My Photo
I am a consultant and analyst with eight years of military law enforcement experience, six years of analytical experience covering Latin America, and over seven years of analytical experience covering Mexican TCOs and border violence issues. This blog is designed to inform readers about current border violence issues and provide analysis on those issues, as well as detailed focus on specific border topics. By applying my knowledge and experience through this blog, I hope to separate the wheat from the chaff...that is, dispel rumors propagated by sensationalist media reporting, explain in layman's terms what is going on with Mexican TCOs, and most importantly, WHY violence is happening along the US-Mexico border.

Longmire_square

With over a dozen years of combined experience in military law enforcement, force protection analysis, and writing a variety of professional products for the US Air Force, state government in California, and the general public, Ms. Longmire has the expertise to create a superior product for you or your agency to further your understanding of Mexico’s drug war. Longmire Consulting is dedicated to being on the cusp of the latest developments in Mexico in order to bring you the best possible analysis of threats posed by the drug violence south of the border.

Follow DrugWarAnalyst on Twitter

« "Why Border Violence Spillover Needs To Be Defined." | Main | "Where Does Border Security Rank In National Priorities?" »

January 30, 2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Heyyy, you're finally starting to wise up! Yes, ending prohibition would reduce a massive amount of harm endured by drug addicts already suffering deep emotional traumas, people for whom no repercussions will ever be severe enough to stop them from using. These addicts wouldn't be forced to steal/prostitute 10x as much money due to the inflated price of drugs imposed by prohibition, as you mention. The drug violence in America would end, as you mention(this is the best reason to legalize, IMO). You could add to that the total lack of respect for police authority that results from 10's of millions of people breaking unjust laws on a regular basis. And perhaps some people still care about the horrific violations of civil liberties that no-knock raids(on the wrong house! oops! Sorry we busted up your place, but that's not our problem!) and stop-and-frisk cause.

And on the other side of the scale, what negative effects come with ending prohibition? A theoretical increase in use? Maybe amongst the already-addicted, but I personally doubt that many people stay away from heroin/meth/cocaine solely because of legal status.

Senorita i think you know who this is like i said before pain killers or prescription drugs are worst than other drugs coming to this country i will talk to you when things calm down youre friend from TIJUANA

Great post Sylvia. This issue has to be addressed sooner or later and I haven’t seen a start. I think people over-simplify the concepts “end the drug war” and “legalize drugs.” How do you want to end the drug war? Not fighting it, or ending demand, or annihilating the cartels. Will that be the end of it? What does legalize drugs mean, all of them, only marijuana, some variants of the marijuana plant? Many are going to criticize what I’m going to say, but IT WILL NOT END. Legalizing drugs is just and approach with pros and cons, as prohibition. We already have states where medical marijuana is legal and it is a mess. As long as you say you feel pain (and have money to pay) you’ll get the drugs. Doctors are conveniently placed in the dispensaries to have an all in one solution (and get two fees $). People buy marijuana in California and take it to other stares, other grow it inside rooms of their own houses. It’s just a joke. Same with prescription drugs (100% legal) 5 people killed in Florida every day. People travel from other stares just to get the pills. At the end, we have the same story than illegal drugs. Other countries were drugs are legal are used as examples of legalization, but nobody gives the details. In Portugal the drugs are legal, but it was not a matter of signing a paper. They prepared with teams specialized in drugs in every major hospital. It’s a small country with a small population. Help is provided in an all-inclusive and universal health care system (the US doesn’t have that). They have what they call the “drug dissuasion panels.” You don’t go to court, you have to go to the panel and follow the recommendations. Not driving, don’t operate heavy equipment, go to rehab, pay some services, etc. Depending on the case is the recommendation. You don’t follow it, you go to jail. The results, the usage of drugs is more or less the same as when prohibition was in place. Maybe a better approach but it doesn’t sound so free and so legal after all. Same with the Dutch, they are moving backwards with their famous Marijuana Cafes. You will require an id and go to one specific café. You have material for books and books with this subject. For me the solution is on the long term and it’s education, at school and at home (health, drugs, and values). Thanks for providing a space to comment.

Another great article with some really good comment's. It does seem we have come to the point where we must do some thing, decriminalize, I just really don't have a idea here. Ben is a good comment and I like neglected war comment. A lot of good points in your article and both comments for me to think about [there will surly be more good comments too come].

A friend once told me a girl smells cocaine don't mean she's going to turn into a crack whore, like a man drink whiskey don't make him a skid row bum.

I've said before,ether legalize drugs or shoot drug users, OK I'm joking with the last one [I don't favor ether]. To be honest, on this subject, I don't want to make a decision.

This is a sure-fire way to get people talking - create a false dichotomoy; legalization or "war on drugs".

First, I'm very happy you bring up the point of keeping the end goal in focus, or, in other words, maintaining strategy. Regardless of your preferred tactical approach, keeping an eye on the prize forces you to be honest with your relative success/failure.

I think the general frustration with the war on drugs arises because people are mis-led into believing the "war on drugs" is exactly that, an effort to reduce the threat of drugs to Americans. Most often that's not the case, and much data supports this. It's a war on drug traffickers, a war against the rising threat of organized crime - scoped to drug organized crime. And even so, it tends to be selective in terms of targeting to maximize state protection in the short-to-medium term. This is important - is the war on drugs protecting the American government or the American people. Are these wholly the same?

This gets at another question that is equally important - what exactly is the goal of the war on drugs? I've suggested one answer. Drugs are as available as ever and are only become more dangerous (more potent). As far as addressing symptoms v. diseases, you'd be hard-pressed to argue the war on drugs addresses the disease. Right now, people who want their drug of choice can get it relatively easily. Your post highlights this fact.

I'm sure there's no silver bullet, and surely legalization isn't one. But I think the general public feels we can do better than we have to protect the population from the threat of drugs. Unfortunately, in terms of counter-drug efforts, operational imperatives override moral and political logic and strategy. Counting arrests and seizures is just too easy.

People never take in account that Mexico has flooded out streets with such a high volume of drugs, that those with simple problems have access too them (and at dirt cheap prices) turning it into a larger problem. You have a rough patch and the drugs are a phone call away. In order to make our society better, these people need help. Locking them up with criminals who teach them how to really 'score' makes it so much worse. Being passionate isn't free, but it may be cheaper than what we spend on treating them like trash. In no way would I ever want meth to be legalized or even decriminalized. That stuff needs to become extinct, and is the worst drug a person can get hooked on. Imagine the effort we could launch against meth if we took all the money and people we use for just weed. We could go after China and India, who are selling the tons of precursor chemicals to these Mexican cartels. But the US makes too much money fighting it. bureaucrats love huge numbers with many zeros at the end. They say they care, but it's all lies. And every time I see an agent say "We got this horrible weed off the streets and have made a serious blow to the bad guys", I have to laugh. Then they go home and drink a six pack to celebrate. This crap never ends.

I would be in full support of the ending of prohibition of drugs if prohibition on other "things" are ended as well. If the use of the interstate commerce clause for prohibiting drugs at the federal level is wrong then using that clause to prohibit limit weapons is also wrong. I would like to the the pro-drug progressives take a stand on constitution and moral principles and support the end of government abuse of this clause. Regulating interstate commerce was intended to "make regular" commerce between the states, in essence creating a free trade zone between the states. It was when the progressives entered the scene in the early 1900's when this clause was misconstrued to mean to control anything that was defined by the progressives to affect interstate commerce in anyway. This abuse was originally used by the progressives (early progressives were Christian) to regulate "evil" things (created things being evil in themselves is a Protestant belief based in the ancient Manichaeism heresy) such as alcohol and to control minorities (e.g. opium and gun regulation). When I am not forced to be responsible for people's decision to abuse drugs (entitlement programs are another abuse of the interstate commerce clause) then I will be more apt to support eliminating federal drug prohibition laws. When the pro-drug folks take a principled pro constitution, pro-individual freedom stance and support the ending of ALL federal prohibition laws (including guns) then I will support them.

@anon;

Don't forget to add the Civil Rights legislation of the 60's to the list of laws given to us by the 'interstate commerce' clause.

"Don't forget to add the Civil Rights legislation of the 60's to the list of laws given to us by the 'interstate commerce' clause."

Utilitarianism, which is false. The end does not justify the means. If you want a country that does not follow its laws, natural or man-made, move to Mexico.

Well I was correct in my previous post when I said [there will surly be more good comments too come].

One of the reasons I like Sylvia Longmire, she seems to have some knowledgeable readers with thought provoking comments.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.