Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to:
DrugWarRant
Join us on Pete's couch.
couch

DrugWarRant.com, the longest running single-issue blog devoted to drug policy, is published by the Prohibition Isn't Free Foundation
facebooktwitterrss
February 2012
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829  

Archives

Authors

Guatemala Times pulls no punches

Powerful and blistering editorial in the Guatemala Times: US failed war on drugs is killing Guatemala

And they’re absolutely right.

We are paying the ultimate price for the idiotic, myopic and ill conceived anti drug war strategies designed by the US and implemented in Colombia and Mexico ( We wonder is it about drugs or is it about OIL resources?).

Mexico gets billions to make war on narcos; Colombia gets billions to make war on narcos, result: massive narco migration. That is hailed as a success in the war on Drugs.

Well it is no success for Guatemala and other countries who suffer the consequences.

They discuss where Mexico, Colombia, and Guatemala fit in with U.S. interests…

The US considers Mexico a priority: they are neighbors; it is a national security concern and they have a lot of OIL. Colombia is a priority because of the sheer volumes of revenues the narco trade generates that concerns the US, it is an economic concern, and they have a lot of OIL. […]

Guatemala is in the middle, Guatemala does not concern the US because we are unimportant to them, we have no OIL. No economic interest, no security interest, no political interest. So the geniuses of the US Drug war give resources to Colombia and Mexico, but very little to Guatemala. Result: Guatemala will soon have more narcos then chickens. But who cares. Geopolitically Guatemala is disposable.

The conclusion has absolutely the right suggestion.

We have a better suggestion: take the money away from Mexico and Colombia, have the narcos return to their countries of origin. Make an air bridge and import the drugs legally into the US. Mexico prospers, Colombia prospers, the US takes care of their problem and we are out of this idiotic war on drugs. That is what we call a successful strategy to contain the problem.

I wonder if Janet Napolitano has read that and if she’ll try to tell Guatemala that the drug war has been a success.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

35 comments to Guatemala Times pulls no punches

  • claygooding

    The reduction by 60% drug war funding too Guatemala in the new budget is really taking it’s toll and is jamming up the gears,,,look for an amendment to the budget upping the funding.

    They also cut funding to Columbia and other South American countries,,,the ones that are all raising legalization discussions,,Kapt’s continuous theme on economics being the downfall of the war on drugs is playing out nicely,,to raise more money for these countries will require more budget cuts to social programs.

    The more Americans hit by losses to fund the war on drugs,,the more support for ending the war on drugs will grow.

  • kaptinemo

    “We have seen a brutal increase of narco violence in the last year. It is not by chance. It is related to the migration of narco cartels to Guatemala.
    We predicted last year that the consequences of this failed war on drugs would be: increase in violent crime related to narcos, serious rupture of the social structures in the country, infiltration of narcos into all power structures of the country, including judicial system, the military, the police, the political parties, the private sector and the banking system.
    Guatemala already is the garbage dump for narcos because of the failed regional war on drugs strategy of the US. Guatemala is being sacrificed on the international chessboard of geopolitics and economic interests.”
    . (Emphasis mine – k.)

    And that, in a nutshell, is just what’s happening. Divide and conquer, served with salsa. Destabilization of one’s neighbors to keep them weak and vulnerable and unable to challenge your corporate allies’ designs for their resources. Same old game. And nothing ‘legitimizes’ that but the Holy DrugWar™. The locals can’t complain when we explain that we’re just as (ahem) concerned about little Juan and Maria getting their patty paws on la mota as we are about Johnnie and Mary doing the same. We love our kids, too!

    Never mind the fact that in many countries south of the Rio Grande the lives of those kids are already endangered by their own governments…with Uncle’s ‘foreign aid’ to thank. ‘Foreign aid’ partially comprised of bullets. Bullets have zero nutritional value, and are liable to give you serious heavy-metal poisoning. But Uncle profers his ‘anti-drug’ aid as if it were commensurate with a school lunch program for the kiddies.

    The people living there aren’t stupid; they’ve heard variations of this theme for nearly a century, and this just adds more insult to already grievous injury.

  • Novartis

    All these little countries don’t realize if they just all form an alliance, well, it doesn’t take a genius to see that the US is not the biggest country in the world.

    • Leonard Junior

      Kind of hard to unite a bunch of destabilized countries run by guerrilla warlords and corrupt political figureheads

      • kaptinemo

        Especially when the US is supplying both sides.

        Witness Plan Mexi- uh, er, “The Merida Initative” being followed by “Fast and Furious 2″‘s gunrunning fiasco arming the narcos…who were already getting theirs from theft of US-supplied weapons and ordnance provided as part of Plan Mexico. A pattern repeated throughout the area. A pattern as old as dirt.

  • Warnipple

    Those ingrate terrorist pepper bellies are all maggot infested dopesmokers can we invade now, huh can we?

    • claygooding

      Hi wiggles,,no,,we can’t invade yet.

      The feds are too strong in DC.

      • Wolfram von Wigglefritz

        I live in grammaw’s root cellar and my only social interaction is on my 468 machine while visiting comments and forums.

  • I just got done googling Napalitano’s visit to Guatemala. There is NO and I mean NO information about discusions of General Perez’s statement about legalization of drugs. I hope to hell that just because this fat, ugly bitch with her mouth fresh off Obama’s cock and waving my tax money around has not once again compromised what was to be a promising end to a war that is decimating the Americas !!!!?? How long will this shit go on !!!! Do the leaders of these countries not give a goddamn about their people ??!! Somebody out there please enlighten this completely disgusted US citizen !! PLEASE !!

  • claygooding

    I love how the article has an oil barrel count going on world oil consumption beside the article,,kinda drives the point home.

  • kaptinemo

    Long ago I read of a story where some people in South Africa who owed a lot of money felt they had to keep on spending on credit to ‘keep up appearances’ so their overly class-and-wealth conscious neighbors, boss, etc. wouldn’t know how far in the hole they’d gotten, and have nothing to do with them. The premise was to hold out long enough that a dodgy business proposition could be worked out to pay the bills. Of course, it never happened.

    Uncle Sam is in the same position…and even deeper in denial. The seemingly inexhaustible Federal ‘grants’ being used to prop up police forces for ‘anti-drug’ operations in the US is printed on (overly inflated) money that with a single click of a Chinese banker’s mouse be rendered worth less than toilet paper.

    (Ever try to wipe yourself with a 1 dollar bill? ‘Course not. And, no, I haven’t either, but think about that image. Think about what it would mean to be able to use paper money like wallpaper because wallpaper is more expensive. It happened in Germany in the 1920’s, and it can happen here, real easy.)

    And yet, like those paupers in South Africa, the Gub’mint’s still spending on idiocy like sending Napolitnao down there to lecture the Mex on how good it is that people are getting whacked left and right, as if those Chinese bankers don’t exist, as if they don’t have this country by the bollocks, and we’re not hopelessly trillions in debt and need every penny at home.

    When, oh when, is some pol (beside Ron Paul) going to tell the bitter truth to the American people that it’s time to quit acting like we’re rich when we’re not? And that, perforce, we can’t afford drug prohibition anymore?

    • stayan

      BRITISH Chancellor George Osborne has delivered a stark pre-budget assessment of the nation’s finances, saying the country is “out of money.” http://www.news.com.au/business/britain-has-run-out-of-money-chancellor-warns/story-e6frfm1i-1226282895066

      Sounds like a good time to start taxing drug dealers.

    • Windy

      Funny (odd, not haha) but on my local talk radio station they have a show that sort of wraps up the local news of the day interspersed with comments by some of the talk radio hosts they play thru the day, I tuned in for the 5:30 local news this evening and heard Rush Limbaugh choking on the phrase “Ron Paul’s economic plan is the only one that doesn’t increase the federal debt.”. He really hated having to say that, it was obvious in his voice and from the choking sound he made in the middle of the sentence.

      That is an important point that needs to be driven home to more voters — Ron Paul is the only candidate who, should he become president, will NOT increase the debt. Along with the restoration of most (all?) of our rights due to ending the war on drugs, the reduction in taxes we all will be paying because of his economic plan (he wants to end the federal income tax and replace it with nothing), ending the unconstitutional federal reserve bank’s control of our money supply (which plays fast and loose with our money, redistributing it to the elite bankers) and the increased safety of all of us because of his foreign policy and withdrawing ALL of our troops from overseas, I do not understand why anyone would choose any other candidate over him.

      • Steve

        I’m sorry, but should Ron Paul somehow manage to get elected to the Presidency, in short order everyone will be as disappointed in him as many became with Obama.

        The problem, as I see it, is that because economic activity surrounding “drugs of abuse” accounts for a large chunk of the overall global economy, and because undercutting that sector of the economy is, by extension, undercutting of the overall economy, meaningful reform ain’t gonna happen gracefully.

        There’s more to it, of course, but what do I know other than that it’s all about the money…

  • claygooding

    U.S. not budging on drug decriminalization stance

    http://www.ticotimes.net/Current-Edition/News-Briefs/U.S.-not-budging-on-drug-decriminalization-stance_Tuesday-February-28-2012

    “The United States does not view decriminalization as a viable way to deal with the narcotics problem,” she said. She suggested a regional effort that would prevent drug use, intercept production and distribution, and stop money laundering.

    But Pérez Molina was firm. “We are calling for a discussion, a debate. And we continue to insist it. … We want to open a debate to find a more effective way to fight drug trafficking.”

    HMMM,no visible passing of monies yet but I am sure the printing press in the ONDCP office is whirring.

    • stayan

      Of course the US doesn’t consider it viable. How would you explain yourself after jailing millions of people for a victimless and non-violent activity?

      The US is waaaaaaaay over-invested on this one. As kapt. always implies, it ain’t gonna end pretty.

      • darkcycle

        Yeah. I worry about that. Some of us round these parts know just how “not pretty” it can get. When people begin to be dissappeared from their homes, that’s when we really know the party’s on, and it’ll be BYOG (bring yer own gun). Problem is, as the progression of these things go, we’re pretty far along and that point isn’t that far off. I’ve BTDT, not interested, don’t have the patience. I’ll take my family and split.

      • kaptinemo

        Being an ersatz historian, I have always been interested in social movements and how they can lead to revolutions…and what happens in the interregnum between the old order and the new one. In just about every instance, the period of chaos is punctuated by factions and individuals using the distractions to settle old scores.

        20 million people or more have been arrested and had their lives destroyed under the DrugWar. 20 million have become, essentially, not just second class citizens, but non-entities as far as the social support system is concerned. They can’t vote, can’t get food stamps, can’t get housing, and forget about jobs in this bad-enough economy, as an employer will not look twice at a ‘con’.

        20 million people reduced to ‘barbarians within the gates’ status…and absolutely no stake in maintaining society, since they’ve been essentially cast out of it.

        20 million people…with axes to grind. 20 million people…with scores against the agents of the machine that ruined them, scores a few of them would risk everything to settle, and just might get away with during a social collapse. A social collapse made possible by the very forces that favor and maintain drug prohibition.

        The terms ‘poetic justice’ and (my all-around favorite) ‘karma’ come to mind.

        • darkcycle

          According to my read (and experience) history doesn’t support that conclusion. Unfortunately, those with nothing wind up murdering those with just a little, while the elites are by and large able to insulate themselves from much of the chaos. I’ve mentioned it before, but it warrants repeated reference. See “The Recurring Dark Ages” Sing C. Chew. It does not bode well.

        • claygooding

          Add the fact that we are now a majority,,for the first time,,how will this effect the reactions with police and feds doing their favorite activities?

    • darkcycle

      I used to read the Tico Times every morning. There’s a flashback…

  • Hmmmmmm, I wonder if Guatemala could build highway THC101, with no onramps or offramps between her southern and northern borders. Traffickers would be allowed to pass unmolested as long as they didn’t stop. If they stopped or took any other route and were caught, they’d be fed to the ‘gators.

  • claygooding

    I was scanning the new budget( http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/ )and see that they are gutting their education/prevention programs,,,so much for the “balanced” approach,,they are going full strength on arresting everyone they can.

    I hope this means no funding to Drug Free America and the other leeches that feed off prohibition’s trough shoveling bullshit down kids throats.

  • claygooding

    After digging deeper I found that they are still funding the prevention programs but all took decreases,,,will hear them scream though,,no yearly increase will have them wringing their hands and moaning for sure,no growth is a bad sign for tapeworms.

    They cut monies to all the countries where most of the trafficking comes from or through,,,not sure if they are going to rely on new technology or whats up with that..

  • Windy

    It is just such an odd thing, authoritarian prohibitionist Janet Napolitano being cousin to libertarian freedom fighter Judge Nap. Two such widely differing world views. How the hell could something like that happen in a family? All the families I know are closer than that. Tho some of those families may not have all members following the same political philosophy (for instance, some family members being libertarians and the rest either republicans or democrats), still they find areas of agreement, but those two, the Napolitanos, are complete opposites.

    • Francis

      She was seduced by the dark side of law enforcement. She’s more Obama machine operative now than woman — her mind twisted and evil. And yet I’m told that the Judge (poor fool) believes that there is still good in her.

    • Duncan20903

      .
      .

      Someday perhaps you’ll have the opportunity to meet my sister and I. We grew up in the same household. I’ve got cousins that I’ve never met. Just to make things a bit more surreal there’s no doubt that she got her genetic disposition from Dad while mine came from Mom. Nature v nurture is a canard because both are of roughly equivalent importance in the formation of someone’s personality.

  • TakeMeBackToHatchechubbee

    These sweet young things are doing us proud:

    .. Decriminalizing drugs in the U.S, Canada, and Mexico and establishing a pharmaceutical mode of production would ensure safety standardization, heightened tax revenue and lower drug prices, which would eventually drive cartels out of business.

    Opponents of the idea cite unsubstantiated concerns. Look at Portugal, which has the most liberal drug policy in the European Union. After decriminalizing drugs — including cocaine, heroine, and methamphetamines — and opting instead to provide counseling and health services to those found in possession, the rate of drug use and needle-transmitted HIV infection decreased significantly among all age groups, save for a slight jump in marijuana usage among those 18 and older [“Decriminalizing Drugs in Portugal a Success, Says Report,” TIME, April 26, 2009]. ..

    http://redandblack.com/2012/02/28/u-s-hasnt-done-its-part-to-curb-mexican-war-on-drugs/

  • N.T. Greene

    The gears have begun to turn — the juggernaut, as irony would have it, is unstoppable and beyond the will of those currently in power.

    I feel like every time a US office has to issue a statement in opposition, its position actually weakens instead of increasing — as people begin to see the futility in the method and the propaganda that drives the policy.

    As luck would have it, the world is beginning to watch, as it is certain that the US will be the breaking point in drug policy. I believe that if marijuana prohibition breaks down in 2012, these other countries will gain immediate traction in the broader Drug War. After all, the stalwart US Fed could not keep it in force over the protests of the people.

    “War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today.” -John F. Kennedy

    I would say that that “distant day” is not so distant. Although he was speaking of another kind of war, I think it applies across any front wherein people fight against logic for the sake of sating their fears.

  • WOW !! Most of these posts are great stuff ! I kind of feel like a cretin using all that profanity in my post above. That was a rant in case anyone didn’t notice. I feel I am voicing in some way the absolute frustration many americans feel with the continuing lunacy of this drug war. Any american with half a brain should be able to equate the war on drugs to the loss of their own individual freedoms whether or not they choose to indulge. I often try to explain this position to others and attempt to help them understand that this war is the absolute front line between a free society and facism. Most often I am left feeling that they view me as someone who just wants legalization in order to get high. What they cannot seem to comphrend is that I CAN DO THAT LEGAL OR NOT !!…..Ah well, the war continues and I am more the dedicated warrior everyday.

    • Duncan20903

      .
      .

      Ranting is an appropriate behavior on this couch. We all need to blow off steam from time to time and it really is better that we maintain an objective disposition when posting in comments columns which are frequented by those sitting on the fence.

  • Wiggy Wigglestein

    U.S. Tells South America to Shut Up About Legalizing Drugs
    February 29, 2012

    By Scott Morgan
    StopTheDrugWar

    Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano has a message for everyone who thinks the drug war is bad: you’re wrong, it’s awesome.

    (Reuters) – Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano defended Washington’s drug war strategy on Monday despite calls by some Latin American leaders to consider decriminalizing narcotics.

    “I would not agree with the premise that the drug war is a failure,” Napolitano said. “It is a continuing effort to keep our peoples from becoming addicted to dangerous drugs.”

    Okay, but what do these two sentences have to do with one another? Yes, we know the drug war is “a continuing effort to keep our peoples from becoming addicted to dangerous drugs [and marijuana],” but I don’t understand what that has to do with whether or not it’s been a failure. This is like saying, “I would not agree with premise that asbestos is toxic. It is a material used to insulate buildings.”

    So in a metaphorical sense, you could say that American drug policy is made of asbestos, and Janet Napolitano has been given the fun assignment of convincing a bunch of frustrated foreign leaders that the sickness and death presently surrounding them was caused by something other than the one thing that’s obviously causing it.

    It’s a ridiculous situation that lends itself to some really ridiculous arguments, such as Napolitano preposterously comparing Mexican Drug Kingpin Joaquin “Shorty” Guzman to Osama Bin Laden:

    “It took us 10 years to find (al Qaeda chief) Osama bin Laden and we found him, and you know what happened there,” Napolitano said.

    Yeah, but the fact that these drug lords are as slippery as Osama f#$king Bin Laden ought not to inspire confidence. Seriously, I don’t even know what her point is supposed to be, because it’s gotta be pretty damn obvious to Latin American leaders that we don’t have enough SEAL teams to track down and kill every wannabe drug boss all over the globe. Their services, unlike Bin Laden’s, are actually popular with much of the American public.

    Calls for legalization in Latin America are going to get louder the longer this idiocy continues, and it should surprise no one that the U.S. government’s latest attempts to suppress it are utterly and predictably devoid of substance as always.