This book manages three fundamental premises, contrary to what is currently managing the Mexican government:
1 .- The drug has remained stable in the United States over the past 50 years, as in Mexico and sometimes decreases has also been seen that it is not possible eradication of the American population, since the legal framework cultural and northern neighbor, give freedom to its inhabitants, as well as the freedom to own guns. It's a cultural issue, so that the U.S. government will not engage heavily in attacking consumption. 2 .-
consumption and drug trafficking must be addressed by the government as a public health issue and not public safety, as well as the United States and provides us a desire for positive results for Mexico, we must approach it the same way;
3 .- Experience in other countries and even in Mexico itself demonstrates that collateral damage must attack the consequences. Attacking the use and trafficking is idle, because none of these activities have increased significantly in Mexico, and we are one of the countries worldwide, with less drug use, so that these objectives should not be attacked, however, we must focus on reducing the number of crimes caused by conflict between cartels and between them and the police or the army, as it has greatly increased deaths in our country without being reflected in this effort traffic.
The authors conducted several investigations based on reports from international agencies, dedicated to study the consumption and sale of drugs and narcotics. Based on these investigations we have different hard data during the writing, demonstrating that the approach will be managed by Felipe Calderón, the only achievements which will be the increase in violence, a generalization of this and an extension of the collateral damage, but it will not reduce consumption or or traffic. Felipe Calderón
supports its "war on drugs" as he himself has called in 5 arguments, that throughout the book, the authors will analyze, came to the conclusion of the 5 arguments set by the Mexican government to attack drug trafficking are groundless and truthfulness and therefore, government actions are doomed to failure objectives, but even worse, increase the violence in the country, extending not only to criminals and the authorities, but also by introducing a civil society in this maelstrom violent, causing unnecessary deaths and injuries.
Top 5 Mexican executive's arguments are:
1 .- The drugs are coming to your children;
2 .- The drug violence has increased
3 .- The penetration of the drug in high government
4 .- The flow of arms from the U.S. to Mexico
5 .- Act as did the Colombian government
These arguments will be false or half truths once it concludes reading the book. The most important conclusion to be reached is that this drug war is a political strategy of Felipe Calderón, to seek legitimacy to his government after the opposition expressed dissatisfaction that the electoral process of 2006.
That conclusion is something really frightening, as it tells us that more than 20,000 deaths that have occurred in Mexico on the drug war, the rise of widespread violence, the damage suffered by Mexico's image at international budgetary spending and other consequences are due to a political strategy, not a real official concern for the drug consumption and trafficking. This poses a scenario in which we are really vulnerable citizens, located between two fires, fires fanned by the Mexican government itself, from one side of organized crime and other authorities who are only seeking legitimacy and citizenship among helpless.
Mexico remains the way to reach the United States, has not become a consumer country, as we are to believe the authorities. This is demonstrated by research conducted by the government, through agencies such as the National Council Against Addictions (CONADIC) of the Ministry of Health.
Increased drug use has Mexico has been in proportion to the growth of its middle class, that is, in relative terms has remained stable since, as the authors say, since 1995, middle-class families moved from 6 million to 12 million in 2009 and in the same proportion that consumption is increased, ie the increase in the purchasing power of the middle class was reflected in consumption, so there was an increase in absolute terms, not in relative terms. Mexico remains a country of low consumption. The UN estimates an average worldwide prevalence of 4.2% in drug consumption in Mexico is 1.3%, ie well below the international average, so the argument of increased consumption or drugs that are coming to youth, is false.
In addition, drug prices in Mexico are so low, it is not business markets in our country. The WORLD DRUG REPORT 2009 of the UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME, shows that prices have been steadily declining.
official discourse constantly resorts to the argument that anti-drug task is enormous because previous governments act casually. Each had its six-year strategy to combat drugs, was never a war, and there was never actual levels of violence. From Echeverría with Operation Condor, each president has established public policy on drugs, have been strong or not so, there is no evidence that any of them have had tacit or explicit agreements with drug traffickers. In addition to that were other times and other levels of marketing, but consumption levels have been decreasing until 2006, as violence, but the latter suffers a sharp rise from 2006.
Citizens feel less safe now than before, despite that, until 2009, national surveys showed that people's main concern is the economic and security then, which tells us that the government is responding to citizen demands, but only their own strategies. So there is a disparity between what people need and the stubbornness of Calderón. For some time
spheres of government have been infiltrated by organized crime, as now, is not new, however, violence was not the levels now, so it's worth asking: Does the increase infiltration is proportional to the cost of the drug war? or put another way, are we having some decline in infiltration of drug trafficking in the government because so many deaths and economic costs of war?.
Another argument put forward to is always the fault of U.S. which are infiltrating weapons into Mexico. Official Reports (CISEN) show that only 20% of weapons into Mexico, legally or illegally, from the northern neighbor. Thus we see that while violent northern border area in the country, with more deaths daily, the weapons are entering Mexico by coasts, southern border, clandestine airstrips, ports and others. For this reason, does not justify how places like Ciudad Juarez have been violated because of the war being waged in those places. In such a way that the "sealing" of the northern border has been a huge mistake because there are not entering for weapons and has scorned the proposal that there some time ago, that where you should apply the "seal" is on the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and not on the northern border, which has greatly affected the tourism and trade between both countries.
Thus, the "sealing" should be applied in the south of the country and not let the drug circulates throughout the country and just before going to America, then assemble the war. This has proven very expensive for Mexico and also highly inefficient. By making the cost-benefit analysis, we see Calderon's war is poorly implemented, which has hurt Mexico.
The legalization of drugs already done in other countries shows that consumption itself is not increased and conversely, the lower drug prices, which also reduces violence between cartels. Although the cultural level in Mexico there is no support for legalization, it should be analyzed thoroughly without demonizing, as legalized in some way, would cause a decrease in traffic and violence.
Finally, the struggle, not war, should focus on reducing collateral damage, ie the effect on society. In reducing executions, beheadings, kidnappings, shootings, bombings and others. We have seen that consumption is something we must learn to live together, so they must address the consequences that brings the consumption and trafficking of drugs.
Colombia did so and managed to significantly reduce violence, but not the hectares of crops, which have increased, however, calm now reigns in Colombian territorial extensions increasing.
0 comments:
Post a Comment