Here’s the news from today, according to the New York Times: 1,200 members of the National Guard have been sent to the border to “combat drug smuggling.” More drug-related violence can only be dealt with through greater enforcement, goes the Bush-McCain-and-now-Obama story. We’ve got to fight the war on drugs; to fight the drug criminals; to save the people from violence.

There’s just one flaw in this story: it’s got the causality going in the wrong direction. US drug policy is the cause of the current epidemic of violence and lawlessness in northern Mexico and along the border, not the cure for it. The more resources we devote to enforcing our drug prohibition, the higher we drive prices, the bigger the incentives to smuggle drugs, the bigger the spoils for the gangs of lawless criminals to whom we redirect the unimaginable profits of several massive, centuries-old industries, and the more these gangs will be willing to fight to the death over pieces of that enormous black-market pie.

By legislating common drugs out of the legal marketplace, we are creating a black market out of thin air. It is not hyperbole to suggest that US law is not just providing a subsidy of billions to the Sinaloa cartel—our laws have actually legislated the cartel, and its rivals, into existence.

Who stands to lose the most if we legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana and cocaine, and open these industries to legitimate companies? The Sinaloa cartel. We devote $11 billion of military and law enforcement resources to eliminating their competition and maintaining their monopoly power—and thus their staggering profits. They are probably the foremost advocates of the current US drug policy. Their worst nightmare would be for the marijuana industry to turn into something like tobacco: low-margin, heavily regulated, taxed, nonviolent, unglamorous, highly competitive, unable to command a risk premium. When was the last time you heard about a tobacco gang shooting?

The effects of US drug policy have never been felt more tragically in northern Mexico, where turf wars between rival drug cartels are fought. Ciudad Juárez, where the murder of innocent civilians is as commonplace as a fender-bender, is now confronting the very real prospect of a lost generation of youth—a generation so scared to walk the streets of its own city that it grows up as if in a coma, with fear the only coherent thread of civic life. In Juárez, beheadings are barely newsworthy. Is it any wonder that some of the civilians caught in this warfare would risk their lives to cross the border into the US?

A rational humanitarian policy would contemplate welcoming residents of Ciudad Juárez into the United States as war refugees. Why don’t we do this? Maybe it’s because admitting there’s a war in Mexico might mean confronting the horrifying truth that this war is ours, our failed war on drugs, and the citizens of Juárez, these would-be refugees, are our collateral damage. Washington now seems comfortable with the idea that we own the violence in Baghdad, yet the idea that we own the violence in Juárez is still Washington taboo. We don’t even believe we’re involved.

As Tax Cannabis 2010—a November 2010 referendum to legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana—gains steam in California and has a slim lead in public opinion polls, with vast bipartisan support amongst academics (especially social scientists) and medical doctors, it becomes more and more bizarre that the Obama administration, far from being merely mum on the topic, has come out strongly and repeatedly in favor of the current US drug policy. Even most right-wing commentators acknowledge that our drug policy disproportionately affects minorities, imprisoning and disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of minority citizens for private behavior with public health/safety risks that, in the case of marijuana (according to the American Medical Association), are vastly less than those of high-fructose corn syrup.

Let us, as Obama might say, be perfectly clear: our supposedly pro-minority, pro-human-rights, pro-diplomacy president holds the unambiguous position that the importance of preventing Americans from smoking herb dwarfs any concerns about the uncontained numbers of murders, Mexican cities on the brink of civil war, a lost generation in northern Mexico. The administration’s decision not to go after the medical marijuana dispensaries in California now seems like a sleazy handout to his Hollywood hippie base. It is clear that enforcing the marijuana prohibition is of paramount political importance to the administration, and that the DOJ and military intend to be swift and merciless with such enforcement anywhere near our national borders.

Can we use taxpayer money to create and maintain an unprecedented network of interior border checkpoints whose dogs sniff every single person driving along the interstate highways between Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas? Yes, we can. Can we shift the focus of our military forces and allocate thousands of troops from our national guard to hunt down people who want to transport bud across the Sonora desert? Yes, we can. Can we utilize our scarce prison beds and resources to imprison and disenfranchise 600,000 nonviolent Americans for passing joints around their living rooms, even as we furlough and parole murderers and rapists because we don’t have enough room for them? Yes, we can.

Protesting Arizona’s anti-immigrant laws has become fashionable in recent weeks, and it’s been nice to see some normally staid American authority figures (like mayors and police officers) stand up for the rights of Mexicans (and people who look Hispanic) in the US. Now how about an open conversation about the fact that the US drug prohibition has created a violent black market out of thin air and, in the process, brought upon northern Mexico such a scourge of violence that millions of innocent Mexican civilians have lost the basic opportunity to lead safe, civilized lives?

As of today, Obama is no longer a mere heir of the broken US drug policy. He isn’t just carrying on the torch of keeping hundreds of thousands of nonviolent pot smokers in jail for victimless crimes. He’s now doubling down in the war on drugs. He’s increasing the subsidies for the Sinaloa cartel. He’s raising their prices and profits—and incentives to fight over more and more turf—to unprecedented levels.

This is Barack Obama’s war now: the blood of Juárez is on his hands.

Blaming a classifieds web site for the actions of an alleged murderer is almost as absurd as blaming high-school pot smokers for September 11. Nonetheless, Craigslist has decided to remove (or at least rename) the “erotic services” category of the site. This from the New York Times:

“Andrew M. Cuomo, New York’s attorney general, said his office had recently notified Craigslist about an impending prostitution case that involved the erotic services category.

‘Rather than work with this office to prevent further abuses, in the middle of the night, Craigslist took unilateral action which we suspect will prove to be half-baked,’ Mr. Cuomo said in a statement.”

Putting aside the obvious hypocrisy of this particular office’s crackdown on this particular brand of consensual human behavior—and putting aside the disturbing implication that our state’s top law enforcement officer does not subscribe to the principle of innocent until proven guilty—just why is prostitution illegal, anyway?

Prostitution will always be a profession, and it may always be a profession more risky than most. But in justifying the current policy, most prostitution prohibitionists make the same type of correlation-causation mistake that the drug prohibitionists make: they assume that the ills that sometimes surround the culture of prostitution—the pimps, the STDs, the robberies, the poor working conditions, and so on—stem naturally from the activity itself.

Yet there is better evidence that the organized crime, violence, and exploitative labor structures are drawn to the industry precisely because it is illegal—and thus outside the bounds of employment law, taxation, legal remedies for fraud, and other forms of regulation.

It’s the same fundamental correlation-causation mistake that’s made again and again by the White House Office of Drug Control Policy and other War on Drugs apologists: the failure to recognize that criminal behavior often arises from black markets just because they’re black markets, not because of what’s being bought, sold, or consumed.

Even the prohibitionist op-ed contributors to the New York Times, in a piece responding to the Eliot Spitzer controversy, can’t avoid making this basic mistake:

“Whose theory is it that prostitution is victimless?…The Emperor’s Club presented itself as an elite escort service. But aside from charging more, it worked like any other prostitution business. The pimps took their 50 percent cut. The Emperor’s Club often required that the women provide sex twice an hour. One woman who was wiretapped indicated that she couldn’t handle that pressure…The transport of women for prostitution was masked by its description as ‘travel dates.’”

Do these authors really think that these working conditions would still be acceptable at brothels if the businesses were regulated under US labor law?

Now, I don’t mean to suggest that the legalization, taxation, and regulation of prostitution—as has been done in Canada and Britain, among many other countries—would change the fact that when sex is sold, the transaction is usually of a certain sadness. In regimes where prostitution is legal and conditions are thus better for women—protection is enforced, wages and benefits guaranteed, and so on—the sadder party would often seem to be the man: he’s just paid hundreds of dollars for a woman to pretend she likes him for an hour.

On the other hand, anyone who assumes that the relationship between prostitute and client is never one of cordiality and good humor probably hasn’t spent much time talking to prostitutes or clients.

The anthropologist Patty Kelly has done so; she spent a year living in a Mexican brothel and studying the industry, and reports in an LA Times Op-Ed (written in the wake of the Spitzer revelation) that, in one of law enforcement’s more spectacular wastes of resources, more than 80,000 people per year are arrested for prostitution-related offenses. Ms. Kelly suggests an alternative solution:

“New Zealand’s 2003 Prostitution Reform Act is perhaps the most progressive response to the complex issue of prostitution. The act not only decriminalizes the practice but seeks to ‘safeguard the human rights of sex workers and protects them from exploitation, promotes the welfare and occupational health and safety of sex workers, is conducive to public health, [and] prohibits the use in prostitution of persons under 18 years of age.’ Furthermore, clients, sex workers and brothel owners bear equal responsibility for minimizing the risks of STD transmission. In 2005, a client was convicted of violating the act by slipping his condom off during sex.”

Imagine that.

So why isn’t US policy informed by the lessons of Prohibition?

One theory is that while lawmakers do sometimes seem to learn from our country’s mistakes, actually drawing analogies from those mistakes is a more elusive feat—as it is for law enforcement agencies, whose extraordinary leeway in choosing what and what not to pursue gives them a power to shape de facto law more than most citizens recognize.

That is, Mr. Cuomo is actively choosing to spend his time this way.

But there’s another, more intellectually plausible, explanation for why this is allowed to go on. I still remember, from law school, the famous “dwarf-tossing” debate that stood for the question of whether any consensual behavior between adults should ever be criminal. Those who believe it should tend to rely on the position that the criminal law, beyond merely creating a system of incentives, can also have a so-called “expressive” nature—society’s expression of a norm (in this case a behavior—the sale of sex—of which it disapproves) by codifying that norm in the criminal law.

But even if expressive laws are sometimes justified, they should not be imposed in cases that would result in obviously harmful human outcomes like the spread of STDs, violent robberies, the exploitation of women, or the vast waste of Mr. Cuomo’s resources on the victims of these crimes instead of their perpetrators.

The US prohibition on prostitution is no more justifiable than—and, in fact, strikingly similar to—the Catholic church’s prohibition on the use of condoms. When lawmakers, whatever their honest “expressive” intentions, maintain a public policy that is acknowledged to bring about disease and violence, they are willfully putting their own constituents in harm’s way.