Then organized crime would run the streets, as the combative pressure keeping these operations small would removed. Gangs would spring up like weeds, get absorbed into syndicates, and wield large amounts of power over ghettos and other blighted areas without regular sweeps to keep them in line.
I think you are very wrong, and your ironic responses don't apply, because there is a major problem with the approach shown in the article.
The problem is that they are not legalizing drugs, and providing a legal and regulated market that replaces the illegal, criminalized, drug-lords managed and violent market. They are just putting less energy and resources to enforce drug laws.
So, living in Argentina, a country that in the past few years has chosen the very same path, I can tell you that the expected result is not something like Amsterdam, but something like the favelas, in Brazil. Liberated zones, where criminal organizations grow much much more stronger, organized and richer than what you see today. Crime raises, because drug addicts need money to buy drugs from those gangs. Criminals get much more violent. Wars between gangs get much more open to control more land. And the entire society suffers.
You want something like Amsterdam? OK, chasing drug dealers, but provide a legal, cheaper and with better quality market. Offer and demand will make them go away. But without a legal market, stop enforcing drug laws and I can guarantee you, that things can only get much worse.
Usually there is a balance of power dynamic going on. The police know who the drug folks are, and basically let them be to some extent as long as they don't cross the line.
Chicago is a great example of why cops do this. The leadership of a few major gangs was taken out by the police, and the resulting power struggle basically ignited a street war with death counts similar to the war in Afghsnistan.
Well, one could argue that (in the short term) there would be more violence as the current power balance is disrupted and gangs search to expand into other areas to generate their money...
But the whole point is that the money not spent in the war on drugs would then be re-directed to control other criminal activities. I'd rather gangs go into white-collar crime than violent crimes.
The Mafia, Yakuza and the Hong Kong triads have in large measure done away from street crime and moved to more economic-oriented crimes such as buying legitimate companies and fiddling with their accounts to illegally import and sell goods, avoid taxes, peddle in corruption, gambling, ...
I realized the drug war was a farce when I was a teenager watching the evening news with my parents.
They ran a story about arresting a Colombian drug lord and raiding his mansion. Immediately following was a commercial break which featured August Busch talking about some charity his brewery was sponsoring.
And it hit me: one drug lord gets a small army sent after him and another drug lord is allowed to operate openly and even accepted as an upstanding member of the community. What is the difference between the two?
Of course the key difference is: when the drug is legal, it's far more profitable and easier to run above board, even with the burden of taxes and regulations. Why run a complicated network of smugglers and violent enforcers, running the risk of extended jail time, when you can just maintain a distribution network and pay for advertising? I'm sure Pablo Escobar would have gladly given up his thuggish ways in exchange for decent shelf placement in retail establishments and ads featuring "Escobar's Finest Blend. Don't settle for imitations!"
Agree except for the last part. Pablo Escobar brought a different set of skills to the table running his empire than would be required of someone running a legitimate business trafficking in the same goods. With legalization, the Pablo Escobars of the go into the business of stocking store shelves and picking up trash - they do not become CEOs of successful companies. Other people do that instead.
How did you get from "less or no prosecution of drug crimes" to "the police will stop enforcing law entirely, turning the inner city into a Plisskenian hellhole"?
Honestly, I think gangs would lose power as legal outlets took hold, but we'd have more widespread addiction problems and more trouble with jobless addicts stealing for their next fix.
Do you have any examples of where your theory has become reality? Because there are several examples of the opposite happening (e.g. overall less crime in Portugal).
In the case of marijuana legalisation - Big Pharma has spent millions researching and developing drugs for medical conditions that marijuana is able to treat just as effectively.
They make and will continue to make a lot more money keeping things they way they are, rather than letting Ma and Pa Kettle grow their own medicine.
