Is the Mexican government really this sensible? Will it really decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana and other now-prohibited drugs? I certainly hope so!
If so, I predict that urban violence in Mexico will fall.
Hat tip to Dan Polsby.
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 14 comments }
Since it's not the end users who are largely responsible for the violence resulting from the illegal drug trade, legalizing possession for personal use won't help the crime problem.
Without a similar decision to legalize supplying those now legal users, the crime will still continue. Indeed, the increased demand may actually worsen the crime problem.
This development may also draw some drug use that currently takes place on US soil to Mexican soil. This could result in a reduction of the many negative externalities associated with drug use such as consumption of enforcement resources and lost productivity.
I think there will obviously be a decrease in violence. The Mexican government, for example, has already agreed to be less violent towards people with only small amounts of drugs.
I think we should remember that Cancun took a major hurricane-related beat down last year. That, coupled with contuing U$D weakness v. Euro, leads me to give credence to the idea that the move is about Tourism Marketing. Cancun, the new Amsterdam (w/ Bikinis)
Swimmy says:
Since it's not the end users who are largely responsible for the violence resulting from the illegal drug trade, legalizing possession for personal use won't help the crime problem.
Without a similar decision to legalize supplying those now legal users, the crime will still continue. Indeed, the increased demand may actually worsen the crime problem.
Can anyone confirm this? Is it truely illegal to sell drugs but not illegal to consume drugs? If this is the intent of the proposed legislation then it should have an almost zero effect on crime. Until the ban on selling drugs becomes lifted it will still foster black market activity which will shift surplus dollars to violent thugs who use drug sales as a way to exploit bad policy. Until governments realize that when we ban drugs we are essentialy fostering the creation of two bad outcomes; drug use and the transfer of resources to violent criminals. If we legalized the sale and use of drugs we would eliminate the black market activity and the surplus profit that goes into the pockets of criminals.
"Mexico's president will approve a law that decriminalizes possession of small amounts of marijuana, cocaine and other drugs to concentrate on fighting violent narco gangs, the government said on Tuesday."
And then at the end:
"Under current law, it is up to local judges and police to decide on a case-by-case basis whether people should be prosecuted for possessing small quantities of drugs."
Up to local judges and cops? Sounds like a recipe for corruption to me. You pay off, they choose not to prosecute. You don't pay off, learn how to say bend over in jailhouse Spanish.
I'm sure most everyone will be focusing on the decriminalization for very small amounts of posession, which is the potential opening for a big libertarian victory in this hemisphere.
But the ending of a potent source of corruption seems a bigger win for Mexico to me.
If the possession of small amounts is made legal but selling is not, I imagine that users would be inclined to produce their own rather than bear the risk of buying from a speculatively shadier/violenter dealer.
Happyjuggler nails it — while there will probably be less drug-related crime, that effect will probably be tiny compared to the reduction in low-level police and courthouse corruption that will result. Corruption is a huge problem in Mexico and this policy is a great way to start seriously solving it.
I think this is the stupidest move done by anybody since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the 40's. How do you allow for your own people to harm themselves while you watch on the sidelines? This will make the drug war in the US and elsewhere harder to fight now since drug cartels will gain more power.
I don't really think this will cut down on corruption. The legal amounts are very small and it's up to the authorities to do the measurement. It would be very easy for the police to "adjust" the weight of your stash based on the size of their "tip".
Also I can only assume that "wom" is either trolling or being sarcastic…
Out of curiousity, has anyone studied similar examples elsewhere in terms of price when use is decriminalized but sales is not? Does the price remain artificially high, or does it go close to legal market prices, or somewhere in between?
I suppose we'll know soon enough, at least in Mexico's case. The reason I'm curious is that if the price goes down it would tend to create more demand of course, but at the same time theft/robbery/mugging etc. to finance the habit of junkies would also drop dramatically. Same drop in female junkies turning to prostitution.
Unfortunately I suspect that price would remain high for risk/reward reasons for "trafficers". If the price is too low it is not worth the risk.
Use will likely go up in Mexico anyway regardless of price, if only from Americans going south.
"How do you allow for your own people to harm themselves while you watch on the sidelines?"
You can speak for yourself, but I am not one of my government's own people. I am my own person.
"theft/robbery/mugging etc. to finance the habit of junkies would also drop dramatically" …. hmmm, junkies (heroin) don't really work like that – they will take more junk if its cheaper .. that's why they are called junkies – they consume junk – as much of it as they can get hold of.
Junkies are a particular and distinct phenomenon characterised by taking junk – they will still rob/steal/prostitute but they will get more junk for their efforts.
The only way to get junkies out of crime is to give/subsidise junk. Then they may well sell it on, which is why so many schemes to give/subsidise junk to junkies are eventually discontinued.
Economists probably don't have any solutions for junkies … they are called junkies because they do junk, very simple.
Cannabis, ecstasy and cocaine may be more amenable to common sense, sweet reason and economics – Viva Mexico.
So… what are you going to do if you're wrong? Would you admit that decriminalizing drugs does not reduce crime if that did turn out to be the case, or would you try to find a justification, saying that they just didn't do it right?
Is your reasoning more along the lines of "The more they decriminalize drugs, the lower the crime rate will be." or is it " If the crime rate doesn't fall, they must have not decriminalized drugs in the right way."?