Defensive Legalization and Resiliency Efforts

By Fester:

Last August, I stated that drug legalization may be a necessary policy change to promote legitimacy and effectiveness of the overt governing bodies as there is too much money in the black markets where disputes can not be resolved non-violently.  Prohibition has very high costs and those costs may be luxuries that we can not afford any more as a society.  Legalization will have high costs as well in the form of greater abuse of drugs and more people becoming addicts, but the geo-strategic costs are becoming more real and more pronounced.

We also know that prohibition has not been successful in eliminating drug use in the United States or other rich nations.  It is a moral/political posture of luxury that may bite us in our ass as it fuels a visible insurgency in Afghanistan, potentially funds Hezbollah in Lebanon and could potentially lead to a massive failed state in Mexico with the attendant mass migration flows that would entail.

Bringing the drug market into the overt and open white market and away from the black market would be a significant blow to these insurgencies.  Legalizing most narcotics and then taxing them at a high rate is a viable option.  It will strengthen weak states where the United States has a strong interest for stability. This will occur by removing a significant funding stream for the guerrillas and transferring it to the state.

The pace of violence in Mexico has accelerated as the drug cartels and smuggling enterprises are able to tap into hard currency cash flows to corrupt and hollow out a state that is seeing two of its major revenue streams (light and medium manufacturing for export to the US and oil) be put under severe pressure.  There is a strong possibility that Mexico will see its civic culture become a bazaar of violence if current trends continue.  

The El Paso, Texas City Council wants to ask the obvious question -- can we do something different than current policies which are not working out all that well. [h/t Thoreau]  Its sister city of Juarez has seen 1,600 people killed in the past year, the vast majority due to drug and smuggling related violence. 

they want lawmakers to have a serious debate on whether the end of drug prohibition would have a positive impact on the level of violence that has erupted along the U.S.-Mexico border.

"I completely understand ... this is a very uncomfortable conversation to have," said West-Central city Rep. Susie Byrd. "But the reason that I am compelled to support the resolution as we approved it is that whatever we have been doing in the last 40 years has not worked."  

This request for a conversation, debate or dialogue was vetoed.  However the veto will not stop the question as local communities, especially those that are next to emerging temporary autonomous zones controlled by no one but used by cartels and smugglers as lily pads to launch and launder goods into the United States will be forced to make the decision to uphold distant rules or acquiese to the facts on the ground.  And those facts will include looking the other way as the black market supply and violence chains snake northward to the major American cities and population centers. 

Acknowledging this reality and getting in front of it improves local, regional and national resiliency.  Refusing to even acknowledge the debate will lead to alienation as distant mandates do not fit local needs. 

Comments

[Dave Schuler]

I think you're overestimating the benefits of drug legalization. First, complete drug legalization, i.e. making all drugs available over the counter, isn't on the table. As long as that's the case, where do you draw the line?

Wherever you draw it, the drug traffickers will step in to where the demand is. The threat to governments will remain.

Second, as I've noted before when the prohibition of alcoholic beverages was repealed, it was accompanied by the creation of a social safety net. That was necessary because there was an increase in alcohol abuse following the repeal.

I think a number of reforms will be required if we legalize, say cocaine and heroin, in everything from traffic laws to child welfare.

[Jemerson]

Living on the edge of a "transit corridor" has given me the opportunity to observe what happens when angry young men fueled with tons of drug money decide to wage war on one another. It's been a daily barrage of bullets over the last several weeks there since the surge began when some gang member opened fire in a church killing a second gang member during the funeral of a third. I can't wait to see the carnage when the weaponry goes full auto (actually, I can). But the real damage (as always) goes more to the psyche of America than to the narcothugs. It seems as though every burst of gunfire and every death fuels the bonfires of social insanity where the immediate consensus of the film-at-eleven crowd is to throw away more keys, as if that has ever worked before. Seems to me that fighting the drug war as a war is akin to fighting an insurgency as a "proper" war. Neither strategy wins. Of course, if one defines winning as an increase in the number of tax dollars that fund an evolving security state then both strategies have surpassed their respective goals...

I think Fester is spot on about legalization. And with a new president running headlong into unparalleled fiscal, social, and strategic challenges, now is a good time to float these ideas once again. Especially since the incoming administrations appears willing to base policy on factual data and is desperately casting about for new tax dollars...

[Joe Blow]

"Legalization will have high costs as well in the form of greater abuse of drugs and more people becoming addicts"

not at all true. Most people who want to abuse drugs can get plenty of them. especially addicts.

Legalization of almost all drugs, regulated and taxed would reduce violent crime, the amount of money flowing to criminals and just get everyone to relax a bit.

Imagine if there were more pot-heads than drunks...