Why is the United States backing Mexican drug gangs?
 

http://experts.foreignpolicy.com/node/15096

As Cloud personally experienced and commented on last year, the drug problem is becoming a real issue in the southern United States and Mexico. The drug wars are clearly failing and a new solution is needed. We cannot stop the demand of drugs without an impossible cultural change, something we have tried and failed at for the past twenty years, and by trying to restrict the supply will only push the trade deeper in the black market. The only solution I see is legalization of these drugs. On a individual level, it will probably worsen the drug problem but it will immensely help on a social level. At this point in time, it is the only rational solution I see.

Good post. And on a related note:

http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_11444354

U.S. military report warns 'sudden collapse' of Mexico is possible

I think legalization of some drugs is a good idea, but not all drugs. I think we just need to have better control of the border, which we still do not have, and not worry so much about what they are doing in their own country.

I agree, drug laws should be based on a rational basis for each individual drug. Cocaine and Heroin are too big to control and should be legalized or decriminalized for that reason but other drugs such as PCP should not because of the lower usage. Spend the money that we put into the "drug war" and what we would gain from legalization and put that into rehab and urban restoration or even other sources and it would be a great trade in my opinion.


For your article, if Mexico did collapse, it would be a nightmare for border control.

I don't think I could ever support the legalization of Cocaine and Heroin.

Our city council tried to introduce a resolution to ask the government to legalize marijuana. But our mayor vetoed it.

There were 1600 murders in Juarez last year. That's more than 5 a day. Many Juarez residents who can, are moving here, which is giving us an economic boost.

How is that an economic boost? How is it measured? And how is it measured against the costs of education and health care?

Why is the United States backing Mexican drug gangs?

Ummm, because backing the Afghani drug gangs didn't work out the way we had hoped?

Interesting Cloud - Where are they all working? Where and what type of jobs are being created?

So do you think if we deployed 2000 troops to the streets of El Paso that anyone would notice?

2,000 fresh troops sent to Juárez as violence continues

By Daniel Borunda / El Paso Times
Posted: 01/13/2009 11:17:46 PM MST

The Mexican army has sent an estimated 2,000 troops to Juárez as part of a rotation even as the death toll surpassed 35 so far this year.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/juarez/ci_11448257

What are your reasons?

Because I don't think that you can control the addiction. Alcohol is bad enough. I believe it ruins lives, families, and it would further burden the healthcare system.

For the folks who are willing to support the legalization of drugs like cocaine and heroin ... are you also willing to support the tax increase that would be necessary to pay for rehab for all the idiots who figured out that just maybe drugs 'r bad, mkay?

There is no doubt that alcohol is bad enough and these hard drugs do ruin lives, families, and will play a burden on the health care but the individual aspect isn't the only determinant. I see two parts when it comes to drug laws, how drugs and laws affect individuals and how drugs and laws affect society.

The individual part is the least important out of the two in my opinion because we don't have control over it. We cannot tell people to take or not take drugs whether they are legal or illegal. Alcohol use went up during the prohibition and I would expect marijuana use to decline in growth in British Columbia, where it has recently be legalized. If cocaine and heroin were legalized and we adopted an efficient drug education program, the usage will not change dramatically.

The society part is the more important of the two because we do have control over it. The black market drug trade is enormous and unlike all legalized sectors, this area is not regulated and is a true free market capitalist sector where profit reigns supreme over all others disregarding morals, laws, and all other forms of decency. If certain drugs are legalized, then the black market will crash the drug trade will become under government regulation and profit will not reign supreme and morals and moderation will become the focus.


If legalization does increase usage to the point where it overtakes the benefits of a lowered drug trade I will change my stance but until then, the drug war has failed and other options should be explored, mainly legalization.

Do you support the tax money that is spent on the failed "war on drugs"? In the article I posted it said that we are going to spend up to 400 million battling drugs in Mexico alone, not to mention the millions we throw elsewhere and in the States itself. Cutting that cost would be more than enough to pay for rehab and an decent drug education program. No raise in taxes would be necessary.

Sorry Pierce, I just don't agree with some of your assumptions about how things may be if cocaine and heroin were legalized. I see the ruined lives all the time and making them easier to get is not going make the situation better.

Merc--I'm not an economist, so I don't have any numbers to respond to you with. Perhaps I should say "perceived benefit" as we get more consumers in the stores and more home buyers in town.

And I don't know where they are working, really. A lot of this is upper class families moving here, who already have a source of income. Most of these people send their kids to private or parochial schools.

there are folks who support legalizing cocaine and heroin?

That is interesting. Esp if the perception is that the many of those are more affluent. But are they here legally?

Indeed, somebody has already run the numbers:

http://cellar.org/2009/cost-of-drugwar05.gif

Costs broken out here

Lol! I cannot support the use of heroin or cocaine at all. Much less legalizing it...It just isn't ok.


Example:
Shooting each other for no apparent reason is still wrong if a lot of people do it, and it is a drain to society's economical welfare. Legalizing it is no cure. People still hurt theirselves and die.

Not that I, in any way, have a quick solution to the problems. The solutions presented so far are full of gaps and failures..It just isn't that easy, though I wish it were.

We have very few places for these addicts so far. I can't imagine affording the warehouses to store them in.

Wow, just wow. Thanks for finding those numbers, UT.

are they here legally? I don't have personal knowledge of the numbers, but I suspect some are and some aren't. Probably most of this wave of middle class or affluent people have no trouble getting visas. These are not migrant farmworkers, "wetbacks" or anything like the popular conception of illegal immigrants.

You have to understand that a large number of people here in this town live on both sides of the border all the time. Live there, work here, or vice versa. Live there, send kids to school here. Work there, live here; half your family is here, the other half there, some with dual citizenship, some with work visas, some not. It's complex.

So far just pierce from what I can tell.

There can be intermediate steps. It can be handled more like a pharmaceutical matter, sold by licensed handlers, requiring details on what happens, and how to get help if you need it etc.

What the graph really points out is how increasing the money towards the drug war has not had any serious effect on usage.

So take that drug war money, and put a third of it to rehab and other care, a third of it to licensing/pharmaceutical, and a third of it to homeland security. Bam, now we're kindler gentler, the cops have jobs still, and I betcha 100% more effective at managing the problem instead of letting most of it fester in the underground economy. (Oh yes, also, when you bring it out of the underground economy, you can tax it. As they do the cigarettes. Voila.)

Plus I betcha my ex-nephew doesn't die from eating cut-up pain meds.

I can't say that I have ever seen a Heroin addict who just did it as a recreational drug. I have seen it with cocaine, but even that eventually gets out of hand if you can afford it.

People are going to die from fatal drugs no matter what.

Well I just can't see making access easier as a solution.

Looks like Amsterdam is having a change of heart as well.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...on-drugs-crime

Will that eliminate more of the problem?

At the moment, yes.

Keep in mind that I disagree with Cicero's example:
A better example would be the legalization of guns, excluding the entire rights issue. The best example I can think of is safe sex versus abstinence. The goal of both are to lower STD and pregnancy rates and statistics show that safe sex education produces lower rates than abstinence "education". That is why safe sex, while confusing, is more efficient at achieving that goal. Drugs could work in the same manner.

My stance is that while cocaine and heroin are extremely unhealthy and have negative effects that go past the individual that uses it, in the big picture, its legalization will be better overall than what we have today.

I have not seen any conclusive evidence that legalization of these drugs will cause a definitive increase in numbers and frequency of hard drug use. With marijuana laws loosening, we can look at those numbers as a guide to what might happen to harder drugs. And also, from personal experience, it is education about drugs, not scare tactics, that will keep teenagers off them. Also saying from experience, drugs are not hard to get. Marijuana is a joke to obtain and with those connections, cocaine and others are not that hard to get either.

Also, I would like to ask what are the goals of drug laws and the "war on drugs" and if anything has been accomplished? Drug use has not been lowered, drug businesses are doing better than ever, and we are losing money from it. I would say it is a failure so alternative methods should be explored.

That is why I am favor in legalization. Just like how abstinence only sex "education" has failed, drug laws have as well. Safe sex is proven to be superior alternative and legalization may turn out to be the same.

Obviously, public support will prevent these laws being passed but marijuana will lead the way into hopefully more rational drug laws than the ones we currently have.

Not in my opinion. Increasing access does not help people with addiction. I could really care less about pot. Heroin and cocaine is another class altogether.

Drinking rates rose during prohibition. Sometimes we act different sociologically than we expect.

I am not really sure that you could provide concrete objective studies which show that legalization will not cause an increase in use. I agree the money spent on the war on drugs could be better spent, legalization of Heroin and cocaine is not one of them.

The only thing that can solve addiction is rehab and preventing its use in the first place. Making it illegal will push addicts to the black market, which is not positive in any way.

Like my safe sex example, real education about drugs will prevent its use as much as possible without resorting to overly expensive and rights eating methods. With legalization, addicts will be easier to spot and money can go to rehabilitation to actually help the problem.

I can't, too many factors involved. But since there are many other benefits of the legalization of drugs, legalization can be beneficial without a lower in usage.

Also, you never specify your reasons for being against the legalization of heroin and cocaine besides addiction, which I addressed.

Me either. I was responding to UT.:p

I think part of what keeps some alive, is the inability to find a source at the right time. Just striving to get a line on something keeps their usage from being fatal sometimes.

I imagine that if it were legalized someone would always have a connection, which could be the fatal one at that time.

Sorry but that does not follow the common sense rule for me. Make it more available, and then redirect the money to rehab. Which essentially is an admission that you made a problem but you are going to have the money to treat it, so no problem. I can't buy that. Certainly taking money from the current approach and redirecting to better education it is one thing, similar to what is being done with smoking. The anti-smoking approach has been effective in decreasing the number of people who smoke, in the form of education and bans on when and where you can smoke. You are going to have a hard time convincing me that legalization of heroin and cocaine is a good thing.

Sure I have. I addressed them here:

IMHO you did not provide me with a convincing argument based on objective studies.

Here is one use that I could support, Heroin for medical use only.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...5AC0A964948260

First, the legalization is not a "good" thing, I am arguing that it might be better than what we have now.

Second, education and rehabilitation will have to work hand in hand. Education will work to prevent people from start using those drugs in the first place and rehabilitation will work to keep people who are addicted from using the drugs in the future.

Third, my reason is not that it will change the individual usage and those negative effects, but the negative social effects. There are NO positive effects to pushing drugs to the black market, none. That is my main reason for my stance and reason I posted the article in the first place and you have never addressed that part.



To look at this issue rationally we have two main factors, individual negative effects and social negative effects and both need to be addressed.

To address the individual effects, we have to do what I said in my second point, focus on education and rehabilitation. I am very confident, as with your smoking cigarettes example, that education can lower drug abuse in teenagers. I am also confident that rehabilitation can get people to quit drugs and lower the massive amounts of negative effects that come with addiction. There are other methods to keep people from abusing drugs than making it illegal and as far as I am concerned, making drugs illegal hasn't worked at all so far so other methods should be explored.

To address the social effects, we need to keep drugs off the black market. I have personal experience with this and am aware of how negative and far reaching the social effects can be and it all stems from the black market and organized crime. Take a look at organized crime during the prohibition, it booms from popular illegal (emphasis both popular and illegal) substances. If full out legalization works, fine, if prescriptions work, fine, if alternative methods work, fine, but the goal of legalization is to get the drug trade off the streets.

That is why I believe proper education, rehabilitation, and the legalization of cocaine and heroin can have positive effects on our society. Education will prevent kids from abusing drugs in the first place. Rehabilitation will reduce the number of addicts. Legalization will take the drug trade off the black market. With those three, we can easily be efficient in lowering drug abuse and still be able to put money elsewhere as UT suggested.

I still have not seen data which supports your assumption that legalization of heroin or cocaine is a good thing. Other than the one article I posted about heroin for medical use only. I believe that there would be negative social effects to legalization of these two drugs.

Because I don't think that you can control the addiction. Alcohol is bad enough. I believe it ruins lives, families, and it would further burden the healthcare system.

You are not the only one with personal experience. Individual and social negative effects cannot be delt with separately. Just because you gain some perceived social benifit on one hand does not mean that it would in someway outweigh the negative individual effects. you have stated over and over now that you believe proper education, rehabilitation, and the legalization of cocaine and heroin can have positive effects on our society. I disagree and to this point you have not shown me any objective data to support that.

Maybe if we legalize pot the use of other drugs would decline.

I would assume the worst aspect of the "War on Drugs" to libertarians here is civil asset forfeiture. This is where the government steps in and seizes 'drug money' in your bank account without ever accusing you of selling drugs. You then have to prove your innocence to get your money back.

TheMercenary, first let me make sure we are on the same page with a few things. It seems that we both see the current drug situation as very negative but I believe that legalizing the drugs will be worth it since I believe the chance of it benefiting our society is greater than the chance it will hurt it while you do not think it is worth it because you believe the opposite. Even though you disagree with me, if you still see how there is a chance of the situation getting better with legalization keep reading, if you see zero chance of the situation improving and will not change your mind, state it and we will drop the argument.

Second, let me make it clear that there is no objective statistics on this matter for two reasons. First, there are no instances where cocaine or heroin have been legalized before and second, there are so many other variables involved it is impossible to objectively relate legalization with positive or negative effects. For example, if we look at marijuana abuse in British Columbia in the past ten years, that will not be proof that legalization of marijuana will either increase, decrease, or have no effect on abuse because there are so many other factors. First, since BC is a token place to smoke weed, it will get a disproportional amount of attention for weed smokers. Second, marijuana usage increased in BC from 1992-2004 so there are obviously other factors involved. Third, marijuana works differently than cocaine and heroin and are seen differently by teenagers so results could be completely different. Social effects are the same way because it is impossible to get reliable data that actually represents what we are talking about.


If you still require 100% objective proof to change your mind even though it doesn't exist state it and we can drop the argument. If you disagree with this, argue. If you do not require objective proof keep reading


Back to your argument
My first response is that education plays a much bigger role in preventing addiction than availability. The anti-smoking campaign versus prohibition shows this. In 1964, 44% of people smoked, in 1991 it dropped to 21%. Education and lack of availability determined this, not legalization. During the prohibition, alcohol use went up despite it being illegal. So, in conclusion I can say that with proper education and controlling availability, we can lower the amount of abusers while still legalizing it for other reasons. Keep in mind that these two examples do not prove my argument because of the reason I gave above but they do support it. I have yet to see anything that supports your argument.

My second reason is that with the extra money not being thrown into worthless "drug wars", we can spend it on rehabilitation and education. Most addicts will do anything to get the drugs whether it is illegal or legal and the only way to keep addicts from abusing drugs is through rehabilitation. So, I don't see how your argument makes sense until you provide evidence that legalizing the drugs will increase use to counteract education and rehabilitation.

So to sum it up, legalization doesn't have much effect on being able to "control the addiction". Addicts will get the drug whether it is legal or not and by legalizing the drug, we can take measures to provide better education and rehabilitation to lower the addiction rates, not to mention take out the black market.

I am willing to take the chance of raising individual abuse by legalizing the drug and it seems that you are not. If you feel that way fine, we can agree to disagree.

Yea, I guess we just have to respectfully disagree.

But on one of your other points I have to point out these links:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_147245.html

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-...ccluskey.shtml

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...ths/myths4.htm

Good links.

Cocaine and heroin are both physically addicting - that means the body become dependent upon them. This differs from pot which is only psychologically addictive not physically. Furthermore no one, no one is going to die just from sparkin a dube. However, trying cocaine or heroin can and has killed many who just tried it out of curiosity. Additionally, once addicted to either of the harder drugs requires, in virtually all cases, other drugs to break the physical dependency. Another difference from pot.
Legalizing either of these would increase the drug related deaths and addict exponentially. Then again, that would reduce the number of users and therefore reduce the number of addicts. Hmm - At what cost is this scenario acceptable?

Gangbangers controlling the drug trade? How about Mexico collapsing?

Cocaine and Heroin are extremely heavy shit, but so is the black market. Both are fucked up and we can get rid of neither but we can shift the balance.

Hell, pot's less addictive than tobacco, that's been proven.

Weed laws are ridiculous. It is dangerous when abused but that is about it. In moderation it is relatively safe (as safe as alcohol).

I would have to agree, I am not sure how we get everyone else to agree and get the laws changed.

The best way to end all of the drug related violence and to break the backs of the gangs is to make all drugs legal. Gangs don't sell things that are legal. They would go out of business. It would reduce the number of people in our prisons and the costs involved in that. It would get non-criminals out of jail so really dangerous criminals could stay for their full sentence. It would restore respect and confidence in our legal system. It would prevent government from stealing property. We would have less overdoses since drug strength and dosage could be regulated. Drugs would be cheaper so addicts wouldn't have to steal to support their habits. People could seek help for addiction without the social stigma attached to "illegal" drug usage or the risk of jail time.

ALL DRUGS - Cocaine, Heroin, PCP, Crystal Meth, Ecstacy, LSD, etc. should be legal and as easy for any adult to get as it is for them to get alcohol.

This would result in less people using drugs, less people dying from overdoses, fewer families being broken up because the bread-winner is sent to jail for a non-crime like drug usage, manufacture, or distribution, etc.


Government derives its limited powers from the consent of the governed. This means it may only have the powers that we grant to it, and that it may only have the powers that we, as individuals, have on our own so we can grant it to government.


I have no right to tell another person not to do drugs. I do have the right to use force to prevent them from harming or endangering me or my family members. This doesn't mean I have the right to stop them from using drugs; just the right to make laws against driving, flying a plane, performing surgery, etc. while under the influence.


Ending the failed drug war would save lives, would result in less overall drug usage, provide safer drugs, save trillions of dollars, bring gangs and corrupt police and judges to their knees, etc.

Only good can come from ending the drug war.

There is no social or legal justification for criminalizing the cultivation or consumption of pot. How can it be against the law for me to grow a pot plant in my own back yard? What legal principal is being applied?

The law that says you can't grow one. :)

Here ya go: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...marijuana.html

Here is another: http://www.growing-marijuana-seeds.c...juana-law.html

I think I posted a link to this book a few years ago when a similar debate ran. The guys name escapes me, but his book was a comparison between all the various drugs which are currently popular and it includes alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine in the comparison.

His take, FWIW, is that social sanctioned drugs are the ones which make us more productive, caffeine gets us up and at the factory, and booze numbs us at the end of the day dulling our pain and taking the edge off the several cups of coffee.

hallucinogens, pot and narcotics are not the kinds of things you want your workforce engaging in since they are apt to make the user question the status quo or at least his or her part in it. I seem to remember reading that the penalties for run of the mill speed (remember "diet pills"?) are much lighter than weed.

Terrence McKenna: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_McKenna

Where does the government get the authority to create any laws that do not pertain to the enumerated powers in the Constitution? When I grow pot in my own back yard, it's neither interstate, nor commerce, yet the government claims it falls under the interstate commerce clause.

Oh good gracious.

Close the border.
Legalize drugs, with Goverment control of distribution and taxation = increased revenue, and all but eliminate the gang bangers terrorizing our cities.

Oh, and the fools that OD will decrease the unemployment rate, lessen the drain on Social Security, and mandatory cremation would be a renewable energy source.

Good idea! If that works out we should make them really really deadly and hasten the process, the whole druggie thing could end rather quickly under this plan.

There would be fewer ODs because dosages would be controlled, and druggies would know exactly what they were getting. People wouldn't be snorting oxycontin and cutting up fentanyl patches and stuff. Also there would be a more predictable market for drugs like subutex which block opiates, allowing addicts to have a more normal life if they can't go through a rehab program.

amen

And we wouldn't have to buy over the counter medications in limited quantities.
And we would be able to scrap 'know your customer' regulations for banks.