Mexico's War against Drug Lords

[Hotu Matua]

As you know, my country has been experiencing a violent fight over the last 3 years against drug cartels. Recently, American citizens were killed in Ciudad Juarez and provoked a quick, although retorical reaction from Obama's administration.

I would like to know your opinion about this "war" from an Objectivist perspective.

I will summarize the situation here as an opener for discussion:

1. Mexico has been for decades a big supplier of marihuana, heroin and later on metamphetamines to the USA. After Colombian drug lords lost some power, Mexican counterparts took over becoming the tycoons of this industry.
   
2. Before current president Felipe Calderón, there were in place either tacit or hidden agreements between government and drug cartels, by means of which certain cartels could operate within certain geographical regions with minimal interference. The government, therefore, "granted" rights for the production or distribution of drug, and drug cartels granted government with "protection" at local level (counties, cities) and with big money.
   
3. When Felipe Calderon wins the presidential elections in 2006, he does it by a very narrow margin (0.5% difference ). He starts office with very low popularity indexes. He then realizes he needs to quickly gain the loyalty of his people, and he resorts to a traditional way to gain loyalties: Start a war against a common enemy. So he needed an enemy. And he found it in the drug lords. The cartels. He sends the army to many cities and starts fighting them in an almost all-out war (almost, since he doesn't manage to strike them financially).
   
4. The problem with drug lords is not that they are in the drug business. They hire gunmen to threat, loot, kidnap and murder other drug lord's allies. And since the war began, they use these gunmen to defend themselves from the Mexican army. As part of all of this, innocent people result hurted, shot or kidnapped.
   
5. Failure of Mexican Army to win the war after three years make Mexican citizens (including me) desperate. Violence seems to be escalating and innocent people keep dying. The government accuses the USA for not doing its part: stopping the smuggling of weapons to Mexico from the USA, reducing the consumption of drugs in the USA, and fighting the drug lords in charge of distribution within the USA.
   

I would love to read your thoughts on this issue.

[2046]

Having an ineffective police/military, justice, or court system is one thing, but you can't solve a demand by attacking the supply. Prohibition is at the root cause of the violence. By forcing drugs into the black market, gangs and cartels take over drug production. In the black market, producers cannot resolve disputes using courts and police, but must take the law into their own hands, thus disputes are resolved by gang wars rather than peaceful arbitration. Gangs use violence to enforce contracts, maintain market share, or defend sales territory. Turf wars are the most effective way to maintain control of the gang's production and distribution.

Also, prohibition raises the prices of drugs, and increased enforcement increases those inflated prices, and thus incentive to engage in gang warfare over drug production also increases. (Which also gives incentive for government agents and enforcement to be bribed or bought off.)

If they were legalized, producers can count on police and courts (assuming those are reliable) instead of killing one another, profits would fall, quality of the drugs would increase (meaning they would be less potent), and honest businessmen would outcompete the thugs.

Edited March 26, 2010 by 2046

[Tenzing_Shaw]

If they were legalized, producers can count on police and courts (assuming those are reliable) instead of killing one another, profits would fall, quality of the drugs would increase (meaning they would be less potent), and honest businessmen would outcompete the thugs.

It is drug laws in the United States that have made this situation possible, since that is where the market is. The Mexican government cannot control those laws. Also, the drug cartels are vicious gangs of killers which threaten to reduce some regions to a state of near anarchy. Therefore, the Mexican government must do everything in its power to wipe out the cartels and maintain law and order. Deploying the military to affected cities seems like a good first step; I would think, however, that a more aggressive approach would be warranted (i.e. actively seeking out and eliminating members of the cartels and destroying their property; I don't know how much of this is being done already). The best approach for the United States would be to legalize drugs here, while at the same time giving military aid to Mexico in order to destroy the cartels (since the security of U.S. border towns is also threatened). I would also say that the Mexican government should legalize drugs, but perhaps only after the major cartels have been eliminated. In the mean time, it is safe to assume that most drug-related activity in Mexico is connected with other, more serious crimes; also, I think the current situation qualifies as an emergency. Morally, I would also put a lot of blame on buyers of illegal drugs in the United States, who are content with (or evade) the fact that they are financing murderous thugs across the border.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Tenzing_Shaw

[Jake_Ellison]

It is drug laws in the United States that have made this situation possible, since that is where the market is.

This is a logically sound statement. Yes, demand makes the need for supply possible. And US drug laws create demand for Mexican drugs, since they make it impossible to produce the drugs in the US.

However, the rest of your post seems to treat "makes it possible" in the above sentence as if it were synonymous with "caused it", or "is to blame for it". That isn't the case, and you have only shown that it makes it possible, not that it caused it or is to blame for it.

In fact, he same exact thing is also true for a lot of things the US imports. Cheap Japanese cars, Chinese electronics, etc. are in demand in the US because American laws make the imports possible, by making it it impossible to produce them cheaply here. Mexico should be glad that the US is creating demand for their products, allow their farmers to produce it, and sell it to Americans in a market policed by Mexican authorities.

Sure, Mexican farmers would still have to sell to American drug dealers (who are criminals), but they would have the Mexican Police protecting their rights. There would be no reason whatsoever for Mexicans to organize into criminal gangs. So let's place the blame for Mexican lawlessness where it belongs: on Mexico's drug laws and general state of corruption.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[Tenzing_Shaw]

Let's assume that Mexico legalized drugs (in other words, the production and consumption of drugs within its borders). How would this change the situation? You would still have the same cartels fighting over the same market. They would have no reason to stop using violence against one another, and non-criminal competitors would be unable to enter the market for fear of retribution. Given the current situation, in other words, I think that all-out war against the cartels is the only solution. This should be accompanied with or followed by the legalization of drugs. Perhaps the government could start out by granting "licenses" to produce drugs to any would-be non-criminal competitors and then giving them (and their suppliers) police protection.

In other words, while I would agree with you that Mexican drug laws have been a major cause of the situation (and that my first post was inaccurate in that sense), this does not change the reality that the cartels exist and need to be eliminated by force.

[Jake_Ellison]

Well, as long as drugs are illegal, it's pretty clear that the cartels aren't going away. They're international crime syndicates motivated by profit. The more vicious the violence, the more profit there is in it for them.

The only thing that can affect their profits is non-criminals farming and making drugs without government prosecution. The prediction that the cartels would somehow take the place of the Police, and start searching out everyone who is growing plants, all across Mexico, even though the risks of doing so would easily outweigh the far removed benefit of eliminating one farmer out of millions, is quite far fetched. Sure, in the villages they control, no one's going to make drugs without the permission of the local crime boss. But the market will nonetheless be flooded just from housewives growing the stuff in their homes, without the chance of the cartels or anyone else even knowing about it, and the price would drop to the point where cartels can no longer afford to pay armies of thugs.

[Tenzing_Shaw]

So the idea is that these other producers would bypass the cartels and sell directly to "distributors" in America? As long as the cartels have a strong presence in border towns, and as long as most of the "distributors" are hardened criminals, I have a hard time seeing how this would happen.

[Hotu Matua]

I advocate raising prohibition, but I am uncertain on the effects it would take if it is raised only in Mexico and not in the USA.

The USA would still make a lot of pressure on Mexican government to halt exportation of drugs.

The USA would deny visa to the new entrepenurial non-criminal drug tycoons.

Young addicts from San Diego would flood Tijuana streets and plazas to get drugs, but since they could not bring them back to the USA they would have to consume those drugs in our streets and plazas.

And the Army still would have to fight the cartels because there are a lot of crimes to prosecute.

How was the experience of the USA when alcohol prohibition was raised? Did gangs disappear quickly? Was there any kind of "agreement" between gangs and the government to stop violence?

[Jake_Ellison]

So the idea is that these other producers would bypass the cartels and sell directly to "distributors" in America? As long as the cartels have a strong presence in border towns, and as long as most of the "distributors" are hardened criminals, I have a hard time seeing how this would happen.

The idea is that supply would be greater than demand, so prices would fall, along with the income of the suppliers. If the cartels don't have a monopoly on supply, they don't control the market. The reason why they do have that monopoly now is the Police, which prevents small time producers from producing drugs.

There really is no need to break down the law of supply and demand, and figure out who sells to whom, to make sure it' gonna come true this time too. It always comes true.

Young addicts from San Diego would flood Tijuana streets and plazas to get drugs, but since they could not bring them back to the USA they would have to consume those drugs in our streets and plazas.

So? Wouldn't Mexico want the tourists?

Edited March 27, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[Tenzing_Shaw]

The idea is that supply would be greater than demand, so prices would fall, along with the income of the suppliers. If the cartels don't have a monopoly on supply, they don't control the market. The reason why they do have that monopoly now is the Police, which prevents small time producers from producing drugs.

The law of supply and demand assumes a market in which buyers and sellers can interact freely (i.e. a free market). The presence of U.S. drug laws on one side and criminal cartels on the other introduces coercion, meaning that this condition isn't satisfied. Concretely, I don't see how the new entrants in the market would be able to sell to users across the border. Crossing the border with drugs would remain a very dangerous activity, requiring resources and planning (this is no doubt one reason that the cartels emerged in the first place).

Also, as Hotu Matua said, the cartels have committed numerous crimes. The proper way to deal with criminals is by using force, not by counting on economics to make them give up crime. Legalizing drugs might prevent this situation from recurring, but it is an insufficient measure in the present.

[Jake_Ellison]

The law of supply and demand assumes a market in which buyers and sellers can interact freely (i.e. a free market). The presence of U.S. drug laws on one side and criminal cartels on the other introduces coercion, meaning that this condition isn't satisfied.

It's pretty obvious that increased supply will reduce prices, in any market, not just an entirely free one. The opposite conclusion (that increased supply will increase drug prices) would be absurd.

[Hairnet]

I advocate raising prohibition, but I am uncertain on the effects it would take if it is raised only in Mexico and not in the USA.

The USA would still make a lot of pressure on Mexican government to halt exportation of drugs.

The USA would deny visa to the new entrepenurial non-criminal drug tycoons.

Young addicts from San Diego would flood Tijuana streets and plazas to get drugs, but since they could not bring them back to the USA they would have to consume those drugs in our streets and plazas.

And the Army still would have to fight the cartels because there are a lot of crimes to prosecute.

How was the experience of the USA when alcohol prohibition was raised? Did gangs disappear quickly? Was there any kind of "agreement" between gangs and the government to stop violence?

I am under the impression that Portugal (or a city in Portugal, DECRIMINALIZED, not legalized, all drugs). This has avoided all of the affects that you are talking about. This might be a good in between step to deal with the fact that being the only place with legalized drugs creates massive distortions in the market place. So, maybe it is a better idea to just fight for decriminalization and once it is spread around the semi-free world prohibition can be lifted.

The thing is with decriminalization is that it allows people to buy and sell drugs, but if they get caught they get ticketed instead of put in jail (wasting the government's time). They aren't allowed to sell drugs of that kind in normal stores though.

Another way I would deal with a full ending of prohibition would be to use the wealth generated by drug sales and tourism to build gated communities where drugs were illegal. I am a strong proponent of gated communities.