With much of our foreign policy focus on the Middle East these days, we haven’t been looking that much at what’s been happening closer to home:
Alarmed by rising threats to Mexican law and order from ever-more-brazen drug lords, the Bush administration is quietly negotiating a counternarcotics aid package with the Mexican government that would increase US involvement in a drug war south of the border.
The fact that Mexico – which has historically been averse to any assistance from the US that could be construed as a breach of its sovereignty – is seeking the increased aid shows how serious a threat President Felipe Calderón sees drug gangs posing to his country.
When Calderón took office last year, he immediately sent troops into areas where drug trafficking was common and attempted to disrupt the organizations that control the pipeline of drugs that make their way into the United States. The effort was so successful that the country’s powerful drug cartels are now trying to figure out whether or not they will work together or fight each other for the massive profits. The reality in Mexico is the same as it always has been. The drug cartels are too powerful to take down. They will always have the money to buy out law enforcement officials in both Mexico and the United States. The $40 million dollars we’ve been giving them annually in aid is a drop in the bucket compared to the money that the cartels have to spend on weapons and bribes.
As a result, Calderón is trying to get a much heftier aid package from the United States in order to wage his war. To his credit, he’s been placing the blame where it needs to be placed:
Mexico already appears to be laying the groundwork to frame the plan not so much as an aid package but as the United States facing up to problems that are a consequence of American drug consumption. Calderón, often a cautious public speaker, has sternly called for the United States to pay more to combat the cartels.
“The language that they’re using is that the U.S. has a large responsibility for this problem,” said Ana María Salazar, a former high-ranking Clinton administration drug official who was involved in implementing the U.S.-funded program for Bogota, known as Plan Colombia.
There’s no question that American drug consumption is driving this problem. For years, we’ve deluded ourselves into thinking that the drug trade is the case of a foreign enemy trying to “poison” us with their dangerous wares. But that’s never been an accurate picture of what’s happening. Millions of Americans choose to use illegal drugs. They’re not being coerced by shifty foreigners trying to get us hooked. Only a small percentage of them are addicts. And as domestic drug law enforcement has driven many of the supply networks south of the border, the cartels have generated the kind of wealth and power than make Al Capone and his gang of bootleggers look like a Girl Scout troop.
The Nixon and Reagan Administrations laid the foundation for this disaster, but the Clinton Administration followed right in their footsteps. They launched Plan Colombia in 2000, the multi-billion dollar initiative in South America’s most prolific coca growing nation that failed to decrease cocaine production, increased corruption in the Colombian government, and actually lowered the price of cocaine in the United States. It’s often jokingly said that the Bush Administration’s policies were determined by looking at Clinton Administration policy and doing the opposite, but I only think that applied to the things that Clinton was doing that were actually smart.
Colombia’s problems have been around for decades, even before we started throwing money and weapons at them to fix them. Leftist guerrillas have waged a bloody civil war for over 40 years, in part because cocaine profits have kept their movement afloat while similar ideological movements in other countries have become an ignored fringe. Today, though, the Uribe government has been winning the military battle against these rebel groups, but finding that more and more of the drug trafficking is just occurring within its own ranks.
Another aspect of the damage being done in Colombia is their current emigration problem:
In the last decade, large-scale emigration has marked Colombian society, with roughly one of every 10 Colombians now living abroad. Internally, the country has been confronted with a major humanitarian crisis, as forced displacement has reached alarming proportions during the same period. Political, social, and economic problems, coupled with widespread insecurity, have fueled both voluntary and forced migration, while the same factors have acted as powerful deterrents for immigration to the country.
Considering that Plan Colombia gave money to American companies who sprayed dangerous chemicals across vast coca growing regions, killing all crops, not just coca; introduced more sophisticated weaponry into the already brutal civil war; and essentially thumbed their noses at any civilian concerns; the fact that millions of people have been fleeing the country shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. What should be a surprise is why anyone thinks that this is a good thing to try in Mexico right now.
Granted, there would be some major differences between Plan Mexico and Plan Colombia. Mexico is more of a transit point for drugs, rather than a source. No aerial eradication is going to happen in Mexico. However, there will certainly be an investment in high-tech weaponry that is sure to escalate the violence that has already been sending millions of people north in search of opportunity and relative peace. Mexico’s (and other Central American) drug cartels haven’t been tied to the country’s leftist guerrilla movements in the same way that exists in Colombia. What seems likely to happen is that the extra weaponry will be used to squash Calderón’s leftist political opponents, while he remains in a permanent stalemate with the drug lords. Corruption will be inevitable, and the drug smugglers will end up having some amount of Plan Mexico’s weapons bounty to maintain control of border towns like Laredo and Juarez where much of the country’s drug shipments enter the United States.
Why do we keep doing this to ourselves? Mainly because we don’t allow ourselves to see the alternatives. American drug consumption is not going to go away, no matter what we do. Three decades of trying to scare Americans out of doing drugs by filling our prisons to record levels hasn’t worked. In the process, we’ve wasted over a trillion dollars in taxpayer money and accomplished nothing. Now, as we look out at the massive drug war failures in Afghanistan, in Colombia, and even here at home in our ravaged and violent inner cities and meth-addled small towns, can we finally get past our fear of what a bunch of plants grown in foreign countries can do to us and start doing something that actually makes sense? Can we finally accept the fact that a certain percentage of America’s population can and does use illegal drugs without the kinds of negative repercussions that require us to lay waste to the rest of the world to prevent it? Can we start distinguishing between drug use and drug abuse and stop thinking that a person who uses marijuana or even does a line of cocaine on the weekends is not a danger to himself and others?
These questions are ones that politicians fear having to answer. Many of them know the right answers, but can’t say them out loud. The paranoia over drugs has been built up over the years to the point where moderate, reasonable ideas are portrayed as the rantings of a radical fringe and still get political figures labeled as crackpots. But we’re nearing the point where we’ll no longer be able to afford the charade. Plan Mexico is expected to cost over $1 billion. That would just be another billion dollars that could have been spent more wisely on other things. A mistake that this country has made more than a thousand times over.
Why should I pay taxes for cops in Mexico? I don’t do drugs.
“Can we start distinguishing between drug use and drug abuse and stop thinking that a person who uses marijuana or even does a line of cocaine on the weekends is not a danger to himself and others?”
Slippery slope, Lee … how do you keep these people from getting behind the wheel of a car? Do you really want your prescription filled by a pharmacist who goes to work high on something? Do you really believe that meth will be less destructive to people’s health, families, and lives if its use is legalized? But I agree that prohibition is not working, any more than it worked with alcohol, and we need a more balanced approach. No, I don’t know what the answer is. Three quarters of a century after the end of prohibition, we still don’t have misuse of alcohol under control — half the highway deaths in the U.S. are caused by drunk drivers, and families continue to be destroyed and lives continue to be ruined by alcohol addiction. Perhaps there is no answer. Maybe you humans are compulsively destructive and the extinction of your species is inevitable. Then rabbits will run this place, and I’ll be their king!
@2
Slippery slope, Lee … how do you keep these people from getting behind the wheel of a car?
You already can’t do that today. Not to mention that driving under the influence of alcohol is considerably worse than driving under the influence of marijuana. If this is a reason to keep drugs illegal, alcohol should be the first drug outlawed.
Do you really want your prescription filled by a pharmacist who goes to work high on something?
It already happens today. I don’t understand why you think any of these problems are going to get worse. Millions of people already do drugs. Creating a regulatory system isn’t going to change that. There may be increases in the number of people who use safer drugs like marijuana, but there will also be decreased in the number of people who are running around with 80% pure meth.
Do you really believe that meth will be less destructive to people’s health, families, and lives if its use is legalized?
There’s absolutely no question it will be less dangerous. Because meth is illegal, it’s now incredibly pure and unnecessarily strong. When meth was more commonly prescribed, it was only about 10% pure, but today, because it’s being made in Mexico by criminals, it’s more like 80% pure, making it incredible addictive and extremely dangerous. If we just go back to allowing people to buy 10% pure meth, we will be able to stop the disaster that’s been occurring from having this unnecessarily dangerous version in our communities.
It helps to remember that the same thing happened under alcohol prohibition. When alcohol was illegal, moonshine was ridiculously strong. People were killed left and right from alcohol poisoning and from the impurities. That’s the problem with meth today, not necessarily the drug itself.
But I agree that prohibition is not working, any more than it worked with alcohol, and we need a more balanced approach. No, I don’t know what the answer is. Three quarters of a century after the end of prohibition, we still don’t have misuse of alcohol under control — half the highway deaths in the U.S. are caused by drunk drivers, and families continue to be destroyed and lives continue to be ruined by alcohol addiction. Perhaps there is no answer. Maybe you humans are compulsively destructive and the extinction of your species is inevitable. Then rabbits will run this place, and I’ll be their king!
Haha! Yeah, you’re reminding me of how difficult it’s going to be to break down a lot of the fear that has existed on this topic for years.
[Deleted – off topic]
Make sure when you write your comments that you truly comprehend what the word ADDICTION means. I don’t mean your fantasy about “them” being addicted, and “them” being junkies, or potheads, or anything else.
When it comes to using drugs, for a large number of people only one word comes to mind.
MORE
That is spelled MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE for all addicts.
A couple more things. Heroin, Crank, and Coke are addictive. If you use them regularly, you become addicted. Period. If you disagree with this fact, you are just plain wrong.
Maybe with enough education, and treatment, we can change the whole scope of the “War on Drugs” and maybe not.
For now, doing our best to keep cheap addictive drugs out of the hands of the “ME” generation will have to be a high priority. We as Americans have rights, but do we have the right to turn into full blown addicts in a matter of months because of bad decisions?
How long does it take to be addicted to heroin? Crank? Crack? Not long my friends. This is a very complex problem, and sound bites, and talking points geared to impress people that think at a 6th grade level isn’t the answer…….
Alcohol is no less addictive than other drugs, it’s all context and social acceptance. Somebody giggling past you on the street on Friday night in Pioneer Square is “a Little tipsy”, “enjoying him/herself”, etc., but a visibly wired occupant of the same sidewalk is a menace to society.
We need a rational drug policy. Your Courvoisier is a drug. Either ban it, or allow the other recreational drugs with appropriate social controls as to age, vehicle operation, etc.
The conservatives FOR THE MOST PART will never buy this, but let’s not emulate their successes at management of mind-altering substances.
Whether or not to increase interdictive methods now is a slippery slope in itself; in the long run it will have been found to be hopelessly counterproductive. Until we get ADEQUATE treatment procedures in place for all addicts, including alcoholics, we’re doomed to chaos.
“[T]o maintain control of border towns like Laredo and Juarez”
As an ex-Laredoan, I must point out that Laredo, Texas, is on our side of the Border (at least nominally). Perhaps you are thinking of Nuevo Laredo, Tamulipas, which is firmly on the other side.
I have traveled every lonely Border road between Laredo and El Paso (Juarez) and I know that there is absolutely no way to secure that border over the entire distance. The only option is to stop and hassle people down the road after they cross, and that pesky Constitution be damned.
7:
But there have been attacks on American law-enforcement by the Mexican drug cartels along the border. Not full-scale ‘invasions’ of border communities as some have hyperbolically (?) suggested, but Americans have been killed. I think the War on Drugs is a complete and utter joke, but I have no problem with some cooperation with the Mexican government and military in bringing the cartels down. But any dollar spent must be done so with ten being spent on treatment.
@8
That’s very true. The only real way to beat the cartels is to cut off their income. If we treat addicts the way addicts are treated in Europe, Canada, and Australia, it would be a good start.
Thanks for the great comments, everyone!
The comment above on meth made legal 10% pure would only work if no one could illegally make it at 80%, so how? Since the meth addicts brain is used to 80% pure and meth increases brain dopamine by 2700%, 10% would not do it for the addict. What about the meth users that use around the clock or every couple days? Most. How much would be dispensed to them? They feel nothing but depression in meth addiction and meth hits only make them feel a bit more towards normal, not high.
What government needs to do now is to shut down the foreign giant pseudoephedrine labs, India to China, any way possible including bombing them to oblivion. They have been wanting to shut them down, and it’s the only way to totally stop methamphetamine production. See Frontline PBS for this story. These labs cannot be regulated due to evil crooked employees and police departments overseas buying people off.
My opinions and experience, for what it’s worth…
I don’t do drugs, and don’t do much alcohol. Tobacco’s out too.
My grandfather, who was pretty much treated as a revered saint by my dad’s side of the family, smoked a pack of Raleigh’s every day. He was the only member of my dad’s immediate family that didn’t get massive criticism if so much as seen with a lighter in their hand. Within a couple of years after retiring form his steel mill job, he acquired stomach cancer and withered away in months.
My Uncle Carl was supposed to be a sweet, intelligent guy. He made exceptionally good money selling insurance to rural folks in northwest and north central Indiana, which is one tough trick to pull off if you know the area.
Then came World War II. He was enlisted, he chose to be a Conscientious Objector, and served as a medic. He was at both Hurtgen Forest and the initial stages of the Battle of the Bulge. He and his Lueitenant were the only ones that could get onto the troop transport back home without support – everyone else in his aide battalion was either badly injured or dead.
The Uncle Carl I got to know was a severe alcoholic, because that was all he had to chase away the nightmares. He lost his insurance job, his wife and kids, and my grandmother eventually took guardianship of him, though she couldn’t stop him from drinking, or from hanging out in the alleyways and various hidden corners of our town.
A fair chunk of my childhood was spent in Gary, Indiana. At least two close fiends died as a result of alcohol, another two due to drugs, and another five or six survived such incidents by the barest of margins. (I had guns pointed at me twice by folks that were very drunk and/or very high before I was 18 years old.) The sad thing is that, after I graduated high school in 1979, things in Gary got much, much worse than that.
I’ve seen what this stuff can do, so I have never had much of a desire to play with it. And I have to admit that I’m very, very concerned that simple legalization will only make things worse in the Garys of this world.
I think the first thing you have to do is make the Feds commit to a complete, verifiable test of what marijuana can do, both good and bad. Presently, it’s illegal to do that – not with cocaine, not with meth, but only with marijuana. That’s stupid policy.
Second, as mentioned above, you have to realize that there’s going to be use, and that you have to regulate it’s use and thus its purity/capability, not just ban it. We do that with cigarettes and alcohol, and we need to do it for other addictive substances.
Third, instead of punishing society as a whole, punishment (because it will always be desired) must focus on abusers and those who facilitate the abuse. If you get caught driving drunk, offer help, but mark their drivers license as an abuser, and thus banned from further purchase of the given substance or substances. Allow producers and distributors the means to sell regulated product, but punish them severely if they abuse the trust given them.
Fourth, give people the means to have hope, to work towards something better, to have the opportunity to be more part of a larger community, so that they don’t rely on substance abuse as the way around their loneliness, their despair.
My two bits…
Excellent, Palamedes.
Addiction is an illness, it needs to be treated with a medical model.
It also has serious moral implications because of the consequences of addiction, although many of those problems arise from acquisition of the substance.
Treating it as a moral deficiency has not worked. Ever.
We need to get away from the superstition and witch-hunt mentality we have employed in the past, and be rational for a change.