AID THAT WON'T HELP MEXICO

The U.S. Should Treat Narcotics Abuse at Home Before Escalating Its
International Drug War.

President Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderon could reach an
agreement as early as Monday that would put American taxpayers on the
hook for tens of millions of dollars in counter-narcotics aid to
Mexico. It is a familiar game.

U.S. leaders blame another country for our failure to reduce drug
misuse here at home. That country escalates its war against drugs but
asks the U.S. to pick up part of the tab. Aid is given, but it ends
up having no effect on the availability of drugs in the United
States. Politicians in Washington point their fingers again, and the
cycle continues.

Of course, it's tempting to give aid to Mexico. Calderon seems to be
doing all the right things in cracking down on drug traffickers. He's
appointed new people to key military and criminal justice positions,
deployed troops to quell drug violence, reasserted federal police
power and extradited major traffickers to the U.S.

But all this provides little reason to hope that Mexico will turn a
corner in its efforts to control the illegal drug trade. For a guide
to what's in store, one need only look at past sexenios (the six-year
terms of Mexican presidents).

What Calderon is doing now differs little from what his predecessors
did at the start of their terms. The results are always the same --
encouraging at first, but then it all starts up again.
Drug-trafficking gangs re-group with new leaders and new connections.
Previously incorruptible officers are newly corrupted. Police of all
ranks, and all shades of probity, tremble in fear of assassins'
bullets. And Mexicans again wonder why the cycle never really stops.

So what should policymakers do?

Mexico should crack down hard on violence, drug-related or not -- and
think in terms of protecting its own citizens, not just fighting
drugs. That requires thinking strategically about drug enforcement,
targeting the most violent people and criminal organizations and even
promoting nonviolent solutions to conflicts among traffickers.

The United States should put its own house in order. Decades of
research has shown that the most cost-effective way to undermine drug
markets and reduce drug abuse is not providing aid to other countries
but making a greater commitment to reducing drug misuse at home.
Funding effective drug treatment provides a far better return on
investment than does any form of international drug control.

Leaders in both countries would do well to provoke a discussion about
the failures of drug prohibition and the damage it is causing.
Economist Milton Friedman said it best in a letter to President
George H.W. Bush's first drug czar, William J. Bennett:

"Of course the problem is demand, but it is not only demand, it is
demand that must operate through repressed and illegal channels.
Illegality creates obscene profits that finance the murderous tactics
of the drug lords; illegality leads to the corruption of law
enforcement officials; illegality monopolizes the efforts of honest
law forces so that they are starved for resources to fight the
simpler crimes of robbery, theft and assault.

"Drugs are a tragedy for addicts. But criminalizing their use
converts that tragedy into a disaster for society, for users and
nonusers alike. Our experience with the prohibition of drugs is a
replay of our experience with the prohibition of alcoholic beverages."

Until policymakers start rethinking failed drug-war policies, the
violence and corruption inherent in prohibition will continue. Aid to
Mexico could do some good, especially if it is used to bring major
crime bosses to justice. But those bosses will inevitably be
replaced, and battles about who will succeed them could increase
violence in Mexico, not decrease it.