Sabotage Times, We can't Concentrate so Why Should You?Sabotage Times, We can't Concentrate so Why Should You?

Is This The End of The War On Drugs?

by Paul Knott
24 April 2012 4 Comments

Started by Nixon in the Seventies this incredibly violent game of whack-a-mole in Central and South America could finally be replaced by decriminalisation thanks to a new report put together by the former leaders of the war on drugs.


“Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States” – the famous quote attributed to Porfirio Diaz, the Mexican President at the turn of the 20th century, has never seemed so appropriate.

Over 40,000 people have been killed in Mexico over the past six years since the Mexican government, under pressure from the US, launched an all-out war on the drugs cartels on its territory. The greatest demand for the cartel’s product comes from the US. Helpfully for the cartels, America’s ludicrously lax gun laws have also allowed them to assemble a staggering array of weaponry for use against their rivals and Mexican government forces.

Mexico has arrested and killed some major drug traffickers. Despite this success, and the huge economic and social cost of its anti-cartel campaign, there is little sign of any sustained disruption in the supply of narcotics to the US. This is because the “war on drugs” is essentially a horrifically violent game of whack-a-mole. When one cartel is taken out of action another inevitably pops up to seize the huge financial rewards on offer. And much of the drug smuggling was only diverted to Mexico in the first place by “successful” attempts to reduce trafficking from other countries such as Colombia. The heat being generated in Mexico is now in turn displacing some of the smuggling activity into other smaller, weaker Central American states that are hopelessly ill-equipped to tackle it.

The “War on Drugs” was started in earnest by President Nixon in the early 1970’s and cranked up considerably by President Reagan a decade later. But after four futile decades, demands for a change in approach are now growing. A crucial difference is the political and economic progress of Latin America. All of the states in the region have over recent years become established democracies. The days of nasty CIA-backed dictatorships doing the US’s bidding are long gone and many Latin American countries are becoming more confident in asserting their own independent interests.

The “war on drugs” is essentially a horrifically violent game of whack-a-mole.

The first significant signs of pressure building for an end to the “war on drugs” came in June last year when the Global Commission on Drug Policy (http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/about/ ) produced a report calling for the decriminalisation of drug use and experiments in the legal sale of some drugs, starting with cannabis. The Commission’s recommendations came as a surprise because its members are not natural radicals. The establishment of the Commission was driven by three right of centre former Latin  American Presidents, Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil and César Gaviria of Colombia. They were joined by various global leaders, including Ronald Reagan’s former Secretary of State, George Schultz, and ex-US Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker.  Gaviria is a particularly significant figure as he was the Colombian President behind the destruction in the 1990s of the notorious Cali cartel and its leader, Pablo Escobar.

A cynic might argue that it is hardly unprecedented for former leaders in the “war on drugs” to change their minds and come out in favour of decriminalisation once they are safely retired and no longer campaigning for votes. But the assembly of such a large group of eminent persons to campaign actively for a change in policy is something new and significant.

There are growing signs that the Commission’s recommendations are having an influence on current political leaders in Latin America. Clear disquiet about the current approach has been expressed recently by heavy-hitters such as Presidents Calderon of Mexico and Santos of Colombia. Even more strikingly, President Perez Molina of Guatemala called openly at the weekend (in an article published in the “Observer”) for the legalisation of drug production and consumption. It is fair to say that the ex-General Perez Molina is no bleeding heart. He allegedly got his hands very dirty indeed as the commander of a brutal special forces unit, and Guatemalan military intelligence, during the Guatemalan civil war and, later, in the fight against the drugs trade. This dubious past gives Perez Molina’s views more force. If even someone like Perez Molina is exasperated by the violence produced by the “war on drugs” to no discernable effect on supply and consumption, then it might well be time to try something different.

Anti-narcotics policy was on the agenda at the Summit of the Americas, which brought the leaders of North and Latin America together in Colombia on 14-15 April. The discussions at the Summit are unlikely to bring about any instant changes in approach, not least because of the difficulty in overcoming the vested interests in the US behind the imprisonment of half-a-million people for mostly minor drug offences (compared with 40,000 in 1981) and an estimated (by “The Economist”) $40 billion budget for drugs control measures.

Despite this huge obstacle in the way of change, the presence of the subject on the Summit agenda at all suggests that the tide is turning. Much of the Latin American political establishment is now openly discussing a radical switch to treating drug abuse, and the trade that supplies it, as a public health problem, rather than a criminal justice one. This indicates that within the next few years the “war on drugs” may be dropped in the same dustbin of history as the “war on terror”.

More Stories You Might Like:

Lessons From The Norway Massacre: Draining The Swamp

Click here for more stories about Life

Click here to follow Sabotage Times on Twitter

Click here to follow Sabotage Times on Facebook

If you like it, Pass it on

image descriptionCOMMENTS

Chet Antonini 1:30 pm, 24-Apr-2012

While the news you report here is certainly good, I think your conclusion is far too optimistic. The war on drugs is no closer to history's dustbin than the war on terror — nor is either likely to be scrapped merely for failing to accomplish its ostensible goals! The name "war on drugs" may have been coined by the Nixon administration but it's been waged since 1915's Harrison Act asserted federal control over certain drugs and criminalized those who failed to follow the rules, sentencing thousands to a (then whopping) year’s imprisonment. Even when the Supreme Court ruled the Act unconstitutional in 1916, the government continued to prosecute and punish accused violators. Thus, a narrow ruling by a much different 1919 Supreme Court effectively reversing the previous decision was just a formality. Since then, the size and scope of the war on drugs has only increased, enforcement and punishment more brutal. As you point out in your article, the business of prosecuting and imprisoning people for drug crimes has gone from negligible to enormous over the past few decades. Too many people have too much at stake to seriously consider reducing the herd of potential candidates for the prison-industrial complex. And politicians in and out of office have long known the value of phony "wars" to generate fear and obedience and to use as rationale for funding or cutting just about any program.

tcbritton 11:28 am, 26-Apr-2012

Unfortunately, this article is full of glaring errors and shows a distinct lack of real research. I lived in Colombia for years and have seen a very different story. Firstly, Escobar wasn't the head of the Cali cartel, he was the head of the Medellin Cartel. The Cali Cartel, backed by the CIA and Colombian Governement, waged a bloody war on Escobar and defeated him. They absorbed all of his clientel and supply and expanded the international drug trade, with the help of Colombia's then president Gaviria who was later forced to step down as leader as it was revealed that he was profiting enormously from the drug trade. Santos, the current president, is the ex-military leader of Colombia and under Uribe's (the previous president) rule he had partially succeeded in taking control of the drugs trade (taking it out of the hands of the FARC). If the legalisation of drugs occurs within Santos' presidency, he will profit to the tune of billions. As for the comment "All of the states in the region have over recent years become established democracies.".... this is laughable. Many of the presidents simply bribe poorer voters or intimidate their regions. The conservative presidents are backed by the USA and given a lot of extra cash to go on their campaign trail and buy votes illegally. These presidencies, like Santos, are guilty of long lists of crimes against humanity. While some areas of the Latin American regions have become "stable", they are built on false pretenses that cannot be called "democratic". The legalisation of the drug trade will see the politicians who are guitly of crimes against humanity become even richer. Over the past 12 years, the USA has given billions of dollars to Latin states to reclaim the drug regions. It's no coincidence that now they have made a lot of headway into owning large proportions of the drug trade, they are now thinking of legalising to make an easier profit. I don't mean to cause offence to the author, but the truth about the Latin drug trade is extremely difficult to assimilate without actually being there. I sincerely hope that all drugs will be legalised, but lets not be naive about the politicians and states advocating legalisation.

Nick 12:25 pm, 26-Apr-2012

The war on drugs is an unwinnable one. Know why? Because of the man on the street. I have worked all my 25 years of adulthood, own my house, have a great life, and I take drugs socially. Some people may say to me "why do you need to do drugs?", and they miss the point. I don't need to, I just like to. I, and my dozen or so close, drug taking, hardworking friends. Alcohol and cigarettes killed my father a few years back, and people just shook their heads and said, "Ah well, that was Chris, he loved a scotch and a smoke." Such hipocritical bullshit from people who bought him a drink when they saw him, even when he was dying. The same people who say drugs are only for the scum, the weak and the stupid. Legalise it all, let us make our own decisions, our own mistakes.

Chet Antonini 4:45 pm, 4-May-2012

For some reason I got emails saying the above three posts were in response to my comment — were they really? @ Nick Excellent job summing up a few of the most glaring realities so diligently ignored by pro drug war people.

Leave a comment

Life image description SABOTAGE

1