Via the BBC: US claims success in war on drugs

The top US drugs official has said anti-drug efforts are having the best results of the past 20 years.

John Walters, head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, said cocaine shortages had led to a jump in prices in 37 American cities.

Efforts on both sides of the Mexican border have disrupted the flow of all drugs into the US, Mr Walters said.

But he said it had not yet been proven if the results could be sustained over the long term.

And that last sentence is the key, as the record would indicate that the results will not and cannot be sustained.

Further, to me this situation underscore not the current short-term successes, but the long-term lack of success of the war on drugs. Consider:

“What’s happened for the first time in two decades is we now see widespread reports of cocaine shortages in the United States,” Mr Walters said.

As a result of the drop in supply, the price of cocaine had increased by 24% and nearly doubled in some cities.

So, two decades (and, really, we have been combating cocaine trafficking longer than that) and billions of dollar later, this is the first time that there has been a cocaine shortage of this nature? Now, that could mean that we are at the start of new era of constrained supply, or it could mean that we are seeing a temporary condition in the market before the traffickers adapt. The latter is the much, much more likely scenario.

US interdiction efforts have disrupted drug shipment routes in the past, and the traffickers have shifted those routes over time. For example, Mexico was not always the main gateway for the cocaine to enter the US.

There also is the fact while constricted supply increases price (the goal of the policy), the problem is that if street vendors are getting a 24% markup on product, guess what they are going to want to do? Yes, that’s right: find a way to get more product into the country. The US government’s main policy goals (constricting supply to drive up price) may dissuade some cocaine users from using (although if they are addicted, they will find a way to fund their habit), but it will also incentivize the seller to find more product to sell. The trafficker and the dealer are in it for the money, and so if price is up, profits are up and therefore, they will find a way to get more cocaine into the country.

Other problems will also arise: if, in fact, addicts get desperate to find money to pay the higher prices, this will give them the incentive to engage in more reckless, and perhaps criminal, behavior to acquire the needed cash to fund their habits. Worse, many dealers will see the need to engage in increased violence to protect their turf and the currently higher profits. There will also be an incentive to cut the product with filler to stretch supply and increase profits.

Ultimately, all of this is going to lead to more money being spent in Mexico, as the the current constriction of supply has been as a result of increased law enforcement efforts in that country. As a result, there have already been calls for a “Plan Colombia” (the trillion-dollar+ program started back in the Clinton administration) for Mexico. One expects that the money will be appropriated and spent. One also figures that the ultimate effects on the drug market in the United States over the long haul will be the same as the Colombia-based plan.