In El Paso, there are some public-policy questions that are not up for discussion.
At least that's the message the El Paso City Council has received from a handful of elected officials – including U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes and the five members of the city's Texas House delegation – who sent a pair of letters informing the council that it is unwise even to broach the topic of drug policy and, more specifically, that it could be bad for the city financially if the council were to call for an open debate regarding the legalization of drugs.
On Jan. 6, the council had passed a resolution proposed by the city's Committee on Border Relations, expressing the city's support for its beleaguered sister city, Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. Juárez is at the center of a brutal turf battle between rival drug cartels; in 2008, nearly 1,600 people were murdered there. The city of nearly 1.5 million people has become a front line in the War on Drugs for both Mexico and the U.S. – a war that both governments are, by all objective measures, losing.
Kidnappings have become commonplace: Six police officers were kidnapped and killed earlier this month. Two state police officers were found slain in their marked police car along a busy city thoroughfare, the car surrounded by nearly 70 bullet casings. The bodies of the murdered often show signs of having been tortured, says El Paso City Council Member Beto O'Rourke. The discovery of headless bodies and other murder victims bearing messages from the cartels scrawled on to their skin has become part of daily life. Armed robbers have become increasingly bold – in December, masked men armed with assault rifles invaded the plant of the Fortune 500 company Lear (which makes automotive interiors), stealing ATMs and robbing dozens of workers of their end-of-year bonuses. "More people were killed last year in Juárez than in Baghdad," said O'Rourke. "And not just murdered – mutilated, tortured, heads cut off. It's literally terrorism. It's ... brutal terrorism that we're witnessing on our border."
In this context, the council approved the resolution, which, among other things, called for the governments of Mexico and the U.S. to ensure the city has law enforcement resources and support to help stem the violence. And considering the dire situation and the root causes of violence, O'Rourke suggested that the resolution be amended with another suggestion: asking the federal government to engage in an "honest, open national debate on ending the prohibition on narcotics." The amendment passed unanimously, but it didn't persuade Mayor John Cook. Cook didn't voice his concerns while the council was on the dais but later issued a veto. "It is not realistic to believe that the U.S. Congress will seriously consider any broad-based debate on the legalization of narcotics," Cook told the El Paso Times.
Cook's veto was just the beginning. As the council members prepared later to vote to override, they received two letters from officials higher on the political food chain, delivering harsh words and thinly veiled threats. Democrat Reyes, a former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service agent, wrote that he had "concerns regarding the resolution that urges the federal government to support 'an honest, open national debate'" on ending drug prohibition. Reyes said he has been "deeply disturbed by the escalating violence in Juárez," and while he believes the resolution was "well-intentioned," he urged the council against a veto override. And he added a warning regarding future federal funds: "As our nation faces one of the worst economic crises since the Great Depression, Congress is currently crafting an economic stimulus package in which El Paso stands to benefit," Reyes wrote. "This is where our focus must be at this critical time, and it is important that our message reflect priorities that will provide real gains for the community."
El Paso's Texas House delegation – led by Democratic Rep. Joe Pickett – was even less subtle: "There will be state agencies, state legislators and others in state government who will see this resolution as the City of El Paso supporting the legalization of drugs," reads the letter, signed by Reps. Pickett, Norma Chavez, Chente Quintanilla, and their freshmen colleagues, Marisa Marquez and Joseph Moody. "Funding for local law enforcement efforts and other important programs to our community are likely being put in jeopardy, especially during a time when state resources are scarce."
O'Rourke told the Chronicle that he spoke briefly with Reyes, who told him federal funding might be lost should the council override Cook's veto. When the resolution came up for a second vote Jan. 13, the council hedged, and the override died on a 4-4 vote. Three council members who flipped cited the threat of losing funds. "I think we did the right thing," by adding the amendment, O'Rourke said, "but we're one of the poorest cities in America" and can't risk losing any funding. "We don't care about drug policy except that it is just killing us down here," said O'Rourke. "Our city is really getting screwed in this, as a direct result of our current drug policy."
According to Pickett, asking for a discussion about legalizing drugs is as good as saying you want to legalize them. "What's the difference? The bottom line is you're either for [legalizing drugs] or against it, and I'm against it." In fact, Pickett said the council doesn't want to discuss the matter, but "they want to legalize drugs, with the weird idea that that's going to stop" the border problems. "The CliffsNotes [to the resolution] are simple: that the City Council wants to legalize drugs." (Pickett also alleged, citing no evidence, that the impetus for the amendment likely came from medical-marijuana supporters who aren't "thinking straight.") Even bringing up the idea of ending prohibition made El Paso a national "laughingstock," Pickett said. If the council wants to discuss other drug-policy issues – such as increasing funding for treatment options – they should have avoided this "ridiculous 'let's legalize drugs' and get to the serious issue of what drugs are causing," he added.
Notably absent from the El Paso delegation's letter was the signature of Democratic Sen. Eliot Shapleigh. "Democracy is founded on reasoned debate," Shapleigh said last week. "What is happening in Juárez is very serious." Transnational gangs are running amok in the border cities – and there is certainly something wrong when masked gangs can hold up, in broad daylight, a major company like Lear Corp., Shapleigh said of the U.S. company with operations in Juárez. "So, on the U.S. side, there are three issues that are a part of the larger discussion: the demand for drugs on the U.S. side, weapons moving south [into Mexico], and the interdiction of cash [moving back and forth]. All these issues, on the U.S. side, deserve serious debate." And he added, any "threat to state or federal funding just for debating an issue is wrong."
