This has been on my mind since a Financial Times article* on the recent drugs-related violence in Mexico. The article suggested, in passing, that part of the blame for the violence was the decline of imported cocaine as a drug of choice in the American market, and the rise of domestically produced methamphetamine. People involved in the cocaine trade, facing falling demand and revenues, had turned to other, more violent means to make a living–kidnapping, extortion, and so on.
I’ve always been in favor of eliminating the prohibition on at least some drugs; the crime and violence associated with the drug problem, as I saw it, arises from making the drugs themselves illegal, much as with the violence of the Prohibition-era was a result of moving alcohol onto the black market. Legitimize the product, and the trade shifts to legitimate businessmen. I never stopped to think that this would, in essence, put a large number of criminals “out of a job.”
What would happen to these criminals, accustomed to a substantial income from the drugs trade, who would suddenly be deprived of the source of that income? I doubt it would change my mind on legalization; there are liberty interests involved as well. But it is an interesting thought experiment, and an angle I don’t believe I’ve ever seen considered in the drug debate.
*I’m afraid I don’t have a cite to the article handy. It was, as I mentioned, just a passing reference, but if it’s important, I’ll see if I can find it on LexisNexis.
You might want to specify which drugs, and at what level people are operating. My guess would be that a lot of the smaller dealers would just quit dealing, since many of them only deal to support their own habits. Some people who grow and deal marijuana may be quite happy to go legit, and compete in the free market. Whereas the type of person who is dealing in meth, coke, opium, etc. because it’s a way to make a buttload of money would probably switch to running guns or smuggling people, or some other unsavory activity.
You know, I’ve never really thought about that fact–that criminals are going to want to be criminals to some extent, so if something goes from criminal to not, the criminals have to change to another line not go straight.
I guess since I’ve never expected it to happen, I’ve never thought it through.
To play off your inspiration, lets talk about cocaine becoming legal in the US. In South America, there would no longer be a government push to stop the coca growers. You would see legal exporters and producers coming out, some would be the current drug lords, some new comers. At first you would see some violence as they jockeyed for position, but that gets harder to do when your victims can report you to the police. No matter who ends up producing it, the violence around the drug trade would drop because you no longer need to to protect from the government or smuggle. Legitimate distributors in the US (especially if the government is handling it) would not want to deal with organizations that acted like criminals. That would leave a lot of lower level thugs out of work. That is where you would see more kidnapping, robbery and extortion. But, if government resources are freed up from the drug trade and the massive amounts of foreign, illegal, drug money being used to bribe the police and government you would see a lot better law enforcement. Add to that the fact that local citizens probably do not care that much about stopping drugs to the US but would care about stopping criminals preying on them, and the societies should be better off in a few years.
People that are currently dealing drugs high up on the food chain in this country will probably resort to more organized crime. ID theft, bank fraud, etc. However, over time, there will be less criminality.
Of course organized crime will find ways to makes profits. And the mob didn’t disappear after alcohol became legal again; they moved into other illegal drugs and other “lines”. But the lower to mid level thugs are in it because there is a demand and the ability to be a means of the supply offers the best opportunity a budding inner city entrepreneur has. Eliminate that business opportunity and maybe they’ll find other venues to apply their business acumen and risk taking natures, maybe even legal ones.
Does anyone actually know the answer to this question? Gotta be a hard thing to get data on. The family lore on my mother’s side holds that an ancestor of mine made quite a bit of money as an independent bootlegger in New England, after which he just went back to his day job (or something like that).
Well the violence in Mexico might continue because the drug lords in Mexico are actually middle men. The drugs are produced largely in South America. If they were legal, they could be shipped directly to American markets rather than through Mexican drug lords who are nasty enough to float the risk. The canny ones would invest in the legit trade, but that would leave a lot of hardcore nasty thugs.
The relaxation of prohibition should come with harsher penalties for violent crimes. Rather than having violent crime sentences influenced by other factors just make them harsher. It’ll be easier since you won’t have to deal with incarcerating drug dealers anymore.