ADDICTS NOT THE ONLY ONES CORRUPTED

In recent months, the border cities of Juarez and Tijuana, Mexico,
have been under siege by the blatant violence of drug cartels fighting
to control what may be the most lucrative business in the entire world.

In a press conference in March, President Obama acknowledged that the
vicious cycle of dealing and smuggling drugs in virtually every city
in America has been fueled by cash and guns flowing back across the
Mexican border. So far, our solution to this problem has focused on
tougher law enforcement, more and better fencing along the
Mexican-American border, more prisons and harsher sentences for drug
addicts. Unfortunately, this approach, which we've been hawking for
more than thirty years, hasn't worked. There are reasons for that
which lawmakers, who have the power to come up with a more effective
approach, have steadfastly refused to acknowledge, let alone work
toward a solution. The biggest reason is money. In this case, the old
saying is poignantly true: If you want to find the root of the
problem, follow the money.

About a decade ago, Lowell Bergman, the man who helped Jeffrey Wigand
tear the mask off tobacco companies who had deliberately hired
chemists to find ways to make tobacco more addictive, produced a
documentary about the history of the drug wars in America.

One of the drug runners featured in this documentary explained that in
'70s and '80s, when the mightiest drug cartels were located in Cali
and Medellin, Columbia, drugs were smuggled into the U.S. through
cays, small islands that lie off the coast of Florida. He also said
that even if 90% of the drugs then being smuggled in to the U.S. were
seized, the kind of money involved would still make the risks more
than worth it.

Stop for a moment and think about that. What kind of business anywhere
in the world has profits so enormous that even if 90% of the business
was hijacked, the remaining 10% of the profits would make taking a 90%
loss more than worth it?

This man went on to say that nowhere near 90% of the drugs smuggled
into the United States were intercepted. It was more, in fact, like
the other way around, 90% made it to the street.

The National Drug Intelligence Center estimates that drug cartels
launder between 18 to 39 billion dollars annually. This is "after the
fact" profits that must be hidden in a safe place. That doesn't
account for the cost of getting drugs from the growers in South
America and elsewhere, the trafficking through Central America, the
slice that goes to the drug runners and distributors all along the
way, and bribes paid to officials from one end of the world to the
other.

These many billions are profits after expenses that rival the entire
operating cost of many major nations in the world. This staggering
amount of money leads to the core of the problem behind the drug wars:
Corruption. In virtually every story reported about the growing
violence of the Mexican cartels, the word corruption is a prominent
part of the discussion. But the only corruption under discussion is
what happens in Mexico. What about us? Or should that question be:
What about U.S.? Surely none of us are so naive that we have never
considered who is in on the take from this almost limitless flow of
cash across our borders. Just as Hitler couldn't murder six million
Jews all by himself, drugs from Mexico don't make it across the border
and all throughout the United States without a systematic chain of
cooperation from many, many people in our own country. And no, not all
of them are Mexican. Not by a long shot. This is one of the strongest
reasons in favor of campaign finance reform. When politicians need
literally millions and millions of dollars to run a campaign, who can
come up with that kind of money? In recent months, we've seen more
than a few examples of the rampant corruption that has led to our
current economic meltdown.

Follow the money. Then ask yourself, what corporation in the world has
more money than the drug cartels?

If lobbyists from special interest groups throw money into the
campaign, why wouldn't drug czars contribute "clean" (laundered) drug
money in exchange for legislation that makes interstate commerce less
restrictive, facilitates the flow of goods across the border, relaxes
illegal immigrant laws (to name just a few possibilities)?

There are many reasons to reconsider the decriminalization of illegal
drugs. Not only would such legislation give addicts a chance to
confront their addictions legally, under the supervision of medical
personnel who can offer treatment along with legally prescribed drugs,
but the huge sums of illegal cash that now fund the drug trade will
stop flowing. When Prohibition was repealed, the overwhelming majority
of rum runners and bootleggers went out of business. Why buy something
illegally when you can get a purer product at a fraction of the cost,
legally? The same holds true for illicit street drugs.

It is difficult to wrap the mind around this kind of drug policy. The
only nightmare that is worse is the one we are stuck with right now:
Millions of addicts selling their bodies and souls for drugs that
eventually kill them, while thousands all along the way, from
corporations run on laundered drug money, to politicians who don't
really know where "that big donation" came from, cash in on their
limitless fund of suffering.