Drug Violence in Mexico - Essay Example

15th April Jeffery Miron (2009), an economist, claims that ‘over the past few years, drug violence in Mexico has become a fixture of the daily news, in which thousands have lost their lives to this ‘’war on drugs’’’. He claims Mexico and US responses to the violence (i.e. more troops, police and increased boarder control) are ineffective at dealing with the ‘drug issue’ because drug prohibition is the cause of the violence, e.g. it drives the drug market underground. ‘This means buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration or advertising, so they resort to violence instead’ (Miron, 2009). This led Miron to controversially conclude ‘the only way to reduce violence is to legalize drugs’. I aim to discuss arguments supporting the controlled legalization drugs. ‘The legalization of drugs would massively reduce organized crime’ (Micklethwart, 1994). Legalization wouldn’t mean the existing ‘evil drug pushers’ controlling the market. Instead, official legal businesses (e.g. cigarette companies) would take control of the drug industry. ‘The number of drug related murders would fall because turf battles would be settled by law instead of gun fire and corruption/blackmail/bribes by drug dealers to judges, government officials and the police, etc would diminish’ (Micklethwart, 1994). Cussen and Block (2000) also claim that the price of drugs could fall if they are made legal due to increased competition amongst drug companies, which could reduce theft, and murder rates among addicts in order to get their next ‘fix’ because they wouldn’t need as much money to afford them. The increased availability of drugs could therefore decrease drug-related crime. Drug revenues of cartels (often international organisations which support terrorism and add to violent crime) could also diminish due to drug revenues being increasingly distributed by free-market forces (Cussen and Block, 2000). On the whole, crime figures would reduce dramatically as formerly illegal activities become ‘socially approved business transactions (Cussen and Block, 2000: 528). The case of alcohol prohibition in the 1920’s provides an interesting comparison in which high crime rates of alcohol sold on the black market led o the formation of major crime rings. However, when prohibition ended, alcohol related crime decreased. The same scenario could happen if drugs were legalized too. The legalization of drugs could also stop the ‘potency effect’, which is best summarized with the example of prohibition. During this time, the sellers would sell alcohol with higher alcoholic concentrations (higher potency) because ‘hard liquors’ had greater value (per unit of volume) (Cussen and Block, 2000). This resulted in people drinking alcohol with higher concentrations such as vodka, which, when drunk excessively is more dangerous than beer and wine. The same ‘potency effect’ can also be applied to today’s drug trade, in which dealers carry more potent drugs (which are also the most dangerous to consume, e.g. cocaine) due to their greater monetary value. I believe the ‘potent effect’ of drugs could be reduced is they were legalized. A legalized drug trade could also save taxpayers money. For example, in the UK, drug related crime costs the state department ?16 billion a year. Easton (2009) estimated that a regulated drug market for cocaine and heroin would see ?7 billion worth of savings due to savings in the cost of drug crime. ‘Jails are also often overcrowded and large amounts of tax payers dollars are being spent on enforcement efforts that only aggravate the problem’ (Cussen and Block, 2000: 532). Legalizing drugs could therefore cut the costs, not only of the consequences of addicts’ habits, but also for tax payers. Legalizing drugs would also mean that they could be taxed like alcohol and cigarettes, which would provide the state with a new substantial form of revenue which could outweigh related expenditure / costs, occurred onto the state from the initial drug problem. There is also an argument that despite alcohol being legal, it is often responsible for crime, rape, anti-social behaviour. According to the Justice Department statistics, 54% of all jail inmates convicted of violent crime reported to have consumed alcohol before committing their offence (Nadelmann, 1989:22). ‘A legalized drug industry would also supply a far less lethal product’ (Micklethwart, 1994). Cussen and Block (2000: 534) also add that ‘the availability of clean needles would make it safer to consume. For example, Boaz (1990:3) states that ‘about 25% of AIDS cases are contracted through the sharing of needles’. In Hong Kong for example, clean needles are available from drug stores from 1987, and in the 3 years period leading up to Boaz’s study, no cases of AIDS among drug users were reported. However, I am also aware of the potential dangers in long term drug usage. However, the argument for legislation doesn’t depend on drugs being totally safe. For example, Micklethwart (1994) notes, ‘insofar as marijuana is harmful, then using it will be its own punishment’. ‘Why punish people who are already punishing themselves?’ Socially, ‘illegal drug sales can create destructive atmospheres’ (Cussen and Bloack, 2000: 531). Local communities can be torn apart by the drug culture on the streets. People often feel intimidated and unsafe. Boaz (1990: 2) also claims ‘inner city youths, surrounded by the black market can easily be influenced by the money drug dealers make, and fall into the same world.’ Finally, Cussen and Block (2000: 526) provide an interesting argument based on American civil liberties, ‘the legalization of drugs would give a basic civil liberty back to US citizens, by granting them control of their own bodies’. This is because the guiding principles of the US, as outlined in the Constitution protect an individuals’ civil liberties to ‘pursue his own happiness’ as long as it doesn’t infringe on others’ right to life and property. Micklethwart (1994) states that with drug prohibition, US citizens don’t have their constitutional rights, ‘they are no longer in control of their own body’. If one were to follow the basic constitutional rights, drugs should therefore be legalized. In conclusion, the reasons presented in this assignment should make the US government aware of the potential benefits controlled legalization of drugs could have. Although I acknowledge it is a controversial subject, legalizing drugs could reduce organized crime, not only on the streets of America, but all over the world. The controlled consumption of drugs would also save tax payers money, as well as increase state revenue through taxation on drugs themselves. The health and social befits of drug legalization also warrant for a detailed review of current legislation. References Boaz, David. (1990). The Consequences of Prohibition. In The Crises of Drug Prohibition. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute. Cussen, Meaghan and Block, Walter. Legalize Drugs Now! An Analysis of the Benefits of Legalized Drugs. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 59.3 (2000):525-536. Print Easton, Mark. Could We Save Billions by Legalising Drugs? BBC. 7th April 2009. Available at www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/04/heroin_and_cocaine_cost_britai.html Micklethwait, Brian. (1994). Why Drugs Should Be Legalised. Libertarian Alliance. Available at http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:nUTbNbx2J4MJ:www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin097.pdf+legalise+drugs+pdf&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgMaJTmob3-um9IcGhoBzb5IsqulsqXznXWvCNdqMrURHzqN12tXR8kcwTdx_I_cWO8lw84trkIflFWuLRbzEcOFtHtZ4PhL_zcKYlP1hWdKWXGoWSle6LKe_T5zJbAjNqrXKZi&sig=AHIEtbRnEbUY2QHt2mlw5Vq2wrF003ZVCQ Miron, Jeffery A. Legalize Drugs to Stop Violence. CNN. 24th March 2009. Available at http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/miron.legalization.drugs/index.html Nadelmann, E. (1989) The Case For Legalization. In Cussen, Meaghan and Block, Walter. Legalize Drugs Now! An Analysis of the Benefits of Legalized Drugs. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 59.3 (2000):525-536. Print Read More