Late this afternoon, Mayor John Cook vetoed the resolution City Council unanimously approved today calling for a re-examination of the nation's 40-year-old War on Drugs and for a debate about legalizing drugs.

Cook filed the veto with the city clerk's office at 4:54 p.m. advising the council that he disagreed with an amendment that city Rep. Beto O'Rourke added to the resolution proposed by the city's Border Relations Committee addressing the drug war in Juarez and aspects of U.S. drug policy.

Overturning the mayor's vote would require the votes of six of the council's eight district representatives. [Editor's note: The reference above to the number of votes it would take to override a veto was corrected at 7:30 p.m., Jan. 8]

O'Rourke's amendment added 12 words to a section of the resolution urging the federal government of the United States of America to come to the aid of our besieged sister city by "supporting an honest open national debate on ending the prohibition on narcotics." (Download a copy of the original resolution below. It does not contain O'Rourke's amendment.)

The resolution with O'Rourke's amendment was approved by the council without a word of dissent by the mayor, city representatives or those in the audience who came to speak on the issue.

In fact, Cook said nothing during the entire discussion.

Explaining the veto, Cook stated, "The action of council in amending the resolution, which was drafted by the Border Relations Committee, undermines the hard work of the committee by adding new language which may effect the credibility of the entire resolution.

"It is not realistic to believe that the United States Congress will seriously consider any broad based debate on the legalization of narcotics. This position is not consistent with community standards both locally and nationally. I urge council to reconsider supporting the original wording as recommended by the committee."

After hearing of the veto, O'Rourke said he was disappointed that the mayor said nothing at all during the public meeting or to him at any point.

"When I heard about the veto I went to his office and said, 'What's up?' " O'Rourke said. "He said, "I can't take this into (Sen.) Kay Bailey Hutchison's office and not expect them to laugh me out of the room.'

"But, if it wasn't realistic, I asked him, why was he supportive of the council's unanimous resolution in support of stopping construction of the Border Wall. He didn't have a response."

City Rep. Susie Byrd said she was very upset with Cook.

"I understand it is a difficult conversation, not a popular one, but my problem is he didn't open his mouth once during the meeting to tell us what he thought about it.

"It's almost like he believes policy making occurs in his board room, but it's not after the meeting that you do your policy making."

She said he did the same thing some months ago when he vetoed the council's rejection of an appeal by a homeowner who wanted to finish construction of a house that violated historic district standards.

Byrd said she doesn't know enough about drug issues to support decriminalization, but, she said, "It's worth discussing."

Cook said he kept quiet during the meeting because he didn't think the resolution with O'Rourke's amendment stood a chance of passing.

"I was stunned by the unanimous vote of council," he said.

As for the criticism form Byrd about his silence, he said, ""Susie did have a point.

"I probably should have been more vocal during the council meeting but, as I said, I didn't expect it to pass."

U.S. drug policy 'a failure'

O'Rourke and others who addressed the council in support the resolution labeled the U.S. drug policy a failure that has cost the United States and drug-supplying nations billions of dollars and countless lives.

"It’s a terrible situation that calls for a more dramatic solution than just asking for stepped up enforcement," O'Rourke said after the today's meeting. "What I asked for today and the council approved was urging our representatives to have an honest, open dialogue about ending the prohibition on narcotics.

"I hope our congressman, Silvestre Reyes, and our U.S. senators hear us loud and clear and have a very difficult and politically challenging debate, one that needs to happen. We can't continue the status quo; it’s not working."

O'Rourke speaking after the meeting

A response from Reyes to the 12 words in O'Rourke's amendment left little room for debate.

“Legalizing the types of drugs that are being smuggled across the border is not an effective way to combat the violence in Mexico, and I would not support efforts in Congress that would seek to do so,” Reyes said in a statement released by his press spokesman, Vince Perez.

Among those did not disagree with the committee's resolution and O'Rourke's amendment during the meeting were Luis Garcia, the former director of U.S. Customs and Border Protection in El Paso.

He had second thoughts later, however.

Before retiring in 2007 after 37 years in federal law enforcement, Garcia worked as a Border Patrol agent, a customs inspector, customs district director for 37 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean and district director for the Immigration and Naturalization Service in El Paso.

"I retired as director of Customs and Border Protection and, as such, was on the front line in keeping out terrorists, criminals and narcotics from our country, so I have a very good idea of what is working and what is not working," Garcia said. "What we bring forth in this proposal is something we believe will work.

"Interdiction, even though Customs and Border Patrol intercepted tons and tons of narcotics, that was not the answer."

Because every vehicle coming across the border cannot be inspected, he said, most of the drugs coming from Mexico make it into the United States.

"The current drug war has highlighted many things, and we have attempted to cover them in this resolution that, normally, we would not even give a second thought to," he said. "But now we are bringing them to the forefront. With that, I ask for your full support for this resolution."

He later said he would have no problem with a national debate on drug usage that would look at rehabilitation versus prison for drug users.

"The problem is the resolution we worked on lost its wind," he said. "The O'Rourke amendment took the front page of everything, and that was never the intent of this."

He said he was caught off guard by the amendment and did not mean to suggest he would support decriminalization of drugs by his support for the resolution.

"I am not turning my back on my brethren in law enforcement, but I would never dissuade anyone from having a healthy debate on the issue," he said.

In 1995, then-El Paso Mayor Larry Francis signed on to the "Atlanta Resolution," signed by hundreds of mayors, which specifically argued against legalization. [link]

Today's City Council meeting was unavailable to computer users wanting to watch the video streamed meeting live because of technical problems at City Hall that have degraded or prevented other live broadcasts in recent months.

***

To reach David Crowder, write to dcrowder@epmediagroup.com or call (915) 351-0605.

Related Documents: