Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Winning a "war" by ending it

It has been reported that since 2006, when Mexican president Felipe Calderon—pressed by the Bush administration—launched his own “war on drugs.” The military-style “war” was aided with guns, helicopters, airplanes and other hardware supplied by the US. The result has been 28,000 killings and no end in sight. The Obama administration now wants to change the strategy by funding “reform” of the country’s corrupt law enforcement and judiciary. Whether or not this will reduce the killings is matter of conjecture; one thing that is clear is that whatever is being done now is not only not working, but it is based on fantasy and hypocrisy.

Illicit drugs are illegal because they have been declared so. Because they are illegal, they defy regulation. Alcohol generally has the same effect of illicit drugs when used in immoderation, but it is not illegal, and its use can be regulated (in a fashion) by legal age limits and laws like DUI and “public intoxication.” Alcohol (and cigarettes) are also heavily taxed, allegedly to “discourage” their use, but also helping to fill government coffers. Many over the counter drugs can cause behavioral malfunctions or death if deliberately over-consumed. While alcoholism is a problem for some people, most people know how to moderate their use of it. After all, they can obtain it whenever they want, they don’t have to break the bank or sneak around back alleys. They don’t have to carry wads of cash or a gun. Because alcohol is freely available, there is no need to engage in violence to obtain it.

That was not, of course, the case during Prohibition, when mobsters fought for control over the booze trade, often violently. Corrupt local law enforcement was rampant, and in general the “war” against alcohol was a complete failure, given the fact that alcohol consumption actually increased during that period. It was a matter of consuming as much as you could until you got caught. Because it wasn’t readily available thousands of do-it-yourself distilleries and breweries were hidden inside an otherwise respectable home. However, some of these home-grown spirits, because their production was not regulated, had a tendency have certain side-effects—like blindness, paralysis and death. There was, however, a loophole for wine; it could be used for “religious” purposes, and small amounts could be produced in one’s home legally—like medicinal marijuana. Of course, like “medicinal” marijuana, it was one small step to other uses. In the end, criminalization of alcohol had the opposite effect intended: its use not only simply went underground, but increased—as did the amount of violence and killings from the creation of “alcohol lords.”

It is interesting to speculate if marijuana was legalized and regulated, as it is in many parts of the world, that it would lead to a decrease in the usage of harder drugs. There is little evidence that marijuana is a “gateway” drug to harder stuff; studies generally show that marijuana users do not “supplement” their drug use with cocaine, heroin or the like. Such has been the case in the Netherlands, where so-called coffee shops are allowed to sell five grams of marijuana per customer, which is enough for a couple of joints. Coffee houses are not allowed to advertise, sell harder drugs, create public nuisances or allow people under 18 inside the shop. Although there was a brief period when the number of new users increased, there has been a leveling off of usage and no apparent anti-social effects. If a regulated, cheap and readily available “high” without all the collateral damage that illegal trafficking inspires, and possible even with medicinal qualities, can lead to a decrease in cocaine, crack and heroin use, that is the kind of “victory” that the current failed “war on drugs” cannot claim to have achieved.

In his latest drug war policy initiative, Calderon has once again brought-up the issue of legalizing marijuana. But Calderon is said to be not in the least serious about legalization. Polls indicate that like in the U.S., a majority of Mexicans oppose legalization. But this may simply be the effect of government and law enforcement propaganda. People tend to lump marijuana in the same category as harder drugs. There has to be a serious discussion of alternatives to the “military” option, and why it has failed, and will continue to fail. One reason for its failure—besides the massive U.S. market, the flow of illegal weapons south, and the lucrative money-laundering business that banks turn a blind eye to—is the refusal to address societal issues. An American police trainer in Mexico noted the breakdown of economic opportunity in the country, observing that "ninety-nine per cent of the wealth is owned by five per cent of the people in Mexico; it just doesn't trickle down anywhere else." This can probably be extrapolated in other parts of Latin America, such as in Colombia where drug violence continues unabated years after Pablo Escobar and the Medellin Cartel was “eliminated.” Because of NAFTA loopholes that favor U.S. produce, many impoverished Mexican farmers—particularly indigenous people—have lost their livelihoods, and it can be speculated that like in Colombia, they have found other means to be exploited, this time by drug lords. Instead of tackling economic inequality in the country, Calderon spends money fighting this “war.” U.S. aid could be used to help impoverished people out of the drug business, but that is politically inexpedient in the current domestic climate.

And violence breeds violence. When drug lords and their minions feel threatened, they resort to violence. Even the police cannot be trusted; recently, six Mexican police officers in the pay of drug lords were arrested for the kidnapping and murder of a mayor of a northern Mexico town near Monterrey. But the voices of alternative solutions to the failed “fight” remain largely lost in the overheated rhetoric. Former Mexican president Vicente Fox, once one of George Bush’s conservative buddies, recently gave the following speech:

“I have proposed the legalization of drugs, because I think it is not the responsibility of the government, what we are asking, to withdraw the drugs from the market, and so that, as a result, our children could be free from the temptation of going and consuming drugs. That is not possible. That will never happen. All prohibition seems to evoke the contrary effect. All prohibition, what it does is to bring more interest in going for the apple, in the case of Adam and Eve, or to go for the cigarette, or the alcohol in Chicago. What you see in Holland and in other European countries that have let it go, they released the drug, and consumption has not significantly increased.”

No American politicians or law enforcement official would dare make such a statement, because the political dialogue is in the hands of fear-mongerers and paranoids—and those who wish to make use of anti-Mexico and Mexican sentiment for cynical political purposes. And people will continue to die in this never-ending “war.”

No comments:

Post a Comment