Thread: Clinton: We Can't Legalize Drugs - Too Much Money In It

Reason.com
Jacob Sullum

Hillary Clinton: We Can't Legalize Drugs Because 'There Is Just Too Much Money in It'

Last week, while visiting Mexico, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was interviewed by Denise Maerker of Televisa, who asked her opinion of proposals to address black-market violence by repealing drug prohibition. Clinton's response illustrates not only the intellectual bankruptcy of the prohibitionist position but the economic ignorance of a woman who would be president (emphasis added):
http://www.mexidata.info/id2931.html

Maerker: In Mexico, there are those who propose not keeping going with this battle and legalize drug trafficking and consumption. What is your opinion?

Clinton: I don't think that will work. I mean, I hear the same debate. I hear it in my country. It is not likely to work. There is just too much money in it, and I don't think that—you can legalize small amounts for possession, but those who are making so much money selling, they have to be stopped.

Clinton evidently does not understand that there is so much money to be made by selling illegal drugs precisely because they are illegal. Prohibition not only enables traffickers to earn a "risk premium" that makes drug prices much higher than they would otherwise be; it delivers this highly lucrative business into the hands of criminals who, having no legal recourse, resolve disputes by spilling blood.

The 35,000 or so prohibition-related deaths that Mexico has seen since President Felipe Calderon began a crackdown on drugs in 2006 are one consequence of the volatile situation created by the government's arbitrary dictates regarding psychoactive substances. Pace Clinton, the way to "stop" the violent thugs who profit from prohibition is not to mindlessly maintain the policy that enriches them.
http://www.newser.com/article/d9kn65081 ... alone.html

Source: http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/07/hilla ... tcontainer

Right Clinton, there is too much money in it. With the US Government supplying guns to the cartels, and guns to countries to fight the cartels, we are reeping in huge profits. Not to mention Drug Czars, the DEA, and all of the other drug task forces costing tax payers billions each year.

The U.S. federal government spent over $15 billion dollars in 2010 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $500 per second.

Organized Crime. According to the United Nations, drug trafficking is a $400 billion per year industry, equaling 8% of the world's trade.

After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.

What would all of these government people making profits off the continued distribution of drugs do for jobs? Your absolutely right Clinton, the government is better off letting this drug war go on and on so taxpayers can spend even more money while government officials and drug dealers get rich. Why upset the apple cart?

Originally Posted by HAPPY2BME

Reason.com

Maerker: In Mexico, there are those who propose not keeping going with this battle and legalize drug trafficking and consumption. What is your opinion?

Clinton: I don't think that will work. I mean, I hear the same debate. I hear it in my country. It is not likely to work. There is just too much money in it, and I don't think that—you can legalize small amounts for possession, but those who are making so much money selling, they have to be stopped.

We've tried Prohibition here at home and we've tried interdiction in Columbia and Mexico. The results are always the same. It's time for a rational drug policy: legalization, regulation, taxation, and education.

Where do you draw the line though? Legalize Marajuana? Legalize cocaine? Legalize crystal meth?

Now as far as legalizing Marijuana I could go with that but that would be as far as I'd support period. However I'd also be against it being regulated and commerically distributed like cigarettes though. If one grows it in their backyard for private use so be it, even allowing small sales but never any commericaliztion of it. Just think of the extra harm if we turned it into an industry like tobacco sales, extra chemicals to make it more potent, TV ads, and probably even being added to some current tobacco products. Would be a nightmare imo.

But still legalizing weed wouldn't do as much as some hope to the drug industry. Lower costs and reduce the risk exposure. We'd still need to secure the border and make sure we don't accept outside imports to the US which still means the military.

The best benefit would be decriminalizing it to remove and keep many out of jail for such. But as far as hurting the drug cartels it wouldn't do as much harm to them as those would think, just a change in business strategy often making it easier. Taxes wouldn't roll in unless we regulated which we could do for seeds but if we allowed large scale marketing it would cause more harm then good but thats where the money would be.

Clinton evidently does not understand that there is so much money to be made by selling illegal drugs precisely because they are illegal. Prohibition not only enables traffickers to earn a "risk premium" that makes drug prices much higher than they would otherwise be; it delivers this highly lucrative business into the hands of criminals who, having no legal recourse, resolve disputes by spilling blood.

I bet legalized drugs would cost more once the local, state and federal governments all got their taxes added not to mention merchandising licenses (like liquor licenses), adding in the cost of advertising (think of a 30 second Super Bowl ad), packaging (can't use those cheap dollar tree baggies). Possibly even run "state stores" like Pennsylvania does with no competition (changing one cartel for another). Look at cigarettes. Now pack costs what a carton used to. Maybe a couple of cartons now.