By John Stark
Voters’ decision to legalize marijuana in Washington and Colorado poses a challenge to U.S. foreign policy, as well as to federal marijuana prohibition laws, says Shannon O’Neil, senior fellwo for Latin America studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Writing on Fareed Zakaria’s GPS blog on CNN, O’Neil says pot legalization would mean lost revenue for Mexican drug cartels, while sending mixed signals to the governments of Mexico, Colombia and other countries that have expressed increasing doubts about the wisdom of the longstanding “war on drugs” approach that the United States has urged on them for decades.
She also quotes research indicating that legalization will likely mean cheaper pot and an increase in pot use.
UPDATE: Here’s more on the Mexican view of the situation, from Diana Washington Valdez at the El Paso Times.
Here’s a quote from a community activist in Cd. Juarez:
Fernando Alvarez, a math consultant and community activist in Juárez, said he agrees that legalization would have an economic impact on Mexico. “Unfortunately, many people who are struggling with poverty turn to the drug trade for employment, as farmers, farm laborers, transporters and smugglers,” Alvarez said. “The Mexican government needs to invest in industries that will create new jobs for these people.” (emphasis added.)
In the past few weeks, I have seen some of my Facebook friends arguing that drug legalization will help to curb drug-fueled violence in Latin America. That would be a good thing–but I wonder if drugs are the sole cause of the horrific violence we see in Mexico, Colombia and other places. Pretext, yes. Cause? I wonder.
Colombia was a violent place long before the drug trade ballooned to its present proportions.
In Mexico, the beheadings and gun battles that have ripped up Ciudad Juarez and other cities might seem to be a relatively recent phenomenon. In the 1970s, when I lived in El Paso, we loved to stroll over the bridge into Juarez for dinner and drinks or handcrafts in the markets. A lot fewer people are doing that today.
But I find it hard to believe that all the young men driving around with cuernos de chivo on their front seats are going to become law-abiding citizens if drug profits disappear.
In the second half of the 20th Century, Mexico seemed to be a far more orderly place than Colombia–but that has been true for less than 100 years.
One hundred and one years ago, a federal garrison at Ciudad Juarez was under seige by rebel forces, and stray bullets killed U.S. residents across the river. That battle was an early round in more than 10 years of violent upheaval that devastated Mexico.
I have no doubt that Shannon O’Neil is correct when she asserts that pot use will increase with legalization; any other claim would defy common sense. I think we’ll also see more derelicts on the street here in Bellingham, as if we don’t have enough already. It’ll be interesting to see if there’s a movement to oveturn the legalization vote in a few years.
rhw61: I have a few questions for you to ponder: I’m not saying marijuana use will change either way, because that’s hard to predict, but do you really think that if herion or cocaine was legalized tomorrow that there would be an increased use? You also seem to think that marijuana leads to homeless people? I’m not sure there’s ever been a study on that exact subject, but what makes you think that?
A lifetime ago, I had two brothers working for me. Born here, but their parents were born in Mexico City. You did not want to get then started about illegals or Mexico’s problems, but not for the reasons you’d think.
They were mostly complaining about how the UN would send the military around the world to protect some insignificant desert nation (Israel, etc), but let Mexico suffer at the hands of despots, corporations, governments and criminals.
It is odd. Mexico’s bad guys cause more damage than Osama ever dreamt of. Send the UN into Mexico and do an Iraq on their fat butts.
You make it sound so easy, Shard. What’s your exit strategy?
Skyler, I didn’t say “homeless people,” I said “derelicts.” I’m talking about the people who hang out down on Railroad Avenue during the day who are clearly stoned (which is probably why they aren’t working or in school). That will certainly increase if the cost of pot goes down as a result of legalization.
John, I don’t need an exit strategy because as much as I like to pretend that I know what the problem is, I don’t.
America should take care of its own neighborhood, though. Conservative Socialism would do a world of good for the nation.
Your views about the Mexican government are widely shared by Mexicans, as near as I can tell, Whatcomshard. The political situation there doesn’t look promising as of now, but it is, at least, fluid. Maybe there will be movement toward something better in the years ahead.
That is one bizarre argument you make for the roots of Mexico’s violence. Let me get this straight: stray bullets from Mexico’s civil war in 1916 are proof that Mexicans are inherently violent? Let me try that logic on the US: Constant US wars overseas since 1898 are proof that Americans are inherently violent. Does that make sense? Not to me either. Please work on your internalized racism.
rhw61, I guess we have a different understanding of the same word. Derelict, as a noun, as you used it, is usually a homeless person. But, I’m not here to argue about that. I am a veteran, smoke marijuana every day (usually in my own home, but sometimes discretely in public) go to school full time, and work 20+ hours a week. I think what you mean is that they are “delinquents”. Would you consider me a delinquent?
I haven’t looked at any projections of the cost of marijuana once it is in stores, but I have a feeling it will be more expensive than the stuff I buy from a grower due to the ridiculous taxation they are imposing.
SO SOME SAY to absorb Mexico, just imagine the kidnapping and beheading in our local neighborhoods. That is what we would be seeing if we were to take out Mexico. Is your head buried that far in the sand to think the cartels are limited to south of the border? Think again. Cartels have operations, many in the usa. We’re in a bad way with Mexico because the minute we start an assault on them the violence in the usa will skyrocket. Don’t you think we would have”fought” the war on drugs long before now off this wasn’t the case?
Wow, Liberty Bell, I love how you really promote a respectful dialogue by thoughtfully examining your disagreements with those who hold different beliefs than you:
“dopes” “drugged out party” “Dopehead Greguoir”
But back to the subject at hand. I think legalization will definitely reduce the violence in Mexico by reducing the amount of illegal trade. With our rather liberal gun laws and the marijuana production south of the border, we are feeding a vicious cycle. Reducing our demand for Mexican marijuana is a smart, fiscally conservative solution to this continuing foreign policy issue.
I’m pretty sure the demand for Mexican reefer is extremely low in this state. So the legalization in Washington will have a very, if any effect on the demand from Mexico. Maybe if Texas, Arizona or other states that don’t have the good buds like the west has, were to follow suit it might make a difference.
WHO CARES? We need to be defeating Eyman initiatives, and repealing the effects of past ones. Pot is a spectacular diversion, but given that it is still ultimately regulated by the Feds, why are we talking about it?
Could someone enlighten me why pot sales / recreational use is a federal issue when/if no interstate commerce is involved? Everyone loves talking about which federal agencies they’d shutdown considering budget cuts, I’d shutter the DEA and ATF.
Funny the 10th amendment wikipedia page actually has a section on this and also mentions how WA and CO recently legalized recreational use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Medical_marijuana_laws
Remember FDR?
You do get who you smoke for?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html
Our case law firmly establishes Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic “class of activities” that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. See, e.g., Perez, 402 U.S., at 151; Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 128—129 (1942). As we stated in Wickard, “even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.” Id., at 125. We have never required Congress to legislate with scientific exactitude. When Congress decides that the “ ‘total incidence’ ” of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class. See Perez, 402 U.S., at 154—155 (quoting Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256, 259 (1927) (“[W]hen it is necessary in order to prevent an evil to make the law embrace more than the precise thing to be prevented it may do so”)). In this vein, we have reiterated that when “ ‘a general regulatory statute bears a substantial relation to commerce, the de minimis character of individual instances arising under that statute is of no consequence.’ ” E.g., Lopez, 514 U.S., at 558 (emphasis deleted) (quoting Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. 183, 196, n. 27 (1968)).
When you can’t grow Wheat for your own use, or your own cows, why does anyone think they can grow pot, for themselves, you can’t even go find your own health care now.
July 28th, 2012? Vote Obama(D)
“We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions….
Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 195 (1824)….
Our cases refer to this general power of governing, possessed by the States but not by the Federal Government, as the “police power.” See, e.g., United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598, 618–619 (2000).
The power over activities that substantially affect interstate commerce can be expansive. That power has been held to authorize federal regulation of such seemingly local matters as a farmer’s decision to grow wheat for himself and his livestock, and a loan shark’s extor- tionate collections from a neighborhood butcher shop. See Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111 (1942); Perez v. United States, 402 U. S. 146 (1971).
July 28, 2012
Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 5
Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.
affect interstate commerce can be expansive. That power has been held to authorize federal regulation of such seem- ingly local matters as a farmer’s decision to grow wheat for himself and his livestock, and a loan shark’s extortionate collections from a neighborhood butcher shop. See Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111 (1942); Perez v. United States, 402 U. S. 146 (1971).
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
Should have voted Republican.
“Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God, if ever he had a chosen people, whose breasts he has made his peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue. It is the focus in which he keeps alive that sacred fire, which otherwise might escape from the face of the earth.”
Thomas Jefferson(R)