Drug Cartels and US Security
There’s been a great deal of talk lately about drug cartels and their expansion in Latin America and the US, some even referring to cartel violence as “insurgency”. I’d question that, but there are enough definitions of that much-abused word floating around to include almost anything, so it may be viable for some.
What seems peculiar to me is the ease with which the discourse frames the problem as a Latin American issue that is spilling over and causing security issues for the United States. It might be more honest if we reversed the picture and recognized that decades of failed drug policy in the US are causing major security issues – in some cases possibly existential security issues – for Latin America. US drug policy has not constrained demand at all and has constrained supply only enough to keep the business obscenely profitable. It is that profitability that drives the cartels and their violent behavior. The problem isn't them. The problem is us.
US drug policy has been based from the start on the irrational notion that supply creates demand. Whether we’re looking at a single street deal or a hemispheric market, we treat the consumer as a victim and the provider – the “pusher” – as a criminal. This is of course a load of bollocks. Supply doesn’t create demand, demand creates supply. Providers do not “push” users into the drug trade. Consumers “pull” suppliers in by providing a financial incentive so disproportionate to economic conditions that attempts to legislate against it are doomed to fail. If we ignore demand and constrict supply, we force prices so high that inevitably people will take the risks needed to satisfy demand.
We don’t do this because it makes sense: it doesn’t. We don’t do this because it works: it doesn’t. We do it because in the drug world demand is from light-skinned economically integrated individuals, and supply is from dark-skinned economically marginal individuals. On the wide scale many of the suppliers are not American. We as a society are much more comfortable with the imposition of coercive force on dark-skinned economically marginal individuals, especially when they aren’t American.
The current approach has failed; this is beyond dispute. We need to recognize that the solution is not in Latin America, but in the US. Instead of trying to legislate against the incentive and force others to do the same, we need to remove the incentive. We need to address demand. I only see two options for doing that, and if anyone else hard another idea, I’d love to hear it.
The soft option would be to legalize and regulate. The hard option would be to impose and enforce penalties for use and possession that are analogous to those we now impose for trafficking. A combination is possible: soft option for cannabis, hard for opiates, amphetamine, coca and its derivatives.
Neither of these options are appealing. The politics would be miserable in either case. There would be major challenges and penalties in either case. Even worse, the challenges and penalties would land on us, instead of on our neighbors to the south, where the current approach puts them. On the other hand, since we created the problem, isn’t it up to us to solve it? And aren’t we better equipped to face challenges and deal with penalties? And given that the current policy has categorically failed, isn’t it about time to at least start discussing options?
Have at it…
And here I was thinking I was going to start an argument...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
Dayuhan. You have picked up and carried my mantra on US illegal drug policies almost to the letter.
We agree on something? Will wonders never cease? I guess great minds work a like... once every few years at least. I've been preaching this gospel myself for quite a while; I wonder if anyone will listen now that the problem is in the eye a bit more. I'm not betting on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
I wonder if you see the same thing in enforcement within the United States, not so much race based though, but socio-economic class based.
I suspect that it's driven more by socio-economic class bias than race bias, though in the end the result is the same, as our prison population shows rather well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
If the hard option penalties for possession were less severe but more certain it would be better. Let us say an officer catches a fine young fellow from a good family with a marijuana cigarette, at 0200 on a Saturday morn. He would transport the fellow to a special court immediately. Upon conviction the fine young fellow would immediately begin serving a 1 week sentence at the county jail, no exceptions for big business deals or babysitters. That would severely complicate the fine young fellows life providing a deterrent but would not be so severe as to hit the sympathy button of the wider community making it more certain.
Certainty over severity seems an excellent idea to me, though I suspect that the legalities would be complicated, and controversial. I also suspect that punishing people for smoking a joint is pretty much a waste of time and resources... I'd treat marijuana like alcohol and focus effort on the harder drugs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
This is why it probably won't happen. The current arrangement works great for us. We get to feel smug about our moral stance, our upper classes get their high, the drug warriors have their adventures subsidized and somebody else gets to pay the real price. Politically we want it both ways and that is what we have now.
We also get to blame someone, always something we look for. When Mom and Dad discover that Ashley and Tyler are spending their prodigious allowances on smack, crack, and blow it can all be the fault of the sinister pusher and the evil cartel....
I don't like consensus this quickly
Quote:
There’s been a great deal of talk lately about drug cartels and their expansion in Latin America and the US, some even referring to cartel violence as “insurgency”. I’d question that, but there are enough definitions of that much-abused word floating around to include almost anything, so it may be viable for some.
What seems peculiar to me is the ease with which the discourse frames the problem as a Latin American issue that is spilling over and causing security issues for the United States. It might be more honest if we reversed the picture and recognized that decades of failed drug policy in the US are causing major security issues – in some cases possibly existential security issues – for Latin America. US drug policy has not constrained demand at all and has constrained supply only enough to keep the business obscenely profitable. It is that profitability that drives the cartels and their violent behavior. The problem isn't them. The problem is us.
I guess it depends on how you would define a security problem, but in my humble view gangs empowered with drug money that have a nation wide network and engage in violent activities against our citizens is a security problem.
In Mexico the drug cartels are an insurgency, maybe not at the national level, but they have replaced the official State government apparatus with their own thugs and in fact rule many towns in Mexico. Wasn't that long ago an article came out about the last police officer in one town being killed by the cartels. Who governs? The cartels do, is that an insurgency? Does it really matter? Is it a security problem? Most definitely.
Drug money can't corrupt? What happened to Guinea in W. Africa and how long did that take? Did the U.S. cause that, or the drug cartels?
AQ in Africa works hand in hand with cartels now to help them move their drugs to Europe to market. AQ gets money for providing safe passage, they use that money to enhance their capability and become a greater threat to the States. Does that qualify as a security problem?
The nexus between certain drug cartels and some terrorist organizations is very real, and it forms when it is mutually beneficial to both parties. I don't think the cartels will knowinly be moving terrorists into the U.S., because it would result in a smack down which isn't good for business, but there are other areas beyond our borders where they do cooperate.
I think some are too quick to claim there is no security problem, because they don't support our failed war on drugs and associated policies.
agreed, but expand the problem
O.K., I agree that is a critical issue and one the local through national level governments have been trying to address (unsuccessfully). The illicit market for drugs/narcotics in the U.S. is a huge and perhaps the main driver of these dangerous cartels; however, it isn't just "our" market, Europe, parts of East Asia, etc. also are big markets. Not all the drugs produced in Latin America go to the U.S.. I'm not trying to lessen the responsibility of our irresponsible citizens, but if we're ever going to signficantly reduce their funding it will take a global approach.
Somewhat switching gears, but along the same lines, if there is agreement that as long as there is a robust market for illegal drugs, how do we address the market issue? Obviously our overly legalistic approach has failed and led to abuses of individual civil rights. We have so many in jail now we're challenging State budgets to the point that they have to release several prisoners prematurely. I recall doing a study on two particular prisons on the East coast and the guards and senior leadership were very upfront about their opposition to cracking down on the users. The prison was over flowing with decent people who had to do one year in jail for possessing pot. This had two obvious side effects. The effects of living in an over crowded prision with hardened prisoners had undesired psychological effects on your average Joe. More concerning due to the over crowding armed robbers and rappists were paroled early, and subsequently "serious" crimes increased. I think for the most part that self righteous stupidity has come to an end. The other approach was the just SAY NO TO DRUGS campaign, and like any other narrative the U.S. government has devised and implemented it has failed.
Do we treat it as a health problem? Obviously we don't have the money to do that effectively, but maybe the money we're spending on fighting the cartels would be better spent on treating it as a health care issue (this is one argument presented, but I haven't seen any evidence that this really works)?
Coming from me you know I'm serious, the another option is to really wage a war on drugs and remove the legal constraints, much like Thailand did for awhile? If it is a serious threat (still open to debate, but in my opinion some aspects of the drug trade do present a serious threat to security), then lets get serious and get the DEA out of the lead and put DOD in charge. I know it won't resolve the problem long term, but it will reduce it and increase the risk of those involved in the trade.
We all sit back and complain our current approach doesn't work, but generally agree the security risks from this business are significant in their own way. I agree the current method doesn't work, focusing on treating it as a health problem may contribute to the solution, but it isn't the solution, so the solution must lie outside of what we're currently "authorized" to do.
Counter Cartel training for Mexico
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012106325.html
I really like this idea. I have, for sometime now, been advocating for us to get more involved in training the Mexicans to effectively fight the cartels that are knocking on our door. We cannot just put US troops INTO Mexico to do it and just training leaders to train their soldiers would take years to become effective. This seems like the perfect answer to that dilemma, thoughts?
Keep on ranting -- it's important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
slapout9
... we are just creating a greater incentive for people to maintain a crime family as a means of of support/survival. I am done ranting now:)
You're right on the money (pun intended...).
There are families in my home area of Kentucky that have been breaking every law that's written for over 200 years, it's a family tradition and they're proud of it. I've seen the same thing elsewhere and the trendline is upward. Even here in sunny Florida, such families exist. :rolleyes: