This is rough. Real rough. I wanted to put it out a few days ago, but it got lost. So, I'm just throwing this out here now.
Years ago, Kurt Schmoke said that the U.S. needs to consider decriminalizing or legalizing drugs to take the profit motive out of the drug trade. That would cause the violence and crime associated with the drug trade to go down.
I somewhat disagree.
Would crime related to drugs go down? Sure. But that's because of the change in legal status. The question to ask is will the crimes committed by people on drugs go up, stay the same, or go down?
Let's assume the government taxes the sale of drugs. What do you think is going to happen to the money? Do you think it will go towards addiction programs?
No. It will go towards the general government fund where the politicians will spend it at their will. That's what happened with the tobacco settlement money. Most of it went to other purposes, not towards tobacco use prevention and addiction programs.
Amersterdam is shown as the model for drug legalization but the proponents don't examine the rise in addiction nor do they examine the break down of families of drug users.
People like to point out that the end of alcohol prohibition took out the profit motive for the mob to be involved in alcohol production and distribution.
Not exactly. "Moonshine" production and distribution still occurs. It is a low key multi-million dollar business.
Let's assume it does become decriminalized. What would the local dealers do? Maybe run cigarettes? In New York and Maryland, states with high cigarette taxes, state authorities are finding out there is a growing business in shipment of cigarettes to get around the taxes placed on them.
My point? New illegal areas of making money will be found.
Why not concentrate of getting kids to not get involved in selling drugs in the first place? Maybe the problem is it is "harder".
Reduction in crime? I'm not sure. Different types of crime? Definitely.
Basic tenant of game theory--where monitoring is low, enforcement must be high. The dope game is so violent because there are no institutionalized structures to account for not paying. Create some system of conflict mediation that must be respected, and the game will change.
But will the dopeman really start taking non-paying dealers to court, legal or not?
Posted by: Bomani at May 18, 2005 12:46 PMVery rough indeed....,
Check one of the many more polished antithesis and please come back to this when you've had a chance to systematically mull over the issues. It would be a better and higher use of scarce time to debate specific substantive points rather than react to the micro-polemic you've posted Ed.
No hurry, please take your time.
Posted by: cnulan at May 18, 2005 04:51 PMDoes Drug Prohibition Adversely Impact African Americans?
just a little more thought for food....,
Posted by: cnulan at May 18, 2005 04:55 PM
I wouldn't say it is harder to get kids away from selling drugs...it's actually easy. The problem is that if those kids are not selling drugs, then they are not cannon fodder for police department budgets, prison budgets, law and order agendas and other societal scare tactics.
More importantly, if they are selling drugs, then they will no longer occupy the bottom rung of the social order and will compete for jobs as engineers, chemists, financial analysts, doctors, policy analysts. They will work in construction, real estate and the restaurant business. They will also hold the glue jobs that allow a society to operate. They will compete for jobs, apartments, space, privilege, power and access. That is an unacceptable price to pay for most politicians.
Better to have drug dealers who can finance rural and suburban development than to have educated, conscious folks who will enjoin the battle and expect to win.
Consider the consequences for white folks if the incarceration rates were the same for black folks. Imagine 8.5 million 24-29 year black men with varying skill levels competing for jobs and resources. The choice is obvious. Dope dealing is a matter of economic survival for white folks, to a much greater extent than it is for us.
Posted by: Temple3 at May 18, 2005 11:09 AM