home

Post-Election, Mexico May Shift Its Focus in the War on Drugs

The New York Times reports that all three candidates in Mexico's upcoming presidential election are signalling a break from the U.S. in its drug war strategy.

The candidates, while vowing to continue to fight drug trafficking, say they intend to eventually withdraw the Mexican Army from the drug fight. They are concerned that it has proved unfit for police work and has contributed to the high death toll....

The U.S. believes this will result in more drugs coming into the U.S.[More...]

Are the candidates bluffing to get elected? The White House seems to think so:

One senior Obama administration official said on Friday that Mr. Peña Nieto’s demand that the United States respect Mexican priorities “is a sound bite he is using for obvious political purposes.” In private meetings, the official said, “what we basically get is that he fully appreciates and understands that if/when he wins, he is going to keep working with us.”

That's not much of a commitment. As to the other two candidates:

“Results will be measured not by how many criminals are captured, but by how stable and secure the communities are,” Ms. Vázquez Mota wrote on her campaign Web site.

Mr. López Obrador — whose security strategy is called “Abrazos, no balazos,” or “Hugs, not bullets” — has criticized how United States officials have approached securing Mexico. “They should send us cheap credit, not military helicopters,” he said.

What do the Mexican people think? This sounds about right:

“You go ask the majority of people about a drug lab in the city, they are going to say, ‘As long as they don’t kill or rob me, it doesn’t matter,’ ” said Jorge Chabat, a foreign-affairs professor at CIDE, a research institution here.

The U.S. needs to rethink its focus on the War on Drugs and admit its been a failure. Unfortunately, if more drugs start coming in to the country, it will probably just double-down on the same-old punitive approach.

< Saturday Night Open Thread | Monday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    War forever (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by koshembos on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 02:21:10 AM EST
    The US will never stop the war on drugs. Like a the huge military, the war on drugs is central to the modern American state. It is also a huge business with a huge lobby.

    We don't need a huge military and we don't need a war on drugs. But no one asks us.

    True (none / 0) (#2)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 06:48:08 AM EST
    The U.S. needs to rethink its focus on the War on Drugs and admit its been a failure.

    But it ain't gonna happen.

    Forget us. (none / 0) (#3)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 06:50:33 AM EST
    We don't need a huge military and we don't need a war on drugs. But no one asks us.

    Unless I have missed something, both "major" party candidates are running on the exact opposite premise.

    As you say, no one asks us.

    I am optomistic that like prohibition (none / 0) (#4)
    by Slado on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 07:40:46 AM EST
    the need to collect additional state and federal revenue will lead to the legalization of pot.

    I am not in favor of legalizing cocaine or other illicit drugs but I am in favor of a different approach.

    Legalizing pot however would completely change the game of the drug war.  It would remove a huge source of revenue to the cartels in other countries and also be a boon for federal/state coffers.   While no fan of taxation I would prefer revenue going to government as opposed to a drug lord in Columbia.

    The reason prohibition was overturned was the depression.   The federal government could no longer afford not getting the revenue and that will soon be the case with pot.

    I look forward to my first legal doobie.

    I Don't Know About This Statement: (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 09:37:20 AM EST
    Legalizing pot however would completely change the game of the drug war.  It would remove a huge source of revenue to the cartels in other countries and also be a boon for federal/state coffers.

    I have tried to find the numbers and I can't, but IMO pot isn't going to change jack.  Hydro seems to be leading pot form at least here in Houston and I it's a local crop.  I haven't seen brick weed in ages which I assume was coming from Mexico and bricked up to transport.

    If you don't change current policy in regards to cocaine and heroin none of it's going to change. The violence will still remain along with cartels and all that they bring.

    Legalizing weed will bring in revenue, no doubt.  But the problem with drugs has never really been revenues.  Even at our best the problem with drugs is addiction and violence and making weed legal won't change any of that IMO.

    And if these South and Central American countries shift their attention away, the problem here can only get worse.  If we are to change policy, we have to seriously look at our views of the core drugs, opium and cocaine.  I Don't know the answer, but thinking the legalization of weed is going to be a game changer IMO is misplaced at best.

    Parent

    I disagree (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by sj on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 11:37:55 AM EST
    But the problem with drugs has never really been revenues.  Even at our best the problem with drugs is addiction and violence and making weed legal won't change any of that IMO.
    It may not have started out that way, but by now it is ALL about revenue.  The revenue of Big Pharma that they don't want to lose.

    I was working on a project at home and had the TV on for most of the day.  It's shocking really how many commercials for pharmaceuticals there are.  And just listen to the end of them where they talk about the possible side effects.

    And then pay attention to the commercials from attorneys who are seeking clients that have been harmed by legal drugs.

    You will never convince me that revenue is a non factor -- or even a minimal one.  I don't know if legalizing weed would be a game changer or not.  Seriously.  But it would be a step in the right direction.

    Parent

    I Totally Agree (none / 0) (#16)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:04:05 PM EST
    The revenues I was speaking of were revenue dollars via taxes.  It was in response to the comment before mine.

    Your use is entirely different and I don't disagree with it.

    Parent

    Big Pharma? (none / 0) (#35)
    by diogenes on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 10:45:09 PM EST
    Big pharma won't lose any money if pot is legalized.  If anything, they will sell more expensive atypical antipsychotic drugs because some small percentage of the population does get psychotic when using pot.  Legalizing will create consumers for those of us in the mental health and substance abuse treatment businesses too.  

    Parent
    You're kidding right? (none / 0) (#37)
    by sj on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 10:23:06 AM EST
    Big pharma won't lose any money if pot is legalized.
    Because there aren't any pharmaceuticals for anxiety or pain relief or anti-nausea or for inducing sleep.  That's not why they're cracking down on medical marijuana.  Nope.

    Where do you guys come from?

    Parent

    It would put a partial hurting.... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 11:05:26 AM EST
    on the cartels...coke, smack, and meth have the bigger profit margins, but reefer is still the most popular illegal drug by far.  Brick weed, though waning in popularity compared to domestic and Canadian high-grade, is still a multi-billion dollar business.  If reefer prohibition was repealed the cartels would feel it, but it wouldn't be enough to put them out of the highly profitable drug smuggling business...to do that we must let freedom ring full monty and repeal all drug prohibition.

    Parent
    Maybe... (none / 0) (#14)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 11:55:21 AM EST
    ...but all is guess work as the actual effect.

    But it's not going to change the problem we have with violence, addiction, prison populations, and wasted tax dollars.

    I should have added at the end of my comments that it would be a good start and surely a good drug to experiment with in regards to as needed policy change.

    IMO the real policy shift is to legalization of at least the most popular drugs.  But that is a fools dream, cocaine and opium have never been legal anywhere in modern history and the US will never lead the charge no matter the reason.  Weed is going to take a small miracle to get legalized and it's supported by a lot of folks and has actual medical benefits with no real addictive qualities.

    Parent

    Maybe not "modern" history... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:00:01 PM EST
    but it's not ancient history either when ya could buy cocaine or opium at your neighborhood pharmacy, without a prescription. I see little downside and tremendous upside if we returned to that policy.

    Parent
    Ohhhh Kdog (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 01:57:45 PM EST
    As much as I agree with you please don't be disingenuous with the facts and/or history.
    ...when ya could buy cocaine or opium at your neighborhood pharmacy, without a prescription.

    Buying an elixir that probably wasn't labeled with the ingredients is hardly what you are trying to equate it with. Especially for the folks that had no idea how dangerous the ingredients were and ended up with addictions without having any idea as to how they got there or how to go forward.

    The moments in history where one could buy a gram of opium or cocaine are so slim that mentioning them is disingenuous as it relates to this conversation.  It's like saying LSD & Ecstasy were once legal, accurate, but not in any meaningful sense.  I doubt there is more that blip here and there were you could knowingly buy hard drugs over-the-counter in all of history.

    Going back to a time when any grifter could put together some chemicals and claim it cured any ailments isn't exactly the romanticized 'drugs were legal' version that you are certainly implying it was.  A lot of people ended up on the wrong side of that non-policy with some pretty damn bad addictions from no fault of their own beyond believing a label on a bottle and the good feelings those elixirs certainly produced.

    I agree they should be legalized, but that is so out of touch with reality that it's not worth discussing.  It's the equivalent to current policy of 'zero tolerance', nice for silly discussions like this, but in reality it's an unattainable goal.  The US will never lead the world in a progressive legalization of hard drugs, period.

    We can't even get the most benign substance of them all, off Schedule I.

    Parent

    I'm not talking just snake oil elixirs... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 02:17:28 PM EST
    You could buy cocaine in powder form.  And all kinds of opiates, not just cough medicines containing opiates.

    I hear ya it is not in line with political realities...but if we ever choose to grow up, its what we should do.  It is all that makes sense and respects an individuals inalienable rights, imo.

    Parent

    The most important reason for the increase in opiate consumption in the United States during the 19th century was the prescribing and dispensing of legal opiates by physicians and pharmacists to women with "female problems" (mostly to relieve menstrual pain). Between 150,000 and 200,000 opiate addicts lived in the United States in the late 19th century and between two-thirds and three-quarters of these addicts were women.[35]

    Prior to 1890, laws concerning opiates were strictly imposed on a local city or state-by-state basis. One of the first was in San Francisco in 1875 where it became illegal to smoke opium only in opium dens. It did not ban the sale, import or use otherwise. In the next 25 years different states enacted opium laws ranging from outlawing opium dens altogether to making possession of opium, morphine and heroin without a physician's prescription illegal.

    The first Congressional Act took place in 1890 that levied taxes on morphine and opium. From that time on the Federal Government has had a series of laws and acts directly aimed at opiate use, abuse and control.



    Parent
    Somewhat aware... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 09:03:36 AM EST
    of the history of prohibition, post Civil War to present.

    Fast forward to the 21st century...

    In 2010, pharmacies and hospitals dispensed the equivalent of 69 tons of pure oxycodone and 42 tons of hydrocodone, sometimes called "hillbilly heroin" because of its prevalence in low-income areas. "That's enough to give 40 five-milligram Percocets and 24 five-milligram Vicodins to every man, woman, and child in the United States," says the AP.

    Same addiction problems, plus the tyranny problem, the over-imprisonment problem, the economic problem of spending all this cash tilting at windmills, and the chronic pain sufferers having a harder time getting their pain meds problem.  

    Sh*t lets go back to one addiction problem and call it a win.

    Parent

    Agreed... (none / 0) (#30)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 03:58:06 PM EST
    ...to me the most basic freedom one can have after not being owned, is deciding to do with one's body.

    The thing that always baffles me is it's not actually illegal to have drugs in your bloodstream nor is it illegal to consume them.  Which makes no sense, you can't own them, sell them, or buy them.  But being under the influence is fine, or at least not illegal.

    The only point in the drug stream in which they are legal is when they are actually effecting your mind.

    So actual usage is not illegal in a war whose entire goal is controlling usage.  Makes no sense and proves that even the anti-drug zealots realize what we put in our bodies is pretty damn sacred and not to be F'ed with.  So they go after the other portions of the stream, possession, buying, selling, and of course transporting and manufacturing.  But they never F with being under the influence beyond things that could hurt other people like driving.

    Which of course isn't true of the the great legalized drug.  Can not have alcohol in your system if you are under 21.  Go figure.

    Parent

    It's also not ancient history (none / 0) (#17)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:15:33 PM EST
    that you could buy and sell people, although that practice has been around for thousands of years.

    Just because you USED to be able to do something, doesn't mean it's necessarily a good idea.

    Parent

    I think it a good idea... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:18:21 PM EST
    on the merits, not just because we used to roll that way.

    Though the fact we used to roll that way is evidence the sky won't fall if we do repeal prohibition.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:29:52 PM EST
    Though the fact we used to roll that way is evidence the sky won't fall if we do repeal prohibition.

    There is absolutely no evidence of that.  We are a completely different society now - more people, more impatience, and in many ways, more violent.  The environmental factors alone that we deal with - no one has any idea how those combined with the drugs you are talking about will affect those taking it.  Plus, many of the drugs today have other ingredients and fillers that weren't there 100 years ago.  

    And, there's many more opportunities for people to hurt themselves, or more importantly, hurt others.  Off the top of my head, I'm thinking about cars and machinery.

    Comparing that time with this time and saying the societal result of legal drug use would be the same is folly, IMO.

    Parent

    The result of legal societal drug use... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:43:51 PM EST
    today would be around the same as the result of illegal societal drug use today, imo.  Just because it is legal doesn't mean more users, just less cages and less prohibition costs...iow, a home f*ckin' run for society.

    And we could get those dangerous cutting agents out of the drugs, making them safer for the user.

    Parent

    Come to Jesus (none / 0) (#5)
    by Rojas on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 07:55:57 AM EST
    Might be considered off topic but the Christian Broadcast Network is running a series called A Nation of Criminals.
    Selling Prisons 'for Profit' closes with
    Whitehead said he expects the criminalization of America to grow with it, including the incarceration of more women and children.

    "I think America has lost its way. I think the way we view people, the old Judeo-Christian viewpoint that people were created in the image of God, they had great worth and dignity and we should care for them, we should try to get them on the right path," he said. "No, I think we look at people right now in a very suspicious way."




    Cocaine, heroin and black tar... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 09:58:54 AM EST
    on bus headed to Chicago from South Texas this weekend.  http://tinyurl.com/weekenddrugbust
     

    Seeing lots of articles lately... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 10:40:16 AM EST
    about an increased number of young people using heroin.  The crackdown on Rx opiates has increased the price to the point they are turning to smack as a cheap alternative.  

    Most of the supply coming from Mexico.  

    Parent

    I'm reminded of my juvenile probation officer days (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 11:11:39 AM EST
    Got lots of kids just being kids, checking stuff out and getting caught with it.  A few kids broke my heart, lost kids, not recreational users but trying to escape from hurts.  I look around me right now and never has the message been out there that this country does not care for its children or its young people.  We don't care if insurance companies kill you for profit.  We don't care if you have a job.  We don't care that your parents can't afford to send you to school.  We don't care if trying to get an education to feed yourself with destroys your economic well being...there is no way to work yourself to safety.  After that everyone is in jail in this country that can't seem to "fit in".  We have become the jungle, but it is a rigged jungle, acts of violence trying to get your needs met in the man made scarcity will get you killed too same as disease, hunger.  What do we expect our kids to do?  Reminds me of the abandoned children in Mexico that live in the dumps and huff in order to not feel so bereft and alone inside.

    Parent
    I think these brothers story... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 11:17:16 AM EST
    is very illustrative of the ills that you speak of.  

    Parent
    to me this is just an example (none / 0) (#34)
    by CST on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 04:27:00 PM EST
    of what a disaster this entire policy is.  When heroin is the cheap alternative you know you've failed.

    Heroin is not a something you can fight a war against and expect to win.  In some cases you have people who are born addicts, stay addicts, and give birth to a future generation of addicts.  In other cases you have people who keep trying, and failing, to quit.  And yes, maybe they steal from you in the meantime, and maybe burn every possible career bridge, and some of them end up in a f*cking casket.

    No matter how illegal it is, or how many mexicans are killing each other over getting it to you, none of that matters because the only thing that matters is the next fix.  Personal responsibility is a nice catch phrase, but a really bad joke, and dead people are the punchline.

    How anyone can oppose the Iraq /Afghanistan /Vietnam /any other pointless war and support the war on drugs is baffling.  40 years later, how many dead, and heroin is the cheap alternative.

    Parent

    Funny (none / 0) (#9)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 11:01:55 AM EST
    When they list the amount of drugs by grams you know they are trying to pull a fast one.
    The officer uncovered 7,261 grams of cocaine, 3,355 grams of heroin and 89 grams of black tar heroin.

    And you know the people who got busted are wondering where in the world they could sell their goods for a million bucks, which the article also stated.

    To me this is one of the dumbest aspects of the war on drugs, over stating the value of seized drugs to the smallest amount and the highest prices attainable.  In takes a nonsensical bust like this one and makes it seems like the war is effective.

    Parent

    The special lady and I.... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:15:42 PM EST
    were talking some Mexican politics, since it felt like the PRI campaign tour was following us all throughout San Luis Potosi.  Everytime we checked into a hotel, the Pena Nieto campaign was right behind us.

    Her take, much like in the USA, all the parties suck, but PAN especially so.  And the militarization of the drug war is a major reason why.  When I mentioned with some excitement Mexico might have their first woman president, she rolled her eyes and said "I hope the people aren't fooled by that woman."

    In Mexico if you don't vote it counts as an automatic vote for the incumbent party, I thought that was pretty weird.  Might explain why PRI had the presidency on lock for 70 years before the recent PAN run under Fox and Calderon.

    The phrase, "The War on Drugs" (none / 0) (#22)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 01:34:40 PM EST
    was coined by Richard Nixon in 1971....more than 40 years ago. Countless billions of dollars spent, hundreds of thousands of new jail cells filled, Governments & Institutions corrupted, and thousands upon thousands of dead and injured civilians.

    Today, the drug situation is worse than ever.

    What's the definition of insanity again?


    Insanity, Noun.... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 01:39:03 PM EST
    1.The state of being seriously mentally ill; madness.
    2.Extreme foolishness or irrationality.
    3. The political reality.

    Parent
    Ding, Ding! (none / 0) (#29)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 03:51:05 PM EST
    give that man a kewpie doll!!

    Parent
    UnRelated (none / 0) (#25)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 02:09:51 PM EST
    But hospital denies organ transplant to MM users in California.

    Not at all unusual. (none / 0) (#27)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 02:28:40 PM EST
    and its probably not the hospital, but the transplant program/clinic.

    BTW, your link goes to your previous comment above.  

    Parent

    Link (none / 0) (#31)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 04:03:57 PM EST
    HERE

    As I read it's the hospital making the denial.  My thought was the same, it's not really their call to make is it.  They say the people can get back on the list so long as they test clean for 6 months and take drug abuse counseling.

    Parent

    Isn't it also routine (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 04:09:56 PM EST
    to reject alcoholics (or at least those with alcoholic hepatitis) until they've been clean for at least 6 months?

    Parent
    Apples and oranges (none / 0) (#38)
    by sj on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 10:24:41 AM EST
    unless there is a weed related hepatitis.  Is there one?

    Parent
    "Cedars-Sinai Transplant Center" (none / 0) (#33)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 04:13:42 PM EST
    is the one making the call.  The hospital goes by what they say.  

    That's the same way it is with the two transplant programs here--both are affliated with a hospital (one private, one public) but its the clinic that makes the calls.

    Parent