I used to smuggle drugs into Juarez.
I used to smuggle a lot of other things too, which was why my car was usually messy and I had a semi-plausible explanation for why something was in my trunk. I didn’t get paid, and I wasn’t asked to do it. I took over things that people needed, things that were unavailable or prohibitively expensive, and for which there was plenty of demand.
I used to flirt with them, and even when I got the green light, Mexican customs would sometimes wave to me. One day, they were apologetic but firm, and told me that the next time I crossed with so many “samples,” I would be arrested. I thanked them, and from then on, stopped.
Mexico has some strange laws about what you can take into their country. Too many clothes, too many cigarettes, and your car will be confiscated; you must be part of the sinister garment trade or nicotine cartel. “Personal use” takes on a whole new meaning. Charitable contributions of medical equipment or supplies are routinely barred entry, and are often perceived as a sort of insult, insinuating that Mexico’s government can’t take care of its own people.
I never smuggled drugs into the United States, but I know people who have. If you are from El Paso, you probably do too.
Juarez today is at a turning point, and although most people have not been affected firsthand by the violence, it has taken a tremendous human and psychological toll. What has curiously been largely absent from local and national reporting on the violence is an examination of the now decades-long War on Drugs, and its link to this carnage.
Along the border, the demand for drugs has created unprecedented wealth for some. For many others, the unintended consequences have been devastating. Prohibition creates a mark-up on any product, whether it be agricultural or chemical. No risk, no reward. Along the way, from the farmers to the pilots to the mules to the barons, drug money has been a destabilizing and corrupting influence. It’s also created a tremendous amount of wealth in El Paso and Juarez, and perhaps that’s why we so seldom acknowledge the insatiable demand.
“Successes” in this war are calculated bizarrely. U.S. law enforcement takes pride in the huge tonnage of drug seizures, the money frozen, and the millions of people who have been incarcerated. Many are simply people whose lives have been ruined by prosecutors and judges with no sense of perspective. We’ve gotten to the point where we welcome the building of new prisons, because they create jobs. We hypocritically force patients who rely on medical marijuana to break federal law, even though its use is almost entirely noncontroversial. And it’s still easier for teenagers to obtain illegal drugs than alcohol or cigarettes. It is hard for me to see how our effort at prohibition has not been a colossal failure.
The opponents of relaxed drug laws, for reasons of conviction, expedience or direct benefit, include most politicians, most social conservatives, the judiciary, the prisons, the “sin” industries, the pharmaceutical companies, and the multi-billion-dollar drug-testing industry. With the well-intentioned but misplaced Merida Initiative, the defense industry can now be
added to that list.
Who supports relaxed drug laws or even legalization? Many citizens quietly do, and it’s time for more people and more leaders to say so. It’s time to try something else, and something that preferably doesn’t involve Blackhawks. It’s going to take more judges who routinely refuse to prosecute cases of simple possession. It’s going to mean taking a hard look at the disease of addiction and providing support and compassion for those who suffer. It’s going to take a discussion about what should be under the purview of the government, and what should be left to individual choice.
There should be no crime in debating these ideas.
Right now, I feel (and I am) far from Juarez. However, I still keep in regular contact with many Juarenses about the state of their city. I know a wide variety of people there, and in the past few months I have been struck by the uncertainty that they express to me, not knowing if the worst is over or if the violence is just beginning. There is also a feeling of inevitability due to the amount of money involved; the cartels with their personal armies are excessively entrenched in Mexican society, and it might take an army to root them out. In other words, the war is shifting from symbolic to actual.
Mostly, all this violence saddens me. Calderon is certainly courageous, but he’s fighting an uphill battle. The U.S. seems to be a long way away from acknowledging its complicity, as Americans continue their habit of ignoring the consumption side of an uncomfortable but simple economic equation.
Why should El Pasoans care? Long-term outcomes of protracted instability could be dire, and a Mexico undermined by criminal organizations presents all sorts of wider problems. But for me and for a lot of border residents, the war on drugs is inevitably personal. Juarez is a gritty and vibrant city that many people love, and its residents are some of the most resilient people on Earth. I sincerely hope they’re up to facing this current challenge, because in the short run, there appears to be little alternative.
Meanwhile, I send my friends there love, and I wish them courage.
* * *
Vanessa Johnson is the former publisher of Newspaper Tree. She is currently living in Douglas, Alaska.
















Jen
June 15, 2008
Great piece. Also the mexican forces massacre people in Atenco, Oaxaca, Chiapas etc etc, including the US reporter Bard Will, with impuntity so far. Research what people/corporations would getthe proposed $.
Roberto Camp
June 15, 2008
Vanessa Johnson reflects a border expert view of Juárez, which is a refreshing alternative to the tired panders of self-styled border pundits invented by the El Paso media.
The aerial photo shows it all: the culmination of four decades of planning blunders for bridges that have no direct access or exit links to local, state and federal highways in either city.
For the past 40 years border planning institutions have catered to the whims of selfish, lazy movers and shakers who skit from one meeting to another in complicit efforts to ensure international bridge congestion, and thereby create an aura of heavy central city pedestrian and vehicular.
This effort runs in tandem with the objective to inflate the values of properties inherited from an earlier generation of hard working mothers and fathers, mostly of international immigrant stock and who to their credit, were true border visionaries.
As the photo depicts, central city landed gentry goals have been duly accomplished. The international bridges, rather than serving as fulcrums for seamless transportation and engines of economic development, instead are monuments to the creation of captive customers for downtown and border frontage properties.
Roberto Camp, founding chairperson
City of El Paso International
Bridge Commission
Katie Updike
June 16, 2008
I very much appreciate Vanessa's personal perspective. It exudes the personal and integrated life that we have here. It also reminds us that 25% of the world's illegal drugs are consumed in the US. What percentage of Mexico's portion of that trade is consumed in the US (80%??). The US already has one of the highest levels of incarceration in the world. Vanessa's right, we can't (or shouldn't) just incarcerate more. How do we move this intelligent discussion into Congress. Most politicians (perhaps rightfully) feel the topic is toxic. Please let's keep the topic alive... perhaps a real discussion of the public health and economic impacts of decrimilinalization, focusing interdiction dollars on healthy living and entertainment would help our lawmakers???
Philip
June 16, 2008
I’m new to El Paso, but not new to this debate on U.S. drug policy. Vanessa Johnson's perspective is helpful in giving a personal face to this long-standing discussion. And I agree with her that open and sincere dialog is the best starting point to—if not a solution—an improvement. What we need are serious thinkers to take a hard, holistic look, at the drug problem and its broader causes and effects.
Ms. Johnson acknowledges that these drugs are ruining lives; and I think we should embrace these victim/criminals with a measure of compassion. But in the same breath she advances decriminalization as the solution—a non-sequitur in my book. Drug-addiction is life-sucking. Just fighting drug-lords and punishing users isn’t working. The question that properly should follow is: what more can we do?
That drugs are expensive is no justification for decriminalization. Prohibition constricts demand by weeding out the potential buyers who are unwilling to become criminals—shifting the demand curve left. So the price rises, and quantity wanes. But as Ms. Johnson points out, despite the increased opportunity cost that enforcement places on the barons due to risk, the sellers still rake in astronomical profits. So drug dealers are making a lot of money. But what we are doing now is keeping drugs out of the hands of some people. Our current policy is driving up the margins for drug dealers, but acting as a dam on the problem. That’s no reason to open the floodgates.
In her zeal to point out the overlooked demand-side problem, and rightly looking to rehabilitation as a means of controlling demand, Ms. Johnson herself overlooks an important weapon in the demand-side war on drugs—education. Rehabilitation is important, because it acknowledges the humanity of those affected by the drug epidemic, and curbs demand by numbers proportional to those successfully rehabilitated. But rehab alone is too little too late. Education—or as it may be dubbed by skeptics, propaganda—is our best weapon against demand. It's our most promising tactic in helping the citizens of our country to avoid the heartbreak ending that is drug-addiction.
Demand is a gigantic part of the problem. But it isn't the whole problem. Abandoning our war on the supply-side for a kinder, gentler war on the demand-side is just as ignorant as what we're doing now. How about a holistic approach to our drug problem? Punishing the suppliers and users, and curbing demand through education and rehabilitation.
Of course this conversation isn’t as simple as supply-and-demand economics. So many other policy problems constrain the parameters of a solution. Prison overcrowding—not softness on crime—dictate a certain amount of prosecutorial discretion; which undermines the deterrent affect of the law. A federal budget facing a credit crunch at home and an expensive two-front war abroad, not to mention pork-barrel spending, has trouble scraping up the dough for the kind of national education that would be necessary to achieve long-term success. The discussion is tied to immigration, the global war on terror, human trafficking, and prostitution. Demand is tied to our failing education system, and American families’ failure to raise our children responsibly. Teen pregnancy. Youth drug culture. Each problem fuels the other.
The moral of the story is that a one-sided solution to the war on drugs doesn’t exist. What thinking citizens and policy-makers need to do is take a deep breath and step back. Look at this problem from a broad perspective, and try to improve on our current approach by taking the problem seriously. Attack both supply and demand. And don’t neglect the larger societal problems that continue to fuel the war on drugs. If Ms. Johnson is right about the relationship between the current violence and the war on drugs, I hope that then we can bring some relative peace to my new home.
Pablo Hernandeza Batista
June 16, 2008
Gracias por tus palabras de aliento que expresas a todos los juarenses.
Saludos desde esta ciudad fronteriza.
Cuéntame como un amigo más en Juárez
Pablo Hernández Batista
reportero de periódico Norte
www.nortedeciudadjuarez.com
helen marshall
June 16, 2008
The notion that making these drugs illegal, without any significant effort to provide prevention services or treatment, substantially reduces demand, is wishful thinking. Several members of my family are alcoholics. Their condition would not be improved by returning to prohibition, which would make them criminals. Today's drug cartels and their complicit gangs in the US have every business reason to turn more people into addicts, to assure demand for their product. De-criminalizing these drugs cuts the legs out from under the drug business; at the same time it is not necessary to make them widely available at every corner market. A thorough campaign against these drugs, and easily accessible treatment for those who do not wish to be addicted, could pay off just as much as the anti-tobacco campaign has done, slowly, in the US and around the world.
Unfortunately there is a large array of interests who benefit from the current situation and would do quite a lot to ensure that it does not change. That list includes the cartels themselves, the DEA and other law enforcement deriving its bureaucratic existence from the supply interdiction approach to the problem, the owners of private prisons who rely on our drug laws to supply them with the prisoners they need in order to operate, the public prison staff who also need prisoners to justify the ever-expanding prison system (the reason why the US incarcerates more of its citizens than almost any other country in the world, and certainly more than any other industrialized country, is not because we have so many more bank robbers and con men; it's the drug laws!!!)...readers can think of other examples. The Prohibition model has been in effect for almost 100 years, and it is a failure. We need to understand who benefits from this failed policy, and then we can figure out what political action will be needed to change it. It will not be easy. The interests that benefit are very focused, and those who suffer are disorganized, and not generally the most powerful strata of society, here or in Mexico.
Juan Arturo Muro
June 17, 2008
This was a very good written piece. I support its ideas. Now, if we could only get more people to agree on this solution... legalization and eradicating addictions on the U.S. side there will be success.
Geoffrey Wright
June 18, 2008
We miss you, Vanessa. Happily the internet lets your voice of reason to be heard long distance. Thanks for the intelligent commentary.
The Border Yankee
June 22, 2008
Good article.
I have a question for Roberto Camp though: Clearly that is not border english you're using in your reader response. Just exactly WHICH dialect of english are you using here?
It is almost as though you wrote your response immediately following the consumption of a Mexican import, (or two).