I heard our old friend Craig Jones from the John Howard Society talking on a Victoria B.C. radio station recently.
Among other things, Jones said the single biggest contributor to violent crime was the prohibition of illicit drugs. He says prohibition has been an abject failure.
He went on to say that when drug busts take place, there’s a spike in violent crime that occurs as the remaining organized criminals in the area fight for market share.
So I sent a few e-mails to Jones asking him two questions:
1) I asked him to provide me with statistics that show how violent crime spikes in Canadian cities after drug busts. After all, Jones always tells us that it’s important to make statements based on evidence. Unfortunately, he had no evidence at all to support his claim that violence goes up after busts, at least not for Canada. He sent me a bunch of studies from other countries which are not relevant. If you claim violence goes up in Canada after drug busts, you have to be able to substantiate that claim with credible statistics or the claims are meaningless.
2) I also asked Jones what the alternatives are to the prohibition of illicit drugs such as crystal meth and crack cocaine. Again, he had no answer other than to say he would like to somehow end the criminal market for these drugs.
I invited Jones onto this blog to share his views further.
I agree that prohibition is a faliure. It’s a failure for taxpayers, but not for everyone.
Keeping drugs illegal sustains a profitable “industry” for a lot of professions. Police, lawyers, and the many other professions, benefit indirectly from illegal drug activities. Police receive funding for drug enforcement, lawyers bill the government for court time, etc…
Legalizing drugs will bring police budgets down and you won’t need as many lawyers…..the list goes on. It’s all about protecting the status quo.
Legalizing drugs will benefit taxpayers.
Quote: “I invited Jones onto this blog to share his views further.”
Oooo…that ought to be good for a laugh.
Perhaps Evan is onto something — maybe legalization would be helpful, especially if the Government is in charge of it and receiving tax revenues from it, and then we would only be prosecuting the “bootleggers”. However, I don’t think that the Government really wants to get into a price war with organized crime over it. It may well be that “Legalizing drugs will benefit taxpayers,” as Evan says, but it will be harmful to the public at large.
Naturally, you can see the “spiking” that Jones talks about in places such as Mexico and Columbia, but I think we’re a little more civilized here, and I doubt he would find any such statistics for Canada.
I don’t think we’re really looking at widescale legalization of illicit substances, anyway; I think we’re looking at a total decriminalization of simple possession. More than a few people have gotten heavyweight criminal records over the fact that they had two or three joints on them when they were searched by the police, and this has been unfortunate, and has also been the bulk of work for the system that Evan speaks of.
I’d like to see what Jonesy envisions when he talks about doing away with prohibition, but I can well imagine.
I wouldn’t agree with some of the more harmful and addictive drugs being legalized such as cocaine and crystal meth, but I do feel marijuana should be legalized. I haven’t personally read any studies or heard about anyone going on a violent crime spree due to a severe marijuana addiction. In my opinion it is less harmful than alcohol and this is legal.
People will not start using more illicit drugs if they become legal. Society will not crumble.
The government will never legalize Marijuana because it would be too difficult to control…anybody can grow their own, high quailty weed.
Much has changed with the attitude towards drugs, especially opiates. I have a brides book from the early 1900′s that lists laudanum, cocaine and opium as standard requirements for the household first aid kit. What changed after WWI? That seems to be when these prohibition laws came into force. Interestingly, the late 1800′s temperance league offered a “cure” for drinkers that contained cocaine. The demise of acceptance of these drugs, along with alcohol, gave rise to the criminal industry that still thrives today. I am doing research, just for my own interest, on how much the organizations, such as the temperance league, had sway over law makers of the day. Bottom line is basically, when these were accepted as medical necessities, there was no crime industry relating to drugs. I believe we would be safer if it went back to that. Not completely uncontrolled, but it always used to be controlled. Unlike the free for all of today..
Evan made two comments that I would like clarified. (1) Legalizing drugs will benefit taxpayers. (2) People will not start using more illicit drugs. Please explain the reason you came to these conclusions, Evan.
It seems to me that with the Hell’s Angels being in disarray since the number of record busts, the Winnipeg Police Service and the RCMP should continue to put the heat on them and their associates while they’ve got them on the ropes.
If successful, the large flow of guns and drug shipments will cease to a trickle, leaving nothing but petty criminals for the police and society to deal with.
Now is the time the city and province to support our local police with additional funds to tackle organized crime, not handcuffing them with even more criminal-friendly legislation.
PROPS TO OUR COPS!!!
Craig actually used his “call a friend” option when asked if he could provide evidence from Canada to support the hypothesis that prohibition causes violence. I’ll paste my emailed reply to Tom and Craig below.
Canada lags behind most of the developed would in recording and studying the effects of various drug policies, so such evidence is relatively sparse. Weird, when you consider what we spend on drug prohibition, that some small fraction is not allocated to cost/benefit analysis.
However, evidence from around the world is quite robust, and there are a few studies from Canada.
In some cases, one need not have personally read or even be familiar with all the peer-reviewed evidence supporting a particular scientific theory to accept it on authority. For example, if my doctor says smoking causes
cancer, I’ll take their word for it on authority, with the knowledge that they are a highly trained, experienced, professional scientist, constrained by rules of evidence, checks and balances, and that evidence from around the world
supports a scientific consensus that smoking causes cancer.
People aren’t going to quit because its illegal. Substance use is a personal choice. Other countries have had success with decriminalizing pot. It would certainly free up more police to concentrate on the more violent stuff happening out there as well as free up dockets in the courts.
As to Tom’s second question regarding what alternatives Craig Jones would suggest to the criminal prohibition of drugs such as crack cocaine and crystal meth, we had this discussion in this space before.
For starters, I recommend “After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation” http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blueprint%20download.htm
In a nutshell, different regulatory models should be applied to different drugs, and *forms* of drugs. For example, coca tea should be regulated differently than crack.
Regulatory models would also vary by consumer. For example, the NAOMI
project in Vancouver provided pharmaceutical grade heroin to addicts who had tried and failed with methadone. It remains illegal to sell tobacco to minors. It is illegal to sell alcohol to someone in a drinking establishment who is obviously impaired.
As it happens, both crack and meth are consequences of prohibition.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_epidemic_%28United_States%29
And: http://www.mappsd.org/Meth%20History.htm
In other words, not only did prohibition failed to “control” cocaine and speed, it made them more profitable, addictive, potent and harmful.
The question should really be; Which drugs should we leave under the control of teenagers and gangsters? Just the really dangerous ones?
If you think prohibition is working, or could work if we only enforced it more vigorously, then it is my turn to ask you for the empirical evidence that supports your hypothesis. Keep in mind that alternatives to prohibition have hardly been tried for over a hundred years, but we have over a hundred years of experience with prohibition, so finding evidence to support prohibition should be a cinch. I mean, you would hope so. Surely we wouldn’t have spent all that money and criminalized millions of Canadians without a shred a evidence to support our drug control strategy.
If marijuana is a crime who is the victim?
* Marijuana was first banned in Canada in 1923 under the Opium and Drug Act. Since 1997 marijuana has been covered by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
* In 2000 over 30,000 Canadians were charged with simple possession of marijuana, according to the Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs.
* Current laws are enforced unevenly across the country.
* Most of those convicted of possession of marijuana do not go to jail, but do receive a criminal record.
Status of Decriminalization of Marijuana in Canada
Two committees of parliament have examined Canadian anti-drug policies and legislation in Canada:
* The Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs reviewed Canada’s current anti-drug policies and legislation and reported in September 2002. The Committee said that marijuana is not a gateway drug and should be treated more like tobacco or alcohol than like harder drugs.
* The House of Commons Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs looked at an overall drug strategy for Canada and issued their report in December 2002. The House committee said that while marijuana is unhealthy, the current criminal penalties for possession and use of small amounts of cannabis are disproportionately harsh. They recommended that the Canadian Ministers of Justice and of Health come up with a strategy to decriminalize the possession and cultivation of not more than thirty grams (about an ounce) of cannabis for personal use.
Milton Friedman on prohibition
youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
youtube.com/watch?v=LayaGk0TMDc
William F. Buckley Jr on prohibition
youtube.com/watch?v=w3OH6SDGqcM
Evan has sights to see with a effect on many possible economic measures needed that will keep enriched fields of stable employable standards in synchronized harmonized balances.
What is clear enough for the job and authorities to increase a secure economic system by waiting on hand and foot to allow the use of drugs, making nasty little measures to full fill rehab centers that fail knowingly may just be the predictable software you needed to address a multi trillion dollar law litigation, Well as duped as i can only read to see why predictable out comes could be avoided in jail and victim impacts to secure now, is why punitive measures in determining error can now be avoided by associated causes due to addictive behavioral choices by allowed censers of keeping drugs in a balanced sheet for economic resolutions to families whom succeed to be the only ones to really benefit by the field roles and a growth in illicit profits deemed to employ the created needs to increase law persons. Our over burdened Health care systems may be just peachy when the numbers add up to payback rates, tax payers costs, due to the decisions made to relate a number crunching balance. Who decided that drugs are really really a need, and yet to enjoy the perks of economic employable feasibility study? Responsibility this i see falls in a contradiction messages we are creating, the illegal use of drugs falls on a constant health bill. Drugs create jobs and jail times. Victims and on employments. Due in some areas related to use a factor to employment regulations to keep economic standards afloat by the costs of lives? Or can the chamber of commerce find solutions to regulat more study than balances of inerpreting a perky drug profit run by a stable econimc balance by the continued use saensoed practicle methods easy to open do drug it creates job I am leavin you huas, for good, he he he good ya filthy pieace of … well waht relations scewed that up? ad dollars? got writers burn see you tommorw. i am off.
Legalize pot and use the revenue and cost savings to go after Meth, coke, crack etc….
Charge a “growing fee” and sell it from the LC like alcohol….Use the proffits to put more cops on the street, more $$$ into social programs etc.
It is sad when you can get a RX for 200 percocet tablets a month and stay perpetually messed up if you complain about migraines enough (I know someone who does this)….Yet get caught with a joint in your pocket and you lose the ability to go to the USA, get a criminal record etc.
What is more messed up is you can kill/rape someone and get less time than someone who has 20 plants in thier basement….
As for meth, crack etc… these are the drugs the cops should be going after but they dont for some reason. All you need to do is sit in front of Portage place for more than 5 minutes and I guarantee you will see at least 1 Meth deal go down… Why the WPS doesnt park a cop in front of that place makes me wonder if they really want to bust the people ruining lives….ie get enough street level dealers busted and eventually people start to squeal and you get the bigger fish…..
@ Lauren J. Hendry
WOW…trying to figure out if english is just your second language and maybe there’s a hidden gem of knowledge in there or if it is just the gibberish it looks like on the surface skim.
Bill….
(1) Legalizing drugs will benefit taxpayers, financially
As I explained in my original comment. Millions of tax dollars are spent on the illegal drug industry mainly by law enforcement and the courts. These groups want to protect their “turf” and want to keep drugs illegal to keep the gravy flowing. Legalization would be a disaster for them…..their budgets would be slashed dramatically. Taxpayers, on the other hand, would benefit as there would be no need to sink millions in tax dollars into fighting this useless “drug war”.
(2) People will not start using more illicit drugs.
People will not start using more drugs if they become legal. I’m sure non users have already tried drugs and determined that there not for them. The current users don’t really care if it’s legal or not…they use anyway. The only difference is that they won’t have to appear in court or go to jail for using.
The main reason that any drug will never be legalized is the large drug companies can’t patent them.
@daisydukers: “get enough street level dealers busted and eventually people start to squeal and you get the bigger fish.”
the replacement effect means there will always be another small fish as long as there’s any chance of making a few bucks. supply of street level dealers is endless.
the bigger fish are protected by layers of lawyers.
if you don’t take the money out of it you can’t make a difference … because you can’t change the economics of supply and demand … at least that’s what Milton Friedman says …
didn’t we learn this with alcohol prohibition?
Do you know why there are hundreds (thousands?!?) of heroin junkies littering the streets of Vancouver while Winnipeg does not?
It’s called the Law of Demand & Supply. When a group or cartel has control of the supply, in this case heroin and other opiates, they dictate the demand (i.e. the amount of junkies). Heroin and other opiates blow through the ports of Vancouver like the wind.
If law enforcement agencies in Manitoba severely restrict the supply of the opiate Oxycontin, we won’t have addicts holding up pharmacies–plain and simple. They’ll go back to abusing other more readily available street drugs or quit drugs entirely.
It’s in Manitoba’s interest to keep organized crime and their high-volume drug and weapons trafficking to a minimum.
I found it amazing that after the Canadian Senate and House of Commons said we should decriminalize marijuana the Conservative govenment went the other way.
The same is happening with the file sharing legislation, after the Supreme Court had said it should be legal, the Conservative govenment is bringing in a bill to make it illegal.
We can continue to argue the pros and cons of decriminalizing drugs, but if the profits of a government supporter are jeopardized, the government will always side with their supporters rather than the Canadian public.
This is a shame, because if Canadians could grow their own pot, it would open more prison cells for violent criminals, free up court rooms, free up Crown attorneys and allow the police to go after more meth and coke dealers. Not to mention the money we are wasting paying for a Senate and Supreme Court.
A blanket approach to legalizing drugs would decrease crime. We have seen it work with alcohol and gambling. But like cigarette smoking it will cause more money to be spent on health care.
Less money on courts and more money on health care…would it make a difference?
Grant……the government can tax the hell out of drugs. This will more than make up for the increased health care costs.
Evan, the addicts now have to resort to crime to pay for their habits. How will taxing bring down the price?
Doubtful…the government has taxed the hell out of cigarettes already and it hasn’t made up for increased healthcare costs, has it? And what about the possibility of someone trying to undercut the “official” price by selling their own supply? And there, you will have more increased enforcement/court costs.
Grant asked “How will taxing bring down the price?”
The cost of producing most illicit drugs is trivial. For example, growing cannabis is no more difficult nor costly than growing parsley, which means we can tax it quite a bit and still undercut the black market.
Ivan asked “the government has taxed the hell out of cigarettes already and it hasn’t made up for increased healthcare costs, has it?”
The health care costs of tobacco are an order of magnitude greater than the health care costs associated with illicit drugs, on a per user basis, and most
of the health care costs associated with illicit drugs are made worse by, if not caused by, criminal prohibition. Adulteration, lack of labeling, varying potency, most efficient means of ingestion, etc.
Further, because psychoactive substances are economic substitutes with cross-price elasticities, if illicit drug use goes up following legalization, (and there is no reason to believe it will), alcohol use will go down, reducing overall drug-related health care costs.
“And what about the possibility of someone trying to undercut the “official” price by selling their own supply?”
Our communities are not full of tobacco grow-ops and clandestine distilleries,
suggesting that black marketeers are unlikely to attempt to compete with a legally regulated market.
For the sake of simple math, let’s say cannabis costs $200.00 per ounce
now. Grown in large-scale greenhouses, it would costs a couple of dollars per ounce to produce. If legal cannabis retails for, say, $20.00 per ounce, then about 40 per cent could be profit and about 40 per cent could be sin tax.
Meanwhile, the bad guys will need to decide if they want to try to undercut the market by dropping their prices from $200.00 to less than $20.00 per ounce. If they do, and succeed, then at a minimum, they will be making much less money. They might consider switching to methamphetamine,
but the market for meth is very small compared to the market for weed.
Yes, people do brew their own beer and make their own wine, and no doubt some sell their surplus, but most consumers buy their tobacco and alcohol from the legal market and pay sales tax. I do not think Molson feels very threatened by U-Brew.
Hey Tom, are my moderated comments which contain links going to be approved anytime soon?
Matt
The war on drugs will never be won until people stop taking them.
Those folks who do drugs don’t care if they are illegal, that is a great part of the original attraction…especially for teens. Take away the thrill of being naughty and much of the drug problem will disappear. Then we will be left with the true hard-core druggies who have chosen to spend their lives in la-la-land and sleeping in the great outdoors. Some of those might want to change also when they find themselves to be a less major group.
I have never done drugs, do not have an addictive personality, for which I thank God and I think legalizing the lessor drugs like marjiuana could be the start of something good.
The present system isn’t working so why not try something different?
I like the idea of reducing the tax-payers costs of fighting an unwinable war.
Then lets look into the upbringings that are the cause of so much trouble. The ones that create passive-aggressives and narcissists. The ones that are emotionally and psychologically abusive.
While Matt has introduced an academic economic analysis into the thread, I doubt many readers grasped its implications due to the numerous technical terms it contained. I will speak to what Matt has said in plain terms and present what I believe the 2 main issues that people are wrestling with as they consider this issue.
1.) How would decriminalization/govt. control of narcotics and other hard-core illicit drugs affect organized crime, price and usage?
Heroin and other opiates are as addictive as tobacco and have more of a negative impact on society (i.e. socially, economically). Usage would increase and like other govt. controlled vices, the price would be as high or higher as it is now. This course of action would have enormous negative societal consequences that go way beyond crime.
2. What about ‘soft drugs’ (cannibis products, magic mushrooms)?
Here, it makes sense logistically to decriminalize, but not legalize. This would free police to pursue organized crime for trafficking narcotics and weapons while leaving society to educate and street-proof their kids from abusing soft drugs and alcohol. These are crutches for the antisocial and abused, and addictions to these substances are best dealt with by addiction and guidance counselors, not the police.
Spider says: Usage would increase and like other govt. controlled vices, the price would be as high or higher as it is now.
maddy asks: who says? what is the logic (if any)?
people who favour keeping drugs illegal always say this, but no one ever provides supporting logic … or any other kind of proof.
spider says: “When a group or cartel has control of the supply, in this case heroin and other opiates, they dictate the demand (i.e. the amount of junkies).”
supply dictates demand?
you got this ack-basswards … demand creates supply.
Yes, supply dictates demand when there is a monopoly or cartel controlling the supply. Consider the following:
- gasoline
- pharmaceutical drugs
- alcohol
- diamonds
- banking services
- hydroelectric services
Customers have no say, either individually or collectively, what the price will be of these products. Monopolies and cartels control the demand by restricting the supply and setting the price to achieve maximum profit. Markets are only free until an individual or a group corners it, which is why it is important for a society to have anti-trust laws to break up cartels and monopolies.
Yes, Madeline, I agree, monopolies and cartels do make market economies bass ackwards, but that’s the way it works, unfortunately. MONOPOLY is only fun as a board game. In life, it sucks for just about everyone else.
As to whether the federal/provincial govts. would tax legal recreational drugs, current taxation of alcohol and tobacco indicate that they would tax marijuana and magic mushrooms excessively using the ‘tried and true’ justification of paying for additional healthcare costs:(
Buy the way, some monopolies are beneficial. If Oxycontin wasn’t widely available at pharmacies across Winnipeg, they wouldn’t be getting robbed right now. Legalizing it for recreational use would see an exponential rise of Oxyaddicts, so restricting its access to a couple of well-guarded clinics in Winnipeg would make sense here.
Since my first post, there has been at least one pharmacy robbed for Oxycontin, with the pharmacist being assaulted:(
National Post … Our indefensibly blood-soaked drug laws (today)
In many ways, illegal drugs are like blood diamonds. If no one wanted to buy them, an awful lot of suffering would be alleviated around the world. But people do want to buy them, and they always will. It’s completely unethical for political leaders in developed countries to continue to ignore the very real power they have to improve the situation — by liberalizing drug laws and thereby weakening criminal elements both at home and abroad.
I’d be willing to support outright legalization of all drugs simply because the current approach has been such an unmitigated, disastrous failure. But there’s a lot of room between outright legalization and the status quo. As a first step, we could decriminalize marijuana, as Jean Chrétien pretended to want to do and as several American states have actually done.
Instead, the Canadian government proposes to enact a mandatory six-month minimum sentence for possession of as few as six marijuana plants. Think about that. If Canadians are going to smoke pot anyway — and they are — it is indisputably better that they grow it themselves on their own windowsills or in small-scale hydroponic operations, or purchase it from friends who do so, as opposed to buying it from a criminal dealer. Yet the tough-on-crime gang in Ottawa seems utterly determined to entrench marijuana production as strictly a criminal enterprise.
It’s indefensible.
What’s important to remember is that drugs are harmful and definitely the Government needs to make this aware and continue to advocate abstinence. After that said, it serves no one any good to prevent anyone from using drugs. If you chose to take drugs and destroy your life, so be it. Be aware that you are not to impedes or harm the next person.
There’s a long list of history that shows society has never been close to controlling the use of drugs but rather inflamed the user and criminal activity.
Tom, forgive me for a stupid question but it’s difficult to tell for sure from the text of your post. What exactly did Jones say? Where and when did he say it? Could you provide a link?
Jacklin,
Send me you e-mail and I will furnish you with a copy of the interview.
Jones never did provide the evidence I asked for to back up his claim that violent crime rises following drugs busts in Canada. The best we could get was some unsubstantiated commentary from Jones’ side-kick, Matt Elrod, about what goes on in other countries.
Thank you for your time. I’ve sent you my e-mail.
Tom wrote: “Jones never did provide the evidence I asked for to back up his claim that violent crime rises following drugs busts in Canada.”
As I explained, you caught Tom at a bad time. He was just preparing to get hitched and tour Europe.
“The best we could get was some unsubstantiated commentary from Jones’ side-kick, Matt Elrod, about what goes on in other countries.”
If you would be so kind as to unmoderate what I actually sent to you and Craig, then your readers could judge for themselves whether or not I limited my input to unsubstantiated commentary about what goes on in other countries.
In reality, I referred you to several studies, including a meta-analysis published in Vancouver,.and a study on the unintended negative consequences of police “sweeps” in Vancouver.
Sorry Matt, we never received any Canadian studies on the subject. Try re-sending.
I should point out that when challenged to provide evidence to back up his claim that violent crime rises immediately following a drug bust, Jones couldn’t produce any. Instead, he went running to his side-kick Matt Elrod to try and bail him out.
I think it’s very telling that an executive director of a large organization like JHS would make such a serious allegation on a radio show without having any evidence to back up his claim. It shows what little credibility this guy has, whether he’s on his honeymoon or not.
Tom,
I suspect Craig asked me to provide the evidence you sought because he thought that I would probably have it handy, and he was just heading out the door.
I too would like to hear or read Craig’s interview. but I suspect that it was made right after the International Center for Science in Drug Policy released their report, “Effect of Drug Law Enforcement on Drug-Related Violence: Evidence from a Scientific Review”, http://icsdp.org/docs/ICSDP-1%20-%20FINAL.pdf
Many newspapers and radio stations around the world were talking about how drug laws cause violence at that time.
As I explained, the hypothesis that drug law enforcement causes violent crime is hardly a new or unsubstantiated allegation. For example, look at the murder rate before and after alcohol prohibition.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/Modifiedmurderchart.gif
The (self-evident) mechanisms by which drug law enforcement causes violence are the same in Canada as they are in Mexico, so I fail to see why evidence from outside of Canada is not relevant or helpful.
Nonetheless, I provided you with research published in CMAJ on the effects
of drug law enforcement on crime in Vancouver.
Tom,
Here is the Canadian study again, copied and pasted from my comment of June 10 above, which remains moderated,
along with my response to Spider.
“Displacement of Canada’s largest public illicit drug market in response to a police crackdown”
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/170/10/1551
Oh, right I keep forgetting about Tom’s inability to scroll up.
The CMAJ study provides no evidence whatsoever that violent crime rises after drug busts. It studies drug-use patterns in one city before and after drug busts and concludes that alleged increases in crime “in other areas” “may” be explained by the drug busts, but provides no evidence to support that commentary.
This study may be useful when debating the effects of drug busts on drug use, but it provides no evidence on violent crime rates prior to and following drug busts in Canadian cities.
Point taken Tom. That study only demonstrates how chasing drug traffickers and consumers from one area of a city to another makes matters worse, spreading the associated crime and violence to new neighbourhoods.
As I explained in my mysteriously still moderated comment of June 10, Canada lags behind the rest of the world in studying the impacts of drug law enforcement. Still, I am sure I can find the evidence you seek, but before I invest my time in finding some scholarly research on how drug law enforcement causes violence in Canada, I’d like to be clear on your position.
Do you dispute that drug law enforcement causes violent crime, or merely that drug law enforcement causes violent crime in Canada? If the latter, on what do you base your belief that Canada is somehow different in this regard
than the U.S., Mexico, Colombia, Afghanistan, etc?
Matt,
I have no knowledge of how different or similar Canada may be to other countries regarding how drug busts affect violent crime. My only point was that Jones made a pretty serious claim that violent crime rises following a drug bust because the remaining dealers move in and clash violently to fill the void, yet he provides no evidence to support his claim.
Matt,
Also, just to be clear. The CMAJ does not, as you suggest, provide evidence that crime is spread from one area to another following drug busts. It speculates that the drug bust “may” be responsible for crime in other areas but it provides no evidence whatsoever to support that claim.
Tom,
The evidence to support the claim is the aforementioned meta-analysis. Again, I suspect Jones was asked to offer his opinion on that study. I look forward to your sharing the link to the interview.
Of course, not all drug busts cause subsequent violence amongst the remaining dealers. Sometimes busts are so insignificant they do not destabilize the black market. Other times the remaining dealers re-organize themselves without resorting to violence.
However, often times the phenomenon Jones described does indeed take place. See for example:
Systemic violence in drug markets
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p0p3453k2x8m3482/
Do you sincerely doubt that this is so?
There are other mechanisms by which drug law enforcement causes violence. For example, if I sell drugs at Main and Hastings and a police sweep inspires me to re-locate a few blocks to the east, the dealers a few blocks to the east might use violence or the threat of violence (which is itself violence) to discourage me from setting up shop on their turf.
Drug law enforcement may also cause a temporary, localized scarcity of a drug, like cocaine or heroin. Consumers typically substitute other drugs, like alcohol and methampetamine, thus increasing “drug-related” violence.
But in answer to your question, “Would ending prohibition of illicit drugs reduce crime?”, yes.
For one thing, prohibition increases the “street value” of illicit drugs, which causes consumers to commit more property crime to pay for drugs. Property crime often leads to violence, when victims and thieves have violent encounters for example.
Drug prohibition causes police corruption, which in turn causes crime and violence.
Drug prohibition uses finite criminal justice resources, which might otherwise be used to prevent crime and violence.
Again, it would help if you figured out how to unmoderate my earlier comments.