Latin American Drugs & links

[Dayuhan]

I think it's absolutely the wrong answer to this dilemma, and at best a stopgap measure with a potential bit of temporary utility.

The answer to the dilemma is for the US to address and change its failed drug policies, and to address the demand side of the drug equation, which are what brought the cartels into being in the first place.

It's completely backwards to say that Mexico's inability to control the cartels is threatening US security. America's inability to control its drug problem is threatening Mexico's security, and the Mexicans have every right to be pissed off at the Americans over it.

[JM2008]

Brainwashing the American public to not consume drugs!?

How would you propose to change our drug policy.

[Dayuhan]

Posted on the subject here, no need to repeat...

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=12192

[JM2008]

The problem with your proposal today is that even if the drug demand went to zero there would still be a huge network of organized crime just across the border but now with no income source. What would you say the fallout of that would be. Do you really think that the Zetas and MS13 would just say Oh well I guess it is back to the factory? I think there would be what you would definitely call a criminal insurgency.

[IntelTrooper]

The problem with your proposal today is that even if the drug demand went to zero there would still be a huge network of organized crime just across the border but now with no income source. What would you say the fallout of that would be. Do you really think that the Zetas and MS13 would just say Oh well I guess it is back to the factory? I think there would be what you would definitely call a criminal insurgency.

We should definitely be dealing with these sorts of organizations supplying drugs with law enforcement and possibly even military means for those across the border. But if the real bad guys are locked up and we have a nation of emotionally healthy individuals, they will have lost the vast majority of their power and influence. Right now, it would be simply playing whack-a-mole, or plugging holes in the dyke.

[bourbon]

Let’s be clear: this will do little to stop the flow of drugs into the United States. It might reduce the violence derived from the narco-trade in Mexico, which is a noble enough goal. There is no good scenario here. The least bad scenario is that it allows for one cartel to consolidate its position and stop the blood flow.

The problem with your proposal today is that even if the drug demand went to zero there would still be a huge network of organized crime just across the border but now with no income source. What would you say the fallout of that would be. Do you really think that the Zetas and MS13 would just say Oh well I guess it is back to the factory? I think there would be what you would definitely call a criminal insurgency.

True, there would still be a network of organized crime. But they would be making only a fraction of the profits they once were.

That means less money to bribe and corrupt governments. Less money for small arms & infantry support weapons, and advanced communications equipment. No more jet aircraft, offshore hedge funds, or high price law firms.

It makes it a lot easier to fight organized crime.

[91bravojoe]

How about NOT repeating it the second time as tragedy+farce?

Prohibition fails catastrophically, so we do it again? America sometimes is one big republican caucus.

There is mountains of data demonstrating that alcohol is a more dangerous substance than the ones which are generating the machine gun fire in Mexico. Treating all these substances the same - largely legal and taxed - would make Mexico safer and the United States saner.

Therapy to anybody who can't recognize this astonishingly obvious truth.

[Bob's World]

We definitely have to take a major step that goes after US Demand for illegal drugs in some smart new way. Moral or law enforcement band aids are nice, expensive, and inadequate.

In working the STOP program in Portland I spent a lot of time with drug users. Most aren't really "addicts" (but that title sure makes just one more convenient excuse to rationalize their destructive behavior) , they just like it and see no reason to stop (just yet). Few ride these problems all the way into the ground, but most all rationalize away all of the incremental negative impacts on their health, their finances, their work, their relationships with friends and family, etc. They sure as hell don't worry about how their small purchases impact the stability of Mexico.

My approach is mix or a two "Unacceptable" approaches. One is too liberal, and the other is too conservative. Neither works on its own, but I think together they would take tremendous pressure off of Mexico's government as well as our own tax payers and law enforcement/corrections communities

Too Liberal: Legalize all drugs. Remove the illegal market. Even pure poison like Meth. Put a warning label from hell that truly describes how that #### will kill you in a matter of months, with a mandatory counseling with current and former users before you get your prescription to buy the legal, taxed, safe as possible product.

Too Conservative: Create a list of jobs and professions that are deemed as too important to the public welfare to be held by drug users and require no drug use with mandatory testing as a condition of employment. Cab drivers to Doctors and a whole lot in between. Perhaps a three strikes for some drugs, one strike for others; but in the end one is simply fired and banned from holding any of the listed jobs until going through a year-long program of rehab, treatment, drug tests, counseling, etc. Upon successful completion one could get their ticket back to the banned list; but perhaps some professional licensees would take more or would not be eligible for redemption (surgeon, airline pilot, etc).

Some principles/concepts at work in my thinking on this is:
1. Never create a rule one is either unable or unwilling to enforce.
2. To effectively impact any supply and demand situation one has to focus on demand.
3. Coupling any high demand situation with illegality will breed organized crime and violence.
4. U.S. politicians lack the moral courage (as a whole) to take on the tough issues they know they must tackle if it will affect them personally, or their party. A bill equally offensive and acceptable to both parties allows them to share the blame and credit equally across the aisle.
5. Never create a punishment system that punishes the taxpayer as much as it does your target audience.
6. Separation of church and state. We argue morality as the reason for not addressing a problem that creates so many greater moral problems in its current uncontrolled, illegal status. Don't be a hypocrite and hide behind the church to avoid making smart, hard decisions.
7. Put the cost and consequences upon the party that benefits most. You want to use drugs? That's your call, but you won't have a very good job, and the tax revenues from your purchases will fund the programs that will help you and regulate your usage as well.

As to any immediate relief to Mexico? Just announcing that we are going to finally take our role in their problem serious would provide a major morale boost to the good guys (and also put the bad guys on notice that things are getting ready to change). Otherwise, I would approach it much as we do our operations in the Philippines (except with better funding than we've ever given that neglected theater) in terms of ISR and intel support, training, etc. Sending thousands of Americans to Mexico to hunt for senior leadership of drug cartels formed to fill American demand would be an entirely foreseeable disaster. Beside, even more than in insurgency and terrorist operations, new leadership will always emerge to take those top of the heap big money jobs.

[AdamG]

How about NOT repeating it the second time as tragedy+farce?

Prohibition fails catastrophically, so we do it again? America sometimes is one big republican caucus.

There is mountains of data demonstrating that alcohol is a more dangerous substance than the ones which are generating the machine gun fire in Mexico. Treating all these substances the same - largely legal and taxed - would make Mexico safer and the United States saner.

Therapy to anybody who can't recognize this astonishingly obvious truth.

Or Democratic caucus.
To wit
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030900832.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/business/06smoke.html

If we legalize pot (one of the cartels biggest cash crops), how does a certain party north of the border reconcile that with their crusade against tobacco????

Seriously.

[IntelTrooper]

Government brainwashing won't do it. We have, in this country, a problem that is literally increasing exponentially from generation to generation. Part of the problem is genetic but the majority of the problem is familial relationship patterns which result in increased demand for drugs.

We won't get the drug problem under control because political and religious types won't hear the truth, and even if they do they certainly won't enact measures to reverse the trend.

If you took a survey of the family of origin situations of drug addicts you would find similarities as far as physical and sexual abuse, absence of parents, alcoholism, and environments that don't allow them to develop healthy methods of coping with stress and emotionally taxing situations (these are the same factors, incidentally, which are contributing to our increasing suicide rates in the military, though no military leaders want to acknowledge this either).

Because these factors tend to appear with particular frequency in certain racial and socio-economic groups, we don't hear about them much because we're more afraid of offending someone than getting to an actual solution.

The drug problem is not a law enforcement or military problem -- it is a failure of our society to look out for each other, but we want to punish people more than help them, so we perpetuate the cycle (and, I would say, profoundly exacerbate it).

To get the situation under control I would say we need mandatory birth control and counseling/therapy for a significant portion of the population who have been subjected to these situations. It is literally a disease that is being passed genetically, and because the people who carry it are reproducing themselves at a rate probably higher than the rest of the population it will require invasive measures, or it will simply spin out of control.

[slapout9]

We have, in this country, a problem that is literally increasing exponentially from generation to generation. Part of the problem is genetic but the majority of the problem is familial relationship patterns which result in increased demand for drugs.

I have been saying that for years and I really don't think people understand this aspect of it outside LE. Most long time LE officers have had the experience of arresting the Father and then arresting the son (sometimes grandson)for the same or similar crime, it is literally passed down from generation to generation........and here is my real current beef as more and more LE,Fire,Public service positions are being eliminated due to the economy 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

[Ken White]

... 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.

[carl]

To get the situation under control I would say we need mandatory birth control and counseling/therapy for a significant portion of the population who have been subjected to these situations.

Mandatory birth control is the very definition of draconian. In fact it is a resort to a great, profound, sky blackening evil. God can predict the course and future of children born into bad situations. Man can't. To do this would be to say man (or some men, who chooses?) can know the future of a union and so can determine if will or will not be.

"Mandatory counseling/therapy for a significant portion of the population" is only slightly less objectionable. The phrase implies forcing people who haven't committed a crime, (correct me if I'm wrong, that is how I am interpreting it) into a status as medically deviant or deficient, then coercing them into a different mode of behavior. The possibilities for political abuse of this arrangement are beyond imagination.

There is a precedent in American history for dealing with this sort of problem. In the 1820s Americans drank about 4 gallons of 200 proof alcohol per capita per year. About 20 years later, it was half of that. The reduction was done by moral suasion, not government intervention.

[IntelTrooper]

"Mandatory counseling/therapy for a significant portion of the population" is only slightly less objectionable. The phrase implies forcing people who haven't committed a crime, (correct me if I'm wrong, that is how I am interpreting it) into a status as medically deviant or deficient, then coercing them into a different mode of behavior. The possibilities for political abuse of this arrangement are beyond imagination.

I specifically have in mind young females having children at 15/16/17, etc., who refuse to give up children for adoption. We let people who we wouldn't allow into any other position of resposibility to make choices for other human beings that they have no business making.

Bringing a child into that environment constitutes a crime, in my opinion.

There is a precedent in American history for dealing with this sort of problem. In the 1820s Americans drank about 4 gallons of 200 proof alcohol per capita per year. About 20 years later, it was half of that. The reduction was done by moral suasion, not government intervention.

I think there are some issues with using that statistic. You're implying that if we just make something unpopular that the demand will decrease. You have major hurdles to overcome first -- first, decreasing its popularity enough in media and in public opinion to turn the tide towards popular hostility; second, reducing the compulsion of addicted individuals to gravitate towards these methods of coping with their lives.

I don't see a way of slowing the momentum this process has in our society without profound changes in how we regulate reproduction.

[Ken White]

Buncha wimps...

That's what gave many those families a start and in places along way from Kentucky -- the distilling or selling of illegal booze. Now it's just the fact that 'better living through chemistry' entails products other than alcohol.

[carl]

Ken:

The statistic was 4 gallons of pure alcohol consumed per every man, woman, child and infant in the country. That is a lot of booze.

[carl]

I specifically have in mind young females having children at 15/16/17, etc., who refuse to give up children for adoption. We let people who we wouldn't allow into any other position of resposibility to make choices for other human beings that they have no business making.

Young girls of that age are minor children, in the custody of their parents. There would probably be some legal difficulties there.

I think there are some issues with using that statistic. You're implying that if we just make something unpopular that the demand will decrease. You have major hurdles to overcome first -- first, decreasing its popularity enough in media and in public opinion to turn the tide towards popular hostility; second, reducing the compulsion of addicted individuals to gravitate towards these methods of coping with their lives.

It was done in the past by the Americans, and it was done without government intervention. The difficulties you mentioned were overcome and group behavior was radically changed in just 2 decades. If they could do it, we can do it.

We just have to make up our minds to do it. I would suggest a first step would be to stop looking at users with so much sympathy. People like sympathy. If users were widely viewed as weak, stupid and shamed for being unable to fulfill their responsibilities toward man and God, that would help.

I don't see a way of slowing the momentum this process has in our society without profound changes in how we regulate reproduction.

IntelTrooper, I wish not to offend you but what you propose is monstrous. To implement you suggestion would require a cultural change so profound that it would be far more destructive to our way of life than the thing you are trying to control.

[IntelTrooper]

Young girls of that age are minor children, in the custody of their parents. There would probably be some legal difficulties there.

Let's say at the age of 16 I shoot someone, does my minor status prevent the government from jailing and punishing me?

It was done in the past by the Americans, and it was done without government intervention. The difficulties you mentioned were overcome and group behavior was radically changed in just 2 decades. If they could do it, we can do it.

Ability to do something and likeliness to do it are two entirely different things.

We just have to make up our minds to do it. I would suggest a first step would be to stop looking at users with so much sympathy. People like sympathy. If users were widely viewed as weak, stupid and shamed for being unable to fulfill their responsibilities toward man and God, that would help.

Users are almost always compensating for profound emotional dysfunction caused by early childhood trauma. If we had more stable family units, this might be a reasonable approach, but we don't. Now we have to treat victimization.

IntelTrooper, I wish not to offend you but what you propose is monstrous. To implement you suggestion would require a cultural change so profound that it would be far more destructive to our way of life than the thing you are trying to control.

I'm not offended.

But mark my words, this situation will not improve unless we enact some kind of policy like this.