If Americans didn’t do coke – An analysis.

Monocle - a briefing on global affairs, business, culture and design

In the recent issue of the London-based print magazine the Monocle, an article was published that offered a hypothetical scenario:

What would happen if Americans stopped taking cocaine?

The article titled Not To Be Sniffed At written by Steven Bodzin, Mary Cuddehe, and Anastasia Moloney offers an analysis on the effect it would have if Americans stopped consuming cocaine, and commented on the Manufacturers, countries involved namely Mexico and Colombia, Drug Trafficking Organisations [DTOs], and the US/World Market.

While the actual scenario itself was quite insipid – “… the drug control office treats the country’s water supply with a chemical to make the very thought of the white stuff unpalatable.” – It offers a reasonably well-thought out, non-partisan approach and discussion on subsequent changes to drug war discourse, though does take a swing at US hegemony within Latin America.

According to the writers, cocaine use in the US market has dropped, citing statistics that state that it was the only recreational drug to have lost users in 2009, while the year arrests in connection to the drug were less than a quarter, though with little effect on Mexico. They assert that most drug users would switch to other drugs that could potentially be more harmful, therefore doubting any savings in the Law Enforcement and Health Sector. However it is added that some would benefit by switching to less harmful, addictive drugs.

Drug Trafficking Organisations in Mexico would not disappear, according to the writers. They believe the DTOs would branch out, and start manufacturing other drugs such as methamphetamines, and increasing export of marijuana outside of the Americas, a result of vast capital and human resources DTOs control.

They explain the current decline in cocaine sales is already being countered by an increase in methamphetamine manufacturing, and with DTOs already making headway into other lucrative markets and organised crime, lost revenue from cocaine sales due to the scenario wouldn’t hurt cartel profits too much. They point out however that cocaine is still a significant source of revenue for the cartels, with only one kilo of cocaine in the US fetching $18,000 wholesale, and retail $150,000.

Then there is Colombia, producer of half the world’s cocaine supply. It’s suggested that drug crime – which is far more prevalent than in Mexico – would decline, though this would depend on the capacity of Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia [FARC], and their ability to adjust to, and exploit new lucrative and criminal markets. The writers state that most analysts would agree that if the cocaine industry were to disappear, the FARC would be severely undermined, but stops short of saying it would mean the end of the FARC.

Finally, the writers pose some food for thought. They assert that the US would be the surprise loser in this scenario; what would happen if US pretext no longer existed in Colombia, with cocaine gone – could the US easily give up their last remaining military grip and hegemony in Latin America?

Analysis: The Monocle article paints a scenario that is very relevant to the crisis that is happening in Mexico. The pretext seems entirely realistic; however it does make for some interesting discussion. One thing that stands out is the underscoring fact: While cocaine consumption in the US is declining, it will in actuality have little effect on the Mexican Drug War.

It’s possible that this is deceptive because it’s quite hard to envision a drug war with the same level of violence in Mexico.

For example, not all drug users would move onto other drugs, particularly those who take cocaine as a recreational drug. Many of the people who take the drug have substantially higher incomes than most. Cocaine is the drug of choice for the rich and famous. We’ve seen the stories about US Actress Lindsay Lohan. The white powder has more positive associations surrounding it; it’s considered fashionable and glamorous. When you start talking about crystal meth for example, you find far more negative associations, and reluctant users. Therefore the DTOs can boost methamphetamine production all they want, but it won’t necessarily offset the loss of profits cocaine produces.

As well as that, it’s important to realise drugs use crosses all cultures, all ages, and all socio-economic areas of society. When you start talking about other illegal markets, you are in different territory. Take human smuggling for example; it’s highly unlikely that DTOs will have success tapping into the markets of college students and successful twenty-somethings.

What about the savings on drug war funds? Some of the saved cash could be used toward other funds that fight other illegal criminal activities that DTOs may take up, effectively counter-acting any offsetting undertaken by DTOs.

Another factor not considered is that cocaine is not as flexible as Marijuana and Methamphetamines. You can easily grow Marijuana plants in the comfort of your own garden and are easily accessible, not just from Mexico. The rise of medical marijuana growing around the country, and increasing legalisation possibilities in the future would dramatically decrease the demand on Mexico’s marijuana.

Same goes for methamphetamines. New Zealand for example, has a large problem with this industry, but it’s not dependant on supply from other countries. Someone could easily go out there and find out how to manufacture it; therefore the US market wouldn’t necessarily be dependent on Meth from Mexico.

Furthermore, sending meth and marijuana to Europe wouldn’t be as profitable, since it’s further away, and more prevalent liberal drug legalisation laws are potential drawbacks. Therefore demand wouldn’t be as intense, lucrative drug routes would diminish – though not disappear – and violence would decline. And with the profit loss to the DTOs, there would be less to play around with and wage wars; they would have less power and influence.

Therefore it is possible the DTOs would take a significant blow if this scenario were to play out – many other factors come into play when you take cocaine out of the question.

Finally, what does it say about our current Mexican Drug War?

It says that it’s not just about the white powder; the cocaine. It illustrates the flaws in fighting the current war with our prohibitive and violent stance – both including Mexico and the US. It highlights the failure of the Mexican justice system, the failure of the Government to protect its citizens. It advocates success in drug hauls, and death, and acceptance that people must die for the majority.

Ultimately, it says that the Mexican Drug War isn’t only about the drugs, the cartels. There is real focus on this part of the problem,

but there are much more other aspects that make up the problem. Like the flawed justice system. Mexico requires large judicial reform, and an aggressive battle against the significant impunity and corruption that is rife throughout Mexico’s greatest institutions. Then there are the social problems. Mexico requires practical social programs that take Mexican youth out of cartel influence and into real jobs, and career opportunities, for example. Furthermore, none of these should be created suddenly due to increased pressure and criticism from a policy that has gone astray.

These are only some factors, but they contribute largely to the influence and power of Mexico’s DTOs, and to the current state of affairs we call the Mexican Drug War.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Link to Article: Monocle (Subscription Access Only) – available in Print: No.43; Vol. 05; May 2011 pp 65 – 67