Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Bad Guys Will Still Be Bad Guys
Megan 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
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.
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:
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.)
And, how many more innocents will be killed by people driving under the influence of (legal) drugs?
I’m good with that.
Cool. Now I just need to find a functioning Bricklin.
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?
Why don’t we apply these ideas to alcohol?
Ah the correlation as causation fallacy.
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.
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.
From what I understand, part of the reason for that is that the regulations and taxes are particularly onerous.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, I looked into this, and they basically legalized it for the well-to-do, while keeping it illegal for the poor.
This.
Yes.
A thousand likes!
You’re not talking bout a consumership that is desperate. Or a product by its nature that will require heavy regulations.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
By the way, in making these arguments, I’m not talking out of my . . . er, hat.
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…
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.
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.