From: backpack@access.digex.com (Stuart Reges)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Crime and drug legalization
Date: 1 Sep 92 04:38:01 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, Maryland USA

fisherm@infonode.ingr.com (Matthew Fisher) writes:

>    I have a question for the Libertarians.
>
> [stuff about discussing the LA riots and drug legalization with a friend]
>
>    He claims that crime will not decrease but will simply shift
>in focus.  Crime would shift from drugs to gambling, prostitution or some
>new field.  He claims that the people who are in the drug trade are criminals
>to the bone and will seek a new field if the drug trade become unprofitable. 

The obvious quick answer is that professional criminals have a great future in
government and politics.  Seriously, though, I don't think this argument is
difficult to counter.  I've heard it claimed that the mafia didn't get a
foothold in this country until Prohibition (although I've never seen anyone
cite a source to back up that claim).  In any event, it's clear that the
current drug trade has produced a large number of viscious criminals.  Those
people will not immediately disappear or become kinder and gentler as a result
of legalization.  But it's unlikely that we would continue to produce such
criminals without the drug trade.  This was observed after Prohibition ended.
The murder rate didn't go down immediately, but it did go down gradually over
time as that generation of criminals died out (because there wasn't anything
comparable to replace it--until we decided to declare war on drugs).  Those
people did go into prostitution, gambling and other ventures (doesn't the mob
control the garbage industry in NY?), but those activities just didn't produce
the multitude of viscious street criminals we saw during Prohibition and that
we see today.

Here's a quick analogy.  Suppose you run a sprocket factory and notice that the
assembly line has some problem with it such that about every 1000th sprocket
comes out horribly deformed, so deformed that it can't be repaired.  If you
know how to fix the problem, should you?  Your friend's argument seems to be,
"No, because the damaged sprockets are beyond repair."  The obvious retort is,
"Yes, but what about the sprockets we make in the future?"

Here's one last approach using economics.  It's simple supply and demand.  The
drug dealers won't find an illegal activity to replace the $50 billion per year
drug trade that isn't already being exploited (although they might muscle into
other gangsters' existing operations like gambling and prostitution and might
find some minor ventures to pursue).  As a result, criminals' salaries will
take a nosedive and gang leaders will institute a hiring freeze.  Thus, a
sudden reduction in the demand for viscious criminals will not immediately
reduce the supply, but that surplus will eventually disappear because the
market is self-correcting.

>    This is an interesting arguement.  I was unable to refute this arguement.

I hope some of my arguments prove useful.  As an aside, the usual drug warrior
argument I've heard about drugs and crime is quite different.  They claim that
drugs CAUSE crime, meaning that if you increase the availability/use of drugs,
you will increase the number of criminals (whether they're highly paid or not).
I've heard this argument in several forms.  "Studies show that n percent of
people arrested for violent crimes (for some sufficiently large value of n)
test positive for drug use, which proves that drugs increase violent crime."
Or, "Drug experts tell us, and the experience of street cops confirms this,
that certain people become hysterically violent when they use [crack, ice,
meth, PCP, prohibitol, mother's milk, etc.]."

I actually find this a more difficult argument to counter.  Because this wasn't
the subject of the original post, I won't go into detail, but I'll quickly say
that I usually argue that the facts don't support such conclusions.  I'm sure
that a disproportionate number of criminals smoke tobacco and have tattoos, but
I don't believe that smoking and tattoos cause people to become criminals.
Similarly, if we're going to outlaw drugs that cause people to become violent,
we should outlaw alcohol along with the other "violent" drugs and legalize the
"peaceful" (loving?)  drugs like marijuana, shrooms, LSD, ecstasy, MDA, etc.
Can't you see it now?  The Partnership for a VIOLENT-Drug Free America does a
commercial showing the violent, antisocial behavior of misfits who smoke crack,
shoot up heroin, or drink alcohol, and then they show the happy, loving
behavior of those who smoke pot, drop acid, and rave on ecstasy.

>What is the Libertarian answer to long term crime in the inner cities?

I actually think this is a different question.  Short term the answer is to end
persecution of noncriminals by legalizing drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc.,
which will reduce the financial burden of such campaigns and allow the police
to focus on true crimes like rape, murder and robbery.  I can't believe that
anyone in the inner city thinks it's a good thing that violent criminals are
being released early because they aren't subject to mandatory minimums while
people like UVA student Jamie Graham are spending 13 months in prison for
selling 2 hits of acid to an undercover cop (yes, that was his only crime--but
he did it in his fraternity room, which happened to be within 1000 feet of a
high school).  Long term, the answer to inner city crime is the creation of
economic opportunity.  People prefer to do honest work, but if there is no work
or if crime is highly lucrative, they're likely to turn to it instead.

Of course, many will argue that the free market produces great disparity of
wealth, which just exacerbates the problems of the inner city.  I sort of agree
with this myself (although I have a fix that I think is mostly compatible with
libertarian philosophy), but that's the subject of a different debate...

+---------------+------------------------------------------------------------+
|               | Stuart Reges (guest aRreSt?) backpack@access.digex.com     |
|               |                                                            |
|  b      p     | Glimpses do ye seem to see of that mortally intolerable    |
|   a      a    | truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid |
|    c      c   | effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her    |
|     k      k  | sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire  |
|               | to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore?             |
|               | --Herman Melville, Moby Dick                               |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.drugs:15183 soc.culture.usa:6995 talk.politics.drugs:6029