Is Calderon Giving In to the Drug Lords?
At first glance, you might think this would be another and more strategic way to attack the cartels by undercutting their profits. But this would be a better argument if the United States legalized drugs. After all, that’s still the primary market for most illegal drugs from Mexico. If you want to get the drug lords’ attention, and hurt their bottom line, legalizing drugs north of the border would probably do the trick.
But south of the border, the tactic of legalizing drugs isn’t an attack as much as an act of appeasement. Up to now, Mexico has experienced only small traces of the drug trade and only then because, with Mexican authorities cracking down on exports to the United States, drug traffickers have to sell more of their product domestically. But the dealers aren’t making much profit, since Mexican customers — mostly young people in urban centers — won’t pay the high prices tolerated by their American counterparts. After all, Mexican drug lords have, over the years, gotten rich off dollars — not pesos.
Legalization is part of a feeble attempt to manage, someday maybe even regulate, the drug trade. The hope is that drug traffickers will settle for half a loaf — pocketing these smaller transactions — and stop terrorizing the Mexican people.
One Mexican businessman, who now lives in San Diego, put it to me this way: Why not let individual states in Mexico decide if they want to legalize certain kinds of drugs within their jurisdiction. That way, he said, drugs will find their way into some areas but they’ll be kept out of others. Let people pick their poison — literally.
But that argument misses the obvious: If you legalize drugs, you will experience more drug use. Period. More people will become addicted. More crimes will be committed to support people’s habits. More families will be destroyed.
Certainly, Mexico has the right to set priorities for who it prosecutes and who it doesn’t. That is an internal matter best settled by its criminal justice system. However, in this case, it is obvious that legalizing drugs is a response to mounting pressure by drug traffickers. In that respect, this policy change is an example of giving into evil.
In the history of the world, this isn’t exactly the first time that has happened. Fear makes people — and nations — do foolish and self-destructive things. It is always regrettable and never excusable. And, as a partner in the drug war, the United States should say so loud and clear.
Retreat? You betcha, but its long overdue. The war should not be against using, it should be against those who commit violence. Calderon’s war as it was originally defined is too little, too late and I doubt any Western society has the stomach (including me) to do what would really needs to be done to “win” such a war (think Singapore or various Middle Eastern countries). Add to that that Mexico just doesnt have the kind of “machine” needed to enforce laws anywhere near 100%, never had it, never will.
The War on Drugs was a bad idea from the get-go. Calderon tried to fight it and to the best of his ability, but this is not a winnable one. If the U.S. wants to keep Quixotically fighting, its their problem, not Mexico’s. Besides, we should see how this new policy plays out. I suspect usage will go up, then down … much the way it did with the liberalization of divorce.
The real threat to the Mexican government is not the casual user on the street, but the cartels that are taking over sections of the country. Calderon may just be picking his battles. Id like to see this lead to a legal manner of obtaining drugs that is heavily controlled and hell, heavily taxed, much like cigarettes and alcohol in the States. That seems to be far more effective in limiting use more than outright prohibition. We still havent learned our lesson from the Prohibition of the 1920′s.
In case youre wondering, I am an American who has been living in Mexico for 6 years now.
The alteration of the Mexican laws concerning drugs wasn’t a capitulation to the cartels. It was a realization that people who use drugs are going to use them regardless of the legal consequences. It was also a realization that most of the time, the vast majority of illicit drug users are peaceful, otherwise law-abiding citizens. Next, they accepted the fact that it hurts the economy as well as the whole society to lock up somebody who normally contributes to society and who wasn’t doing anyone else any harm. Also, the costs of imprisoning a casual user far outweigh the damage that most users do (it costs around $25,000 to lock somebody up for a year in the States; it places on them a criminal record which makes it much more difficult to find a job; it removes mostly men and therefore fathers from their families). Continuing, how many Mexican cops do you think take people to jail for having some dope? Probably not too many unless a large quantitiy is involved. Finally, most of the users of illegal drugs are not addicts. Most users are casual users, weekend warriors. And definately not dangerous.
No, Mr. Navarette, you’re wrong about this whole issue. The laws prohibiting drug use by and large are far more damaging than the drugs themselves. As an example, I cite prohibition. People still drank during prohibition. People brewed their own bathtub gin, made moonshine (some of it deadly). The Mafia got involved and violence, naturally, followed. Prohibition, like today’s drug laws, spawned corruption in government officials. (How many Mexican government officials have been recently busted for corruption with links to the drug trade?) Just the same as it is today; no difference. How much money does the country make now from alcohol taxes, I ask you?
As a final point: The government here has pretty much taxed and/or regulated everything else under the Sun. When is our government going to realize that drug decriminilization and taxation is a great revenue stream which far outweighs the costs? The Mexicans government realizes this and is moving in the direction of the culture…
regards
Yes, he is giving in.
Either it’s legal and it can be taxed and regulated, or, the mafia has an untaxed monopoly.
What he did just prolongs the status quo, but it does not help to prevent drug-related criminality, or the health issues caused by adulterated drugs produced under unhygienic and uncontrolled conditions.
And none of those ‘treatments’ will ever work either, people are not ‘sick’ from addiction, they merely like drugs very much, and whilst this is so, they’ll continue taking them, no matter what harsh price you set for getting caught.
Someone who is willing to lose all teeth to meth isn’t going to care too much about anything else either, so this is all a pointless waste of tax pesos.
The drug was is a failed effort, unless you are government and can expand powers of search and seizure, confiscating all amounts of cash or property for just the suspicion of drug use or trade, the prison system becomes a growth industry and prison guards become the most powerful political union in California, and basic infrastructure of the nation is left to fall apart while we spend billions on high tech toys.
OR
You are drug dealer or part of a drug syndicate and you make billions upon billions in cash, bribing entire governments and Police forces, agencies and cities in the process.
OR
You are part of the Governments clandestine services and utilize drug trade to increase funding and launder drug trade receipts for a piece of the action
Otherwise, yea, its working out really well.
3. RightwingHippieChick: “…adulterated drugs produced under unhygienic and uncontrolled conditions.”
Exactly. The ONLY reason for “cutting” any illicit substance is because it’s illicit.
But he’s NOT giving in. Calderon has changed his view of the issue. His is a realization that the past policy was, in fact, incorrect with consideration to the desires of the current society.
How much more harmful is meth or any other manufactured drug when it’s been cooked in some Mexican’s basement with impure ingredients and ad-hoc conditions and no good manufacturing practices as opposed to a government/or FDA regulated, pure substance?
People ARE going to get high!
The law in America is on the wrong side of history. It’s a good thing that the Mexicans have started to figure it out! Maybe it’ll trickle up (North) to the states.
regards
3. RightwingHippieChick: “…adulterated drugs produced under unhygienic and uncontrolled conditions.”
Exactly. The ONLY reason for “cutting” any illicit substance is because it’s illicit.
But he’s NOT giving in. Calderon has changed his view of the issue. His is a realization that the past policy was, in fact, incorrect with consideration to the desires of the current society.
How much more harmful is meth or any other manufactured drug when it’s been cooked in some Mexican’s basement with impure ingredients and ad-hoc conditions and no good manufacturing practices as opposed to a government/or FDA regulated, pure substance?
People ARE going to get high!
The law in America is on the wrong side of history. It’s a good thing that the Mexicans have started to figure it out! Maybe it’ll trickle up (North) to the states.
regards
Think about it for a minute. What business is it of our government as to what you do with your body and if you use drugs? The answers is absolutely none. This trash began in 1913. Before then, you could buy anything you desired. And they did have cocaine, heroin, etc. The number of addicts before 1913 is the same as now. Our drug laws have not done a thing except to cost us a ton of money and ruined many lives is people being thrown into prison for drug related offenses. About 50% of people in prison are is there for drug offenses. As a physician I can assure you that the cost of drug enforcement is higher than you would ever imagine. AIDS, hep c and endocarditis are all propagated as a result of our idiot laws. I can not adequately treat a persons pain due to the fact that I must be worried constantly if I will be labled a supplier. We need to go to a system of being able to purchase any drug by simply walking into you neighborhood pharmacy. That would make more sense than what we have and would eliminate a considerable cost for the country. Think, with the money saved, Obama could buy us all the same insurance policy he and Congress has.
Picking your battles is not the same as giving in. I admire Calderon for being fluid on this matter, but continuing the battle against the drug mafia. As Calderon said, if they hadn’t started this war, the next Mexican president would have been a narcotraficante. I have family in Mexico and I don’t want my brothers growing up in a drug-controlled state.
Personal use is never the problem, and more importantly it is something we will NEVER stop. The problem is the drug mafia. If legalizing helps control drug trafficking – and there are many reasons to believe that it does – then that’s just another arrow in the quiver.
Ruben, Give it up dude, I don’t need your stinkin apologies for open borders!!Go and tell Mc Cain you will always love him.
You know, I never understood why drug dealers cut their drugs with toxic chemicals when sugar is probably cheaper, just as effective, and less likely to kill their customers.
I am in favour of 3 continental preparatory regimes. One for the combination of Central & South America (in other words, from Tijuana to Tiera del Fuego), one for Africa, and one for Asia.
Those countries which have proven themselves to be successful states (and Mexico would have a hard time proving this) would continue to run themselves. The rest would undergo, for whatever length of time, preparation for the day when they are ready to handle the reins of gov’t. I’ve been beating this little drum for months, and my template is what refers to FDR in “Lost Crusade: American in Vietnam” by Chester L. Cooper.
So, anyone think of who should be on those continental preparatory regime panels?
#11
I think the non-Islamist parts of Asia are doing OK, even once Fabian-socialist India. And I think you will see many sub-Saharan African countries well surpass Latin America in terms of prosperity, effective government, standard of living etc. by mid-century, once they get off of their scam fetish. Too bad the lazy Italians went to Argentina.
Meanwhile, lets just prep the author to be territorial governor of either “Southern Arizona, New Old Texas, or Cross-Gulf Florida”.
#8
Cut the dude some slack, he’s actually getting better with these non-inflammatory articles. I didnt see a hint of open border advocacy. Ruben’s probably under some double-secret probation or zero tolerence orders from Pajamas.
oops I meant #9
#12, as long as those countries demonstrate that they would be regarded as successful after being graded by an even handed analysis as to what a successful state is. For, I am not at all convinced that countries which have more than
half of their population being Muslim doing what is necessary for a successful country to come into being.
As long as they continue to run the game where property rights of some are only protected some of the time, they will not make the necessary progress.
As for the sub-Saharan countries, they need this: no more distortion via subsidies. For subsidies are equal to tariffs.
The War on Drugs is Prohibition all over again, with all the attendant violence and organized crime. Just legalize the stuff like they eventually did for alcohol and most of the serious problems will go away. When was the last time two liquor sellers had a shoot out in the street?
If you legalize drugs, you will experience more drug use. Period. More people will become addicted.
And this is worse than Mexico’s current situation?
#16
More like a needed first step toward long term relevance, sort of like China’s Opium period of the late 1800s -check. Civil war (narcos v. government, PAN v. PRI, returned illegals/creido Mexican-Americans(wishful thinking?) vs. oligarchy? ) – the next check
No, it signals an attack on the enemy’s supply lines. If Mexico truly wanted to gut these cartels it would go whole hog on legalization and let every street vendor offer a dime bag of coke or weed for a few pesos, legally, to American tourists. The black market profits would disappear and the cartels couldn’t fund their thugs.