Last Sept., I wrote a column for the DePauw about my experiences in Mexico and how they didn't match the media's depictions of violence. I argued that, in failing to note the specific locations of instances of drug-related violence, media outlets created an image of Mexico as a country of violence, rather than a country with violence in certain regions. The statistics don't lie – around 47,000 people have been killed since 2006 – but the problem is also one of representation.
I still believe that. Unfortunately, violence seems to be spreading. Areas around Mexico City, Veracruz, and Guadalajara — formerly free of most drug-related violence — have experienced it in the last few months. Twenty-six bodies were found in three abandoned vehicles in Guadalajara in Nov., and the 800-strong police force of the city of Veracruz was disbanded in Dec. after 35 bodies were dumped in nearby Boca del Río. Just this Jan., two decapitated bodies were found near the entrance to a Mexico City mall. Clearly, representation of the country isn't the only problem here.
As a name like "Mexican Drug War" should indicate, drugs are a big part of the problem. But talking about "drugs" as a single category can be difficult; after all, aren't heroin and methamphetamine more dangerous than, say, marijuana? Physically, there are certainly differences. For example, according to the Canadian Medical Association, there are no reported cases of fatal marijuana overdose. An article published by the same organization notes that, by contrast, "heroin addiction is associated with a variety of harms, including death."
However, just because heroin is more dangerous than marijuana doesn't necessarily mean that the former is more profitable for the cartels involved in Mexico's drug war. In fact, some 60% of cartel drug profits come from marijuana. That statistic seems pretty consistent with the picture we get from different media outlets. For example, in Nov. of last year some 30 tons of marijuana, associated with a cross-border tunnel, were discovered near San Diego. The image of Mexican cartels getting rich off Colombian cocaine just isn't true.
This means that discussions of the legalization or use of marijuana should have ethical dimensions. Marijuana may never kill its users by overdose, but could its purchase be responsible for someone else's death or suffering across the border? To what extent does the demand for and purchase of marijuana in America affect drug-related violence in Mexico? Are we responsible in any way?
With those kinds of questions, the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana takes a different kind of moral grounding. Rather than subscribing to the Reefer Madness-style moral panic that suggests the consumption of marijuana is destructive to individuals, we ought to consider how the illegal marijuana trade can impact whole societies.
Even if, as the New York Times suggests, as little as half of cartel profits come from drug trafficking, 60% of half is still 30% — the amount of relative profit at stake. With that in mind, the best choice of action seems to be the legalization of marijuana. As the same New York Times article notes, legalization would "drive down the price and undermine the cartels' power and influence." As a result, constructive steps towards ending Mexico's drug war may have more to do with American domestic policy than Mexican military policy. With the quantities of marijuana coming through to the United States, we can't avoid complicity.
—Holley-Kline is a senior from Anchorage, Ala., majoring in Spanish and anthropology. opinion@thedepauw.com