In all the coverage in the papers about mephedrone – the new as-yet-legal drug also known as meow meow and connected with the death of a number of unfortunate young people recently – there has been little focus on the economics. Which probably ought not to be a surprise, since this is an emotive issue. But economics helps explain why drugs like mephedrone have gained popularity in the past year or so: quite simply – because they are so cheap.

The average cost of a gram of cocaine in the UK, according to DrugScope, the independent experts on these things, was £39. The price for a gram of mephedrone is closer to a tenner. A gram of ketamine costs half as much as the cocaine, and when you bear in mind that, according to analysis by the Forensic Science Service the average purity of cocaine these days is 26.4pc, compared with 45pc only five years ago (and 63pc in 1984), the value comparison is pretty stark.
Even in the illicit world of drugs (or not so illicit, yet, in the case of mephedrone), price still matters. We know from statistics that the proportion of 16-24 year olds who indulge in these kind of things has been pretty steady (at around 10pc) for some years. So let’s not panic about that. What’s changed is the kind of things they tend to consume: consumption of cheaper drugs like ketamine and mephedrone has leapt in the past couple of years.
Another often-unremarked dynamic is availability: mephedrone has similar effects to ecstasy tablets. So it is probably no coincidence that mephedrone’s rise in popularity has coincided with an a sudden and unprecedented shortage in ecstasy in the UK, something which is linked to the seizure of 33 tonnes of sassafras oil (one of the main ingredients of ecstasy) in Cambodia in June 2008.
With youth unemployment running at the highest level for over a decade, and Britain still stuck in the jaws of recession, I would be shocked if youngsters hadn’t become more price conscious – including about drugs. Now, a separate issue is that mephedrone is clearly too easy to get hold of – something which will not be the case after its almost inevitable ban. But, as I say above, this isn’t the obstacle many people assume it is. The evidence suggests that there is a certain small proportion of people who will want to take drugs even if they are illegal, and whether something is or isn’t illicit won’t change this. Over time we can and should try to reduce this through rehabilitation and education (drugs are anti-social and psychologically and physically degrading at best, potentially fatal at worst), but experience shows that simply making things illegal is not the silver bullet so many seem to think. On the contrary. Price dynamics, on the other hand, do seem to change peoples’ behaviour.
And here the evidence for mephadrone is not encouraging. Since Ketamine was made a class C drug in 2006, its price has actually fallen from £28 a gram to £20. This almost certainly suggests that drug dealers are cutting costs by mixing it with God knows what else. The same will almost certainly happen with mephadrone if it is outlawed: it will become more difficult to get hold of (but that won’t matter for the vast, vast majority of those who want to try it), the price will fall, and so will the purity, making it more dangerous.
Finally, distressing and upsetting as it is to hear of young people dying on what are supposed to be nights of celebration and fun, let’s not forget that alcohol is a far more dangerous drug, killing far more people. What makes mephedrone different is that many of the kids taking it do not know the dangers. The lesson surely ought to be to warn people of these risks and make it more difficult to get hold of, rather than shoving it blindly into the criminal world, where it will become far more dangerous?
<Admin Wrote>: This is a great article with some well balanced views and infomation. Im also going to publish some of the comments for all to see.
Comments:
this article is a rare piece of common sense in a debate normally dominated by furious calls to send all evil drug users to prison.
i have bought mephedrone a few times over the past year or so as a cheaper, less cut up alternative to ecstasy.
i also prefer that the money goes to a tax paying business instead of a criminal enterprise.
obviously an age limit should be imposed but i see this as a more acceptable status quo.
this will never happen as any change of approach would be stopped by tabloids whipping the population into a moral frenzy
the government will carry on letting murders and pedophiles out of overcrowded jails early to fit in more otherwise law abiding citizens while allowing people to drink too much and puke in public with impunity.
mw203 on Mar 23rd, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Report comment
I was wondering when an Economist would throw a spreadsheet into the mix.
I’m undecided if I should follow my Libertarian principles and advocate a general decriminalizing of banned substances, or if there’s a reasonable argument to say that legalizing increases a society’s useage, so the trade should be banned.
Naturally, there’s a huge argument about tax, safety of the end product, the loss of revenue for criminals, money saved on policing to be mixed with the UK becoming a transport and production hub, the loss of pub trade and the danger that permissiveness brings as evidenced in any town centre on a Saturday night.
But what do the numbers say?
Jamie E on Mar 23rd, 2010 at 9:37 pm
Report comment
Whats the bloody point….
Alcohol most dangerous drug, I see dead drunks stagger out into blizzards to smoke fags……ergo……
Why not make the laws against violent conduct at least as stringent as those for smoking in doors…..you might find that, that most evil drug will all of a sudden stop being dangerous over night…????
But don’t hold your breath, Perverts of the like that can be found in the Scottish Parliament….would have very little to do if they actually got the useless plonkers in the courts and the police stations to do what they are paid to.
Most dangerous drug my arse.
Crouchback on Mar 23rd, 2010 at 10:34 pm
Report comment
There cannot be a “free” market generally but not in, among other things, drugs, so there must not be a “free” market generally. You can be a capitalist or a conservative, but not both.
Of course mephedrone should be made illegal. Within a single class of illegal drug, and accompanied a crackdown on the possession of drugs, including a mandatory sentence of three months for a second offence, six months for a third offence, one year for a fourth offence, and so on.
All within a context in which each offence, of whatever kind, carries a minimum sentence of one third of its maximum sentence, or of 15 years for life.
David Lindsay on Mar 23rd, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Report comment
” What makes mephedrone different [from alcohol] is that many of the kids taking it do not know the dangers.”
Alcohol also differs from many other drugs that its effect can be controlled directly by the user: you can implement your own control system, responding to the feedback from your senses. You can stop drinking, or at least slow your pace. Young people suffer more from alcohol than their elders partly because of youthful enthusiasm but also because they haven’t tuned their control system. Most people learn, to a greater or lesser degree. (The underlying effects on liver, kidney, brain and heart are another matter.)
By contrast, some other drugs are apparently sufficiently potent and fast-acting that there isn’t enough scope to tune the dose. Perhaps it’s impossible.
People do die from alcohol poisoning, but most people would need to drink rather a lot relatively quickly to get to that state (and even then there are warning signs and defence mechanisms in the body).
chforsyth on Mar 23rd, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Report comment
Fascinating.
“Now, a separate issue is that mephedrone is clearly too easy to get hold of – something which will not be the case after its almost inevitable ban.”
On the other hand however,
“Since Ketamine was made a class C drug in 2006, its price has actually fallen from £28 a gram to £20.”
So when ketamine was made illegal, by your logic Edmund it should have been harder to get hold of, which, according to my understanding of economics, should have made it dearer, but in fact it is now cheaper.
I see….
Catweazle on Mar 24th, 2010 at 12:01 am
Report comment
Surely economic theory can be applied wherever behaviour is expressed through transactions. It wouldn’t be much use if it can’t. Current drugs policy ignores eonomics and draws its authority from political theory. It is in essence politics with a big P whose benefits are dubious to say the least.
There are so many vested political interests in current drugs policy that serious debate about decriminalisation suffers under the weight of pointlessness. Many voices express vehement opposition to decriminalisation largely by making the moral case for the status quo, but rarely backed up by a rational position. The rational position seems to me to clearly point to a drugs policy the embraces decriminalisation as its starting point.
I don’t suggest drugs are not a potential menace, as indeed alcohol can be or for that matter any excessive consumption or behaviour. However, what is needed is a clear and open debate that focuses on the cost of current drug policy (i.e. the cost to society of our moral stance that criminalises illicit drug production, trade and consumption) compared to the costs of decriminalisation (an alternative moral position focusing on regulation). If economic theory can be useful here, then it should applied to help get to the core of this debate and in so doing, give it some bite.
Cosimo on Mar 24th, 2010 at 12:25 am
Report comment
Catweazle,
The presumption that the price would rise is made on the basis that the quality of the product remains constant, and supply is restricted. The fact that the price of a ‘gram’ of ‘ketamine’ has actually fallen from £28 to £20 is even more concerning, since it implies that the quality of the product has fallen even further than one might have anticipated. The fear is that mephadone would do the same if outlawed.
march25 on Mar 24th, 2010 at 12:33 am
Report comment
I think decriminalisation should be tried. What we’ve been doing so far doesn’t seem to have worked very well, does it?
If you decrim drugs, then you start to cut out the gang control (by bringing the drugs supply into the legitimate business sphere); you get the opportunity to tax them; quality probably increases – or at least is easier for the user to judge (trusted brands anyone? cf Nurofen vs own brand ibuprofen); and you reduce the risk that cr*p is used to “cut” the product (which as I understand it means make it go further or reduce it to manageable strength) because you can track down the production organisation just like any other food & drugs business (and competition should help the suppliers of purer/safer gear to increase market share vs the rogues who will always be around).
Now, the arguments against that I can see are that at least initially the existing criminal suppliers get an effective amnesty and cash reward for their past sins; and that the country risks becoming a supply hub for elsewhere (although what’s the Netherlands experience?) unless they follow suit. But if the IRA can become the good guys, who’s to say the drug dealers couldn’t?
And like I said, we’ve not had too much success so far…
tanker21 on Mar 24th, 2010 at 12:58 am
Report comment
what never seems to be discussed in relation to the use of hard dugs is the fact that all these substances become airborne and are a public health hazard. When are we going to stop discussing what is good or bad for these users and start monitoring what these drugs are doing to our air quality. If passive cigarette smoking is detrimental to health then surely the chemical soup of crack cocaine and amphetomines in our atmosphere is far more toxic and harmful. Time this was brought to the public’s attention.




A teenager died at a house party after experimenting for the first time with a dangerous drug available legally on the internet, friends said yesterday.