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. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

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

    you’re most definitely not.

    • #91
  2. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    From a 2012 article in the Business Insider:

    On July 1st, 2001, Portugal decriminalized every imaginable drug, from marijuana, to cocaine, to heroin. Some thought Lisbon would become a drug tourist haven, others predicted usage rates among youths to surge. Eleven years later, it turns out they were both wrong.

    Over a decade has passed since Portugal changed its philosophy from labelling drug users as criminals to labelling them as people affected by a disease. This time lapse has allowed statistics to develop and in time, has made Portugal an example to follow…

    The resulting effect: a drastic reduction in addicts, with Portuguese officials and reports highlighting that this number, at 100,000 before the new policy was enacted, has been halved in the following 10 years. Portugal’s drug usage rates are now among the lowest of EU member states, according to the same report.

    If it’s data you want, the data is in and it looks pretty persuasive.

    But note: decriminalisation is not the same as legalisation, and the Portuguese model is not libertarian.

    • #92
  3. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    And going to the heart of it: Chasing the Scream, by Johann Hari, looks at the causes of drug addiction – which should, logically, inform our responses to it.

    • #93
  4. Mike Rapkoch Member
    Mike Rapkoch
    @MikeRapkoch

    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…

    Ricochet is a center-right website and hence welcomes conservatives, libertarians, and middle of the roaders. To ask “why are you even on this site?” presumes exclusivity for certain points of view, and suggests that alternative viewpoints are unwelcome. I do hope we can all see the folly in that course of action.

    • #94
  5. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    I think there are compelling arguments on both sides of the drug legalization issue.

    One thing not addressed in the OP or in the comments so far (unless I missed it) is the issue of age. Would you legalize them for kids as well?

    We’re having a very big problem with heroin proliferation in New England, especially in some of the rural areas. And we are seeing a lot of deaths from heroin overdoses, and I would guess most are perhaps suicide. Nevertheless, the more heroin that is out there on the streets, the easier it is for the kids to get it, especially vulnerable kids such as those in foster care or dysfunctional families. As I read somewhere, the first dose is free.

    We’re certainly not doing well in controlling heroin traffic, and perhaps it can’t be done at this point. And education isn’t working. So yes, legalize it because we can’t manage it anyway, or no, try harder to get control of the drug so it won’t be as easy to get.

    If you would allow restrictions on selling drugs to minors, then legalizing it for adults isn’t going to solve all of our substance abuse problems anyway.

    • #95
  6. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    On the other hand, if we were to legalize drugs, I would want to go to the full extreme of ending prescription drugs entirely, including antibiotics.

    One thing driving up the cost of healthcare for individuals is the requirement to get a doctor’s prescription for so many drugs. For example, blood pressure medicine. So a person saw a doctor ten years ago, couldn’t continue for some reason such as a lack of insurance, knows he needs this medicine. Why can’t he go to a drug store and get it himself without seeing a doctor?

    This requirement to have a doctor’s prescription for drugs is crazy in my opinion.

    It is an area of control that I think is unnecessary and harmful to people in some circumstances.

    So if we do legalize drugs, I want them all legalized. No more controlled substances.

    The bottom line to me is that we need to revisit our laws and rework them.

    I’m really open-minded on the drug legalization issue, and I find the Ricochet discussions very interesting and always enlightening.

    • #96
  7. Derek Simmons Member
    Derek Simmons
    @

    Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. JFK

    Nice words. Not true, but nice. And this thread brings them to mind because we in American society today whether or not we love liberty are not willing to pay the price or bear the burden or meet the hardship to support friends, neighbors, family, countrymen who lose their way in the slough of despond and miasma at the end of the “drug-fueled” path. We either want to gate off the path or leave those who foolishly wander down it to the consequences of their own folly. And so we get govco foolishness like the War on Drugs or its ‘Big Brother’ War–the War on Poverty. Such “wars” are no more the answer than is “fuggetaboutit.” “Solutions” to such problems are the stuff of utopian dreams. Amelioration is likely possible, and it is even likely that govco could have a role; but not until we who have either chosen or been given a different path can found common ground–community ground–on just what an attempt at amelioration might look like. Surely it is not like anything we are now trying.

    • #97
  8. Owen Findy Inactive
    Owen Findy
    @OwenFindy

    Derek Simmons: but not until we who have either chosen or been given a different path can found common ground–community ground–on just what an attempt at amelioration might look like. Surely it is not like anything we are now trying.

    I think the first thing that has to happen is the removal of govco from this.  Then, people will, over time, restore the voluntary institutions of aid that govco pushed aside so many years ago.

    • #98
  9. Dad Dog Member
    Dad Dog
    @DadDog

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

    Tuck: you’re most definitely not.

    Mike Rapkoch:

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

    Ricochet is a center-right website and hence welcomes conservatives, libertarians, and middle of the roaders. To ask “why are you even on this site?” presumes exclusivity for certain points of view, and suggests that alternative viewpoints are unwelcome. I do hope we can all see the folly in that course of action.

    Mike: Thank you for writing what I had been thinking.  I’m a bit put off by the comments of those who come across (though I’m sure their intentions are honorable) as the Faithful and Omniscient Arbiters of True Libertarian Orthodoxy.

    • #99
  10. Dad Dog Member
    Dad Dog
    @DadDog

    Owen Findy: I think the first thing that has to happen is the removal of govco from this. Then, people will, over time, restore the voluntary institutions of aid that govco pushed aside so many years ago.

    Pardon my ignorance: “govco?”  Please define (though I can vaguely grasp, from the context).

    • #100
  11. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Dad Dog:

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

    Tuck: you’re most definitely not.

    Mike Rapkoch:

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

    Ricochet is a center-right website and hence welcomes conservatives, libertarians, and middle of the roaders. To ask “why are you even on this site?” presumes exclusivity for certain points of view, and suggests that alternative viewpoints are unwelcome. I do hope we can all see the folly in that course of action.

    Mike: Thank you for writing what I had been thinking. I’m a bit put off by the comments of those who come across (though I’m sure their intentions are honorable) as the Faithful and Omniscient Arbiters of True Libertarian Orthodoxy.

    @Mike:  OK, that was ill-considered of me.  I occasionally forget that the principles that represented Conservativism in my formative years are now in the minority in the party, and on this site.  Mea culpa. BTW: your second sentence contradicts your first; you first state that only certain points of view are welcome here, and then you criticize me for making certain points of view feel unwelcome.  So any point of view is welcome if it’s had the “right” label attached?

    @Dad Dog: You can call yourself whatever you want—one liberty the War on Drugs has left us.  I don’t have to buy it.

    • #101
  12. Owen Findy Inactive
    Owen Findy
    @OwenFindy

    Dad Dog: Pardon my ignorance: “govco?” Please define (though I can vaguely grasp, from the context).

    I got that from Derek, whose comment I was answering.  It was also used in an earlier comment, I believe.  I didn’t take it to mean much more than “the government”.

    • #102
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.