Former Mexican President Vicente Fox: Prohibition causes ‘organized crime violence’
(Photo courtesy of Wikipedia)
ABC News reported that former Colorado congressman and Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo has acknowledged that the war on drugs has “failed.” Speaking to the Lincoln Club of Colorado, Tancredo said: "I am convinced that what we are doing is not working."
Tancredo was considered to be one of the most conservative members of Congress, with a lifetime 97.20 (out of 100) rating from the
American Conservative Union.
Surprisingly, Tancredo has agreement from some very interesting sources.
CNN reports that former Mexican president Vicente Fox said:
"I believe it's time to open the debate over legalizing drugs," he told CNN on Tuesday. "It must be done in conjunction with the United States, but it is time to open the debate."
He pointed to how the end of Prohibition in the United States in 1933 lessened organized crime violence.
"It can't be that the only way is for the state to use force," he said.
Mexico’s Fox was joined by his predecessor Ernesto Zedillo, and former Columbian president Cesar Gaviria, who said: "The problem is that current policies are based on prejudices and fears and not on results."
Another former South American president was also quoted in the CNN article:
Former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil said the group called for only the decriminalization of marijuana and not other illicit drugs because "you have to start somewhere." [Emphasis added]
So, if prohibition causes violence, as Vicente Fox infers, why stop at drug prohibition?
A
previous article examiner gun ownership and homicide rates from United Nations research. To recap that article:
· Mexico prohibits gun ownership of calibers above .22, and actively discourages owning even those.
· Countries with the lowest gun ownership rates average the highest homicide rates.
So it should be no surprise that Mexico, which has one-sixth the gun ownership rate of the United States, has over triple the homicide rate, according to UN data compiled between 1998 and 2000. Data from the
Mexican government shows that between 1998 and 2006, “serious crimes” reported to the police have increased 46.5%; taking population growth into account, the rate increased 31.3%.
During the same time period, the
U.S. violent crime rate
decreased 16.6%, and the murder rate decreased 9.4%, while the
ATF reports about 4.5 million civilian firearms, including about 2 million handguns, were sold each year between 1995 and 2007.
So, if drug prohibition causes increased violence, why not explore the possibility that gun prohibition has the same impact?
In real life, gun prohibition fails, too
The United Kingdom banned civilian gun ownership in 1997, but the
Guardian recently reported that even as overall crime declines in the UK, “gun crime” continues to rise. While the most growth is in using guns to threaten others, the UK has complete gun prohibition, so the unanswered question is: Why do these people have guns to threaten with in the first place?
"You can get a clean [unused] 9mm automatic for £1,500, a Glock for a couple of grand and you can even make an order for a couple of MAC-10s [machine guns],..Or you can get a little sawn-off for £150. They're easy enough to get hold of. You'll find one in any poverty area, every estate in London, and it's even easier in Manchester, where there are areas where the police don't go.
(U.S.
federal law prohibits civilian sale of machine guns, and “sawn-off” rifles and shotguns.)
Australia, with its nearly-total gun prohibition, saw an
42.2% increase in its violent crime rate between 1995 and 2007.
In 2007,
Washington D.C., with its prohibition on functioning firearms, had triple the violent crime rate, and 5.5 times the murder rate, of the
rest of the U.S.
Just about everywhere you look, gun prohibition correlates with increased violent crime. So when are our world leaders going to make the connection?
*************************************
Check out other Gun Rights Examiners: