Clinton is once again right, wrong

Artus Register

It is big of Secretary of State Clinton to admit that the U.S. shares the blame for the drug cartel violence near the U.S.-Mexico border.  But as is almost always the case with government types, the reasons she gave were much different than the reality.

Clinton blamed the violence on America’s desire for intoxicants and the lack of American gun control.

“Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade,” she said. “Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians.”

There was no mention of our insatiable demand for more government to deal with every issue, or our inability to demand that government officials read and obey the Constitution they have sworn allegiance to.  But more government is, of course the only answer she and her ilk are capable of offering.  Had the Secretary not been calling for the Almighty State to “do something,” she wouldn’t have been speaking.

What Mrs. Clinton doubtless realizes and pretends not to is that people the world over seek various levels and types of intoxication, and have since time immemorial. No amount of government intervention is going to change that.  People have always sought to alter their consciousness, whether seeking the relaxation from the alcohol gleaned from fermented sugar, the energetic stimulation of coffee beans, coca leaves, etc., or the “mind expanding” hallucinations of various plants and chemicals.

Drugs, once discovered, are not going to be forgotten.  And the idea that government can combat desire is about as foolish as ideas come.  Stiffer penalties, eradication programs, and more criminalization only succeeds in wasting money and reducing the supply of drugs, which drives up the price and increases drug-related crime.  With increased crime government pretends its way out of blame and calls for more money, programs and laws, and the cycle is repeated.  And the sheeple clamor for more.

As to our gun problem, we simply don’t have one.  What we have is a backward, hopelessly corrupt “justice system” that does little or nothing to prevent violent crime, puts zero focus on restitution, and ensures that those guilty of force and fraud are released while those dealing in the commerce of plant matter remain in cages.

With violent criminals come weapons.  The concept that the law abiding, non-violent public should be disarmed as a way to reduce the violent tendencies of the criminal class is absurd prima facia and enjoys attempted justification only by the criminal class of government who pretend to offer people safety from their non-government criminal cousins.  While guns are a tool of criminal gangs, they are also a tool of protection for the non-criminal. As with drugs, weapons will be obtained by those who want them regardless of the number of laws passed, or penalties promised.

Mrs. Clinton seems to be blaming the state as a pretext from which this Administration’s statist trap can be sprung on the American people. Government hasn’t done enough, is the implication. And we have one eager to do more. Much more.

Having gone through the illusions, let us sample the reality.

Last fall, the Mexican government had a foolproof plan in motion to stop the drug violence.  The proposed legislative changes would have immediately removed the profit with which the violent drug cartels were built and maintained.  As Mexico moved toward decriminalizing “illicit” drugs, a panicked U.S. government–clearly concerned that the simple truth of economics would expose the fraud that our own drug war is–put enormous pressure on the Mexican government to abandon the idea.  And like an obedient dog, Mexico listened without complaint.

The U.S. encouraged Mexico to follow our shining example of violent coercion and endless budgets that have resulted in the abysmal failure of that is the Drug War.  It’s broke, so don’t fix it.

Prohibition Economics 101

Drug gangs, on either side of the border, exist because of the huge profits that are realized in a black market.  When a thing becomes illegal, it doesn’t go away, it just becomes expensive.   Those dealing in illegal objects, information, or substances are taking a much greater risk than a man selling vegetables, for example.  As the risk increases, so must the reward; hence the high prices of illegal drugs.

For every thing the government outlaws, a new black market is created.  When operating outside of the law, there are no contracts, agreements, arbitration, or court rooms.  Areas of operation, or “turf,” asking prices, and type of drugs sold are often agreed upon intra-criminally. But as in any business, disputes arise.  Without a legal system or enforceable arbitration, gangs have only the choice between surrender, and violence.

Decriminalizing drugs would immediately end the profits of those involved in the drug trade, from smugglers, to violent drug gangs government claims to oppose, to street corner dealers.  Continuing the absurdity that is our wealth-wasting Drug War creates and maintains the drug economy. In short, prohibition creates, then maintains a new class of criminal.

The massive violence that grew out of alcohol prohibition died with the repeal of the 18th Amendment, while that of drug prohibition remains, and is expanding is size, scope, and sophistication. “Staying the course” in the Drug War means that government will continue to toss good money after bad, and legislate away more liberty, “for the children,” or “for the greater good.”  It also means that the dead people on both sides will be replaced, and that the hopeless, pointless war on drugs war on people will continue.

Yes, Mrs. Clinton, the U.S. is certainly to blame. But not for the sophomoric reasons you came up with.

Add comment March 30th, 2009