We Must Cut Off The Gun Pipeline To Mexican Cartels

The best way to defeat the Mexican cartels is to cut off their supply of guns -- most of which come from dealers and manufacturers in the United States. Here's how Jonathan Lowy and Luis Moreno describe this in The Washington Post: 

According to recent reports, former president Donald Trump is preparing battle plans to attack Mexico if he regains the White House. This is only the latest escalation of saber rattling in the wake of the recent kidnapping and killing of Americans in Mexico. Former U.S. attorney general William P. Barr, Rep. Dan Crenshaw, and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham are among those calling for U.S. military action in Mexico to take on drug cartels.

There is no debating the threat the cartels pose. The fentanyl they push is killing thousands on both sides of the border. In Mexico, they torture and kill journalists to silence them, battle law enforcement and the military, and terrorize civilians. Cartels are largely responsible for as many as 100,000 Mexicans who have been “disappeared” — kidnapped and probably killed — and the 20,000 confirmed killed every year. The violence is spurring migration at the U.S. border. And these transnational criminal organizations are spreading to the United States.

The cartels need to be stopped. But this is not a problem Washington can bomb its way out of. Sending in troops won’t help stop the violence and drug trafficking. There is, however, something the United States can do that would: cut off the gun pipeline that arms the cartels.

It’s shocking but not surprising that at least one of the guns used in the recent kidnapping was trafficked from the United States. Seventy to 90 percent of Mexican drug cartels’ guns are trafficked from U.S. gun stores, supplied by U.S. manufacturers and distributors.

Why do the cartels’ traffickers risk border crossings to get guns? Because Mexico has strong laws regulating gun sales and only one gun store, which restricts criminals from obtaining weapons there. But in the United States, federally licensed firearms dealers can sell dozens of AR-15s and AK-47s and thousands of rounds of ammunition to purchasers without even asking why a buyer would want such an arsenal. Manufacturers continue to supply these dealers despite their dangerous practices, even though the U.S. Justice Department told them to self-police their distribution chain more than 20 years ago.

Money and guns from the United States drive the deadly violence and drug trafficking in Mexico. The money the cartels use to pay for the guns comes largely from their sale of illegal drugs to buyers in the United States. The cartels and the gun industry profit from this deadly trade, while hundreds of thousands suffer.

What has Congress done about it? In 2004, it failed to renew the 10-year ban on assault weapons, which made it possible to recklessly sell them to traffickers. A study found that for both of the two years that followed, there was a 60 percent spike in homicides in Mexico near the border. And mass shootings in the United States tripled since the ban lapsed.

In 2005, Congress passed a law to shield bad actors in the gun industry from accountability for the harm they cause. Gun manufacturers Barrett and Browning make and sell to civilians .50-caliber sniper rifles that can pierce armor and shoot down helicopters. U.S. law enforcement focuses on arresting traffickers, who are easily replaced. But it refuses to take on the U.S. gun industry, which is the source of the weapons used by criminals in Mexico and the United States.

If those who call for military intervention in Mexico truly want to stop the cartels, they should support a ban on assault weapons and bulk sales, and greater accountability and enforcement against gun companies that supply cross-border traffickers. The Biden administration should also crack down on dangerous industry practices.

Instead, the “send in the troops” politicians support policies that enable cartels to amass arsenals. After assault weapons were used to kill 19 children and two adults in Uvalde, 23 people in El Paso (including eight Mexicans) and 26 in Sutherland Springs — all in his home state of Texas — Crenshaw opposed requiring background checks for all gun sales, even though nearly 90 percent of Americans support them.

There is serious policy, and then there’s political bluster. When it comes to the fentanyl crisis and violence in Mexico, there has lately been too much of the latter and not enough of the former. Reforming the gun industry to stop the crime gun pipeline is a serious and necessary solution to this ongoing emergency.

It's Time To Stop The "War On Drugs"

The War on Drugs hasn't made much sense for a while now. This country has spent wel over a trillion dollars to enforce drug prohibition and ballooned our prison population to the largest in the world (both in actual numbers and per capita the population). And exactly nothing has been accomplished. Drugs are just as available now as they ever were -- to all ages and levels of society. And making matters even crazier is the fact that the deadliest drug of all, alcohol, is legal because it is the drug of choice of those in power.

I say nothing has been accomplished, but what I mean by that is that nothing good has been accomplished. The War on Drugs has created several vicious drug cartels (who are very willing to kill to protect the vast profits they are making because drugs are illegal). It has also created a huge underground economy where no income taxes or sales taxes are ever paid (taxes that every level of government could really use in this recession). And it has created a huge prison population that is sucking both state and federal coffers dry.

It has also done something else (just like it did the first time prohibition was tried). It has diverted police efforts away from fighting real crimes -- crimes against persons and property. And it has greatly increased corruption in policing agencies at all levels. Since October of 2004 (just 7 years ago) at least 132 Customs Agents and Border Patrol Officers have been indicted or convicted of corruption/bribery. When you include the corruption in sheriff's departments, local police departments, and state police agencies that number grows much larger. Most police officers are honest hard-working individuals, but for many others the lure of big money is just too great.

The War on Drugs, just like the first attempt at prohibition, was started with good intentions. But it has never lived up to those intentions. Like the prohibition of alcohol in the past, the prohibition of drugs has done far more harm to this country than good. It is time to recognize that drug possession and use is not a crime, it is a medical problem. The only effective way to fight it is through treatment and education. Addicted individuals must be offered treatment and children must be taught from an early age the truth about drug use.

And when I say the truth must be taught, I don't mean students should be shown a fried egg and told that is their brain on drugs (which even a child can tell is ridiculous). And we must stop lumping all drugs together as though they are equally bad for your health. That is simply not true. Each drug has its own level of danger, and at least one (marijuana) is not life-threatening at all. In fact, two of the most dangerous drugs of all, alcohol and tobacco, are already legal -- in spite of the fact that they claim more lives each year than any of the illegal drugs.

We need to have a national discussion -- not on whether to decriminalize drugs, but on how to do it. I personally believe we should make the addicting drugs available with a doctor's prescription. Less dangerous drugs should be legalized and controlled similar to alcohol -- especially marijuana. And all of them should be heavily taxed (including at the growing and production and distribution levels).

There is already substantial support for doing this with marijuana. A recent Gallup Poll (taken between October 6th and 9th of a national sample of 1,005 adults with a margin of error of 4 points) verifies this. It shows that 50% of Americans think marijuana should be legalized, while only 46% oppose that. Here is the polls demographic breakdown (with the percentages shown being those in favor of legalization):

Men...............55%
Women...............46%

Liberals...............69%
Moderates...............57%
Conservatives...............34%

18 to 29...............62%
30 to 49...............56%
50 to 64...............49%
65 & over...............31%

Democrats...............57%
Independents...............57%
Republicans...............35%

West...............55%
Midwest...............54%
East...............51%
South...............44%

The War on Drugs has been a miserable failure -- both financially and in human terms. And it has done serious damage to our society. It is time to end it.

Perry Wants To Invade Mexico ?

Rick Perry is not known as a very smart person, and he's come up with a lot of really stupid ideas (seceding Texas from the Union, declaring Social Security & Medicare unconstitutional, turning down federal education funds when Texas was facing a massive deficit, placing a radioactive waste dump over the Ogallala Aquifer in West Texas, praying for rain to cure a drought, etc.). But he may well have come up with his stupidest idea of all recently. He says he would consider sending United States soldiers into Mexico.

Perry seems to have decided that Mexico can't handle it's own internal problems -- especially the drug cartels that have caused a lot of problems and killed both government officials and innocent civilians. He thinks that thorny problem can be handled by just sending in American troops to help the Mexican Army. He has completely overlooked the fact that the biggest problems of the cartel problem are the American "drug war" (that created the problem) and the shipment of American guns to Mexico (which exacerbates the problem). Solving those two problems would help a lot more than sending American troops to Mexico.

Now some of you, especially those on the right, are probably saying that's not an invasion -- that's just helping out the Mexican government. But those who would say that have to be ignorant of American history. The U.S. has sent troops into Mexico before for even more spurious excuses -- and wound up stealing most of the Southwest (including California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and most of New Mexico). Does anyone really think the Mexican government or people would trust American troops being sent to their country to "help"? Not a chance!

And it's not just the history of the U.S. invading Mexico and stealing a significant portion of their country that would have the Mexican people worried. They have watched as American troops invaded many other countries around the world for either political or business reasons (such as, but not limited to, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Philippines, Russia, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan). The U.S. usually tries to cloak it as defending this country, but none of the countries I've listed above posed any threat to America when they were invaded. Mexico doesn't pose a threat to the U.S. either, but the Mexican people know that has never stopped the United States in the past.

You can bet that any American troops crossing the border into Mexico would be considered an invasion -- by both the Mexican government and the Mexican people. There is no way they would ever agree to American troops being stationed in their country to fight citizens of their country (even citizens viewed as criminals). And I'll bet a huge majority of Americans would be opposed to sending American troops to Mexico also -- for any reason. America already has too many troops in too many foreign countries. The U.S. needs to be bringing troops back home, not sending more out of this country.

Rick Perry, like many of his friends on the right, thinks this country has a right to send American troops to any country we want for any reason we want. But that is the thinking of a bully, not a peace-loving and law-abiding nation. It is time for America to stop being the world's biggest bully and start taking care of its own problems -- and let other nations do the same.

Rick Perry's latest idea is not just dumb, it is incredibly stupid. And regardless of what he says, it shows that as president he would be another George Bush -- maybe even worse.  

NRA Will Defend "Rights" Of Gun Smugglers

The failed United States "War on Drugs" has created an extremely lucrative black market for the drug trade (just like the U.S.'s first attempt at prohibition did for alcohol). And this black market has created a new breed of organized criminals, known as drug cartels. In Mexico, these cartels are warring with one another to control the import of drugs into the United States -- and these "cartel wars" have caused the deaths of between 35,000 and 40,000 people in Mexico (including police and soldiers trying to stop the killing and innocent civilians caught in the crossfire).

Much of the blame for these thousands of deaths must lie with the United States. Not only did U.S. drug policy create the cartels, but they have been armed mostly with guns from the United States. Thousands of firearms, including military-style semi-automatic weapons, are purchased from dealers in the U.S. and smuggled to the cartels in Mexico each year.

After years of inaction, the United States government has finally taken some action to stop the illegal shipment of firearms into Mexico. The government has issued a rule that will now require any gun dealer in the border states (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California) to contact the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Expolsives (ATF) if an individual purchases more than two semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines in a five-day period.

This is a reasonable action that probably should have been done long ago. It won't stop the smuggling altogether, but it will make it a little harder for the smugglers to purchase the firearms.

Incredibly, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is saying it will go to court to stop the new regulation. This probably shouldn't surprise anyone since the NRA has opposed any regulation of guns, no matter how sensible or needed the regulation was. It even opposed the waiting period and background check to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals or the dangerously mentally ill -- in spite of the fact that this was (and is) supported by a large majority of American citizens.

I'm not sure what the NRA sees as a problem to the new federal rules. Any American citizen (that can pass a background check) can still purchase as many firearms as they want, including semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines. They can even purchase more than two in a five-day period if they can justify the purchase to the ATF. And even following the two in a five day restriction, they could purchase more than a hundred firearms in a year.

Obviously, the new federal regulation does not harm the ability of Americans to purchase whatever firearms they want. The only thing it does is make it a little bit harder for smugglers to purchase large quantities of firearms. So, just who is the NRA trying to protect by fighting the new regulation in court? The smugglers! The NRA should be ashamed of itself. This is not a Second Amendment issue. It is an effort to stop smuggling and save lives.

U.S. Ignores Voices Of Reason On Drugs

"When you have 40 years of a policy that is not bringing results, you have to ask if it's time to change it." Those are the words of former Colombian president Cesar Gaviria, and they make a lot of sense. It's been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. If that is true, then the American "war on drugs" is completely insane.

The United States has tried to eliminate drug use for many decades by making it a criminal offense to possess certain drugs -- the drugs not popular with the people in power. The drugs of the power brokers (such as alcohol and tobacco) are legal and actually more dangerous than some illegal drugs (such as marijuana, mescaline and LSD). For some unknown reason, the United States has decided that some drugs are legal and socially acceptable while others are illegal and socially unacceptable.

Of course this makes no sense, but laws are seldom based on common sense -- they are based on politics and social mores (neither of which are a good basis for law-making). The fact is that there are millions of people who use drugs (over 250 million worldwide) and most of them work and lead normal lives. Americans have been propagandized into believing that drug use and drug abuse are the same thing -- they aren't. Drug use is recreational while drug abuse is a medical problem, and only a small portion of drug users become drug abusers (like a small portion of drinkers become alcoholics).

Gaviria (along with the former Secretary-General of the U.N. Kofi Annan, former president of Mexico Ernesto Zedillo, and former president of Brazil Fernando Henrique Cardoso, founder of Virgin Group Richard Branson, and former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and others) is a member of the Global Commission on Drug Policy. This commission has recommended that the United States (and other countries) change drug policy. They want drug use to be decriminalized and drug abuse to be treated as the medical problem that it really is.

They made the recommendation to the United States because the United States pretty much controls drug policy worldwide -- largely through foreign aid grants, loans, diplomatic efforts, and military power). Until the United States alters it stance on the criminalizing of drugs, few (if any) other countries will. And the United States has no intention of changing its failed policy.

The Obama administration quickly rejected the commission's report, deeming it unworthy of even discussion or debate. They seem to think that decriminalization of drugs would lead to widespread availability and increased drug use. This completely ignores the fact that drugs of all kinds are already readily available to anyone who wants them (and between 1998 and 2008 the use of marijuana rose 8% and the use of cocaine rose 27%). The "war on drugs" has not stopped or reduced drug use and has not decreased the availability of drugs.

What it has done is create some powerful criminal cartels who are getting filthy rich off the black market in drugs and making the world a more dangerous place for everyone (just like what happened when this country tried to prohibit alcohol). As long as drugs are illegal this black market will exist and the illegal cartels will thrive (regardless of who they have to kill to do it).

And the cartels are not the only ones getting fat off the "war on drugs". Policing agencies on all levels have gotten a ton of money they don't want to lose -- huge amounts both from the taxpayers and from seized currency. Not to mention all the new prisons (both public and private) that have been built to house mostly non-violent drug offenders (and we still don't have nearly enough prison space to incarcerate all drug offenders). Decriminalization of drugs would probably eliminate the need for half the current prison space -- and save a ton of taxpayer money spent on interdiction efforts which don't work effectively.

The current "war on drugs" is a failed policy -- and it has been failing for decades. But American politicians are unwilling to even discuss changing this failed policy. Instead, they spend more money every year to fund the continuing failure. For them it is easier to continue wasting taxpayer dollars (and destroying the lives of recreational drug users) than to face the reality of their massive failure.

The Global Commission on Drug Policy's recommendations make a lot of sense, and they deserve to be debated in the public forum and at all levels of government. But don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. That would require political courage, and that's something that's in very short supply these days.

NRA Takes An Absurd Position

Richard Grabman over at The Mex Files has a rather interesting post of an argument about American guns winding up with Mexican drug cartels.   This has been happening for a while now, and is resulting in the deaths of Mexican police, soldiers and hundreds of innocent civilians.   This tragedy needs to be stopped and the best way to stop it is to stop the flow of American guns (of all types) to Mexico.

Recently, the Mexican Ambassador to the United States, Arturo Sarukhan, appealed for help from the National Rifle Association (NRA) -- the strongest gun rights organization in the United States.   Mr. Sarukhan said he thought it would be in the best interest of the NRA to support efforts to stop the selling of guns to interests in Mexico.   After all, the second amendment was meant to support the right of U.S. citizens to own guns -- not members of the Mexican drug cartels.

This seems reasonable to me, but it evidently didn't to the nuts running the NRA.   Their response to Mr. Sarukhan was nothing short of absurd.   The NRA's response was,   "It is wrong for him to blame the Second Amendment and the National Rifle Association for a problem that originates in his own country.   This is a very serious and sad situation but the solution has to come from within Mexico."

Outrageous!   Mr. Sarukhan was not attacking or blaming the Second Amendment.   He was just asking the NRA to support policies to curb the shipment of guns to Mexico.   And while the problem with the cartels may be in Mexico, the shipment of American guns to that country and the American purchase of drugs that come from or through that country has certainly exacerbated the problem and contributed to the many deaths.  

To show just how ridiculous the NRA statement and position is, Mr. Grabman has composed a letter to the NRA for the ambassador.   Ambassador Sarukhan is too classy to send the letter, but I think it shows unfairness of the NRA's response and therefore reproduce here for your edification.   It shows just how silly it is for the United States to put all the responsibility on Mexico for solving problems that affect both nations.   Here is the letter:

Dear National Rifle Association:

I have the honor of informing you that my government is in agreement with your suggestion that a “solution has to come from within Mexico.”  Our problem being that with unrestricted firearms imports, we will, of course, as allowed by GATT and other international agreements, be raising tariffs on other U.S. imports to recoup the costs for losses to our economy from the firearms imports.

As nothing in Mexican law prevents individuals from filing  lawsuits against the manufacturer of dangerous products, Federal Ministers will be assisting those citizens harmed by U.S. firearms in filing suits against the sellers and manufacturers.  Because these suits will be brought in Mexican cours, and it will be impossible to collect such judgments as the courts may order, we will — as is done in the United States in similar situations — seize whatever U.S. assets are available in Mexico to satisfy the court’s rulings.  This would include, for example, not just United States government funds in Mexican banks, but real property, automobiles and goods owned by U.S. citizens.

Much as your organization believes your Constitutional guarantees of the right to bear arms extends to sales for export, our Constitution guarantees the right of any citizen to engage in any honest enterprise he or she may desire.  Perhaps we have been doing a disservice to our narcotics growers and exporters, similar to that your organization believes is done by those who object to the unrestricted sale of firearms.

Thank you for your enlightened attitude on this.  We will be immediately opening our borders to the export and sale of methamphetamine, marijuana and heroin.  We have asked the governments of Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Colombia and Venezuela to open their trade in coca and cocaine derivatives, which — in passing through Mexico — also would require a solution to come from within your country.

With all best wishes –

Arturo Sarukhan

Is the selling of American guns to Mexico's drug cartels just an internal problem of Mexico?   If so, a case could be made that the importation of drugs into this country is just an internal problem of the United States.   The truth is that the two problems are intertwined and neither can be solved without the cooperation of both countries.   If we want Mexico to help solve our drug problem, then we must help them solve their gun problem.

The position of the NRA about this problem is patently absurd.   No one is questioning the right of Americans to own guns which is guaranteed by the Second Amendment.   But the Second Amendment doesn't give anyone the right to sell or ship guns to Mexico (or any other country).

$1 Trillion Wasted - Nothing Accomplished

Back in 1970, President Richard Nixon was having a lot of trouble trying to get something (anything!) accomplished in Vietnam. So he decided to wage a war that he thought he could win, and most of the American populace would support -- a war on drugs. He signed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act. He said, "Public enemy no. 1 in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive."

Nixon budgeted $100 million, and the "war on drugs" was off and running. Unfortunately, this new "war on drugs" was as flawed and ill-conceived as his plan to burglarize the Watergate Building. President after president took up the same war, and each one upped the amount of money sunk into the program. Now it is 40 years later, and the only thing that has been accomplished is the spending of over a trillion dollars on this exercise in futility. That money has not slowed down the import of drugs into this country or the use of the illegal drugs.

The current United States Drug Czar, Gil Kerlikowske, admits as much. He says, "In the grand scheme, it has not been successful. Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."

His predecessor, John P. Walters, is more hard-headed. He claims, "To say that all the things that have been done in the war on drugs haven't made any difference is ridiculous. It destroys everything we've done. It's saying all the people involved in law enforcement, treatment and prevention have been wasting their time. It's saying all these people's work is misguided."

Well, yes. That's exactly what the last 40 years of the "war on drugs" has shown. Much of the work is misguided -- especially the money spent on interdiction, arrest, incarceration and forced drug programs. This approach simply does not work. How many more years and how much more money must we waste before we realize that?

It is said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat that history, and that is obviously true with prohibition. We should have learned from the first time it was tried in this country in the 1920s, when alcohol was outlawed. That did not prevent the use of alcohol. Anyone who really wanted it could still get it. All it did was create a huge black market that made underworld gangs rich and much more powerful. It also increased the violence of these underworld gangs as they struggled to control that black market, and many times that violence spilled over to affect innocent people.

Our second attempt at prohibition, the "war on drugs", has done exactly the same thing. It has not stopped or decreased drug use. Anyone who really wants to use drugs can easily get them. It has also enriched underworld gangs (we now call them "drug cartels") and made them very powerful. And it has increased the violence connected with those gangs, with much of that violence spilling over to affect innocent people. And it is all caused by the "war on drugs".

We had the chance to learn the horrors of prohibition the first time we tried it, but we didn't. And our failure to learn from past mistakes has been devastating both financially and socially. It does not matter whether the prohibited drug is alcohol, marijuana or some other drug, the effect of the prohibition is the same.

There were those opposed to legalizing alcohol again. They said it would be terrible for the country, because alcohol use would rise sharply. They were wrong. Education programs alerted people to the effects of alcohol overuse and abuse, and treatment programs did wonders for those who wanted treatment for that abuse. Meanwhile, millions continued to use alcohol recreationally, just as they had under prohibition, without ill effects.

It is just a regrettable fact of life that some will abuse any recreational substance. However, that can be controlled by education and treatment programs. In a free country, we should not punish the millions who use the substances in a controlled and recreational way. And we certainly shouldn't criminalize those hard-working and decent people (especially because of the use of harmless substances like marijuana). Legalizing drugs will not destroy our society any more than legalizing alcohol did. Those who want it will get it (just as they do now) and those who don't won't.

Instead of spending another trillion dollars trying to stop drug use and failing (while the drug cartels get richer and more violent), wouldn't it make more sense to legalize drugs and then tax the hell out of them? Let those drugs pay not only for treatment programs and education, but also many other government functions. It would not only mean less taxes of other kinds, but it would also create many legal jobs and income opportunities. Doesn't that make sense for a country in the middle of a recession?

Sadly, President Obama is following in the failed footsteps of his predecessors. He has budgeted $15.5 billion just for this year's "war on drugs" -- with $10 billion going to the futile interdiction and law enforcement efforts (and that doesn't count the billions that will be spent for the incarceration of nonviolent drug users in state facilities). This is just throwing good money after bad into a bottomless pit, and it will accomplish nothing -- just like the last 40 years. Frankly, that money could be better spent on food, housing and health care for needy Americans.

It is time for America to admit that the "war on drugs" has failed. Continuing this program will only result in more failure. The only thing that makes sense is to change our policy, and recognize that drug abuse is a medical problem -- not a criminal problem. Any money spent on drugs should go into education and treatment programs. And our law enforcement agencies should turn their attention to controlling real crimes -- like the violent criminals who attack innocent persons and their property. Meanwhile, recreational substance use should be legalized and taxed. A sensible policy like this will not harm our nation -- it will save it.

By using the Freedom of Information laws, the Associated Press has learned how some of our first trillion dollars in the failed "war on drugs" was spent. Here are the figures:

*$20 billion to fight the drug gangs in their home countries. In Colombia, for example, the United States spent more than $6 billion, while coca cultivation increased and trafficking moved to Mexico — and the violence along with it.

*$33 billion in marketing "Just Say No"-style messages to America's youth and other prevention programs. High school students report the same rates of illegal drug use as they did in 1970, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says drug overdoses have "risen steadily" since the early 1970s to more than 20,000 last year.

*$49 billion for law enforcement along America's borders to cut off the flow of illegal drugs. This year, 25 million Americans will snort, swallow, inject and smoke illicit drugs, about 10 million more than in 1970, with the bulk of those drugs imported from Mexico.

*$121 billion to arrest more than 37 million nonviolent drug offenders, about 10 million of them for possession of marijuana. Studies show that jail time tends to increase drug abuse.

*$450 billion to lock those people up in federal prisons alone. Last year, half of all federal prisoners in the U.S. were serving sentences for drug offenses.

*At the same time, drug abuse is costing the nation in other ways. The Justice Department estimates the consequences of drug abuse — "an overburdened justice system, a strained health care system, lost productivity, and environmental destruction" — cost the United States $215 billion a year.

Cartels Moving North Of The Border

The powers that be in the "war on drugs" thought they had the solution to end the use of marijuana in the United States. They would just severely clamp down at the U.S./Mexico border, and then pay the Mexican government hundreds of millions of dollars to attack the drug cartels. This two-pronged attack would dry up marijuana at the source and the "war" would be won.

I guess it sounded good to our political leaders, who know far less about marijuana than they think they do. Anyone who's ever smoked a "joint" could have known it wouldn't work. Marijuana grows just as well (if not better) north of the border as it does in Mexico.

Marijuana has been a huge cash crop in Texas, Oklahoma, California and many other states for many years now. But it was Americans doing this illegal growing. But since the border crackdown, we are now seeing a new phenomenon. The Mexican drug cartels are moving their growing operations north of the border.

Law enforcement organizations are now finding more marijuana being grown than ever before, and many of these are not "mom and pop" growers. They are large and sophisticated "grows" with many thousands of plants. Just this moth alone, officials in Navarro county have found three crops, totalling more than 16,000 plants. Oklahoma officials have found over 30,000 plants this summer in the Kiamichi Mountains.

These were sophisticated operations outfitted with drip irrigation systems, and the kicker -- they were being tended by undocumented Mexican workers brought in specifically for that purpose by the Mexican cartels. The "war on drugs" hasn't stopped the cartels. It's just moved their operations into our own back yard.

And what will be the response of our political leaders? If past actions are any guide, they will just throw good money after bad. They will buy airplanes and helicopters and all sorts of technological equipment, and hire more officers armed with assault rifles. They will move us even closer to a police state -- all to stop an innocuous drug that is less harmful to its users than most legal drugs.

Now I don't want the Mexican cartels operating in Texas and other states, but this approach has already been proved a failure. Marijuana is an accepted recreational drug in this country, and pouring millions more into law enforcement efforts will not stop it. And it will not stop the cartels. What it will do is keep the drug so profitable to the cartels, that the killings so prevalent in Mexico will move into our own cities and towns -- and that is something no American should want to happen.

There is a sensible way to stop the cartels though. Simply legalize the growth and sale of marijuana in the United States. This would have several effects -- all of them good for America. First it would put the growing back into the hands of American farmers, giving them a new and profitable cash crop. This would increase their incomes and boost the economy at large (and increase the income tax they pay -- probably significantly).

It would also destroy the importing and growing by the cartels, and would take millions of dollars in profits out of their pockets. They simply would not be able to compete with the American farmers growing the crop legally.

In addition to the increased income taxes paid by growers, a substantial tax could be levied on the retail sale of marijuana. This would give both federal and state governments billions of dollars in new income (and stave off tax increases in other areas, which would benefit everyone).

The legalization would also stop the stupid and hurtful criminalization of hard-working tax-paying Americans for the recreational use of marijuana. And it would redirect police efforts toward those more vicious elements in our society.

With the drug cartels moving in to our country and the economic recession hurting our citizens, it makes more sense now than ever to legalize marijuana. And not just for medical use. It should be legalized for recreational use under the same kind of laws governing the use of alcohol.