Bad Guys Will Still Be Bad Guys

 

Detroit_police_prohibitionMegan McArdle has an excellent post describing one of the best consequentialist arguments for ending the war on drugs:

… I consider the reduction of violent crime to be the main benefit. Deprived of the ability to enforce contracts through the relatively peaceful legal process used by other markets, black markets are accompanied by high levels of violence: Gangs fight for territory, enforce business agreements and try to defer defections. The more profitable the black market is, the more incentive there is to use violence to protect your profits, which may be one reason that the introduction of crack cocaine was accompanied by such a huge increase in violent crime. Legalizing drugs cuts into the profits and gives industry players legal means to settle their disputes, so in theory, this should reduce the prevalence, and the brutality, of violent gangs.

I find the logic of this nearly unassailable. Just as there’s no inherent reason why the alcohol trade should be violent, there’s little inherent reason why the market for other intoxicants should be. Give people the opportunity to work within the confines of the law — and to enjoy its protections — and the worst sorts of behavior become unnecessary. Deny them those confines and protections, and we quickly descend into a petty Hobbesianism that drives out all the nice guys and rewards the worst.

So, once we end the war on drugs, people will give up on the violence and criminality, dust-off their guitars, and debate whether to play “Doctor Robert” or”Tomorrow Never Knows” with the latest offering of legal bud, right? And with modern Prohibition over, I can finally use Rob Long’s contacts to pitch my idea for a pot-themed remake of The Thin Man starring James Franco and Anna Kendrick (which would totally work; heck, the sequels are already written).

Well, probably not, says McArdle:

[W]e should be modest about how much the end of Prohibition achieved. Because the Mafia did not simply disappear along with the source of its biggest profits. Instead, like any business, it sat back, took stock, and opened up new lines of business. Labor racketeering, gambling, extortion — these things might once have been sidelines, but they became the main show.

In other words, policy outcomes have a lot of path dependence. The Mafia was not created by Prohibition; it seems to have been an outgrowth of post-feudal Sicily, and it made its way to America along with Sicilian immigrants. But the advent of Prohibition greatly increased their profits and power, and by the time Prohibition ended, they were far too big and well-organized to simply slip softly and silently away into the night.

In other words, we’re not only likely to see a persistence of crime (though probably at a less-violent level) we’ll see some of the smarter drug lords corrupt other things that aren’t currently so bad. And that’s just looking at the drug trade and leaving aside effects of drug legalization on consumption (also likely a mixed bag).

I’d still take the bargain, but ending the war on drugs will be no panacea.

Published in Domestic Policy
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 102 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Pelayo Inactive
    Pelayo
    @Pelayo

    Organized crime is already branching out into other areas including Identity Theft.  My credit cards have been cloned more times than I can count.

    Has legalization of Marijuana put all of the dealers in Colorado or Washington State out of business?  I would guess they are still in business because they can sell for lower prices than legal sellers, but I would like to hear from anyone with first-hand experience in these communities.

    While we may see less resources expended in fighting drug trafficking, what price will we pay as a society if the use of Narcotics increases when “hard-core” drugs become legal?  What do we do with addicts who can no longer maintain employment or function in society?  Will they all end up on Medicaid and Disability Benefits? Will we see an increase in burglaries as these people steal to fund their addictions?

    I am not in favor of legalization of drugs.  I think it is simply treating a symptom rather than fixing an underlying cause. It is also likely to have various unintended side effects that would be even more damaging to society as a whole.  The war on drugs has not succeeded in wiping them out but it does limit the spread.  I have yet to come across a better idea.

    • #31
  2. Dad Dog Member
    Dad Dog
    @DadDog

    As a libertarian, I am — in the abstract — in favor of drug legalization.

    However, as a career prosecutor, I can see that this original post and subsequent comments overlook another unintended, criminal side effect.  Y’all are focusing “upstream,” at the criminal activity and violence orbiting the marketers, the sellers, the smugglers, the traffickers, the gangs.  You’re overlooking what will happen at the bottom of the food chain.

    Based on my experience in this job, here’s what people forget:

    • People who use drugs almost always become addicted.  Addicts (and even occasional users) eventually become unemployable, because they (1) can no longer perform their work, or (2) are not allowed to perform their work (e.g., airline pilots, train engineers, etc.), or (3) don’t want to perform their work.
    • People who use drugs often lose their spouses, their kids, their support systems, because of their use/addiction.  (Many of these users, spouses and children are forced to go on the government dole; i.e., you and I support them.)
    • People who are unemployable (due to their addiction), and who have no support system, still need money to eat, sleep, and (especially) buy more drugs  . . . even if the drugs are “cheaper” because they’re now legal (see: alcohol).  So, how do they get that money?
      • Some become homeless, and panhandle.
      • Most are “above” that.  Instead, they make their money the old-fashioned way: they steal it.
    • #32
  3. Dad Dog Member
    Dad Dog
    @DadDog

    Exhibit A: in California, since the passage of Proposition 47 about 16 months ago (which lessened the penalties for drug use, and released many drug users from jail), property crime across the state has skyrocketed.  It’s simple: people who use drugs need money for the drugs, so they take your stuff.

    Sometimes, through your bedroom window while you’re at work.

    Sometimes, at gunpoint.  (There goes your “reducing the violence” argument.)

    • #33
  4. Dad Dog Member
    Dad Dog
    @DadDog

    And, how many more innocents will be killed by people driving under the influence of (legal) drugs?

    • #34
  5. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Misthiocracy:

    Spin: But if all you are going to do is drive your fancy sports car 10 miles an hour under the speed limit and sit in the left lane, then not so much.

    How about if I drive my Bricklin at 20 kph over the limit in the carpool lane and then yammer at the cop in French when I get pulled over?

    I’m good with that.

    • #35
  6. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Spin:

    Misthiocracy:

    Spin: But if all you are going to do is drive your fancy sports car 10 miles an hour under the speed limit and sit in the left lane, then not so much.

    How about if I drive my Bricklin at 20 kph over the limit in the carpool lane and then yammer at the cop in French when I get pulled over?

    I’m good with that.

    Cool. Now I just need to find a functioning Bricklin.

    • #36
  7. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Statistically speaking, getting rid of all laws would reduce the “crime” rate 100%.

    We Ricochet monkeys chase this weasel around the rhetorical mulberry bush like clockwork.

    Legalizing certain behavior legitimizes them. States have become facilitators of weed, gambling and, in Nevada, prostitution. And to what end? How about a guaranteed minimum wage so that you can waste away fully subsidized?

    • #37
  8. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Why don’t we apply these ideas to alcohol?

    • #38
  9. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Dad Dog:Exhibit A: in California, since the passage of Proposition 47 about 16 months ago (which lessened the penalties for drug use, and released many drug users from jail), property crime across the state has skyrocketed. It’s simple: people who use drugs need money for the drugs, so they take your stuff.

    Sometimes, through your bedroom window while you’re at work.

    Sometimes, at gunpoint. (There goes your “reducing the violence” argument.)

    Ah the correlation as causation fallacy.

    • #39
  10. Tom Meyer, Ed. Member
    Tom Meyer, Ed.
    @tommeyer

    Manny:

    Criminals can always under cut the cost of a legal item. Just look how cheap you can get bootlegged movies on the street. No overhead, no taxes, and stealing drugs from someone else is cheaper than buying it through a legal manufacturer.

    No, not always. Not even close. If it were, bootleggers would still be selling hooch and Netflix wouldn’t be taking over the world.

    There are generally tremendous benefits to participating in a legal market over an illegal one, including greater options, quality control, and customer service.

    • #40
  11. Tom Meyer, Ed. Member
    Tom Meyer, Ed.
    @tommeyer

    Douglas: Criminals go where the money is. That’s here. It’s like the Greek legend of the hydra. Cut off a head, and more will grow in its place. There will always be ways for criminals to make money. Crime fighting isn’t about elimination of crime; crime is a natural product of human nature.

    Yes, and that’s exactly what McArdle was saying (and what I was reiterating).

    However, you can make criminals’ lives harder by making it more difficult to make a profit through illegality (essentially, but reducing the risk premium they can charge). We can argue about how effective that will be — both in absolute terms and in comparison to other factors — but it’s a real thing.

    So, yeah, hydra heads grow back. Doesn’t mean lopping one off isn’t sometimes the smart thing to do.

    • #41
  12. Tom Meyer, Ed. Member
    Tom Meyer, Ed.
    @tommeyer

    Pelayo:Has legalization of Marijuana put all of the dealers in Colorado or Washington State out of business? I would guess they are still in business because they can sell for lower prices than legal sellers, but I would like to hear from anyone with first-hand experience in these communities.

    From what I understand, part of the reason for that is that the regulations and taxes are particularly onerous.

    • #42
  13. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:

    Manny:

    Criminals can always under cut the cost of a legal item. Just look how cheap you can get bootlegged movies on the street. No overhead, no taxes, and stealing drugs from someone else is cheaper than buying it through a legal manufacturer.

    No, not always. Not even close. If it were, bootleggers would still be selling hooch and Netflix wouldn’t be taking over the world.

    There are generally tremendous benefits to participating in a legal market over an illegal one, including greater options, quality control, and customer service.

    Not to mention that the producers and merchants can call upon the judicial system to defend their property rights, rather than having to use guns to do so.

    • #43
  14. Tom Meyer, Ed. Member
    Tom Meyer, Ed.
    @tommeyer

    Dad Dog:

    People who use drugs almost always become addicted.

    Yeah, that’s not my experience at all. Addiction is incredibly important for all the reasons you and others have expressed but it’s hardly automatic or inevitable.

    Dad Dog:

    And, how many more innocents will be killed by people driving under the influence of (legal) drugs?

    Depends. If you’re high off pot, you’re more likely to drive like a granny than a maniac; that’s still far less than ideal, but it’s a very different set of problems than you see from alcohol.

    Driving and mixing drugs — legal or otherwise — is generally really dangerous.

    • #44
  15. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:In other words, we’re not only likely to see a persistence of crime (though probably at a less-violent level) we’ll see some of the smarter drug lords corrupt other things that aren’t currently so bad. And that’s just looking at the drug trade and leaving aside effects of drug legalization on consumption (also likely a mixed bag).

    I’d still take the bargain, but ending the war on drugs will be no panacea.

    I’ve had a post in my mind about where, exactly, the Mafia went.

    They went into government.  In some areas, they’re running the show.

    Much lower risk than crime, but with many of the same benefits.  And much less concern about law enforcement, when the police work for you.

    • #45
  16. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Tom Meyer, Ed.: From what I understand, part of the reason for that is that the regulations and taxes are particularly onerous.

    Yes, I looked into this, and they basically legalized it for the well-to-do, while keeping it illegal for the poor.

    • #46
  17. Owen Findy Inactive
    Owen Findy
    @OwenFindy

    Misthiocracy: So, deregulate gambling and reduce the monopolistic power of unions, and then law enforcement can free up resources to crack down on extortion.

    This.

    • #47
  18. Owen Findy Inactive
    Owen Findy
    @OwenFindy

    I’d still take the bargain, but….

    Yes.

    • #48
  19. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Dad Dog:As a libertarian, I am — in the abstract — in favor of drug legalization.

    However, as a career prosecutor, I can see that this original post and subsequent comments overlook another unintended, criminal side effect. Y’all are focusing “upstream,” at the criminal activity and violence orbiting the marketers, the sellers, the smugglers, the traffickers, the gangs. You’re overlooking what will happen at the bottom of the food chain.

    Based on my experience in this job, here’s what people forget:

    • People who use drugs almost always become addicted. Addicts (and even occasional users) eventually become unemployable, because they (1) can no longer perform their work, or (2) are not allowed to perform their work (e.g., airline pilots, train engineers, etc.), or (3) don’t want to perform their work.
    • People who use drugs often lose their spouses, their kids, their support systems, because of their use/addiction. (Many of these users, spouses and children are forced to go on the government dole; i.e., you and I support them.)
    • People who are unemployable (due to their addiction), and who have no support system, still need money to eat, sleep, and (especially) buy more drugs . . . even if the drugs are “cheaper” because they’re now legal (see: alcohol). So, how do they get that money?
      • Some become homeless, and panhandle.
      • Most are “above” that. Instead, they make their money the old-fashioned way: they steal it.

    A thousand likes!

    • #49
  20. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:

    Manny:

    Criminals can always under cut the cost of a legal item. Just look how cheap you can get bootlegged movies on the street. No overhead, no taxes, and stealing drugs from someone else is cheaper than buying it through a legal manufacturer.

    No, not always. Not even close. If it were, bootleggers would still be selling hooch and Netflix wouldn’t be taking over the world.

    There are generally tremendous benefits to participating in a legal market over an illegal one, including greater options, quality control, and customer service.

    You’re not talking bout a consumership that is desperate.  Or a product by its nature that will require heavy regulations.

    • #50
  21. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Manny: …People who use drugs almost always become addicted….

    Sorry, but that’s not even close to being true.

    I went to a private high school.  Of my graduating class of 57, 56 tried drugs, many used regularly.

    Virtually all went on to became productive members of society, and most quit using, as they realized it impaired their productivity.

    Hysteria like this is not helpful to discussing this issue, especially in a country where huge numbers of people do use drugs and still manage to be productive members of society.

    • #51
  22. Dad Dog Member
    Dad Dog
    @DadDog

    Jamie Lockett:

    Ah the correlation as causation fallacy.

    I don’t follow your application of that axiom here.

    Are you saying that it was just a coincidence that, after (1) thousands of inmates were released, and (2) thousands of other “simple” drug users were not arrested (who previously would have been), property crime went way up?

    (Arrgh.  The death of common sense.)

    • #52
  23. Dad Dog Member
    Dad Dog
    @DadDog

    Tuck:

    Manny: …People who use drugs almost always become addicted….

    Sorry, but that’s not even close to being true.

    I went to a private high school. Of my graduating class of 57, 56 tried drugs, many used regularly.  [Emphasis added.]

    Virtually all went on to became productive members of society, and most quit using, as they realized it impaired their productivity.

    Hysteria like this is not helpful to discussing this issue, especially in a country where huge numbers of people do use drugs and still manage to be productive members of society.

    I didn’t write “try.”  I wrote “use.”  I didn’t choose that word carelessly.

    The word “use” carries the connotation of regular, repeated behavior.  I worked in Drug Court for three years.  I saw what happens to regular users . . . they become both (1) addicts and (2) felons (or used to, before Prop 47).

    Drug legalization would only eliminate the second result.

    Normally, at this point, I would begin to explain the science of this, of how regular drug use literally “rewires” your brain . . . but, I’ll leave that to anonymous.

    • #53
  24. Chuck Enfield Inactive
    Chuck Enfield
    @ChuckEnfield

    There’s a large gap between selling dope to somebody who wants it and human trafficking.  The assumption that many people engaged in the former will undertake the later should drugs be legalized is a stretch.  It’s no better than the assumption that legal drugs will result in huge numbers of dysfunctional addicts.

    It also overlooks the fact that criminal gangs can and do engage in both activities right now.  The logic seems to suggest that poor, low-life thugs are a scarce commodity.  “We’d like to do more kidnapping, but we’re just so busy selling weed.”

    But let’s assume I’m wrong.  If we legalize drugs and figure out it results in a increase in violent crime we can always reverse course.  If we wait until SCOTUS identifies a 14th amendment right to fill your veins with heroine we’re screwed.

    • #54
  25. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Dad Dog:…I didn’t write “try.” I wrote “use.” I didn’t choose that word carelessly.

    The word “use” carries the connotation of regular, repeated behavior. I worked in Drug Court for three years. I saw what happens to regular users . . . they become felons (or used to, before Prop 47).

    OK, from my 57 people in high school, 55 of them “used”, by your definition.

    You may not have chosen that word carelessly, but you’re thinking carelessly.

    You only see the people who have a problem with their drug use.  There are millions more who never show up in Drug Court.

    Nearly half (49%) of Americans say they have tried marijuana, and 12% in the past year, which the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health says is the most commonly used illicit drug in the U.S. The government survey showed that 18.9 million Americans 12 or older (7.3%) had used marijuana in the prior month.”

    • #55
  26. Dad Dog Member
    Dad Dog
    @DadDog

    Tuck:You only see the people who have a problem with their drug use. There are millions more who never show up in Drug Court.

    Nearly half (49%) of Americans say they have tried marijuana, and 12% in the past year, which the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health says is the most commonly used illicit drug in the U.S.

    1. I see that you appear to be focused on marijuana.  Does that mean you oppose the legalization of meth, crack, cocaine, heroin, prescription opiates (e.g., Oxycontin), etc.?
    2. We are being sold a bill of goods about how “safe” marijuana is.  Notwithstanding what the open-sourcers put in Wikipedia articles, recent research consistently indicates that regular pot use causes brain damage, and that this damage increases as the pot’s potency increases . . . which is what is happening where marijuana has been legalized.
    3. If the best evidence is that marijuana destroys brain cells . . . much more than even alcohol, some studies suggest . . . that brings me back to the point of my original comment, about the increased use that will come with legalization:
      1. Do you want a regular marijuana user flying your plane?  Driving your bus?  Cooking your dinner?  Teaching your kids?  Removing your spleen?
      2. If regular users become, as a result, unemployable, are you going to support them?
      3. If they break into your house, or shove a gun in your face, to get the money they need for their skunk . . . are you going to decline to press charges?
    • #56
  27. Dad Dog Member
    Dad Dog
    @DadDog

    By the way, in making these arguments, I’m not talking out of my . . . er, hat.

    1. Like I said, I’ve been in the criminal justice biz for nearly 30 years.  We rarely see rap sheets for regular drug users that aren’t full of property crimes.
    2. I got to experience the issues up close, for three years, in Drug Court.  I got to know regular drug users at a close, personal level; even became friends with many of them.  I heard their stories, saw their struggles.  I attended national conferences on the scientific and medical effects of regular drug use.
    3. My closest friend is a medical doctor who has been working in Addiction Medicine for just as long.  He confirms what I’ve observed, and informs much of what I’ve written here.
    • #57
  28. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Dad Dog:

    1. I see that you appear to be focused on marijuana. Does that mean you oppose the legalization of meth, crack, cocaine, heroin, prescription opiates (e.g., Oxycontin), etc.?
    2. If the best evidence is that marijuana destroys brain cells . . . much more than even alcohol, some studies suggest . . . that brings me back to the point of my original comment, about the increased use that will come with legalization:
      1. Do you want a regular marijuana user flying your plane? Driving your bus? Cooking your dinner? Teaching your kids? Removing your spleen?
      2. If regular users become, as a result, unemployable, are you going to support them?
      3. If they break into your house, or shove a gun in your face, to get the money they need for their skunk . . . are you going to decline to press charges?

    So your position is that we should micro-manage people’s lives to our own benefit?  Why are you even on this site?

    Many of these arguments are just silly, as private employers won’t let people smoke pot and fly a jet.

    And thinking that others should be free to make their own decisions doesn’t mean I’m in favor of them, another inane point you’re making.

    Do you realize your making all the same arguments made for alcohol prohibiton?  Repealing that didn’t lead to the Apocalypse either…

    • #58
  29. Dad Dog Member
    Dad Dog
    @DadDog

    Tuck: So your position is that we should micro-manage people’s lives to our own benefit? Why are you even on this site?

    Absolutely not.  In fact, as I wrote above, I’m a libertarian.

    It’s just that I have learned the reality of the axiom that “no man is an island,” or, as you put it, “free to make their own decisions.”  Unless you can totally isolate a regular drug user (put him on an island?), his use will affect others, almost always negatively.

    A true libertarian is not OK with that.

    • #59
  30. Dad Dog Member
    Dad Dog
    @DadDog

    Tuck: Do you realize your making all the same arguments made for alcohol prohibiton? Repealing that didn’t lead to the Apocalypse either…

    That is a somewhat valid point, with which I struggle.

    However, the (admitted) hypocrisy of the “alcohol and cigarettes are legal/other drugs are not” argument is probably not your best argument . . . because even drinkers and smokers will admit the negative effects their use has upon others.

    Moreover, I am not arguing that drug legalization will lead to an “apocalypse.”  I’m only arguing, based on real world experience, that it will not eliminate crime and other social ills in the manner that its proponents suggest.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.