Source and Transit Countries

Colombian narcs who haven't been killed yet are holding police training seminars in Afghanistan. From The International Herald Tribune:

It is a measure of Afghanistan's virulent opium trade, which has helped revive the Taliban while corroding the credibility of the government, that U.S. officials now hope that Afghanistan's drug problem will someday be only as bad as that of Colombia.
…

"I wanted the Colombians to come here to give the Afghans something to aspire to," [DEA Kabul Chief Vincent] Balbo said. "To instill the fact that they have been doing this for years, and it has worked."

They're unearthing mass graves in Colombia. Cocaine is cheaper than ever. The president is embroiled in a massive corruption scandal. You can’t even grow bananas there without becoming a pawn in a paramilitary extortion scandal. Yet American drug warriors talk about Colombia like it's a shining beacon of justice and democracy.

Afghan narcs-in-training will learn what a joke this is when their Colombian instructors request asylum.

Mark Kleiman is one of a relatively small number of US academics who thinks and writes about drug policy. I don't always agree with him—especially his proposals for licensing drug users, higher alcohol taxes, and "coerced abstinence"—but his work is thoughtful, and, after listening to what passes for drug policy discourse among the political class, a veritable breath of fresh air. Kleiman is at it again this week, with a lengthy article, "Dopey, Boozy, Smoky—And Stupid," in the magazine The American Interest. After noting that 35 years into the war on drugs, the country still has a massive drug problem, as well as a massive police and prison apparatus aimed at drug users and sellers, Kleiman observes that no policy is going to eradicate drug use and what is needed is "radical reform." But real reform requires a better understanding of drugs and drug use, and that is where reality confronts mythology. As Kleiman notes, "most drug use is harmless," but drug abuse is not. That's quite different from "just say no." Similarly, he goes up against another drug policy mantra, this one popular with some reformers, that "drug abuse is a chronic, relapsing condition." That is true for only a minority of a minority of drug users, he correctly notes. After discussing some of the basics, Kleiman gets to the fun and thought-provoking part of his article—general policy recommendations:

These facts having now been set out, five principles might reasonably guide our policy choices. First, the overarching goal of policy should be to minimize the damage done to drug users and to others from the risks of the drugs themselves (toxicity, intoxicated behavior and addiction) and from control measures and efforts to evade them. That implies a second principle: No harm, no foul. Mere use of an abusable drug does not constitute a problem demanding public intervention. “Drug users” are not the enemy, and a achieving a “drug-free society” is not only impossible but unnecessary to achieve the purposes for which the drug laws were enacted. Third, one size does not fit all: Drugs, users, markets and dealers all differ, and policies need to be as differentiated as the situations they address. Fourth, all drug control policies, including enforcement, should be subjected to cost-benefit tests: We should act only when we can do more good than harm, not merely to express our righteousness. Since lawbreakers and their families are human beings, their suffering counts, too: Arrests and prison terms are costs, not benefits, of policy. Policymakers should learn from their mistakes and abandon unsuccessful efforts, which means that organizational learning must be built into organizational design. In drug policy as in most other policy arenas, feedback is the breakfast of champions. Fifth, in discussing programmatic innovations we should focus on programs that can be scaled up sufficiently to put a substantial dent in major problems. With drug abusers numbered in the millions, programs that affect only thousands are barely worth thinking about unless they show growth potential.

Hmmm, sounds pretty reasonable. Now, here is where Kleiman gets creative. Below are his general policy recommendations. I will leave the comments for others, but there is plenty to chew on here:

Filipe Calderon is so totally not getting a Christmas card from the White House this year. From ABC News:

Mexican President Felipe Calderon's government wants to decriminalize first-time possession of small amounts of drugs in a move likely to draw criticism from U.S. anti-narcotics officials.

Under the proposed legislation, users found for the first time with 2 grams (0.07 ounces) or less of marijuana and small amounts of other drugs ranging from cocaine to methamphetamine would not be prosecuted.

A similar proposal last spring from Mexico's then-President Vicente Fox dropped jaws at the U.S. State Department, culminating in frantic diplomacy and a last minute veto. Since the bill had emerged from Fox's office, his subsequent veto under U.S. pressure was a pathetic reversal. If Vicente Fox got a new iPod out of the deal, I guess Felipe Calderon wants one too.

The fun part here is that Calderon has recently enjoyed gushing praise from the drug war peanut gallery for his unwavering campaign against the cartels. So I won't be the first to pass a napkin when the smug Robert J. Caldwell at Human Events spits coffee on his monitor. Or Karen Tandy, for that matter.

What do you say when the man who's been quenching your insatiable appetite for massive drug war demolition says he wants to pardon the cannon fodder? Some might sympathize with Calderon's explanation that he aims to conserve resources for the bigger battles, but an underlying principle behind the American drug war holds that people who use drugs are unforgivable bastards. No, this won't play well in Washington.

If the bill becomes law, will frustrated U.S. officials commence lobbying Mexico to divert resources from their cartel wars back towards the fruitless endeavor of busting drug users for dime bags? That would be quite revealing.

A new day, a new extreme as the dark swarm of drug war-corrupted cops continues to swell.

From The Baltimore Sun:

Disarmed municipal police patrolled alongside armed state police Friday, a sight that brought some comfort to many in this border city, where municipal police are often equated with corruption and drug-fueled violence.
…

Members of the 2,300-strong municipal police force were ordered by the military to turn in their weapons to see whether any are linked with homicides and other crimes. More than 2,000 weapons, most of them 9 mm handguns, but also some automatic weapons and shotguns, are being inspected.

There's something terribly wrong when public safety necessitates the disarmament of the police. It's a bizarre situation that would never happen in a million years if it weren't for the infinitely corrupting influence of the war on drugs. Indeed, the drug war is more than mildly corrosive; it corrupts entire nations, beginning with the people placed in charge of preventing corruption.

The best evidence that everything is going to hell comes from the citizens of Tijuana, who couldn't be more thrilled about the disarmament of their police force:

Municipal police may get their weapons back within two weeks, Tijuana officials say, but many residents aren't demanding urgent action.

"This is stupendous," said Alfredo Arias, the manager of a restaurant in the tough neighborhood of La Libertad that was riddled by hundreds of bullets in a shootout last year between masked gunmen and federal agents.
…

Alberto Capella, president of Tijuana's citizens advisory council on public safety, said disarming the police had met with widespread support. "In some ways it's a necessary evil ... part of the cleansing we need to improve the department." he said.

I totally understand. The worst consequences of U.S. drug policy are suffered by innocent citizens in source countries, but I can think of a few good reasons to disarm some of the cops up here. Maybe the Mexicans are on to something. But even drastic steps like disarming police cannot quench the drug war's insatiable appetite for chaos and disorder.

We're seeing a steady escalation of drug trade violence across our southern border, and while many bloggers are concerned, most are content to simply propose building fences and such. Never mind that drug prohibition will always encourage well-financed drug traffickers to cut holes in the fence.

No, a fence isn't going to work. Unless it's a magic fence. A magic fence that knows how to end drug prohibition.

UPDATE ON VOTE RESULTS HERE Earlier this year, DRCNet reported on a push by the drug czar and drug warriors in Congress to pass a reckless bill to research the use of mycoherbicides -- toxic, fungal plant killers -- as a means of attacking illicit drug crops. Even government agencies are unenthusiastic about this one -- our article cited the Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection, the Department of Agriculture, the State Department, the CIA and even the DEA as agencies that have rejected the idea as dangerous for health and the environment as well as likely to meet with resistant strains of poppy and coca against which it would be ineffective.

One of the articles I'm working on this week will be called "Drug Reform and the Democratic Congress: What's Really Going to Happen?" I've already talked to a number of inside the beltway drug reform types--the folks who actually work the halls of Congress--and I've got feelers out to more, as well as to the offices of several of the congressional Democrats who will be chairing key committees.

UPDATE: Check out Phil's book review of De los Maras a los Zetas here. Despite the daily toll of arrests and busts in the United States, America's drug war is waged largely in other countries. Mexico, for example, is likely to see more police killed in a bad weekend than the US will see in an entire year. And in Colombia, the drug war is now part of a messy civil war/war on drugs/war on terrorism with casualties—police, soldiers, guerrillas, paramilitaries, civilians—on a daily basis.