-
What the Drug War Needs is a
Debate, Not a Disingenuous Battle Plan
- By Steve Schaffer,
COHA Research Associate
In what was to become a growing trend
throughout much of Latin America, the Mexican government unleashed its
security forces against the drug cartels several years ago in what
ended up being a failed effort at interdiction. The strategy was
then to change: On August 23, 2009,
Mexico City
announced that it would be eliminating jail time for possession of
small amounts of heroin, cocaine, and marijuana. President Felipe
Calderón said that the new law would free up law enforcement
resources. Now, Mexican officials can focus on the larger and more
lethal drug cartels, rather than cluttering Mexico’s
criminal justice system with cases dealing with petty drug dealers
and small-time addicts.
While many Mexicans were indifferent about the
new law, Washington could not
conceal its disappointment with its neighbor. In addition to Mexico, both Brazil
and Uruguay
later announced the elimination of measures harshly penalizing
citizens carrying small amounts of drugs. Likewise, Argentina is planning to enact a
decree exempting drug users from the criminal justice system. On
September 8, 2009, the Mexican president asked his Attorney General,
Eduardo Medina Mora, a key figure and hard-liner in the government’s
war on drugs, to step down. This occurred after criticism of the
government further escalated when drug lords executed 18 people
outside a rehab center in Juarez.
So the question provoked by this series of
events is, when it comes to an effective drug strategy, what is the
world waiting for? More directly, what will it take for the White
House to act? Since the current strategy is clearly not working, why
not open up the hemispheric drug policy to public debate for the
very first time. The dialogue would want to stress one fundamental
point: the anti-drug war quarterbacked by Washington is not working and that a new plan
must not focus on the pre-existing and ineffective strategies of
interdiction, eradication and prohibition of cocaine, marijuana and
heroin.
A clear-cut division between the petty drug
dealer, addict, and drug lord in the drug chain may not exist since
they all feed on, as well as merge, into one another. If petty drug
use is tolerated, it likely means that clients will be buying and
shooting up, and that drug lords still will be pushing and
profiting. On the other hand, we learned from Prohibition that while
alcohol consumption may have slackened, illegal trafficking and
associated violence escalated making the situation worse than before
it was outlawed. The same can be said about today’s current
legislation on drugs.
But failed drug policies are not something
exclusive to Mexico. In a
television segment produced by CBC news in 2007, the long list of
failures of U.S. drug
policies were cited. For example, from 2000-2006, the US spent $4.7 billion on Plan Colombia which indirectly forced the relocation
of Colombia’s
main cocaine producers to more remote areas of the country. Later,
another change of methodology in 2005 was introduced due to the fact
that levels of cocaine production and consumption ended up being
more or less the same as in 2000. Neighboring countries like Peru also saw their drug related
statutes return to familiar locations and patterns on the
trafficking chart.
Solving the drug problem of course requires
humility, given its persistent nature. A still largely untested
portal to possibly solving the issue would be to open up
constructive debate between the nays and the yeas, involving the
U.S.
and Mexican authorities and their critics. Rather than scoffing at
the idea of opening up communication between those determined to hue
to a conventional line like the Obama administration appears to be
doing, or, President Calderón’s search for a new policy, why not
break the current barriers by opening up dialogue. Let there be
discussion with the understanding that more of the same legislation
and strategies that failed in the past could not provide the
profound resolution for the hemisphere.
Between orthodox viewpoints and their
challengers, in which the old principles no longer axiomatically
have paramountcy, holding debates would allow partisans to be heard
freely, as well as spotlight approaches that could potentially yield
a cut in costs. They might offer a more humane strategy for those
who require treatment, but not necessarily be candidates for jail
time.
This analysis was prepared
by Research Associate Steve Schaffer
18 Sep 2009
Council
of Hemispheric Affairs
http://www.coha.org/2009/09/what-the-drug-war-needs-is-a-debate-not-a-disingenuous-battle-plan/
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
this material is distributed by HispanicVista.com (www.hispanicvista.com)
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research and educational purposes.)
