A growing chorus of truth-speakers are questioning the validity of the Fox administration's "war on drugs" in Mexico. According to an article today in Reuters by Brian Winter:

Fox was widely praised as the first Mexican leader ever to seriously tackle the country's powerful cartels, but security experts worry his success in jailing drug kingpins is only producing more violence, and no slowdown in the flow of drugs.

Some fear Mexico's "narcos" may become desperate enough to execute politicians or promote their own candidates for office, a chaotic scenario that echoes Colombia's losing struggle against cartels in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Among the experts quoted was Jorge Chabat, an analyst at Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas in Mexico City. Chabat pointed out:

For years, the U.S. told Mexico's government, "The problem is that the narcos are still powerful because you don't dismantle the gangs." Now they're doing just that... and the narcos are more powerful than ever.

The article conveyed the ominous sense of some observers that Mexican drug traffickers if pushed into a corner could resort to political assassinations or promoting their own candidates for public office, raising the spectre of chaos and violence such as Colombia experienced at the hands of Pablo Escobar.

This is a good article, but it would have been even better if it had mentioned that Jorge Chabat has called for legalization. Having drawn the Colombia comparison, a call in to Gustavo de Greiff, the Colombian attorney general who defeated Escobar -- who now lives in Mexico City -- would also have added to the level of insight offered to the reader. (Click here to read DRCNet's interview with de Greiff before our Mérida, Mexico conference, Out from the Shadows: Ending Drug Prohibition in the 21st Century. Click here for video and audio of de Greiff and others at Mérida.

And of course, post back here if you spot this article in any news outlets (Reuters is a wire service), and let us know how to send letters to the editor to them.

- Dave Borden, DRCNet

The Mobile Register in Alabama reported today that homicides in 2004 were on the upturn -- 28 within the Mobile Police Jurisdiction, which extends three miles beyond the city, up from 24 homicides during 2003.

The article discussed the much higher homicide rate during the mid 1990s -- 1995 had the peak with 56 -- implicitly raising the question of whether 2004's increase means that violence is again going back up. Police Chief Sam Cochran isn't worried about that, according to the article, for among other reasons arguing that three of the 28 are likely to be cut from the statistics -- they were killed by police and ruled "justifiable."

It seems awfully cavalier for Chief Cochran not to be worried about a possible rise in violence, if that characterization by the reporter is accurate. To be fair, four homicides or one out of 28 is not very conclusive statistical evidence; maybe it's not going up. But there have been ominous signs in other parts of the country in recent years, such as Baltimore, which in 2002 saw a wave of juvenile murders putting the city on track to exceed the mayor's hoped for reduced homicide target by more than 25%. And two weeks ago the Baltimore Sun reported on a wave of drug trade killings and the stunning admission by police that their drug crackdown was the cause.

More unfortunate was Chief Cochran's predictably unimaginative response -- he wants more cops, 600 instead of the current 475 -- and he credits the work of the Street Level Interdiction Drug Enforcement (SLIDE) team for reducing violence in the city. Cochran should look to the Baltimore events for an example of why his analysis may be off base.

Regardless of that, the national homicide rate, and the individual rates in our big cities, are unacceptably high and only go to show just how bad the situation was a decade ago when they were even higher. As Chief Cochran points out, one of the cause is drugs. By and large that means the drug trade, which means that the way to stop them is clear -- end prohibition, legalize drugs. Then Cochran and the taxpayers wouldn't need 125 more cops on the payroll. And they might be able to do something about those five remaining unsolved homicides from last year -- at least they could try harder if they weren't spending so much on the futile drug fight. But Cochran loves his SLIDE team too much for that.

Letters to the editor can be submitted here.

- Dave Borden, DRCNet

Fighting among rival drug gangs near the US-Mexico border has prompted the US State Dept. to issue a travel advisory, and Mexican officials are not happy, according to an article by Ginger Thomas in the New York Times. The US ambassador to Mexico, Antonio O. Garza, Jr., predicted a "chilling effect on the cross-border exchange, tourism and commerce" if Mexico could not rein in the violence.

Mexican president Vicente Fox shot back at Garza and the State Dept., saying "Mexico's fight against drug trafficking is firm," and "The Mexican government does not admit judgment from any foreign government about political actions taken to confront its problems."

If Fox really meant that, he would push harder for legalization, which once a few years back he said was the right way for the world to go. Mexico suffers terribly from the drug trade violence that prohibition has created, and they have the right to an effective solution. Only replacing the illicit drug traffic with a legal trade that is governed by laws has a chance of providing that.

E-mail letters@nytimes.com to send a letter to the editor. And send good thoughts for peace southward to our peoples on both sides of the border.

- Dave Borden, DRCNet

An article in last Friday's New York Post illustrates the corrosive impact of prohibition on the quality of life in our nation's poor inner-city neighborhoods. The article Slaying at Harlem "Drug" Apartment described the killing of a marijuana dealer by robbers targeting his presumed cash and stash, and the critical and possibly fatal wounding of his girlfriend and her 17-year old son.

Whether or not one regrets the loss of a marijuana dealer's life in a robbery targeting his cash or supply, Henry King did not deserve to be killed and his girlfriend and her son did not deserve to suffer life-threatening wounds. But most clearly, their neighbors don't deserve to have to live in an environment characterized by violence. Nor should they have had to deal with the constant stream of visitors his business brought in and out of the building every day -- that also affects the quality of life.

Decades of the "war on drugs" have shown that the drug trade cannot be extinguished in that way. This means that blaming the dealers, deservedly or otherwise, accomplishes nothing. Only some form of drug legalization can put those kinds of dealers out of business, stop the violence and disorder, and give inner city neighborhoods a chance to finally heal and prosper.

I've submitted a letter to the editor -- and you can too. Click here to do so online.

- Dave Borden, DRCNet