Yes, it’s Viridiana’s “thesis” that “What the legalization debate has missed is that it won’t be easy for ex-criminals to find a legal job, and that this may increase other criminal activities that hurt Latin American citizens more directly. In places where law enforcement is weak, diversifying a criminal portfolio is an easier way to profit than trying to break into tight legal job markets. Indeed, it is quite plausible that legalization would cause newly unemployed criminals to engage in kidnapping, extortion, robbery and other forms of local crime. A criminal outburst may be the unintended consequence of legalization.”
It’s certainly true that a lot of people in the drug trade won’t transition into lawful occupations, or at least won’t want to. But a great many people who currently get busted for selling drugs—those who sell them on the street—are not suited for “kidnapping, extortion, [or] robbery.” They’re not big, and tough, and aggressive. They’re only employed as criminals because the profit margins are large enough to support a vast distribution network that insulates the “real criminals” from arrest. If these people can’t make fifty dollars a day selling drugs, they’re more likely to make it working at McDonald’s than as kidnappers. And, of course, all the people who get busted for buying drugs—well, they won’t be criminals any more.
According to Ms. Rios CV, “She regularly serves as a consultant and security policy adviser to private and public institutions in the US and Mexico, and presents her research in a variety of public forums and media. She recently worked as an adviser to the Mexican President’s Security Spokesman.” I would like to think that this is the reason why she wrote what she did. I would hate to think that her “ideas” are the result of disinterested scholarship.
