For the most part I agree with your arguments, except:
crime is reduced
I'm not so sure that is the case (well, apart from the fact that selling the drug would no longer be illegal :)).
It wouldn't reduce crime due to people taking the drug, technically that may increase - but I suspect (for weed) it's a low value anyway.
But would it reduce crime associated with drug dealers/drug gangs etc.? I'm not so sure; there are plenty of other illegal substances to sell so it seems unlikely dealers et al will just give up and go work in 7-Eleven :D
> It wouldn't reduce crime due to people taking the drug, technically that may increase - but I suspect (for weed) it's a low value anyway.
That depends on what you mean by 'crime due to people taking the drug.' How much of the drug-user related crime is due to the users seeking to lie, cheat and steal their way to the next 'score?' If their 'next score' is that much cheaper it reduces the need to commit crimes just to feed the habit.
> But would it reduce crime associated with drug dealers/drug gangs etc.? I'm not so sure; there are plenty of other illegal substances to sell so it seems unlikely dealers et al will just give up and go work in 7-Eleven :D
True, but then it would no longer be 'pot-related crime' where people get all worked up over how 'pot is destroying our society' because it's 'causing all this crime.' You've just pointed out that people will commit crimes regardless, and if you take away one form of committing crimes for fun and profit, it will just be replaced by another.
How much of the drug-user related crime is due to the users seeking to lie, cheat and steal their way to the next 'score?' If their 'next score' is that much cheaper it reduces the need to commit crimes just to feed the habit.
We still have to account for potential taxation etc. so the price might not go right down. Secondly there will certainly be more users and possibly people using more of the drug.
With all that said I highly doubt there is a meaningful statistic for pot abusers causing crime; it's just not the profile of the drug.
You've just pointed out that people will commit crimes regardless, and if you take away one form of committing crimes for fun and profit, it will just be replaced by another.
Agreed, that's exactly what I meant. Unfortunately I've never considered that a particularly good argument on the side of pro-legalization. Simply because what's the use in pushing crime somewhere else; if the aim is to fix/reduce crime then it's a pointless exercise :)
where people get all worked up over how 'pot is destroying our society' because it's 'causing all this crime.'
So then it becomes "crack is destroying our society" - there will always be people saying these things. Just like there are some people who say "alcohol is destroying our society". I guess pot is more widely lambasted due to being illegal (and possibly due to the fact it tends to inhibit abusers interactions in a much more noticable way)
In this situation I would probably support legalization; if you look at the drugs profile in the area most of the production is from small/medium gangs and individuals. The legal trade has changed that profile even more.
The major stumbling blocks I feel exist generally for legalization of pot is that in other areas larger, more dangerous drugs gangs exist and I a) don't think we should give into them and b) don't imagine they will let us take a lucrative industry from them without a fight.
> Agreed, that's exactly what I meant. Unfortunately I've never considered that a particularly good argument on the side of pro-legalization. Simply because what's the use in pushing crime somewhere else; if the aim is to fix/reduce crime then it's a pointless exercise :)
My point was that a number of people point to crime as the reason to keep it illegal. "If it's causing all this crime now, then making it more easily accessible to larger amounts of people would cause even more crime." Crime is the symptom, but <insert illegal drug here> is not the disease.
> Just like there are some people who say "alcohol is destroying our society"
To a lesser extent though. People like to attack drugs that are illegal much more just because:
- They have been illegal. (i.e. the government says it's bad so therefore it must really be bad)
- They have been demonized for very long time. (i.e. "I grew up hearing about how bad <drug> is; therefore that is 'the way things are.'")
- They are an unknown. (i.e. "I've never taken the drug, and I don't know anyone that has taken the drug so therefore it's very easy for me to just believe all the demonizing stories I hear and blame drug users for all the ills of the world.") This is very similar to the attitudes that a lot of people have (or have had) towards homosexuals. Some of the ideas that people have about how 'all' homosexuals are, are completely outrageous, but they hold these ideas very easily because they've never met/known someone that isn't heterosexual. (I'm not really saying that 'drug users' are just persecuted like gays are/were. There are plenty of people have have wild fantasies about what the reality of drug use really is, and I'm using the wild fantasies that people have about what homosexuals are really like as a parallel.)
People like to attack drugs that are illegal much more just because:
Yeh, sorry that was my point. I was trying to say; it's not an ideal argument because there will always be people who say these things.
In a small part they are right (because heavy pot smokers are generally low-achieving/non-functioning due to the drug). But then the same applies to heavy alcohol abusers.
Basically; it's possible to simply ignore those who blame pot/alcohol/broccoli etc. because they will always moan about something regardless of what happens :P
It's at least an empirical opinion. Apart from some extraordinary individuals I am not aware of a heavy pot smoker (from among my retinue of friends/aquaintances/people I know about) who does not suffer from some form of associated problem.
I'm willing & happy to be proved wrong, but there hasn't been enough studies yet to prove one way or the other (though as far as I last read it was starting to come down on the side of what I have seen)
>Simply because what's the use in pushing crime somewhere else; if the aim is to fix/reduce crime then it's a pointless exercise :)
I totally agree, and that's why we should bring back alcohol prohibition. Sure, it would increase alcohol-related violence, but "people will commit crimes regardless", so what does it matter?
Why not? It is a solution to the cannabis-crime factor. Prohibition of alcohol isn't "a solution to the crime factor", but it certainly led to a reduction in obtaining-alcohol-related-crime.
> Why not? It is a solution to the cannabis-crime factor.
I think that you're missing the point. Like was said before, most of the people committing crimes related to cannabis will just move on to commit the same crimes, but related to another drug or illegal substance. The effect on overall crime will probably be negligible.
On the other hand, it would reduce the 'crime' related to things like possession. I guess it really comes down to which stats you are using to look at 'crime'...
> but it certainly led to a reduction in obtaining-alcohol-related-crime.
As I pointed out, it's incomparable because it is a different type of crime. Prohibition of Alcohol probably would reduce the overall amount of crime in society. But it's another matter. If, on the other hand, prohibition drove individuals to other (hypothetically legal) substances which had the same affect as alcohol and were eventually as widespread then it is a comparable issue.
You can't turn around and present legalization as a way of reducing crime - because that seems very unlikely. It's better to rely on other arguments.
How can you not understand this? Look at the prohibition of alcohol for an example. Organized crime ran the bootlegging operations; people were shot in the streets for control of the alcohol and money generated from it.
Now, look at what is happening in Mexico and the southern parts of the U.S. Try to tell me that crime wouldn't be reduced.
You need to learn some basic economics. (First question: Cocaine, heroin, opium, alcohol and marihuana used to be legal in the UK (and most other places), there was nothing like todays gang violence. Why? Second question: Why did crime increase during prohibition?)
Prohibition of a substance people wants leads to illegal distribution. Illegal distributors can not use private property protection normally used by those who distribute legal goods. So bootleggers, crack dealers etc. kill each other to enforce contracts, take markets and steal each others stuff. This is why prohibition causes crime. You will have a very hard time finding any informed participant in the debate over legalization contesting this fact.
Prohibition of a substance people wants leads to illegal distribution....
Most of your post I am entirely in agreement with.
The problem is thus:
Currently we are discussing cannabis legalization. I for one could see myself being convinced, and even supporting, it's legalization at some point (certainly my attitude has changed in the last 12 months!). However, in realistic terms, that is not going to reduce overall crime related to the illegal drugs trade - dealers will simply shift focus to other drugs (I admit that there could well me a small reduction where dealers find it too much hassle etc.).
For your scenario to take affect all drugs have to be legalized. I cannot see a reasonable argument for making Heroin, a highly addictive and dangerous substance, legal. I'm fairly sure that many people behind the legalization of cannabis would feel the same way.
And even then I feel the problem would not go away - at least in the long term. Illegal markets will always exist. Sure we can keep legalizing them - but at what point does the danger become too great, at what point does designer drug X become too dangerous? I posit that such a point will come (given rampant legalization) and as such the illegal trade will continue to flourish.
Essentially what you are arguing is the idea of shifting poisonous assets (crime) elsewhere to allow positive gains in certain areas (cannabis industry/use). Which is fine but a) you have to be aware of where those poisonous assets are going to (can you control them?) and b) those assets still exist and you have to deal with them at some point.
That is economics :)
With regards your other post, which you deleted, I can't (and wouldn't anyway!) down mod your replies [for obvious reasons] but I suspect the reason was because of the first comment - the tone of which is usually frowned on here.
"So has the removal of prohibition removed problems due to trading in illegal substances? Answer, by your own admission, is no :)"
"For your scenario to take affect all drugs have to be
legalized."
"I feel the problem would not go away"
You seem to assume that the amount of illegal "effort" to supply illegal substances (with the violence that follows from those activities) has and will remain constant trough prohibition/legalization of some of the most common drugs (alcohol and cannabis). This contradicts basic economic theory. If there is a bigger demand (for illegal substances) there will be a bigger supply (of illegally distributed illegal substances) if an increase in this supply requires organized criminal effort (involving, among other things, violence) prohibition will lead to more crime. (It could also decrease other forms of crime but thats not the matter here.)
"Essentially what you are arguing is the idea of shifting poisonous assets (crime) elsewhere to allow positive gains in certain areas (cannabis industry/use)." I'm not arguing for anything, I'm trying to get the point above across. There are cost and benefits to prohibition of any substance. One of the most widely recognized costs (this is literally the first time I have hard it questioned) is that it causes organized crime.
The only thing you have ignored is the fact that individual drugs are not part of discrete markets. If a dealer loses a revenue stream in cannabis why does that mean he will not continue (and start) in other areas.
While we are on economics there is another issue you've ignored. The fact that legalization removes a revenue stream for the drugs gangs. They will want to expand markets - that means new drugs and new problems.
If they cannot supply cannabis why is it illogical to imagine they would not expand the heroin/coke markets.
If you want some "insider info"; we did a couple of investigations into drugs gangs last year. There is already a lot of market control within the gang infrastructure - they use fairly sophisticated market strategy to expand usage of underperforming drugs in an area for example.
This depends. Do people get into the weed industry because they want to commit crime (naturally evil), or do they get into crime because the weed industry is lucrative and crime comes with it (naturally good with lax morals).
I don't think the distinction matters; surely both profiles will move to other drugs (the first because they want to commit crime, the second because the illegal drugs market is probably more lucrative)
crime is reduced
I'm not so sure that is the case (well, apart from the fact that selling the drug would no longer be illegal :)).
It wouldn't reduce crime due to people taking the drug, technically that may increase - but I suspect (for weed) it's a low value anyway.
But would it reduce crime associated with drug dealers/drug gangs etc.? I'm not so sure; there are plenty of other illegal substances to sell so it seems unlikely dealers et al will just give up and go work in 7-Eleven :D