News (Media Awareness Project) - US CA: Editorial: The Real Drug War |
Title: | US CA: Editorial: The Real Drug War |
Published On: | 2007-11-10 |
Source: | Los Angeles Times (CA) |
Fetched On: | 2008-01-11 19:08:13 |
THE REAL DRUG WAR
Pouring Money and Equipment into Mexico's Battle Will Do Little If We
Don't Attack Addiction at Home.
In Mexico, the phrase "war on drugs" is not just a figure of speech.
Since President Felipe Calderon took office, tens of thousands of
soldiers have been deployed to battle drug cartels, and corrupt
officials have been ousted. The cartels, however, haven't blinked.
Almost 4,000 people have been killed in the last two years. Now the
United States and Mexico have negotiated a major initiative that
includes $1.4 billion worth of equipment and aid, most of it going to
Mexico and a small portion to several Central American countries.
Mexico has been unflinching in this fight and deserves our support.
Still, the few details to emerge about the plan are not heartening.
There is much about strengthening security and law enforcement with
equipment and advisors, and little about addressing factors behind
the drug trade: gun trafficking, drug treatment and poverty-induced
opiumand marijuana farming.
It's true that Mexico's police agencies are plagued by corruption and
need stronger structural mechanisms to prosecute it, such as internal
affairs offices and witness protection programs. Furthermore, the
military's dominance has resulted in mounting allegations of assaults
on innocent civilians, so the sooner its role can be reduced the
better. But policing alone won't halt the booming drug trade. We
should have learned that much by now.
The U.S. spends more than $40 billion a year combating illicit drugs,
yet neither the so-called war nor the "Just Say No" campaign has made
a difference. We are the world's top consumer of illicit drugs. So
before Congress votes to beef up Mexico's efforts -- from about $59
million this year to an initial installment of $550 million in
nonmonetary aid next year -- it should require a review of this
country's policies.
For example, the United States supplies arms to the very cartels both
countries are fighting; Mexican officials trace 90% of the weapons
confiscated from drug traffickers to Texas, California and Arizona.
U.S. gun laws permit buyers at gun shows to purchase unlimited
assault weapons with no questions asked. As long as this loophole
exists, AK-47s will travel south by the truckload. Also, we allow
Mexicans to fight and die to reduce our supply, but will the U.S.
control its own ravenous appetite for drugs? Will our government
commit to greater investment in treatment, which might actually lessen demand?
A joint effort must go beyond giving Mexico the wherewithal to battle
on our behalf. Otherwise, its drug war may one day look like ours: It
will be perhaps less conspicuously violent, but no less futile.
Pouring Money and Equipment into Mexico's Battle Will Do Little If We
Don't Attack Addiction at Home.
In Mexico, the phrase "war on drugs" is not just a figure of speech.
Since President Felipe Calderon took office, tens of thousands of
soldiers have been deployed to battle drug cartels, and corrupt
officials have been ousted. The cartels, however, haven't blinked.
Almost 4,000 people have been killed in the last two years. Now the
United States and Mexico have negotiated a major initiative that
includes $1.4 billion worth of equipment and aid, most of it going to
Mexico and a small portion to several Central American countries.
Mexico has been unflinching in this fight and deserves our support.
Still, the few details to emerge about the plan are not heartening.
There is much about strengthening security and law enforcement with
equipment and advisors, and little about addressing factors behind
the drug trade: gun trafficking, drug treatment and poverty-induced
opiumand marijuana farming.
It's true that Mexico's police agencies are plagued by corruption and
need stronger structural mechanisms to prosecute it, such as internal
affairs offices and witness protection programs. Furthermore, the
military's dominance has resulted in mounting allegations of assaults
on innocent civilians, so the sooner its role can be reduced the
better. But policing alone won't halt the booming drug trade. We
should have learned that much by now.
The U.S. spends more than $40 billion a year combating illicit drugs,
yet neither the so-called war nor the "Just Say No" campaign has made
a difference. We are the world's top consumer of illicit drugs. So
before Congress votes to beef up Mexico's efforts -- from about $59
million this year to an initial installment of $550 million in
nonmonetary aid next year -- it should require a review of this
country's policies.
For example, the United States supplies arms to the very cartels both
countries are fighting; Mexican officials trace 90% of the weapons
confiscated from drug traffickers to Texas, California and Arizona.
U.S. gun laws permit buyers at gun shows to purchase unlimited
assault weapons with no questions asked. As long as this loophole
exists, AK-47s will travel south by the truckload. Also, we allow
Mexicans to fight and die to reduce our supply, but will the U.S.
control its own ravenous appetite for drugs? Will our government
commit to greater investment in treatment, which might actually lessen demand?
A joint effort must go beyond giving Mexico the wherewithal to battle
on our behalf. Otherwise, its drug war may one day look like ours: It
will be perhaps less conspicuously violent, but no less futile.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...