How the Plummeting Price of Cocaine Fueled the Nationwide Drop in Violent Crime

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2011/11/cocaine-plummeting-price-nationwide-drop-violent-crime/474/

by gruseom • 15 years ago

270 102 15 years ago

theatlanticcities.com

nowarninglabel• 15 years ago

For 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-Explosio...

Snowblind: http://www.amazon.com/Snowblind-Brief-Career-Cocaine-Trade/d...

wisty• 15 years ago

In 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• 15 years ago

Meth production tends to change surrounding the availability of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine:

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• 15 years ago

I 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

jwingy• 15 years ago

I 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• 15 years ago

It hasn't changed much because it is working great for a very well connected sub-set of our society.

bestes• 15 years ago

Who are those people? Politicians? (serious question)

rick8885• 15 years ago

What 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• 15 years ago

It 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?

rick8885• 15 years 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.

burgerbrain4• 15 years ago

What do you think would happen to a Mexican police officer and his family if he tried to simply "just do his job"?

There is a reason the police are the ones wearing ski masks down there: http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/WO-AG531_MEXICO_G_...

rick8885• 15 years ago

How did it get to this level?

We have criminal gangs in the US and the police here don't have to worry about that. It's mostly because of our justice system and the fact that you can't buy off any cop with some cash.

rick8885• 15 years ago

I'm shocked at the number of closed-minded members of the HN community. If the answer to the violence in Mexico isn't: "let's legalize all drugs!", I get down voted.

I wasn't a troll and explained my points, yet nobody wants to listen. It's sad. It's becoming more and more difficult to fight this mentality.

I thought this was a community of intelligent people, yet I'm beginning to realize that this just isn't the case anymore.

anamax2• 15 years ago

> There is a reason the police are the ones wearing ski masks down there:

And there's a different reason why SWAT-cops in the US wear masks. The last time I pointed that out, someone mentioned that UK cops also wear masks at times.

Is there any place where the cops never wear masks?

scythe• 15 years ago

>What about the increase in corruption in Mexico? An increase in corruption means more criminals can have drug businesses without being stopped by the cops.

The article isn't about why prices went down, it's about why violence went down. If corruption leads to lower prices and less violence, corruption is a good thing.

feralchimp2• 15 years ago

The 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• 15 years ago

Ending 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?

feralchimp2• 15 years ago

It'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'.

netcan• 15 years ago

I don't think that argument holds so strong.

Cops don't just get fired when crime goes down. The number of police employed is pretty flexible, you can keep them on if you want. There are plenty of good uses for police.

onedognight• 15 years ago

> Do you realize how many jobs there are at stake here.

Of course. Do you realize how many more people are saddled with the cost of providing those worthless jobs[1]?

[1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Parable_of_th...

defen• 15 years ago

Solution: anyone who is going to lose their job because of the end of the war on drugs just continues to receive their current salary until their Social Security retirement age, regardless of whether they take a new job or just stop working. It's the only way you'll get buy in from the lower levels of the prison-industrial complex, and ultimately cheaper than continuing what we have now.

MichaelApproved• 15 years ago

Theirs a similar problem with putting in a flat tax. You'll have lots of accountants and their employees being out of work.

adgar• 15 years ago

> 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.

I'm a bit confused by this. Are you suggesting the US produce "weed/coke/heroin poppy" to undercut the cartels? And somehow distribute the manufactured product to users? I've got no problem agreeing with your ethanol joke... but just to be sure, you think the US should produce and distribute drugs, including heroin and cocaine, which are highly, highly addictive?

WayneDB• 15 years ago

The US already does produce and distribute illegal drugs. They just do it in secret. If you think I'm crazy, just search for: CIA Cocaine. They've actually been caught red-handed a few times.

ComputerGuru• 15 years ago

I can never tell if people are using "modest proposal" the way it's supposed to be used (highly sarcastic) or the way they think it's supposed to be used ("in my humble opinion"-esque): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

maximusprime3• 15 years ago

flagged. Never understood HNs interest in drugs. Hardly on topic is it.

enjalot• 15 years ago

did 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.

davidw4• 15 years ago

If you play this game, you can stretch anything to be "on topic".

maximusprime3• 15 years ago

It's a political article. It's toxic.

vacri3• 15 years ago

Interesting 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_Sta...

tryitnow2• 15 years ago

My 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• 15 years ago

I 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• 15 years ago

I 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• 15 years ago

Drops 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• 15 years ago

This 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. <<

tryitnow2• 15 years ago

The 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/LevittUndersta...

See Tables 5 and 6 on pages 184-185.

liquidcool3• 15 years ago

What 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?

fleitz2• 15 years ago

Its 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.

dfc3• 15 years ago

The US is not a big drinking country per capita:

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.

angrycoder• 15 years ago

Things that are bad for in the long run are a whole lot of fun immediately. Also, those tv show you mentioned aren't creating reality. They mirror it.

redwood• 15 years ago

Good point. In fact I think that those who abstain are often those who consume the most media into their adult years (what else are they doing while everyone is out having fun).

liquidcool3• 15 years ago

My hunch is that's it's both - kind of a feedback loop. It shows a certain lifestyle of a highly select group, and those outside that group (viewers) want to emulate it.

philwelch2• 15 years ago

> A bias for optimum brain, liver, and lung capacity/health seems like the rational choice. So why do so many forgo that?

If you want to maximize long-run happiness over the course of your lifespan, it's not entirely obvious that the rational choice is to abstain from drugs and alcohol. Many drugs cause little to no impairment to long-term cognitive function, especially when used in moderation. And according to the people that use them, some drugs have admittedly great benefits, ranging from spiritual enlightenment to making music sound better and food taste better to simply broadening one's perspective.

tsotha• 15 years ago

Meh. No matter what you do you're not going to live forever. Some people push that thought away; for others it's a daily mantra.

orangecat• 15 years ago

I recognize that I'm a deviant on the other side - I abstain from drugs, alcohol, and smoking.

Same here and for similar reasons (although I still strongly oppose the WOD). But at least with alcohol, I'm pretty sure the optimal amount isn't zero in our current society. Not drinking has definitely interfered with my social development, which wasn't great to begin with. I don't plan to start now--among other reasons I can't stand the taste--but the advice I'd give to my 18 year old self is "go to parties, get drunk, and learn to enjoy it".

suivix2• 15 years ago

If abstaining from something secludes you from your peers, then the abstinence likely would have a larger negative effect.

That said, in college I did go out drinking with friends quite often. Just because that's what everyone did, and it was fun. My best memories are from then.

liquidcool3• 15 years ago

I, too, dislike the taste, although if that's your only issue there are drinks with enough other ingredients to mask it (mudslides, pina coladas, daiquiris, etc.).

Supposedly the max health benefit is 1 drink a day, followed by zero, and more than one is detrimental. However, there are studies that say a glass of red grape juice give similar benefits as one drink. I don't know anybody who follows that advice with any discipline, though.

Not drinking doesn't affect my social enjoyment in the least. First, I find that most professionals (my social group) these days drink less than they did 10 years ago. But I was in a social fraternity in college and have no problem being at parties, bars, clubs, etc. with other people who are drinking. In fact, it's the opposite - I've found my NOT drinking affects the enjoyment of some drinkers. They get self-conscious about it, perhaps guilty. People don't want to drink alone, so if I'm with only one other person they usually won't imbibe. And I've found that those who are actively agitated by my not drinking are those who are alcoholics or marijuana addicts. That's rare, and they stop socializing with me, but I'm dodging a bullet and I'm not at a loss for friends.

pavel_lishin2• 15 years ago

> I don't plan to start now--among other reasons I can't stand the taste

I'm not trying to pressure you into drinking, but there are a lot of different kinds of alcohol out there. I used to hate beer, but after a few months of starting off with hard ciders, I've actually found some whose taste I really like. Same with liquors - some stuff I absolutely will not touch because the taste is actively unpleasant to me, but some tastes great.

You just have to find out what you like, if you're interested.

jphackworth• 15 years ago

We should make cocaine legal in half of the states at random, measure crime, and consider it an A/B test.

suivix2• 15 years ago

That would make interstate commerce regulation pretty interesting.

teyc• 15 years ago

Interesting. 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• 15 years ago

after 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• 15 years ago

The 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.

How the Plummeting Price of Cocaine Fueled the Nationwide Drop in Violent Crime

Related Stories