America's First Safe-Injection Site is a Victory in the War on Drugs

Last Friday, Seattle became the first American city to approve a supervised injection facility for intravenous drug users. Most likely, you’ve never heard of such an idea. After all, there are only eight countries in the world that have conducted such experiments, but the results have been overwhelmingly positive.

First of all, these types of facilities are a controlled environment. There is nothing about these sites that “promotes” illegal drug use. The purpose is to reduce drug-related crime, provide clean needles to minimize the spread of HIV and hepatitis. In addition, there is professional staff on site who are always looking to provide referrals for rehabilitation services. In other words, this is the compassionate approach to solving drug addiction.

Photo (Flickr-Todd Huffman)

Every benefit of safe-injection facilities is also a net-positive for society. This approach has been proven to be more effective with reducing addiction rates and it saves the taxpayers money. For example, the city of San Francisco conducted a study and concluded that this would save their municipality over $3.5 million per year. San Francisco is one of a few other cities that are considering this approach, including New York City and Ithaca, NY.

Most important, these facilities save lives. We’ve seen opioid overdose deaths hit unprecedented levels in recent years. With that in mind, safe-injection facilities are all stocked with the life-saving medication naloxone. This drug is nearly 100% effective with reversing opioid overdoses as long as it is administered within a short period of time after the overdose began occurring. The results speak for themselves. There are approximately 90 safe-injection sites throughout the world and there has never been a single overdose death in one of these facilities. Not one. Albeit, overdoses are fairly common, but none of those have ever lead to a death in a safe-injection facility.

I’ll have much more information in a full-length article that gives more specifics, provides historical context, political background, etc. But, for now, rest assured that this new controversial choice is a victory in the war on drugs.

Mexico's Failed 10-Year Drug War & Why America Supports It

InSight Crime, a non-profit research organization that focuses on the drug trade in Latin America, published an eye-opening story on Monday. Reading the full story is worth your time as it offers specific details of how one of Mexico’s most powerful cartels, Los Zetas, has corrupted influential politicians. That includes bribes of $2 million a month to the governor of Coahuila, a Mexican state that borders Texas along the Rio Grande. In the same evening of InSight’s report, Los Zetas took credit for a mass shooting at a popular electronic music festival in the touristy city of Playa del Carmen, which is roughly 40 miles south of Cancun. 

Needless to say, Los Zetas traffic drugs with very little government interference. Likewise, they commit violence with military precision. The reason being, their organization was founded by former members of Mexican Special Forces. In fact, several of them received training in Fort Benning, GA at a counternarcotics program that was once known as the “School of the Americas.” The name of this program was later changed to the “Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC)” as public relations gesture because countless violent acts have been attributed to graduates from this program. 

Los Zetas have the highest number of former military members in their ranks. However, that doesn’t mean that other cartels don’t have links with the military. In 2006, the former President of Mexico, Felipe Calderon, made a fateful decision to have the military begin enforcing their country’s drug laws. That the turned the metaphor “drug war” into an actual war on the Mexican people. The numbers are staggering. Roughly 80,000 Mexican citizens have been murdered in violence directly attributed to the drug war. We don’t know the exact figures because the Mexico government no longer publishes those statistics. Another 26,000 people have disappeared and are missing. Also, an approximate number of 281,000 Mexicans are considered internally displaced citizens (IDCs) within their own country since 2011 due to the violence. All in all, this is clear evidence that backs up Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos’s claim that the drug war may be more harmful than all of the wars in the world. He made that statement last December while accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. Coincidentally, his speech took place one day before the 10-year anniversary of Mexico’s drug war.

There is no rule of law in Mexico in large part due to the corruption that has manifested from the drug war. Simply put, a large percentage of the police are the cartels’ payroll. Astoundingly, 98.5% of all crimes go unpunished in Mexico. Therefore, adding the military as another layer of law enforcement in that type of environment is like pouring gasoline on a fire. Case in point, Mexico’s Secretary of Defense, General Salvador Cienfuegos Zepeda, essentially acknowledged that fact by stating that militarizing the drug war was a “mistake.”  

  

The U.S. government has provided $2.5 billion of military aid for the drug war since 2008. (Photo-Wikimedia Commons)

Torture has now become commonplace with the military leading several law enforcement responsibilities in the country. As a result, there is often no need for a jury or judge; the military unofficially acts as the executioner. Statistics show that Mexico’s Special Forces kill approximately thirty people for every one person they injure. That is not acting out of self-defense; those are government sanctioned death squads. For example, in June of 2014, the military murdered 22 men in a warehouse in Tlatlaya. Investigators deciphered that evidence was tainted afterward to make it appear that this was a two-sided battle, which it was not. Nevertheless, none of those murderers were convicted for this crime.  

The victims of that massacre were an unsympathetic group, a vicious gang Los Guerreros Unidos, which has committed massacres of their own, the well-publicized massacre of 43 students in Iguala. Understandably, you may be thinking that it’s necessary for the government to use this kind of force to fight with fire. However, let’s look at this issue from a practical standpoint, let alone put aside the moral implications from state-sanctioned extrajudicial murders. In the best case scenario, the military commits a massacre in an honest attempt to crack down on drug trafficking. However, gangland murders always lead to more violence because it creates a power vacuum in which rival gangs battle for turf. On the other hand, in the worst case scenario, the military is killing gang members to snuff out competition. And that is often the case. In many instances, corrupt military officers are acting as enforcers for gangs, government officials, or wealthy businessmen. 

Anyone who speaks out against the Mexican government puts their life in danger. That includes journalist, political organizers, human rights activists, etc. Human rights violations have increased over 1000% since the Mexican drug war was militarized in 2006. However, some American leaders have taken notice, such as Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). He has been one of the few members to call for cutting off Mexico’s military foreign aid until their human rights record improves. Yes, our tax dollars are actively contributing to this horrific issue. The U.S. government has paid for a program known as the Merida Initiative that has provided over $2.5 billion worth of military aid to Mexico since 2008. Worst of all, our government is fully aware that this program is counterproductive as it has had no noticeable effect on the Mexican drug trade. However, as detailed in my past posts about Honduras and Colombia, our government is more concerned with geopolitics than the drug war. 

Our government continues providing military aid through “counternarcotics” programs to Latin American countries with atrocious human rights records. The Cold War is officially over, but these anti-drug programs serve as a way to unofficially fight against the spread of communism without declaring war. Keep in mind, there is a strong contingency of leftist populism throughout Latin America. Look no further than the mass protests and riots in Mexico from two weeks ago after gas prices rose 20% because the government began reducing oil subsidies. As one U.S. News & World Report contributor recently pondered, “Could it lead to a ‘Mexican spring?’” There are several old-school hardliners in the U.S. government who still subscribe to the domino theory. Consequently, they view these kinds of developments and consciously overlook the atrocities committed by the Mexican military in hopes that it will suppress a communist uprising.   

So can anything be done to reduce the violence from the drug war? The answer is to legalize marijuana and decriminalize the more dangerous drugs. With that said, we don’t live in a utopian society. It’s unrealistic to believe that these gang members will immediately pack up their bags and join the straight and narrow path. Several of these drug trafficking gangs are truly sophisticated organized crime outfits. They make money from other illegal activities, such as extortion, robbery, illegal mining, etc. Therefore, ending the drug war won’t eliminate the black market crime problem in Latin America, but removing the profits of illegal drugs will drastically reduce the corruption with the military, police, and politicians who enable the drug trade. Consequently, the current gang population will eventually dwindle and future recruits will be much less inclined to enter into the life of crime without the lure of easy drug money.

To sum up, there is far more to the drug war than meets the eye. The consequences are horrific within our own borders, but if the United States were to end the drugs it would have an absolutely remarkable impact on the world.

Private Prisons' Stocks Up 74% and 52% Since Election

(Charts via Google Finance)

As you can see from the charts above, the stock prices of the top two private prison corporations have exploded in the two months following the election. The shares of Corecivic (formerly Corrections Corporation of America) and the Geo Group increased by 74% and 52% respectively!

“I do think we can do a lot of privatizations and private prisons,” Donald Trump told Chris Matthews during an interview last June. “It seems to work a lot better.” He’s absolutely wrong. Nonetheless, the Trump administration will likely reverse a directive made by the Department of Justice last September in which all private prison contracts would eventually be phased out of the federal system. That announcement by the DOJ came after the Inspector General (IG) of the Department of Justice issued a comprehensive review of the private prisons that house federal prisoners. The IG report concluded that private prisons don’t offer significant savings to the taxpayers and there were more violent incidents in those facilities. That decision by the DOJ was a step in the right direction, but it applies to only a small portion of the prison population; most prisoners are housed in state facilities. On the other hand, private prisons house over half of all illegal immigrants who are held in detention centers.

Trump’s nominee, Jeff Sessions, for Attorney General is a hardliner in practically every category. He’s a proud supporter of stop and frisk programs, the drug war, and civil asset forfeiture. He’s also an advocate for privatizing prisons. In fact, two of his former staffers are working as lobbyists for the GEO Group. That’s particularly important because the Attorney General customarily appoints the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

We need a more moderate choice for the U.S. Attorney General’s Office. We need someone with a better record of human rights. The Attorney General must be someone who will respect states’ rights for legal marijuana, oppose civil asset forfeiture, and phase out private prisons. It’s now time for us to become active in the political process. The hashtags #StopSessions and #JustSayNoToSessions are being used on social media to motivate people to call the United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Let’s all get involved and have our voices be heard.

Money Launderer Sentenced to Prison - Not Employed By a "Too Big to Fail" Bank

Twenty-eight states have legalized medical marijuana; recreational marijuana is legal in eight states and the District of Columbia. Nevertheless, the federal government has numerous money laundering regulations in place that block banks from servicing legal marijuana providers. Consequently, legal marijuana dispensaries are forced to do all transactions in cash. Hence, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), along with nine other Senators, recently wrote an official letter to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Center (FinCEN) in hopes of easing those banking rules. A spokesman for FinCEN told the Los Angeles Times that they’re reviewing the letter.

This gesture by this group of Senators was a plea for common sense. Providing banking options for legal marijuana businesses will reduce the risk of potential violent crime. Secondly, it would increase financial transparency, which would actually prevent possible money laundering. In other words, criminal organizations would view cash-only marijuana dispensaries as a better destination for laundering money, as opposed to dispensaries where there are electronic records for every transaction. 

Worst of all, this federal fiasco is all for show. These bureaucrats are most concerned with projecting an image of being “tough on crime.” It’s all style and no substance. Case in point, the “Too Big to Fail” banks have employed the most egregious money launderers. Regardless, none of these white collar criminals have gone to prison. Let’s take a look at a recent story involving a Denver woman that illustrates this dichotomy.

Last November, Marybell Delarosa-Quintana was sentenced to five years in prison for money laundering. In fact, the judge said that it would have been 15 years if she had not testified against several Mexican cartel members. As an insurance agent for a small business in Denver, Delarosa-Quintana laundered $281,000 for two Mexican drug cartels. The primary bank that she chose for her deposits was Wells Fargo. This was an ironic choice because Wells Fargo acquired Wachovia after it was involved in the largest money laundering case in U.S. history. Wachovia processed $373 billion in suspected drug money over a four-year period even though federal regulators warned the company about those particular transactions. Nevertheless, no employees of Wachovia were prosecuted and the company had to pay a penalty of $160 million, which was only a fraction of their profits. The takeaway here is that Marybell Delarosa-Quintana was guilty of not working for a “Too Big to Fail” bank.

London-based HSBC, one of the largest financial institutions in the world, eventually surpassed Wachovia’s record for the biggest money laundering scandal. The U.S. Department of Justice described HSBC as the “preferred financial institution for drug cartels and money launderers.” As much as $670 billion of potential drug money went unmonitored by their bank. In fact, drug cartels knew the exact dimensions HSBC bank teller windows. Accordingly, they stuffed boxes of cash through those windows on a daily basis. 

El Chapo's Sinaloa Cartel laundered money through HSBC branches. (Photo - Day Donaldson/Flickr)

Money laundering may not offend you personally if you don’t agree with the war on drugs. However, HSBC also knowingly did business with a Saudi Arabian bank, Al Rajhi, which had links with the 9/11 terrorists. Can you guess what the punishment was for HSBC? In 2012 the DOJ entered into a plea agreement in which HSBC was fined $1.9 billion, but none of their employees faced criminal charges. One year later, former Attorney General, Eric Holder, testified before Congress that the DOJ had been hesitant to pursue some of the largest banks because they were considered "too big to fail." However, a recent report by the House Committee on Financial Services’ Republican staff contradicted that claim. This report found that Holder and other top officials of the DOJ overruled their staffers’ recommendation to prosecute HSBC. As a matter of fact, HSBC negotiated a more favorable plea deal after Holder had personally issued a “take-it-or-leave-it” deadline.

The only plausible explanation for such glaring hypocrisy is the revolving door between government and the private sector. It’s one hell of a racket. Several government officials are succumbing to conflicts of interest while serving in law enforcement or as regulators. The payoff comes when they return to the welcoming arms of the private sector with lucrative salaries for services rendered. As for Eric Holder, he returned to the powerful law firm Covington & Burling in 2015. His salary was never announced publicly, but his former Assistant Attorney General, Lanny Breuer, returned to Covington & Burling in 2013 to reportedly $4 million annually in compensation. Hence, you can assume that Holder’s payday was even greater. Albeit, HSBC was never a client of Covington & Burling; consequently, there was no direct quid pro quo. However, their firm has represented several major banks. And that conflict of interest is the most apparent explanation for why every “Too Big to Fail” bank received the white glove treatment from the DOJ while Holder was in charge.

All in all, the money laundering aspect illustrates one of the many glaring examples proving that the drug war is a lie.