The role of government in regulating the lives of the citizens it serves should be limited, seeking mainly to protect people violence, and property against damage and theft. The war on drugs presents a difficult problem in maintaining a small role for the state while protecting citizens from the actions of drug users.
The demand for drugs is probably inelastic, meaning that prices must increase a lot to reduce the quantity that people wish to consume a little. The supply of illegal drugs is probably elastic, meaning a small increase in price results in a large increase in supply. Small increases in demand or decreases in supply tend to dramatically drive up prices. Currently, the United States and Europe import drugs and Latin and South America produce them.
Hernando Henrique Cardoso, a former president of Brazil, Cesar Gaviria a former president of Colombia, and Ernesto Zedillo, a former president of Mexico delivered a unified message to the American public in a Wall Street Journal opinion article titled, "The War on Drugs Is a Failure."[1]
The war on drugs has failed. And it's high time to replace an ineffective strategy with more humane and efficient drug policies. This is the central message of the report by the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy we presented to the public recently in Rio de Janeiro.
They conclude that the war on drugs has failed because of maintained demand in the United States and Europe, and supply the growing destabilizing influence that drug cartels exercise in Latin America. Many Americans seem to believe that Latin American countries have not made an effort to combat drug traffickers, but this belief is tragically false. Chris Hawley, writing for USA Today, describes the violent chaos caused by drug cartels battling each other and the Mexican government for control of routes into the United States.[2] Hawley notes that
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency has credited his actions with a steep reduction of cocaine supply in many U.S. cities. Calderon says the vast majority of those killed have been drug gang members, and his approval rating remains high at about 60% — a broad enough mandate to keep pursuing the cartels for now, Shifter says.
The battle is far from won. Hawley describes the difficulty of the battle.
The story is similar across much of Mexico's 2,000-mile-long northern border: a wave of beheadings, grenade attacks and shootouts as drug cartels battle each other for supremacy and lash out against Mexican President Felipe Calderon's drive to destroy their smuggling operations. The death toll from drug-related violence in Mexico last year surpassed 6,000, more than double the previous year, raising questions about whether Calderon's government can prevail against a brutal and often better-armed enemy without additional help from the U.S. government.
The three former presidents paint a similar picture of efforts and results in Columbia.
Over the last 30 years, Colombia implemented all conceivable measures to fight the drug trade in a massive effort where the benefits were not proportional to the resources invested. Despite the country's achievements in lowering levels of violence and crime, the areas of illegal cultivation are again expanding. In Mexico -- another epicenter of drug trafficking -- narcotics-related violence has claimed more than 5,000 lives in the past year alone...
The alarming power of the drug cartels is leading to a criminalization of politics and a politicization of crime. And the corruption of the judicial and political system is undermining the foundations of democracy in several Latin American countries.
The cartels are growing despite intense efforts to eradicate them.
They propose a different strategy to lower the cost of drug use in countries that demand drugs and well as those that supply them.
In this spirit, we propose a paradigm shift in drug policies based on three guiding principles: Reduce the harm caused by drugs, decrease drug consumption through education, and aggressively combat organized crime.
More drug users could maintain employment if drug use were simply stupid, and not illegal too, reducing users' need to resort to crime to support dependency. Treatment and education would reduce demand, but by how much. Demand would shift inward, the equilibrium price and quantity purchased would fall, but again, by how much. Fighting organized crime, if successful, would decrease supply, increasing price but yet again decreasing the quantity consumed, but the cartels would resist and violence from this source would remain. Given the complexity of the problem, the lack of success of the current policy, I believe that their proposals deserve consideration.
[1] The article is based on the "Drugs and Democracy: Toward a Paradigm Shift," produced by the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy.
[2] Hawley, Chris. "Mexican drug gangs wage war," USA Today, February 24, 2009.
Posts
The former presidents of Brazil, Columbia, and Mexico are correct. The War on Drugs has failed. Demand has remained high despite large price increases, proving the inelelasticity of drug demand. Supply has increased since the war on drugs began: As the price of illegal substances has risen, so too has the market supply. The effect of this market has been to increase profitability for the suppliers and place the consumers into an economic disadvantage. This has led to increased crime rates, both from consumers willing to do anything to afford their habit and from suppliers willing to do anything to make a larger profit.
ReplyDeleteAmanda Tweedy
Every American president since Nixon has engaged in a war on illegal drugs and every president without exception has lost this war. The explanation lies not in a lack of effort- I believe there has been too much effort- but rather in a basic property of the demand for drugs, and the effects of trying to reduce consumption of a good like drugs by punishing persons involved in its trade. So legalization could have a greater effect in reducing drug use than a war on drug without all the large and disturbing system costs. How high the tax rate should be would be determined by social policy.But whatever the approach, it could be implemented far more successfully by legalizing drugs than by further efforts to heat up the failing war on illegal drugs.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the last post. Drugs are illegal for a reason. Thy're impact on society is much worse than any amount of money the government can save. I believe that many people stay away from drugs because of legalizaion consequences that might occur and the more drugs are available the more they will be used. It's something we will just have to fight as a nation. However I do believe that many people filling up our jails are innocent people that maybe need another consequence for their drug use.
ReplyDeleteAaron Rogers
Let’s just all go to dinner and have drink and discuss the war on drugs as we sip down some drugs. Is caffeine, or alcohol your drug of choice they are both drugs and harmful to your health when consumed in excess. You can have caffeine at any age and alcohol at age 21 and even younger if consumed in the presence of a parent or guardian. The government prohibited alcohol and failed to stop people from consuming alcohol. The old saying “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink” applies to the war on drugs. You can tell people of the dangers but they will still do as they please. I personally have seen a lot of damage done by alcohol, but yet it is legal with some restrictions. All drugs are not equal and to legalize one does not legalize all.
ReplyDeleteI do not see the rational in marijuana being illegal when cigarettes and alcohol are legal. If all drugs were legal I think our population would decrease, because heroin and methamphetamine users would overdose instead of ending up in prison being supported by the government. Why should the government pay for drug treatment, they were educated of the dangers and made their own choice. Then I think about the ones that would use drugs like acid and diminish their mental abilities to the point they would be a danger to society. Well I don’t think that number would increase and might even go down because the veil of secrecy as to why they lost their mental capacity would be gone. I think our society would benefit from changes in the war on drugs.
I really don’t want to see all drugs legalized, but I think the real reason the war on drugs continues is because it is good for politicians. They have a war that will always be there and hope they can get the people to “rally around the flag” and support the politician. Then you have law enforcement that gets paid to fight this war. The justice system spends a lot of time on this war and they are making money. The prison system is overloaded and largely privatized now because of this war. This is not a “war” it is a cash cow brought about by ignorance. Wise up America, this money should be going into our education system.