An American living in Mexico questions Conor's focus on the violence south of the border:

The violence of the border towns is terrible, but it is as far from us as it is from, maybe, Dallas. I don't want to minimize the drug violence nor the violence against journalists. It is the subject of much concern among Mexicans, obviously. But not because there is drug violence throughout the country. We have crime here: robberies, thefts, occasional murders, extortion, pick-pocketing. Less than many areas of the US, but nothing to sneeze at. However, it does not make the area frightening, any more than living say in suburban Boston would be frightening (and I don't mean in the rough suburbs). [...] These states of the north and west mainly have a long history of drug business. Just like some suburbs of Washington DC or parts of St. Louis have a long history of being involved in the drug business. It isn't new and just like in DC and in the St. Louis area, it isn't everywhere.

My description is too simple. But the web of problems caused by Nafta and trade policy and the US attitudes toward Mexico and Mexicans and US actions on the border and concerning drugs and guns are really deforming efforts to make life better for ordinary Mexicans. Not only does the US not help, but the little crowd of extraordinarily wealthy Mexicans doesn't either. Mexico is not a failed state, and it is hard to imagine it becoming one. However, the narco obsession means that many of its problems, really those of a poorish country being exploited by wealthy foreigners and locals, are not being addressed.

It would be strange, but it might just be true, that Mexico's border region is becoming a bigger problem for the U.S. than for Mexico. Though nothing's certain, the PRI -- the party that has ruled Mexico for most of seventy years -- hopes to recapture power and reverse President Felipe Calderon's costly war on the cartels. That would mark a return to Mexico's longstanding status quo:

Mexican drug gangs under the PRI had to follow strict rules. They were supposed to act discreetly, spurn kidnapping, avoid killing civilians and not encroach on another cartel's turf.

"If in fact the cartels broke the rules of the game, the PRI had the capacity to come down on them like a ton of bricks" [...].

It isn't a terrible idea to ask ourselves: say the Mexican drug war ends, in two years, in a Mexican surrender. What then?

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

Kenneth
Joined
Jul '10
Kenneth

They wouldn't have a drug war if we simply abandoned our own futile "war on drugs" and regulated sales.

Kennedy Smith
Joined
May '10
Kennedy Smith

Bingo, Kenneth. We shouldn't even have a drug war. Total waste of money and resources. Leave people alone. I, personally, have never smoked a doobie, but it has to be less harmful than booze, and if the National Review is cool with it, so am I.

River
Joined
Aug '10
River

We are to blame for this, largely. Our hunger for poison - those drugs - is killing us in every way. Wealth never satisfies, nor pleasure alone.

Lincoln said:

"At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

Kennedy Smith
Joined
May '10
Kennedy Smith

Exactly, River. More a problem of demand than supply. But that's a universal human condition.

Steven Potter
Joined
Aug '10
Steven Potter

I can't say I agree with the libertarian impulse to scrap the war on drugs. I won't defend every aspect of it, but allowing drug cartels to use "mules" to sneak their drugs into the country, or have their drug growing operations running in our national parks is not acceptable to me. Not to mention the violence that follows it. That's just as much a national security issue as anything else.

Society should do more to stigmatize the use of drugs, help people that deal with the addiction, or teach the younger generations to have the courage to stay away from drug use. I get the impression the zeitgeist seems to be "Hey, it isn't hurting you so it's not your problem."

Kennedy Smith
Joined
May '10
Kennedy Smith

Well, quite, Steven (hey, we got a drug legalization thread!). As noted, I don't use (illegal) drugs meself. But the whole point is that we wouldn't have gang wars and people smuggling drugs into the country and prison overpopulation if we just legalized it.

Steven Potter
Joined
Aug '10
Steven Potter
Kennedy Smith: Well, quite, Steven (hey, we got a drug legalization thread!). As noted, I don't use (illegal) drugs meself. But the whole point is that we wouldn't have gang wars and people smuggling drugs into the country and prison overpopulation if we just legalized it. · Aug 20 at 2:18pm

I'll have to disagree. There will always be a desire to undercut the official channels. Cut out the middle-man; make a greater profit. Power and greed are always potent motivators, especially for the type of people that are the movers in the drug trade.

I find it hard to believe I'd see gangs (at least those related to drug trafficking) and cartels deciding to go legit if we made it so. The only legit side of legalized drugs would be that which the government was involved in (to the extent that the government would stay clean [no pun intended]). And, I don't think the government should be involved in drugs.

Edited on Aug 20, 2010 at 2:55pm
James Poulos, Ed.

Steven Potter

Kennedy Smith: Well, quite, Steven (hey, we got a drug legalization thread!). As noted, I don't use (illegal) drugs meself. But the whole point is that we wouldn't have gang wars and people smuggling drugs into the country and prison overpopulation if we just legalized it. · Aug 20 at 2:18pm

I'll have to disagree. There will always be a desire to undercut the official channels. Cut out the middle-man; make a greater profit. Power and greed are always potent motivators, especially for the type of people that are the movers in the drug trade.

This is why one prominent pro-legalization approach is to start by simply decriminalizing pot. There seems little doubt that this would make for a significant but reasonably controlled change.

Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Joined
Aug '10
Midget Faded Rattlesnake

Kennedy Smith: if the National Review is cool with it, so am I.

That's a pretty good T-shirt slogan.

Kennedy Smith
Joined
May '10
Kennedy Smith

I see your point, Steven, but I disagree with your idea that gangs would turn their efforts to other purposes. They wouldn't have a profit center. No profit, no bidness.

Steven Potter
Joined
Aug '10
Steven Potter
Kennedy Smith: I see your point, Steven, but I disagree with your idea that gangs would turn their efforts to other purposes. They wouldn't have a profit center. No profit, no bidness. · Aug 20 at 4:13pm

I guess I wasn't clear. I don't think gangs would do anything different than they already do. They'd keep selling drugs illegally. Just because it would become legal doesn't mean any of their business would go away. That's just my take.

Kennedy Smith
Joined
May '10
Kennedy Smith

Their bidness would become less profitable. Otherwise they'd be running liquor stores by now. And not spraying bullets. Though obviously, people of good conscience disagree.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In