Options
Death in Juarez
· Wednesday, March 17, 2010
A few weeks ago, I debated drug policy with Ron Brooks, president of the National Narcotics Officers Association, on John Stossel's Fox Business show. When Stossel asked him about the violence fostered by drug prohibition, Brooks replied, "Well, there certainly is some of that." Then he quickly moved on to another topic.
I thought of Brooks' blithe response as I read about last weekend's horrific violence in Mexico, which included the murders of three people tied to the U.S. consulate in Ciudad Juarez: a pregnant consular employee and her husband, both U.S. citizens, and the Mexican husband of another woman who worked at the consulate. All were shot dead in their cars shortly after leaving a birthday party with their children.
The motive for these attacks remains unclear, but Mexican police believe they were carried out by a gang linked to the Juarez drug cartel, which has been fighting the Sinaloa cartel for control of the city. The murders, which grabbed headlines in the U.S. and elicited outraged responses from the White House and the State Department, were just a small part of the bloody ordeal that our government is inflicting on Mexico by insisting that it stop drugs destined for American lungs, noses and veins.
The same weekend that Lesley Enriquez, Arthur Redelf and Jorge Alberto Salcido Ceniceros were killed in their cars as their children screamed in the back seat, nearly 50 people died in Mexico from violence related to the drug trade. In Ciudad Juarez, which is important to traffickers because it sits right across the border from El Paso, more than 2,000 people were killed last year, giving the city one of the world's highest homicide rates.
Since Mexican President Felipe Calderon launched a literal war against the country's drug cartels in December 2006, some 19,000 people have died. Mexican and American drug warriors are unfazed, saying the staggering death toll is a sign of their success.
"Mexico lives with the violent consequences of an American dilemma," writes former Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Castaneda. "It is because of American demand that Mexico is 'forced' to wage a war on drugs that otherwise it would not have to fight."
It is not simply American demand for drugs that creates this situation; it is our government's refusal to let legal businesses meet that demand. Just as it did during alcohol prohibition, that refusal creates a black market in which suppliers violently contend for territory instead of peacefully competing for customers.
"As long as criminalization, its hypocrisy and serious discussions of the alternatives are banned from public discussion," says Castaneda, "U.S. drug policy will remain ... a supply-side, foreign-policy, nickel-and-dime war waged beyond U.S. borders. ... The only conceivable alternative lies in a change in U.S. drug policy: not demand reduction, or supply interdiction, but decriminalization, harm reduction, adjusting laws to reality instead of uselessly attempting the opposite."
To address the violence, decriminalization has to encompass not just possession for personal use (a policy that Mexico and several U.S. states have adopted in limited ways), but production and distribution as well. During alcohol prohibition -- when the U.S. homicide rate rose by 43 percent, peaking the year of repeal -- there were no criminal penalties for drinking. Yet by making it illegal to manufacture and sell alcohol, the government invited the likes of Al Capone to vie for control of a lucrative black market, with predictably violent results. Once alcohol was legalized, the business was no longer run by criminals and liquor suppliers stopped shooting at each other.
"We will continue to work with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and his government to break the power of the drug trafficking organizations that operate in Mexico and far too often target and kill the innocent," the White House declared after Saturday's murders in Ciudad Juarez. If the U.S. government were serious about breaking the power of the brutal gangs that profit from prohibition, it would rethink its war on drugs.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.
Options
Subscribe
Heritage Foundation President Dr. Edwin Feulner, Jr.: "The best Websites wield remarkable influence in the marketplace of ideas. The Patriot Post is a 'must read' for informed conservatives." It's Right. It's Free. Subscribe now!
The Right Opinion
- Arnold Ahlert: CPAC Braces for Union & Occupier Chaos
- Michael Reagan: A Little More Heat
- George Will: GOP's Murky Rhetoric on National Defense
- Larry Elder: Aren't Republicans Supposed to Be Colorblind?
- Thomas Sowell: The Anti-Romney Vote
- Ann Coulter: Plutocrat Dems Attack Romney as 'Richie Rich'
- Burt Prelutsky: Was Idi Amin Smarter Than Martha Stewart?
- L. Brent Bozell: The Secular Media vs. Religious Liberty
- R. Emmett Tyrrell: The Delousing of a Movement
- Jonah Goldberg: Liberals are the True Aggressors in Culture Wars
- Cal Thomas: Fudging the Numbers
- Michael Barone: GOP Must Convince Young People It's the Party of Options
Grassroots Commentary
Policy and Analysis
- Heritage Foundation Insider
- Heritage Foundation Research
- American Enterprise Institute
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- The Cato Institute
- Hoover Institution
- National Rifle Association
- Ludwig von Mises Institute
- Citizens Against Government Waste
- National Center for Policy Analysis
- The Heartland Institute
Our Mission
"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!























Ruth Ann Wilson
Government "sanctioning" sin is not the "answer".
"Righteousness exalts a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people" Proverbs 14:34
For God & Country
Ruth Ann Wilson
Posted March 17, 2010 at 8:47:56 AM
Marcus
Ruth Ann,
I am quite positive that nowhere in the good book does it say that smoking a joint is a sin. this is where Jesus is more pragmatic than the old time rules in the old testament.
to love the Lord and follow him is a powerful thing but the reality is that not everyone is going to believe as you do and you do not have the right nor does a government have the right to impose beliefs on others.
this is about being adult and making choices and accepting consequences. these draconian laws that take away our choices as adults, reduces us to the level of children and even will imprison us for something that does no harm to anyone when used in moderation, are outdated and outrageous.
people like you are the scary ones. you are OK with controlling my life to match your beliefs through government legal intervention and imposition. that is government establishing laws about religion. that is unconstitutional and just plain evil.
you are welcome to your beliefs. they are precious to you. but don't force them on everybody else through the law. i've seen you write against socialist laws in this forum. making me abide by what you believe through the law is fascist, and ultimately dangerous as Mr. Sullum's article clearly indicates.
Laws are for all people, not just a particular group, or at least they are supposed to be. think about it.
Posted March 17, 2010 at 12:51:31 PM
David S.
I think you could make a pretty good argument that it is not necessarily about the "sin" of using what are now considered illegal drugs, but the impact to society when you do. There are certain things that are illegal that should be illegal (such as driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated). Although you have the freedom to drive that motor vehicle, you should not have that freedom while your judgement is impared by alcohol. The same should be true for drugs. To deliberately take something that would distort reality strikes me as unwise, at the best. To expose society of the effects of your distortion cross the line from unwise to foolhardy.
Posted March 17, 2010 at 3:28:52 PM
TJS
Which drugs would be legalized? How about sniffing gasoline, glue, and paint thinner? Who would be allowed to use the drugs? How about giving drugs to 14 year olds? How about 16? 17 1/2? Could everyone and anyone grow pot, opium, and peyote? Could anyone buy it?
I'd rather keep it all illegal, thanks.
Posted March 17, 2010 at 4:12:41 PM