Prohibition causes huge profit margins for dealers cause turf wars cause violence causes public concern causes calls to “do something” cause gun control. If you’re for prohibition, you are for gun control. That’s irrespective of the substance to be prohibited.
I posted that on Facebook yesterday, in response to one of my FB friends posting about the pot legalization law in Colorado. I want to expand on that statement a little, even though in its current form it’s pretty much distilled down into the TL;DR form already.
Prohibition of a desired substance or item always causes a black market, unless you have police powers and social controls similar to the German occupation forces in WWII Eastern Europe. (And the fact that even the Nazis were never able to fully suppress the black market for cigarettes and butter despite death penalties for “economic parasites” just shows how nigh-impossible it is to kill that sort of entrepreneurship.) The reason is simple: government prohibition of a desired good makes that good artificially expensive, and all the profits go to those willing to risk bucking the system. As the Prohibition was an effective price control and profit guarantee for bootleggers, hooch runners, and speakeasies, the current War on Some Drugs serves in the same fashion for pot growers, cocaine smugglers, and meth cooks. The risks are high, but when you pass a law that effectively puts a 10,000% profit margin on a simple plant product, you will always have plenty of people taking the risks involved in its manufacture and distribution. That’s a simple economic fact, and working against it is as pointless as working against gravity.
(It may not seem obvious from the position of a reasonably prosperous American suburbanite, but imagine I put an ad on Craigslist and offer twenty times the average annual U.S. salary to volunteers willing to smuggle twenty pounds of banned Earl Grey tea into a foreign country. How many takers do you think I would get per week? Answer that question to yourself, and you’ll realize why it’s utterly pointless when the DEA busts some scraggly smuggler at the border crossing with a few pounds of Colombian marching powder sewn into his car seat.)
Because people can make astronomical profits serving the market for the prohibited goods, turf wars between the suppliers are also inevitable. And because they’re all operating in an extralegal space already, they solve their competition issues in an extralegal way—gang violence. Prohibitions drive up the crime statistics directly (turf warfare between the gangs and syndicates involved), and indirectly (the ancillary crime related to the customers of those syndicates having to finance their purchases via property crime). Sooner or later, the public violence gets to a point where Joe and Jane Q. Public want Something To Be Done, and that something is often a push for arms control. The Prohibition violence brought us NFA ‘34, banning what were perceived the typical tools of the trade of gangsters: short-barreled shotguns and automatic weapons. (Machine guns got slapped with a tax rather than banned outright, but a $200 tax stamp on a gun retailing for less than half that in a time where the average annual wage is $1,300 is effectively a ban.) The 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill was a result of the drug wars of the 1980s and 1990s (and Joe and Jane Q. Public watching Miami Vice as a documentary). And that stuff is a mere inconvenience compared to the awful excesses of asset forfeiture laws, which have given police departments all over the country a financial incentive to outright steal property from citizens without the inconvenience of having to prove that a crime occurred.
It’s interesting how the same people who scoff at the notion that criminals won’t use guns if they’re banned can simultaneously hold the opinion that people will stop using or trading in drugs when they’re banned. They’ll use the same arguments the gun control crowd makes in favor of gun bans: at least it’ll be more difficult to get them, we can just come up with really draconian punishments for offenders, and doing nothing will make things worse. If that logic doesn’t apply to guns, why should it apply to drugs—which are easier to make and smuggle, and carry much higher profit margins? The rules of the market are what they are, and they don’t bend around a pet cause. And what if that “doing something” is in fact far worse than doing nothing? Gun control is unilateral disarmament of the law-abiding citizen in favor of the criminal. Drug prohibition is government-enforced price control for drug cartels, and a universal adaptor for an overreaching police state. Both cures are far more poisonous to the host than the problems they mean to fix. And the kicker is that support for the latter invariably results in getting more of the former.
OT. The postcard writing post has very interesting, but did not seem to illicit nearly as much replies.
I have to weigh in with anti-pot side here. A lot of questions are raised with weak answers from the pro-pot side. We already have 2 major legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco) and a host of social and medical problems stemming from them. More importantly, increasing regulations and restrictions on their sale, use, distribution and advertising. The current price point is such that for the “restrictionists” the social costs outweigh any profit the government may obtain. So I am curious as to what “price point” pot advocates feel would eliminate the contraband market? Five bucks a joint? Two bucks? At the lower price point, would government taxation revenue be sufficient to outweigh the inevitable social costs? (there would have to be taxation and regulation just as there is for the existing 2 drugs), Unless of course the claim is that there will be no social costs whatsoever (which is pure B.S). Moreover, you’re still going to have all of the enforcement costs related to DUI and underage use. Also if the legal product is say 5% THC, how long is it going to take the new class of “bootleggers” to come up with the 10, 15, 20% joints? Then what’s the plan? The active ingredients of tobacco is nicotine which is toxic, so there is no demand for super high nicotine cigarettes. As for alcohol, well you can’t really even drink 96% alcohol (the practical limit of distillation – and we already have 40-50% routinely available). But as the pro-pot lobby keeps telling us, THC is relatively non toxic so the euphoric effect can be easily increased by upping the THC content. Would the pro-pot lobby (for lack of a better term) accept super high THC joints from non-regulated sources?
Given that we have 2 drugs and a lot of problems stemming from their use, I’m not convinced the magic solution is to legalize yet another drug. So, the Netherlands has pot houses, but they also have severe gun restrictions (so how do you reconcile the drug liberalism and the weapons prohibition, hey Marko?) and probably the highest general taxation rate in the EU. Portugal has decriminalized drugs but also has a moribund economy. Canada has a federal pot program providing medical use marijuana for about $5 a gram and users say it’s still too expensive and weak (so most continue to buy from illegal sources).
The CDC claims $97 billion in costs stemming from tobacco use (the non-impairment drug) and $224 billion from alcohol abuse (the impairment drug). Now the plan is to bring in a new drug with pretty much all of the impairment problems of alcohol and the health effects of tobacco. But don’t worry, according to the magic plan the “potters” have, it will be all rainbows and unicorns.
The Libertarian logic seems to be if people want to do something, it should be legal to do it. I can use my gun to defend my life, there is no right more fundamental. Drug use is a net loss to society, legal or not. Nobody “needs” recreational drugs to survive.Those of you have seen friends and family member destroy their lives through drug abuse will understand what I am saying.
There are other costs also such as people stealing to get money to buy drugs. That will occur whether drugs are legal or not. Drug users can end up on Welfare and cause significant losses to economic productivity. We will not be getting rid of the Welfare State soon, that is a political reality. Therefore, the general public as an interest in minimizing the costs of drug use. There is no victimless crime here.
Criminality related to drugs will not disappear if they are made legal. Hard core street drugs won’t be legal, it won’t be legal to sell pot or anything else to minors. Driving under the influence will still be a crime. The social costs don’t go away because a substance is “legal”. Our experience with alcohol abuse tells us that.
Finally, legalization would culminate with massive class action lawsuits against the recreational drug industry. The lawyers will wait until the industry is generating billions, then mysteriously there will be all of these studies coming out about how bad drugs are for people. Public opinion will change. Parents with young children will line up to have the dispensaries removed from their neighborhoods.
Like much of the Libertarian agenda, drug legalization is a fantasy that will not produce the results they are claiming it will.
“Drug use is a net loss to society, legal or not. Nobody “needs” recreational drugs to survive.Those of you have seen friends and family member destroy their lives through drug abuse will understand what I am saying. ”
Beer use is a net loss to society, legal or not. Nobody “needs” beer to survive.Those of you have seen friends and family member destroy their lives through alcoholism will understand what I am saying.
“There are other costs also such as people stealing to get money to buy drugs. That will occur whether drugs are legal or not. Drug users can end up on Welfare and cause significant losses to economic productivity. We will not be getting rid of the Welfare State soon, that is a political reality. Therefore, the general public as an interest in minimizing the costs of drug use. There is no victimless crime here.
Criminality related to drugs will not disappear if they are made legal. Hard core street drugs won’t be legal, it won’t be legal to sell pot or anything else to minors. Driving under the influence will still be a crime. The social costs don’t go away because a substance is “legal”. Our experience with alcohol abuse tells us that. ”
This is foolish.
Yes, there are costs such as people stealing to buy drugs. This will happen if drugs are legal or not. But the PRICE of drugs will be lower. This suggests less stealing. Also the product people crave won’t be criminal to begin with, so they will not already be on that side of the fence.
Society has an interest in minimizing the costs of drug use, but banning them does not minimize these costs – rather it maximizes them by creating a ridiculously lucrative black market backed by violent criminals. This is a very high cost. This will likely be reduced if the market collapses.
Saying “X” won’t go away is a shallow argument. The legalization position claims that X will be reduced. Your own word, “minimizing”, inherently implies a continuous scale, not a binary one.
The social costs don’t go away because a substance is illegal either. Clearly the violent black market is VERY HIGH COST caused by prohibition, both to its victims and to the taxpayers who have to support the medical care of the victims and the outrageously expensive and ineffective war on drugs.
Marko, thanks for a breath of sanity in the face of all the anger and madness. I knew better than to read all the comments, but did anyway.
I haven’t been touring this particular blog ring in awhile, and stepping into the choir briefly doesn’t solve problems, but it does feel good for a few minutes.
Cheers,
-E
Welll now munchkin, that black piece of shit in the white house is due out any moment now with unfavourable gun legislation. Do you hate negroes more than unfavourable and unconstitutional legislation?
If you are goin g to polish turd kid, you may as well do a good job of it…
Rusty,
you are a vile douchebag. When you finally croak (and that day really can’t come soon enough as far as I’m concerned), they’ll cut you open and find that you’re nothing but bile-soaked ignorance inside.
I don’t have to give people like you a forum. Go shit on someone else’s virtual coffee table. As of right now, you are banned from commenting. You have the distinction of being the first person to achieve that status here.
This is as kindly as I can say it: fuck off and die, preferably in a fire.
That is why I advocate focusing our resources on whackos who try to acquire Sarin and the like, instead of spending billions on arresting and warehousing harmless potheads.
Black market items, like machine guns, only appear to be cheaper than their legal counterparts because they are not completely prohibited, they can still be purchased with a massive sin tax that artificially inflates the price to above-black-market levels. Marko’s argument is valid: A black-market machine gun costs more than a free-market machine gun would, but less than a prohibition-taxed legal one does.
Regarding the enticement of prohibited goods, I believe none of us are users of illegal substances because we’re not “rebels”. Consider underage drinking or smoking. It’s prohibited, and oh-so-cool and edgy. And no, drug users would not stop if it were legal tomorrow, because they either tried it and found they genuinely liked it (just like people didn’t stop drinking after the Prohibition) or (in the case of harder, more addictive drugs) because they are genuinely addicted.
Finally, I’d like to address illegal substances. I believe that the intended (likely) use matters. I can think of precious few legal applications for Sarin. Frankly, I don’t insist that ALL controlled substances be made over-the-counter legal tomorrow, but definitely the ones that are harmless (except possibly for the user) and cost everyone precious civil rights and untold billions to futilely attempt to control.
It isn’t hard to make a nerve agent, but sane people don’t make things that are intentionally dangerous, nor buy them on the open market. No supermarket will stock sarin, there is no demand. Clearly market forces dictate that Sarin would be cost prohibitive for everyone, and not readily available everywhere. Kinda like 470 Nitro Express ammunition, perfectly legal pretty much everywhere, yet hideously expensive due to very low demand.
Someone who is crazy enough to acquire Sarin to use, is not going to be deterred by an artificial ban by a legal entity. See the Tokyo sarin attacks as proof of this.
It’s simple really…but oh so complicated.
True freedom means having the right to do whatever one pleases so long as it doesn’t infringe the freedom of someone else, no exceptions. So, we just have to define “infringe”.
Staghounds:
there are (almost) always exceptions to the rules. Concentrating on those to support your argument is a weak response.
I have to laugh at those who claim that pot causes people to become dumb, worthless citizens. Silicon Valley puts the lie to that position. A LOT of the creative people here use it, and the claim has been made that this place never would have become what it is without the use of it.
(Stuff gives me a headache from smelling it nearly as bad as cigarettes do, unfortunately)
Marko started by contending that prohibition raises prices.
“The risks are high, but when you pass a law that effectively puts a 10,000% profit margin on a simple plant product, you will always have plenty of people taking the risks involved in its manufacture and distribution. That’s a simple economic fact, and working against it is as pointless as working against gravity. ”
What I was pointing out is that on the contrary, prohibited items often cost LESS on the inevitable black market, and gave some examples of things that do. Stolen goods and unregistered machine guns are made CHEAPER by their prohibition.
As is employment of illegal aliens.
And I have to say that prohibition causes use is a weak argument. I do not believe that a legal prohibition is the MAIN motivator in causing ordinary, sensible adults to do things. I gave some personal examples. Seriously, commenters, what non drug activity do you personally spend money to do not that happens to be illegal, but BECAUSE it’s illegal?
If it were made legal tomorrow, would you stop?
And I’m not a “drug prohibitionist”. I use aspirin and antibiotics and nitrous oxide at the dentist.
As usual, the goal posts get moved. If you contend that “prohibition of any commodity is always wrong”, then nuclear, poisonous, explosive, and contagious things are commodities too.
If you don’t like nuclear, then how about Sarin? Pondimin? Thalidomide? PCP? They are all just chemicals.
SOMETHING is going to be generally prohibited in any society. Maybe marijuana shouldn’t be, maybe driving without a license shouldn’t be, but again, that’s a balancing argument not an absolute question.
And I agree that currently, the loss of rights we all face is way worse than the social costs of marijuana. And that most rights-eroding law comes from drug cases, as it did from liquor cases a century ago.
I recognise the link between drug profits and corpses in the street and anti gun agitation. No doubt of that, never has been.
I doubt that legalizing marijuana, or every other drug, would reverse that loss of rights or even slow it down.
Illegal things that cost less than their restricted counterparts are often substitute goods. There’s a decent wiki entry on such. Hiring a hooker as opposed to dating is an example.
An ounce of marijuana is much more than its free market price would be, so Marko’s position holds.
A legal machinegun is much more expensive than an illegal one because it doesn’t carry the massive risk of arrest and incarceration. For some the risk doesn’t factor in, so why bother going legal? Because the supply of legal machineguns is fixed, and the demand is slowly growing, prices are going up as they get ever more expensive some people become willing to substitute the illegal examples to feed their demand. The counterintuitive thing to note is that legal and illegal guns are not fungible to each other and really do need to be considered as similar but distinct goods.
Econ 101 really.
Excellent. You hit it. I was trying to figure out what the difference between marijuana and machine guns was from an economic perspective. And the answer is: “There exists a legal (but extremely limited) supply of machine guns. There is no similar supply of marijuana.”
Machine guns produced in a free environment (standard rates of mass production applying) are far more analogous to marijuana grown in a free environment than the current situation. Yes, legal machine guns are more expensive than black market machine guns, but there’s minimal evidence to demonstrate that the current price of black market machine guns is less than what legal machine guns would be priced at on an open market.
Likewise, even if it were the case, there’s a fundamental difference between marijuana and machine guns: Machine guns require human creation, whereas marijuana is literally a weed which will grow even without human cultivation, let alone significant effort and investment. Mac-10s don’t grow on trees.