Stopping Border Violence by Legalizing Drugs

NY Times ^ | March 25, 2009 | By Catherine Rampell

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Drug wars appear to be escalating in Mexico, with violence spilling across the border into the United States. As Mark Landler reported today, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the first time acknowledged that Americans’ demand for drugs feeds the Mexican drug trade and all its ills.

So what’s her solution? Secretary Clinton reportedly wants to beef up Mexico’s anti-drug law enforcement. But that’s not necessarily what traditional economics would prescribe.

Civil liberties and morality debates aside, many economists say drug legalization, rather than heightened prohibition, is the answer.

Plenty of economists, legal scholars, journalists and even drug law enforcement leaders have written about legalizing drugs, often pitching the idea as something like a “least bad” option. They argue that the black market is what makes the drug trade so profitable; enables drug cartels’ current business models; and pushes “business” disputes out of the courtroom and into the streets.

As Jeffrey A. Miron, a senior lecturer in economics at Harvard, wrote Tuesday on CNN.com:

Prohibition creates violence because it drives the drug market underground. This means buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration or advertising, so they resort to violence instead.

Violence was common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after.

[Man50D]

Well heck why don’t we legalize murder and kidnapping while we’re at it. That way there will not be any crime!

[the anti-liberal]

Broken clock syndrome.

[GLDNGUN]

Well heck why don’t we legalize murder and kidnapping while we’re at it. That way there will not be any crime!

And the "war on illegal immigration" has also been a failure, so we might as well not even waste time or resources on stopping the flow of illegals. Or so the logic goes.

[Rudder]

Naw, the writer suggested only legalizing drugs. Not a bad idea all, it worked with alcohol which is far more deleterious than most of the illegal drugs coming from Mexico. Right now the worst effects of illegal drugs is that they are illegal.

[La Lydia]

Yeah, legalizing booze really put the Mafia right out of business, didn’t it?

[GLDNGUN]

Broken clock syndrome.

You are correct. No moving parts. No sign of life. Completely useless.

[GLDNGUN]

Naw, the writer suggested only legalizing drugs. Not a bad idea all, it worked with alcohol which is far more deleterious than most of the illegal drugs coming from Mexico. Right now the worst effects of illegal drugs is that they are illegal.

It is actually a horrific idea. First, there was NEVER a true "prohibition" on alcohol. That's a fable repeated by the pro-drugs crowd. Secondly, alcohol was already a socially acceptable substance. Do you really want to mainstream coke, meth, etc.? Let me put it another say...ARE YOU INSANE?

[3niner]

Well heck why don’t we legalize murder and kidnapping while we’re at it.

Drug abuse harms those who abuse the drugs, murder and kidnapping harm others. This is so obvious it's a shame it has to be pointed out.

[arthurus]

At this point, depriving the cartels of their soucre of income wold simply turn them to other lines of “work.” The sharp surge in kidnappings is probably partly, at least, a result of effectively curtailing ephedrine availability. Eliminating drug profits now will turn the cartels directly onto the state in Mexico and will bring them much more heavily into the US with their kidnap and other businesses. They will not bankrupt. Instead, they will diversify explosively.

[GLDNGUN]

Do you really want the government equipped with the legal precedent of being able to mandate what you do or do not ingest, in what quantities, and in what fashion?

Do I want to live in a country where coke, heroin, and meth are legal and readily available, supplied by the government?

Hardly. Are you kidding?

Drug usage would explode. Is that what you want? Or are you so ignorant to think that as long as you aren't using drugs, then it will have no effect on you?

Yes, I suppose we could usher in the destruction of society even faster than it's already occurring, if that suits your fancy. But, hey, at least nobody was telling you not to fry your brain.

[theymakemesick]

First, there was NEVER a true "prohibition" on alcohol.

Eighteenth Amendment - Prohibition

Amendment XVIII -Prohibition Passed by Congress December 18, 1917. Ratified January 16, 1919. Altered by Amendment 21.

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the Legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Sounds pretty prohibitive to me.

[Ken H]

Regulating and taxing marijuana along the lines of alcohol would be a severe blow to the cartels. According to the ONDCP, they get nearly 2/3 of their revenue from marijuana commerce:

John P. Walters, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, said marijuana, not heroin or cocaine, is the "bread and butter," "the center of gravity" for Mexican drug cartels that every year smuggle tons of it through the porous U.S.-Mexico border. Of the $13.8 billion that Americans contributed to Mexican drug traffickers in 2004-05, about 62 percent, or $8.6 billion, comes from marijuana consumption.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/022208dnintdrugs.3a98bb0.html

[Ransomed]

WOD means JOBS. Support the prison industry, citizen.

Freegards

[GLDNGUN]

Drug abuse harms those who abuse the drugs, murder and kidnapping harm others. This is so obvious it's a shame it has to be pointed out.

The point is that just because some people insist on breaking laws, it doesn't mean you eliminate the laws. I agree - this is so obvious it's a shame it has to be pointed out.

[nufsed]

Illogocal.

Drugs are already plentiful and available.

When drugs are legal are you going to become a pothead? I'm not.

You can continue to fund gangs and ignore basic economics, but please don't pretend what we're doing is working and not destructive.

[Rudder]

There is not a true prohibition on drugs now, they are used freely today despite billions of dollars wasted on the WOD. And while marijuana is relatively innocuous, coke and meth are not, as you imply. I don't want to do coke or meth, do you? Are there millions just waiting for their legality, chomping at the bit so they can develop coke and meth habits? NO.

But those who steal and commit worse crimes so they can fund their habit will all but disappear when these drugs are made legal. It's the government's policies that are illogical and, thus, insane.

[GLDNGUN]

WOD means JOBS. Support the prison industry, citizen.

What does the War on Terror mean?

What does the War on Illegal Immigration mean?

[Ransomed]

WOT, WOII are fine.

WOD is like the WOP. And we all know how the war on poverty is working out.

Freegards