choactive drugs, have been prohibited by governments at various times. Os-

tensible motives for the prohibitions have included helping people to lead

“good” lives (in the opinion of the lawmakers) by keeping them from temptation, and

preventing behavior that harms society as a whole. Evidently lawmakers have assumed

that if they prohibit an activity deemed harmful, then the harm individuals do to them-

selves and to society will decrease—corruption aside, why else would they impose such

prohibitions? Let us examine the evidence for their assumption. If it is incorrect, if

indeed prohibiting an activity causes it to increase rather than decrease, then the whole

prohibitionist program is called into serious question.

My thesis is that because reducing only the harmful types or aspects of certain

behaviors is difficult, governments often resort to prohibiting all types or aspects of

the behavior, both the harmful and the benign. Such flat prohibition often leads to an

increase, rather than a decrease, of the harmful behavior.

In reviewing the literature on the effects of such laws, one repeatedly sees a

N. A. Rigotti and associates (1997) observe:

The demand for cigarettes is price inelastic (Goodin 1989), which means, for

restriction of guns caused the crime rate to go up or the preexisting high crime rate

tion is the prevention of drunk driving by teenagers.

Some topics in this essay:
NDEPENDENT EVIEW, III UMBER, Obscenity Pornography, Speed Limit, Gary Kleck, , Duke Gross, Carlson Caisse, Insurance Institute, William Shugart, gun ownership, teen smoking, harmful behavior, homicide rates, 1999 d ✦, 3 inter, 1999 d, umber 3, prohibi- tion, olume iii umber, inter 1999, inter 1999 d, gun control, 3 inter 1999, iii umber 3,