Thursday Podcast: ‘A Failed Drug War in Mexico’
Since 2008, more than 7,000 people have been killed in violence associated with the drug war in Mexico. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is traveling to the region this week, and said Wednesday that the United States shares the blame for the violence.
In today’s Cato Daily Podcast, Cato scholar Doug Bandow offers analysis on how the U.S. should respond to the crisis on our southern border.
Sign the Petition against Protectionism
You only have to glance at the headlines to know that protectionist pressures are rising around the world — from the “Buy American” provision in the stimulus bill to the unnecessary trade war with Mexico to the World Bank’s report last week that 17 members of the G-20 have recently implemented restrictive trade measures.
And you only have to read a history of the 1930s to know that a worldwide turn to protectionism deepened and lengthened the global depression.
So some people are starting an international campaign to protect and expand free trade. The Atlas Economic Research Foundation, the International Policy Network, and the Atlas Global Initiative for Free Trade, Peace, and Prosperity are sponsoring a global Freedom to Trade Petition to be released just before the upcoming G-20 meeting in London. To help head off another Smoot-Hawley-type spiral, please sign the petition. Academic economists, business and labor leaders, authors, and all concerned citizens are encouraged to sign.
And click on ShareThis below to tell your friends!
The Price of the Drug War
Critics of the drug war long have pointed out how criminalizing drug use creates crime. America has been through this experience before, with Prohibition. Just look at Prohibition-era Chicago with pervasive corruption and mob warfare.
Unfortunately, the experience is being repeated in Mexico. And the violence is spilling over the border into the U.S. Reports the New York Times:
Sgt. David Azuelo stepped gingerly over the specks of blood on the floor, took note of the bullet hole through the bedroom skylight, raised an eyebrow at the lack of furniture in the ranch-style house and turned to his squad of detectives investigating one of the latest home invasions in this southern Arizona city.
A 21-year-old man had been pistol-whipped throughout the house, the gun discharging at one point, as the attackers demanded money, the victim reported. His wife had been bathing their 3-month-old son when the intruders arrived.
“At least they didn’t put the gun in the baby’s mouth like we’ve seen before,” Sergeant Azuelo said. That same afternoon this month, his squad was called to the scene of another home invasion, one involving the abduction of a 14-year-old boy.
This city, an hour’s drive north of the Mexican border, is coping with a wave of drug crime the police suspect is tied to the bloody battles between Mexico’s drug cartels and the efforts to stamp them out.
Since officials here formed a special squad last year to deal with home invasions, they have counted more than 200 of them, with more than three-quarters linked to the drug trade. In one case, the intruders burst into the wrong house, shooting and injuring a woman watching television on her couch. In another, in a nearby suburb, a man the police described as a drug dealer was taken from his home at gunpoint and is still missing.
Tucson is hardly alone in feeling the impact of Mexico’s drug cartels and their trade. In the past few years, the cartels and other drug trafficking organizations have extended their reach across the United States and into Canada. Law enforcement authorities say they believe traffickers distributing the cartels’ marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and other drugs are responsible for a rash of shootings in Vancouver, British Columbia, kidnappings in Phoenix, brutal assaults in Birmingham, Ala., and much more.
United States law enforcement officials have identified 230 cities, including Anchorage, Atlanta, Boston and Billings, Mont., where Mexican cartels and their affiliates “maintain drug distribution networks or supply drugs to distributors,” as a Justice Department report put it in December. The figure rose from 100 cities reported three years earlier, though Justice Department officials said that may be because of better data collection methods as well as the spread of the organizations.
Washington officials want to believe that throwing more money at the Mexican government will solve the problem. But there’s nothing in the experience of Afghanistan, Colombia, or many other drug production and smuggling centers to suggest that more enforcement, especially by a government as weak as that in Mexico City, will end the drug trade.
Only taking money out of drug production and sales will end the violence. And that means no longer treating what is fundamentally a health and moral problem as a criminal problem. Legalizing adult drug use may not be a great solution, but it would be a vast improvement over drug prohibition, which promotes violent crime while tens of millions of Americans still use illicit substances.
Too Much Hysteria about Trade
The World Bank issued a press release on Tuesday announcing the results of a study published March 2, which concludes that 17 of the 20 so-called G-20 countries have invoked at least some protectionist measures since pledging last November to avoid protectionism for at least one year.
Of course the Washington Post—which now specializes in printing run-of-the-mill stories about trade that rarely come close to justifying the sensational headlines, provocative subheads, or gripping leads — jumped all over the report as evidence that: “Trade Barriers Could Threaten Global Economy: World Bank Finds Protectionist Trend.”
Well, we all know that trade barriers do threaten the global economy — in times of economic expansion and contraction. But most of the measures cited in the report are not particularly spectacular or unusual from a trade perspective. For better or worse, most WTO member countries do have some latitude to raise trade barriers — sometimes unconditionally. But also, in any given year, governments institute policies that happen to have adverse affects on trade (even if the measure wasn’t intended to be protectionist).
Sometimes aggrieved interests in affected countries prevail upon their governments to protest or otherwise seek resolution. And more often than not, under those circumstances, resolution is achieved. But sometimes, a protectionist measure doesn’t even provoke any kind of protest. So, quantifying protectionist measures is one thing, but qualifying them is quite another, more important exercise, if one is interested in making judgments about protectionist trends.
Week in Review: A School Choice Victory, Earmark Reform, and Drug Violence in Mexico
To receive this segment by email, subscribe to the Cato Weekly Dispatch.
Obama Dips a Toe in the Educational Choice Pool
After Congress voted to let the Washington D.C. voucher program expire, stripping 1,700 low-income children of the opportunity to attend private schools, President Obama said he will keep the program afloat in subsequent legislation.
“It wouldn’t make sense to disrupt the education of those that are in that system,” said Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary. “And I think we’ll work with Congress to ensure that a disruption like that doesn’t take place.”
Andrew J. Coulson, director of Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom, commented on Obama’s decision to continue to extend school choice benefits to underprivileged children in the nation’s capital:
This is a crucial milestone. There is finally a major national Democratic leader who is beginning to catch up to his state-level peers. Democrats all around the country have been supporting and signing small education tax credit programs because they realize that these programs are win-win: good for their constituents and good for their long-term political futures.
In an op-ed that ran the day Gibbs made the announcement, Coulson explained why those who oppose school choice will find themselves on the wrong side of history.
In 2006, Susan Aud and Leon Michos published a report on the fiscal impact of the D.C. voucher program, which documented the success of the District’s school choice pilot, the first federally funded voucher program in the United States.
Obama Signs Earmark-Heavy $410 Billion Omnibus Bill
After signing a bill that had nearly $8 billion in earmarks, President Obama declared that from then on, his administration would work toward earmark reform.
Sounds a bit like St. Augustine’s famous prayer, “Lord, make me chaste but not just yet,” said Daniel Griswold, director of Cato’s Center for Trade Policy Studies:
Recall that as a candidate, Obama said he and Democratic leaders in Congress would change the “business as usual” practice of stuffing spending bills with pet projects. Those earmarks, submitted by individual members to fund obscure projects in their own districts and states, typically become law without any debate or transparency.
Saying he would sign the “imperfect bill,” President Obama offered guidelines to curb earmarks … in the future. “The future demands that we operate in a different way than we have in the past,” he said. “So let there be no doubt: this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability.”
Lord, make us fiscally responsible, but not just yet.
Meanwhile, Republican leaders are condemning the president’s expansion of the federal government. But do they have any standing to judge? Senior Fellow Michael D. Tanner said no:
The Bush administration’s brand of big-government conservatism was, at the very least, the greatest expansion of government from Lyndon Johnson to, well, Barack Obama.
For Cato’s policy recommendations on earmarked spending, see the “Corporate Welfare and Earmark Reform” chapter in the 2009 Cato Handbook for Policymakers.
Violence Spills into the U.S. from Mexico’s Drug War
With daily reports of increased violence coming from Mexico, Cato Vice President for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies Ted Galen Carpenter said the brutality is an indicator of power and arrogance, not desperation, and asserts that gun restrictions in the U.S. will not subdue violence:
The notion that the violence in Mexico would subside if the United States had more restrictive laws on firearms is devoid of logic and evidence. Mexican drug gangs would have little trouble obtaining all the guns they desire from black market sources in Mexico and elsewhere…
… Even assuming that the Mexican government’s estimate that 97 percent of the weapons used by the cartels come from stores and gun shows in the United States-and Mexican officials are not exactly objective sources for such statistics-the traffickers rely on those outlets simply because they are easier and more convenient, not because there are no other options.
Carpenter spoke at a Cato policy forum last month, and explained why the war on drugs sparks such intense levels of violence.
In a Policy Analysis published in early February, Carpenter warned of the need to change our policy on the Mexican drug conflict, so as to prevent the violence from spreading across the border.
Debating the War on Drugs in Mexico
Yesterday I was invited to Pajamas TV to discuss the increasingly violent situation in Mexico, where the drug-related death toll continues to skyrocket. The other guest was journalist Matt Sanchez.
The discussion rapidly turned into a debate with Sanchez on the merits of drug legalization as an alternative to the current mayhem. If you’re interested in the topic, the video is available here, and the audio here.
John Walters on Drugs?
John Walters, former director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, turns in a rambling and at times incoherent defense of the current war on drugs in today’s WSJ. There are many points worth picking apart, but this line of reasoning, loosely speaking, was my favorite:
What is the alternative to the progress we are making? We have made the kind of compromises with alcohol that some suggest making with illegal drugs…
Today there is terrible violence in Mexico… The drug trade is a tool, not the cause of these violent criminal groups. Making it easier to produce and traffic drugs will strengthen, not weaken, these terrorists.
Right. Because we have all of these beer distributors and liquor-store owners running around the country kidnapping folks, killing judges, prosecutors, and journalist and generally terrorizing the populace.
I shudder to imagine the damage to our society were the illicit drug trade conducted in a strict regulatory framework reflective of our alcohol and medical supply distribution systems.
Drug Prohibition’s Role in Mexico’s Violence
Since January 2007 there have been more than 6,800 drug-war related deaths in Mexico, and Mexican drug cartels continue to expand their operations in American cities. Washington’s response has been to expand its prohibitionist efforts with the Mérida Initiative, a U.S.Mexico anti-drug-trafficking program. Historically, however, prohibitionist policies have had little success in reducing the flow of drugs. Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato’s Vice President for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies, suggests a new strategy must be tried.
You can view the full event here.
New Podcast: ‘War on Drugs, War on Guns’
Attorney General Eric Holder said recently that in order to quell the violence spilling over from the drug war in Mexico he will push to reinstate the ban on “assault weapons” in the United States.
But, says Legal Policy Analyst David Rittgers in today’s Cato Daily Podcast, a policy like that won’t do much to quell violence.
The [drug] cartels have access to lots and lots of money because of our prohibitionist policies in the US. And because of this money they can get these weapons whether we have them legal or illegal…and they’ll have access to the black market to get fully automatic machine guns if they want them.
… If you like the war on drugs, you’re going to love the war on guns.
Cato on Facebook
Cato on Twitter
Cato on Google+
Cato on YouTube
