Capitalism and the War On Drugs

I just read this article, and it got me thinking again about law, drugs, capitalism.  Have I talked about drugs yet?

There is so much more that can be said about this topic than I could ever write. I know I am biting off more than I can chew. And really, the whole thing is still something that I'm trying to make sense of. This post, then, mostly revolves around some unanswered questions.

The biggest mystery is WHY any drugs are illegal. The fact that prohibition is totally ineffective and promotes the formation of black markets and organized crime leads one to believe that social welfare is not the primary objective, else this strategy would have been rejected (like it was in the case of alcohol). Then, of course, there is the fact that some drugs (e.g. marijuana) are relatively harmless compared to others. There does not seem to be any logic undergirding this system.

In opposition to the idealistic "social welfare" explanation of drug policy, there are a number of conspiratorial explanations.

1. Targeted enforcement of users allows for the imprisonment and control of certain populations (e.g. poor, young African Americans)

2. The formation of black markets and crime rings creates markets for arms manufacturers

3. The formation of black markets allows for redistribution of wealth (further drains money from the poor - the population that is most associated with drug use); furthermore, accumulated capital from the drug trade exists "outside" of the system and leads to the formation of spaces free from laws of taxation, etc.

In regard, particularly, to number 3, it is important to remember that law is not a set of rules but a constitutive practice of modern social formations. The act of making something "illegal" does not put it "out of bounds." Notions of legality/illegality are, rather, means of creating different spheres of action which are required to maintain the inequalities that fuel capitalist accumulation.

All three of the above theories are plausible and to some extent supported by evidence. However, it seems unlikely that any one of the three in itself could be held entirely responsible the whole global War On Drugs, nor is it particularly easy to see how they might fit together (even including an actual concern for social welfare, which is at least slightly plausible as well).

Any ideas?