War On Drugs

Thus, no matter what quantity (usage of drugs) will go down (Q2). The direction in which the price moves depends on which shift is larger. It has been shown that price will most likely go up; the reason for this is because law enforcement often goes after the suppliers with more effort than they go after the buyers because it has a greater deterrent effect because it is harder to sell than buy (Hellman and Alper). Also the punishments for sellers are much worse than for buyers. Therefore, the leftward shift of the supply schedule (S2), caused by the decrease in supply, is much larger than the shift in the demand schedule (D2); this causes a larger decrease in supply than in demand (area between S1 and S2 is larger) which then causes the increase in price from P1 to P2 (Graph A) (Miller). The increase in helps explain why drug offenders commit more property crime when drugs are illegal. Most property crimes are committed for financial motives; it is then safe to assume that drug offenders steal the property for money to buy drugs and to pay off all of the costs mentioned above. Violent crime can be explained through the use of drug selling gangs. The gangs fight over selling territory. The gang leaders can be seen as entrepreneurs and it is in their best interest to maximize profit. To do this they must lower competition and fight rival gangs to drive them out of their

            The militarization and criminalization of drugs in Latin America has led to a precipitous increase in violence, killing thousands of people and injuring many more. Economist Jeffrey Miron of CNN writes, “Prohibition creates violence because it drives the drug market underground. This means buyers and sellers

In the past forty years, the United States has spent over $2.5 trillion dollars funding enforcement and prevention in the fight against drug use in America (Suddath). Despite the efforts made towards cracking down on drug smugglers, growers, and suppliers, statistics show that addiction rates have remained unchanged and the number of people using illegal drugs is increasing daily (Sledge). Regardless of attempts to stem the supply of drugs, the measure and quality of drugs goes up while the price goes down (Koebler). Now with the world’s highest incarceration rates and greatest illegal drug consumption (Sledge), the United States proves that the “war on drugs” is a war that is not being won.

The United States is the world’s number one consumer of narcotics and thus 90% of cocaine seized in the U.S. comes from Mexico due to the close geographical boundaries it is easy to smuggle illegal drugs into the U.S. from Mexico. The U.S.’s demand for narcotics and other drugs creates an 18-39 billion dollar market each year, all coming solely from drug sales. Drug violence is a direct result of protecting each business 's product. Cartels like the Zetas use violence to create a “brand” for their franchise. The violent cartels create a sense of fear so no one gets in their way and so others will comply with their wishes and demands.

When determining the effect of the Australian government taking a prohibitive approach in the prevention of drug imports, it is important to consider how it would affect the supply and demand. In this case, the approach would be targeting the sellers of the drugs rather than the buyers. The method would aim to reduce the supply by preventing drugs from entering the country through strict controls such as imprisonment and fines, clearly targeting only suppliers and dealers rather then users. This method would result in an increase of production costs and a decrease in the supply available at any price. The demand for drugs would remain the same, resulting in a new market equilibrium where the market price is higher, but the quantity of drugs bought and sold is lower. Figure 1 illustrates this. The supply curve has clearly shifted to the left from S1 to S2, while the demand curve remains the same. The equilibrium price of drugs has risen from P1 to P2, and the equilibrium quantity has decreased from Q1 to Q2. This determines that the prevention method could potentially lessen drug

2001 - Joaquin “Shorty” Guzman Mexico’s most wanted drug lord escapes from a Mexican prison.

According to Johnson (1999) one of the reasons that there is such a profound war on drugs is the U.S. antidrug policy. Ever since this policy has been in effect it has contributed to the growth of the problem. The trafficking of drugs into the United States of America has corrupted officials everywhere. It had an effect on the economy and democracies creating violence and terrorism. It has had the ability to control major parts of the economy. (Bruce, 199) An example would be the Medellin cartel, led by Pablo Escobar; he killed a presidential candidate, judges, and hundreds of Colombian citizens to force then Colombian society to accept his drug business. In order for his business to run effectively he

Ever since the war on drugs was started, most of the battle has been concentrated in Latin America, leaving trails of devastation from deep within Latin America up to the largest consumer of those substances. After years of fighting, and series’ of more and more aggressive policies put into place by the United States, drugs are just as prevalent if not more so than when the war began. Illegal drugs are still easy to obtain, demand for such substances has skyrocketed and cartels are becoming increasingly affluent. Drug violence since 2006 has resulted in the death of more than 60,000 people. Clearly, our current policies in waging this war are not effective, we have spent over 35 billion dollars over the course of 2013 to attempt to combat

In his essay Against Legalization of Drugs, Wilson (Wilson 556) suggests that lowered prices and more abundant supplies of drugs, spurred by their legalization, could doubtlessly increase

An overview of the facts as they stand has yielded increasing credibility to the idea that Prohibition not only does not decrease crime frequency, but it actually leads to an increase in illegal activity. This is immediately visible in the fact that smuggling and the crime syndicates that carry out these schemes are direct benefactors of laws that ban drugs. This has come to pass to such a disturbing level that these crime organizations can even rival governments for control over entire regions of the certain countries. Drugs often also became more potent because more of it can be stored in a smaller space, reducing transportation costs and increasing profit. When production was halted in America, the source ended up coming from their immediate geographic neighbor, Mexico. The issues surrounding illegal smuggling over the US-Mexico border still heavily affects top-level political discourse. The corruption in law enforcement that is predominant in the Mexican political scene also has shown to be capable of leaking into American politics and law enforcement through border smuggling phenomenon. Another aspect of an increase in crime because of prohibition is the fact that reducing the supply of a product (through law enforcement) without reducing the demand first (since there will still be people who are addicted to drugs) creates higher drug prices. This is a considerable problem because it means that individuals need more money to finance their drug addictions which leads people to drug-related crime - that is the incidence of crime as a direct consequence of requiring money or products with value to finance the acquisition of drug. This complicates the issue by tapping into other forms of crime, such as prostitution and human trafficking, the predominance of which also directly

It is also possible that drug users are irrational decision makers and might not understand the adverse long-term effects and addictive properties. Prohibition should reduce demand through legal penalties; however, since not all drug users are rational choice makers, demand can increase by creating a “forbidden fruit” effect. The consequences of increased use add to the complexity and costs of enforcement on both drug users and the general population. Drug users, trying to avoid the legal consequences of their use, often times interact with non-users in ways that are harmful and costly. Additionally, non-users are also impacted by increased taxes to pay for the enforcement, by regulations to check for drugs that take time and are inconvenient, and by becoming innocent bystanders that can get caught in the middle of attempted arrests, often with deadly affects.

The most important factor for the spread of crack and heroin is that when opiates and cocaine are illegal, low potency versions of these drugs become extensively expensive. Thus, consumers are induced to switch to more intensive and more harmful drug forms and delivery systems. Absent the incentives created by current policy, consumers will revert to the modes of consumption that are less damaging.

In 2006, last Mexican President Felipe Calderon proposed an initiative, in partnership with the United States, wanting to combat the cartels with military force, which significantly escalated violence and claimed thousands of lives, including civilians. Mexico’s drug war has turned violent in recent years, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths. Law enforcement attempts to put cartels out of business by arresting key figures have led not to the demise of the drug trade, but to bloody deaths of both guilty and innocent people, so we come to question the usefulness of this measurements. The drug trade will mightily continue, no matter how risky or violent the the commercialization of it gets. In Afghanistan, illicit opium (a substance derived by collecting and drying the milky juice that comes from the seed pods of the poppy plant) production is so huge that a non-corrupt central government is nearly impossible to achieve. It is noticeable that the bigger it gets, the more difficult it is to

The production of narcotics is illegal in the United States, however there is still a large and inelastic demand for them due to the fact that are addictive and unsubstitutable. This dissonance between natural incentives and policies causes a very resilient black market that is prevalent in virtually every corner of the globe that can support a population large enough. The most common strategy to combat this black market is a straight forward use of police action to both take drugs out of the system using raids and seizures and to intimidate anyone planning on using or distributing them. The drug supply and demand curves attempt to determine an equilibrium price, however a seizure of drugs creates a quick leftward shift in the supply curve.

Legalization will most probably lead to a substantial fall in drug prices. The relatively high current price levels reflect dealers’ compensation for risk taking. The basis for this compensation will fall if the penal sanctions directed against dealers are removed. The lower price level may, however, to some extent be offset by taxation of the goods, but the black market would reemerge if taxation was considered too high. Therefore, a fall in drug prices should be expected. How would current drug users respond to decreasing prices? Data derived from interviews with Norwegian drug injectors over a 10-year period may illustrate the diverging trends in average prices and consumption of heroin (Figure 1). The reported price level of heroin has