Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Georgia to gay parent - do not ‘expose’ kids to the homos Previous entry: RNC Chair Continues Plan To Be Edgy Black Man From 1992 Sitcom

The price of sanctimony addiction

Here’s a story I rarely see much about on blogs, even though it seems to me that it goes into the file “Big Fucking Deal”.  There were a bunch of demonstrations on the border in Juarez, Nuevo Laredo, and Reynosa Tuesday, and more in Monterrey, all blocking traffic in some form, but in the border towns, they were blocking the bridges into the U.S.  So, in my mind, it’s a ploy to get some American media attention to a story that’s flying mostly under the radar, and I suppose it worked, because my mom told me that they were covering it on Fox News.  (And, in the grand tradition of grabbing every opportunity for racist hysteria that they get, it seems they were implying that the protests were riots.)  It doesn’t seem to take a lot of people to snarl traffic across the border—-only 30 people, mostly women and children, were able to stop traffic for an hour on the Paso del Norte bridge, which I remember as being already a site of dead stopped traffic in the days before 9/11 gave them further excuses to beef up “security”, and so my heart goes out to the innocent people, many who commute across that bridge every day for work, stuck in what must have been the mother of all traffic jams.

What they were protesting was the presence of the military all over the area to police the area.  Occasional bouts of unofficial martial law are far from unknown on the U.S.-Mexico border, though they don’t get much attention from the mainstream media.  Alas, it’s not that easy to separate the villains and the heroes in this story, because while martial law, official or not, is one of those human rights violations that we strive as an evolved species to avoid, the Mexican government has a mother of all problems on their hands, and it’s hard to fault them for trying to fix it.  In this case, the ongoing war between drug cartels in Mexico has grown especially hot in our troubled days, and the year 2008 saw at least 6,000 murders related directly to the drug trade.

You heard me right—-6,000 murders.  Right there in the AP story, if you don’t believe me.

More than 6,000 people were killed in drug violence last year.


Since we are talking the billion dollar drug cartels of Mexico, we’re talking about murders of the most gruesome sort, most noticeably involving beheading. 6,000 people is a hard number to wrap your head around, but it’s huge, and it’s therefore understandable in part that the Mexican government is bringing in the military to shut this shit down.  And they’re not backing down, which makes me worry that this is going to add another layer of chaos to an already-bad situation. 

Human rights groups are pointing to the inevitable abuses of martial law—-arresting and shooting civilians, amongst other abuses of power, and that’s a legitimate issue, and so I can’t fault the protesters for pushing back. But no story I could find said anything but same groups also don’t know who organized the protests.  Meanwhile, the Mexican government says that the cartels themselves organized the protests.  I’m automatically suspicious of these claims, because the government’s first step in pushing back against protesters in any situation is to claim that they’re criminals.  But then again, I wouldn’t put it past the drug cartels to do such a thing, and we are talking about the perfect economic conditions for that sort of exploitative employment.  It’s all very confusing.

Compare and contrast the levels of outrage Americans had for these two different yet related stories: 1) Michael Phelps smokes some weed, hurting absolutely no one and 2) this:

A shootout in a border city that leaves five alleged drug traffickers sprawled dead on the street and seven police wounded. A police chief and his bodyguards gunned down outside his house in another border city. Four bridges into the United States shut down by protesters who want the military out of their towns and who officials say are backed by narcotraffickers.

The latter story would, in a sane world, be the one that matters more and generates more outrage.  But it is the story that requires we Americans to actually take some fucking responsibility for the hell we unleash on countries that are supposed to be our friends and neighbors, like Mexico.  The remarkable thing about the Phelps story is that most of the people viciously condemning have probably smoked weed and aren’t sorry about it.  But they enjoy getting into a sanctimonious snit over the evils of drug use, so they don’t let that kind of hypocrisy bother them.  Unfortunately, our national hypocrisy about drugs is super-deadly on the Mexican-American border. That is, after all, why this war is going on—-to control the trade routes to get drugs to Americans using criminal methods because drugs are illegal in America.  (And Mexico, too, but they appear to have more of an export issue than an import one.)  To really face this story would be to face what we don’t want to—-either everyone who uses drugs stops, or we give up the War On Drugs.  Only one of these is realistic.  And while we have plenty of drug addicts in America, we have even more sanctimony addicts who need their fix. 

To make our complicity in the situation worse, while Mexico’s got an export problem when it comes to cocaine and heroin, but they have an import problem when it comes to the guns being used to carry out this war.

Pastor and Hakim note that the United States helps fuel the violence, not only by providing a ready market for illegal drugs, but also by supplying the vast majority of weapons used by drug gangs.

Pastor says there are at least 6,600 U.S. gun shops within 100 miles of the Mexican border and more than 90 percent of weapons in Mexico come from the United States.

It leads me to wonder if there’s any research in whether or not lobbyists for the gun industry fight to keep drugs illegal, since they profit so handsomely off the War On Drugs.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 08:11 PM • (45) Comments

Gee, it’s been quite awhile since I heard someone refer to something as a “Big Fucking Deal” because it actually was a big fucking deal.

This is a deal that is surfuckingpassingly big, and deserves more coverage than it is getting.

Now if only we could persuade the judge that Michael Phelps’ taking part in the protests shoudl count as community service….

Comment #1: Dr. Psycho  on  02/19  at  09:06 PM

Maybe he could go undercover and find out if they’re getting paid off.  Honestly, the government’s story feels true to me.  Drug dealers in Mexico are just as happy as any other capitalist monster to exploit people’s poverty.  They tend to pay poor people more money than they’ve ever seen to be the ones who put their asses on the line to transport drugs.

Comment #2: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/19  at  09:09 PM

There’s so much to comment on here, and I’m in the middle of wrapping something up at work, but I wanted to make one comment on the militarization of the border. A lot of people on the left have a real knee-jerk reaction against the military, and there’s a lot of good, good reasons for that. But in this context, it’s very complicated. The Mexican army is less corrupt than the Mexican police, and the police have no capability whatsoever to deal with the cartels. The cartels basically are paramilitary forces with the capability to execute commando-style raids against rival gangs and against police, and they do so in broad daylight and with impunity.

And on the U.S. side, the deployment of the National Guard has been controversial, but the Border Patrol is one of the most corrupt, rights-violating law enforcement agencies in the country. I think the National Guard has not been any worse than BP and might be better.

It becomes a lesser of two evils situation. But root causes remain and will continue to add fuel to the fire.

Comment #3: chingona  on  02/19  at  09:15 PM

The cartels also completely taken over human smuggling operations, often forcing migrants to act as mules for drug loads. They also will raid other groups of migrants, stealing the “cargo” - that is, the people - and holding them for ransom in cheap motels in Phoenix. This is on the Arizona side. We have had some grizzly shoot-outs that killed migrants. Basically, piracy on land.

Comment #4: chingona  on  02/19  at  09:17 PM

On one side, there’s the cartels. On the other, the PRI. Quite frankly, I don’t know who I’d trust more here. After their behavior in Oaxaca it’s hard to put any faith into the claims of the Mexican government regarding dissidents.

Comment #5: BlackBloc  on  02/19  at  09:40 PM

Compare and contrast the levels of outrage Americans had for these two different yet related stories: 1) Michael Phelps smokes some weed, hurting absolutely no one and 2) this:

Or there is also the big story one of my very nice, but very disengaged, coworkers was obsessed about all day—some dolphins trapped in some ice somewhere. 

Or a similar news story from previously in the week, about the deranged pet chimp who attacked someone and had to be taken out by the cops. 

Why the fuck is CNN going 24/7 with this stupid mindless bullshit when there are a million other stories they could be covering, and which could actually make a difference in how the US relates to the rest of the world?  (rhetorical question, of course)

Comment #6: The Opoponax  on  02/19  at  09:52 PM

On one side, there’s the cartels. On the other, the PRI. Quite frankly, I don’t know who I’d trust more here. After their behavior in Oaxaca it’s hard to put any faith into the claims of the Mexican government regarding dissidents.

The PRI hasn’t controlled the national government since 2000, and they haven’t controlled the state governments in the north for at least two decades, if not longer. The political situation is really different in the north and in the south. There are not strong leftist movements in the north, and the right-wing PAN party has a lot of popular support.

No, the government isn’t trustworthy, but in this situation, their story that the protesters are paid is much more plausible than it would be in other situations.

Comment #7: chingona  on  02/19  at  10:07 PM

The kind of confusion about what’s really happening on the border is just a preview of what life will be like when there are no more print reporters anywhere.

With notable exceptions, nobody’s going to go under cover to find out whether the cartel is paying off demonstrators, or whether the police are coercing demonstrators into saying they were paid off. It won’t happen because both sides kill journalists with impunity.

Obviously, journalists are MIA in other parts of the country because there’s no money to pay them, not because they’re at risk of being assassinated. But the net result is the same. The authorities say X and who really knows?

Comment #8: Lindsay Beyerstein  on  02/19  at  10:08 PM

It’s not like there isn’t a history in the U.S.  of corporations getting up to all kinds of astroturf stuff so why would it be hard to believe that drug cartels in Mexico wouldn’t be doing it?  If anything, I’d think a legitimate protest would be of, oh I don’t know, people PROTESTING THE EXISTENCE OF THE VIOLENT DRUG CARTELS, but that’s just me. 

Linsay, what you just posted is the scary prospect I’ve been mulling over lately.  I honestly believe we have arrived at the precipice of the end of journalism.

Comment #9: DonnaDiva  on  02/19  at  10:22 PM

Sorry, I meant Lindsay.

Comment #10: DonnaDiva  on  02/19  at  10:23 PM

I hear you, Black, but we are talking about the Mexican drug cartels.  They are the scum of the earth. Also, they have a long history of exploiting people’s poverty against them, when it comes to running drugs.  Why wouldn’t they do this? 

The worst part is they don’t even do what some Columbian drug lords did, which is to actually give back to the community to buy off their support. In Mexico, it seems a few people are bought off, but most people are told to fuck off.

Comment #11: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/19  at  10:57 PM

If anything, I’d think a legitimate protest would be of, oh I don’t know, people PROTESTING THE EXISTENCE OF THE VIOLENT DRUG CARTELS, but that’s just me.

You did see that they’ve killed 6,000 people this year alone, right?

In all seriousness, the Mexican left and civil libertarians in general have been very concerned for a very long time that the government has a lot invested in not cracking down too much on the cartels and not professionalizing the police or rooting out corruption because the high level insecurity and the disgust with the police opens the door for a general militarization of society. I think that concern is legitimate and well grounded in reality.

However, my own impression is that the political environment in the north is such that there isn’t enough of a leftist presence to put bodies on the street to do this kind of protest. And Mexicans are like people everywhere. The more the general level of insecurity increases, the more they will embrace any group that offers security.

But in the end, it doesn’t really matter if the protest was a front or real. The levels of violence right now mean the government is going to continue deploying the military, with all the consequences that entails.

Comment #12: chingona  on  02/19  at  11:06 PM

Reporters Without Borders has Mexico 140 of 173 countries in its Press Freedom Index. There have been 45 journalists killed there since 2000, including four last year, and newspaper offices in the north have been bombed in the last year as well.

Comment #13: chingona  on  02/19  at  11:07 PM

I just got done with a book about the 2001 murder of a Mexican human-rights activist lawyer. What it said about Mexico in general, and the army in particular, just shocked the shit out of me. According to this book, the Mexican army is not only the most corrupt and brutal institution in Mexico, it answers to absolutely nobody. And high-ranking army officers are strongly suspected of working in concert with the drug cartels. If what the book says is even remotely true, it’s no wonder these poor people want the soldiers to leave.

The book is “Betrayed: The Assassination of Digna Ochoa,” by Linda Diebel, a Spanish-speaking Canadian journalist who lives in Mexico. I highly recommend it.

Comment #14: Bitter Scribe  on  02/19  at  11:39 PM

You heard me right—-6,000 murders.  Right there in the AP story, if you don’t believe me.

Is there a context for that - what is that compared to the population, to previous years, and is it concentrated in particular areas?

Comment #15: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  02/20  at  12:08 AM

It’s up significantly, because the long-simmering turf war has exploded.  But if it were a constant number, it would be more alarming, don’t you think? I’d think it’s interesting if one of the U.S.‘s direct neighbors had been reduced, at least part of it, to a non-stop civil war state that got very little mainstream coverage.

Comment #16: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/20  at  12:16 AM

Here’s the obligatory story about the fear of spill-over, and a partial answer to the following query:

Is there a context for that - what is that compared to the population, to previous years, and is it concentrated in particular areas?

But less than three miles south, in the once-quaint Mexican town of Palomas, a war is being waged. Over the last year, a drug feud that has killed more than 1,350 people in sprawling Ciudad Juarez has spread to tiny Palomas, 70 miles west, where more than 40 people have been gunned down, a dozen within a baseball toss of the border. More—no one knows how many—have been kidnapped, and the Palomas police chief fled across the border last year and has asked for political asylum.

Comment #17: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  02/20  at  12:21 AM

I’m having a hard time finding the articles that ran when the 6,000 number was reached a few months ago. If I turn something up, I’ll post the link. But to put it another way, Mexico’s population is one-third that of the United States, and drug cartels have killed more people there in one year than Americans killed in Iraq since 2003.

I did find an article from 2003 talking about 3,000 drug murders the previous year - and that was a high number then.

Living near the border, I can tell you that it absolutely has gotten much worse. A few months back there were a series of shoot-outs that left all kinds of people dead in the middle of downtown Nogales - police, gang members, bystanders. There were church bombings in Sonora and the Tohono O’odham tribe had to call off its annual pilgrimage to Magdalena after threats on the church there. And the year before, commando style raids by drug cartels left nearly 30 people dead in what had been a fairly quiet rural town in northern Sonora (commandos came down on police station, killed five police and two civilians, then army and police went after the cartel and 20-some people were killed).

There’s has always been drug violence. But the sheer boldness, the numbers of dead, and the types of weaponry employed all have ratcheted up significantly over the last few years.

Comment #18: chingona  on  02/20  at  12:33 AM

The United States leaned on then-President Vicente Fox to kill a measure to legalize marijuana in Mexico and backs President Felipe Calderon’s crackdown, which caused the current violence. Amanda is right there is a human cost to sanctimony; the irony is that the human cost will be cited by the sanctimonious to justify said sanctimony. As the AP describes the human cost without elaboration: “drug violence.”

My thought was that legalizing drugs solves the problem of violence; however, a thought: The rationale would be that legalizing drugs sends the cartels out of business: supply goes up, price goes down, and economic profit goes to zero. But if well-armed cartels can continue violence against competitor suppliers to maintain control over the market, it is just government forces, attempting to police unfair coercion by the cartels, clashing with cartels all over again.

Comment #19: Luke  on  02/20  at  12:33 AM

drug cartels have killed more people there in one year than Americans killed in Iraq since 2003.

Just to clarify my subjects and verbs there - more dead Mexicans, killed by drug cartels, than dead Americans, killed in Iraq.

Comment #20: chingona  on  02/20  at  12:34 AM

Calderón has called on the U.S. to end its “war on drugs” and instead fight a “war on addiction.”

Comment #21: chingona  on  02/20  at  12:36 AM

“Calderón has called on the U.S. to end its “war on drugs” and instead fight a “war on addiction.””

Whatever that rhetoric is supposed to mean. I suspect it means get DEA agents out of Mexico and instead target users in the USA with criminal sanctions, an even worse idea than Calderon’s ill-conceived crackdown, not just for the unfairness in selective user-targeting and the ham-fistedness of policing consensual activity, both well documented elsewhere on Pandagon, but also for the greater potential for legalization to reduce violence in the USA as opposed to in Mexico. The police are stronger, more transparent and less corrupt in the USA so can more effectively squelch violent monopolization attempts in a free market.

Comment #22: Luke  on  02/20  at  12:57 AM

I can’t imagine a gang turf war breaking out in the U.S. that took the lives of 18,000 people (the proportionate number, population-wise) that wouldn’t be enormous news.  The 6,000 is just the number of murders related to this particular drug war, and not the total number of murders in the country. 

Deaths alone doesn’t really convey the full extent of the violence.  In order to secure trade routes, the cartels have done things like gone into small towns and basically started killing cops until they quit and handed the town over to the cartel.  It’s too simple to suggest that the police and/or army is totally corrupt.  Obviously, just like in the U.S., the answer is “depends”.  Are Mexican police more corrupt on average than New Orleans police or LA police?  I doubt it.  Depends on the city, just like here.  Obviously, the number of shoot-outs with the cops and/or cop killings suggests that many police resist the drug dealers and pay for that with their lives.

It’s a shame.  I wouldn’t fight a bunch of drug dealers if it meant getting killed.  Anyone who does is braver than me.  Narratives about the supposed wackiness of Mexican politics (as compared to American politics? who says?) or corrupt police is a way of Othering Mexican citizens and refusing to face our country’s responsibility for this disaster.

Comment #23: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/20  at  01:08 AM

Luke, I think one thing it would do is introduce more competitors, who could work under government protection, I suppose.  It’s easier to protect someone than to find and kill someone with a paramilitary force.  But you’re right; it may not solve the problem that might be too far gone.  But it could help.

Comment #24: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/20  at  01:14 AM

But if well-armed cartels can continue violence against competitor suppliers to maintain control over the market, it is just government forces, attempting to police unfair coercion by the cartels, clashing with cartels all over again.

Same problem as at the end of alcohol prohibition. But the problem goes away with time as the police have the opportunity to employ new strategies. Under the current paradigm of prohibition the police do not have that opportunity. Ending prohibition is the only way to open up the possibilities.

Comment #25: asdf  on  02/20  at  01:14 AM

Why are you saying that Calderón’s crackdown caused the violence? Every analysis I’ve read has described this as a war mostly between cartels for control of the market. There was a big increase in violence in the early 2000s as the Columbian cartels shut down and the Mexicans picked up the slack and also as the PRI lost power, long established connections between politicians and narcotraficantes broke down, leading to a power struggle. For several years, there was a truce between the major cartels, but it broke down a few years ago. Did Calderón cause the truce to break down? On what are you basing your statement that his crackdown caused the current violence?

Comment #26: chingona  on  02/20  at  01:16 AM

Obviously, the number of shoot-outs with the cops and/or cop killings suggests that many police resist the drug dealers and pay for that with their lives.

Though sometimes police are killed because they are allied with an opposing cartel. I don’t mean to slander the Mexican police disproportionately. Some of them are fighting the good fight with practically no resources. And some agencies are worse than others. New Orleans police might be similar, but New Orleans has a reputation as the most criminal police force in the United States.

But there’s corruption and there’s corruption. Someone who might take a bribe to not give you a traffic ticket isn’t necessarily working in cahoots with a drug cartel. So while the police forces are mostly very corrupt, not every officer or every unit is corrupt at the same level.

Comment #27: chingona  on  02/20  at  01:29 AM

(Amanda)You heard me right—-6,000 murders.  Right there in the AP story, if you don’t believe me.

Is there a context for that - what is that compared to the population, to previous years, and is it concentrated in particular areas?
Phoenician in a time of Romans on 02/19 at 07:08 PM

Oh, PiaToR, you are being tiresome again.

Look, 6000 is IIRC twice the number of Americans killed on 9/11/01. Mexico is a big country (Mexico City, at one point in the 1980s and possibly still today, was or is the biggest city in the world), with a hefty population, but it isn’t anything like 300 million. (If you won’t be bothered to Google the population of Mexico, neither will I!)

OK, that was petty. Here we go:

“With an estimated population of 109 million, it is the 11th most populous country and the most populous Spanish-speaking country in the world.”

Now New Zealand:
Population -    September 2008 estimate   4,280,0005 (122nd (2008))

6000*4.3/109= approximately 240.

You get back to us and tell us if 240 murders a year in New Zealand would be a little or a lot.

Murders at the same rate per capita here in the USA would be 18,000. Honestly, off the top of my head, those are the sorts of numbers I could believe are kind of normal here—but Michael Moore and others have pointed out how full of alarmist crap our media culture is, and just because we seem to be the goddamn serial killer capital of the world (plus lots of racist, homophobic crap thrown in for laughs, and of course good old fashioned murder for profit) I probably have an exaggerated notion of how bad things are here lately, so let’s google “homicide 2008 USA”:

The first link I saw wit straightforward aggregate totals for the whole nation by year was

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Which says nothing about 2008 but showed about 17,000 per year from 2005-2007.

So, yeah, I guess 6000 is not totally out of line, except it isn’t the total, just the particular homicides—particularly brutal ones, says Amanda and I tend to believe her—identified as being related to the drug cartels.

Well, this business of Googling for simple, raw crime statistics is kind of frustrating—it isn’t easy to find simple, straightforward tallies for a whole country year by year or for a particular year, apparently. I guess that kind of thing is a bit embarrassing after all. I did find the Wikipedia page on “crime in Mexico” FWIW:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Mexico

And there it says that in the early 2000s, the rate was about 14 per 100,000 inhabitants. Which times Mexico’s current population is about 15,000/year.

What the total was for 2008 I don’t know.

Would you feel better or worse if it was 15,000 plus 6000?

It seems that New Zealand’s rate would be about 1 per 100,000. So I suppose you’d sit up and take notice if that suddenly were increased by 240 additional deaths per year.

As the man once said, “Poor Mexico; so far from God, so near the United States…”

The political situation is really different in the north and in the south. There are not strong leftist movements in the north, and the right-wing PAN party has a lot of popular support.

No, the government isn’t trustworthy, but in this situation, their story that the protesters are paid is much more plausible than it would be in other situations.
chingona on 02/19 at 05:07 PM

It sure does look like proximity to the USA might indeed be a big part of the problem!

Comment #28: Mark Foxwell  on  02/20  at  01:35 AM

Oh, PiaToR, you are being tiresome again.

Well, pardon me all to fuck if I want to get a grasp on the number in comparison to how many it was before, how many it is elsewhere, and whether it is concentrated in certain areas.

I mean, I could run around shouting “6000!!!EleventyOne!!” instead but, you know, I like to understand things before I figure out how I will react to them.  Contexts like this, for example (but, alas, based on 2000 data - 14.11 per hundred thousand).  The most recent figure at Nationmaster has it at around 13 murders per hundred thousand. It’s a problem of less than Russian proportions for the country as a whole, which probably makes it a real mess for those places which are most affected.

Contexts like “identified” - identified by who?  Is there a motive towards padding murders as “drug related”.  A little research shows that it is unlikely - authorities were reluctant to admit to the size of the problem. There does, however, appear to be an upswing in the areas around the US, and specifically *against* Americans.

I’ve just spent six hours trying to figure out how to put a big technical department into a tiny wee temporary space.  Now, I could have adopted the Foxwellian principle of running around screaming “Oh Noes!!! A Big Number!!!Divided Bys a Small Number!!!!”, but it probably wouldn’t have looked good at my performance review afterward.

Comment #29: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  02/20  at  02:10 AM

Can anybody find mention of this on http://mexico.indymedia.org/ ? I can’t read Spanish.

Comment #30: asdf  on  02/20  at  03:58 AM

And I though the drug wars had been winding down. Sinaloa has made peace with the Gulf Cartel and peace has come to Laredo. Gulf backs Sinaloa’s attempt to off Juarez, the weakest cartel in exchange for Sinaloa breaking its ties to California.focused cartels. The idea is to make two big cartels. One in the west and one in the east.

Comment #31: Bacopa  on  02/20  at  04:24 AM

And while we have plenty of drug addicts in America, we have even more sanctimony addicts who need their fix.

As Erich Fromm put it: “There is perhaps no phenomenon which contains so much destructive feeling as moral indignation, which permits envy or hate to be acted out under the guise of virtue.”

Comment #32: Dunc  on  02/20  at  08:47 AM

This country’s DEA is one big failed policy and one that squanders vast amounts of our more and more limited financial resources.  I read we are going in to eradicate Afghanistan’s poppy fields in our quest to leave no segment of the population there not offended and alienated by our presence.  They’ve had these poppy fields, their only real cash crop, for hundreds if not thousands of years and we think we are going to reverse things where all have failed before us in all of recorded history, puhleeze.  They are hugely aware of the hypocrisy involved and the Taliban and Al Qaeda love us the more for it.  We’ve been shooting ourselves in our body parts since 911 and now we seem to finally be approaching the head.

I don’t doubt that the drug lords and terrorist organizations aren’t forming their own PACs and contributing to our representatives keeping these failed policies in place and guaranteeing their enormous profits - surpassing the wealth of a lot of countries.  Latin American countries recognize this and are proceeding to legalize and begging us to do the same.  Our failed drug policies are a leading destabilizing effect on the whole world and threaten the fall of some of our closest neighboring countries.  How long can we continue this madness?

Comment #33: knowdoubt  on  02/20  at  10:04 AM

Speaking of drug trafficker PACs, remember the Giuliani campaign co-chair/SC State Treasurer who was indicted for distributing cocaine?

Comment #34: Lindsay Beyerstein  on  02/20  at  11:39 AM

“Unfortunately, our national hypocrisy about drugs is super-deadly on the Mexican-American border. That is, after all, why this war is going on—-to control the trade routes to get drugs to Americans using criminal methods because drugs are illegal in America.  (And Mexico, too, but they appear to have more of an export issue than an import one.) To really face this story would be to face what we don’t want to—-either everyone who uses drugs stops, or we give up the War On Drugs.  Only one of these is realistic.  And while we have plenty of drug addicts in America, we have even more sanctimony addicts who need their fix.”

A thousand times this. The only thing Americans love more than cocaine is feeling superior to people for loving cocaine. The blitheness which we’re willing to sacrifice the lives of people in countries south of here to our twin addictions has got to be the number one thing that if I was a Christian would have me saying ‘Preach on Reverend Wright.’

Maybe the ‘causes chaos in other countries’ argument can break ending the Drug War into the left-leaning part of the mainstream. People like my mom, who’s liberal in general and has only become more so thanks to George W. Bush, won’t go for ‘Because you don’t have the right to tell me which things I can get high on’ but might go for ‘innocent people being murdered.’

Comment #35: witless chum  on  02/20  at  11:45 AM

Can anybody find mention of this on http://mexico.indymedia.org/ ? I can’t read Spanish.

I couldn’t find anything, but that site also seems to be focused on central Mexico (DF, Oaxaca, Guerrero, Michoacan). I’ll roam around a few of the northern newspapers and see if I can find anything.

Comment #36: chingona  on  02/20  at  02:04 PM

Piator, they’re not sleazing on the numbers, and if you lived in the American Southwest and heard near-daily reports about mass graves and small towns being taken over by drug cartels, you’d understand that they aren’t playing pretend here.

Comment #37: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/20  at  02:05 PM

Bacopa, my fear is that it will wind down, and then it won’t seem like as big a deal until the next time it fires up again, and we’ll have missed a big opportunity to push for decriminalization.

Comment #38: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/20  at  02:07 PM

No doubt, knowdoubt.  There’s something especially disturbing about the way that our government targets small time farmers growing the one crop that will be sure to make them money despite hostile trade treaties that make growing plain old food unprofitable.

Comment #39: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/20  at  02:13 PM

Latin American countries recognize this and are proceeding to legalize

Really? Where’s this been happening?

Comment #40: Dan  on  02/20  at  02:33 PM

I’m not finding anything in the newspapers that really clarifies this beyond the government said/protesters deny, but this blog, which seems to have a leftist orientation, says that people who are politically active in these cities say they don’t recognize the people at the protests, which in itself is strange because the leftist community is small enough that usually you see the same people at all the same things. The people at the protests are mostly very young, children even, and young women with babies, which is also unusual. The blogger calls the government contention that the protesters are paid “facile and not verifiable,” but says that police have said they were explicitly told by the protesters to stay out of it, that their beef was with the Army, not the police. While from the outside that would seem like it could go either way, the blogger seems to think this strengthens the government contention, which makes sense to me if the dominant understanding is that the narcos have either bought off or subdued the police to the point they don’t see them as a threat.

Comment #41: chingona  on  02/20  at  02:34 PM

I found this story about the drug war kind of interesting:
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2009/02/drug-war-horror-story-only-seam-complex-fabric

It’s just another example of why we should be worried about the death of journalism. (See the argument in comments at the bottom, especially)

Comment #42: HonestB  on  02/20  at  02:45 PM

I don’t have any specific information about the Mexican government’s claims, but I do know that it is very rare for organizations that have effective violent means to turn to peaceful protest.  If your strength is violence, peaceful protest is something to be disrupted and discredited, not something to subsidize.

Comment #43: Ape Man  on  02/20  at  09:36 PM

But if well-armed cartels can continue violence against competitor suppliers to maintain control over the market, it is just government forces, attempting to police unfair coercion by the cartels, clashing with cartels all over again.

I don’t buy this argument that legalizing would eventually lead to the gangs’ resurgence.  Do foriegn distillers currently fight wars over meeting US demand for booze, beer, and wine?  Are there tequila cartels in Mexico or rum cartels in Jamaica?  No, there are corporations with licenses operating under color of law whose conflicts are settled in courtrooms, not with open warfare. 

Though the market would take most of the gangs out of the business due to unprofitability, there’ll still be some who’ll try to compete- but they currently have control of the entire trade, which gives them extraordinary power.  They would necessarily be reduced to attempting to control a fraction of the market, probably the least profitable one at that- competing on price with legal suppliers.  And as Amanda said, it’s a lot easier for the government to protect a licensed trade than to eliminate it entirely. 

As Chingona pointed out, the inordinate power that comes from controlling the entire trade means they use that power to seize total control over other illegal trades.  They’ve gone from being basically street gangs to major international powers with more resources than the government.

(Also, I expect there’d be some traditionalists in the drug market, just like there are still moonshiners in the Appalachians.  If marijuana were legal, there’d still be connesseurs who’d insist on their particular “brands”, whether that grower were licensed or not.  But that’d be such a tiny part of the trade it’s hardly worth considering.)

There’s no reason, other than hypocritical sanctimony, why US-licensed foriegn companies couldn’t buy coca leaves (or poppies in Afghanistan for that matter) directly from farmers and ship it to the US for processing into cocaine and heroin.  The entire production and distribution chain could be under control of licensed corporations and subject to gov’t regulation, taxation, and public scrutiny.  But ONLY if possesion and use were legal. 

And that’s assuming there’s any good reason why coca and poppies couldn’t be grown domestically if it were legal.  It’s not like we don’t have mountainous regions in this country whose people could use some profitable industry.

Dedicate the revenues raised from taxation at each stage of production and distribution to just two areas: law enforcement to prevent any “bootleggers” who try to compete with the licensed producers , and drug addiction treatment and prevention. 

There’s no reason to expect an increase in addiction as long as anyone who wants treatment can get it.  That’s certainly not the case now- we dedicate far more resources to locking up casual users than we do to treating addicts.  And drug treatment HAS to be publicly funded if it’s going to get to people who need it the most.  People with serious addictions rarely can afford private treatment- one of the more obvious effects of addiction is that you’ve spent every penny on the drugs. 

Not only are treatment centers underfunded now, but the criminalization of addiction prevents people who want help stopping from seeking it.  You can risk a lot more than money by admitting a drug problem.

(This happened in my case when I was in the service years ago.  I knew that if I admitted a drug addiction, I’d be discharged after a jail term.  So I just kept using and was just lucky not to get caught.  I eventually quit on my own, but not without wasting a lot of time and money first.  If I’d sought help for alcoholism, on the other hand, I’d have gotten it, no problem, and without jeopardizing my freedom or my job.)

Comment #44: Chocolate Covered Cotton  on  02/21  at  12:23 AM

Dan, I can’t find the article I thought I remembered, I did find this one from CNN headlined,“ex-Presidents of Latin America Urge legal Marijuana.”  A search showed several other MSM stories in this same vein.  I may have technically misspoke, but there is no question that they get it.  It is important to recognize and understand that are beholden to the U.S. Government for millions in aid and aren’t really free to cross us no matter what they think, unless they are willing and able to forego the aforementioned aid.  Most governments would probably find it difficult to survive without it.  I probably should have said Latin American countries or at least their ex-presidents or lobbying Obama, rather than proceeding to legalize.  I must have misspoke, misremembered, or both.  My apologies, thanks for catching that.

Comment #45: knowdoubt  on  02/21  at  08:07 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.