A Proposal to End Cocaine
Trafficking
Zachary Berger
Introduction: Where We Are and How We Got There
The
issue over drug policy in the United States—what is the correct fashion to
approach drugs, aggressively or passively—is not a recent topic of concern.
Drugs affect daily life for many people in almost every country across the
globe, in some places more than others. As the Cato Institute handbook for
Congress suggests, it was the implementation of the Controlled Substance Act of
1970—promoted by President Nixon—that saw the advent of the modern drug
enforcement issue (p. 172); it was this act which gave the federal government
power to enforce punitive action against any drug violation, regardless of the
size of the crime. Today the United States has within its prisons 400,000
individuals for drug offenses—that is more than 60 percent of the total prison
population within the country; drug enforcement efforts costs the country about
$19 billion annually, all the while driving profit into the hands of criminals
(p. 172). But more on the conditions within the United States to come, for in
order to truly understand the full scope of the impact that the Controlled
Substance Act has had, it is crucial to examine the development of the cocaine
trafficking systems in Latin America.
Following the CSA, the United States
opened up as a large market for foreign made drugs as it became more difficult
to produce them domestically. Nowhere saw a reaction to this opportunity quite
like Colombia; “in the late 1970s, Colombia’s new cartels, first in Medellin
and then in Cali, expanded from marijuana to the processing and export of
cocaine. Led by a small number of powerful drug kingpins, these family-based
empires came to control a billion-dollar cocaine industry” (fpif.org). These
cartels managed to increase in size and influence because of the massive profit
margin of cocaine—it was being produced for $1,500/kilo in Colombia and being
sold in the United States for $50,000/kilo (pbs.org). With numbers like that it
is no surprise that throughout the 1970s and 80s these businesses became
immensely powerful and influential within Colombia’s borders.
As these cartels became stronger, life in
Colombia began to take an unfortunate turn as they exerted their influence
through violence and corruption—much of the time targeting the Colombian
government. Winifred Tate writes:
The power and violence of the drug industry came to
permeate all facets of Colombian society…Drug lords achieved unprecedented
political influence through threats, bribery, and political contributions. Drug
violence also undermined Colombia’s formal but deeply exclusionary democracy,
particularly during the 1980s, when the Medellin Cartel waged war on the
Colombian government, killing hundreds of judges, police investigators,
journalists, and public figures. (fpif.org)
Incredible
how the large demand for cocaine within the United States set in motion a chain
reaction which ultimately resulted in the death of thousands of people within
Columbia by the end of 1980s; it wasn’t until the 1990s that the U.S.
government finally stepped in and helped stop these powerful cartels.
Tate describes the “Andean
Strategy”—a military intervention conducted by the United States starting
in1989 and lasting for several years—in which the U.S. assisted the Colombian
government in dismantling the major Colombian cartels (Medellin and Cali). However,
even as the United States was instrumental in helping Colombia rid itself of
these vicious cartels, this did not mark the end of Colombia’s woes and it
plunged into a state of chaos that in many ways continues today. Two new groups
emerged at this time to take control of the coca cultivation and processing:
the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia—a left-wing guerrilla group—and the
right-wing United Self-Defense Forces of Columbia; “drug related violence
increased between these two armed illegal actors as each sought to eliminate
the other and to consolidate its own territorial control over drug cultivation
regions and the peasant growers across the Columbian countryside” (Bagley, 4).
Even since the start of the new millennium, Colombia remains in turmoil and is,
as Bagley describes, “one of the most dangerous and violent countries in the
world”. Indeed a sad situation to arise from what was once an example of a
functional democracy.
From
these two major cartels emerged a problem that would prove to be even more
difficult for the United States anti-drug effort to tackle: “The breakup of the
two largest cartels did not lead to a long-term decline in Colombian drug
trafficking. These drug syndicates have since been replaced by smaller, more
vertically integrated trafficking organizations whose nimble, independent
traffickers are much more difficult to detect and infiltrate” (fpif.org). Not
only that, but the control of the cocaine flow shifted from the hands of
Colombians to Mexican gangs—this is how it has been since the Andean Strategy.
Bagley describes the situation, “As an unintended consequence of the U.S.-backed
“war on drugs” in Columbia, the locus of organized criminal involvement in
cocaine trafficking gradually shifted northward from Columbia to Mexico” (p.
5).
This
is an example of what Bagley and other scholars describe as the “Balloon
Effect”, tighten security on one area and watch the problem spread and bloom in
others. The state of things for Mexico in regards to cocaine trafficking bears
some resemblance to what happened in Colombia—powerful, well organized cocaine
businesses who use their power to, through corruption and acts of violence,
influence daily life in Mexico to fit their needs and wants. Despite the Merida
Initiative—an attempt by the United States and Mexico to curb the success of
cocaine trafficking in which the two nations “waged an intense military
campaign against Mexico’s drug cartels” (Bagley, 7)—there has been limited
success and really the only major result has been an increase in violence
within Mexico with killings reaching over 70,000 since 2006 (Arce, Bajak,
Burke, Lopez, Ruiz-Goiriena, 2013).
As a result of the tightened security brought
on by the Merida Initiative the cocaine traffickers were forced to adapt: “the traffickers constant, successful
adaptations to law enforcement measures designed to end their activities have led
to the more progressive contamination of more and more countries in the region
by the drug trade and its attendant criminality and violence” (Bagley, 7).
According to a report from the National Drug Control Policy, the presence of
cocaine traffickers has spread to almost all the Central American countries,
including Nicaragua, Guatemala, Panama, Costa Rica and more. Truly Mexico is
another perfect example of how current drug efforts conducted by the U.S. have
had negative effects on the life of millions of people outside of our own
borders.
From all that has happened over the past
several decades there has started to emerge some serious agreement on the
negative effects that the Controlled Substance Act and subsequent “war on
drugs” has had, with many calling for an end to both. It’s no surprise either
when looked at from the following perspective:
over
the past twenty-five years and more, the war on drugs conducted by the United
States and its various Latin America and Caribbean allies has succeeded repeatedly
in shifting coca cultivation from one area to another in the Andes and in
forcing frequent changes in smuggling routes. It has proven unable to disrupt
seriously, much less stop permanently, either production or trafficking in the
hemisphere. (Bagley, 7)
Much of what has
resulted from the CSA has been a bad thing—increased power to illegitimate
businesses and as the Cato Handbook suggests a rise in crime:
Addicts
commit crimes to pay for a habit that would be easily affordable if it were
legal. Police sources have estimated that as much as half the property crime in
some major cities is committed by drug users. More dramatic, because drugs are
illegal, participants in the drug trade cannot go to court to settle disputes,
whether between buyer and seller or between rival sellers. When black-market
contracts are breached, the result is often some form of violent sanction,
which usually leads to retaliation and open warfare in the streets. (p. 173)
Such trends as this,
along with all the turmoil that a number of Latin American countries have
undergone since the 1970s, have begun to speak rather loudly and a significant
amount of support has begun to ring out as many people across the globe are
eager to see a change for the better.
What Should We Do?
Objectives
From the
research I have conducted on this matter I have aligned my viewpoint on what
should be done with those that can be found in the Cato Handbook for Congress—that
repealing or at least nullifying the Controlled Substance Act is the major step
that needs to be taken towards fixing the mess that has sprouted from the U.S.
war on drugs and should be the primary objective. Doing so would eliminate
federal jurisdiction over drug related crime which in turn would stop the
endless amount of drug related arrests and incarcerations that have been
occurring for over forty years within the U.S. Not only that but giving drugs
like cocaine a more acceptable spot within society would put shift the money
being gained from these substances into the hands of more legitimate
businesses. It would take much of the power away from the violent and corrupt
gangs that currently run the trade as foreign demand would significantly
decrease if people and businesses within the United States were capable of
producing their own.
Indeed this would be a controversial move, allowing drugs
a safer place in our society but that doesn’t mean making them easier for young
people to obtain. The government instead could regulate the distribution of
drugs and even make money off of doing so by taxing them—California’s control
over medical marijuana is a great example. In order to truly convince skeptics
that this is the right thing to do, it would require raising awareness nationwide
of the injustices occurring not just within our own borders, but throughout
Latin America. Providing information to the public is definitely the best way
to make the change happen that is necessary.
The second major
objective of this proposal would be to disassemble the Drug Enforcement Agency
(DEA), as is also suggested within the Cato Handbook. While worries would
certainly crop up over what would happen to the people who are employed by the
DEA, the Cato Handbook has a great suggestion—put them towards
counter-terrorism efforts, “the Drug Enforcement Agency has 9,000 agents,
intelligence analysts, and support staff. Their skills would be much better
used if those people redeployed to full-time counterterrorism investigations”
(p. 174). Since September 11th, there has been a high level of
concern within the borders of the U.S. about being attacked again—by putting
those who work now for the DEA towards these security efforts it would quell
any worries over lost jobs as well as increase the feeling among the public
that our government is doing everything it can to keep us all safe. Again, making such a drastic movement within
the government wouldn’t be possible without raising public awareness on this
issue and why it is a necessary and beneficial change to make.
In order to achieve these objectives, things will have to
start small—fortunately there are plenty of existing campaigns out there
attempting to see the same changes happen. Since it is the general public—both
here and abroad—who will be ultimately responsible for pushing for this change,
it is necessary to inform them about the issue at hand. This will be a large
scale campaign that will require reaching out to NGOs such as the Drug Policy
Alliance and the Global Commission on Drug Policy. To begin with I would reach
out to people around campus to garner local support—this would include not just
students but any staff that feels sympathetic to the cause. Doing the same sort
of thing around the other local college campuses would be very helpful
too—especially the University of Vermont and St. Michaels College who each have
an abundance of resources too. This campaign will have an internet presence, a
radio and television presence, as well as the simple word of mouth presence.
Anybody at this stage who is supportive can help by drumming up petitions to
send to legislative officials as well attempting to reach out to the
media—journalists, news stations, etc. By doing this, and perhaps even by
reaching out to companies that are sympathetic we could potentially build
support and even gain endorsements—something that could grow and grow as more
people and organizations join on.
Certainly it will be necessary to have an ad campaign to
show to people around the country—something that draws comparisons between
current drug prohibition and the 1920s prohibition of alcohol could be
effective. It would be an easy to way to get individuals to understand where we
are coming from while at the same time informing them about the related
violence the drug war causes as well as the massive amounts of money being
thrown at the problem by the federal government. As support grows—first on a
local level and then on a national scale—creating petitions and using the
media, as well as events (College Campuses will offer a great opportunity to
gain support and attention through tradition and social media outreach) will be
a vital part of gaining congressional support and advocacy. Getting to the
level of making this a full on legislative issue is where the most influence
will be and is our best chance of seeing the change we want. It is important to
note that having pressure from foreign bodies—the people in Latin America who
really are experiencing the worst of the backlash from the war on drugs—will be
more influential in having this campaign reach the congressional level. While
there is certainly a growing sentiment abroad which desires that the U.S.
abandon its drug war, it would be useful to reach out to the people in Latin
America through resources such as Third Planet in order to have them join our
specific campaign.
Scope
It would be untrue to claim that any significant change
towards achieving our objectives could be made within the timeframe of one
semester, but it certainly more than enough time to get the ball rolling.
Starting with a social media campaign—participation from staff and students—as
well as events through the school and the other campuses, and finally reaching
out to journalists, news and radio
stations would be a fundamental part of getting this campaign on its feet.
Having this movement gain a foothold throughout all of Burlington and maybe
even Vermont would be a good first part of the effort and could perhaps even be
achieved by the end of one semester, but it would definitely take longer to
reach outside of Vermont.
It would be safe to assume that to truly gain national
and foreign support required for the campaign to gain enough momentum could
take years. This is a big problem that affects more than just our country,
which is why gaining foreign support for repealing the CSA is so crucial.
Pressure from outside the country could have a large influence on how the U.S
government ends up approaching the desired legislation. What we’re asking the
government to do in this campaign is a significant thing and it is not likely
to be persuaded easily; the drug war which began with the CSA has been going on
for over forty years—it’s definitely not easy to ask for change on something
like that and need to understand this is going to take lots of time—probably
years—and plenty of effort.
Methods
I have outlined some of the tactics that should be
employed to get this campaign moving, but can’t stress enough the importance of
using the resources available through Champlain to get started. Fortunately
Champlain and its students have a rather substantial web presence, giving
confidence to the notion of using social media such as Twitter, blogs, and
Facebook to spread the word—this will only become more and more useful as the
movement grows. Also, creating a website specifically for this campaign is an
essential step within this long and arduous process. Another excellent resource
would be getting pieces published in the Champlain newspaper as well as the
news and radio resources at the disposal of UVM. Starting at the university
will be the most effective way to gain initial support—especially with our
school where people are informed, current, opinionated, and want to see change
in the world.
So
as to start building some funds for this operation we could start with small
events like canning around Burlington or even having something as simple as
bake sale could help. Along the concept of funding, attempting to get stories
into any newspapers or news stations either local or otherwise could be vital
towards reaching entities who would choose to endorse the message we are
sending—reaching anybody who would want to donate is absolutely crucial.
The last thing I want to mention is trying to connect
with larger preexisting organizations which are focused on ending the drug war,
again the Drug Policy Alliance and Global Commission on Drug Policy would be
two major and international organizations to build a dialogue with. Building a
relationship with these entities could prove beneficial for a number of
reasons, including assistance with coordinating events, ads, and the big
one—even assistance in finding funding for our campaign. Ultimately, this will
be a slow process; one in which it will require building from the bottom up,
with the end goal of becoming international in scale and reaching Congress
eventually since that is where the only final and real change can occur.
Conclusion
As we have seen, from the implementation of the
Controlled Substance Actin 1970 sprang a long and unpleasant period for many
within the United States as well as throughout a great many other countries. It
has given for forty years a remarkable amount of money and power to illegal
businesses which perpetuate violence and corruption within all the governments
they touch. Not only that but the United States has lost an tremendous amount
of money over the years by struggling to combat this issue—yet has done so to
little avail. Rather than continue down this constant, tedious, and ineffective
path, it is time for the change so many need to happen; repeal the Controlled
Substance Act and give the power back to the legitimate businesses, as well as
giving life back to so many who have been incarcerated for committing a crime which
has been perpetuated by their own government. Doing this will give the chance
for honest Americans to pump some money back into the economy, an economy we
all know so desperately needs it.
Of course another major result of this would be to reduce
the violence which plagues so many countries within Latin America—getting rid
of all the carnage that has occurred as a result of combat between gangs and
law enforcement agencies. These black market businesses will see a reduction in
size as their business shrinks as the demand for foreign cocaine drops in the
United States. Take the power away from these corrupt businesses and give it
back to the people and, hopefully, to governments like Colombia and Mexico who
have long suffered at the hands of these trafficking organizations. With this
happening, the U.S. can safely dismantle the
Drug Enforcement Agency and put its staff to better use in
counterterrorism efforts—something that would increase the security not only for
us, but for our Latin American comrades as well. Let’s see this ineffective war
be pulled apart in an attempt to build a brighter future for so many who
desperately need it.
Works
Cited
"Cato Handbook for Congress." Www.cato.org.
Cato Institute, n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.
"Columbian
Traffickers." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 06 Feb. 2013.
"Drug
Trafficking and Organized Crime In the Americas: Major Trends in the
Twenty-First Century." Academic Search Complete. EBSCO, Aug. 2012.
Web. 3 Feb. 2013. <http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/BB%20Final.pdf>.
Tate,
Winifred. "Columbia's Role in International Drug Industry." FPIF.
Foreign Policy In Focus, 1 Nov. 1999. Web. 7 Mar. 2013."Global Commission
on Drug Policy." Global Commission on Drug Policy. N.p., 2012. Web.
10 Feb. 2013.
Lopdz,
Dario, Frank Bajak, Alberto Arce, and Romina Ruiz-Goiriena. "U.S. Military
Expands Its Drug War in Latin America." USA Today. Gannett, 3 Feb.
2013. Web. 4 Feb. 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment