LAW'S CONTRIBUTION TO DRUG VIOLENCE

CHICAGO -- I was surprised at the candidness of the Aug. 15 editorial "The
business of dealing drugs." It showed rare open-mindedness toward the
nagging issue of drug crime. It was refreshing to read an inquiry into the
drug problem that did not demonize drug dealers and deify law enforcement.

I feel like asking a tough question to follow: Could the violence associated
with drug dealing be due to the law enforcement strategy and not drug
dealing itself?

One could argue that drug dealing is not as inherently violent as most
believe, but that interdiction efforts aggravate the situation and make the
violence worse.

Theoretically, if drug dealers only want to make money, then violence
related to drug trade must be secondary to securing profit. All we know is
that violence is necessary for a drug dealer to resolve disputes in the
black market because there is no court of law to enforce contracts.

I think drugs can be bought, sold and consumed without any violent crime.
What then is the trigger factor for the violence in the streets?

If a mature black market in drugs can build trust and credit relationships,
then the costly violence can be avoided entirely. The drugs flow more
freely, and the money is probably better. I think drug dealers probably try
to manage the risk of violence in the same mind-set that legitimate business
tries to prevent litigation.

If a gang acquires a monopoly within its turf, and then the police break up
the drug ring, would that not create a vacuum in the drug market for fiercer
competition? What happens when the Federal Trade Commission breaks up a
monopoly? I think that litigation breaks out as the new competitors fight to
carve up the untended demand for goods and services. In drug dealing this
competition over turf is probably where we see the bloodiest gang warfare
emerge. If the supply is interrupted, by the law of supply and demand, isn't
there more money at stake, creating more violence to secure market share in
an overinflated drug market where profit is potentially much greater than
normal?

If we look back in history to Prohibition, was this not the case then?

I would like to see violence compared on a time-line with interdiction
efforts. In the last 16 years we've been fighting the same War on Drugs, and
we have not succeeded in controlling the black market economy in drugs. We
have not gained control over drug-related violence. Drugs continue as if
unaffected, and the violence seems to be worse as far as I can tell.

I am 25 years old, and I grew up watching rapists and murderers paroled to
make room in prisons for drug offenders serving mandatory minimums. I am an
angry taxpayer, and I want a solution to this problem, not a policy of
failure. I am excited that the public is beginning to question the
assumptions. Why haven't we succeeded in the War on Drugs? Are we in fact
shooting ourselves in the foot? Is there a better way?

Jeremy McMillan

Checked-by: Rolf Ernst