
How the Plummeting Price of Cocaine Fueled the Nationwide Drop in Violent Crime - gruseom
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2011/11/cocaine-plummeting-price-nationwide-drop-violent-crime/474/
======
wisty
In other words, high drug prices give money to gangs. Also, some drugs
inherently encourage large gangs - stuff like heroin and cocaine has offshore
production, which requires complicated supply chains with large (and therefore
violent) gangs. As deplorable as meth cookers are, their small scale and low
margins mean they only cause limited damage. Since they work alone, they don't
need to shoot disloyal gang members, and they are too small to have real turf
wars. And they compete against each other, cutting each others margins, so
they don't have the money to hire mercenaries, and it's just not worth getting
shot in a gangwar to hold their turf.

I don't like the effect meth seems to have on users though. It would be _much_
better (IMO) to legalise some less damaging drugs. That's the best of both
worlds - cheap drugs (so no money goes to gangs, and addicts don't need to
steal as much to pay for them), and safer drugs.

~~~
maxerickson
Meth production tends to change surrounding the availability of ephedrine and
pseudoephedrine:

<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/etc/cron.html>

(The gist is that large labs tend to spring up whenever they find a bulk
source for either chemical and then go away when that bulk source is
eliminated)

~~~
Joakal
I guess that explains why people complain that pharmacies refuse to give them
cold medicine [0].

[0] "Give me some pseudoephedrine geez!!"
<http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1488355>

------
feralchimp
The most interesting point in this article (for me) was the argument that
disruptive market pressure from methamphetamine (in particular, low barrier to
entry on the production side) didn't just show "War on Drugs" activity to be
ineffective; it showed it to be _orthogonal_ to meaningful consequences.

Production by cartels outpacing interdiction by law enforcement isn't nearly
as convincing as an argument for ending WoD activity. On the contrary, it's
something that WoD hawks can point to and say "See? We need more [crazy
expensive/attractive-nuisance-for-thugs resource X]!"

Modest proposal: The U.S. needs a Manhattan Project for weed/coke/heroin poppy
production. Legality of demand isn't required; production just needs to
completely undercut the market value of weed/heroin currently imported to the
U.S. (or exported from Afghanistan, for example).

Beats subsidizing corn for ethanol, at least.

~~~
powertower
Ending the WoD?

That's only what, about one-third to one-half of all law enforcement (and the
prison system)?

Do you realize how many jobs there are at stake here.

Of course I've got my tongue in my cheek, but you do see the problem with the
problem of ending the war on drugs?

~~~
defen
Solution: anyone who is going to lose their job because of the end of the war
on drugs just continues to receive their current salary until their Social
Security retirement age, regardless of whether they take a new job or just
stop working. It's the only way you'll get buy in from the lower levels of the
prison-industrial complex, and ultimately cheaper than continuing what we have
now.

~~~
suking
Make them do some other type of gov't job. Post office, making roads,
whatever. Paying them to sit on their butts - no thanks.

~~~
wnight
It's better than paying them to ruin other people's lives.

------
nowarninglabel
For interesting reads on the politics of cocaine, in addition to the mentioned
story in Freakonomics, take a look at:

Dark Alliance by Gary Webb: [http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Alliance-Contras-
Cocaine-Explosio...](http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Alliance-Contras-Cocaine-
Explosion/dp/1888363681)

Snowblind: [http://www.amazon.com/Snowblind-Brief-Career-Cocaine-
Trade/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Snowblind-Brief-Career-Cocaine-
Trade/dp/0802135897)

------
vacri
Interesting that the report only mentions incarceration rates at the end, but
doesn't seem to give any credence to the idea that 'permanently' locking
everyone up reduces crime.

The incarceration rate in the US is unbelieveably high, and started exploding
in the late 80s. Increasing the incarcerated population fivefold isn't
considered to have had a causal effect on the decrease in crime across the
board? Come on, pull the other one.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Sta...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States)

~~~
tryitnow
My personal sympathies lie with ending the WoD and lowering the incarceration
rate. However, I think a nearly fivefold increase in the rate of incarceration
probably has something to do with declining crime as well.

Does anyone have any solid evidence that the jump in incarceration was not the
driver of the decline in crime?

Maybe the Levitt paper addresses this. I'll check it out.

------
tryitnow
The article Levitt's article. I want to note that in that paper Levitt found
that the increase in the incarceration rate was a the biggest driver of the
decline in crime:

[http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUndersta...](http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf)

See Tables 5 and 6 on pages 184-185.

------
felipemnoa
This last paragraph was very interesting:

>>As a counter-example, drug use in Mexico is relatively low, approximately 2
percent, whereas in America it hovers around 8 percent. Yet, violence there is
at an all-time high. The market and the crime surrounding the trade might have
crashed in the U.S., but the death toll has only increased South of the border
ever since that region inherited the title of lead cocaine importer. Currently
valued at over $3 billion annually, the Mexican cocaine market shows no signs
of subsiding, and as long as such a high-valued market exists, violence will
most likely follow. <<

------
jphackworth
We should make cocaine legal in half of the states at random, measure crime,
and consider it an A/B test.

~~~
suivix
That would make interstate commerce regulation pretty interesting.

------
rick888
What about the increase in corruption in Mexico? An increase in corruption
means more criminals can have drug businesses without being stopped by the
cops.

So, when more drug businesses pop-up, there will be less of a monopoly on the
supply and the cost will go down over time. It's the same as any normal
business.

Even if we legalized all drugs tomorrow, it won't stop the violence. If the
Mexican police were actually doing their job, the criminals wouldn't be
running the show.

~~~
burgerbrain
What do you think would happen to a Mexican police officer and his family if
he tried to simply "just do his job"?

There is a reason the _police_ are the ones wearing ski masks down there:
[http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/WO-
AG531_MEXICO_G_...](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/WO-
AG531_MEXICO_G_20110802190729.jpg)

~~~
rick888
I'm shocked at the number of closed-minded members of the HN community. If the
answer to the violence in Mexico isn't: "let's legalize all drugs!", I get
down voted.

I wasn't a troll and explained my points, yet nobody wants to listen. It's
sad. It's becoming more and more difficult to fight this mentality.

I thought this was a community of intelligent people, yet I'm beginning to
realize that this just isn't the case anymore.

~~~
nitrogen
Your third paragraph doesn't follow from the first two paragraphs. The first
two paragraphs make the interesting conjecture that increased police
corruption in Mexico _lowers_ drug prices in the US. This is something
potentially worth discussing.

The third paragraph asserts that legalizing drugs won't stop the violence, and
that Mexican police aren't "doing their job." The first point contradicts the
original article, and thus requires supporting evidence (e.g. quotations from
the original article, followed by references to contradictory studies). The
second point is simply unnecessarily accusatory, and is ignorant of the
reality expressed by burgerbrain
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3228850>).

Meta: you've commented (and I've responded) in this pattern before. You start
with something that will be perceived as inflammatory by the typical HN crowd
(e.g. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3172594>), then follow up with a
complaint about the votes you receive or the changing HN culture
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3172744>). Maybe you're not trolling on
purpose, but it sure looks like it.

As I said before (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3173159>), you'd do a
better job of conveying your message and be less likely to start a flame war
if you restructured your arguments to be more appropriate to the audience --
present evidence, apply logical analysis, and draw a logical conclusion. State
your assumptions (e.g. in this case if you believe that absolute societal
order is more important than individual freedom, state up front that your
argument depends on that). Most importantly, if you want others to change
their minds, be willing to change yours if the argument goes the other way.

------
ww520
I thought the drop in crime rates coincides with the advent of video games.
More teenagers spending time on the consoles and less time shooting each
other.

~~~
electromagnetic
Drops in rape rates coincide with the increased availability of pornography
and prostitutes.

So I wouldn't be surprised if violence decreases with the availability of
alcohol/drugs and entertainment.

I think kids are probably less likely to get into gangs if they're at home
playing WoW and smoking pot.

------
jwingy
I remember writing a report on the failure of the war on drugs...and this was
13 some years ago when I was in junior high. Sad to see drug policies still
haven't changed much since then.

~~~
rationalbeats
It hasn't changed much because it is working great for a very well connected
sub-set of our society.

~~~
bestes
Who are those people? Politicians? (serious question)

~~~
splat
Prison guard unions would be one. The War on Drugs is a major contributor to
the sad statistic that the US has more prisoners than any other country on the
planet (not per capita, more prisoners, period). That means good business for
prison guards, and the prison guard union wields a disproportionate amount of
power, at least in California.

~~~
nate_meurer
Yes! Exactly right. The prison guard union in California lobbies hard against
any attempt at even mild reforms of drug laws. Here's a taste:

[http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/07/prison-guards-union-
locks-...](http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/07/prison-guards-union-locks-up-b)

------
liquidcool
What I'm most curious about is what keeps the demand for drugs in the US so
high? If the demand dropped off, so would the supply, prices, and number of
criminals.

I recognize that I'm a deviant on the other side - I abstain from drugs,
alcohol, and smoking. A bias for optimum brain, liver, and lung
capacity/health seems like the rational choice. So why do so many forgo that?
More pointedly, why do more Americans forgo that than citizens in other
countries? My hunch is pop cultural influences (is there an episode of
Entourage or How To Make It In America where someone doesn't use?), but a root
cause analysis would be nice. Maybe it's related to per capita GDP? Education?
Economic divide?

~~~
orangecat
_I recognize that I'm a deviant on the other side - I abstain from drugs,
alcohol, and smoking._

Same here and for similar reasons (although I still strongly oppose the WOD).
But at least with alcohol, I'm pretty sure the optimal amount isn't zero in
our current society. Not drinking has definitely interfered with my social
development, which wasn't great to begin with. I don't plan to start now--
among other reasons I can't stand the taste--but the advice I'd give to my 18
year old self is "go to parties, get drunk, and learn to enjoy it".

~~~
liquidcool
I, too, dislike the taste, although if that's your only issue there are drinks
with enough other ingredients to mask it (mudslides, pina coladas, daiquiris,
etc.).

Supposedly the max health benefit is 1 drink a day, followed by zero, and more
than one is detrimental. However, there are studies that say a glass of red
grape juice give similar benefits as one drink. I don't know anybody who
follows that advice with any discipline, though.

Not drinking doesn't affect my social enjoyment in the least. First, I find
that most professionals (my social group) these days drink less than they did
10 years ago. But I was in a social fraternity in college and have no problem
being at parties, bars, clubs, etc. with other people who are drinking. In
fact, it's the opposite - I've found my NOT drinking affects the enjoyment of
some drinkers. They get self-conscious about it, perhaps guilty. People don't
want to drink alone, so if I'm with only one other person they usually won't
imbibe. And I've found that those who are actively agitated by my not drinking
are those who are alcoholics or marijuana addicts. That's rare, and they stop
socializing with me, but I'm dodging a bullet and I'm not at a loss for
friends.

~~~
disgruntledphd2
Just to note that those studies that suggest some alcohol is good for you are
observational, and they conflate two different kinds of non-drinkers:

1) those who do not drink for personal reasons 2) former alcoholics.

Its quite plausible that the poor health of recovering alcoholics is
responsible for the differences in observed health seen in these studies.

I agree with the rest of your post.

------
speleding
The article claims lower prices mean less profit / less incentive for dealers,
and that sounds logical, but I would think that an important knock on effect
is that the incentive for corrupt police officers is lower and there is less
money available to buy off politicians/judges/contract killers/etc.

------
teyc
Interesting. The assertion here is that violent crimes is a coercive measure
used by gangs to maintain a monopoly, when enables them to become price
setters through inducing artificial scarcity.

------
xdrone
after doing some research, i'm not sure if this article is accurate. the price
of cocaine plummeted in the late 1980's, but the drop off in homicide didn't
start until mid 1990's.

------
maximusprime
flagged. Never understood HNs interest in drugs. Hardly on topic is it.

~~~
enjalot
did you read the article? It's all about how a traditional market (cocaine)
got disrupted by startups (meth labs). With the lovely side effects of proving
the War on Drugs as useless as we thought it was.

~~~
davidw
If you play this game, you can stretch anything to be "on topic".

~~~
brown9-2
And what's wrong with that? "On topic" is anything that interests the group.

~~~
nickik
Agree. People sometimes see geeks as (dont have a good english word for it, in
german we say "Fachidioten", maybe One-subject-idiots) One-Subject-Idiots.

I think its awesome that HN somethims gets into other subjects, the community
holds a nice balance without to much regulation.

