Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Over the past two years, drug violence in Mexico has become a fixture of the daily news. Some of this violence pits drug cartels against one another; some involves confrontations between law enforcement and traffickers.

Recent estimates suggest thousands have lost their lives in this "war on drugs."

The U.S. and Mexican responses to this violence have been predictable: more troops and police, greater border controls and expanded enforcement of every kind. Escalation is the wrong response, however; drug prohibition is the cause of the violence.

Prohibition creates violence because 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.

Violence was common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after.

Violence is the norm in illicit gambling markets but not in legal ones. Violence is routine when prostitution is banned but not when it's permitted. Violence results from policies that create black markets, not from the characteristics of the good or activity in question.

The only way to reduce violence, therefore, is to legalize drugs. Fortuitously, legalization is the right policy for a slew of other reasons.

Prohibition of drugs corrupts politicians and law enforcement by putting police, prosecutors, judges and politicians in the position to threaten the profits of an illicit trade. This is why bribery, threats and kidnapping are common for prohibited industries but rare otherwise. Mexico's recent history illustrates this dramatically.

Prohibition erodes protections against unreasonable search and seizure because neither party to a drug transaction has an incentive to report the activity to the police. Thus, enforcement requires intrusive tactics such as warrantless searches or undercover buys. The victimless nature of this so-called crime also encourages police to engage in racial profiling.

Prohibition has disastrous implications for national security. By eradicating coca plants in Colombia or poppy fields in Afghanistan, prohibition breeds resentment of the United States. By enriching those who produce and supply drugs, prohibition supports terrorists who sell protection services to drug traffickers.

Prohibition harms the public health. Patients suffering from cancer, glaucoma and other conditions cannot use marijuana under the laws of most states or the federal government despite abundant evidence of its efficacy. Terminally ill patients cannot always get adequate pain medication because doctors may fear prosecution by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Drug users face restrictions on clean syringes that cause them to share contaminated needles, thereby spreading HIV, hepatitis and other blood-borne diseases.

Prohibitions breed disrespect for the law because despite draconian penalties and extensive enforcement, huge numbers of people still violate prohibition. This means those who break the law, and those who do not, learn that obeying laws is for suckers.

Prohibition is a drain on the public purse. Federal, state and local governments spend roughly $44 billion per year to enforce drug prohibition. These same governments forego roughly $33 billion per year in tax revenue they could collect from legalized drugs, assuming these were taxed at rates similar to those on alcohol and tobacco. Under prohibition, these revenues accrue to traffickers as increased profits.

The right policy, therefore, is to legalize drugs while using regulation and taxation to dampen irresponsible behavior related to drug use, such as driving under the influence. This makes more sense than prohibition because it avoids creation of a black market. This approach also allows those who believe they benefit from drug use to do so, as long as they do not harm others.

Legalization is desirable for all drugs, not just marijuana. The health risks of marijuana are lower than those of many other drugs, but that is not the crucial issue. Much of the traffic from Mexico or Colombia is for cocaine, heroin and other drugs, while marijuana production is increasingly domestic. Legalizing only marijuana would therefore fail to achieve many benefits of broader legalization.

It is impossible to reconcile respect for individual liberty with drug prohibition. The U.S. has been at the forefront of this puritanical policy for almost a century, with disastrous consequences at home and abroad.

The U.S. repealed Prohibition of alcohol at the height of the Great Depression, in part because of increasing violence and in part because of diminishing tax revenues. Similar concerns apply today, and Attorney General Eric Holder's recent announcement that the Drug Enforcement Administration will not raid medical marijuana distributors in California suggests an openness in the Obama administration to rethinking current practice.

Perhaps history will repeat itself, and the U.S. will abandon one of its most disastrous policy experiments.

Cap'n Cat wrote:"A chicken stuffed with pot in your garage by the car."
- Cap'n Cat, 2009

Cap'n Cat wrote:"A chicken stuffed with pot in your garage by the car."
- Cap'n Cat, 2009

wildkyle wrote:is there any bad idea that democrats won't support?

wildkyle wrote:is there any bad idea that democrats won't support?

wildkyle wrote:is there any bad idea that democrats won't support?

wideright82 wrote:

wildkyle wrote:is there any bad idea that democrats won't support?

Is there any idea the dems support that you don't think is bad, is the real question.


The legalization of drugs, would take money from some areas, but a HUGE, and I mean HUGE cash crop like marijuana/hash would put ooooodles of dollars into the pockets of our government. At the very least pot should be looked at, the others I am not so keen to, because of the physical dangers they present. Our government needed something to give to the DEA (wasn't CALLED DEA then, but same organization, FPA I believe) after prohibition was ended, so the natural target for them was drugs.

Appaholic wrote:

wideright82 wrote:

Is there any idea the dems support that you don't think is bad, is the real question.


The legalization of drugs, would take money from some areas, but a HUGE, and I mean HUGE cash crop like marijuana/hash would put ooooodles of dollars into the pockets of our government. At the very least pot should be looked at, the others I am not so keen to, because of the physical dangers they present. Our government needed something to give to the DEA (wasn't CALLED DEA then, but same organization, FPA I believe) after prohibition was ended, so the natural target for them was drugs.

Yep....they should have gone after the Jews.....or the Wops....

Wedgebuster wrote:Hemp, the tamer cousin to mary jane poses as nearly as big of crop potential as does the recreational variety.

dbackjon wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:Hemp, the tamer cousin to mary jane poses as nearly as big of crop potential as does the recreational variety.

that it does.

Would even make the Dakotas a valuable part of the Union

Appaholic wrote:

wildkyle wrote:is there any bad idea that democrats won't support?

Apparantly not since a majority of them voted to allow Bush to invade Iraq....

AZGrizFan wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
Apparantly not since a majority of them voted to allow Bush to invade Iraq....

Ouch. Zing.

Why not legalize murder and rape too? Then we could stop building prisons altogether!

WTAG wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Ouch. Zing.

Why not legalize murder and rape too? Then we could stop building prisons altogether!

Nice, comparing smoking a joint to rape and murder.

AZGrizFan wrote:

WTAG wrote:
Nice, comparing smoking a joint to rape and murder.

I didn't "compare" it to anything. Just wondering why stop there? Don't go all "ralph" on me and start parsing words, TAG.

WTAG wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I didn't "compare" it to anything. Just wondering why stop there? Don't go all "ralph" on me and start parsing words, TAG.

Because smoking weed is harmless, and rape and murder aren't. You're telling me it's not an incredible waste of resources imprisoning people who sit on their couches and eat cheetos?

WTAG wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I didn't "compare" it to anything. Just wondering why stop there? Don't go all "ralph" on me and start parsing words, TAG.

Because smoking weed is harmless, and rape and murder aren't. You're telling me it's not an incredible waste of resources imprisoning people who sit on their couches and eat cheetos?

AZGrizFan wrote:

WTAG wrote:
Because smoking weed is harmless, and rape and murder aren't. You're telling me it's not an incredible waste of resources imprisoning people who sit on their couches and eat cheetos?

Great. Nice strawman, TAG. This article talks about poppy seeds, cocoa plants, etc. That ain't dope.