TheAgitator.com
Mary O’Grady on Mexico’s Drug War
Monday, March 22nd, 2010Terrific piece by O’Grady in today’s Wall Street Journal, ahead of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s meeting tomorrow with Mexican officials to discuss drug war violence. Snippet:
The source of the problem is not Mexican supply. It is American demand coupled with prohibition.
It is doubtful that this will be acknowledged at tomorrow’s meeting. The drug-warrior industry, which includes both the private-sector and a massive government bureaucracy devoted to “enforcement,” has an enormous economic incentive to keep the war raging. In Washington politics both groups have substantial influence. So it is likely that we are going to get further plans to turn Juárez into a police state with the promise that more guns, tanks, helicopters and informants can stop Mexican gangsters from shoving drugs up American noses.
Last week’s gangland-style slaying of an unborn baby and three adults who had ties to the U.S. Consulate in Juárez has drawn attention to Mrs. Clinton’s trip. The incident stunned Americans. Yet tragic as they were, statistically those four deaths don’t create even a blip on the body-count chart. The running tally of drug-trafficking linked deaths in Juárez since December 2006 is more than 5,350. There has also been a high cost to the city’s economy as investors and tourists have turned away.
The astonishing argument from U.S. drug warriors to the violence in Juárez to this point has been: the bloodshed means we’re winning. Or put another way, “If thousands of Mexican need to die to keep Americans from getting high, by golly I, American drug war official, am willing to step up and make that sacrifice.” Now that a few Americans have been killed too, that argument will get more difficult to make.
But as O’Grady writes, don’t expect that to lead to any common sense changes in policy. To this point, the Obama administration and the leadership in Congress have made it clear that the only acceptable drug policy in Mexico is more militarization, more force, and more American funding and weapons with which to do it. If thousands more Mexicans have to die on the front lines so America’s politicians can make it marginally more difficult for Americans to ingest mind-altering substances, so be it.
“And I’m proud to be an American” (cue drums) “where at least I know I’m freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee……”
Wow! That was amazing.
Maaaybe I’m not drinking the right kool-aide here, but I don’t see how legalizing Cocaine is going to help. I mean, we’ll still have idiotic americans taking it, right?
…and please, if you reply leave the invective out and use short, logical sentences please it’s been a long day.
Legal cocaine is cocaine that can be supplied by any number of sources that don’t involve the cartels, for cheaper and for little to no risk and violence needed to defend the business. How many car dealers, or auto manufacturers put out hits on their competition, for example?
If you make cocaine a legal substance, the risk premium (as an illegal substance) is no longer a part of the pricing.
Who cares who’s doing it? Idiotic Americans or self-important Europeans – in the end, the market distortions caused by it being a prohibited substance makes it profitable for the cartels and government prohibitionist forces (in search of funds to seize) to gun down people every day as a part of their business practices.
There’s my take in a nutshell.
Business is business.
[...] Balko, “Mary O’Grady on Mexico’s Drug War”, The Agitator, 2010-03-22 Comments [...]
Dear Saint Zero:
It is very simple. If the substance is legal the black market will go away. There will be no incentive because the high profits will be gone and no need to fight over turf wars.
A very good corollary example would be the era of alcohol prohibition in the U.S. A black market was created and gangsters made a lot of money supplying the illegal substance to those who chose to violate the law.
If you will look into what has happened in the Netherlands with cannabis it is quite clear that they have reduced crime through legalization. In fact, a recent interview of someone (sorry can’t remember his title) in government policy making position, he stated that the fact that cannabis legalization has made it rather “boring”. No taboo, no need to break the law for the sake of thrills.
I do hope that was simple enough for you….because I for one, am sick of this so called war on (some) drugs. It is really just a way of circumventing the Constitutional protections of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th amendments. In other words it has become a de facto war on liberty.
Meanwhile if big pharmaceutical companies want to hawk their poisons via the medical profession that is just fine and so respectable. So if you want to feel better because you are depressed you can go to a doctor and he can prescribe any number of anti-depressants. If you have difficulty sleeping there are drugs for that. Same goes for problems with staying awake or losing weight or anxiety and on and on and on.
Man has tried to alter his consciousness since the beginning of time….and others have stood in the way under the guise of puritanism, health and safety, “it’s for the children” to make our streets safe and any number of other silly excuses to hold power over what individuals do with their own minds and bodies.
You might also look at the hard numbers. How much money has the U. s. Government spent on this so called war and what has been the return on investment? If you are honest you will admit that it is a failed policy.
ENOUGH ALL READY! LEGALIZE FREEDOM. even if you think (correctly or not) that it is “idiotic”.
Of course, this whole absurd drug warrior argument that, ‘at least all this bloodshed is worth it if we can keep people from getting high’ might be valid if it weren’t for the fact that noone is being stopped from getting high.
4 years of university and not once was there ever a challenge to find pot. Hell, I never did other shit and I could still get coke, oxy, opium, uppers, downers, sleeping pills, anti-depressants without even trying. I saw every one of those drugs used frequently in my presence.
Thousands of Mexicans need to die so the government can keep putting forth a message.
I think the only way we’re ever going to see anti-drug-war candidates get elected is if both of the major party candidates in any particular race are against the drug war. If only one candidate opposes the drug war, the drug war industry will see to it that he gets defeated.
As it stands, we don’t even have one major party opposing the drug war. About the only significant anti-drug-war legislation I see happening is coming from ballot initiatives that cut the politicians out of the loop.
My posts depress even me.
Now that a few Americans have been killed too, that argument will get more difficult to make.
And the obvious terrible truth is that it will happen to more Americans. On our turf. “Doubling down” on this bullshit means exactly what it sounds like.
The drug war is the health of the State.
/updated Bourne
Reform of sexual predator laws, reform of prison management, and reform of drug laws. Three things that are dramatically needed (in the opinion of any particularly sane person) that have no chance of being addressed because no politician will benefit.
But, when going against public opinion means growing government and lining their pockets (I’m looking at you health care “reform”), politicians will line up to lead the way on this issue too important to wait for a public mandate.
Reggie,
They’ll tell you it would be much worse if they didn’t slaughter all them ferners. They’ll tell you 8 year olds would be getting high outside school. My 8 year old can’t pour cereal himself, but I guess they are saving him from all that drug use.
Plus, those drug users are all uppity and not obedient to the state at all.
Drug war is the same as squeezing a ballon. Put the pressure on one spot and others will grow.
Boyd Durkin, how can you look at the number of states with medical marijuana and claim that reform of drug laws has no chance of being addressed because no politician will benefit.
You could make that claim about drug legalization or drug de-criminalization, and I’d be willing to listen to any arguments you have that support it, but there has already been significant reform of drug law, and I think that’s a pretty good indication that it’s not impossible.
Here in Oz both South Australia & the Australian Capital Territory have ‘decriminalized’ owning two pot plants on your own property, as long as it’s for personal use. We’ve seen NO mass migration to these areas from other states and a (slight) decrease in general usage in both SA & ACT. Harder drugs are still illegal but still available, prohibition only drives up prices & profit, it NEVER is impossible to score, ever. Drug use is so pervasive in society that I advocate a two prong approach; education by Health Professionals in primary & secondary schools, field trips to Rehab Centres etc, & a complete Legalisation of ALL drugs. Thus removing the financial incentives of politicos, cops, judges & crims (& yes, I lump them all together). We already have laws re Driving Under Influence etc, so come down hard on actions that endanger others and leave the fuck alone someone having a snow cone at home whilst watching a DVD!
War is a racket. The war on some drugs is no different. As long as people are getting paid, they’ll lie about it all day long to keep it going, regardless of what happens to the little people.
Trick is, then you’re allowing the people to ingest something which is harmful. I mean, all drugs can be harmful if misused from asprin on up. The harmful effects of most major drugs were taught to us in school. Should society pay for those who choose to get addicted to and ultimately ruin their own bodies? In this new (and theoretical) state it’s legal to run to the drug store and pick up a couple of ounces of Coke, but who’ll pay the bills when more people are addicted? Or is there data to prove that legal doesn’t mean widely used? I look at alcohol usage in america and shudder to think about legal heroin.
(oh, and thanks for the calm debate; you have no idea how rare that is on the internet! Or, maybe you do.)
The most obvious (and correct, in my opinion) analogy is Prohibition. But for all it’s many, MANY flaws, the one “good” thing about Prohibition (if you can even say that) is that at least Congress and the people in 1920 knew that the Constitution, as it was written, did not give Congress ANY authority to ban alcohol. The Constitution had to be amended in order to allow Congress to tell people what they could and could not drink. Once they realized (13 bloody years later) what a disaster the law was, the Constitution was then amended back to its original state, meaning Congress no longer had the authority to tell people what they were allowed to drink.
Tell me then, where in the Constitution is Congress given any authority to tell Americans what they can smoke, inhale, inject, swallow or otherwise put in their bodies? If we needed an amendment to ban alochol, then where is the amendment to bad all these other substances?
Saint Zero, your argument is not against the decriminalization of drug use, possession and sale. It is an argument against the collectivization of health care.
Anybody (or Radley) have suggestions on some sources to read further on this issue? I’m always compelled by these articles & by docs (Vanguard has done some fantastic work). Would love to read more & dig deeper. I think the idea of learning more makes me less depressed about the lack of any innovative change on this issue.
No, but if we must, remember that about the most expensive death to die is a natural one, so I expect that, just like smokers, lifetime health care would be less expensive on average for a drug user than a non-drug user.
The monetary savings for disbanding the roving gangs of thugs that kidnap and murder them and anyone close to them is a bonus, too.
Saint Zero,
As distasteful as it is to think about society being forced to pay for addicts, there’s a couple of things to consider here. First, despite the propaganda to the contrary, not every user, even users of “hard” drugs like cocaine and heroin, is an addict or will become an addict. Second, why are we so worried about this cost when we already throw billions upon billions of dollars at prisons, police, public-hysteria campaigns, and international interdiction, not to mention the incredible burden this war puts on our criminal justice system? In Switzerland, Holland, Portugal, and for a short time, England, they have all discovered that treatment is a far less costly option than incarceration.
I am actually against socialized treatment for addicts. I think that without the police spending all their time trying to bust teenage potheads and playing whack-a-mole with drug gangs, and without the courts wasting their resources on this futile pursuit, the really bad addicts could be dealt with pretty effectively and swiftly by targeting police resources on car-break-ins, muggings, shoplifting, etc. Without the prisons being stuffed to the gills with random drug users, we could actually keep the real criminals in prison for the actual term of their sentences. The important distinction here is that by focusing police resources on crimes where there is a tangible victim who has a vested interest in making the crime known to authorities, you are going to have a higher success rate and focus your attention on the users who are causing actual measurable harm to society. Anyone who can use without directly violating others’ rights to life, liberty and property should be left alone. Not to mention, this method doesn’t imperil our civil rights to nearly the degree that the drug war does, with it’s anonymous (often criminal) informants, undercover stings, no-knock raids, warrentless surveillance, and general stomping of the bill of rights. Also, to answer your question, there have been surveys asking Americans, “If drugs were legalized tomorrow, would you try them?” and the vast majority respond no, citing ethical, religious or personal reasons. Unfortunately, while most Americans answer no to these polls, they continue to believe that all their neighbors are answering yes.
Okay, so I think Saint Zero understood my “why prohibition is bad” angle. Lets get into his concerns about the addiction/public health angle.
You recognize that we have legal substances (alcohol, tobacco) that are intoxicants. You also recognize that with the consumption of intoxicants, there are harmful side effects including addiction. We have many addicts to legal intoxicants. I would argue that from a public health perspective we manage fairly well with treatment for those that want or need it, but in the end, treatment and cessation of use still comes down to individual choice. If you want to quit using, you have to choose to, and there are medical and psychological resources that can help you overcome addiction.
So the challenge is, why is addiction to some substances treated solely as a medical problem whereas addiction to other substances treated partially as a criminal problem? Why couldn’t we handle addiction to any substance as an issue of personal choice to stop using?
As for the issue of physical harm caused by the substances themselves, you’ll find that cocaine and heroin are probably about as safe as alcohol. Used within proper limits, overdose risk is rare. In a legal regime, you’d have pure dope with known strength and predictable results. Even after narcotics were made illegal around the turn of the last century, the Bureau of Narcotics in the US provided maintenance cocaine and morphine to elite addicts, including US Congressmen, doctors, and other “men of repute.”
For long term heroin (aka diacetyl morphine – not different from morphine at all once it crosses the blood-brain barrier) addicts the main side effect is constipation. Things like sepsis, collapsed veins and secondary infections are a result of prohibition and lack of access to proper injection equipment, not the substance itself. The classic “Hollywood” heroin overdose case where the person dies quickly is usually a result of combining heroin with alcohol and/or barbituates. The combination of the two can and will depress heart function rapidly. Taken by itself, a heroin overdose should take 6-12 hours minimum to kill you, and can easily be overcome by an injection of Naloxone. Again, this is a medical, not a legal problem and should be addressed as such.
Lastly, it’s been said that in a legal drug regime, there is no profit margin for criminal enterprises because the drugs will be cheaper than they are under a prohibition regime. Addicts under this system wouldn’t have to resort to crimes to get their fix.
Oh, and not a libertarian perspective (but from what Zero’s said, he/she is not a libertarian), but treatment on demand (government provided) is much cheaper than interdiction and incarceration.
I know a woman whose brother-in-law is a meth user. She’s very opposed to legalization. My argument is that meth IS illegal and her BIL is still using. How is the illegality of drugs stopping anyone from using? By legalizaing you’re taking money out of the hands of criminals because the risk/reward ratio goes WAY down.
I really think that prohibition is only going to get worse with this new healthcare bill. Now that we have to buy insurance, insurance companies are going to lobby pretty hard to keep drugs illegal. They’ll see legal use causing them to pay out more for treatment, hurting their bottom line.
There is already a large movement in the universal HC crowd trying to eradicate tobacco use because of its high cost associated with healthcare. I don’t see contemporary liberals pushing for drug legalization and universal healthcare in the future.
A scary thought, the drug warriors pushing for universal coverage as a strategy to convince more Americans to hate drugs since they’ll have to pay for treatment.
Maybe my conspiracy theory mind is getting the better of me.
@Saint zero: “Maaaybe I’m not drinking the right kool-aide here, but I don’t see how legalizing Cocaine is going to help.”
No invective friend. Notice how nobody is killing anybody over who gets to sell Budweiser in the neighborhood? If you banned alcohol, the price would shoot up and then people would be willing to kill over who gets to sell it. The potential profits would be so great that even people in other countries would be willing to kill over the right to sell it to America.
Right now our government is ready to kill or let be killed countless innocents at home and abroad in order to deny people here the opportunity to make the wrong decision about drugs. That would be wrong even if did keep all Americans off drugs. But, as you point out, it does not. Like all aspects of the drug war, it is a 100% failure.
Since we can’t stop the drugs, wouldn’t we be better people if we stopped the violence?
@Kristen
And the sad thing is that our government will gladly put her BIL in prison, or in the ground, along with his innocent next door neighbor if necessary, but they will not put him in treatment. That is our mentality. Kill or imprison. That is the best our leadership can do.
@#18
“In this new (and theoretical) state…”
That isn’t really so. Sears (and other merchants) sold Cocaine, Heroine and products containing opiates well into the 20th century. Marijuana wasn’t outlawed federally until the late 1930’s. Methamphetamine was manufactured and sold legally well into the 60’s. It’s not as if 2010 drug laws have existed throughout history.
[...] – H/T to Radley Balko for this gem. Radley’s own comments on the issue are on his blog, The Agitator. Bottom line, demand creates supply, not the other way around, and the US failed [...]
NC_Runner
Anybody (or Radley) have suggestions on some sources to read further on this issue?
Why yes, yes I do. Glenn Greenwald for Cato. Be sure to download the full report.
Drug Decriminalization in Portugal:
Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080
They had a story on CNN yesterday about all the violence in Mexico (Juarez) and the CNN journalist (I can’t remember his name) explained that the reason for all the violence is that the drug lords are pissed off because they can no longer easily corrupt the police anymore, so they are responding with violence. I’d say it’s pretty obvious where that perspective came from.
[...] – H/T to Radley Balko for this gem. Radley’s own comments on the issue are on his blog, The Agitator. Bottom line, demand creates supply, not the other way around, and the US failed [...]
[...] – H/T to Radley Balko for this gem. Radley’s own comments on the issue are on his blog, The Agitator. Bottom line, demand creates supply, not the other way around, and the US failed [...]