It’s time to break the taboo. Legalization would be cost effective and likely eliminate the vast majority of violence on the U.S.-Mexico border — not to mention the poppy fields in Afghanistan and the Coca farms in Columbia — and allow the government to treat the war on drugs as an issue of public health issue instead of a criminal issue.

Some of you are probably thinking, “Legalize? Is this maniac talking about over the counter crack rocks?” I’m not arguing for any framework or timetable for legalization. What I am arguing for is the discussion of legalization as an alternative policy to prohibition.

An obvious first step would be legalization of marijuana. While it wouldn’t stop much of the violence on our border and overseas, it would reduce the likelihood that people get caught up in something more than they bargained for by eliminating the exposure to underground drug culture and other options that go hand in hand with buying a bag of grass.

There’s no better time than now, amid our economic disaster, to think about the benefits of legalization. Our government spends $40 billion a year trying to eliminate the supply of drugs. We arrest about 1.5 million citizens each year for drug-related offenses, and one-third of those arrested wind up taking a trip to the “Big House” (and I’m not talking about that aberration to the southeast of us). On average it costs $22,650 per year to house each drug offender, a total of almost $11.5 trillion taxpayer dollars. Imagine the benefit to our economy if that number were eliminated.

Legalization not only would eliminate that number from the costs side of our balance sheet, it would allow us to reap benefits of the $320 billion dollar per year illegal global industry. We could replace dangerous drug dealers with regulated businesses and make a fortune on taxes. Unemployment numbers would drop not only because ex-drug dealers would need real jobs, but new job opportunities would open up for those without jobs.

The benefits of legalization are not only monetary, as the policy of prohibition has tremendous human costs. We like to think prohibition saves the lives of would-be drug users, but we don’t like to think of it as the reason thousands die each year on the U.S.-Mexico border, and as the primary cause of the exponential increases in gangsterism. Legalization would help eliminate this gangsterism because it would take away the primary livelihood of gangsters — drug trafficking.

A third benefit of legalization is a derivative of the two above: the ability to put significant resources toward dealing with the demand side of the war on drugs by treating drug use as a public health issue. We should deal with drug addicts like we deal with those addicted to cigarettes and alcohol. Once the use is seen to be a problem, get the person help.

While legalization may not be a glamorous option and would certainly be a political nightmare, it’s better than already failed alternatives. The sad reality is there may be no way to win the war — just like we’ll likely never rid the world of nicotine and alcohol abuse — but we might as well try to minimize casualties.

Many fear legalization would cause a significant increase in the number of narcotics users, especially young adults, and therefore not minimize casualties. I disagree. I’d bet the farm most young adults could get their hands on most illegal substances if they so desired, so regulation may even decrease availability if the local weed guy is put out of business.

Prohibition has failed miserably to win the war on drugs. With the estimate of adults that use drugs stabilized at 5 percent of the world’s population, legalization is certainly not a “good” option (a “good” option would eliminate all dangerous drug use), but it might be a necessary one.

Nate Lyman is a State News guest columnist, an international relations and economics senior and a member of the Roosevelt Institution. Reach him at lymannat@msu.edu.