Posted on 01/14/2016 6:14:34 AM PST by Kaslin
All across America last weekend, panicked drug users rushed to their dealers to stock up on marijuana, heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine for fear of running out. The arrest of Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, head of the biggest drug cartel in Mexico, was sure to cause a sudden shortage of illegal substances in this country.
That's right. And I'm Queen Latifah.
In reality, the capture of the narcotics kingpin is likely to have about as much impact on drug supplies as Martian solar storms do. You wouldn't expect long lines at the gas pump if the CEO of Exxon Mobil were suddenly unavailable, because the company, its retailers and its suppliers would go on functioning.
The same holds for the Sinaloa drug operation. It no doubt has a succession plan -- Guzman was in prison for more than a year before he made a notorious escape last year -- and plenty of experience in dealing with the loss of key managers to murder and other unwanted events. Not many people in the drug trade last long enough to collect a gold watch.
The cartel's vast network of growers, smugglers and retail sellers will continue their operations largely unimpeded. "I have a fleet of submarines, airplanes, trucks and boats," Guzman told Sean Penn shortly before being caught, and they are not going to be parked for the duration.
A bad man who has allegedly killed thousands of people in the course of business is now in custody, where his opportunities for murder will be far more limited. But anyone who expects this welcome development to mark a turning point in the war on drugs has to be smoking something. Fighting this trade is like mowing dandelions. It makes the lawn look better for the moment, but they grow back and keep spreading.
The current issue of The Atlantic has a sobering article by David Epstein, published before Guzman's arrest, on how, in 2005, the Drug Enforcement Administration managed to capture Javier Arellano, who ran another Mexican drug cartel, the Arellano Felix Organization (AFO).
"Javier's arrest would be hailed by officials in the (United) States as a decisive victory in what may have been the longest active case in the DEA's history -- a rare triumph in the War on Drugs," he writes. "'We feel like we've taken the head off the snake,' the agency's chief of operations announced."
But there were plenty more serpents under that rock. "Far from stopping the flow of drugs, taking out the AFO only cleared territory for" (where have I heard this name before?) "Joaquin Guzman Loera -- aka 'El Chapo' -- and his now nearly unstoppable Sinaloa cartel," Epstein reports. "One agent who spent years on the case told me, 'There are more drugs coming across the border than ever.'"
The supply of drugs in the United States is not likely to change because Guzman was caught. The volume of bloodshed in Mexico, however, may -- and not for the better. Anything that disrupts the operations of one cartel creates an opportunity for others to snatch some of its business -- a process that often involves killing rivals in the sadistic ways that distinguish Mexican drug traffickers.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a foreign policy analyst for the libertarian Cato Institute and author of "The Fire Next Door: Mexico's Drug Violence and the Danger to America," tells me, "It could lead to greater disorder and an upsurge of violence after a few years of relative stability."
If we truly want to hurt the major drug traffickers, there is a simple way: legalize the use, sale and production of marijuana. A large share of their revenue comes from cannabis, and the United States is their biggest market. The legalization of recreational weed in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska and the District of Columbia, Carpenter says, "has already put a dent in the revenue flows of the Mexican cartels."
California, which already allows marijuana for medical purposes, is expected to have a ballot initiative in November to legalize it for mere pleasure. If it were to be approved, says Carpenter, the effect on the drug cartels "would be the equivalent of sinking the Titanic." Who would buy illegal pot from El Chapo if they could buy the legal stuff from a reputable American company -- or grow it themselves without fear of going to jail?
El Chapo is someone the Sinaloa cartel can replace. American consumers? Losing those could be fatal.
this may very well be the first time that obama has put the safety of the nation ahead of his won personal financial growth.
Be interesting to see if Sean Penn survives and if the drug cartels give obama a pass.
Executing dealers would put a real damper on the supply side here in the U.S. But since a drugged-up population is easier to control, ain’t gonna happen.
Send him a cake with cyanide in it.
Come on Kaslin, don’t you remember the huge dip in the drug trade when they killed Pablo Escobar? No? Me neither.
Legalizing it would take out a lot of the criminal element, similar to how doing away with Prohibition took away most of the business incentive from criminals. However, I'm sure that would never fly with many people (drugs are bad, which they are, although ironically alcohol and tobacco are drugs as well and kill many more people ...but I digress).
The other option is going after demand rather than supply. The consumer rather than the seller. Kind of how in some jurisdictions the fight against prostitution is to target the John rather than the prostitute. It has worked wonders and usually dries up demand quick once people realize their mugs might be in the local weekly for all to see! Works better than years of arresting the prostitutes.
That would probably not work as well, since many who would be arrested would not be the 'unwanted.' It's one thing if Tyrone from the 'hood with his small bag of crack, or Bubba from the trailer home with his stash of meth, are caught and imprisoned. It's another thing if it's sweet Stacy and her quarterback boyfriend from the high school down the street who are getting arrested for having a packet of weed. People would much rather Tyrone and Bubba go to jail.
So we'll continue going after Supply, and the idea of going after Demand or legalization will be thrown out. We'll thus continue arresting small time drug peddlers, and every now and then getting a bigger fish. And while we do that, drug flows to the US will continue to increase, and money going to the big drug dealers will commensurately increase, and the war on drugs will continue to be a losing battle and another example of Big Government
No matter what is done to supply there will always be someone willing to risk it. The proper target is demand.
“However, the current drug war basically targets supply”
To really go after the supply, let’s say the heroin supply, they’d have to locate and somehow eradicate every current and future crop of opium poppies.
Which is not possible. Or rather, while possible is not probable.
The simple answer to to distribute some full strength drugs to the users instead of the watered down stuff they are sing now.
IMHO, the recent spate of legalization, decriminlization, and sentencing reform is due to just that scenario. Too many of the "right" people are getting caught up in the maw of the criminal justice system, and the Drug War just isn't as much fun as it used to be.
You know, if while sitting in prison he wonders how he could let himself be set up.
Was Penn really working with the DEA?
Good job Sean.
Marijuana is the least problematic, so lets count some of the ways...
 |
 |
 |
Government should be limited, but it should not be in the business of promoting an unhealthy habit. It should be in the business of promoting the industry, efficiency and diligence of its workers.
To do this, it needs to be recognized that the medical marijuana sector takes full advantage of the gray-market and lack of controls of child and adolescent cannabis consumption. This is a war that medical-marijuana has temporarily won.
 |
 |
It is a war of ideas. High Times is a quasi-religious journal.
To engage in a war of ideas,
Legalization will only take us the other way.
They already execute each other, and do so much more expeditiously than our innocent-until-proven-guilty judicial syste4m could ever do. But replacements are always quick to spring up, because thanks to drug criminalization the money's just too good.
This won't work nearly as well for consumer drug transactions, which are much more difficult to detect than prostitution; the former involve a small package that changes hands in seconds, while using a prostitute is a more visible act that takes much longer.
(And does that approach really "dry up demand" for prostitution, or merely relocate it outside the jurisdiction?)
Does government "promote" the unhealthy habits of tobacco and alcohol use by permitting and regulating them? I say no - and that by the same token it does/would not "promote" the unhealthy habit of marijuana use by permitting and regulating it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.