Anil Kashyap |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Have to trade off the costs of the likely extra usage against savings from wasted resources trying to stop the inevitable.
|
||||
|
Pete Klenow |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Edward Lazear |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Two issues confound this. The effect of lower prices and more availability on the young and drug tourism.
|
||||
|
Jonathan Levin |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Must be better approaches to drug policy, but don't have an informed view on this one.
|
||||
|
William Nordhaus |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Maurice Obstfeld |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Cecilia Rouse |
Princeton | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
|
Emmanuel Saez |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
José Scheinkman |
Columbia University | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Although drug use would increase, the diminished use of violence should yield a net gain.
|
||||
|
Richard Schmalensee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Not at all simple: evidence weak, hard to weight various kinds of costs.
|
||||
|
Hyun Song Shin |
Princeton | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
|
James Stock |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Nancy Stokey |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Richard Thaler |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
War on drugs dumber than invading Iraq in search of WMDs. Treat pot like booze. Would also lower prison population.
|
||||
|
Christopher Udry |
Northwestern | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Luigi Zingales |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
