What should be done about it? Can we crack down on it here without also cracking down on civil rights? Does the public favor intensified suppression, or legalization to deprive the cartels of their monopolies? In hopes of finding out, I posted a survey for visitors to my website. The answers were revealing.
The question was “What should be done about the drug infestation?” The answers:
|
|
• 9 percent responded: Try to suppress with measured force.
• 37 percent responded: Chase the whole problem back to Mexico.
• 13 percent responded: Create legalized government drug monopoly depriving cartels of cash flow.
• 18 percent responded: Decriminalize drugs and let the free market act.
• 13 percent responded: None of the above.
The diversity of opinion reflects the difficulty of the problem. Probably the most realistic answer is “none of the above.”
Although a plurality wanted to chase the problem back to Mexico, that may be the most unrealistic response. It would have been easier to keep it out than to get it out now that it is firmly entrenched. I am inclined to believe the United States must reorder the incentives presented by the problem.
As long as there is such an insatiable demand for the drugs, we must recognize the demand will be met somehow. It seems unrealistic to make it any more illegal than it already is or to make the penalties more draconian. We cannot reduce demand appreciably by attacking the users because they are our family, friends, and business associates whether you know it or not. In a broad sense, they are us.
If we can rid the earth of the cartels who make huge amounts of money supplying drugs, we can reduce corruption in Mexico (and the U.S.) — a very worthwhile endeavor.
Right now the drug cartels are on the verge of seizing Mexico from its legitimate government. This would be a disaster for the U.S. Without the cartels, Mexico could become safer and considerably more productive, turning its attention to doing things economically productive.
The only way to deprive the cartels of their income is to go into competition with them. The United States government is still more powerful than the cartels and can outsupply them. If the government decriminalized the drugs in question but entered into a monopoly distribution arrangement, it could undercut the prices of the cartels, bankrupting them. There might eventually arise an accommodation in which the cartels would supply the U.S. government exclusively. No private sales permitted.
Why a government monopoly? Because we really don’t want to encourage drug use. Private businesses would have incentives to increase sales. Government would not. It could exert some control over the distribution.
After a while, the situation should become accepted and the cartels would get out of the business of killing their competitors and buying the Mexican government person-by-person. As the sole customer for the cartels, representing enormous purchasing power, the U.S. could at last get all the players under control.
Obvious objections include the morality of the government selling poison. And we are left with the old cop out, “They are going to do it anyway.” At least this way we exercise some control. Like with alcoholic beverages.
Is it a perfect solution? No. But I think it is the only solution that has a chance to work. I am a strong believer in incentives. As long as incentives are at odds with each other as they are now, resolution of the problem looks impossible. Using this bold approach, we can better use the resources we are now wasting on a futile efforts to intercept drugs and incarcerate users.
Contact Lionel Waxman at territorial@waxmanmedia.com or visit his website: www.newflashpoint.com. Lionel Waxman’s Flashpoint commentaries are published in The Daily Territorial.








Comments
Bill G. wrote on Apr 30, 2009 8:39 AM:
I know there are plenty of productive people that smoke pot. The statistics show that the vast majority of pot smokers are employed full time. The stereotypes will persist though even if it is legalized. Not only that, but some companies still won't allow pot smokers to work for them, just like some companies don't allow people who smoke cigarettes to work for them, even if they only smoke while off the clock and off company property. This mostly has to do with insurance.
And as for the stereotypes, there is some truth behind many of them. Pot affects different people differently. Some people do it too much. There are pot smokers who would accomplish more if they didn't smoke pot, and there are most certainly stoners at parties glued to the couch staring at the TV with the sound turned off who can barely have a conversation because they forget what they were saying mid sentence. I've seen people like that. I've probably been that guy. I smoked plenty of pot when I was younger. I gave it up years ago because I wasn't getting anything done. I know others who still smoke it who are very successful. They tend to be people who do it in moderation.
It isn't for everyone though and that's why I don't think it will ever have anything like the mass appeal alcohol has. Alcohol causes all sorts of problems, but it is more of a social drug. It's a social lubricant that lowers inhibitions and helps most people loosen up and enjoy themselves in social settings. Pot does the opposite for a lot of folks. It always made me go off in my own little world. A lot of people try it, but a lot of them don't like the way it makes them feel. Most people like the way alcohol makes them feel, unless they drink too much and end up with a hangover or get sick. It is smoking, so it has some health consequences from that and many find the smell of pot smoke unpleasant. There are definitely some negatives, as there are with any vice.
I'm not trying to bash pot or pot smokers here. I don't think it's that big of a deal for adults to smoke pot in moderation. Doing it all the time usually carries some negative consequences, but we don't see a lot of violent behavior and/or crime caused by pot smoking. Most smokers work and pay their bills. There really is nothing about pot that justifies the waste of all the money we blow trying to keep up the ban or the fact that we are causing enormous problems trying in vain to keep up the ban. We should have legalized it a long time ago. "
Budd wrote on Apr 30, 2009 5:26 AM:
Pat Rogers wrote on Apr 29, 2009 3:34 PM:
Virginia Senator Jim Webb authored S-714, a bill to create a national criminal justice commission. It has 24 co-sponsors in the senate so far. h**p://mysite.verizon.net/aahpat/aandc/s714.htm
It could use more sponsors and people inclined could help by writing to their senators requesting they co-sponsor S-714. h**p://mysite.verizon.net/aahpat/aandc/s-714_tally.htm "
Pat Rogers wrote on Apr 29, 2009 3:28 PM:
What moment in pre-history was that?
"As long as there is such an insatiable demand for the drugs, we must recognize the demand will be met somehow."
This is the most basic issue. Supply demand economics are either denied or ignored by absolutely prohibiting a regulated distribution of a product. supply will rise to meet demand. That can be done in an orderly regulated market or it will be done in the anarchy and chaos of unregulated black markets. That is reality. That is the alternatives. All else is not economics it is moralistic social engineering. And experiences teaches us that social engineering is doomed to fail in a free society. "
Bill G. wrote on Apr 29, 2009 3:00 PM:
If we take marijuana from the cartels, we'll deprive them of most of their income, and on top of that we'll make it harder for them to reach people with these other drugs because there won't be all these marijuana sellers out there with all these customers who already use one illegal drug and thus are more likely than most people to be the types who would use another illegal drug. This would really hurt the cartels, and it would reduce the exposure pot smokers get to drug like meth and cocaine so less of them will try these other substances.
The government does not need to sell marijuana though. It's not their job. It would give them incentive to make money from it, and they'd probably screw it up anyway and have some lousy expensive product that people won't buy and then we'd still have a huge black market.
What we should do is just let private entities produce and sell marijuana subject to government regulations. We could regulate it similar to alcohol. We could even ban a lot of the advertising like we've done with tobacco. In case you haven't noticed the number of smokers and the number of people trying tobacco has been on a steady decline for decades now, even though it is a legal drug. Private companies wouldn't be able to generate that much interest in marijuana because it's not that fun and it will always have a negative stigma attached to it. It's smoking. It stinks. It's unhealthy. It's a drug for losers. Who wants to be a forty year old man living in his parents' basement? Who wants to be one of the potheads at the party glued to the couch staring at the TV with the sound turned off, who can't chat up the ladies because he forgets what he was saying mid sentence? More than half of all American adults under 60 have already tried it. We're not going to see a huge increase in use when we legalize it. Most who want to smoke it already smoke it. "
Andy wrote on Apr 29, 2009 2:59 PM:
Budd wrote on Apr 29, 2009 2:43 PM:
There is no govt. monopoly on alcohol. Its sold in stores across the land and citizens are allowed to brew their own supply. Let potheads do this and instantly you destroy 80% of the cartels' income. After all, I'm not going to pay $400 an ounce when I could grow it myself.
Allow other drugs to be sold in pharmacies and clinics according to proper standards and you reduce both black market crime and overdose deaths. Also, medical professionals who run these clinics will already have a working relationship with addicts in place when the addict feels strong enough to try to quit.
But a govt. monopoly? No thank you. The last thing the drug world needs is an injection of mandatory bureaucracy. "