5 ms·

A fair amount of crime which is not narrowly "drug crime" is at least partially ascribable to the drug war. In decreasing order of being "drug caused," we have

A fair amount of crime which is not narrowly "drug crime" is at least partially ascribable to the drug war. In decreasing order of being "drug caused," we have: 1. Violence over territory from drug dealers can lead to various violence-related charges. 2. Drug addicts may commit monetary crimes in order to pay for drugs. 3. The general mess that the black market drug trade makes of some neighborhoods creates an environment in which young people feel they have few legitimate options and turn to crime. Which isn't of course to say that all crime is ascribable to the drug war. But certainly it's more crime than what you'd narrowly call "drug offenses" like possession, dealing, trafficking, or laundering the proceeds.

dragonwriter 12y ago
Also consider that some imprisonment may be attributable to the drug war even if the crime itself is not. Crime does not inevitably lead to imprisonment, or even prosecution -- whether a crime leads to prosecution, and what kind of punishment is sought, doesn't just depend on the crime itself, or whether the prosecutor can prove it, but also on what effect the prosecutor wants to have on the potential target of prosecution. If someone is a target of law enforcement because of the drug war, but the crime they can make stick is something other than drug-related that they wouldn't have bothered to prosecute in otherwise similar circumstances were it not for the attention given that target in the drug war, they aren't always going to say "oh well, let's not prosecute until we can gather sufficient evidence of a drug offense."
- rayiner 12y ago
  I think the opposite situation is more common, in fact. Drug offenses are easy to prove and invoke federal jurisdiction. That makes it more likely for someone to be prosecuted and incarcerated on a drug offense when in reality they were of interest to the police for other reasons.
rayiner 12y ago
I think the kinds of people who engage in gang violence or monetary crimes over drugs fit into the category of "bad, antisocial" people I mentioned. Society would have to deal with their proclivities whether or not their energies were directed towards illegal drugs or something else.
- Gracana 12y ago
  The other article that was posted here today about the US prison problem noted that crime went down significantly after prices of crack cocaine dropped, which would be a counterpoint to the conclusion you've drawn.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    The per capita homicide rate in the U.S. more than doubled from 1950 to 1973, in a consistent trend. The peak happened in 1980, but most of the increase happened in the late 1960's. Nixon didn't even coin the term "war on drugs" until 1971, and the real crackdown and jump in incarceration didn't happen until Reagan in the 1980's. The drug war isn't helping, of course, but its unlikely to be the root cause given the timing of things. More likely the root cause is the ghettoization of the cities due to white flight and wealth flight in the 1950's and 1960's, along with the continued effects of trade liberalization taking away low-skill jobs.
- aetherson 12y ago
  That's quite an amazingly strong claim of biological essentialism. Got any data to back it up? It would be naive to imagine that there is no "fundamental nature" element to people. That your genes or early childhood experiences or whatever do not make some people more prone to antisocial behavior, and indeed do not make some people guaranteed to be extremely antisocial. Some people who are now criminals connected with the drug trade would, in a counter-factual world of legalized drugs, find other outlets for their antisocial tendencies. But it's just as naive, perhaps more so, to imagine that the circumstances that people find themselves in do not also affect their social/antisocial behavior. A hundred and sixty years ago, millions of people in the United States actively participated in a monstrous crime perpetrated against an entire race of people, the equivalent of what in the modern world would be multiple felonies per day across their lifetimes. It was certainly antisocial. Was that destiny? Were all those people just inherently bad? If so, what happened to them? Why doesn't modern Georgia have most whites being serial felons?
  - javert 12y ago
tptacek 12y ago
If Indianapolis's incarceration stats are similar to those of Illinois, a plurality of inmates are there for domestic violence. Later Nope; significant domestic violence, but mostly property crimes. Lots of drugs, too; Indiana breaks out meth (a scourge in the midwest), and meth seems to be the dominant component of drug incarcerations.
Houshalter 12y ago
I don't think you can count number 2. That assumes there wouldn't be just as many or more addicts without the drug war. Number 1 might be due to the drug war, but they aren't exactly innocent victims of it. Number 3 assumes there would be options for them otherwise. I don't see how stopping the drug war would do that.

dragonwriter 12y ago

Also consider that some imprisonment may be attributable to the drug war even if the crime itself is not. Crime does not inevitably lead to imprisonment, or even prosecution -- whether a crime leads to prosecution, and what kind of punishment is sought, doesn't just depend on the crime itself, or whether the prosecutor can prove it, but also on what effect the prosecutor wants to have on the potential target of prosecution. If someone is a target of law enforcement because of the drug war, but the crime they can make stick is something other than drug-related that they wouldn't have bothered to prosecute in otherwise similar circumstances were it not for the attention given that target in the drug war, they aren't always going to say "oh well, let's not prosecute until we can gather sufficient evidence of a drug offense."

rayiner 12y ago
I think the opposite situation is more common, in fact. Drug offenses are easy to prove and invoke federal jurisdiction. That makes it more likely for someone to be prosecuted and incarcerated on a drug offense when in reality they were of interest to the police for other reasons.

rayiner 12y ago

I think the kinds of people who engage in gang violence or monetary crimes over drugs fit into the category of "bad, antisocial" people I mentioned. Society would have to deal with their proclivities whether or not their energies were directed towards illegal drugs or something else.

Gracana 12y ago
The other article that was posted here today about the US prison problem noted that crime went down significantly after prices of crack cocaine dropped, which would be a counterpoint to the conclusion you've drawn.
- rayiner 12y ago
  The per capita homicide rate in the U.S. more than doubled from 1950 to 1973, in a consistent trend. The peak happened in 1980, but most of the increase happened in the late 1960's. Nixon didn't even coin the term "war on drugs" until 1971, and the real crackdown and jump in incarceration didn't happen until Reagan in the 1980's. The drug war isn't helping, of course, but its unlikely to be the root cause given the timing of things. More likely the root cause is the ghettoization of the cities due to white flight and wealth flight in the 1950's and 1960's, along with the continued effects of trade liberalization taking away low-skill jobs.
aetherson 12y ago
That's quite an amazingly strong claim of biological essentialism. Got any data to back it up? It would be naive to imagine that there is no "fundamental nature" element to people. That your genes or early childhood experiences or whatever do not make some people more prone to antisocial behavior, and indeed do not make some people guaranteed to be extremely antisocial. Some people who are now criminals connected with the drug trade would, in a counter-factual world of legalized drugs, find other outlets for their antisocial tendencies. But it's just as naive, perhaps more so, to imagine that the circumstances that people find themselves in do not also affect their social/antisocial behavior. A hundred and sixty years ago, millions of people in the United States actively participated in a monstrous crime perpetrated against an entire race of people, the equivalent of what in the modern world would be multiple felonies per day across their lifetimes. It was certainly antisocial. Was that destiny? Were all those people just inherently bad? If so, what happened to them? Why doesn't modern Georgia have most whites being serial felons?
- javert 12y ago

tptacek 12y ago

If Indianapolis's incarceration stats are similar to those of Illinois, a plurality of inmates are there for domestic violence. Later Nope; significant domestic violence, but mostly property crimes. Lots of drugs, too; Indiana breaks out meth (a scourge in the midwest), and meth seems to be the dominant component of drug incarcerations.

Houshalter 12y ago

I don't think you can count number 2. That assumes there wouldn't be just as many or more addicts without the drug war. Number 1 might be due to the drug war, but they aren't exactly innocent victims of it. Number 3 assumes there would be options for them otherwise. I don't see how stopping the drug war would do that.