"If drugs were legal, crime will go down"

[Servantium]

People should phrase the topic title correctly when they say it. To avoid all the "hurr durr, no shit if we stop making it a crime, crime rates will go down."

"If drugs were legal, drug-related crime would go down."

[Dusk_Kittens]

Let's talk about the word "crime" in connection with the proposed legalization, decriminalization, or status quo of currently illegal substances.

Wouldn't crime go down if we made any illegal thing legal? Isn't that the way it works, like, by definition?

"Crime" is, technically, any illegal act. Obviously, and tautologously, "crime" decreases if some acts are made legal. A tautology is a necessary truth. It is also, however, typically a trivial truth.

"Crime," in terms of those acts no longer being defined by law as crimes, would of course go down. It's a given.

Other "Crime," however, still defined by law as "Crime," would also decrease.

For one thing, since the prices would be lower and quality would be assured, the number of those who have committed other crimes, including possibly violent crimes, in an effort to sustain their addictions, would decrease, since they would be paying more reasonable prices, availability would be increased, and quality assured. These are safeguards for society as well as the addict.

Also, there are many non-violent offenders who are guilty of nothing more than being apprehended for possession of Cannabis or paraphernalia for the use of Cannabis, even for the mere possession of seeds, which themselves are not psycho-active (although birds reputedly sing more when fed hemp seed). People who have grown their own have also been incarcerated simply because they had so much as a single plant of Cannabis on their property -- and their land, home, and vehicles seized and appropriated by the government. These are clearly "criminal acts" perpetrated in the name of government. Due Process is not involved, because Due Process would require consideration of the Ninth Amendment, ratified by the States at a time when Americans were free to exercise their rights to grow, eat, smoke, sell, distribute, purchase, deliver, give, produce fiber and turn that into rope and clothing and even paper. Indeed, it is likely that the drafts for the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, and the Bill of Rights were written on hemp paper. Since it was at the time of the drafting and ratification not prohibited to grow and use hemp and "Indian hemp," any federal law which prohibits the growth and use of any species or variety of Cannabis is a violation of the Ninth Amendment.

In addition, current "search and seizure" laws, in violation of the Constitutional requirement for a search warrant, have allowed people "guilty" of no greater "crime" than being in "possession" of Cannabis, or "transporting" it in their vehicle. If the officer of the law has probable cause, he or she can obtain a search warrant. If no search warrant is obtained, no search or seizure should be permitted. Apparently (due to the statistics), quite a lot of people are incarcerated because of what amounts to unconstitutional search and seizure.

Specifically, also, criminal gangs would no longer be financed by the illegal trade in those substances, because, although some people might, for some reason, prefer to go through them rather than legal channels, the majority would prefer to avoid the risks associated with doing business with such organizations or individuals. As such, "organized crime" would lose an avenue of income, and be far less interested in doing that sort of business on the scale they invest in it currently. Some criminal gangs would, basically, go out of existence, disband, fade away. Others would diversify, or step up investments in other legal and/or illegal business activities, and devote much less, if any, attention to the illegal drug trade.

Currently, a huge amount of income goes to organized crime through the trade in illegal drugs. This income then allows organized crime to engage in other criminal activities. If that income were to become far less profitable, it would mean a serious loss of revenue for organized crime. Now, "organized crime" does not refer solely to "mobs," but also to "gangs." Much of the violent crime in the US involves organized crime.

Also, currently, the US federal government spends a large amount of tax money on attempting to enforce these drug prohibition laws, capture of those who have violated those laws, legal trial proceedings connected to those captures, incarceration and/or fine being the result. In many cases, US federal law (still in violation of the Ninth Amendment) requires mandatory minimum sentences for very minor violations of these laws, such as the growth and use of Cannabis for medical reasons, even if recommended or prescribed by a physician. That is already in conflict with numerous states' laws, and is therefore also again a violation of the Ninth Amendment.

If murder were legal, crime would also go down. Sure, the incidences of murder may go up, but it is no longer a crime. Problem solved.

Unfortunately, "crime" is a somewhat vague term, in that it technically refers to the violation of any law, even laws which are themselves violations of the Constitution. Of course, as noted above, that sort of "crime" would necessarily, and trivially, decrease. A more relevant consideration there, however, is that government expense would be cut, trials would decrease in number and waiting time, people who are currently guilty of the "crime" of growing or using Cannabis would no longer be incarcerated (and therefore also not be costing taxpayer money to keep incarcerated), prisons would have more room for violent criminal offenders, who have often been released early due to overcrowding in penal facilities, and that overcrowding due in large part to the aforementioned "mandatory minimum" sentencing requirements imposed by federal law in violation of the Ninth Amendment.

Murder, on the other hand, is a violent crime. Murder has victims. Murder harms someone other than the murderer. Murder necessarily infringes on the right to life held by others. None of these things can be said of Cannabis use or production, distribution, sale, purchase, etc; the only reason that the illegal drug trade involves such things is because of the prohibition on those acts, which requires a criminal element, people who are willing to violate the law, not simply in regard to these issues, but also even "crimes" which are serious and involve victims.

The analogy fails, therefore.

[Dusk_Kittens]

Im a libertarian and dont believe in natural rights. Your statement fails.

Then obviously you're not a libertarian.

That depends entirely on the definition of "libertarian," which is a word used in more than one context.

[SaintB]

You know of many organized cigarette gangs?

Phillip Morris.

[Terra Agora]

Im a libertarian and dont believe in natural rights. Your statement fails.

Then obviously you're not a libertarian.

Um no.

[Barringtonia]

You know of many organized cigarette gangs?

Phillip Morris.

Nice one guv'