Pubdate: Tue, 28 Feb 2012
Source: Red and Black, The (U of Georgia, GA Edu)
Copyright: 2012 The Red and Black Publishing Co., Inc.
Contact:  http://www.redandblack.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2800
Author: ALINA YUDKEVICH

U.S. HASN'T DONE ITS PART TO CURB MEXICAN WAR ON DRUGS

You're a monster. Every banana you've ever eaten has indirectly 
caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people. How could you? OK, 
that was too much. But there actually is a connection. In 1954, the 
United States organized a covert operation to oust Guatemalan 
president Jacabo Arbenz, who was responsible for a number of land 
reform laws that were especially troubling to the United Fruit 
Company, known today as Chiquita Brands International. The Eisenhower 
administration, including Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and 
his brother, C.I.A director Allen Dulles, owned ample stock in the 
fruit company, which thrives to this day.

McCarthyism made the coup d'etat look like any other anti-communist 
undertaking. And indeed, the U.S. has never hesitated to exert its 
influence on any nation in the Global South that it believes to be on 
the verge of a socialist shift. The point is America has some hefty 
control issues. This does not bode well for the prospect of legal 
drug regulation, which 11 Latin American leaders are now advocating 
["Latin American leaders assail U.S. drug 'market,'" The Washington 
Post, Dec. 19, 2011]. The mere suggestion of Mexico actually 
legalizing drugs would send the Western Hemisphere into a 
military-industrial frenzy faster than you could say, "There's money 
in the banana stand."

Criminalizing drugs puts an unspeakable amount of money and power 
directly into the hands of violent cartels. The United States has 
been more than willing to inadvertently assist these budding 
entrepreneurs, as evidenced by the thousands of guns that flow freely 
from U.S. weapons manufacturers straight into the black market. The 
Mexican police force, it seems, can barely keep track of how many of 
its legally purchased guns have gone missing. Military grade weapons 
seized from drug related crime scenes are routinely traced back to 
the U.S, which may now have yet another economic incentive to keep 
forestalling global dialogue. ["How Mexican killers got US guns from 
'Fast and Furious' operation," Christian Science Monitor, July 26, 2011].

Protection has become a gang-controlled commodity. Don't want your 
bus to explode? Pay up. The law enforcement that hasn't been 
completely bribed and bought off by gangs finds itself utterly 
powerless, especially in the border cities experiencing such an 
excess of violence that they can be considered war-torn ["Mexico's 
Drug War," Council on Foreign Relations, Dec. 13, 2011].

And there is another war is being waged just above that border. The 
War on Drugs has declared battle on American inner cities, a decline 
commonly misattributed to welfare programs. Its policies sustain 
grossly disproportionate incarceration rates for black males, who are 
just as likely to use drugs as any other demographic but 
statistically pay a higher price for it, according to the Sentencing Project.

Paired with our lust for the privatization of prisons, these 
sentencing patterns produce an eerie statistic: the U.S. makes up 5 
percent of the world's general population and 25 percent of its 
incarcerated population ["The prison industry in the United States: 
big business or a new form of slavery?" The Centre for Research on 
Globalization, March 10, 2008]. Decriminalizing drugs in the U.S, 
Canada, and Mexico and establishing a pharmaceutical mode of 
production would ensure safety standardization, heightened tax 
revenue and lower drug prices, which would eventually drive cartels 
out of business.

Opponents of the idea cite unsubstantiated concerns. Look at 
Portugal, which has the most liberal drug policy in the European 
Union. After decriminalizing drugs - including cocaine, heroine, and 
methamphetamines - and opting instead to provide counseling and 
health services to those found in possession, the rate of drug use 
and needle-transmitted HIV infection decreased significantly among 
all age groups, save for a slight jump in marijuana usage among those 
18 and older ["Decriminalizing Drugs in Portugal a Success, Says 
Report," TIME, April 26, 2009].

North America won't necessarily have the same success story. But the 
Portugal case study does more to dissipate fears of 
legalization-induced consumption spikes than researchers had hoped possible.

It also raises a troubling question. Where have all the brave 
politicians gone? President Barack Obama endorsed decriminalization 
in 2004, yet he voted against it in 2008 ["Obama Campaign Retracts 
Statement Supporting Decriminalization," NORML, Feb. 8, 2008].

In a stifling two-party system, true libertarian candidates merely 
get shafted one election after another. It's the fear of a 
foreign-imposed agenda which sustains the flow of arms and contraband 
over the U.S-Mexican border. The U.S. was Canada's Mexico in terms of 
violence and corruption during Prohibition, while Canadian liquor 
production flourished like never before. Apparently, that wasn't 
enough of a lesson.

It's tough to admit defeat, but this pride is to a fault. And it's 
embarrassing.

Amidst escalating violence, the perpetuation of racial inequality and 
failed policies that do nothing but drive our debt and protect the 
livelihood of private prison companies, we stick our heads in the 
sand and tell the rest of the world not to worry, that we'll see 'em 
again when we're victorious.

But at this rate, we never will be.

- - Alina Yudkevich is a senior from Marietta majoring in film studies 
and advertising
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart