DOLLARS NOT ANSWER TO DRUG LORDS

After Barack Obama and Mexico president Felipe Calderon met on Jan.
13, Obama promised that the United States would take stronger action
to stem the flow of weapons smuggled into Mexico that find their way
into the hands of drug lords.

This is not the first time such promises have been made. More dollars
flow into the problem, more deaths follow and there is no decline in
criminal activity.

Calderon and George W. Bush had already worked out a $1.4-billion
security aid package, known as the Merida Initiative, for Mexico to
get aircraft, high-tech scanning gear, safety equipment and training
in their fight against drug cartels and organized crime.

Congress approved the first $400 million last year. Obama supported
the measure. Calderon's conventional approach to taking down the
cartels, much like that in Colombia, led to more than 5,400 deaths in
Mexico last year, about double that of the previous year.

Neuroscience evidence gives us reason to stem the use of
mind-altering, non-medicinal drugs. Brain scans show that a druggy
gets a gnarled brain, much like that of an elderly Alzheimer's patient.

Still, the War on Drugs initiated during the Nixon administration
nearly 35 years ago has led to policies and programs that also seem to
come from gnarled brains. On Jan. 6 the city council in El Paso,
Texas, approved an amendment to a resolution by its border committee
"supporting an honest, open national debate on ending the prohibition
on narcotics."

The original intent of the resolution, introduced by member Robert
O'Rourke, a state representative, was to express solidarity with
neighboring Ciudad Juarez, which is suffering a crime war involving
two or more cartels for control of the drug corridor into the United
States.

Mexican local, state and federal police forces and their military are
all engaged in battles with criminals. U.S. enforcement is itching to
get involved into some skirmishes from this side also.

The resolution asked Congress to consider a U.S. drug policy from a
point of view other than emphasizing drug interdiction and the
imprisonment of people who sell and use illegal drugs.

El Paso Mayor John Cook vetoed the resolution. The council tried to
override the mayor's objection.

The resolution raises a fair question about the spreading
crisis.

At some point we have to begin asking, how do we take drugs away from
criminal gangs and diminish U.S. demand? Our national drug habit has
already wreaked havoc on some nations and is threatening others.

Here in Texas, public discussion jars some political sensibilities.
U.S. Rep. Sylvestre Reyes,who chairs the U.S. House Intelligence
Committee whose district includes El Paso, asked the council to uphold
the mayor's veto and assure that its effort wouldn't impede the
federal approach in the region.

Five state representatives from the area expressed concern that state
agencies and legislators would understand the council's resolution as
supporting drug legalization.

Local law enforcement and program interests, they added, would see
themselves "in jeopardy, especially during a time when state resources
are scarce." In other words, worsening the problem is actually better
for jobs and funding than looking into alternative ways to solve a
deadly reality.

These are the clearest statements yet saying that keeping the money
flowing into a failed approach is more important than the cost in
lives and effectiveness.

The council split 4-4 on the mayor's veto.

The issue boils down to drugs, guns and guts.

It's becoming increasingly obvious that too much of our leadership
only knows how to throw money at a problem.

It is unwilling to consider, an "open, honest, national dialogue on
ending the prohibition of narcotics" as the resolution called for by
taking profit out of crime. The El Paso dilemma suggests that after 35
years of failure, we are headed toward annexing the next state into
the union: The State of Denial.