Drugs: From “Co-Responsibility” to Legalization?

Published in Excelsior
(Mexico) on 31 August 2011
by Leo Zuckermann (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Elena Atkinson. Edited by Jessica Boesl.
A little late, but the president of Mexico has finally realized that prohibition will not solve the problems of drug consumption and addictions, neither in Mexico nor in the United States. In this business, the state will never be able to win over the market: When there is a great demand, there will always be a supply, especially in such a profitable business as the sale of illegal drugs. Because of this, even though he might have been a bit tardy, I applaud that Calderon has changed his position. Now, in place of talking about “co-responsibility” in the narcotrafficking between both nations, the president proposes that the United States implement “market alternatives.”

In 2007, Calderon met with George W. Bush in Merida. Calderon’s time in office had just begun. He had already declared a war against organized crime and solicited the support of the United States. The concept emerged of both nations’ “co-responsibility” to combat the production, distribution and consumption of illegal drugs. According to a joint document that emerged from the meeting, “the presidents recognized the constant threat that organized crime and drug trafficking represents, especially the associated violence that does not respect borders. Both presidents underlined that the Mexican government’s important efforts to combat organized crime, understood as one of the most important priorities of its own agenda, could benefit from greater levels of support and cooperation from the United States.”*

Out of this meeting arose the Merida Initiative: “The United States and Mexico will make it a priority to break the power and impunity of drug and criminal organizations that threaten the health and public safety of their citizens and the stability and security of the region.” Bush solicited $500 million from Congress to finance cooperation with Mexico. The collaboration began to arrive in the form of equipment for the Federal Police and the Armed Forces.

Did this effort for co-responsibility work? The results demonstrate that it did not. Consumption in the United States, far from diminishing, grew. And the violence associated with drug trafficking in Mexico did as well.

Confronting this reality, Calderon finally changed the discourse related to the consumption of drugs in the United States. This is what he said this Friday: “It is my duty to make a call to the society, Congress and the government of the United States. I ask that they reflect on the tragedy that we are living in Mexico and many Latin American countries as a consequence, in great part, of the insatiable consumption of drugs in which millions and millions of Americans participate. The economic power and firepower of the criminal organizations that operate in Mexico and Latin America has to do with this endless demand for drugs in the United States. Mexico can no longer be the gateway, nor pay the consequences that this market generates. These consequences are translated not only into hundreds of billions of illicit dollars from the black market, but also into thousands of deaths as a consequence of the violence exercised by criminal groups tied to this business. This drug consumption must be reduced drastically […] If you are decided and resigned to consume drugs, search, then, for market alternatives that eliminate the stratospheric earnings of these criminals, or establish clear points for the entrance of drugs, points not located on the border with Mexico. But this situation cannot continue in the same direction.”

The president is right; the solution to the American consumption of drugs is a market alternative: sell them legally and regulate them, like with alcohol and tobacco. It is a shame that Calderon has realized this so late. However, this change must be celebrated. It seems that the president is joining the club of former Mexican presidents, like Zedillo and Fox, that are in favor of the legalization of drugs.


*Editor's Note: This quotation, while accurately translated, could not be verified.


Un poco tarde, pero el Presidente al fin se dio cuenta de que la prohibición no va a resolver el consumo y la adicción a las drogas ni en México ni en Estados Unidos. Porque en este negocio, el Estado nunca podrá ganarle al mercado: mientras haya una gran demanda, siempre habrá oferta, sobre todo en una empresa tan rentable como es la venta de drogas ilegales. Por eso, aunque se haya tardado, celebro que Calderón cambie de postura. Ahora, en lugar de hablar de corresponsabilidad en el combate al narcotráfico entre ambas naciones, el Presidente propone que Estados Unidos implemente “alternativas de mercado”.

En 2007, Calderón se reunió con George W. Bush en Mérida. Recién comenzaba su sexenio. Ya había anunciado una guerra contra el crimen organizado y solicitaba el apoyo de Estados Unidos. Surgió el concepto de “corresponsabilidad” de ambas naciones para combatir la producción, distribución y consumo de drogas ilegales. De acuerdo al “comunicado conjunto” de aquella reunión: “Los Presidentes reconocieron la constante amenaza que, para ambas naciones, representan el crimen organizado y el tráfico de drogas, en especial su violencia asociada, que no respetan fronteras. Ambos subrayaron que los importantes esfuerzos del gobierno mexicano para combatir al crimen organizado, entendidos como una de las más importantes prioridades de su propia agenda, podrían beneficiarse con mayores niveles de apoyo y cooperación de Estados Unidos”.

De esa reunión surgió la Iniciativa Mérida: “México y Estados Unidos establecerán como una prioridad combatir el poder y la impunidad de las organizaciones criminales y del narcotráfico, que amenazan la salud y la seguridad pública de sus ciudadanos, así como la estabilidad y la seguridad en la región”. Bush solicitó a su Congreso 500 millones de dólares para financiar la cooperación con México. La colaboración comenzó a llegar en equipos para la Policía Federal y las Fuerzas Armadas.

¿Sirvió este esfuerzo de corresponsabilidad? Los resultados demuestran que no. El consumo de drogas en Estados Unidos, lejos de disminuir, creció. Y la violencia asociada con el narcotráfico en México, también.

Ante esta realidad, Calderón por fin cambió el discurso relacionado con el consumo de drogas en Estados Unidos. Esto dijo el viernes: “Es mi deber hacer un llamado a la sociedad, al Congreso y al gobierno de los Estados Unidos. Les pido que reflexionen acerca de la tragedia que estamos viviendo México y muchos países latinoamericanos, a consecuencia, en gran parte, del consumo insaciable de drogas en el que participan millones y millones de norteamericanos. El poder económico y de fuego de las organizaciones criminales que operan en México y en América Latina, tiene que ver con esta interminable demanda de drogas de los Estados Unidos. México ya no puede ser la puerta de acceso, ni tampoco pagar las consecuencias que ese mercado genera y que se traduce, no sólo en cientos de miles de millones de dólares ilícitos, provenientes del mercado negro, sino, también, en miles de muertos, a consecuencia de la violencia que ejercen las bandas criminales abocadas a ese negocio. Ese consumo de drogas debe reducirse drásticamente […] Si están decididos y resignados a consumir drogas, busquen, entonces, alternativas de mercado que cancelen las estratosféricas ganancias de los criminales, o establezcan puntos de acceso claros, distintos a la frontera con México. Pero esa situación ya no puede seguir igual”.

Tiene razón el Presidente: la solución al consumo estadunidense de drogas es una alternativa de mercado: venderlas legalmente y regularlas, como se hace con el alcohol y el tabaco. Lástima que Calderón se haya dado cuenta demasiado tarde. No obstante, hay que celebrar este cambio. El Presidente, al parecer, se está uniendo al club de ex mandatarios mexicanos, como Zedillo y Fox, que están a favor de la legalización de las drogas.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Canada: Trump Did What Had To Be Done

India: US, Israel and the Age of Moral Paralysis

China: Trump’s ‘Opportunism First’ — Attacking Iran Opens Pandora’s Box

Austria: Would-Be King Trump Doesn’t Have His House in Order

Ireland: The Irish Times View on Iran and Israel: a Fragile Cease-fire

Topics

Taiwan: After US Bombs Iranian Nuclear Facilities, Trump’s Credibility in Doubt

Switzerland: Ukraine Is No Longer a Priority for America: Trump Leaves the Country High and Dry

Poland: Calm in Iran Doesn’t Mean Peace Yet

China: Trump’s ‘Opportunism First’ — Attacking Iran Opens Pandora’s Box

Australia: What US Intelligence and Leaks Tell Us about ‘Operation Midnight Hammer’

Australia: Tech Billionaires To Reap the Rewards of Trump’s Strongarm Tax Tactics

Austria: Would-Be King Trump Doesn’t Have His House in Order

Argentina: Middle East: From Nuclear Agreement to Preventive Attack, Who’s in Control?

Related Articles

Cuba: Summit between Wars and Other Disruptions

Germany: LA Protests: Why Are So Many Mexican Flags Flying in the US?

Mexico: US Pushes for Submission

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Afghanistan: Defeat? Strategic Withdrawal? Maneuver?

Previous article
Next article