▲ 104 points
back
142 comments
Legalizing drugs cuts crime in two ways. Directly, by reclassifying a bunch of formerly criminal drug users as just drug users. But also indirectly: it makes them cheap, which makes them unattractive targets for organized crime. If western politicians could just get over their taboos about drug use and let idiots stuff themselves with whatever drugs they like, not just nicotine and alcohol, we would make the US richer and safer.
And this isn't a hypothetical: more than 12 years ago, Portugal decriminalized possession of all drugs -- from marijuana to heroin -- and plowed the money saved by no longer jailing addicts into treating them. The result has been lower rates of addiction and HIV infection, and higher rates of treatment:
http://www.alternet.org/story/151635/ten_years_ago_portugal_...
Now possession is a misdemeanor, like a traffic violation, punishable by a fine or community service, and accompanied by a screening for risk factors of addiction, with encouragement to enter treatment programs:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-d...
It hasn't been a magic bullet, but nor has it been a disaster. And what is a disaster is the current policy: drug money fuels endless violence and murder inside the US and across central and southern America.
The social fabric of my home country (Trinidad & Tobago) is being torn apart by violence from drug trafficking, and there's nothing we can do about it as long as the amount of money to be made by risking the drug trade is so enormous. We can't lower the price, because we are not the market: the US is.
I wish more people in the US were aware that their paying $100/gram for the occasional fun evening is paying for murder on the streets of my home town. And I wish more people realized they don't have to stop taking cocaine; they just have to lower the damn price.
You missed a third way, and possibly the most important. When something goes wrong in an illegal activity, the justice/legal system can't be used to address the situation. For example if someone gets shortchanged, fails to pay, or supplies product of a different quality than expected.
Having to get justice outside of the legal system is a driver behind violence and other additional illegal acts.
> If western politicians could just get over their taboos about drug use
This is a bit naive. I don't think taboos are responsible for drug prohibition. I think it's the economic interests of industries which benefit from drug prohibition, like police, prisons, alcohol, and pharmaceuticals.
Better question: why does the US so frequently think the right answer to a problem is the completely unworkable, unwinnable, wasteful one?
Examples include the war on drugs, the war on terror, and domestic "security" theater (TSA).
Another way it cuts crime dramatically: it neuters the drug cartels by removing at least half their market (plausibly a lot more, as their infrastructure including manufacturing would be eroded). That didn't seem to fall into your two examples.
At least 60,000 people were murdered by organized crime just in Felipe Calderon's six year term.
One more way: by legalizing and taxing it, there properly should be more money available for treatment, helping to eliminate dangerous lifestyles that often cross over into crime.
There are so many more direct and higher order effects of drug prohibition, just in regards to crime.
1: It gives easy revenue for criminals.
2: It puts many people into the "criminal" category, making them much less willing to interact with law enforcement and making it more likely that they will be willing to consort with true criminals.
3: It takes away resources from the criminal justice system, and further perverts it as well. It breeds the sort of police officer who is unskilled at forming a bond with the community they serve and with basic policework and instead focuses on making drug busts. It also breeds the sort of "assumed guilty" plea bargain dominated prosecutor model.
4: As a consequence of 1 and 2, the cognitive dissonance of the law banning victimless drug use causes many police officers to lose their respect for the law as well. And because of the wealth of criminal drug dealing enterprises there becomes a natural synergy which promotes police corruption.
5: Similarly, due to drug forfeiture laws it becomes possible for the way that police undertake law enforcement activities to dramatically affect their own budgets and resources. Naturally police organizations tend to be drawn to the activities which provide the most revenue, drug busts, to the detriment of other policing.
6: Because of the drug/criminal connection combined with rampant police crack downs due to the above factors drug busts can often be dangerous, which pushes police officers even farther away from a healthy relationship with their communities and increasingly toward a militarized relationship which spills over into every citizen/police interaction and further poisons the relationship.
"If western politicians could just get over their taboos about drug use and let idiots stuff themselves with whatever drugs they like, not just nicotine and alcohol, we would make the US richer and safer."
Seriously? I'm not sure if you're saying to legalize all drugs, but that's how I'm interpreting this....
Legalizing addictive drugs will make us safer & richer? I feel like if we legalized heroin, we'd have junkies all over the place running around stealing whatever isn't bolted down just to get the next high. It affects far more than just the user, it affects the families, the kids, the neighborhood, the town, etc. Even if we taxed it, those taxes would likely go right back into having more security: police officers, hospitals, etc.
Sure pot might be more or less harmless, but letting people stuff themselves with any drug of choice seems very wrong. There are some drugs that I think should absolutely be restricted very tightly.
Is there any hard proof that marijuana prices have been affected by the availability of medical marijuana? Further north they certainly haven't (medical marijuana sells for more), and the same people end up distributing both kinds to consumers.
Taking a quick look at crowdsourced prices, weed in CA looks to be about $200/oz, which is not very cheap.
edit: $100 a gram.... what?! Are you talking about cocaine?
While I agree with your points, I wonder if legalization temporarily boosts other types of crime, as former "criminals" seek other forms of easy money to maintain their lifestyle and social status. Drug dealing is a form of gainful employment for many who have few other skills.
I want to know if Portuguese emergency rooms (and hospitals in general) are having to deal with more drug addicts and drug-related acute health problems (overdoses are only one variety) and drug-related complications to existing health problems.
Everyone knows about overdoses. But if you take opioids to the point you become physically dependent and then you need surgery, the anesthesia provider has to work around a body with a different (narrower!) dose-response curve to anesthetics: Normal people have a broad range of doses which provide pain control but don't kill them. A long-term addict has a very narrow range between "Not feeling it" and "Heart just stopped."
That's just one example. I'm sure there are others. How are Portuguese healthcare providers dealing with this?
There may be something that the United States can do to help your country in this area, but there are also things that your country can do to help itself. Why have your lawmakers decriminalized or legalized the growth and distribution of these controlled substances?
Supply and demand. Your response only tackles half of the problem - demand - while ignoring the half that hits closer to your home.
I lived for years right by the Haight entrance to GGP. I wouldn't call the participants in the drug scene there hippies. There were a lot more crusties and gutter punk types, along with stereotypical thug dudes and tweakers. A lot of people were really aggro and there was some sort of fight nearly every day. A friend of mine would buy her pot over there and her dealer was a clean cut looking late 20s guy from the avenues, who used a cane because he had been shot in the leg. Gun violence didn't seem very hippie to me, either.
One of the odder things to me about the area (everything was odd to some degree, including my presence there) was that there was so much drug activity right next to the police station.
I live on the alley across the street from the primary SF Mission District Police Station, and hard drugs are regularly dealt outside my door.
The more stereotypical flower children hang out inside the park a bit at Hippie Hill. (Some SF old-timers use the word hippie for any sort of 'street punk'.)
Well, good. Proper regulation is the whole point.
Edit: You (probably) do want control cannabis sales to teenagers. Citation: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-squeaky-wheel/201208...
I feel like the topics Priceonomics covers have been getting less interesting over time. I suppose that's natural for a content engine, but this piece left me feeling sort of disenchanted.
I'm used to graphs and visualizations on Priceonomics, and there was a distinct lack of hard data from this piece. It felt much more subjective than what I'm used to.
In short, I don't doubt the conclusion, but this doesn't feel like a normal priceonomics piece. Just my $.02.
Yes. It's not just the decline of quality analysis/execution, but the actual topics are becoming dumber (and more overtly political). I wish they had a way to filter based on bylines. Generally the articles by Rohin Dhar are awesome.
Imagine for a moment if meth were legalized -- production would move beyond shady basements with lax safety measures, distribution would move beyond inner-city gangs and other unpleasant cartels, consumption would move beyond lonely apartments and back-alleys, and storage would move beyond dirty needles and shoddy pipes (it could even be refined into pills).
Now realize that the entire pharmaceuticals industry is born from this desire for safe production, distribution, consumption, and storage of drugs -- and the hypocrisy of selective drug prohibition.
If all drugs were legal, would people still take meth?
I suspect meth is abundant now because of logistical reasons i.e. it can be manufactured in the country it is sold, using precursors that can also be obtained there (legally or otherwise), rather than having to grow plants (coca, poppies, marijuana) which can be seized whilst growing or being imported from overseas.
A good drug policy would make meth seem like the bad idea that it is by providing superior alternatives.
I know I'm treading on very thin water here, but meth in and of itself isn't terrible. A small dosage will give a similar reaction as Ritalin. Were meth legal, Silicon Valley would be drowning in it, and not for 3 night binges.
It would be Erdos-style addiction.
Meth is legal, the pharmaceutical name is Desoxyn.
Just wanted to point out that drugs are insufflated, smoked, or taken intravenously so that the chemicals enter the bloodstream and hit the brain quickly (so I'm not sure tablet meth would be a big hit).
Meth is a very destructive addictive substance. Legalized, it would addict and harm more people than pain pills, and not really add any benefit to society or individuals. The gang violence from keeping it illegal isn't too bad now, is it?
it is not necessary to imagine this. we give it to our children. it is called adderall.
If I'm supposed to care, I'm failing.
It is always a rough transition when government changes its policy to one of more morality and fairness. Protected business interests who have shaped their business model around shitty laws now are at a disadvantage to businesses that can spring up around new rules. That doesn't mean our laws shouldn't change for the better.
If I'm supposed to care, I'm failing.
I don't think you're supposed to care. I just think its an interesting observation for a couple reasons.
One, there's modest historical significance to the hippie movement, especially in SF. Hippie culture dying out is news worthy.
Two (less interesting, more obvious), is to note that people who sold drugs illegally are hurt by legalization. That's not given, it's possible that people who sold drugs illegally would be the same people who sold drugs legally .. but that doesn't seem to be the case (or more interesting, the profit margin got squashed).
I don't think the article asking for your sympathy. Its showing (rather than telling) how effective legalization is and how many positives have come as a result
"There were lots of customers and they made enough in a few days to travel for a few weeks. Now though..."
Man, rough life. I really feel for those guys...
Where is the post about people working for an entire year to go on vacation for a few weeks?
Yes, rough life these guys, selling plants for extremely high prices so they can do fun stuff with the money they took.
Almost sounds like capitalists.
If only we could do this federally, and then do exactly the same thing to Mexico's narcos.
I agree, but there's a qualitative difference here, in that the hippies that are the subject of this story don't tend to kill or even beat up people. I've never sold any weed, but I've known enough hippies to recognize that they're basically benign black market traders rather than organized criminals, and the fact that they are sidelined in a new market is a problem for them.
Lots of people (who were not hippies) were interested in buying weed, while hippies were happy to supply the willingness to take a moderate legal risk. However, non-hippies aren't all that interested in other things that hippies like, such as hemp weaving or handicrafts - at least, not to the extent of providing hippies with any sort of livable income. So the choice is to either supply other, more risky markets - in other states, or with 'harder' and potentially more dangerous drugs - or find some other kind of employment. But other kinds of employment aren't really compatible with being a hippie, and while I don't think that's a fantastic thing to aspire to I respect that some people would rather live simpler, non-materialistic lives, or part of their their lives, and this is increasingly hard to do in a society that fetishizes private property.
My gut feeling is that it hasn't happened yet because the total payoff (I'm talking money) is worse than the status quo.
The problem with substance consumption is that it's an asymmetric negotiation. The consumer is the weakest link (for obvious reasons), so the dealers have the upper hand. You don't even need to look at illegal drugs, just look at pharma industry for an example of that.
Legalization only benefits the consumer, who have access to a better product at a lower price and zero risk. Also, creates low wage jobs. To everyone else involved (and that's a lot of people: farmers, cooks, dealers, truck drivers, cops, politicians, even consumers who sell to friends), it's the most interesting that it stays illegal.
The tendency with weed legalization is for dealers to start moving a better high, not go bankrupt. The tendency of consumers is to look for a better high also. In the places where weed is legalized, you now have higher THC breeds and hash oil. It's a forever regulation struggle (are these harmful? can it still be classified as pot?).
My inner conspiracy theorist says the Mexican cartels are paying off US politicians to keep anti-drug laws.
It is a $30 billion dollar industry after all. [1]
Legalizing weed will certainly affect organized crime in Mexico but it won't be significant. There are plenty of other drugs and other criminal activities from which organized crime gets income. Other important thing to consider is that Narco Culture is pretty strong in Mexico. This people will not stop being involved in criminal activities just because their income dropped. Moreover there will always be people willing to become involved in criminal activities, not to become rich but to make a living wage.
This is proving a point that a lot of pro legalization people have been saying for years.
According to free market principles, this will free the street kids and hippies to pursue other, more productive work, and therefore increase wealth.
Hahaha. The problem here was that there was no free market in the first place. The Hippies are more akin to your cable company or some other state sanctioned monopoly or oligopoly now being opened up to real market forces. Inflated profits due to protection almost never ends well.
This is a good thing.
One of the main reasons that cannabis has failed to be fully legalized in California is because greedy dealers want the industry to stay small and contained. I remember seeing tons of "Vote No" signs in Mendocino and Sonoma counties regarding legalization (which are huge cultivation areas,) and have known many growers and distributors who were vehemently against legalizing it.
Priceonomics sure seems to have a high regard for its belly-button lint. Their motto is "Priceonomics: The Price Guide for Everything," ...and the value guide for nothing, I presume.
Here in Priceonomics’s home city of San Francisco, however, legalization is also eroding the easy drug profits that have been a lifeline to the remnants of the hippy scene.
Yes, lets all lament the demise of the "Haighth"[1], while ignoring the political, artistic and, well, non-weed legacies of the late-60s San Francisco subcultural landscape.
Could the reverse of the gateway drug theory be true? If marijuana and "lighter" narcotics were to be legalized, might potential addicts and users flock to those drugs instead of riskier substances like cocaine or heroin?
Legal Beer is Hurting Boise Hipsters
News at 11. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Since Idaho is so behind the times on the legalization front, hippies are most welcome here. So if any hippies are reading this, there are many markets opening in the gateway states that lie between the cool states. Another way to look at this is, marijuana legalization will lead to the liberalization of the states that are behind the times, which is probably why fogies are fighting against it so vehemently.
For every sad Hippy in the 1st World there's hopefully 100 great stories in ravaged 2nd world countries up to their eyeballs in corruption funded by the distorted profits of an illegal trade. Maybe Marijuana really will be the "gateway drug" The first drug that marches us towards a path of i) legalizing, ii) taxing, iii) treating addicts and iv) reducing prison populations.
They can still make LSD that wont be legal anytime soon.
In Canada price of weed dropped to $80/120 per oz of AAA kush since washington legalized and more exports come out of california
“The hippy kids used to be able to sell their weed real easy at high prices,” he tells us. “There were lots of customers and they made enough in a few days to travel for a few weeks. Now though...”
"Many are homeless by choice: Some are the transient underemployed or unemployed that hop railcars across the country."
http://24.media.tumblr.com/f57b0d94ce4e855c44891a68b21abe20/...
Very disappointing to see no data of any kind on the Good Old Days other than the word of some people they met in a park in San Francisco. Needless to say, their word is extremely unreliable.
Two claims specifically are pretty obvious exaggerations/blatant lies:
That a marijuana dealer can make 4-times more selling in New York than in California[1]. And that street kids used to make enough in a few days to travel for weeks[2].
[1] Unless the difference is purely a matter of volume, price alone cannot account for that big of a difference, as the article seems to imply. Marijuana is more expensive in New York but it's nowhere near 4-times more expensive.
[2] I sold marijuana in the bay area in the timeframe referenced in the article, between roughly 1999 and 2001 (in the dorms, to friends and friends of friends and friends of friends of friends etc). Yes the prices were higher than they are today ($50 an 8th was standard) but wholesale prices were also much higher. In the end I was lucky to clear $100 an ounce, after smoking myself - which the street kids surely do. They'd have to have been selling a half pound or more per day at full retail to make the claim even remotely possible.
And a small piece of anecdotal evidence - I went to Haight Ashbury in search of some weed not long ago. I asked some street kids near the park. I was quoted $60 an 8th and they were unwilling to bargain. The quality was low - probably over 100% markup from what they paid. Those kinds of margins were not possible in the Good Old Days glorified in this piece.
Cliffs: don't take the word of street hippies on how great things were in the past.