Calderon: Let's Talk Legalization

I could not believe the headlines when I read them but in a bold and unexpected move Felipe Calderon said drug legalization should be put on the table for discussion. Previously Calderon had said that proceeding alone on this matter made no sense and that Mex would have to follow the US lead on the matter. As a justification this was a little weak. Ultimately Mexico needs to do what it is in her best interests and while upsetting US is something to be taken into the equation, the option need to be explored especially if the survival of the Mexican Republic was at stake.

Particularly refreshing is the fact that the principal opposition parties, nor even fellow PANistas, took Calderon's honesty as an opportunity to grandstand. Deputies from the PRI, PAN and PRD welcomed the President's call for discussion. Only the relatively insignificant left wing Convergencia took the opportunity to rip into Calderon's initiative calling to citing Mexico's lack of socio-political maturity and development. Not a completely outrageous concern, but not one that should be the end all and be all to this debate.

Legalization needs to be discussed. As I have stated repeatedly, it makes little to no sense for Mexican blood to be spilled for what essentially America's problem. If we were not such a ready and boom market for narcotics, Mexican drug cartels would not be in an all out war with each other and the state. There is a political cost to all this. Obviously any move by the Mexicans to regulate the drug market will draw a severe reaction by the US - that cost needs to be considered. In the end however, I do believe that a Mexican state that regulates narcotics can only hope to be less violent, less corrupt and more stable. There will be social and political costs but none quite as perilous as how the situation now stands. The options before Calderon right now are continuing an all out war with the cartels that he may or may not win or cede to said cartels the riches and control they have gained. It may be that his people find current options to be unpalatable.

Drugs and LA

Drugs, drugs and drugs. If you would lived in LA you would think nothing else matters to US. Can you blame the people of LA for being resentful. We extol the virtues of the market, preach about the importance of free trade and one product that they can produce in abundance and seems to have impressive demand in the US is the one thing that we chastise them for.

In Mexico they recently snagged 10 tons of coke as well as a Sinaloa cartel head but Mexicans are still wary of an anti-drug aid package proposed by W. Meanwhile coca cultivation is ramping up in Ecuador and I don't care what the LAT piece says Correa will run US out eventually and stop cooperating to control the trade. A concern for US is the fact that we are scrambling for a new base in LA without much success.

I don't drink and I don't smoke. I've never touched a narcotic except once or twice in my younger days as friends shared and I happened to be seated between. So no, I did not inhale, exhale or even hale. That being said I say LEGALIZE IT. Stop punishing the cultivators for our sins. Stop encouraging illegal trafficking. Who is to say that those same networks will be used to smuggle in terrorists or even weapons of mass destruction?

In the Tanks: Heritage on Correa

A Heritage Foundation paper by James Roberts points out the similarities between Hugo and Correa - not much new there. All the usual notes are hit, the drive to socialism, the eagerness to rewrite the constitution, tweak the US and kiss Iranian tush. How we stop the lefty Latin slide makes up the last part of the paper:

The U.S. should do the following:

• Reiterate to President Correa that the United States expects Ecuador to continue to respect democratic neighbors, continue cooperation on fighting drug trafficking and international crime, and invest in its own long-term stability and prosperity through policies that favor political and economic free choice;
• Develop new programs to boost personal contact with Americans and counter the armies of Cuban doctors and Venezuelan security advisers streaming into Ecquador;
• Increase support for civil society groups and beef up public diplomacy efforts to strengthen local voices proposing independent solutions to Ecuador's poverty and governance troubles;
• Demonstrate goodwill regarding possible resumption of free trade talks if the situation improves; and
• Redirect security assistance as necessary and adjust strategies if America loses tenant rights at Ecuador's Manta air base for drug interdiction efforts.

All well and good but kind of vague isn't it? I could come up with this stuff and I am not even an expert, although I play one in the blogosphere. Here's one that I would like to see us try - stop bugging our neighbor's to the south about drug trafficking. If there is money in the drug trade it is only because we want it. It's not Shorty's fault that I am 15 lbs. overweight. It is my fault for insisting on getting the full dinner of baby back ribs with a side order of corn on the cob.

I'll discuss more on it later but the Foreign Policy's cover story says it best - Legalize It.

Solving the Drug War

Alvaro Vargas Llosa visits Colombia, finds cocaine cheap and plentiful and comes up with his own ideas on how to solve the problem:

In a country that has made admirable progress on other fronts, the drug war is preventing the government from finishing off the narco-terrorist organizations. Between 2002 and 2005, Uribe’s “democratic security” policy successfully pushed those organizations, especially the Marxist empire known as FARC, away from many cities. There was a one-third drop in the number of murders and a two-thirds drop in the number of terrorist attacks. The economy picked up handsomely. But then a stalemate ensued in the campaign against the terrorists that cannot be attributed only to the country’s jungles. The mafias that owe their existence to the criminalization of cocaine continue to generate enough funds to match every attempt by the government to beef up its military capability.

The frustration is reopening the debate on the drug war. Some politicians are openly calling for decriminalization. Others propose intermediate mechanisms. Analyst Olga Gonzalez says that “in the last 15 years, hundreds of Colombians have been extradited to the United States and hundreds of thousands of hectares have been fumigated, and yet cocaine remains an excellent business. The link between mafias and politics has now reached the upper echelons of power, as the revelations of ‘para-politics’ show.” She recalls that Colombia had a lucrative marijuana trade in the 1970s. When Americans started to grow their own, the Colombian mafias disappeared. Why don’t American laboratories, she asks, continue to develop the synthetic cocaine for which there is already a prototype? Or why don’t Americans develop a genetically modified coca leaf needing less solar radiation and tropical humidity so that consumers can grow it in their balconies?

Actually, all of these solutions would face the barrier of prohibition at the consumer level. And in the case of synthetic cocaine, the real thing is much cheaper to produce—the drug war notwithstanding. The debate that needs to be addressed is the one about decriminalization. The place to open that debate is not Colombia but the United States. No Latin American government could decriminalize drugs unilaterally without incurring the fatal wrath of the United States, exposing its country to ferocious reprisals. A recent example is former Mexican President Vicente Fox’s attempt to sign into law a bill passed by Congress legalizing tiny amounts of certain drugs for personal consumption. When the seven plagues of Egypt fell upon Fox—courtesy of Washington—the conservative president was forced to rethink.

I've Been Meaning to Say That - The Ridiculous Drug War

It is so frustrating day after day reading papers from all over the hemisphere and seeing (reading about) the bodies piling up. I have reached the point where if I am rushed I will ignore any drug killing or cartel corruption story. What angers me most about every narco story is that there we are, the 2 ton elephant in the room that is occaisionally brought out but is more often than not hidden somewhere stage left. That 2 ton elephant is US and our drug policy. A policy that forces other nations to make the difficult decisions. A policy that forces nations with weak institutions and other pressing needs to make our problem their primary concern. It is shameful that the wealthiest nation on the planet should prey on its neighbors in such a manner. We have the drug problem, not Colombia, Peru, Bolivia or Mexico. If there wasn't demand there wouldn't be supply.

Mary Anastacia O'Grady touches on this theme while discussing Evo's plans for Bolivia in todays WSJ. She recaps a lot that I have already linked to here but also discusses Evo's trump card when dealing with the oppo.

Here is O'Grady:

Mr. Chávez had oil revenues to keep the masses happy while he put a noose around democracy. But Evo isn't so fortunate and he can't push through a constitutional coup without popular backing. So to generate support he has relied heavily on his defense of coca growers against a U.S. policy that presses countries in Latin America to destroy their crops.

O'Grady has a great idea on how to short-fuse Evo's radical programs:

Mr. Morales, who badly needs to maintain the appearance of public support so that the international community tolerates his takeover, had to be embarrassed by this outpouring of democratic opposition. He is trying to spin the constitutional crisis as a confrontation between races and economic classes. But he has to worry about places like the poor and largely indigenous city of El Alto, just above La Paz, where there is evidence to suggest that many who voted for him are unhappy with his unlawful intervention in the constitutional process and growing impatient with his failure to deliver on economic promises.

This is where U.S. drug policy comes in. Railing against the Yankees who want to destroy peasant income has proven extremely effective in keeping the Morales base -- the country's indigenous coca growers who brought him to power -- energized and his numbers afloat.

He reaffirmed this last month. As his opposition swelled he suddenly announced that he would authorize a near doubling of the number of hectares that may legally produce coca. Then last week he inaugurated a coca industrialization plant in the province of Cochabamba, financed by his government along with Cuba and Venezuela. According to press reports, Mr. Morales told the Cochabamba crowd that coca "never killed anyone" and that the U.S. "should have a law to do away with drug addicts."

Mr. Morales shouldn't wish too hard for that. If Washington policy makers ever decide to tackle the demand for cocaine and stop blaming supply, Mr. Morales's political career would be in jeopardy.