In the tradition of previous Surgeon Generals, Dr. Joycelyn Elders both speaks her mind and makes the President uneasy in doing so (think how Reagan must have felt when Dr. Koop began to talk about condoms). What is making President Clinton nervous about Dr. Elders is not her remarks that only planned children should be born. It is not even her ridiculous suggestion that we cross toy guns off our Christmas lists. It is her outrageous suggestion that we could reduce our crime rates significantly by legalizing illicit drugs. How could an intelligent woman hold such a position? Frankly, it is the first thing I have heard from her that makes sense. The logic is compelling.

Increases in the street price of addictive drugs, such as crack cocaine and heroin, do little to reduce the consumption of these drugs. So higher prices for the drugs lead users to spend more on drugs. The problem comes when addicts' drug spending is financed by burglary, mugging, armed robbery and prostitution--mostly crimes against others.

If the DEA cuts the supply of drugs, the street prices of drugs increase. Since it is difficult for addicts to cut their drug use, higher drug prices mean that they must rob more homes, mug more people, knock over more liquor stores and sell their bodies more often to pay for the chemicals that their bodies crave. Won't drug legalization encourage young people to take illicit drugs? Just as most of us are not addicts, legalization will not lead to increased numbers of addicts, because we know drugs are poison. Legalizing drugs will not make us a nation of addicts, but will keep us from being a nation of crime victims.

Another aspect of the marketing of illicit drugs deserves mention. If drugs were sold through ordinary channels, open competition would drive the prices down and the huge profits out of the trade. If selling drugs were no more profitable than selling hamburgers, drug sellers would not shoot each other for "drug territory" any more than people shoot each other for locations for hamburger stands.

Though legalizing highly addictive drugs will reduce the crime rate as it has in The Netherlands, only addictive drugs would need to be legalized. Drugs that are not as addictive, such as LSD and marijuana, could remain illegal. Marijuana users seldom hit people over the head to get drug money; they are more likely to hit someone with a car.

Of course, crack babies are tragic, but this problem will remain whether we legalize drugs or not. Think what could be done with the savings from emptied jails, from lower insurance rates, from fewer visits to emergency rooms for gunshot wounds, and so forth. Some of these huge savings could be used for drug education, for drug rehab, and for helping people get jobs so they would have hope in their future. As long as people want drugs, someone else will find a way to sell to them. We need to explore ways of cutting the desire to use drugs, because to cut the supply of drugs significantly we would have to repeal the Bill of Rights.

Drug legalization may not be the sole answer to our crime problems, but more than anything McGruff ever suggested, it would take a big bite out of crime.

Dr. Morris Coats is an Associate Professor of Economics at Nicholls State University, Thibodaux, Louisiana. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent a position of Nicholls State University or this paper.