When I was in Iraq and there was a surge of violence in a city, we imposed a greater exertion of martial law. If Chicago is really as dangerous as they say, and it is such a dire emergency, I wonder why this is not considered. The city is full rabble-rousers, nogoodniks, and malefactors. A good solid month of Chicago PD backed up by SWAT doing clear and hold operations in the projects should go a long way towards imposing some civility upon any ragamuffins or scrappers desiring a donnybrook.

Or we can assume that gun control prevents crime and retest the evidence. I would love to see a city assume that criminal control prevents crime.

Joe,

There is one minor flaw (well a couple actually). Absent Marshall Law and suspension of civil liberties forever this will not work.

Because: tada - prohibition finances new entrants to the malefactor class as soon as the previous members of the class are removed. Strange that many on the right fail to believe in profit as a powerful motivator.

Elliot Ness did not clean up massive gang violence in Chicago. Ending prohibition did. i.e. reducing profit to normal levels and making it legal so disputes can be settled in courts.

Of course we have this whole mythology about how drugs work so doing anything rational is impossible.

Yes, drugs make people stupid. You don't even have to use them to get the effect. Just say the word. That is how powerful they are.

How about enforcing the law, making these drug dealers do mandatory time. Say 5 to 10 years for anybody caught with unprescribed opiates? Add on 5 years for drug dealers with a gun. No breaks unless the police get some great intel from the drug dealer. It isn't the cops or the penal system that screwed these peoples lives up it was them, themselves. These people had a choice wether or not to deal drugs, they choose the wrong path.

Ending prohibition did not clean up Chicago, the gangsters just moved on to something else i.e. prostitution, drugs, unions, gambling, protection. No matter whether it is legal or illegal. If the gangsters can make money off of it they will, and the gangster will protect his turf by any means necessary.

John,

True. But the murder rate did drop in half.

And you know it seems like organized crime likes to concentrate where there is a willing buyer and seller. No complaining victims. More profitable than stealing or extortion even.

The other problem with just rounding up criminals is that as long as you have a market incentive they will be quickly replaced. You must be one of those citizens who believes that economics doesn't apply to the drug trade. Interesting. There seems to be a lot of them.

So let me ask a question: we have had heroin prohibition since 1914. How is it going?

Ever notice the drug war on the South Side of the Mexican border? What happens when it moves north?

I think it is really stupid to provide price supports for criminals. However, there seems to be a lot of Americans in love with socialism.

I'm not one of them.

We have been tightening the screws on drug criminals with ever more draconian sentences since 1914. All I can see from that is that it has made the criminals more violent. A feature not a bug.

Schizophrenia and Tobacco

Tobacco is an anti-depressant and a favorite of schizophrenics.

Addiction to tobacco is not too different than the addiction of some to injected insulin.

i.e. is it really an addiction if you need it?

You really need to re-educate yourself re: your beliefs about drugs.

Here is how it works in America. The rich go to a doctor to get drugs with a certain effect. The poor buy from the gypsy drug store.

Class War

Treatment vs Recreation

Round Pegs In Round Holes

Our drug war is really a class war. The rich against the poor.

FWIW I'm a Republican. I know. It goes against the grain.

However, our drug war is unadulterated socialism. Price supports for criminals.

Drug War History

Mr. Simon,

The biggest difference between illegal and legal drugs is a doctor. Illegal drugs know no class system, the rich, middle class and the poor use drugs, it is just a matter of the quality of the drugs. Look at the use of anabolic steroids in the Major Leagues and the NFL. Most doctors will not write script for anyone who is faking the injury. None of the drug dealers give a damn.

I agree that cigarettes are taxed way to much. Maybe there should be a medical insurance for specific needs, like maybe a type of insurance for those with a genetic predisposition for certain illnesses? Say a type of insurance for schizophrenics that include a prescription service for cigarettes and maybe nothing for sex changes or unnecessary plastic surgery. Maybe make health insurance a laundry list type of thing for all, and of course make it a free market exercise, not a government exercise.

I'm very happy that drug companies are designing safer drugs for those who wish to feel better, that is what psychiatrists are for. I believe that some on illegal drugs are looking for the quick fix and not long term answers. For others, it is a type of pure pressure or a type of defiance.

Illegal drugs are illegal for a reason, they have some very bad side effects. With the exception of Marijuana and some other drugs, it is easy to see why the meth and cocaine manufacturers and the sellers are rightly in jail.

I think that maybe we should agree to disagree rather than calling those that do not agree with your views stupid or socialists.

John,

Illegal drugs are illegal not because they are nasty but because they can be used as a tool to punish minority populations.

Read the drug war history link. It starts back in 1875 where smoked opium was outlawed in San Francisco. Why smoked opium? Because it was smoked by Chinese. Why not tincture of opium? White women drank it. Every single drug law we have is historically tied to racism.

In other words you have been monumentally duped.

Read the history - it is a good read and will take 20 to 40 minutes. You will get something priceless out of that. An education.

John,

If price supports aren't socialist then tell me what they are?

If price supports for criminals are not the worst sort of socialism (next to mass murder) then what is?

I serve Naked Lunch here.

I'm sorry if a clear look at what you believe makes you uncomfortable. Maybe it is an indication that you are ready for change.

Simon,

I neither mentioned nor alluded to drug use, drug laws, or druggies. I was speaking to crime, which makes up a much larger set of debauchery than just drug use. I was also not recommending permanent martial law - just a month or so of it, modeled after the response to the LA riots or similar efforts to squash city-wide shenanigans.

Mayor Daley of Chicago and a police Chief in CT say that prohibition fuels 85% of the crime in their cities. BTW after Daley said that he has been silent on the matter. He couldn't get any traction.

So you clear out the criminals and in two months the criminal networks will be re-established. Why? Because it is profitable.

The FBI did a gang clearance in my city 20 years ago. The murder rate spiked. It was so unpopular they haven't done anything like it since.

Note: the FBI predicted the murder rate would spike as new gangs established their territories.

You might like to see what some law enforcement guys have to say:

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

In any case it doesn't matter. When the violence gets bad enough and starts affecting where white people hang out we will get smart. No need to give up your attitudes for now. As long as it is just blacks getting offed no one gives a damn.

Mr. Simon,

It doesn't make me uncomfortable to try to understand where exactly you are coming from.

First how do you figure that there are price controls on illegal drugs? If pusher number one is selling descent crack for ten bucks a hit, and pusher number two is selling okay crack for five bucks a hit, then it is quantity vs. quality. There is no union for drug dealers. If someone buys a kilo of cocaine for 800 bucks, (sorry I don't know what a kilo goes for on the open market.) the dealer then figures out how much profit he can make off of it after his expenses, after he cuts it with whatever he uses to cut it with i.e. baking soda, lactose, even Meth. It even depends where a person lives, if in Texas, cocaine is cheaper than if bought in Iowa due to the distance from the border. If the government bought illegal drugs for more then there value, well, that's news to me.

Price controls are a bad way of doing business, it didn't work in WWII and it doesn't work in Zimbabwe today.
It's all supply and demand, the more it is demanded by the masses, the more it is supplied by the cartels. However, the less it is needed the more the cartels send to other countries.

Please explain to me how the government is issuing price controls or price supports on illegal drugs?

Simon,

If we end the drug war, do you think these gang members and criminals will suddenly become law abiding citizens?

I agree that we should end the drug war. I do not believe that it will stop current drug-related criminals from committing future crimes. They are not criminals simply due to a market distortion. They are criminals because they don't care about society. They care about whatever they can extract from it. If gangs cannot fund themselves with drugs, then they will compensate with more gun running, more burglaries, and more carjackings.

I don't doubt for a moment that prohibition fuels 85% of crime. I also agree that we should end that prohibition. But I also recognize that removing that prohibition will simply cause the criminals to seek new fuel for their crimes. How about we end prohibition and continue to throw criminals behind bars?

Joe,

Look at what happened after alcohol prohibition ended. With profits way down for criminal enterprises most people eventually left the field. Some right away. Then there was a longer tail.

If you can't make a living selling buggy whips you find something else to do.

When washing dishes becomes more profitable than crime people wash dishes.

I don't understand why so many people think that market forces don't apply to crime and criminal enterprises. It wonders me.

Here is a nice article on Demographics. It pretty much explains rap music and the destruction of the lower class black family. It even explains why blacks are in a rage about America. Obama is a result of our stupid policies. Wright is a result. Malcolm X was a result. The Nation of Islam is a result. All self inflicted wounds. We will be many generations recovering.

Simon,

"I don't understand why so many people think that market forces don't apply to crime and criminal enterprises."
I’m in absolute agreement with you regarding the relevance of market forces.

You wrote: "If you can't make a living selling buggy whips you find something else to do."
I wrote: "If gangs cannot fund themselves with drugs, then they will compensate with more gun running, more burglaries, and more carjackings."

Those seem like two versions of the same statement. We agree that market forces are relevant.

I just don’t see market forces playing out in the same way that you do. The reason for this is that I also recognize the relevance of social forces. Gangs are defined by their rejection of society and their opposition to the prevailing authority. They will definitely be guided by market forces: black market forces. Gangs that draw their credibility by operating outside of the larger society's norms are not going to make a dramatic shift to legitimate enterprises. They're more likely to shift into niches where their skills and experience are more relevant: gun-running, carjacking, burglaries. Ending a drug prohibition will cause a change in crime, not a significant long-term reduction in it.

My desire to end the drug probition is rooted not in a rosy forecast of what impact it will have on crime, but simply upon the notion that it makes no sense. I have no expectation of drug pushers deciding, "Geeze, the party's over. No more fat profits from drugs. I guess I'll go back to work at Hardees." They're more likely to decide, "Snap! No more drug money! We better start selling gats!"

The section in Freakonomics about drug dealers gave a good overview of the impact of social networks upon drug dealers. Most drug dealers don't make much money and have a significant chance of dying. All of the money is made by the upper tier. But they keep on dealing for the hope of reaching that upper crust. Those social networks are not likely to whither away because their primary merchandise gets devalued and profits dip. They will simply start pushing a new product line, such as guns, stolen cars, car parts, and stolen merchandise.

On a similar note, I do regard the change in crime as a good thing. Stolen merchandise and illegal weapons are easier to police. Drugs get consumed, destroying the evidence. Guns are durable items that are more difficult to conceal and easier to find. Hopefully the change in crime will be accompanied by more successful policing actions to combat it.

Joe,

Yes they will turn to carjackings initially and other such crimes. The thing about carjackings is that you have complaining witnesses. As you point out.

What you want to do is to make them turn to crimes where some one will complain. Again you nailed that one.

We have really created a huge mess that is going to take a long time to fully unravel.

With alcohol prohibition it took about 30 to 40 years to fully straighten things out. And as you pointed out initially things got worse.

And you know who is responsible for this whole mess (the second wave of organized crime after prohibition)? Nixon who ramped up the drug war as a means to fight his political enemies on the left.

Worst President ever.

Of course the American people were/are too dumb to learn from history so they bear a lot of the blame as well. Let me add in all the leftys who have remained silent.

The best thinking on this subject still comes from the right. Because leftys don't get economics.

I dropped in on some lefty "socially conscious" sites who are anti-Obama and mentioned ending the drug war as a fix for many of the social problems they scream about and you know what I have gotten in return? Silence.