Economics 101 Tells Us That the War on Drugs is a Complete Failure: Prices Are Going Down, Not Up

Carpe Diem ^ | July 6, 2012 | Mark Perry

[BfloGuy]

From the New York Times article, "Numbers Tell of Failure in Drug War the War on Peaceful Americans Who Voluntary Choose to Use Intoxicants Not Currently Approved of By U.S. Politicians and Government Officials":

"When policy makers in Washington worry about Mexico these days, they think in terms of a handful of numbers: Mexico’s 19,500 hectares devoted to poppy cultivation for heroin; its 17,500 hectares growing cannabis; the 95 percent of American cocaine imports brought by Mexican cartels through Mexico and Central America.

They are thinking about the wrong numbers. If there is one number that embodies the seemingly intractable challenge imposed by the illegal drug trade on the relationship between the United States and Mexico, it is $177.26. That is the retail price, according to Drug Enforcement Administration data, of one gram of pure cocaine from your typical local pusher. That is 74 percent cheaper than it was 30 years ago.

Prices match supply with demand. If the supply of an illicit drug were to fall, say because the Drug Enforcement Administration stopped it from reaching the nation’s shores, we should expect its price to go up.

That is not what happened with cocaine. Despite billions spent on measures from spraying coca fields high in the Andes to jailing local dealers in Miami or Washington, a gram of cocaine cost about 16 percent less last year than it did in 2001. The drop is similar for heroin and methamphetamine.

These numbers contain pretty much all you need to evaluate the Mexican and American governments’ “war” to eradicate illegal drugs from the streets of the United States. They would do well to heed its message. What it says is that the struggle on which they have spent billions of dollars and lost tens of thousands of lives over the last four decades has failed.

Most important, conceived to eradicate the illegal drug market, the war on drugs cannot be won. Once they understand this, the Mexican and American governments may consider refocusing their strategies to take aim at what really matters: the health and security of their citizens, communities and nations."

[MetaThought]

You can’t get high off rice, but people do eat lots of rice right, you might even call them addicted.

Cartels exist because they make large profits from trafficking in substance X. Now, if you can get substance X cheaper/simpler from elsewhere, then there will be no scope for smuggling/trafficking.

It’s irrelevant how many guns they have or how vicious they are. If there’s not a large profit to be made, they don’t really have a reason to exist.

[uncbob]

I don’t use drugs either including the liquid type

Trying to talk sense to way too many on this site is frustrating

They learned NOTHING from PROHIBITION

[MetaThought]

Well, sure. But they don’t usually dismember people to make a point, and they are no doubt better, generally speaking than your average cartel.

Their brand of evil is more subtle.

[OneWingedShark]

I believe “The War on Drugs” to be in reality a war on rights, particularly property and legal rights. Just ask yourself how compromised the 4th amendment has become because of it.

[heye2monn]

soccer games don’t have cigarettes?

[OneWingedShark]

So if you’re not advocating drug usage by legalization exactly what should the stipulations be for purchasing legalized drugs?

Why should there be any? I mean look at Sudaphed, great stuff, but it's legal and "stipulated" ... but all that stipulation means is that you can *never* stock up with it when it's on sale, and that you can't buy bulk "for the year." IE it is only a hassle and a burden.

If someone wants to kill themselves -- mind you most don't really want to kill themselves -- then we cannot keep them from it unless we violate them, forcing them to eat and drink, keeping "dangerous things" out of their reach, and otherwise invalidating them as individuals.

I'm not advocating for the use of drugs; what I am doing is dissenting the government's involvement. It should be friends, family, his church, his doctor... but not "the government." Shirking our fellows into relying on the government is saying, in action not word, "I don't care enough to help you."

[OneWingedShark]

You can’t get high off rice, but people do eat lots of rice right, you might even call them addicted.

Ever have rice wine? Perhaps not 'high' but it alters your mind as much as any other alcohol.

[UCANSEE2]

heroin and cocaine are not for sale at the local convenience store. Heroin and cocaine are not handed out like Slurpees at Seven-Eleven. Heroin and cocaine are not sold like hot dogs at the corner of most streets.

You need to get around more.

[starlifter]

Depends. In California they probably do. :)

[UCANSEE2]

The cartels will always win because they operate globally outside of all laws & we’re trying to fight them from within the confines of a lawful civilization.

Which is why Calderon and Obama folded, and gave deed to Arizona to the Sinaloa Cartel.

[UCANSEE2]

but also believe that far more people would use them if legalized.

Yeah.... I've just been itching to try out 'bath salts'.

[UCANSEE2]

Perhaps not 'high' but it alters your mind as much as any other alcohol.

When we deal with WHY people will do anything to ALTER THEIR MIND, even if it kills them, we can then begin to solve the drug and alcohol addiction.

Until then, it's just a game for the ruling elite to make money.

[heye2monn]

What convenience store have you bought cocaine from?

[fr_freak]

Most folks beleive keeping drugs illegal doesn’t stop anybody from getting them, but also believe that far more people would use them if legalized.

Here's an angle most drug warriors probably haven't thought of: maybe a huge part of the reason that addicts are such a problem is BECAUSE the drugs are illegal. An alcoholic can buy his booze out in the open. and drink out in the open, and be drunk out in the open (at parties and whatnot without the same stigma as being whacked on coke). Therefore it would be much easier to identify the alcoholic's problem, and, perhaps more importantly, it would be easier for the alcoholic to admit to having a problem.

With illegal drugs, however, the user already has to do the drugs in secret, or only among certain people, and may feel afraid to admit he has a problem and ask for help because he'll have the stigma of an illegal drug user (aka scum of the earth, dope-head, criminal, etc.). So the drug user either tries to overcome the addiction on his own, or lets himself be swallowed by the addiction, because the illegality of it forces him into the underground.

[muir_redwoods]

We have to have a war on drugs because we can’t just let people do whatever they want because they might do something I don’t like /sarc

[nathanbedford]

We are are pursuing the war on drugs to its tragic conclusion even to the threshold of destroying the Bill of Rights, thoroughly corrupting the administration of justice, over populating our prisons, destroying huge portions of succeeding generations, mortally threatening respect for the rule of law, breaking families apart, engorging government, depleting the treasury, and actually making addiction to drugs more widespread.

The idea that taking the profit motive out of drug distribution would not put the cartels out of business is absurd. However, to raise the question as you do whether one is willing to accept open distribution, or very open controlled distribution, of extremely dangerous drugs is legitimate because half measures will not prevail over the drug cartels because they will not eliminate the profit motive.

That means that those of us who advocate the legalization of drugs must be courageous enough to advocate the legalization of the most deadly drugs and the most addictive drugs. It does no good to stand for the legalization of pot only. The profit motive must be withdrawn from the trade and that means the profit motive for all drugs. That implies easy access at reasonable prices below prices which are profitable for cartels to operate for adults of extremely dangerous and extremely addictive drugs. There is no way around that.

The situation we have today is similar: we have easy access at reasonable prices (but prices nevertheless inflated because the drug is illegal so the trade is profitable for cartels) by adults or children to extremely dangerous and extremely addictive drugs.

I want the choice. I am a conservative I want the choice vested in me as an individual and not taken away from me and invested in a government. I want the power to choose to be free of drugs and at the same time to be free of the threat of being mugged so that some addict can pay for his habit by robbing me. I want to be free of the threat of home invasion. I want to be able to enjoy free access to the public square. Therefore, I am willing to tolerate others making the wrong choice and addicting themselves because a dangerous, addictive substance is relatively easy and legal to obtain. My belief is that fewer people will make that choice because there is no incentive for addicts to push drugs to fund their own habits. Presumably, addicts will have access to cheap drugs and will have no need to resort to crime or violence to satisfy their habituation. The government chronically makes the wrong choices for us, it deprives us of freedom of choice, it exposes us to violence, it creates a black market and actually supports prices within that market.

I want to end the moral hazard of drug abuse. If an adult citizen of the United States makes a choice to use hazardous drugs let's him alone bear the consequences as much as possible-to the degree that he alone bears the consequences for abusing alcohol. Let not society, by rendering the choice illegal, shift the costs and unanticipated consequences onto those of us who choose not abuse drugs. Let the government stop making me collateral damage in its war on drugs.

The degree to which drugs by their very nature cause collateral damage to family members and other members of society should be reduced because the incidence of drug use falls when there is no financial incentive to push drugs. If not, if the rate of consumption stays the same, we have at least gotten our Bill of Rights back.

[Ken H]

Read this...

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Which section of the Constitution do you believe delegates to Congress the power to regulate intrastate drug policies?

[Ken H]

How much does your department get from fedgov in terms of money and weapons to fight drugs?

[wrencher]

Why is it so hard to make so many “conservatives” see this? Knee jerk reactions. How many people in Mexico must die, how many US people imprisoned and lawyers enriched? What is freedom when the govt. has its tentacles in every bank account, and now all your medical records, monitoring your every movement via cameras, groping you whenever they choose. USA, home of the free? Right......

When will people resist? Certainly not before their TV stops working. Whose fault is it? Most might ask the mirror. For all the anger directed at Obama, the losses have been accumulating for decades now.

[Ken H]

Trying to talk sense to way too many on this site is frustrating

If you really want to get to a prohibitionist, start talking about pension reform and budget cuts and cancelled union contracts.

They understand the bottom line.