Would legalization remove the crime?

Great Debates
1

I’ve seen asserted a number of times the idea that if one were to legalize something, all criminal taint would be removed.

For example, drugs. Legalize drugs, and the giant drug cartels and all of the assassins and enforcers they hire will go away. As another example, prostitution; legalize that, and the pimps disappear and the environment of sex-for-sale becomes cleaner and brighter.
But is this actually a valid statement to make?

Gambling is legal in Las Vegas… but that didn’t stop the major casino builders and owners from being heavily funded by various Mobs. Most of the major players in Vegas in the '50’s, '60’s, and '70’s were associated with the Mob in one form or another. And while the actually owning of a casino wasn’t illegal, these players perpetrated other crimes (rackteering, extortion, assault) in order to protect their ‘investments’.

Since it was legal in Las Vegas, shouldn’t it have been filled with clean-cut, honest types? What brought in the criminals?

The answer? Experience. Having run illegal games in Chicago and New York, these gangsters knew how to effectively run games in Las Vegas.

Compare, for example, the end of Prohibition- when alcohol production was made legal again, alcohol production stayed legal; one doesn’t hear much of the Mob control of Anheiser-Busch. Why? Because there were plenty of legitimate businessmen who had experience running breweries from before Prohibition. Once Prohibition was lifted, these businessmen returned to their former vocations.
Think about it. Legalize prostitution, and who ends up running the brothels? The same people who had run them before, because they’re the ones that know how. Does the fact that their business is now considered ‘legal’ make them any less likely to continue old, violent ways, or to treat the people that work for them any better?

Why do we think that legalization of an activity or a substance necessarily removes all crime from that activity or substance?

2

All human actions lack value unless and until they are placed in a value system accepted by a social grouping. This value system may define some things as ‘illegal’, that is against the wishes of that community and possibly punishable thereby. It is the making of law that creates illegal status. Thus, repaeling a law makes things legal.

However, they may still be seen as undesirable. Many legal activities- stock dealing, car driving, personal interaction - may become socially undesirable and may consequently lead to other acts that are deemed illegal- insider dealing, illegal levels of pollutants, libel.

Legalizing gambling makes it legal, but it may still attract other behaviour which may be seen as illegal, as seen in the three examples above.

Prohibition caused both illegal acts (selling alcohol) and illegal consequences (the amplification of Mob activities). Thus, the creation of an illegal set of acts created further acts that were undesirable. One might make the same argument for today’s laws on drugs!

In summary, any act can be made illegal at the whim of a society. This is independant of the undesirability of the act in any meaningful external evaluation. Additionally, the criminalization of one set of acts may lead to further criminal actions.

3

[li]Legalizing behavior is not a blanket legalization for all associated behaviors[/li]
Legalizing drugs would not legalize ALL drugs, even in a really optimistic view. Anything made illegal provides an opportunity for a black market of some kind.

[li]Legalizing behavior allows for a level of regulation.[/li]
Regulation is not possible when things are illegal due to fear of prosecution. Compliance with regulatory laws is much easier than enforcing a ban. As it stands, data on drug manufacturing is somewhat flimsy, as are estimates on money spent, number of users, etc.

If there is no fear of arrest from admitting drug use/manufacture then inspection of such use/manufacture would be similar to existing structures (food, safety, environmental concerns, etc).

[li]The laws needed to be passed would have a painful enactment process.[/li]
It is largely inconceivable that drugs would be legalized in a blanket fasion. More likely, individual drugs would have to be individually legalized. Because of known problems with specific drugs, each legalization would bring with it a school of regulation, cautions, resistence, and gridlock. For example, if the process for marijuana legalization were started now, I would bet that it would take at least two years before we actually were able to smoke it in any legal manner. Perscribed legal manners, of course, will still allow for a black market of ILLEGAL manners of use (ie- larger quantaties, laced pot, etc).
Legalization is a great idea, IMO, but the structure required proabbly isn’t there, and the problems John mentioned will not be eliminated.
[side note]John, I’m not sure the gambling analogy is valid because gambling is illegal in most other places. If there were a federal lift on gambling restrictions I think those problems would dampen. Also, are you calling bingo-night mob rule? :stuck_out_tongue: “Sister, please, I swear to God I’ll have the money by Teusday!” ; “Take him to the confession booth, boys.” ; “Nooooooo…!”
[/sidenote]

4

It’s worth pointing out that Vegas was more or less founded by the mob, so it shouldn’t seem so unusual that the same hijinks occured whether legal or not.

Gambling on Indian reservations is an entirely different story, although the mob played their role. Some of Meyer Lansky’s boys were vacationing down in Miami and got to thinking about the Hollywood reservation back there in the swamps, and how it wasn’t subject to state regulations. They contacted the Seminole Tribe and very quickly had a series of lucrative–and corrupt–bingo parlors rolling.

That’s when the Feds stepped in, with IGRA, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. That act very tightly controlled how Indian gambling operations would be run, who would run them, and where the profits would go. As a result, organized crime had a very difficult time intruding into Indian gaming, except of course at Hollywood, where they were already strongly entrenched.

I think a similar approach could be made for marijuana legalization, especially here in Virginia where there already exists a closely regulated spirit distribution system, partly designed to thwart moonshining. However, that sort of process comes with a price: increased regulation, increased bureaucracy, and government intrusion deeper into the corners of our lives. I wonder how many people would be willing to accept the crime rather than the bureaucracy?

5

**

Some people look at the world through rose colored glasses. I do think that if drugs were legalized that you’d end up taking away a major source of income for organized criminals. I still think that organized crime would exist but they wouldn’t be nearly as powerful as they are now. Even tobacco and alcohol are still targets of organized crime ranging from moonshine to smuggling tobacco products across borders without paying taxes.

Same goes for the pimps. I don’t think they’d be completely wiped out but I think a lot would go out of business.

**

Look at Vegas today. I’m sure there’s still mob elements there but nothing like it was in the past. It is mostly corporate.

**

What brought in the mob was that it was a great place to launder money and make even more money. I think you’d see legalized brothels as being a great place to launder money.

**

Prohibition also assisted the mob in rising to a level of power unheard of before.

**

In the short term perhaps. In the long term I’m not convinced.
Marc

6

A couple thoughts on the OP:

[li] Gambling is not equvialent to alchohol because it is not widely legal. It is a lot easier for a few corrupt groups to controll an industry that is very small, then one the is widespread across the entire country.[/li]
I’m not sure just how long prohibition lasted, but I’m not sure you could just assume that all the old manufacturers returned to their old careers.

I would be interested in seeing if anyone has numbers or even anecdotal info on that.
[li] There is not an idustry alive today that doesn’t have corrpution in it. I agree that right after things got legalized, you would have an abundance of shady characters involved. However, I see no reason why the level wouldn’t drop to normal levels of corruption over time.[/li]
I see a cumulative positive effect over time by legalizing drugs, not an overnight wonder fix. At the very least, I don’t see crime rising by legalizing drugs.

7

Not completely, and not immediately, but mostly, eventually, as explained already.

When it comes to vice, it is more damaging to the society as a whole to keep it illegal than to legalize and regulate it. I don’t think there is any real evidence to refute this. Vegas is a perfect example…look at it today.

Vice crime is the equivalent of thought crime. If I want to ruin my life with drugs, gambling, and prostitution, that’s my stupid choice. It has nothing to do with you, except insofar as these activites are illegal and have an unsavory stench around them as a result. If we legalize, we eventually have a situation similar to Vegas, to alcohol, to cigarettes and strip clubs. Leve people the hell alone to make their own choices.

stoid

8

Hey look!

A Stoid-Freedom simulpost. Does this prove that we are not sock puppets of a seriously schitzophrenic poster?

I know the board has been unable to sleep at night while pondering this posibility for months now, so I hope this finally puts the matter to rest.
May you all sleep well.

9

Regarding drugs, there are legitimate businesses that have decades of experience manufacturing and distributing drugs. Pharmaceutical companies do it, tobacco companies do it, alcohol companies do it. I see no reason why presently illegal drugs could not be fit into the currently existing manufacture and distribution framework (given a small amount of time).

As for the prostitution you mention: perhaps, perhaps not. From everything I’ve seen, running a legal brothel involves a different set of skills from running an illegal prosititution ring; the former requires some measure traditional business skill, while the latter involves being able not to get caught while keeping one’s employees captive (figuratively speaking). Even if the old pimps do wind up running brothels, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Why?

Yes, it does. When we speak of legalization, we don’t assume that you still have the traditional pimp-with-his-hos-on-the-street situation, just legal. We assume a tightly watched and regulated business. If a former pimp wants to run a brothel, that’s fine. But being cruel to those who work for him is now no longer profitable. Why? A) Police protection (prostitutes can now complain to police if their profession is unsafe). B) Government inspection. C) Free market (prostitutes could simply seek work with another, non-abusive, employer, which they can’t do now because of the lack of police protection).

10

Let’s assume that the same criminals running drug rings keep running them after drugs are legalized. Let’s also assume that they remain involved in other illegal activities after legalization, and let’s assume that they use their profits from the legalized sale of drugs to finance their other criminal activities. I don’t believe this, but let’s assume.

Crime still goes down. Why? The drug business would no longer be as profitable. It would be open to competition, and drug dealers would no longer be able to charge the huge mark-ups they do know. Without the huge amount of money coming in, the mob would no longer be as powerful, and wouldn’t have the financing to stick its tentacles into other areas.

There is a second, and even more important way, crime goes down. As the prices drop, the incentive to mug, steal, etc. to support a drug habit drops. You don’t hear of many alcoholics breaking into homes to get money for booze, 'cause booze is cheap. This is the type of crime that affects most of us, and this is the type of crime that will drop most precipitously.

Sua

11

**

Far be it from me to nitpick…what the hell, I’ll nitpick. I would argue that prostitution, drugs, and even alcohol had an unsavory stench about them before they were made illegal. I think public dislike, whether right or wrong, is what led to to them being made illegal in the first place. Making prostitution illegal probably isn’t going to make it an acceptable occupation in the minds of most people. It is also currently legal to be a drunk but most people would also consider that to be unsavory.

I don’t mean to be a dink I’m just saying that a dislike generally comes before something is made illegal not after.

Good example. Tobacco is completely legal and is villified at every step. I’d say society in general is looking down on tobacco and people who use them.

Marc

12

The criminal taint would be removed, but the social taint would not. Many people would still look down on drug users as bad people, but they would not be viewed as criminals. I for one would love to see all drugs of every kind legalized. A nice 400% tax could be put on them by the government which would make them cost about what they cost now. All that great revenue that drugs are known to create would be given to the government and Congress could pass an income tax cut that would make President Bush’s proposal seem small. All drugs should be treated like tabacco is now. Not until you are 18. If a fully grown adult wants to plunge a syringe full of lighter fluid into his urethra and piss fire, as long as he does it in the privacy of his own home, I will flick the Bic.

13

Making them cost as much as they do now would not be a good idea - it would reduce the crime perpetrated by the black market dealers and distributors, but a great deal of ‘drug-related’ crime is from the USERS who have to commit crimes to feed their habits. It doesn’t matter if it’s legal or illegal, if some people are having to spend $500 a day to keep from going through withdrawal, this is going to cause crime.

Luckily, most drugs are actually very cheap to produce. Mexican marijuana farmers sell it in bulk for $20-$50 a pound. That same pound, sold at street value in amounts typical of what a user is going to buy, is going to go for $1600, at least. The markup is because people can’t move it in bulk - the guy who has 200 lbs. of pot in his inventory isn’t selling it in a store to whoever wants to spend $25 for a 1/4 oz. - he’s probably selling it by the pound (over a years supply for a fairly frequent user) for 20% of that.

If it was legal, it would be feasible to buy it in bulk and sell it in individual ‘servings’. One could reduce the price for the consumer drastically and still make a huge profit.

14

Hold on a second there cowboy…
I don’t think we all assume a tightly regulated industry. While I think prostitution is morally wrong, I don’t think the gov’t should get involved if somebody want to sell their body on random weekend to pay the rent.
It’s not my cup of tea, but I still don’t see where it is my business to get involved.

What’s with the punitive taxes?

Maybe I think we should assess a 400% tax to whatever behavior of yours would be profitable to me. If it is going to be taxed, tax it at the level most everything else is.

I get so tired of this attitude that it is alright to control or steal from those who have different habits than ourselves.

Somebody pass me a tissue, I think I am about to cry.

15

I am saying that a better way to control drug use is through tax rather than criminal laws. People are already paying extremely high prices so the price would not change. The price is what would keep people away from drugs rather than the law and price combined. And if the price is not enough to scare people away than at least we have the consolation that income taxes will be cheaper since the drug users will be paying the taxes.

16

You are never going to be able to convince many people that drugs should be legal. If all people were libertarian like myself, there would be no problem. I suggested the 400% tax because that would hopefully get enough of the uptight moralist to give in and allow drugs to be legalized. As it is now they consider durg users degenerates that should be locked up. I want them to view them as degenerates that are good for society because they pay an unfair portion of the taxes. I would love for prostitution and drugs to be legalized with no taxes but that is asking for too much. Congress would never allow it because the people, as a whole, do not want it. But if legalizing the above things comes with a large, permenant tax cut, more people would allow it. You want to save social security, legalize drugs.

17

I think a perscription system would be best, though I agree that a substantial tax rate would be nice as well. Taxes on drugs, though, would probably be used for drug treatment centers, funding regulatory services, and generally supporting the infrastructure.

Once they are legalized it won’t eliminate the abuse potential, but that potential is already there anyway so it isn’t not a huge concern to me.

You also said,

Probably not, but that doesn’t mean a law wouldn’t get passed. I think we might see pot decriminalization within 20 years.

What will change people’s minds is a generation or two of responsible drug users (like myself?) who maintain “normal” existence mode but also recreationally use some drugs.

18

The tax thing was pretty well handled by pldennison in a legalization thread I started. Exise taxes dont generate the volume revenues that income taxes do.

19

“I don’t think we all assume a tightly regulated industry. While I think prostitution is morally wrong, I don’t think the gov’t should get involved if somebody want to sell their body on random weekend to pay the rent.”

IMHO, tightly regulated means:

  1. Ensuring that minors are not induced or compelled into prostitution, in the same way that the legal goods cigarettes and alcohol are not supposed to be sold or given to minors.

  2. Medical examinations as a basic element of health. During WWI (and WWII, IIRC), all the armies and navies but the U.S. operated official brothels, the most prominent feature (other than separate hookers and facilities for the officers and enlisteds, of course) was health inspections by army or navy medical officers of the clients as they arrived and the prostitutes on a daily or weekly basis. This was before AIDS, but also before STDs were made easier to treat by modern medicines. Customers wouldn’t be able to insist on insane “bareback” crap, and the constable will be there (or at least available) to back up the prostitute when she says “cover up!”

20

There’s another thread here on Great Debates, http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=63538, that deals, in part, with the problems encountered in areas where prostitution has been made legal. There is some evidence that the seamier elements still continue.