Mexico: The Real War on Drugs

In 1969, President Richard Nixon first used the term “War on Drugs” to define the efforts of the United States government and other allied nations to combat the production and distribution of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine as well as legal drugs if they had been obtained illegally for non-medical purposes.  Since that time, all succeeding American presidents, Republican and Democrat alike, have signed on to the basic premise of a coordinated campaign at home and abroad in effort to limit supply, diminish demand and combat the various deadly enterprises that traffic drugs.  But since as early as the 1970’s, critics of the “War on Drugs” have cited a lack of return on investment, the loss of potential tax revenues and an increased consumption of drugs in the developing world as a rationale for significantly altering U.S. prohibitive policies on drugs.  In some cases, they have even proposed legalizing the trade altogether.  The most paranoid of these voices suggest that authoritarian forces within the United States government purposefully manufacture and manipulate public fears on the subject of illegal drugs in order to generate support for the maintenance of a police state.

I hope to lend some perspective to this subject.  What is happening on the ground in Mexico—this very moment, in fact—is instructive and should help to cast the argument of the “War on Drugs” in a new light.  In that country, narco-terrorists not only produce and distribute cocaine but are also savagely brutalizing the population and those standing to defend the Mexican state.  Over 6,000 people have been murdered in Mexico in this battle in the last twelve months.  Mexican narco-terrorists are essentially doing what all large criminal enterprises ultimately do: challenge civil society and the state.  Such organizations seek to enrich and empower themselves by pursuing activities that feed the darker side of human nature.  Without a doubt, the killers that make up the current Mexican cartels would have had equally large and dangerous American-led counterparts in the U.S. had America not invested in the “War on Drugs” and empowered local police and the Drug Enforcement Agency to combat such organizations.

Fortunately, the DEA today is fighting back harder than ever.  Leading a broad coalition of federal, state, and local law enforcement organizations, the DEA spearheaded Operation Xcellerator which launched in early March 2008 and has netted hundreds of members of the Mexican Sinaloa Cartel deep inside the United States.  The Mexican cartels may certainly swing a big bat in Mexico but they remain wary of the DEA on U.S. soil.  A DEA Task Force Team leader, and friend of this writer, describes his recent work against the Mexican cartels in the U.S. as akin to “hunting at a zoo”.  The Mexican cartels may have come into America with the same aim of enriching themselves while imposing their violence upon us, but Operation Xcellerator is evidence that the DEA has taken off the gloves.  Congress and the American public need to support the DEA and encourage the Obama Administration to act decisively in this ongoing fight.  That may very well involve ramping up U.S. capability on the border including a redeployment of the National Guard in greater numbers and with the authority to act with force against those Mexican cartels that cross the border in force and are armed for confrontation.  It will also require supporting Mexico and other nations in the defeat of drug cartels under the Mérida Initiative—a security cooperation partnership created to combat transnational narcotics trafficking and organized crime in Mexico, Central America and Caribbean.

Though this fight is no less than a national security imperative, the “War on Drugs” also contains important social dimensions.  One of the most compelling rationales for recalibrating aspects of our drug policy is the effect drugs have on our poor.  Many of those most vulnerable in our society fall victim to drugs—and high rates of incarceration as well as subsequent barriers to employment exacerbate the plight of many in poverty.  Greater efforts in terms of education, prevention and rehabilitation make up the solution and must be encouraged.  Arguments that we should pursue across-the-board legalization do not address the fact that such policy would bring on a health care catastrophe among the poor in America.  And although there are valid arguments for the expansion of controlled use of marijuana among those suffering from cancer, AIDS and other debilitating diseases, the watchword on this particular matter must be “controlled”.  Marijuana bars where patrons buy marijuana and then sell to our children on the streets are unacceptable.

Given human fallibility, we are unlikely to ever stem the drug trade in its entirety.  Demand in the U.S. will continue.  So long as it is profitable, creative criminals will always find ways to defeat the defenses of open and free societies.  However, any achievements they make in breaking through our defenses in this difficult struggle should not be the sole measure of success or failure in the “War on Drugs” as a whole.  Our success will be the sustainment of civil society where the populace and those whom we elect to public office, guided by the Constitution and the rule of law, determine the course of our lives—and not the criminal enterprises determined to impose their violent will upon us.       

Comments

[Joe G.]

“Over 6,000 people have been murdered in Mexico in this battle in the last twelve months.”

It is an unbelievable fact which for some reason has received little attention. I blame the media for not making this outrage known in the U.S. If 6,000 people died in Iraq last year, G.W. Bush would have been strung up by his gonads. Fortunately, the New York Times and many other useless publications are going out of business as we type. Good riddance.

[Larry S.]

I'm surprised that you did not mention anything about the "Zetas." I live near a border city and the "Zetas" are reaching well within the soil of the U.S., and what is more disturbing is they are not only well trained/ organized, but they learn and adapt from there successes/mistakes quickly.

Quick bio on the "Zetas:" They were a special project from the School of Americas which basically not only taught them tradecraft but UW elements as well to serve as Mexico's elite special forces and countering drug effort. The problem is instead of serving Mexican interest, the top players decided to go into business for themselves as hired guns for the cartels, thus creating the "Zetas." These people are also trained by, and sponsored by, the Guatemalan Special Forces which are Jungle Warfare experts (or claim to be).

I have been following the "Zetas" and their apparent evolution since they overtly began their campaign in 2007 in New Laredo, TX, and yes, while 6000 dead is a lot in 2008. The figures for 2009 are 1200 so far this year, and 400 of them dead in a city close to where I live is alarming I think. I am anxious to see what happens now that Mexico has brought 5000 troops to the border city of Juarez. I am speculating that the "Zetas" will stop there violence for a month or two, regroup, and then we will see more insurgent style warfare waged on the troops (i.e. IED, Continued Police/Military targeting, Death Squads). They are truly a dangerous problem and I cannot wait until SAD touches hands with them and wipes them off the face of the earth. Anyway, that is my two cents as far as one of the many aspects in the War of Drugs. Good Article :)

[Bill Harris]

Peace on the Home Front

Debaters debate the two wars as if Nixon’s civil war on Woodstock Nation did not yet run amok. The witch-hunt against the half-a-million strong witches assembled in August 1969 hasn’t been and can’t be good for America, the world-leader in percentile behind bars. If we are all about spreading liberty abroad, then why mix the message at home? Peace on the home front would enhance credibility.

America should stop throwing good money after bad. The witch-hunt doctor’s Rx is for every bust to numerate a bigger tax-load over a smaller denominator of payers. Spend more on prisons than on schools. My witch’s second opinion is to grow your own. More consumer discretionary dollars will stimulate the rest of the economy when they are not depleted by prohibition’s black market.

Only a clause about interstate commerce provides a shred of constitutionality. The policy on the number-one cash crop in the land is no taxation; yes eradication; but money to frustrate enforcement grows on trees. The authors of the Constitution never intended to divert tax revenue to outlaws. America rejected prohibition, but its back. Swat teams don’t seem to need no stinking amendment.

The demonized substances never had their day in court. Nixon promised to supply supporting evidence later. Later, the Commission evidence didn’t support, but no matter. The witch-hunt was on. No amendments can assure due-process under an anti-science law that never had any due-process itself. Science hailed LSD as a drug with breakthrough potential, until the CSA (Controlled Substances Act of 1970) halted all research. Marijuana has no medical use, period. Lives are flushed down expensive tubes.

The RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993) makes an exception to the CSA allowing the Native American Church to eat peyote. A specific church membership should not be prerequisite for Americans to obtain their birthright freedom of religion. Denial of entheogen sacrament to any American, for mediation of communion twixt the soul and the source of souls, violates the First Amendment.

Freedom of speech presupposes freedom of thought. The Constitution doesn’t enumerate a governmental power to embargo diverse states of mind. How and when did government usurp this power to coerce conformity? Politicians who would limit cognitive liberty lack jurisdiction.

Common Law must hold that the people are the legal owners of their own bodies. Socrates advocates knowing your self. Mortal law should not presume to thwart the intelligent design that molecular keys unlock spiritual doors. Those who appreciate their own free choice of personal path in life should not deny self-exploration to seekers. The right to the pursuit of happiness is supposed to be inalienable by government.

Simple majorities in each house could put repeal of the CSA on the president’s desk. The books have ample law on them without the CSA. Americans are already liable for damages when they screw-up. The usual caveats remain in effect. Strong medicine requires prescription. Employees can be fired for poor job performance. No harm, no foul; and no excuse, either. Replace the war on drugs with a frugal, constitutional, science-based, drugs policy.

[Joe G.]

"Mexican officials say the violence killed 6,290 people last year and more than 1,000 in the first eight weeks of 2009."

- Time.com (today's issue)

[Voicawaimi]

Top blog dedicated to montreal casino blackjack you can find here:
montreal casino poker

[moncler outlets]

So fun article is! I know more from it.