Alot of these articles miss an important part of the equation by just looking at the direct costs to taxpayers to run prison facilities. There are alot more costs to the incarceration mentality than just that.
There is the cost of the entire justice system - police, judges, attorneys, and so on.
Add to that the lost productivity of inmates who could be holding down jobs instead of just twiddling their thumbs.
Then you have costs borne by the inmates' families to visit them, make up for their absence etc.
I think the overall cost to American society from locking up so many people is staggering when you add it all up. Unfortunately people still vote for politicians who promise to be "tough(er) on crime" and the cycle continues...
But then you need to offset that against the damage that would be done if that person was not incarcerated. The $ amount of damage a car thief can do in one month is very high.
The article specifically mentions incarcerations skyrocketing as a result of the drug war. Throwing petty dealers in prison is not an effective use of taxpayer dollars.
Bear in mind that drug dealers are not known to be the most civic minded people and likely commit other offenses. Drug dealing is just what they got busted for.
I've known areas of my town get dramatically safer after some big drug busts. The drug trade has significant externalities.
If it wasn't illegal, there would be no illegal drug trade. Most drug related offenses are during nonviolent events. Drugs are popular in low income areas which is also where there's a lot of other crime. Decriminalizing drugs won't change this, but it will allow the system (legislators, police, & judges) to focus on the crimes that do harm society. Take that to it's logicial conclusion and it's not hard to arrive at the decision that the war on drugs is bad for society.
But what do these drug dealers turn their attentions to? Most of them don't have the education to make similar quantities of money in a 'straight' industry.
Statistically, and in my experience, drug dealing is not a violent crime. They're not going to start knocking over convenience stores. Some of them might scrape together enough capital to start a retail store. Prices and profits are going to take a long time to fall, so most of them will just keep doing what they're doing, except with a little less risk, and they'll be able to keep their cash in a bank, and theoretically pay taxes on it. If things reach the point where it's not really profitable any more, then those people will have to get a real job.
The idea that they will turn to some other criminal pursuit...yeesh. It's like you've never even met any dealers. Imagine that tomorrow, the government made your job illegal. Would you be like, "Well, that does it. I guess I'd better start brushing up on my raping, murdering, and insider trading," or would you maybe not go all-out breaking whatever laws you could? It may shock you to realize that because the hypothetical dealer is breaking the law in one respect, he is best served by not breaking the law in any other respect, in order to not draw attention to himself.
Lastly, we don't have to speculate what will happen, there are countries which have decriminalized drug use -- US states too. Marijuana has been decriminalized in Alaska for almost 40 years, although no one seems to know this. The sky has stubbornly refused to fall.
Perhaps there is the odd hippie selling homegrown ganja out of his greenhouse who has never been in a fight in his life, but drug gangs control a massive amount of the trade from production to distribution and are certainly happy to use violence if required.
Violence may not be required however in cases where everyone is already scared witless of them. Drug crime and other crime go hand in hand.
If you legalize drugs completely , then serious businesses run by people with MBAs , Venture capital, marketing teams, legal departments etc come into the game. Rather than street level violence, battles are not fought in patent courts and with government lobbying.
Those who are currently dealing drugs don't know how to play this game and will lose.
They can't go and get a straight job because they have no provable work history, probably a criminal record and few contacts outside of the "underworld".
They also have become accustomed to a lifestyle of nice cars and (possibly multiple) high maintenance girlfriends, so McDonalds isn't going to cut it.
So they will look for other lucrative opportunities where the MBAs don't want to compete with them (because it is illegal).
"Perhaps there is the odd hippie selling homegrown ganja out of his greenhouse who has never been in a fight in his life..."
You don't know what you're talking about.
"Drug crime and other crime go hand in hand."
[Citation Needed]
"Those who are currently dealing drugs don't know how to play this game and will lose."
And then get a real job.
"They can't go and get a straight job because they have no provable work history, probably a criminal record and few contacts outside of the "underworld". They also have become accustomed to a lifestyle of nice cars and (possibly multiple) high maintenance girlfriends, so McDonalds isn't going to cut it."
You have no idea what you're talking about. The margins are not that high.
Your image of drug dealers applies to an extremely small minority. You must only know what these people are like from TV.
Are you joking, racist, or just stupid? Do you imagine we have jails all over the country brimming with Mexican cartel lords? Are drug-dealing latinos installed on every corner like street lights, all through the US? What does the word "minority" mean to you? I will give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you're not intentionally being racist, and by assuming that you actually live in some area that has some sort of a problem with organized crime. This is far from true for most of the US.
I don't see where I claimed any of those things, especially how my claims are racist?
You claimed that drug dealing is a non violent activity. I showed an example of where that is demonstrably not the case. Roughly 65% of the coke in the US comes through mexico where it is causing serious violence.
In my home country (UK) we also have problems with violence and intimidation from drug gangs in many deprived areas.
> The skills required to run a legal drugs business are almost entirely different to those required to run an illegal drugs business.
Which, incidentally, doesn't stop at the lower-level employees but goes the whole way to the top, and is one reason it is quite likely that the "newly legal mary jane barons" won't be the same as the pre-legalization illegal barons, they'll be existing ag/pharma megacorps, who are set up to do what a legal business in the field will need to do (including already being plugged in with the applicable regulatory bodies.)
OK Might as well keep stupid laws in place then? What's your point? Should we also outlaw fast food b/c more low income people eat it and we all know lower income people commit more crimes?
I've responded in more detail elsewhere, but this claim has no basis in reality. This is an extraordinary claim and needs a substantial amount of evidence to support it.
Running their own competing transaction enforcement system (as they're unable to use the one provided by the incumbent force monopoly) is the thing which has significant externalities.
Those externalities are themselves a consequence of the War on Drugs, not the drug dealer. I have lots of drug dealers in my state who run great businesses and contribute to the local economy because the drugs they deal are now legal.
Drugs might be easier to arrest people for. That doesn't justify the war on drugs, but it does raise the possibility of having more people who should be in jail not being in jail.
I would wager most (or at least a very large %) people involved in drug crime on the supply end, or on the demand end of harder drugs commit other offences or are likely to in future.
There is the cost of the entire justice system - police, judges, attorneys, and so on.
Add to that the lost productivity of inmates who could be holding down jobs instead of just twiddling their thumbs.
Then you have costs borne by the inmates' families to visit them, make up for their absence etc.
I think the overall cost to American society from locking up so many people is staggering when you add it all up. Unfortunately people still vote for politicians who promise to be "tough(er) on crime" and the cycle continues...