• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

When Drugs Are Legal, Gangs Will Diversify

neversickanymore

Moderator: DS
Staff member
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Messages
30,617
When Drugs Are Legal, Gangs Will Diversify
APRIL 4, 2016 2:38 PM EST
Megan McArdle

I’ve long supported drug legalization for many reasons, but like many other advocates, I consider the reduction of violent crime to be the main benefit. Deprived of the ability to enforce contracts through the relatively peaceful legal process used by other markets, black markets are accompanied by high levels of violence: Gangs fight for territory, enforce business agreements and try to defer defections.

The more profitable the black market is, the more incentive there is to use violence to protect your profits, which may be one reason that the introduction of crack cocaine was accompanied by such a huge increase in violent crime. Legalizing drugs cuts into the profits and gives industry players legal means to settle their disputes, so in theory, this should reduce the prevalence, and the brutality, of violent gangs.

But while in theory, theory is the same as practice, in practice, it often isn’t. Will legal marijuana, and the accompanying decline in profits, really mean the demise of the gangs -- particularly the Mexican cartels -- that trade in it?

We seem to have a handy test case: Prohibition. Starting around the end of World War I -- a period that roughly coincides with the Volstead Act -- homicide started to spike in America. Probably some of that was because of the demobilization of large numbers of soldiers at once, rather than the black market in alcohol, but a significant portion of the homicides were driven by gang wars over bootlegging profits. How can we be sure of that? Because right around 1933, when Prohibition was repealed, the homicide rate begins a rapid collapse.

That’s good fodder for today's legalizers. On the other hand, we should be modest about how much the end of Prohibition achieved. Because the Mafia did not simply disappear along with the source of its biggest profits. Instead, like any business, it sat back, took stock, and opened up new lines of business. Labor racketeering, gambling, extortion -- these things might once have been sidelines, but they became the main show.

In other words, policy outcomes have a lot of path dependence. The Mafia was not created by Prohibition; it seems to have been an outgrowth of post-feudal Sicily, and it made its way to America along with Sicilian immigrants. But the advent of Prohibition greatly increased their profits and power, and by the time Prohibition ended, they were far too big and well-organized to simply slip softly and silently away into the night.

Had we never passed the Eighteenth Amendment, the Mafia might have remained a local problem in Italian neighborhoods, and slowly died along with the ethnic enclaves where it had its foothold. But repealing Prohibition was not the same thing as never having had it in the first place. We created a monster, and the monster outlived its initial habitat.

It’s too early yet to know what effect marijuana legalization will have on the gangs that got rich on marijuana prohibition. But given the scale and ferocity of the violence that has convulsed Mexico in recent years, it’s hard to imagine that the gangs will simply fold up if they’re deprived of their revenue. Indeed, they are already moving into other drugs. They may also try to take over currently legal operations, as the Mafia did with many labor unions.

This offers a lesson for policymakers -- and not just those who focus on drug policy. Often in policymaking there are no backsies; undoing some policy mistake gives you very different outcomes from the ones that you would have gotten if you’d never tried it in the first place.

cont http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-04-04/when-drugs-are-legal-gangs-will-diversify
 
Obviously crime isn't just going to up and disappear when prohibition is ended - but drug dealing is an easy and highly profitable route for a criminal enterprise to take, and also creates crime where it otherwise wouldn't exist when many addicts are forced by drug prices to turn to crime to pay for their habit.
 
So what's the point? Because legalizing cannabis and/or other drugs will not solve all world's problems we should not do it? Pathetic.
 
If it's only marijuana that would be legalised in this thought exercise, then I'd assume that many of the cartels/gangs would pay more attention to other drugs. Keep in mind as well that there will be N-1 countries left in the world still demanding illegal marijuana. If other drugs were also legalised in the States, then perhaps Mexico and South America would try to compete more with Asia at heroin, snuff out local meth production around the globe with its lab-grade product, supply the remaining world's demand for illegal cocaine, and so on. Plenty of business to be done still, even if those other countries have to face price hikes due to a change in US policy.

If the hypothetical is pushed to the extreme, where the cartels/gangs could no longer make a worthwhile profit making any drugs to send to anywhere in the world, then I'm guessing that other types of crime would go up, notably kidnappings/ransoms and cyber crime. Weapons smuggling could also increase, and temptations to make deals with global terror networks could rise. As well, consider the effects of US drug legalisation on the Mexican (or Peruvian or Colombian) economies. Would weaker economies lead to more corruption between criminals and politicians, possibly seeing criminal influence over other more legitimate business sectors increase? Point being, any major moves toward drug legalisation in the USA should be accompanied with plans to help these other countries stimulate their economies so that more people can find entry-level work in legit sectors, in turn less people being lured into crime to feed their families, should the replacement crimes come with more danger.

But ya, the whole argument of "legalising drugs will stop the cartel violence" is very naive. Money and power blow heroin and cocaine out of the water, and do addicts of the latter just walk away if their supply is temporarily cut off?

Still though, and in contrast to the author's early point, correcting the human rights violation that is telling a person what he can or cannot do to his own body should trump any concern about public safety abroad. If Mexican gangsters want to kill one another over whatever the replacement crime is, then Mexico can, you know, arrest them for murder. But stopping the prosecution of victim-less crimes in America should be the top priority.
 
Last edited:
There will always be a blackmarket for drugs. There is more than likely going to be lots of regulation on purchase, transport, or possession of cannabis. The cartels will step up and fill those roles.
 
When Drugs Are Legal, Gangs Will Diversify
APRIL 4, 2016 2:38 PM EST
Megan McArdle

...

The more profitable the black market is, the more incentive there is to use violence to protect your profits...

that would be because cops won't help drug dealers, but everyone who lives a normal legal life pays taxes to police expecting the very same type of violent protection.
 
Obviously crime isn't just going to up and disappear when prohibition is ended - but drug dealing is an easy and highly profitable route for a criminal enterprise to take, and also creates crime where it otherwise wouldn't exist when many addicts are forced by drug prices to turn to crime to pay for their habit.

... and the removal of criminal penalties from drug users significantly decrease overdose deaths. Without the fear of prosecution addicts seek treatment when necessary. Legalization has similar public health benefits as decriminalization. Decriminalization in Portugal has improved peoples' lives.
 
Yeah the cartels have business ventures which are independent of the drug trade (prostitution, car theft, extortion etc). They would undoubtedly lose some clout and power if significant change were to take place in regards to drug law, though.

IMO the Mafia (and by that I'm referring to the Italian/Sicilian Mafia that the author refers to...there were also other ethnic "mafias" which operated during Prohibition, like Irish and Jewish crime syndicates, but they eventually got muscled out of New York as the Italians gained more power) obtained most of its power through vice...prostitution, gambling, the trafficking of heroin (which the Mafia was involved in since its infancy, aided by Lucky Luciano's connections in France and Corsica where morphine base was processed into heroin before hitting American shores) etc. Basically, the shit people want but yet aren't comfortable with it being legal...organized crime thrives in such an environment. There were some other activities the Mafia was involved in like strong-arm robberies/hijackings and extortion etc. but its real power was in the peddling of vice and corruption IMO, and changes in legislation would have definitely undermined that somewhat.

The influence of the Mafia on labor (mentioned by the author) is actually an interesting issue, and seemed to coincide with the overall, gradual decline in the collective bargaining power of American labor post-WW2. Mostly it was an effort by the Mafia to defraud pension funds.

But, to summarize my opinion simply: would legalizing drugs make the criminal element involved in drug trafficking organizations completely vanish? No. Would it undermine and weaken those organizations? Yes.
 
Top