It’s hard to change a market
This is quite possibly the DEA’s greatest success in disrupting the supply of a major illicit substance. The focus on disrupting the supply of inputs rather than of the drug itself proved extremely successful. This success was the result of a highly concentrated input supply market and consequently may be difficult to replicate for drugs with less centralized sources of supply, such as cocaine and heroin. That this massive market disruption resulted in only a temporary reduction in adverse health events and drug arrests and did not reduce property and violent crimes, is disappointing. (italics added)
So reads the conclusion to “Methamphetamine, Public Health and Crime.”
Anyone watching our 40 year futile war on drugs has to see this. But we’re locked into it for all sorts of reasons. What security measure is the best analog for this? Expensive, intrusive, and ultimately futile?
Via Marginal Revolution.
It may be hard to change the market but it’s relatively easy to make use of it. If the US govt spent half as much on education and treatment programs as it does on attacking the sources of drugs then they would probably have some success in reducing the demand, making the whole business less profitable. Of course this means “paying money to treat criminals” and “telling children all about drugs” instead of “shooting the bad guys”, so it’s much less palatable to the a short-sighted and sound-bite driven electorate. Sigh…
Hi Adam,
I used to work with you at Zero-Knowledge Systems, and now I am a police officer in Victoria, BC. In my spare time, while off-duty, I volunteer with Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.
LEAP is a non-profit organization of judges, prosecutors, corrections, police officers and other criminal justice professionals. We seek to gradually legalize and regulate all drugs in order to minimize crime, addiction, disease and death.
You are absolutely correct in stating that the War on Drugs is an abject failure, and I agree with you 100%. Of course, my opinions are my own and they don’t represent those of my employer. That said, more and more police officers are speaking out against drug prohibition because they see that “tough justice” against drug dealers only creates a job opening for the next dealer. Legalizing drugs would launch an economic war against organized crime by removing profits from the black market. It would create new opportunities for tax revenue. And it would allow law enforcement agencies to shift their focus to areas that have historically been ignored or underfunded.
LEAP maintains a credible and well-respected speakers bureau of current and former LEO’s who give presentations, interviews and write op-ed pieces about the failure of drug prohibition. We talk to everyone we can – from Rotary Clubs to corporate boards. In fact, I was going to submit a paper about policing, free speech and the War on Drugs to this year’s Computers Freedom & Privacy conference. Unfortunately the timing wasn’t right for me and it will have to wait until next year. Perhaps we can keep in touch regarding other presentation opportunities on this subject.
All the best,
David Bratzer
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
What if the government saw drugs as a business that it could help, and did the opposite?
Imagine if the USG announced that it was going to legalize cocaine in two years. 18 months later, say “nah, just kidding.”
Create an unpredictable business environment for producers.
“What security measure is the best analog for this? Expensive, intrusive, and ultimately futile?”
Web usage blocking (not monitoring). Both error rates (false positives and false negatives) remain too high and in any case it misses the point.
“What security measure is the best analog for this? Expensive, intrusive, and ultimately futile?”
Web usage blocking (not monitoring). Both error rates (false positives and false negatives) remain too high and in any case it misses the point.
Here is a quick list of the problems that are guaranteed by drug prohibition:
Guaranteed to maintain a high crime rate for the rest of society.
Guaranteed to present a supply monopoly to the criminal organizations with high levels of illegal profits.
Guaranteed to ensure that users of the more minor drugs continue to maintain contact with that criminal supply chain and the accompanying ease of moving to more dangerous drugs.
Guaranteed to ensure that users will continue to overdose and sometimes die because of a lack of testing or legal, clean supply.
Guaranteed to prevent honest, open education and research.
Guaranteed to criminalize individuals who choose to commit acts in private at no threat to others, with a loss of their future individual contribution to society.
Guaranteed to bring other laws into disrepute through the illogicality and mass distain of drug prohibition.
Guaranteed to alienate youth from the police.
Guaranteed to waste enormous sums of public monies that could be much better utilized in health support and education.
Perhaps it is time to try something else?
This whole drugs war thing is an abject failure, of course we are all agreed on that. Maybe we can just assume that it is there for “other reasons” which we aren’t empowered to know.
What I’m curious about though is the current situation in Mexico. The more we read about it, the more it goes on, the more I come to the conclusion that as a policy, the USA wants to hollow out the Mexican civil society.
Is this wise? What advantage is it to the USA to collapse a state from inside, when the state is both un-warlike and on a direct border?