>The penalty for dealing drugs in this country is very often death, and I'm not talking about the legal system. I'm referring to the frequent turf battles between groups that sell drugs in the inner-city and the high likelyhood of dying that young dealers must face. Immediate death by a hail of bullets.
>
>It doesn't stop them. They deal drugs anyway.

But, that aspect is included in the "uncertainty" element of the Bad Deterrence Study model I made. Look at the countries such as Southeast Asia or the Middle East, where there is a swift and certain penalty (including death) for dealing drugs. There, deterrence definitely works, that was my point. There is no certainty of death in dealing drugs in the US gangs, only a somewhat remote & random possibility.

>If we want to lower the rate of murder and crime in this country, a good first step would be to end the war of drugs. By any measure (other than providing work for drug dealers and narcotics agents) this drug war is a total failure.

I don't think we should end the war on drugs, but certainly modify it some to treat users more lightly and big dealers more severely.And, IMO the single largest problem in the US is that we have a hypocritical culture that allows manufacturers of tobacco (and to some degree alcohol) legal and tax protections while often severely punishing users of "soft" drugs like marijauna.

Those two legal drugs (tobacco & alcohol) are responsible for most of the cultural drug problem, since alcohol & tobacco are the true "gateway" drugs of youth. Keeping them completely out of the hands of minors would go a long way toward reducing the drug problem.

Ultimately, though, drug use is really a cultural problem. A society must arrange itself so that destructive habits are unpopular, rather than illegal.