If Drugs Were Legalised, Violent Crime Would Disappear

I hear this from libertarians frequently and it annoys me. So, lets see what these would-be honest business men are like.

Borerland Beat

But there is another kind of kidnapping that goes unreported. When a girl is robada – which literally means stolen – she is taken off the street, on her way to school, leaving the movies, or even stolen out of her own house. No ransom is asked for. Her body is all the criminals want. The drug cartels know they can sell a bag of drugs only once, but they can prostitute a young woman many times in a single day.

Valley Central

Mexican drug cartels are turning to a new and lucrative source of income south of the border.

Smuggling drugs is making up ever smaller percentage of their business.

UTB Professor Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera is talking about the latest trend is stealing oil and other petroleum products.

“They are diversifying to different activities such as extortion, kidnapping and very profitable business now is to steal oil and its derivatives including natural gas,”


Business Insider

MEXICO CITY (AP) — Mexican drug cartels looking to diversify their businesses long ago moved into oil theft, pirated goods, extortion and kidnapping, consuming an ever larger swath of the country’s economy. This month, federal officials confirmed the cartels have even entered the country’s lucrative mining industry, exporting iron ore to Chinese mills.

The Knights Templar cartel and its predecessor, the La Familia drug gang, have been stealing or extorting shipments of iron ore, or illegally extracting the mineral themselves and selling it through Pacific coast ports, said Michoacan residents, mining companies and current and former federal officials. The cartel had already imposed demands for “protection payments” on many in the state, including shopkeepers, ranchers and farmers.

And lets not forget their “negotiation” style
Vote For Amnesty!

Vote For Amnesty!


So, yeah, if drugs were legal they wouldn’t “have” to do these things, right?



43 thoughts on “If Drugs Were Legalised, Violent Crime Would Disappear

  1. Making a statement like this is like saying if guns are outlawed and all firearms were confiscated there would be no more robberies or murders. We all know how that is working out!

  2. I think you’re missing the point, Rodge. You’re using the types of people and kinds of tactics currently inspired by the illegal drug trade to support the notion that legalizing it wouldn’t change anything. On the contrary, legalization would ELIMINATE this element from the industry. The “businessmen” of which you speak would be out of business, as their kind would no longer be needed.

    Are armed thugs and killers still running bars and liquor stores in the wake of prohibition? How long did alsohol inspire mob/gang activity after prohibition ended? You’re not thinking clearly or objectively – open your mind.

    • They may be out of the drug trade, though I doubt it, but they would still be stealing oil, kidnapping for ransom and prostitution, murdering for profit, hijacking etc. Considering the cartels control about 90% of drug production in the US, I imagine they would still be running that industry, only now they’d have a lobby group!

      Look at the Japanese Yakuza and the Chinese triads who are involved in most of the major inustries of their countries including manufacturing and banking. The Italian and Russian mafias make large profits on old fashoined crimes like those listed above. Etc.

      The point of the post is that drugs are not the cause of violent crime, violent criminals are, and the argument that legalising drugs will end violent crime is stupid if you give libertarians the benefit of the doubt and intentionally deceptive if you don’t.

      • To be clearer, you’re guilty of the fallacy that the liberals espoused when trying to explain how the Affordable Care Act would remain cost neutral – they assumed that the act of implementing the ACA wouldn’t have an impact on people’s behavior.

        Similarly, you are assuming that criminals and crime organizations will continue to dominate drug trade and production in this country. This is fundamentally false – the criminal element is only necessary because the activity is illegal. If it is legal, people will not tolerate the coercion of organized crime – and so they will be out of business. That you fail to see this fundamental reality is a bit disturbing, to say the least…

        • If the one coercing is stronger the coercion continues, that’s how coercion works.

          The only way violence would decrease is if the cartels use their billions to lobby and coerce by regulation instead.

          • I see. So we should just continue crushing people’s rights and allowing the police state to continue to grow and militarize in the name of fighting a failed “war on drugs?” I fail to see the merit in that plan…

          • I fail to see the merit in painting a veneer of respectability on drug dealers and their product and allowing them into mainstream society.

            The cartels control 90% of drug distribution, so the “war on drugs” would be largely won by closing the Southern border and deporting immigrants.

            The police state will exist without drugs. In fact the increase in tax revenues and lobbying money might grow it larger.

          • I fail to see the merit (and logic) in disrespecting those who sell a product that people want to buy freely. Do you have the same disdain for liquor store owners?

      • So, making it legal to grow and sell limited amounts of pot under a strict legal system with the threat of prison for those who violate the laws has turned out to be ok. Way to move the goal posts.

        • The threat of prison already exists for those who violate the laws – but that didn’t stop the photos above from happening – is that really your argument? You believe that licensing laws are the reason that people aren’t murdering each other? Really?? Do you even free market, bro?

          I didn’t move the goal posts – you did. Your quote was “If drugs were legalized, violent crime would disappear.” You proceed to show a bunch of horrifying drug related crime (illegal drug trafficking, anyway) What has happened in Colorado is the legalization of marijuana (exactly what the libertarians you berate are clamoring for), and the results have been the OPPOSITE of what you predicted. How is that moving the goal posts? It’s a direct correlation in support of the original assertion!

          It’s okay man – you can admit you’re wrong without being judged. I won’t gloat.

          • In fact, I don’t free market. I don’t think a free market exists outside of economic theory.

            The libertarian “if drugs were leagalised argument” does not include this amount of regulation. The libertarian argument is for drugs to be totally deregulated, in fact, that’s the only libertarian position on anything.

            These pot stores in Colorado and Washington will be out of business in a year,they certainly won’t cut into illicit profits. They’re novelties, but maybe a toe in the door for stoner libertarians.

            If the regs are relaxed to where growers are separate from sellers and the legal market grows , then we’ll see.

          • You have no clue what you’re talking about. As if liquor producers and vendors are all afilliated. You need only look to the rise and fall of prohibition for an EXACT model of how this goes. How can you be so naieve and obtuse? Seriously!!

            I’ll check back with you in a year, and prove you wrong – again. Shedyour cognitive dissonance. It hinders your intellectual progress.

          • “As if liquor producers and vendors are all afilliated”
            This is exactly what I was saying, “to where growers are separate from sellers”

            Currently the distributors are the growers.

            Shed your libertarian tunnel vision, it hinders your reading comprehension.

  3. Nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, pal. You implied that once the growers and distributors separated it would be different – negatively so. Although, as is typical, you didn’t offer any evidence, history, predictions, or logical expansion on that implication.

    I merely offered the current state of the liquor industry as an example of the end game you’re describing – where the producers are separate from the sellers. And that’s workign out just fine.

    I also love that you’ve moved the goalposts more than once, and now you’re onto the no true scotsman fallacy as you try to say how Colorado’s results are not representative of “what libertarians want.”

    You, sir, just don’t get it. And the evidence will always prove you wrong. Stop telling people what to do, and stop banning things. It’s a better way.

    • Also note, for the record, that your BLOG POST TITLE is “If drugs were legalized…….” Further note that – in the very literal, precise, *dictionary* sense of the word legalized – as well as the commonly understood layman’s interpretation of the word – this is *exactly* what has occurred in Colorado.

      All vices are taxed and regulated. Gambling, cigarettes, liquor – all of it. They’re still 100% legal, and therefore fit to wear the monaker “legalized”. Stop attaching all of your “but libertarians want this,” and “you people say that” nonsense to the discussion. Marijuana has been legalized in Colorado. That is a fact. And contrary to your assertions, violent crime has indeed declined. How long must the trend continue for you to admit that you were wrong? I’d like to know. Seriously.

    • We’ve drifted from the point of the post which was that violent crime would not decrease, not whether or not legal pot dealers would be the ones committing it. Has violent crime decreased in these states?

        • You can’t force time, though, Danny Boy… And so far, you and your flunkies who don’t understand how free markets and prohibition work are proving to be wrong. I’m sure the next round of reality in six more months will prove the same outcome…

          • And what, pray tell, qualifies you to judge what anyone else knows or understands?!

            All through this thread you have regurgitated the same tired argument with no definitive proof and basing your claims on preliminary data. Your statements are fraught with ad hominem attacks.

            You appear to be fairly well educated but nonetheless a troll. and a shallow one at that. I have no further inclination to perpetuate your baseless diatribe.

          • Love it, Danny Boy. I’m qualified to judge what others know and understand because I’m an intelligent, logical person who’s seen some of your thoughts. If you understood prohibition dynamics and economics, you wouldn’t espouse the opinions you do.

            As for my same “tired” argument (the same one that those opposed to alcohol prohibition used before that debacle), I’ve provided TWO articles demonstrating the positive effects of legalization in Colorado. The preliminary data is the ONLY data that’s available, because cannabis was only JUST legalized. Logic, much?

            But I’ll play ball. You tell me ho much time must pass before accurate, meaningful data can be assembled to gauge the effects of this change. A year? Two? Five? Fifty? How much time must pass before you’ll admit that you’re wrong when confronted with data that conflicts with your world view? Will you ever?

    • What’s the deal guys? Cat got your tongue? I ask again – how much time must pass before accurate, meaningful data can be assembled to gauge the effects of this change. A year? Two? Five? Fifty? How much time must pass before you’ll admit that you’re wrong when confronted with data that conflicts with your world view? Will you ever, or are you just a hapless victim of cognitive dissonance, never to be persuaded? A fuddy duddy? An ancient vestige of irrational conservatism?

      • Uh oh…
        This article and all the articles that it links to are speculation and opinion. Not at all convincing.

        This article suggests that pot isn’t profitable for the cartels to grow, yet an earlier article you linked to earlier about pot shops said they couldn’t buy pot cheaply enough to undercut the street dealer. That seems strange.

        Of course, the article only says growers IN Mexico aren’t growing. According to the FBI, the cartels grow most of the domestic pot. So, that doesn’t mean they aren’t still growing it.

        35-40% of cartel profits come from marijuana according to this article. The original point of the post was legalising drugs will not reduce violent crime, so what will the cartels do to make up this short fall? More kidnapping? Murder for hire? Hijacking? More illegal logging and mining? Or just focus on profitable drugs and go on with business as usual? Whichever, the violence remains.

        What will it take to get you to admit this is wishful thinking? Will you ever, or are you too far down the libertarian rabbit hole to ever be persuaded? A half baked vestige of Ron Paul’s stoner demo?

        • “35-40% of cartel profits come from marijuana according to this article. The original point of the post was legalizing drugs will not reduce violent crime, so what will the cartels do to make up this short fall? More kidnapping? Murder for hire? Hijacking? More illegal logging and mining? Or just focus on profitable drugs and go on with business as usual? Whichever, the violence remains.”

          So what you’re saying is, that if we take away the black market for marijuana, violence will increase because cartels will have to turn to more violent mechanisms to turn a profit? So you’re suggesting that by creating a criminal enterprise through prohibition (which you effectively admitted, by the way), we’re actually decreasing more egregious violence? That’s your argument? That’s your leg to stand on? BWAA AHHAHHAHAHA!!

          Do you believe in capitalism, Rodge? What happens to *any* business when the market for their product or service goes away? Did milkmen turn to murder and mayhem when pasteurization came into vogue? Your logical gymnastics are *astounding*. Oh and by the way, I don’t smoke pot. I think it’s an irresponsible and stupid thing to do. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, eh?

          • My point was that violent people do violent things regardless of the legality of drugs. Milk men are not violent people, hence they don’t do violent things whether or not they have a job.

  4. certainly like your web-site but you need to check the spelling on several of your posts. Several of them are rife with spelling issues and I in finding it very troublesome to inform the reality then again I’ll certainly come again again.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s