American prohibitionists cause civil war in Mexico
By Mark Luedtke
Dr. Joseph Mercola calls sugar just as addictive as alcohol and more dangerous. But nobody kills over sugar. If somebody wants a sugar fix, they drink a soda or buy a candy bar. Problem solved.
But imagine if the government banned sugar. Actually, we don’t have to imagine. We can examine history to see what would happen. The consequences would be much like when alcohol was banned. The government can’t magically legislate away demand any more than it can legislate away gravity, so suppliers would still supply sugar on the black market. Those suppliers would arm themselves to defend against violence initiated by government agents. The more government agents reduced the sugar supply, the higher the price of sugar would go, the higher profits would go and more suppliers would rush into the market to get super rich. As government agents burned sugar crops in the U.S., sugar cartels would arise in Brazil and other countries to fill the black market sugar demand. Rival gangs would fight to control supply to a given territory. The quality of sugar would become unreliable, deadly pure in some cases and deadly poisonous in others. The consequence of banning sugar, like banning alcohol, would be ubiquitous violence, murder, chaos and corruption. After years or decades of government propaganda, people would forget that sugar doesn’t cause violence. Prohibition causes violence.
The same thing is true with prohibition of illegal drugs. There was no significant violence associated with illegal drugs before government banned them. Opium dens were peaceful places. The war on opium was born out of prejudice against Asians. Cocaine was so mainstream that it was an ingredient in Coca-Cola. Marijuana puts people to sleep. Alcohol, nicotine and caffeine are among the most addictive drugs known, but there’s no violence associated with them because they are legal. Prohibition creates the violence associated with drugs, not the drugs themselves.
Justin Raimondo described a recent revolt in Mexico, “On March 28, 1,500 armed citizens took to the streets, set up roadblocks, and arrested local officials. Tierra Colorada sits on a major road, which runs from the popular tourist city of Acapulco, less than 40 miles away, to Mexico City. Armed citizens have set up checkpoints along the road, stopping cars, taxis and other vehicles, as well as searching homes for known criminals. They have also arrested the former mayor, the chief of police and 12 officers. The charges: murder and collusion with criminals.”
Prohibitionists have made Mexican drug dealers so rich, they effectively own the Mexican government. The police reportedly stood by while drug gangs dumped the body of the head of this militia in the street during the middle of the day. The militia had had enough and took over the town in response. They turned over their prisoners to the equivalent of the state attorney general after he promised to investigate their corruption. That will never happen.
Prohibitionists are turning Mexico into Afghanistan. Imagine what a U.S. drone war against Mexico will do to both countries.
You might think that after 80 years of an obviously failed policy, the consequences of which get worse every day, Americans would get a clue and put an end to it, but no. That’s because the war on some drugs has never been about improving society. It’s always been about making sanctimonious prohibitionists feel good about themselves and enriching the parasitic prohibition economy. While people die all over the world as a consequence of their aggression, self-serving prohibitionists sit safely in their homes, pat themselves on the back and tell themselves how morally superior they are. But the opposite is true. The prohibitionists are immoral. They use the coercive power of the state to initiate violence against people trying to engage in peaceful exchange. The violence associated with the war on some drugs is a response to the immoral aggression of the prohibitionists.
An anonymous former drug warrior explained, “Theft, with its violence, is bad for business. Countering it consumes resources that could be used to build infrastructure, acquire additional inventory, meet customer needs and provide profits for owners. If theft risk is viewed across different industries on a continuum from low to high, a corresponding increase can be seen in the need for security investment when moving up the scale of theft risk. The expense on security is undesirable because it raises costs.”
When prohibitionists ban products, they turn government agents into heavily armed, legalized thieves. Suppliers want to operate peacefully, but prohibitionists won’t allow that. Protection from state thievery is the genesis of violence in black markets.
The prohibitionists might not feel so safe in their homes anymore. Mexican drug cartels are operating deep in the U.S. now. Chicago recently named a Mexican drug lord Public Enemy Number 1. USA Today reports they’re coming even closer, “And at the end of February outside Columbus, Ohio, authorities arrested 34-year-old Isaac Eli Perez Neri, who allegedly told investigators he was a debt collector for the Sinaloa cartel.”
Congratulations, prohibitionists. You’ve brought the violence you’ve wreaked on the rest of the world to our front doors.
The views and opinions expressed in Conspiracy Theorist are the views and/or opinions of the author and do not reflect the views and/or opinions of the Dayton City Paper or Dayton City Media and are published strictly for entertainment purposes only.
Reach DCP freelance writer Mark Luedtke at MarkLuedtke@daytoncitypaper.com