Daniel Funk
West Virginia University College of Law, Rising 2L
29 May 2008
“Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money.”

To see a video of the street performers click here

Both a catchy lyric, from the 1980s, and the American stance in the War on Drugs.

Our last two days in Guanajuato are primarily free time, with only the noon-1:30 lecture as a mandatory activity. This free time at the end of the trip allows a personal exploration of the city and fosters individual adventures that heighten the collective experience. A few of us set out to spend the morning touring the Theatro Juarez and the Diego Rivera Museum, attended Professor Scully’s lecture on the War on Drugs, and finished the day finding local spots of interest indicated on a hand-drawn map provided by one of the group?s local contacts.

The rich history of Guanajauto provides limitless points of interest, from the construction and dedication of the Jaurez Theatre, to the Local Legends and History Museum, to the city’s many historic discotheques and lounges. The city has more than enough to keep the interest of a diverse group, and never fails to surprise and excite the adventurous student who seeks to experience as much of the culture as possible.

Today’s lecture provided a discussion of the United States’s position in the War on Drugs and of the inherent shortcomings of any program seeking to fight drug trafficking on the Supply Side. The class discussion brought to light the idea that as long as there is a demand for drugs (for instance the $300 billion annual drug market in the United States) the market will be willing to meet demand. The proposed solutions then, focus primarily on eliminating demand for illegal drugs.

The first proposed solution seeks to reduce the demand for illegal drugs by providing increased funding for rehabilitation and drug counseling programs. Equal funding in these programs is statistically 10x more effective than drug interdiction programs, 15x more effective than domestic law enforcement, and 23x more effective than trying to eradicate cocaine at its source.
The second solution seeks to reduce the market for illegal drugs by increasing the cost of production. Many Mexican drug laborers and cartel “soldiers” are drawn to the wages and benefits of working for a drug cartel, If the billions of dollars spent annually trying to combat cartels were instead used to subsidize agriculture and industry, the competitive wage would rise, reducing the demand, and thus, the profitability of the drug trade.

The third option the class discussed was the decriminalization of drugs. Decriminalizing, or even legalizing, the drug market could bring the market “above ground.” This change would allow for legal regulation of the drug trade in a way that would provide consumers with a safer drug that would then reduce the demand for the “illegal” drugs presently grown, smuggled and distributed through violence and coercion.
Any of these solutions could be undertaken at a fraction of the cost that is now being expended in perpetuating the cartel conflict system. The primary stumbling block is that those few who have advocated these positions have been labeled as “pro drug” or “soft on crime” and have found their political and professional careers to pay the forfeit.

That a group of future JDs is able to get behind these solutions in open forum is an empowering thought. Maybe the old ways are ripe for change; maybe this is just another step in that direction. In any event, this trip has provided any number of opportunities for us to challenge ourselves academically, culturally, and personally. I am sorry to see our trip coming to a close, but have been revitalized as to the role of attorneys in the United States and in the world at large and am eager to take this second wind into my summer internship and back to my peers in the fall.