Review: Drug Prohibition Leads to Violence in The Penguin
An HBO series set in the Batman universe reminds us that when a substance is outlawed, the market will provide one way or another.

There are good people in Gotham, but we don't see them in the HBO miniseries The Penguin. From start to finish, this is a show about rival gangsters with no loyalty or respect for anyone. They lie, screw over their own henchmen, impulsively commit murder (sometimes of their own family members), and—worst of all—put an elderly mother in peril.
The show picks up a week after the 2022 film The Batman left off: The reigning crime lord of Gotham, Carmine Falcone, is dead and the simple succession plan is quickly thrown out of whack. A fight for Gotham's underworld ensues, with the titular Penguin (played by Colin Farrell, though you'd never guess it beneath his accent and grotesque makeup) playing both sides of the Falcone-Maroni gang war. Sofia Falcone Gigante (Cristin Milioti) and Sal Maroni (Clancy Brown) are the main combatants. Other characters who seem like they may be a factor are instead dispatched more nonchalantly than a Game of Thrones star.
There's no plan for mass civilian murder that Batman must swoop in to stop—the caped crusader is hardly ever referenced. There's just a plan to get people hooked on a new illegal party drug, called Bliss, and to use the cash influx to control the streets of Gotham. The battle to control Bliss leads to gruesome murders of creative means (carbon monoxide poisoning en masse, immolation, surprise explosion). Maybe if Bliss weren't illegal, all that violence could be replaced by peaceful marketplace competition?
Viewers don't see much of Gotham's historically corrupt city government in The Penguin (except when someone needs to be wrongfully institutionalized without trial by a judge who's been paid off). But when something in high demand is illegal, the black market will always accommodate—with violence and death, if necessary. Elderly mothers everywhere take heed.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
We are currently running a real life social experiment on whether the problems associated with illegal drugs lie solely in the "illegal" aspect. The results so far seem to indicate that a lot of the problems lie in the "drug" part.
Alcohol’s problems are certainly because of the drug (death, cancer, brain damaged babies, violence). Cannabis, not so much.
(AT to say alcohol is not a drug, drinkers are not druggies etc in 1, 2, 3…)
Hint: we had the "drug" part problems even when they were illegal. We got all the problems of prohibition without any of the supposed benefits.
The lede is funny. Deadpool movies remind us that it's hilarious to kill hundreds of people in two hours as long as you have a witty potty mouth. What other works of fiction "remind" us of highly debatable theories?
Maybe if Bliss weren't illegal, all that violence could be replaced by peaceful marketplace competition?
Do the good upstanding citizens of Gotham want any portion of their society doing Bliss? I wonder if the show devoted any time to the average Gothamite's increasing anger and intolerance of having to live among Bliss addicts setting up tents in the park, pooping in the streets, and attacking people on the subway. I haven't watched it. Maybe you can tell me.
But when something in high demand is illegal, the black market will always accommodate—with violence and death, if necessary.
And this is a BS threat which should be completely ignored. I never get sick of Losertarians making this nonsense argument. Like petulant children who threaten a tantrum if they don't get their way. And, because Losertarians - unless they're ENB types - are incapable of finding sexual partners (because, lol, as if) they have no frame of reference when to comes to dealing with petulant children who don't get their way. (And were almost certainly very recently said petulant children themselves.)
"If you don't help me intentionally kill my baby, I'm just going to risk worse harm in back alleys." Screw you. "If you don't embrace my pronouns, you're just going to make the mentally ill slit their wrists." Screw you. "If you don't let me get high, you're just going to create a violent black market." Screw. You.
The threat of the dangers of the black market is weaponized empathy. And, if you want to get religious about it, this is Satan 101. Convince people to accept wrongdoing by making them feel guilty about not supporting said wrongdoing. It's a devious manipulative attack on good and decent people by blurring the line between right and wrong.
The violence and death that comes with the illegal drug trade isn't ON the average person. It's squarely on those who want, support, and enable it. The fact that you try to put it on them only illustrates just how wrong you ultimately know supporting it really is. Because if it were right, you wouldn't EVER have to do that. Ever.
The "carbon monoxide poisoning en masse, immolation, surprise explosion" - place the blame where it lay: on those who wanted Bliss. Not on anyone else.
And this is a BS threat which should be completely ignored. I never get sick of Losertarians making this nonsense argument. Like petulant children who threaten a tantrum if they don't get their way. And, because Losertarians - unless they're ENB types - are incapable of finding sexual partners (because, lol, as if) they have no frame of reference when to comes to dealing with petulant children who don't get their way. (And were almost certainly very recently said petulant children themselves.)
Nothing you said refutes the argument. You just attacked the people who make it.
Fact is that prohibition does create black markets because laws are not magic. At best government can create incentives and disincentives, but it can't create intent. So when it bans something like alcohol or drugs, the people who want it still want it. Demand is still there, and it can't be legislated away. That creates an incentive for black market actors to provide it. But because these people can't settle disputes in court being that what they're arguing about is illegal, they settle disputes on the streets with violence.
Ergo, prohibition creates black markets that can become violent and deadly. It's not a threat. It's just human nature.
Perfect summation of how stupid this article is, how stupid this argument is, and how stupid this party is. Hey Fucko: We tried decriminalized drugs. Now Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, Denver, etc, look like Gotham. Great fucking plan.
I'm going to assume you were talking to sarc, since you agreed with me completely.
Yes, I was and am agreeing with you. I utterly disagree with the stupid article and Reason in general on this issue. Since we AREN'T going to enforce laws against drug addicts, legalization is fucking stupid. In the same way that we AREN'T going to let illegals starve or bleed out, so an open border is fucking stupid.
Decriminalization is not legalization. It just means that users don't go to jail for possession. Importation, production, transportation, distribution and sale of drugs remains illegal under decriminalization. That means that the black market and all of the problems associated with it remain. Did you know that during Prohibition, the possession and consumption of alcohol was not prohibited? That means decriminalization is basically the same as Prohibition. I'm pretty sure you've heard of all the lawlessness and death that resulted from that black market, the loss of liberty that's required in order to enforce laws against black markets, not to mention people dying from drinking booze that the government poisoned (I sometimes wonder if our government is adding fentanyl to seized drugs and then putting them back onto the market to intentionally kill people, wouldn't surprise me one bit).
By the way, I've never seen an argument in favor of legalizing drugs that said drugs are great and there's no downside. The argument is that the consequences of prohibition are worse.
Also the Panic of 1907, the 1929 Crash, 1930 Depression and Banking Panics and the attempt to fasten hysteria against less harmful onto Germany in Summer 1931. That got Hitler elected.
How about trying drug legalization, but actually enforcing property rights and prosecuting theft, panhandling, trespassing, etc.? The problem with Portland and the other far-left shitholes like that is that they de facto, and in some cases de jure, "decriminalized" all of those other things that turned their cities into literal shitholes like SF. If Soros DAs and cities are going to refuse to prosecute shoplifting; allow homeless to encamp wherever they please, shitting on the street; and encourage all of this by paying the homeless addicts to continue their lifestyle, you'll get this every time. Someone getting high on his own property is not the problem, all of the stupid soft on actual crime policies of the left are the problem.
Amidst your crap is a decent argument trying to get out. Legalising drugs shouldn't mean ignoring crimes with actual victims..
You attack my argument by calling it "crap," but then go on to endorse my argument in the next sentence. Is it my mention of "Soros DAs" that made you feel defensive, or just my criticism of the left in general?
You attack my argument by calling it "crap," but then go on to endorse my argument in the next sentence.
In principle your argument is sound. The partisan crap is crap.
Is it my mention of "Soros DAs" that made you feel defensive, or just my criticism of the left in general?
Saying your partisan crap is crap isn't being defensive. It's calling it what it is. Crap. That's because the purpose of that crap is to preclude any actual discussion about the topic by making the argument about the other person, as you just did.
Are they Republican-controlled city councils and state legislatures that are relaxing prosecution of those other crimes? Or are they far-left Democrat-controlled states and localities that are doing that and pushing for it?
Trying to absolve Democrats for bad Democratic policies is what is crap.
BTW, this is why so many of the commenters call you out for seeming like a leftist. In an article about bad drug policy, in which I espoused drug legalization, as you did as well, you feel it necessary to go to bat for the Dem's bad policies that have made it less likely that we will get actual drug legalization. The Republicans are dead wrong that ratcheting up the drug war will improve the situation, or even increase liberty. I have no problem pointing that out. I find Trump's zeal to outdo Reagan with the drug war troubling.
Why can't you acknowledge that going soft of crimes that actually have victims (as opposed to the victimless crime of ingesting an "illegal" substance) is bad, and also admit that it is the left that's primarily pushing that?
SRG said "Legalising drugs shouldn't mean ignoring crimes with actual victims.." and I said "In principle your argument is sound."
That is called agreement.
Yes Democratic politicians have screwed up pretty much everything they've touched. But making the argument about them instead of arguing against victimless crimes and for the enforcement of crimes with victims serves no purpose except to attempt to make the arguments about people instead of principle, which you then spin into personal attacks on both of us. You should be able to make your point without all the partisan crap and personal attacks.
Two things can be true simultaneously. We each own our bodies and have a right to ingest whatever substances we want: the war on drugs is a travesty. Also true is that cities/states run by the far left have decriminalized (not legalized) drugs while also striving to "decriminalize" actual crimes with victims, such as violations of property rights, shoplifting, etc. This is perhaps the worst situation, long-term, because regular people will associate drug legalization (confusing it with the attempted decriminalization) with horrible outcomes, such as what we see in Portland, Seattle, and SF. Whatever chances of finally getting drug legalization will greatly diminish as a result. So, yes, I blame the far left that runs those places for making the desired outcome almost impossible to accomplish now and in the future.
This is perhaps the worst situation, long-term, because regular people will associate drug legalization (confusing it with the attempted decriminalization) with horrible outcomes, such as what we see in Portland, Seattle, and SF.
Aye.
I did not attack your argument. I attacked your crap. Defensive, much? I actually agreed with your argument!
Perhaps I misunderstood your post, then. What, exactly, is the "crap" you are attacking?
Remember alcohol prohibition? That showed, or should have, that no matter how bad a drug is (and alcohol is at the top of the danger to yourself and society lists) making it illegal makes everything worse.
Corruption, increased potency, disputes settled with guns, growth of criminal organisations, etc
Then why do we prohibit anything?
"(and alcohol is at the top of the danger to yourself and society lists)"
Hey Boomer: Woodstock is over and "drugs" no longer means "low-grade pot". Coke is much worse than alcohol. Meth is much worse than coke. And fentanyl is a death sentence. And all those zombie homeless aren't smashing windows to get more chardonnay.
Observe that the ATF mystical sockpuppet wants, supports and enables the ILLEGAL drug trade. Before China blackmailed America into making trade and production crimes in 1905-1909, no such thing appears in thousands of newspapers. But once mystical bigotry got its own politicians attacking freedom, violent crime, financial crashes and banking panics increased steeply, then fell after 1933 as felony beer was repealed. Importing China's policies is a sucker-trap. https://libertrans.blogspot.com/2023/08/the-versailles-prohibition-treaty.html
Observe that the ATF mystical sockpuppet wants, supports and enables the ILLEGAL drug trade.
That guy over there wants to kill your family. Let him do it, or he's just going to do it illegally. Oh, you don't want to let him do it legally? Then I guess you want, support, and enable the ILLEGAL murder trade.
DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP, WOJAK.
Nobody's even discussed the effects of Bliss. Or how the movie was.
Do the good upstanding citizens of Gotham want any portion of their society doing Bliss?
By revealed preferences, yes. Plenty of them are buying it.
The majority, or just a visible minority?
Maybe if Bliss weren't illegal, all that violence could be replaced by peaceful marketplace competition?
Organized crime isn't successful because it is criminal, it is successful because it is organized.
Organized crime exists because prohibition creates black markets.
You don't see organized criminals selling Pepsi or Cheetos or Seagram's. You see them peddling drugs, gambling, sex, high interest loans and other things that people want but cannot be sold legally. And you see them settle disputes with violence because they can't take each other to court.
Exactly.
I suspect fried Cheetos are illegal in Brazil.
Okay but let's see why that says the opposite of whaty you imply.
-- You don't live in Brazil
--- Even if you did, you imply that you would be utterly unaffected by any law for or against fried Cheetos
--- If you don't go for that sort of thing you should also be against govt promotions , such as those related to weight . Are you?? I doubt it.
wrong .
Many cases of trucks loaded with such things have been stopped and its contents later put on the Black Market.Gucci (either real or knockoff) , jewelry, paintings --tons of things that have no connection to your point.
What then are you against. .Well in the cases I point out it could be simple as avoiding VAT or duties .
Criminals DO NOT make the distinctions you think they do
And if the drugs were legal, firms that want to make money selling the drugs will compete on price and advertising and celebrity endorsements and quality, like with every other product. Instead of drive-by shootings, bombings, and bribing cops and judges. And people who die from tainted product could sue those companies for damages, instead of being smeared in the press for "overdosing" when they didn't intentionally overdose at all.
When alcohol was prohibited, rival alcohol gangs shot up the town and each other and paid off the cops and judges. When was the last time Miller and Budweiser resorted to drive-by shootings?
I don't know. That Dylan Mulvaney thing was pretty scary.
Dylan Mulvaney the pervert happend because a company operating in the town it was founed in,by the 3rd generation of Busches was sold to a Dutch company. Ask anyone in St Louis if they think the Busches would have gone the pervert Mulvaney route. Find me even one.
But alcohol is a proof you are wrong. There was only a manufactured moral case against booze. THe Catholic CHurch opposed it fromday one If you put crack and ecstasy in the same class as Booze you lose your point anyway. Who decides what is prohibition and what isn't? You ? There we go. Maybe you are pissed off that red dye now joins the ranks of prohibited substances.
Except on here when attacking religion it is almost infallibly "ORGANIZED" religion. No, I think people like you use the word to disguise the murders, the families destroyed, and the corrupting of public officials. Organized really means the violence and perversion that is imposed.
"The Economics of Prohibition" [a book mystical prohibitionists struggle to evade] shows that prohibition laws increase crime. Yet the same book ignores the causal relationship between bans on production and trade and financial collapse--as do all others except Prohibition and the Crash. Social pressure and veiled threats keep cowardly "economists" from noticing the raw correlations plainly visible in newspapers published at the time of every major crash, crime wave, panic and war. Thornton (1991) is at least a partial pioneer. https://libertrans.blogspot.com/2024/10/causes-of-recessions.html
So silly and uninformed. You make no distinction in who opposed and who supported and esp no distinction in WHAT was prohibited.
THe Catholic Church always consistently opposed PROHIBITION of alcohol. To you it is all the same.
This is silly and one-sided. If you want folks to have anything ( a beer, a fine whiskey, an aged wine) then why aren't you going after government's attacks on what is legal and good. Do we need this
"Alcohol stocks tumble after US surgeon general calls for cancer warnings"
Does government have to tell you "your ass is on fire"
IF something is sucha a pervasive and deadly risk, Isn't school enough to spread the message?
Maybe REASON needs to quit KNOCKING and start BOOSTING as my father used to say.
Breathing may be hazardous to your health --- how's that 🙂
This is nonsense.
Pres Clinton delcares cigarettes addictive substances, Attorney General just asked for labeling of alcohol as a cancer causer.
The power you deplore is not in banning , it's in labeling.
Would you be happy with a massive eclair tax after it's declared illegally fattening.
Some things should be banned. Where were you when Biden approved those demonic weapons banned in about 100 countries.
US to send cluster munitions banned by over 100 nations to Ukraine after months of debate
Natasha Bertrand
By Natasha Bertrand and Haley Britzky, CNN
I'm telling you ,you look the hypocrite for articles like this.
THis is riddled with fallacies.
The main one is the one that Edmund Burke , one of your heroes lamented grievously
"Nobody makes a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little." - Edmund Burke
But let Trump send military to deal with these groups and you will at least destroy the infrastructure for awhile. At another lever the suppliers and users are often failed products of our school system.
I was a college teacher and saw MANY who even upon graduation would not provide a return to a company even on minimum wage, very sad to say.