Quitting before we lose any further

[unixronin]

“Prohibiting a market does not mean destroying it,” ­[Lev] Timofeev said.  What it means is placing a “dynamically developing market under the total control of criminal corporations”.

The Financial Times has an article by Matt Engel discussing why it's time to admit that the War on Drugs has been a dismal failure.  The longer the world's nations continue to enforce the drug cartels' monopolies, the better business is for the drug cartels.  And that IS what the War on Drugs does:  It enforces the drug cartels' monopolies with all the might the Northern Hemisphere's governments can bring to bear.  This is folly.  The ONLY way to break the drug cartels is to undercut their market by making drugs freely available at or near production cost, and it'll eliminate the "forbidden fruit" factor into the bargain, along with the massive economic and civil-liberties cost of drug prohibition.

If the War on Drugs has any value at all to society, it is only as clear and obvious evidence that our governments are unable or unwilling to learn from experience.

Comments

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

We need the drug cartels to keep the police busy . . .

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Trouble is that gets us all these extra police (and complete extra police agencies), who then need to find something to do . . .

[luxobscura.livejournal.com]

yep, amazing how that DEA mission creep works.

Once a power granted, always a power retained.

[lebo-superman.livejournal.com]

"If the War on Drugs has any value at all to society, it is only as clear and obvious evidence that our governments are unable or unwilling to learn from experience."

Yep. Can anyone say, "Prohibition"? I knew you could.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

If the War on Drugs has any value at all to society, it is only as clear and obvious evidence that our governments are unable or unwilling to learn from experience.

Indeed.

At this point the defenders of the WoD will point out "Well, should we decriminalize murder?"

The laws against murder, and other crimes with victims (like mugging), are relatively easy to enforce. This is because they either leave ample evidence (a dead body) or an angry victim (the guy who got mugged) who has every reason to want to see his assailant put away for as long as the State will oblige.

By contrast, laws against the production, sale or possession of disfavored goods or services (illegal drugs, pornography, prostitution, gambling, etc.) are nearly impossible to enforce. They may or may not leave evidence, but the main problem is that there is no "victim" angry at the "perps" and hot to see justice done. Instead, there are merely voluntary parties to a transaction, with a common interest in seeing that the crime does not get punished.

This is quite aside from the civil-liberties issue, in one way of looking at things. It's a matter of practicality.

In another way of looking at things, it's all about the civil-liberties issue. Try to deprive people of their natural rights, and they will bite back, and your criminal-justice system will get impeded in the process.

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

This reasoning fails when talking about indirect victims, though. For instance, child porn (not to invoke Godwin II or anything). Both the buyer and seller of the images are engaged in the trade of highly disfavored goods and have a vested interest in keeping it covert; but at the same time, the abused child is powerless to seek justice. There do exist crimes where the victims are horribly abused and also are indirect to the crime (where here, the crime is "traffic in child pornography", not "sexual assault of a child," where the child is definitely direct). We should be careful not to speak in such generalities as to ignore their existence.

That said, while I agree that trade in drugs is victimless, often to finance drugs people prey on others. I would like to see absolutely draconian penalties for those who prey on others to further their habit.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

That said, while I agree that trade in drugs is victimless, often to finance drugs people prey on others. I would like to see absolutely draconian penalties for those who prey on others to further their habit.

While this is true, the theory of the argument — a theory which the evidence of legalization in the Netherlands and Portugal supports — is that eliminating the elevated price pressure of drug prohibition eliminates much of the associated drug-financing crime too. The closer to cost the drugs are available, the more this should be the case.

Unfortunately it will do nothing about those who prey on others simply as a lifestyle choice because they consider it easier than working. That is where I am inclined to think the draconian penalties truly belong.

Of course, a greater preponderance of armed citizenry would tend to deter both...