Last week’s horrific killings at the Ciudad Juarez drug treatment center were front-page news in Texas. The murders are partly the result of what happens in a market when restrictions on supply are imposed in a related market.
It has become more difficult to ship drugs from Mexico to the U.S. because of increased border enforcement. This has decreased supply in the U.S. but increased supply in Mexico.
The increased domestic competition in Mexico has pushed prices down, resulting in a large increase in Mexican drug addiction and the violence associated with it. Sadly, I imagine that the new giant border fence will make shipping drugs to the U.S. even more difficult and result in still more addiction — and violence — in Mexico.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
TGood, I think he saying that the violence and addiction are sad. He’s not saying its sad that we are building a fence.
Dont know if I agree.
Did prices go up in the US due to the border fence? Dont think so.
Or maybe you want to say that the supply diminished due to the border fence, but lower demand kept prices in check? I havent seen evidence of that in the news….
My gut says the violence we read about is for the same reason violence has escalated in Mexico: the Calderon government’s crackdown on traffickers and the power vacuum it leaves behind for other criminals to fight over.
This fence will be as effective as any other fence in history. ie not at all
! “Sadly?” Perhaps it were better if there were more addicts in the US than in Mexico, and narcos lives were saved if the border were more open. Fact is, Southern Californian IS Mexico. Whites and blacks here are a rapidly diminishing minority. The LAUSD, that is, the Los Angeles United School district is 70% Mexican. And 50% of those children are first time English speakers, in the euphemism of bureaucrats. The Southwest US IS Mexico.
We should fly the flag of surrender. The war on drugs was lost many, many years ago. It is an incredible waste of money in a time when people are concerned about deficits, it creates huge cash flows to illicit distribution networks, and spawns the violence refered to here. Most importantly, there has been no significant reduction in the rates of usage (on the contrary, they have climbed) since the inception of the “war”. Other countries have decriminalized, and there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that society suffers as a result.
Whatever your personal feelings about drug use, it is a clear economic & rational fact that we are throwing good money after bad on this nonsense.
I think the observation is interesting, as it shows the interconnectedness of our cultures and economies. I don’t see it as an argument for or against dropping the border or for legalizing certain drugs.
Still… both of those options would have their own set of unintended side-effects, and hopefully somebody like Daniel will be paying enough attention to show us what they are in the event they get implemented.
Hey they just don’t get it…It is time for Mexico to get serious about cleaning up drugs in their country. That would solve their problems as well as some of ours. I have no sympathy for them.
“The increased domestic competition in Mexico has pushed prices down, resulting in a large increase in Mexican drug addiction and the violence associated with it.”
Do you have data to back up this statement? It seems counterintuitive that a DECREASE in drug prices (and therefore profitability) would result in INCREASED violence. I would expect, like with the US crack market in the 1990s, that increases in violence would relate to battles over market share (“turf”) due to increased opportunity for profit, and would therefore correspond to HIGHER prices.
I also have to question the claim about increased addiction. Common economic knowledge indicates, and numerous studies substantiate, that demand for addictive drugs is extremely inelastic, and therefore consumption (and presumably addiction) should not respond materially to changes in price.
charles (#4) got it right. prohibition is what increases violence, not addiction per se.