"Back when alcohol was banned, used to be that somebody might shoot you over some moonshine or bathtub gin. These days, you just shoot on over to the nearest 7-Eleven and buy the on-sale six-pack."

Of course, deaths due to alcohol use occur, on the order of more than ten thousand annually directly from use, but that's OK because we can just shoot on over to the nearest 7-11 and buy a six-pack on sale.

How many did the Mob kill?

Only in the advocacy of drug legalization will you see claims that the cost to society would just go away if they were just legalized. Sometimes, advocates will actually claim usage will go down with wider availability, defying every supply/demand example ever seen.

We just don't know what will happen.

I supposed alcohol use has gone up, however tobacco use has gone down in part from education. I supposed it is also prohibited in most areas. When I was younger it was permitted at school, stores, and the workplace but now it's only legal in some bars and outdoors.

I've seen that with increased marijuana use option use goes down.

I think some things would be used more readily- stimulants for instance to lose weight and increase productivity. Yes, it's used that way now but there are many people that will only follow the law. Others may not be able to afford it.

Yo, Beauregard! Does that 52000 number include the number of Americans who died because of legal drug use (including alcohol) ?? Ooopsy, I bet it's a lot higher.

...I see that has already been pointed out in the link. Oopsy indeed.

"How many did the Mob kill?"

I don't know, but the fact remains that the Mob grew -- a lot -- as a direct result of Prohibition. And from the estimates I've seen, it doesn't appear that Prohibition actually decreased nationwide alcohol consumption very much.

It's a little tough to see what Sessions is getting at here. If he's advocating throwing the book at the guys who are out collecting debts at the barrel of a gun, I'm all for that. But if he's advocating the same old Drug Warrior stuff, we've already seen that that doesn't work, and it results in abridgment of Constitutional rights.

("Abridgment"... one of those words like "judgment" that doesn't have an 'e' where it ought to.)

Drug trafficking is an inherently violent business. If you want to collect a drug debt, you can't, and don't, file a lawsuit in court. You collect it by the barrel of a gun.

If drugs are legalized, the new sellers won't be thugs standing on street corners. The sellers will be retail stores, pharmaceutical companies, and pharmacies. These groups rarely use physical violence in their competition against each other.

However, legalization won't solve the violence problem. Those thugs who managed the now-legalized drug trade will move on to another banned substance or activity and continue to defend their territory or settle their debts at gunpoint.

"But if he's advocating the same old Drug Warrior stuff, we've already seen that that doesn't work, and it results in abridgment of Constitutional rights."

If my memory is working it's the Drug Warrior stuff. I don't know why but Sessions appears to have a personal hatred of drug producers and consumers. So rational discussion on this topic may not be possible.

"Those thugs who managed the now-legalized drug trade will move on to another banned substance or activity and continue to defend their territory or settle their debts at gunpoint."

But they will have a much smaller revenue stream to work with, hence reducing the level of violence they can perpetrate.

The bigger issue is the violence and other problems with drug consumers. As others have noted drunks plow into people with regularity. Now that Colorado has legalized marijuana you see weed smokers doing the exact same thing.

Scott makes a very good point: "If drugs were legal, people could sue to collect a debt."

Because making it easier for scofflaws to collect a debt or conduct business should be the goal of our social policy.

But they will have a much smaller revenue stream to work with, hence reducing the level of violence they can perpetrate. ~ Ben at June 19, 2017 7:28 AM

Not necessarily. There may be a potentially lucrative untapped illicit market right now that remains untapped because entering the illegal drug trade is easier and has fewer barriers to entry. Once the illicit drug trade is no longer a lucrative business, that market may end up attracting new entrants and competitors.

And don't count on legalization bringing the drug trade into the open and reducing violence. Oxycontin and other prescription drugs are regularly sold for off-label use by "independent pharmaceutical representatives," despite being legal for prescriptive use.

Also, don't forget Sayre's Law, "In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake."

That is a pretty weak rebuttal Conan. I find it hard to believe our hard working drug dealers are so busy peddling smack that they just don't have the man-hours left to engage in other lucrative crimes. Also, Oxycontin is illegal for that use. So the argument doesn't match with legalization.

When we made alcohol illegal an entire mob industry was born to supply it. When we made alcohol legal those mobsters moved into gambling and slowly faded away.

As far as actual legalization goes I am personally ambivalent. As was pointed out above when we made alcohol illegal it didn't have much effect on the consumption levels of alcohol. The same is true for most illegal drugs. When we legalized weed in Colorado there was minimal increase in consumption. When we raise tobacco taxes up to confiscatory rates we see little change in cigarette consumption.

But we do see a change in how those users act with that product. When weed was illegal in Colorado people had to hide their consumption and there were pretty few auto related accidents. Since legalization weed related DWIs have shot through the roof. Alcohol is legal to consume, but most places prohibit drinking and walking down the street. You need to consume your intoxicant in a private facility (bar) or at home. Just legalizing it doesn't make all the problems go away.

I find it hard to believe our hard working drug dealers are so busy peddling smack that they just don't have the man-hours left to engage in other lucrative crimes. ~ Ben at June 19, 2017 10:12 AM

Barriers to entry, Ben. If it takes significant investment of time, money, and effort to enter a particular market, it may not be worth it to the criminal element that desires an easy payout. But, when the easily-entered market dries up, that effort becomes worth it.

Prohibition-era alcohol distribution required a supplier, a supply chain, and a distribution system. All of these were easily acquired and easy to keep hidden (e.g., no radar in the '30s to detect boats heading for hidden coves). And covering up one's alcohol distribution points was usually done with enthusiastic public cooperation. No one told the police where the speakeasy was - in fact, the chief probably already knew and spent his nights there. My grandfather was the town manager in a dry southern state and knew all the local bootleggers. He and the sheriff used to get their weekly booze supply from them.

Low barriers to entry made alcohol distribution a low hanging fruit. Drugs? Not so much. Not to mention, drug dealers at the end of Prohibition did not usually have the enthusiastic cooperation of the public and law enforcement. Criminal penalties were harsher too. In addition, most old school mobsters echoed the public sentiment in their disdain for drug use and distribution. So, mobsters avoided dealing drugs, until they no longer had an easy cash stream from booze. Then, a drug market became worth the effort to cultivate.

When we made alcohol legal those mobsters moved into gambling and slowly faded away. ~ Ben at June 19, 2017 10:12 AM

Slowly faded away? There are plenty of "organized" criminal elements dealing in illegal products and services today (gangs, cartels, etc.). Nothing faded away, it evolved. A more efficient and ruthless competitor supplanted the other.

When alcohol was legalized, the Mob, and its successors, moved into drugs, prostitution, gambling, identity theft, etc., endeavors that had higher barriers to entry and were more niche market oriented than alcohol, but nonetheless proved to be quite lucrative once alcohol was no longer the easy payout it had been. Once the low-hanging fruit (alcohol) was gone, criminals moved up into the higher branches. And they'll do it again if drugs are legalized. And they won't fade away, they'll be supplanted by groups that are more efficient and ruthless.

Oxycontin is illegal for that use. So the argument doesn't match with legalization. ~ Ben at June 19, 2017 10:12 AM

And likely as not, if drugs are legalized, restrictions will be put on their use and distribution, restrictions that violent criminals will circumvent if it proves to be profitable to do so. As such, violence in the illegal drug trade will continue.

==============================

Legalization will not automatically clear up all the problems associated with an illegal activity. As you pointed out with your example of impaired driving in Colorado, "Just legalizing it doesn't make all the problems go away."

I still don't buy your mobsters going from alcohol to drugs line Conan. It wasn't the end of alcohol prohibition that brought about the current drug trade. And keeping alcohol illegal wouldn't have prevented the current drug trade. Yes the mob did move from alcohol into gambling and prostitution but they were merely fighting other people who were already in those markets. They certainly didn't create them. And when they were working on alcohol they certainly didn't keep others out of gambling or prostitution.

If I had to make a guess as to what historic change we could have made that would have eliminated or at least delayed the current drug trade, not fighting the Vietnam war would probably be it. And maybe Korea too.

On there still being an illegal market on 'legalized' drugs I agree with you. In theory tobacco is legal but there certainly is a black market in high tax jurisdictions. In Colorado you still have the illegal weed trade exactly because taxes and regulation are high enough it just makes sense to keep selling illegal weed at a lower price. The old legalize it and regulate the hell out of it line doesn't work.

From my point of view prohibition doesn't work without the support of the vast majority. You mentioned the police knowing where all the speakeasys were. Well, the cops know where a lot of the drug trade flows today as well. Today any drug you want is just a phone call away. But just like the old prohibition days you need a friend to vouch for you. Without broad public support it is impossible to enforce a prohibition. So then you are into the competing harms an unpopular prohibition brings and the harms the activity you want to prohibit brings. I don't see a black/white divide for that. You just pick somewhere in the gray and go with it.

"the Mob grew -- a lot -- as a direct result of Prohibition"

Without Prohibition, Joe Kennedy might not have become a powerful multi-millionaire with political aspirations for his family (Vito Corleone & Sons), and we wouldn't have had JFK.

No JFK, no moon landing.

So making fun things illegal is good for humanity.

Silly, I know, but why is it the most uptight conservatives screech about making everyone else's fun illegal - and then get caught with a bag of meth and a rentboy in a motel?

I don't see a black/white divide for that. You just pick somewhere in the gray and go with it. ~ Ben at June 19, 2017 11:24 AM

I'm all for the least harm theory. And legalizing drugs is probably going to do the least harm. We'll still have violence and a black market trade, but we won't have the billions of dollars spent on massive interdiction. We'll have rehab costs that could stretch into the millions and an uptick in petty crime.

We'll also have some unforeseen consequences from legalization and there's no way to predict the cost of those. However, we do have some insight into the effects of legalized drugs. Opiates and cocaine were legal in the US until the early 20th century.

We can also predict some of the consequences and their costs. Prop 47 decriminalized possession of small amounts of illegal drugs in California and ushered in a wave of petty crime as addicts openly stole misdemeanor-level money for their next fix and police are overwhelmed to the point that petty crime complaints are virtually ignored.

Legalization will not make everything hunky-dory with smiling unicorns and rainbow farts, but it may help to reduce corruption, the militarization of the police, the costs of massive interdiction, and the general disregard with which drug laws are seen in society and popular culture.

When you have popular media celebrating drug use and police dying to prevent it, you have a split in the fabric of society - a growing chasm between those charged with protecting society and the society itself.

If I had to make a guess as to what historic change we could have made that would have eliminated or at least delayed the current drug trade, not fighting the Vietnam war would probably be it. And maybe Korea too.

Might not have helped. Large-scale heroin imports into the US started well before the US involvement in Vietnam, roughly around the French involvement there. Don't forget, the French Connection (1930s to 1970s) moved tons of Indochinese poppies into Marseilles and tons of finished heroin into the US.

The US involvement in Vietnam coincided with the advent of containerized shipping, which lowered shipping costs and ushered in an increase in global trade (import/export). In fact, it was in supplying US forces in Vietnam that container freight proved itself.

And from the estimates I've seen, it doesn't appear that Prohibition actually decreased nationwide alcohol consumption very much.
_____________________________________________

Historian Richard Shenkman said, in effect, that yes, consumption WAS decreased - but at too high a social cost.

And Gog, somehow your comment reminded me of a TV documentary I saw a while back on the Mob vs. the KKK when it came to integrating the music business - and more.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1kzquh_the-mafia-vs-the-kkk_shortfilms

The jazz part starts after the 18-minute mark, I believe.

Here's the "Cliff Notes" version:

https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=171909323

That is a good argument for the defederalization of drug policy Conan. Let each jurisdiction decide what they are going to do. There isn't a national consensus so maybe a local consensus could be found.

And I'd buy container shipping brought down the cost of foreign drugs resulting in their popularity. I'd still say containerization was worth it.

Yeah but look at which TYPES of drugs the government allows to flood the country:

Ego drugs. Coke, meth, alcohol. They're everywhere.

Mind-expanding substances? It's a lot harder to find LSD or mescaline in tonnage, either metric or royal.

It's like religion: ego drugs are good for government. Keep the proles addled and distracted.

You find it hard to get your hands on LSD or bliss, Gog? Coke makes sense for stocking. It is rather hard to produce close to consumers. Other goods are easier to source locally. Hence little need for stockpiling or significant shipping.

"Other goods are easier to source locally."

Thanks Ben. Not enough people understand the intersectionality of production, distribution, demand, and supply. We need to get some MBAs on this problem, stat!

After that we can get the peyote trucks rolling. But not until then.

You've got me there Gog. I've not known any dealers that stocked peyote. It seems to have a selective market.

Can some legal historian explain this, please? (It may be from the 1970s; I know it's at least 25 years old.)

From Judge James Gray:

"Our laws are telling people 'if you're concerned about getting caught, don't use marijuana, use cocaine.' Well, that is not necessarily what people want to do."

James Gray was an Orange County Superior Court judge and is a writer. He was Gary Johnson's running mate on the Libertarian ticket in 2012.

Gray has been an outspoken critic of America's drug laws, based on his experience on the bench.

What I meant was, why was it more risky to use marijuana? (Aside from the fact that marijuana has a give-away scent - but I suspect that's not the only thing Gray was referring to.)

The Myths of Drug Legalization from someone who's been on the front lines.

Don't know where he gets his statistics but, if true, they're eye-opening.

Q: But doesn't alcohol cost our society much more than all illegal drugs combined?

A: Absolutely, but that's because alcohol is legal, inexpensive and readily available, and illegal drugs are not. Over 50 percent of the people in this country use alcohol, whereas less than 5 percent use illicit drugs. In fact, there are more people addicted to alcohol than use all of the different illicit drugs, even though drugs are far more addicting. Alcohol is responsible for 100,000 deaths, including over 20,000 from drunk driving, whereas drugs are responsible for 20,000 total. Medical costs for alcohol are triple that of drugs, and the total cost to society is double. There are also three times as many arrests for alcohol violations as there are drug violations. This is hardly the model I would be citing to try to justify legalizing a number of more deadly substances. In fact, our alcohol policy and experience with its costs and tragic effects is probably the best argument for keeping drugs illegal. We already have alcohol and tobacco; why would we want to add more?

Q: But aren't most of the costs covered by taxes on alcohol, just like they suggest doing if drugs were legal?

A: Alcohol taxes cover less than ten percent of the total cost of alcohol abuse. That's not a great investment.

This one has end notes.

If you arent willing to advocate that adults are too incompetent to drink booze you shouldnt support the notion that they are too incompetent to imbibe substances that cause less damage to society and hundreds of time more in tax dollars to police.

Think about this. Tens of billions have been spent on the drug war. Hundreds of billion in money and product have been confiscated. Tens of thousands imprisoned and killed, thousands of people in WITSEC and on permanent disability.

And the end result of all this? Drugs are cheaper now than when they were legal. Imagine how much cheaper still they would be without all that money and effort being spent to limit supply

It has already been proven time and time again that the drug war was and is a failure. You put the criminal element in when you make something illegal. I don't believe that making something illegal deters anyone from doing anything any more than they would have. I'm pretty sure there are scientific studies that have proven this.

I live in Colorado. I have not seen any increase in violent crimes or serious traffic accidents as a result of cannabis. I have not seen much of an increase in usage for that matter. I suspect the usage of cannabis has not really gone up at all here, there are just more people who are "out" about it. The people who consume cannabis treat it pretty much like alcohol, there are a lot of responsible people who know what their limits are and when the proper times and places to imbibe is and there are irresponsible people who don't.