Legalizing Drugs Won't Stop Mexico's Brutal Cartels

Like all good multinational businesses, they've diversified.

BY ELIZABETH DICKINSON | JUNE 22, 2011

But as the government cracked down in recent years, the cartels got more creative. In June 2010, Mexican authorities put strict limits on how much cash any individual could deposit into a bank on any given day or in any given month. They also limited the amount of cash one could use to buy things like airplanes or cars. So the cartels started engaging in actual trade, which helps them launder their drug profits, explains Shannon O'Neil, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. They buy consumer goods, such as televisions and perfumes, in the United States and sell them on the Mexican side at a loss. The revenues are "clean" money. And as a bonus, the cartels have a network of vendors ready and willing to sell illicit goods.

Other markets are entirely separate from the narcotics business. Perhaps the most dramatic example is oil, one of Mexico's largest exports and increasingly a vehicle for illicit trade. On June 1, the country's national oil company, Pemex, filed a lawsuit accusing nine U.S. companies of colluding with criminals linked to the drug trade to sell as estimated $300 million worth of stolen oil since 2006. That's an amount equal to the entire cocaine market in Mexico, says UNODC's Mazzitelli. In other words, if the cocaine trade dried up, the cartels would still have access to an equally large source of revenue.

Equally troubling is the firearms trade, which has a direct link both to the violence and to the sustainment of the criminal organizations working across this country of 107 million. There are no reliable estimates of just how big this market is, but according to a recent U.S. Senate investigation, some 87 percent of the weapons used by the cartels are sourced from the United States. "If this were Southeast Asia, they'd be bombing the gun stores in Arizona, as if that's the Ho Chi Minh trail," says Ted Lewis, head of the human rights program at Global Exchange.

Mexico's cartels have also infiltrated the government and security forces, though primarily at a local level. "Just going by all the reports -- academic and media -- we could safely assume that all municipal police departments are infiltrated," argues Walter McKay, a security consultant who has spent the last three years working in Mexico. "But it's not just the police. We focus on police and police corruption, but the entire apple is rotten." In the latest example of how high the rot goes, the ex-mayor of Tijuana, Jorge Hank Rhon, was recently arrested for gunrunning and alleged links to organized crime.

Then there is the cartels' sheer size. An estimated 468,000 people worked in the drug trade in 2008, making the cartels collectively among the biggest industries in Mexico. (By comparison, the state oil company, the largest firm in Mexico, has about 360,000 employees.) The cartels also now outnumber the police, estimated at just over 400,000 personnel nationwide in 2010.

The corruption and weakness of the police explains why, over the last half-decade, Calderón has deployed 50,000 troops across the country to decapitate the cartels' leadership and reclaim their territory block by block. Take away a criminal organization's leadership and turf, the thinking goes, and you also rob it of the ability to control just about every market -- not just the narcotics trade. Just on Tuesday, June 21, the government apprehended José de Jesús "El Chango" Méndez, leader of the so-called "Knights Templar" cartel. Calderón quickly touted the arrest as a "coup by the federal police against organized crime" on Twitter.

Yet critics of the government's strategy say it has been far too militarized. Violence has increased every year since the drug war began, and many civil society groups here accuse the national security forces of hurting as many civilians as they do actual criminals. And even "success" risks a "balloon effect," as a cartel squeezed in one location will almost inevitably pop up elsewhere. This effect is already painfully visible in Latin America as a whole, with Mexican cartels such as the Zetas moving into Guatemala and overwhelming the much-weaker state.

Many activists are thus calling for a completely new approach. Silvano Cantú, a researcher at the Mexican Commission for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights, argues that Mexico needs to think bigger than trying to win back its turf city by city. "We need to be talking to everyone," he says, mentioning the United States, Colombia, Europe, and "anywhere they clean money and buy arms." The government, too, is frustrated with the guns; cutting down on the sale in the United States is one of the Calderón administration's key demands.

The legalizers, a group that includes former heads of state from Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico, largely agree with this comprehensive approach. Trying to cut supply without cutting demand is a losing game, they argue. "The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world," they wrote in the most recent report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, an independent panel that has called for a dramatic rethinking of the drug war. Their recommendations call for the normalization of drugs (that is, legalization of possession linked with public-health regulation), including cocaine.

That would almost certainly hurt the cartels, but it probably wouldn't be enough, counters Mazzitelli of the UNODC. "Legalization is a fake solution to the problem of security," he argues, citing a 2010 Rand Corp. report that found that legalizing marijuana in California would cut cartel profits by just 2 to 4 percent. If it does come, legalization is also quite a ways off -- and Mexico's crisis is happening now. Only about half of U.S. citizens polled last year by Gallup supported legalizing marijuana, the least lucrative (and arguably the least dangerous) drug entering the country from Mexico.

If legalization is out and sending in the Army doesn't work, what's left? Among the most popular alternative ideas floating around Mexican civil society is that of creating "citizen security" -- empowering local communities to resist organized crime. That means not only improving policing but also reintroducing the state in other ways, through education, economic opportunity, and a judicial system that investigates and punishes crime, explains Edgar Cortez, a researcher for the Mexican Institute of Human Rights and Democracy.

The broken justice system is unquestionably part of the problem. Mexico has a poor record of holding criminals to account for all manner of improper activity -- from trafficking to homicide to regular old theft. "You have all these arrests and more than 40,000 deaths, but we don't have anybody arrested and investigated successfully," says McKay, the security consultant. Most police departments in the United States and Canada, he notes, have an 80 to 90 percent "solve rate" of finding the alleged perpetrator. "In Mexico it's almost zero." It's no coincidence that crime rates of almost every kind are up, according to the Mexican government's own data. Extortion, bank robbery, kidnapping, and armed robbery have all risen dramatically since 2006.

The sheer amount of progress needed to stop the cartels is daunting. But Cantú, the human rights researcher, chooses to remain optimistic. "We have to put forward alternative options," he argues. "We have to call upon the people to have hope."

YURI CORTEZ/AFP/Getty Images

 

Elizabeth Dickinson is a freelance journalist and former assistant managing editor at Foreign Policy.

SAM FROM CALIFORNIA

7:31 PM ET

June 22, 2011

Not a zero sum game

Of course legalizing pot and cocaine, even opium wouldn't kill the cartels outright, but it would cut off their single biggest cash supply. Like the Italian mafia after prohibition, they will continue to exist but they will simply not be nearly as lucrative as before. Sure, they will go into other trades, but the reason that they are in the drug trade now is because costs are low and profits are huge.

Community policing would, as the article suggests, help too, but the problem is also economic. More opportunities for the poor and working classes must exist in Mexico-this would not only lure them away from the drug trade, but make the American working class happy by reducing the incentive to immigrate. And these opportunities cannot be low-wage mass assembly plants for the US market, they need to be good jobs.

Either way, the locals have never been empowered in Mexico, and this has been one of the long struggles of Mexican history-trying to empower the campesinos and weaken the latifundistas and militarists. This was what drove peasants to join Zapata's armies, support Cardenas and push for the Ejido program, but their interests have been ignored for decades now and their supporters have been marginalized as dangerous.

 

RMDUENAS

8:07 AM ET

June 23, 2011

Comments better than the article

I totally agree with Sam of California, who seems to have a much better grasp of the whole situation than Ms. Dickinson.

First of all, many of those advocating for legalization hope to see it in countries where violence has become a problem beyond control, not in the US. Legalization alone would not be enough, but it would help immensely by cutting the flow of huge amounts to cartels, by forcing them to be fiscally accountable; it would generate revenue for the governments to create jobs and treat health problems related to drug addictions among other things and, most importantly, it would decrease the level of violence immediately and enormously.

Granted, there will still be mafias in other sectors, which would have to be fought by the establishment of new security forces, as ALL enforcement bodies in Mexico, including the Army and the Navy, have been "infiltrated" by the cartels.

Mexico also needs to work on a better application of its judicial framework to reduce impunity but, above all, Mexico needs to create better education and employment opportunities for its citizens, so they will not be tempted to go into illicit activities or cross the border into the US in search of better lives. And jobs at maquiladoras will certainly not do the trick anymore.

The situation is complex and the problems are many, but legalization would certainly be a huge first step towards a solution. If, with or without the help of the US, Mexico and other Latin American countries legalized drugs (at least its transport, as some propose), then the US would be left alone to face the reality of drug abuse in its own turf and to attempt its own solutions.

 

RMDUENAS

8:17 AM ET

June 23, 2011

P.S.

I have not heard many people in Mexico advocating the idea of "creating "citizen security" -- empowering local communities to resist organized crime." On the contrary, I have heard the civil society requesting accountability from the president for not being able to provide security to its citizens, when it is his and his government responsibility to do so, not that of the citizens.

Furthermore, implementing any kind of "citizen security" is a very dangerous proposal. We do not have to look any further than Colombia, where the "paramilitares" are probably a bigger headache nowadays than the FARC or the drug traffickers themselves. Unfortunately, this type of "private force" has started to sprung, mainly among entrepreneurs in the North of the country, in an attempt to protect their companies an assets, task at which the Mexican government continues to demonstrate is incapable of fulfilling.

 

JUAN DAHLMANN

8:11 PM ET

June 22, 2011

U.S. Domestic Marijuana Production

You only really address a study on marijuana legalization in California, which claims (no doubt correctly) that the state's legalization of Marijuana would have almost no effect on the cartels' profits. The reason this is the case, though, is that California is the world's leading producer of marijuana (both in terms of quantity and quality), and only a tiny fraction of the state's users purchase marijuana from illicit dealers supplied by the cartels. The cartels' considerable profits on marijuana sales most likely come from states with much stricter policies on its use, and where citizens don't have the option of purchasing higher quality, legal "medicinal" marijuana grown in state. Even though Proposition 19 failed in the last election, the low to nonexistent barriers to access to medicinal pot means that the de facto state of affairs here in California is legalization.

I don't think you really address what the actual effects of widespread drug legalization in Mexico would be. I doubt it would lead to the dissolution of the cartels in and of itself, but I would imagine that alleviating the militarized conditions in which drug groups operate might have some effect on the level of violence in the North. The integration (or usurpation, even) of these criminal groups into the mainstream economy of Mexico has the potential to destabilize the country either way, but I think you dismiss a program of legalization too easily.

 

JUAN DAHLMANN

8:12 PM ET

June 22, 2011

Full Disclosure

I work at a Cannabis dispensary.

 

MARCOS EL MALO

8:26 AM ET

June 23, 2011

Supporting Links?

Do you have anything to back up your documentation that CA is the leading producer of Marijuana? I'm most interested in the question of quantity; quality of the product is a tangent to this discussion.

An important part of your supporting documentation should be the methodology, since its difficult to have any certainty when measuring a product in a clandestine market.

I have heard that Marijuana is the #1 or #2 cash crop of California before. I've also heard that CA is the leading producer. I have yet to see anything approaching proof, however.

 

SHANEJAX

9:11 AM ET

June 23, 2011

@Marcos

Really? I'm not sure how you would go about documenting something that by it's nature is probably at least minimally hidden. I'm sure the local growers in Cali don't trust the Federal government so I am also sure there is no way to legitimately quantify the amount of weed being grown in California. Not to mention private growers that might have no record keeping of any kind. However given the fact that Pot is de facto legal there, California is the most populous state in America and its population is pretty socially liberal I can pretty much guarantee that California is the leading domestic producer of Marijuana.

 

SHANEJAX

9:05 AM ET

June 23, 2011

Simple Propaganda

Ridiculous article with silly arguments. Taking away the cartels biggest source of funds by legalizing drugs in their biggest market would definitely hurt the cartels badly. It would also give Mexico new Federal funds to fight the territorial mafia that charge everyone for protection. The reasoning that by the US Federal governments always incredibly accurate measurement (of anything really, but in this case the estimate of cocaine) that legalizing all drugs wouldn't end the cartels is ludicrous. First, no one other than the cartels has any real grasp on how much money they made by shipping cocaine. Second, the demand for any current illicit drug would be first supplied from US sources if it was legalized in all the states. Third, Mexico has created its own problems by making firearms illegal to own unless you are part of the security forces, the corrupt security forces or a criminal. So ordinary citizens have no means to protect themselves against criminal elements. Maybe not such a large problem if your nation is pretty good about following law and order but for a country like Mexico it's a huge problem. Government can not protect its citizens from every day criminal activity only citizens can do that.

 

SHANEJAX

9:05 AM ET

June 23, 2011

Simple Propaganda

Ridiculous article with silly arguments. Taking away the cartels biggest source of funds by legalizing drugs in their biggest market would definitely hurt the cartels badly. It would also give Mexico new Federal funds to fight the territorial mafia that charge everyone for protection. The reasoning that by the US Federal governments always incredibly accurate measurement (of anything really, but in this case the estimate of cocaine) that legalizing all drugs wouldn't end the cartels is ludicrous. First, no one other than the cartels has any real grasp on how much money they made by shipping cocaine. Second, the demand for any current illicit drug would be first supplied from US sources if it was legalized in all the states. Third, Mexico has created its own problems by making firearms illegal to own unless you are part of the security forces, the corrupt security forces or a criminal. So ordinary citizens have no means to protect themselves against criminal elements. Maybe not such a large problem if your nation is pretty good about following law and order but for a country like Mexico it's a huge problem. Government can not protect its citizens from every day criminal activity only citizens can do that.

 

RANDAL

10:17 AM ET

June 23, 2011

Rather silly article

As others have noted, it's obvious that removing the massive ongoing injection of funds from organised crime won't mean that organised crime will disappear overnight, but it does mean that, over time, it will reduce back towards the "background" level that it had before drugs prohibition put it on steroids.

What is it with Americans and prohibition? They learned their lesson, supposedly, the hard way with alcohol (other nations seemed not to need to learn the hard way, but never mind that), and then proceeded to ignore what they ought to have learned by slapping prohibition onto whatever other recreational substances they could find.

Now they seem incapable of getting the political momentum together to start to undo the damage they've done to themselves and around the world.

 

RAYG

11:10 AM ET

June 23, 2011

Cocaine

This only mentions cocaine... Most of the money is made from cannabis and a lot of coke users have probably moved onto meth...

Legalization would not stop organized crime but it would probably help a lot just as it did when the first prohibition ended.

It obviously doesn't work and just allows cartels to flourish because of the astronomical profits of growing a plant

 

MBL740

11:39 AM ET

June 23, 2011

Very Strange Logic

If we were to apply Ms. Dickinson's argument to the era of Prohibition of alcohol we would then continue with the fight against "Demon Rum" while Al Capone rejoiced. WE made the mafia what it is today by giving illegal alcohol a price magnitudes greater that what it before Prohibition and what it sank to after Prohibition. Using Ms. Dickinson's logic we should not have legalized alcohol because it would have already been too late to affect the criminal gangs that Prohibition spawned in the first place. If we continued our "war on alcohol" as we have done for the last 40 years against drugs then Mr.Capone and friends would be the world's biggest financial and industrial enterprise today. Maybe second only to crude oil.

Have you ever heard of turf wars for alcohol today? Have we experienced a St.Valentine's Day Massacre sine the end of Prohibition? Do we see daily massacres in Mexico and around the world for drugs?

Stop this lethal absurdity and come to grips with the reality and problems that legalized drugs will bring--- just as we have done with legalized alcohol --- to our society today.

 

DREGSTUDIOS

2:22 PM ET

June 23, 2011

War is Over (if you want it)

The War on Drugs failed $1 Trillion ago! This money could have been used for outreach programs to clean up the bad end of drug abuse by providing free HIV testing, free rehab, and clean needles. Harmless drugs like marijuana could be legalized to help boost our damaged economy. Cannabis can provide hemp for countless natural recourses and the tax revenue from sales alone would pull every state in our country out of the red! Vote Teapot, PASS IT, and legalize it. Voice you opinion with the movement and read more on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2011/01/vote-teapot-2011.html

 

COFFIE

3:20 PM ET

June 23, 2011

legalization is a personal choice

Legalization will take away another business from the shadows. There will be one less thing to worry about. Put weed in official status, it will work better... I do not see any other relevant way of addressing it.

It might be uncomfortable, especially due to its ethical component. But I do not see any other way of addressing drug trade than legalizing weed.

Of course, there have to be other measures put in place as well, see Sam from California's comments.

I can't fathom why is the "War on drugs" still called that. Its current status is closer to a miserable failure and resource sink, than a successful program. I would rather address weapons trade or hard drugs, than put people to chase teenagers.

I don't smoke weed not because I can't find it... it is as easy to find as anything else. But I saw how some of my friends smoked too much and are doing miserable now.

Once again. It might be uncomfortable to legalize weed at first, especially due to its ethical component. But I do not see how not-legalizing it does anything worthwhile. I do not see any other way of addressing drug trade than legalizing weed.

 

RMDUENAS

8:22 AM ET

June 24, 2011

Clarification

Legalizing drugs is not a personal choice, but consuming them indeed is.
When a government legalizes drugs, its gives its citizens freedom to decide whether they want to consume them or not, without the risk and fear of ending in prison. Most importantly, legalization brings order and accountability for all those participating and involved in the activity, and thus reduces criminal behaviors.

 

JOEYFOTO.FR

3:30 PM ET

June 23, 2011

Legalizing drugs won't stop Mexico's brutal cartels... Duh...

Of course, legalizing drugs won't end Mexico's brutal criminal enterprises. Did legalizing alcohol put the Mafia out of business? These cartel-scum are a permanent artifact of a century of ill-concieved American drug policy. They won't disband because we eliminate their primary source of income.

As someone who lived in California and in Mexico in the 1960s, I have witnessed the Mexican drug suppliers evolve from family enterprises, that turned simple agricultural products and primitive chemical operations info family fortunes, into the deranged products of competition and corruption that we see today. In order to pursue "drug war," since 1970, California has built more prisons than universities — the state's future is a reflection of that decision to collaborate in madness.

As someone who directed a syringe exchange program in California for over 20 years (1989 - 2010), I have seen the drugs and the dealers get progressively worse while the social damage that they do spread across the country, according to the simple calculus of poverty and opportunity.

As someone who lives in Europe and has on-and-off over a long period, I know that countries with more intelligent drug policies (eg. NL, CH, Portugal) have more manageable drug problems. America has the worst drug problem in the world, BECAUSE America has the worst drug policy in the world. The malignant arrogance and lack of realism of US drug-policies have degraded the Western hemisphere, as they are set to infect Africa as we speak.

In my opinion, no one who has witnessed or intellectually examined this half-century of bad policy, could support drug prohibition unless they profited from repression or from the corruption that it the inevitable consequence of repression in places without social controls — which includes the entire third-world and most of the United States.

Drug War empowers the worst — i.e. the most repressive, intrusive and anti-democratic — elements in society. As such, it is a permanent fixture of degenerate American culture. Any society, that truly desires liberty, must learn to resist this neo-fascist force. Sadly, it is easier to accept the false security of an obviously failed policy that it is to demonstrate the courage to examine the consequence of a lie.

 

DR. SARDONICUS

8:38 PM ET

June 23, 2011

As John Black would put it...

Washington D.C. is famous for mass-producing laughable justifications for its latest (or longest-standing) kleptoclatura scams After all, D.C. suburbs boast some of the richest counties in a nation otherwise on the brink of ruin. At least a well-laundered minimum of that institutionalized rip-off had to wind up somewhere, and professionals had to be well paid to come up with justifications and excuses for it in ever-renewed profusion.

But I think yours is in a class of mind-boggling meathead all by itself.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. After generations of failure to do the right thing for stupid and/or covetous and/or totalitarian reasons, acting intelligently wouldn't really pay off all that well? Really? "We have been idiots for so long that it is too late to start acting smart?"

Congratulations for dreaming up this idiots' dream of a justification. Yours is bound to turn into a thriving cottage industry inside the Beltway, where idiot dreams take weekly flight into permanent policy.

Kindly overdub John Black's apoplectic growl, Quasimodo hunch and lyrical timing: "HAVE you LOST your (...) MIND?"

 

COWPUCK

11:10 PM ET

June 23, 2011

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

otherwise it is drug company lobby.
just one of many strategies to keep underclass where they are.
many prison/'criminal justice' expanding jobs for uncle Louie people. lock people up. produce much paperwork. write many grants. invent more fines. fool the public.

member of LEAP

 

JIBRAN_PCC

2:40 AM ET

June 25, 2011

Have you ever heard of turf

Have you ever heard of turf wars for alcohol today? Have we experienced a St.Valentine's Day Massacre BrainwaveEntrainment sine the end of Prohibition? Do we see daily massacres in Mexico and around the world for drugs?

 

JIBRAN_PCC

2:42 AM ET

June 25, 2011

What is it with Americans and

What is it with Americans and prohibition? They learned their lesson, supposedly, the hard way with alcohol BrainwaveEntrainment (other nations seemed not to need to learn the hard way, but never mind that), and then proceeded to ignore what they ought to have learned by slapping prohibition onto whatever other recreational substances they could find.

 

MALCOLMKYLE

10:05 AM ET

June 27, 2011

Who is paying you?

Mrs Dickinson, you're lack of basic knowledge on this subject is beyond credibility; who on earth is paying you to write such utter garbage? Prohibition engendered black market profits are obscenely huge. Remove this and you remove the ability to bribe or threaten any government official or even whole governments. The argument that legalized regulation won't severely cripple organized crime is truly bizarre. Of course, the bad guys won't just disappear, but if you severely diminish their income, you also severely diminish their power. The proceeds from theft, extortion, pirated goods etc. are a drop in the ocean compared to what can be earned by selling prohibited/unregulated drugs in a black market estimated to be worth 400,000 million dollars. Without the lure and power of so much easy capital, it's also very unlikely that new criminal enterprises will ever fill the void left by those you then can successfully disrupt or entirely eradicate.

When we legally regulate something, (as opposed to when we foolishly attempt to prohibit something) we do NOT automatically condone it's use; the legal regulations concerning the sale and manufacture of alcohol and tobacco are there to protect us from the vast increase in criminality and mayhem that would otherwise surely exist if we were foolish enough to prohibit them.

Nicotine is the biggest killer of all known drugs, but it's sale is legally regulated. Now why is that? Alcohol Prohibition in the United States made cigarette smoking a national habit. High on the evangelicals' hit list, second only to alcohol as a substance that had to be prohibited. In 1921, cigarettes were illegal in fourteen states, and anti-cigarette bills were pending in twenty-eight others. The prohibition of cigarettes, promoted by the very people who gave us the prohibition of alcohol, made cigarette smoking almost irresistible. As the experiment of Prohibition failed, the anti-cigarette laws fell. By 1930, they were legal almost everywhere; during Prohibition, the consumption of tobacco had nearly tripled.

An important aspect of Individual freedom is the right to self-medicate, or to do with yourself as you please as long as your actions cause no unnecessary suffering or direct harm to others. Some among us may disagree with this, and they should be free to believe what they wish. But the moment they are willing to use force (paid for with our own hard-earned taxes) to impose their will on the rest of us, is the exact same moment that the petty criminals/dealers, the Mafia, drug barons, terrorists and corrupt government officials/agencies enter the equation. The problems created by any possible self-harm then rapidly pale into insignificance as society spirals downwards into a dark abyss, while the most shady characters and black-market corporate entities exponentially enrich themselves in a feeding frenzy likened to that of piranhas on 'prohibition engendered' bath-tub meth.

Every-time the ghastly consequences of prohibition are falsely blamed on the users, it diminishes the culpability of those who are truly responsible for maintaining the status quo. Prohibition is an absolute scourge -the end! The use of drugs is NOT the real problem, the system that grants exclusive distribution rights to violent cartels and terrorists IS.

When governments prohibit drugs they effectively and knowingly hand a monopoly on their sale to dangerous criminals and terrorists. Without a legal framework in which to operate, these black-market entities can always be expected to settle their disputes violently, while terrorizing many peaceful and innocent citizens in the process. Were the users of alcohol to blame for the St Valentines massacre in 1929? Of course not! It is just as naive to assume that one can compel all the users of Marijuana or Cocaine to simply quit, as it is to assume that all the users of Alcohol should have stopped drinking after the introduction of alcohol prohibition in 1919.

Nobody can be expected to obey bad laws, like ones that infringe on logic as well as the fundamental right to decide on what medicine or poison an individual adult may, or may not, ingest. The corruption, violence and death ultimately arising from such bad public policy should always rest squarely on the shoulders of those ignorant imbeciles who are responsible for implementing and supporting such foolishness.

Prohibition is nothing less than a grotesque dystopian nightmare; if you support it you must be either ignorant, stupid, brainwashed, insane or corrupt.

“The greater the number of laws, the more corrupt the republic.” Tacitus

 

ISMAAKEEL

12:49 PM ET

July 7, 2011

Drug traffic will never end

From my point of view , drug traffic will never end because very often it's the high profile people in the society who are somehow associated with the criminals .here in my country , we can hear almost every year politicians getting caught in cases of drug ,weapon traffic etc .
PHP Jquery

 

VALENE231

1:10 PM ET

July 22, 2011

Legalizing Drugs Won't Stop Mexico's Brutal Cartels

Like all good multinational businesses, they've diversified. Ridiculous article with silly arguments. Taking away the cartels biggest source of funds by legalizing drugs in their biggest market would definitely hurt the cartels badly. It would also give Mexico new Federal funds to fight the territorial mafia that charge everyone for protection. The reasoning that by the US Federal governments always incredibly accurate measurement (of anything really, but i crm Legalizing drugs is not a personal choice, but consuming them indeed is. When a government legalizes drugs, its gives its citizens freedom to decide whether they want to consume them or not, without the risk and fear of ending in prison. Most importantly, legalization brings order and accountability for all those participating and involved in the activity, and thus reduces criminal behaviors..