Latin American Drugs & links

[carl]

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.

That is a very interesting observation. 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. You don't often read about a police force taking down the primary retail supplier to Hollywood stars or to the faculty of the University of the Elite.

If we really want to reform, you are right about there being only two options, hard and soft. I would change the form of the hard option as it applies to use and possession. American culture being what it is penalties similar to those for possession would be uncertain because of all the legal wrangling involved with getting a conviction, especially if middle and upper class people were the targets. The courts would be tied into knots.

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.

That would be the general idea anyway. I don't know the legal in and outs needed to make that kind of thing happen. Maybe it would be impossible, but if it could be done, I think it would work.

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.

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.

The thing that would really force the matter would be if the Mexicans legalized drug importing and exporting and just collected customs duties in and out of their country. That won't happen either but it would be interesting if it did.

[Bob's World]

Dayuhan. You have picked up and carried my mantra on US illegal drug policies almost to the letter.

I grew up in rural southern Oregon where there's a great deal of marijuana is grown, and at least one small town that sits strategically on I-5 and at the entrance into millions of acres of rugged national forest land stayed solvent as the timber industry waned by laundering drug proceeds through legitimate businesses.

As an ODA commander I did a short stint with the Border Patrol Tactical Unit on our SW border; and later in life as a prosecutor served in the Felony Drug Unit in the Multnomah County (Portland, OR) DA's office.

Supply and Demand; Blame and Responsibility; Ethics and Pragmatism. There are so many conflicting issues that concensus is impossible.

I've never met a drug pusher, but I've met and known a lot of business men who sell illegal drugs. Our laws and our policies for enforcing those laws are heavily weighted toward punishing those who sell over those who use. Users are seen as victims; yet they are the demand that drives this entire market.

"Give unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's" was and is wise advice. The U.S. wants to get into the morality market far too much. To Ceaser I would recommend, "Give unto God that which is God's." Ceaser needs to focus on law and policy. Illegal Drugs is two words. Change that first word to "legal" and one has an entirely new dynamic. That is within Ceaser's lane to do; coupled with new policies to define who can use these legal drugs, and who, by their chosen profession must submit to regular testing and is not eligible as a matter of policy to partake. Make it a personal choice. Use drugs or have an important career, but not both. Fail your piss test, lose your job. Enjoy your drugs.

Mexico suffers due to the illegality of the drug market. Mexico would have no such problems if it were a legal drug market. As for the U.S.; no need to agonize over punishing users, losing one's job is punishment enough. Buyers will prefer the relative safety and quality control of official sellers; and revenues will fund rehab programs for those who fall victim to their own vices.

This is one more area where we need to stop demanding that others change to suit us, and look at some hard changes that we need to place upon ourselves in order to solve our problems.

[slapout9]

There was a former LA county DA who said we should legalize it,tax it and treat any violation like a DUI. Might be something to looking at it that way.

[Dayuhan]

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.

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.

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.

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....

[Bill Moore]

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.

[Dayuhan]

I didn't mean to say that there's no security problem; rather that the cause of the security problem is not the drug cartels, or the inability of Latin American governments to control the cartels, but rather our drug policies, which brought the cartels and the security problem into existence. There's certainly a problem, but the source of and solution to the problem are both north of the border... and the Latin American countries, whose security is threatened more than ours, have every reason to be pointing this out. I'm actually surprised that more of them haven't been publicly complaining. How are they supposed to keep their police forces honest when our citizens are paying hundreds of billions of dollars to buy the very same products that our government insists that their people shouldn't sell?

[Bill Moore]

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.

[carl]

Here is a link to a Houston Chronicle story (courtesy of Information Dissemination) about a narco submarine found in Ecuador. This is a true submarine that can dive to 50 feet and make 20 knots underwater. The story includes a photo. This thing is really cool with a teardrop shaped hull and twin shrouded screws. If there were a Homebuilt Subs magazine, this thing would be the boat of the year.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...e/7415756.html


(I hope this is the right place to put this.)