7 ms·
How the Plummeting Price of Cocaine Fueled the Nationwide Drop in Violent Crime
- nowarninglabel 15y agoFor interesting reads on the politics of cocaine, in addition to the mentioned story in Freakonomics, take a look at: Dark Alliance by Gary Webb: http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Alliance-Contras-Cocaine-Explosion/dp/1888363681 http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Alliance-Contras-Cocaine-Explosio... Snowblind: http://www.amazon.com/Snowblind-Brief-Career-Cocaine-Trade/dp/0802135897 http://www.amazon.com/Snowblind-Brief-Career-Cocaine-Trade/d...
- wisty 15y agoIn other words, high drug prices give money to gangs. Also, some drugs inherently encourage large gangs - stuff like heroin and cocaine has offshore production, which requires complicated supply chains with large (and therefore violent) gangs. As deplorable as meth cookers are, their small scale and low margins mean they only cause limited damage. Since they work alone, they don't need to shoot disloyal gang members, and they are too small to have real turf wars. And they compete against each other, cutting each others margins, so they don't have the money to hire mercenaries, and it's just not worth getting shot in a gangwar to hold their turf. I don't like the effect meth seems to have on users though. It would be much better (IMO) to legalise some less damaging drugs. That's the best of both worlds - cheap drugs (so no money goes to gangs, and addicts don't need to steal as much to pay for them), and safer drugs.
- maxerickson 15y agoMeth production tends to change surrounding the availability of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/etc/cron.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/etc/cron.html (The gist is that large labs tend to spring up whenever they find a bulk source for either chemical and then go away when that bulk source is eliminated)
- Joakal 15y agoI guess that explains why people complain that pharmacies refuse to give them cold medicine [0]. [0] "Give me some pseudoephedrine geez!!" http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1488355 http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1488355
- jwingy 15y agoI remember writing a report on the failure of the war on drugs...and this was 13 some years ago when I was in junior high. Sad to see drug policies still haven't changed much since then.
- rationalbeats 15y agoIt hasn't changed much because it is working great for a very well connected sub-set of our society.
- bestes 15y agoWho are those people? Politicians? (serious question)
- o2sd 15y agoActually, LOTS of people benefit. In no particular order: 1) Wackenhut (GEO group), private prison operator, and the entire prison complex (guard's unions etc) 2) Law enforcement. Even if the DEA had a 99% interception rate, that economics of the trade mean that it is still profitable at 1% supply. Hence, no matter how many busts the DEA makes, they will always need more resources/money/helicopters etc. 3) Banking and Finance. Drug money is the global financial system's liquidity float. It kept Wachovia solvent for nearly a decade. 4) The US Treasury. Do your own research. Suffice it to say, opium production in Afghanistan now exceeds pre-Taliban levels.
- r00fus 15y ago> 3) Banking and Finance. Drug money is the global financial system's liquidity float. It kept Wachovia solvent for nearly a decade. Wow, I had no idea this level of corruption existed: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-d... This indicates to me that there might be a strong connection between the prison-industrial-complex and the military-industrial-complex with that connection being drugs. Meanwhile, Big Finance amorally profits from all (including illegal) activity.
- rick888 15y agoWhat about the increase in corruption in Mexico? An increase in corruption means more criminals can have drug businesses without being stopped by the cops. So, when more drug businesses pop-up, there will be less of a monopoly on the supply and the cost will go down over time. It's the same as any normal business. Even if we legalized all drugs tomorrow, it won't stop the violence. If the Mexican police were actually doing their job, the criminals wouldn't be running the show.
- TruthElixirX 15y agoIt would stop a significant amount of the violence as explained by the fucking article. It is impossible to police drugs. Drugs even get into US max security prisons. The most fucking locked down place on Earth. If you can't eradicate it there how do you plan on eradicating it outside?
- rick888 15y ago"It would stop a significant amount of the violence as explained by the fucking article." I'm sorry, I read the article and I disagree. I'm merely giving a different view and you have to get all angry about it. You should use more logic and less emotion when dealing with issues like this. "The most fucking locked down place on Earth. If you can't eradicate it there how do you plan on eradicating it outside?" I never said anything about eradicating it. I'm saying that the decrease in Cocaine prices might have to do with the increase in the corruption of Mexican officials.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- feralchimp 15y agoThe most interesting point in this article (for me) was the argument that disruptive market pressure from methamphetamine (in particular, low barrier to entry on the production side) didn't just show "War on Drugs" activity to be ineffective; it showed it to be orthogonal to meaningful consequences. Production by cartels outpacing interdiction by law enforcement isn't nearly as convincing as an argument for ending WoD activity. On the contrary, it's something that WoD hawks can point to and say "See? We need more [crazy expensive/attractive-nuisance-for-thugs resource X]!" Modest proposal: The U.S. needs a Manhattan Project for weed/coke/heroin poppy production. Legality of demand isn't required; production just needs to completely undercut the market value of weed/heroin currently imported to the U.S. (or exported from Afghanistan, for example). Beats subsidizing corn for ethanol, at least.
- powertower 15y agoEnding the WoD? That's only what, about one-third to one-half of all law enforcement (and the prison system)? Do you realize how many jobs there are at stake here. Of course I've got my tongue in my cheek, but you do see the problem with the problem of ending the war on drugs?
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- feralchimp 15y agoIt's going to take a lot of LEOs to guard the Manhattan Project weed/coke/heroin territories we instantiate in states that begin with the letter 'I' or 'N'.
- philwelch 15y agoExplain?
- dfc 15y ago"Territories we instantiate in states"? What are you talking about? What is with the first person plural? The only way "we" are doing this is at a national level. On the other hand individual states could decide for themselves (assuming they can get around federal jurisdiction) but they would certainly not have it done to them. I will skip over the "instantiate" word choice...
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- maximusprime 15y agoflagged. Never understood HNs interest in drugs. Hardly on topic is it.
- enjalot 15y agodid you read the article? It's all about how a traditional market (cocaine) got disrupted by startups (meth labs). With the lovely side effects of proving the War on Drugs as useless as we thought it was.
- davidw 15y agoIf you play this game, you can stretch anything to be "on topic".
- brown9-2 15y agoAnd what's wrong with that? "On topic" is anything that interests the group.
- maximusprime 15y agoSo if 1,000 fashion graduates join HN and start upvoting articles about what type of fabrics are in season, you'd be fine with that?
- nickik 15y agoAgree. People sometimes see geeks as (dont have a good english word for it, in german we say "Fachidioten", maybe One-subject-idiots) One-Subject-Idiots. I think its awesome that HN somethims gets into other subjects, the community holds a nice balance without to much regulation.
- davidw 15y agoFirst of all, it's intellectually dishonest, if done the way you were doing it. It'd be more correct to simply say "no, it's about current events/politics, and that interests me". However, there's something about that in the guidelines: "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime". Also, "anything that interests the group" is a terrible way to run a site like this, because eventually the group grows, and if you don't place limits, you'll start getting Ron Paul stories, taser stories, etc... etc...
- vacri 15y agoInteresting that the report only mentions incarceration rates at the end, but doesn't seem to give any credence to the idea that 'permanently' locking everyone up reduces crime. The incarceration rate in the US is unbelieveably high, and started exploding in the late 80s. Increasing the incarcerated population fivefold isn't considered to have had a causal effect on the decrease in crime across the board? Come on, pull the other one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Sta...
- tryitnow 15y agoMy personal sympathies lie with ending the WoD and lowering the incarceration rate. However, I think a nearly fivefold increase in the rate of incarceration probably has something to do with declining crime as well. Does anyone have any solid evidence that the jump in incarceration was not the driver of the decline in crime? Maybe the Levitt paper addresses this. I'll check it out.
- pessimizer 15y agoI don't buy that raising the incarceration rate leads to lowered crime unless you're putting people away for life. Seems more likely to create a larger number of people on the street with few job skills and a criminal record. Prison is where people who dabble in criminality become criminals for life. Now, the idea that the drugs involved in the drug glut that brought on the peak in crime have been forced to lower prices without lowering risk - that seems plausible. Venkatesh's books showed us how little foot soldiers were making when the prices were twice what they are now.
- ww520 15y agoI thought the drop in crime rates coincides with the advent of video games. More teenagers spending time on the consoles and less time shooting each other.
- electromagnetic 15y agoDrops in rape rates coincide with the increased availability of pornography and prostitutes. So I wouldn't be surprised if violence decreases with the availability of alcohol/drugs and entertainment. I think kids are probably less likely to get into gangs if they're at home playing WoW and smoking pot.
- felipemnoa 15y agoThis last paragraph was very interesting: >>As a counter-example, drug use in Mexico is relatively low, approximately 2 percent, whereas in America it hovers around 8 percent. Yet, violence there is at an all-time high. The market and the crime surrounding the trade might have crashed in the U.S., but the death toll has only increased South of the border ever since that region inherited the title of lead cocaine importer. Currently valued at over $3 billion annually, the Mexican cocaine market shows no signs of subsiding, and as long as such a high-valued market exists, violence will most likely follow. <<
- tryitnow 15y agoThe article Levitt's article. I want to note that in that paper Levitt found that the increase in the incarceration rate was a the biggest driver of the decline in crime: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUndersta... See Tables 5 and 6 on pages 184-185.
- liquidcool 15y agoWhat I'm most curious about is what keeps the demand for drugs in the US so high? If the demand dropped off, so would the supply, prices, and number of criminals. I recognize that I'm a deviant on the other side - I abstain from drugs, alcohol, and smoking. A bias for optimum brain, liver, and lung capacity/health seems like the rational choice. So why do so many forgo that? More pointedly, why do more Americans forgo that than citizens in other countries? My hunch is pop cultural influences (is there an episode of Entourage or How To Make It In America where someone doesn't use?), but a root cause analysis would be nice. Maybe it's related to per capita GDP? Education? Economic divide?
- fleitz 15y agoIts fruit of the forbidden tree. Look at drinking, North America is one of the few places where binge drinking has large appeal. Creating a banned books like is creating a reading list. Simply by making something illegal you give it appeal. Once legal most people realize that whatever it is that was banned is actually pretty boring.
- dfc 15y agoThe US is not a big drinking country per capita: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_consumption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_co... What is your evidence for your binge drinking statement? And what is your definition of binge drinking and large appeal.
- chimeracoder 15y agoI'll just point out that your chart, while relevant, doesn't necessarily disprove the original statement. Binge drinking is defined as a certain number of drinks in one night (four for women and five for men, I believe). It's possible that other countries drink more, but they spread it out, so they end up binge drinking less often.
- dfc 15y ago
- jphackworth 15y agoWe should make cocaine legal in half of the states at random, measure crime, and consider it an A/B test.
- suivix 15y agoThat would make interstate commerce regulation pretty interesting.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- teyc 15y agoInteresting. The assertion here is that violent crimes is a coercive measure used by gangs to maintain a monopoly, when enables them to become price setters through inducing artificial scarcity.
- xdrone 15y agoafter doing some research, i'm not sure if this article is accurate. the price of cocaine plummeted in the late 1980's, but the drop off in homicide didn't start until mid 1990's.
- speleding 15y agoThe article claims lower prices mean less profit / less incentive for dealers, and that sounds logical, but I would think that an important knock on effect is that the incentive for corrupt police officers is lower and there is less money available to buy off politicians/judges/contract killers/etc.