Latin American Countries Looking at Legalizing Drugs

The uncontrollable violence and corruption that surrounds the "war on drugs" has Latin American governments edging toward legalization.

Guatemalan President Otto Perez on Saturday set out a raft of proposals to tackle rampant drug-fuelled violence in Central America, including decriminalization of narcotics or establishing a regional court to try traffickers.

"The proposal is decriminalization," Perez said at a regional summit to address security throughout the region. "We are talking about creating a legal framework to regulate the production, transit and consumption of drugs."

The discussion reflects growing concern in Central America about the cost of the war on drugs, which is prompting leaders to take an increasingly independent line from the United States, where officials have repeatedly rejected legalizing narcotics.

A retired general, Perez won election in November 2011 promising to crack down on organized crime. But he shifted from his hard-line message shortly after taking office in January, calling for a more open debate on drug policy.

"It's important this is on the discussion table as an alternative to what we've been doing for 40 years without getting the desired results," he said, noting that decriminalization would erode drug cartels' profits. (Chivis says;  "erode drug cartels profits"? He ought to ask his pal Calderon how decriminalization ,enacted in Mexico in 2009, is working for Mexico! more info here)

The president added that Central American leaders are considering requiring the United States, the biggest consumer of South American cocaine, to pay the region for drug raids.

"We're talking about economic compensation for every seizure undertaken and also the destruction of marijuana and cocaine plantations," said Perez, a 61-year-old conservative.

Guatemala's murder rate has nearly doubled since 2000 due in part to brutal Mexican drug cartels extending their reach south.

 And from this article:

[Former Mexican President Vincente] Fox also pointed out that drug consumption in the US is the cause of much of the violence in Mexico. He argued that, for this reason, the US should take more responsibility in the fight against drug cartels, asking: “Are we not doing their work for them?”

This is not the first time that Fox has made a controversial statement regarding the drug war. In August the former head of state called for the Mexican government to “gather the violent groups to a truce and evaluate the advantages of an amnesty law,” in a bid to reduce violence. Two months later, in an October interview with the BBC, he argued that the US should legalize drugs in order to reduce the demand for illicit substances in Mexico. He has also advocated drug legalization.

A half-hearted legalization program won't work for these governments. They either have to legalize it, and kick the DEA out of their respective countries, or try to crush the cartels.

At this point, the issue is primarily one of money. If they are going to fight the drug war for the U.S., they want more money from the U.S. On the other hand, if they legalize drugs, they can perhaps take a cut of the drug profits (i.e., impose taxes), while, hopefully reducing violence.

So, what happens if they follow a path to true legalization? One result is that instead of the illegal aspects of the trade being spread over a wide area (production in Central and South America, smuggling inside and between those countries and into the U.S., and distribution in the U.S.), it would become more concentrated inside the U.S. (i.e., at the points of smuggling and distribution at and within the U.S. borders--similar to the situation under prohibition). This would also result in a shift of the cartels northward into the U.S., with a concomitant increase in drug related crimes and violence.

Would it work? Unlike the days of prohibition, where alcohol producers had vast legitimate markets throughout the rest of the world, and therefore ran legitimate businesses, drug legalization in Latin America would not create legitimate markets. Thus, the criminal organizations would remain largely intact and, more importantly, still in competition with one another for key smuggling routes and markets.