Harvard Lecturer: Legalize Drugs to End Border Violence

[FUCK THE POLICE]

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/3/24/125028/541

Harvard Lecturer: Legalize Drugs to End Border Violence
By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 11:50:28 AM EST
Tags: drug reform (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Another voice in the small but growing crowd urging legalization of drugs to end the Mexico drug war violence: Harvard Senior Lecturer in Economics Jeffrey Miron.

Argument 1: Prohibition creates violence. It happened with alcohol and gambling. End the prohibition, end the violence. [More...]

Prohibition creates violence because it drives the drug market underground. This means buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration or advertising, so they resort to violence instead.

Violence was common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after. Violence is the norm in illicit gambling markets but not in legal ones. Violence is routine when prostitution is banned but not when it's permitted. Violence results from policies that create black markets, not from the characteristics of the good or activity in question. The only way to reduce violence, therefore, is to legalize drugs (emphasis supplied.)

But, there are other reasons, according to Miron: Such as, legalize drugs, reduce bribery.

Prohibition of drugs corrupts politicians and law enforcement by putting police, prosecutors, judges and politicians in the position to threaten the profits of an illicit trade.

Criminalization of drugs erodes our constitutional rights:

Prohibition erodes protections against unreasonable search and seizure because neither party to a drug transaction has an incentive to report the activity to the police. Thus, enforcement requires intrusive tactics such as warrantless searches or undercover buys. The victimless nature of this so-called crime also encourages police to engage in racial profiling.

Prohibition is bad for national security:

Prohibition has disastrous implications for national security. By eradicating coca plants in Colombia or poppy fields in Afghanistan, prohibition breeds resentment of the United States. By enriching those who produce and supply drugs, prohibition supports terrorists who sell protection services to drug traffickers.

Prohibition harms the public health:

Patients suffering from cancer, glaucoma and other conditions cannot use marijuana under the laws of most states or the federal government despite abundant evidence of its efficacy. Terminally ill patients cannot always get adequate pain medication because doctors may fear prosecution by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Prohibition breeds disrespect for the rule of law:

Prohibitions breed disrespect for the law because despite draconian penalties and extensive enforcement, huge numbers of people still violate prohibition. This means those who break the law, and those who do not, learn that obeying laws is for suckers.

And the number one reason that may resonate with the public in these perilous economic times: Prohibition is a financial drain.

Federal, state and local governments spend roughly $44 billion per year to enforce drug prohibition. These same governments forego roughly $33 billion per year in tax revenue they could collect from legalized drugs, assuming these were taxed at rates similar to those on alcohol and tobacco. Under prohibition, these revenues accrue to traffickers as increased profits.

President Obama's new plan to spend $700 million for border security is the wrong approach. And that's in addition to Merida:

The funds, meant to assist what administration officials described as an "anti-smuggling effort," will complement ongoing U.S. aid to Mexico under the Merida initiative, a three-year $1.4 billion package aimed at helping Mexico fight the drug cartels with law enforcement training, military equipment and improved intelligence cooperation.

The war on drugs is a failure. Plan Mexico will crash and burn.

 

[DamnYankee]

It makes more sense to shut down the border to prevent the drugs from coming in. The Mexican and South American drug lords would see their profits cut to zero, and couldn't afford to cause trouble at the US border or in their own countries. The main source of corruption would simply cease to exist.

If you legaize drugs, not only do you tell the drug lords that you've given up, but now you make them legitimate business men. They would then form cartels, like the oil sheiks and the diamond merchants, allowing them to increase their profits and continue the culture of corruption.

 

[Cancel3]

It makes more sense to shut down the border to prevent the drugs from coming in. The Mexican and South American drug lords would see their profits cut to zero, and couldn't afford to cause trouble at the US border or in their own countries. The main source of corruption would simply cease to exist.

If you legaize drugs, not only do you tell the drug lords that you've given up, but now you make them legitimate business men. They would then form cartels, like the oil sheiks and the diamond merchants, allowing them to increase their profits and continue the culture of corruption.

Except we have been unable to completely shut down our borders. Even during the months after the 9/11 attacks, drugs came thru.


And the difference between the drug trade and the oil or diamond trade is that you cannot grow diamonds or oil anywhere.

Legalize it and the prices would drop like a rock.

 

[Epicurus]

It makes more sense to shut down the border to prevent the drugs from coming in. The Mexican and South American drug lords would see their profits cut to zero, and couldn't afford to cause trouble at the US border or in their own countries. The main source of corruption would simply cease to exist.

If you legaize drugs, not only do you tell the drug lords that you've given up, but now you make them legitimate business men. They would then form cartels, like the oil sheiks and the diamond merchants, allowing them to increase their profits and continue the culture of corruption.

You clearly lack even a basic understanding of how a market would work.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It makes more sense to shut down the border to prevent the drugs from coming in. The Mexican and South American drug lords would see their profits cut to zero, and couldn't afford to cause trouble at the US border or in their own countries. The main source of corruption would simply cease to exist.

If you legaize drugs, not only do you tell the drug lords that you've given up, but now you make them legitimate business men. They would then form cartels, like the oil sheiks and the diamond merchants, allowing them to increase their profits and continue the culture of corruption.

That's just simply not true. Ending prohibition would virtually end the demand side of the equation as all those drugs can be perfectly manufactured and distributed in the US.

I've long been an advocate of ending prohibition. It's been a cruel hoax upon our society and has caused far more damage then it has prevented.

The criminal justice approach to managing drugs is a dismal failure and need s to be replaced by a public health approach as they do in Britain and The Netherlands. Not only was drug use dramatically reduced but organized crime involving black market drug trade was virtually eliminated over night. The public health approach is a prove success where as the criminal justice approach has been a failure and it's time to face up to that fact.

Never mind the fact that shutting down our borders is a laughable idea. How the hell are we going to do that?

 

[Minister of Truth]

I don't like either approach. Don't want to pay to fight it, don't want to pay to treat it. Perfectly willing to pay to educate about drugs, but then I wouldn't say that DARE and GREAT really work all that well, nor health classes in general with regard to drugs. People continue to smoke tobacco, even though its obviously a stupid thing to do.

 

[Topspin]

On this board im expecting 90 percent dems for and only 30 cons for. The smart ones like cawco, freak, and Damocles.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

On this board im expecting 90 percent dems for and only 30 cons for. The smart ones like cawco, freak, and Damocles.

come again?

 

[Topspin]

So that was over your head?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So that was over your head?

I'm guessing you excluded me because i'm not a conservative?

 

[Topspin]

My point is to my knowledge most on the left at least support decrim of pot. Educated eighties and libertarians, and the 1 socialist we have do to. It's the NASCAR / Jesus frak eighties most in oppostion. And the racist who think blacks act like a subculture.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

My point is to my knowledge most on the left at least support decrim of pot. Educated eighties and libertarians, and the 1 socialist we have do to. It's the NASCAR / Jesus frak eighties most in oppostion. And the racist who think blacks act like a subculture.

you do know there are only two ways to get things like MJ decriminalized, right?

 

[blackascoal]

Legalizing drugs is the only sane solution and at some point it will be the only solution available.

However, the Obama Administration is not that point. He does not have the courage to stand behind it because he's much too worried about what republicans think and his image. How will he look?

This is yet another example of how just much republicans should be ignored.

 

[Damocles]

It is stupid to think that prohibition is the way to go when all it has done for the US is create the very violence we say we wish to avoid. Drugs aren't the problem that create violence, prohibition is.

 

[Topspin]

At least Obama has done huge things compared to all his predicessors.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Legalizing drugs is the only sane solution and at some point it will be the only solution available.

However, the Obama Administration is not that point. He does not have the courage to stand behind it because he's much too worried about what republicans think and his image. How will he look?

This is yet another example of how just much republicans should be ignored.

you are much smarter than this. Please, answer my question.

what are the only two ways to undo the criminalization of marijuana?

 

[tinfoil]

It makes more sense to shut down the border to prevent the drugs from coming in. The Mexican and South American drug lords would see their profits cut to zero, and couldn't afford to cause trouble at the US border or in their own countries. The main source of corruption would simply cease to exist.

If you legaize drugs, not only do you tell the drug lords that you've given up, but now you make them legitimate business men. They would then form cartels, like the oil sheiks and the diamond merchants, allowing them to increase their profits and continue the culture of corruption.

Like all the beer companies?

 

[blackascoal]

you are much smarter than this. Please, answer my question.

what are the only two ways to undo the criminalization of marijuana?

Why don't you just spit it out .. so I can tell you what's wrong with it.

EVERYTHING else you've said on this issue is wrong and I'd expect this to be as well.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Why don't you just spit it out .. so I can tell you what's wrong with it.

fine, tell me whats wrong with these.


1) congress must rewrite the Controlled Substances Act to remove marijuana (preferably ALL naturally occurring substances) from its jurisdiction.

2) the USSC must revisit and reverse Gonzalez v. Raich to limit the commerce clause power of congress.

EVERYTHING else you've said on this issue is wrong and I'd expect this to be as well.

NOTHING I have ever said about decriminalizing marijuana has been wrong and I'll tell you why. Everyone here knows that the 2nd Amendment is my favorite one and I make damn sure I know ALL the laws and cases that involve them. ALL federal gun laws are based on the commerce clause, just like drug laws, therefore they are very closely linked as far as judicial precedent goes.

I dare you to show how ANYWHERE I've been wrong on this subject.

 

[blackascoal]

fine, tell me whats wrong with these.


1) congress must rewrite the Controlled Substances Act to remove marijuana (preferably ALL naturally occurring substances) from its jurisdiction.

2) the USSC must revisit and reverse Gonzalez v. Raich to limit the commerce clause power of congress.

I agree with you on your first point, not sure about the 2nd. When this porcess finishes I'll do some research, but I'll conceed your point unless I discover different.

NOTHING I have ever said about decriminalizing marijuana has been wrong and I'll tell you why. Everyone here knows that the 2nd Amendment is my favorite one and I make damn sure I know ALL the laws and cases that involve them. ALL federal gun laws are based on the commerce clause, just like drug laws, therefore they are very closely linked as far as judicial precedent goes.

I dare you to show how ANYWHERE I've been wrong on this subject.

It makes more sense to shut down the border to prevent the drugs from coming in. The Mexican and South American drug lords would see their profits cut to zero, and couldn't afford to cause trouble at the US border or in their own countries. The main source of corruption would simply cease to exist.

First, that's using the false assumption that Mexico is the only place drugs enter the US, which is totally unfounded and FALSE. "Drug lords" would still get drugs into the US and still be profitable. The main source of corruption is that drugs are illegal .. making them legal eliminates the "drug lords" as ending prohibition eliminated the "Capone's" of the underworld.

Clamping down on drugs won't eliminate them as all history has shown. It may make them more expensive and it will certainly cause an even further rise in America's greatest prison population in human history .. thus wasting even more dwindling tax payer dollars .. but it will not solve the problems.

If you legaize drugs, not only do you tell the drug lords that you've given up, but now you make them legitimate business men. They would then form cartels, like the oil sheiks and the diamond merchants, allowing them to increase their profits and continue the culture of corruption.

That's uber-ridiculous and totally disconnected from reality.

Legalizing drugs tells the drug dealers they are out of business. How many moonshiners exist today and are they a problem?

They're going to form cartels of legal drugs?

Ridiculous