Dope For Hope
by Phillip Topper
February 3, 2009
Should I take the heroin or marijuana today? On the other hand, maybe smoke a little crack for that headache I have been having? These may seem like appalling questions to ask, but if El Paso’s City Council originally had their way, it may have become a reality.
A resolution drafted by the city’s Committee on Border Relations, amended by El Paso District 8 Representative Beto O’Rourke on January 6, 2009, laced with now- “12 infamous words,” called to have an open national debate on ending the prohibition of drugs. However, never anywhere did the legislation actually call for a vote to end the prohibition of drugs. The resolution seemed to be great idea considering the El Paso City Council voted 8-0 in favor of the resolution. As most El Pasoans are aware, the violence in Juarez has been taking a turn for the worst in the most recent year. Juarez, being the sister city of El Paso, has carried the effects its violence over.
Drastic ideas have come up for Juarez’s threatening state of affairs. The most popular idea, which led up to the Council’s resolution, is to end the national prohibition of drugs. Some locals believe by allowing citizens to grow a small patch of a narcotic in their backyards, marijuana for example, it will take business away from the drug dealers; therefore ending their mainstream revenue. If the states were to tax this new prospect of business, let us say by a small percentage, 5%, the states could receive an estimated 1-2 billion dollars annually.
Yet there are two sides to every story. Even if the drug cartels in Juarez decreased to some degree, what would happen to the crime here in El Paso? One could only imagine crime would increase to a drastic level if thousands of people were under some level of influence. Going along with an increase of crime, would violence between El Paso citizens increase? If ending the drug prohibition happened, there are many possibilities for extreme consequences; yet just maybe they are realistic.
Despite council’s efforts, the drug legislation did not pass. El Paso Mayor John Cook vetoed this resolution. In response, the council called for a revote. Coming from the federal side, before the revote, Congressman Silvestre Reyes, told council members that “if the resolution calling for a debate passed El Paso would risk losing money in the upcoming stimulus legislation.” O’Rourke told El Paso Times that “he honestly does not know” if El Paso would have been affected through funds if the vetoed had been reversed. O’Rourke told El Paso Times that, “Congressman Reyes along with state House delegation offered no specifics or facts.” Reyes’s message was enough to change the revote. After the state and federal pressure, the council took a 4-4, a split vote. The split vote was enough to uphold Cook’s veto.
O’Rourke did at least accomplish something. He got a response; not just any response, but that of local and national attention. Locals called the council to discuss the resolution, and CNN featured the drug legislation events in their headlines. So what’s wrong with talking? How else is El Paso to respond to rate of murders in its sister city that have doubled since 2007? Discussion of this issue is to be expressed; on what level is another story.
Print
Joe Swintek February 4, 2009, 10:11 pm
Topper, this is an excellent article
and you provide crucial stand points.
I cant wait for the next article.
Marcus Manosur February 4, 2009, 10:11 pm
That was a great article Topper. I had no idea that any of this was going on if I had not read this article. Let me know about future articles that you are writing.
Jessica Archuleta February 5, 2009, 8:45 am
Great article! Interesting and eye catching, makes me want to tell people about this issue.
Xavy San Gabriel February 5, 2009, 9:00 am
Great article. The arguments are laid out nicely. However, I’d decrease the use of rhetorical questions because some people may not respond the way you’d want.
Isaac Perez February 5, 2009, 11:21 am
Seriously? This is exactly the kind of politics of fear that contributes to the build up of violence. Filling us with slippery slopes (“One could only imagine crime would increase to a drastic level if thousands of people were under some level of influence”) does not address the problem at its core. Absolute, irrational prohibition of anything creates more problems than it solves or prevents. So long as drugs are kept illegal they will continue to be tempting to our youth (31% of high school seniors reported using marijuana at least once in a study by the US DOJ in 2007). In the Netherlands, marijuana has been legal for years now, yet their teenagers actually try marijuana at a later age and consume it in lower proportions than our high schoolers. Also, prohibition puts drugs in a market that is unregulated for consumer safety, with all the potential revenues untaxed and used to finance the very violence and illegal activities that tied to its traders (kidnappings, gang wars, bribes) that the government indebts itself in trying to prevent. Let’s face it: attempting to “un-invent” drugs is a naive, moralistic stance that has been proven to be ineffective and counter-productive. A much more sensible solution, in my opinion, lies in the creation of an educated public and the power of an open, democratic and lawful market for drugs. The possibility of abuse will always exist so long as we have human bodies and minds, as much as it exists with alcohol, caffeine, food and anything that grants pleasure, but the way to address this is not pretending these things don’t exist, but rather creating a public that is educated and can learn to use any source of pleasure responsibly. If we are able to have these within the constraints of the law and under the gaze of communities, the scale of senseless, brutal violence we are seeing from both criminals and government is very likely to come to an end.
Antonio Nevarez February 5, 2009, 12:24 pm
wow topper!!
this article is amzing!!
good job!!….
Logan Woodul February 5, 2009, 1:14 pm
great story if this is part one please get the follow up to part two so i can see how this ends. i think the idea is unique but a bit flawed at the same time. i don’t tink you should unban all drugs but some like marijuana might be a good idea who knows
Taylor Jones February 5, 2009, 4:04 pm
Great article. I can’t wait to read the rest!
Paige Armstrong February 5, 2009, 9:54 pm
Excellent, you should continue to expand on this one and write others. I really liked the lead.
Casey Higgason February 6, 2009, 6:48 am
I kind of figured the article would have this sort of message, but I can’t help but think: doesn’t the outlaw of drugs parallel the Prohibition regarding alcohol, which resulted in similar violence and power wars? I do agree with O’Rourke in that we should at least talk about it. People commit crimes under the influence of alcohol, but I wonder how it compares to the dangers people faced trying to smuggle it illegally.
I freely admit that I don’t know the outcome of legalizing drugs. And I personally don’t see a point in indulging in them. But people should be open to thought and trying possible solutions.
aj February 6, 2009, 11:25 am
I think that if i want to get stoned i should be able to in public
Jamie Newman February 6, 2009, 4:58 pm
WOW!!!
Topper you did an amazing job on this argument! Good jop presenting the information on bothsides of this argument:)
Alex Muñoz February 9, 2009, 3:58 pm
Great input Topper. Waiting on the second part
Jeanie Topper May 5, 2009, 9:14 am
good job bro i really liked it U are an awsome wrighter!!!! i look up to u contiue to do what u do Love ya bro
Its amazing!!!!