The city’s Committee on Border Relations refused to give Mayor John Cook the support he requested Tuesday for vetoing a resolution the council had approved with an amendment calling for a debate on drug legalization.
Next week’s City Council agenda will include an item calling for the override of the veto, which would take seven votes by the nine-member council.
City Council approved the resolution unanimously Tuesday after city Rep. Beto O'Rourke added an amendment asking Congress to discuss the nation's drug policy with its emphasis on drug interdiction and the imprisonment of people who sell and use them illegal drugs
"My intention is to ask that this be on the Tuesday agenda, as adopted, for reconsideration, and we'll just see how the votes fall," O'Rourke said today. I'm going to respect whatever the members of .council decide to do.
"After hearing from their constituents, they may have a different take on it."
Asked if the May city elections might be a concern, O'Rourke said. "Unquestionably, it gets tougher for those representatives and they mayor to make this decision knowing they are going to face the voters in less than six months."
Tony Payan, a UTEP political science professor who specializes in Mexican affairs and a member of the committee, confirmed that Cook came to a Tuesday afternoon meeting of the committee to advise the members of the veto he had just issued and to seek their support for his action. [Editor's note: The above reference to the time of the committee's meeting Tuesday was corrected at 10 a.m., Jan. 8]
“We didn’t do that,” Payan said. “There was a debate and the motion was made to take no further action and to make no further statements … except for issuing a letter restating the original purpose of the resolution.”
That letter was sent to news outlets this afternoon by committee Chairman Jose Contreras expressing "concern over the way in which the resolution of solidarity and peace has been presented to the public by the media."
"Focus has been given to the amendment added during the council meeting," the letter states. "The committee is asking the media to report on the intent of the resolution . . ." (Download a copy of the letter below)
The original intent of the resolution, Payan said, was to express a solidarity with Ciudad Juarez and its residents who are caught in a punishing war involving two or more drug cartels for control of the Juarez drug corridor to the United States.
City Rep. Beto O’Rourke had made it known to committee members beforehand that he thought the resolution the committee was proposing for adoption by City Council fell short of making a significant statement about the problem.
At Tuesday’s council meeting, he proposed an amendment that the council accepted without debate “supporting an honest, open national debate on ending the prohibition on narcotics.”
After hearing supportive comments from Payan and other members of the nine-person, council-appointed committee, none of whom objected to O’Rourke’s amendment, the council approved the resolution unanimously.
“The 12 words inserted by Beto, which are not a call for legalization but a call for a debate on drugs, became the focus of all the attention,” Payan said.
“The media took a hold of that one sentence,” he said. “I think that really distracted from the real purpose of the resolution … and the mayor expressed that, yes, to the committee, and said it was unfortunate. We all agreed it was very unfortunate that one item captured the attention of the media.
“He said, ‘I want you to present the resolution again with its original intent.’ ’’
The resolution, which the committee worked on for weeks, contained language noting that the War on Drugs in the United States was declared 40 years ago and has lasted longer than the country’s last six wars combined without achieving its goals.
That is, the resolution states, because “our two nations have focused on incarceration rather than (drug) prevention and rehabilitation.”
In its original form, the resolution called for support of “legislation that examines the nation’s policies on drugs with a focus on rehabilitation rather than incarceration.”
That debate has gone on for years, but the language O’Rourke’s amendment added calling for a debate on ending the prohibition on drugs was something few, if any, U.S. cities have openly supported.
***
To reach David Crowder, write to dcrowder@epmediagroup.com or call (915) 351-0605, ext. 30
Related Documents:
NaTIoN
January 7, 2009
Sorry, but you can't stop the prison-industrial complex (modern day slavery). They need non-violent drug offenders to keep their jails open.
Joe
January 7, 2009
Professor Payan is not a citizen or a permanent resident of the US. Why is he advising the city council?
vato
January 7, 2009
What would explain Mayor Cook's veto on the added language would be his political ambitions, like possibly running for governor of TX someday. TX, typically, will be the last place that ends up supporting the end of prohibition. He doesn't want to have such a "stain" on his record when he seeks the nomination or is vetted for some other position. It would never fly in TX.
Beto has no such ambitions, at least not in the same time frame that is, so no such concerns.
Those invested in law enforcement and the use of violence (legal or illegal) have an incentive to uphold prohibition -- it keeps them employed. Old army and law types like Cook and Reyes are invested in this.
But someday they and their kind will be gone...much sooner one supposes than Beto and his kind, and the world will be different, one hopes, and able to see a new light. Your time will come Beto and prohibition will surely end.
Ken
January 7, 2009
Can our City Reps please spend their time addressing issues where they might actually have an impact? This is a waste of everyone's time.
sam
January 7, 2009
The Mexican government is still fighting the drug cartels however ineptly . The El Paso City council has surrendered.
What a colossal waste of time.
Ken G
January 7, 2009
It is unfortunate that the wording of the O'Rourke amendment to the resolution has been misconstrued. It has already been misstated that El Paso supports drug legalization. I think the Mayor took the appropriate action.
We all agree that the American appetite for illegal drugs fuels the violence in Juarez.
Anthony
January 7, 2009
If El Paso isn't a leader on major border issues like this, who is? Agree or disagree on this issue, should we just sit on the sidelines while they legislative FOR us from Iowa and Ohio?
Lastly, whether a person agrees with Payan or not, he's a brilliant guy (yes, it's shocking, but there are smart people from Mexico too) -- as anyone who's heard him speak can attest.
spoilthechild
January 7, 2009
i agree with everyone that say this is the biggest waste of time spent at city hall.
our city officials are not gonna have any impact on legalizing drugs or just marijuana. thats why we elected obama. thats his job. beto is just grandstanding because his term is up at city and he wants to run against reyes, shap, cook, or whatever his political aspirations may be.
im sorry beto but there are many of us who will remember your stupid vote on the "most unjust tax(fee) ever " in the history of el paso.
as bad as many of us hate shap and reyes, there is know way in helll i would vote for you in any of those elections. hopefully your father in law will waste tons of money and hopefully you will lose.
david, do some investigating and see if payan is on red oak consulting's payroll also. it would be interesting to know.
tony, you say the resolution states, “our two nations have focused on incarceration rather than (drug) prevention and rehabilitation.” why are we wasting time on this when both cartels own the politicians and the police force in mexico. there is no we or two nations. its just us, the united states.
ray
January 7, 2009
I echo the sentiment that the city council is wasting taxpayer time and money with issues they have no authority over. These wanna be congressmen should run against Reyes if they don't like federal sentencing laws for drug offenses. Otherwise, start focusing on ways to increase our tax base, lower property taxes, and clean up our city (and its image). I live in O'Rouke's district and this stunt has cost him my vote.
big ed
January 7, 2009
Here we go again, Juarez wants El Paso(the US) to take up the slack of the Mexican government. All the slackers from juarez who are just a bunch of cry babies that would never stand up and do any thing themselves.These same cry babies are on this side and criticize the US but dont say to much about the cartels because they might loose thier heads.
Alex M
January 7, 2009
The cartels would cease to exist if drugs were legalized and regulated, and production was regulated.
Of course most people want prohibition to continue. I don't know why, it doesn't work?
Steve
January 8, 2009
Gee, how much more money do we have to throw into the fire before the government realizes that just makes the fire bigger. I hate the ignorance of people who can't realize that prohibition CAUSES black market. Whenever you make some illegal it makes a lucrative black market for all sorts of dangerous people. If you LEGALIZE and REGULATE it will stay out of the hands of kids and into the hands of responsible adults. And its funny, half the people who oppose even TALKING about options go home and drink themselves stupid every night. You can drink your poison for all I care, but I would rather do the safer drug that hasn't killed anyone, ever.
Steve
January 8, 2009
Juarez and other border towns have replaced their police with the damn Mexican federal ARMY. What more can they possibly do to fight the cartels?
If this gets much worse our govt will be asking OUR army to risk their lives fighting the cartels. Our people are already experiencing kidnappings and other violence on our side of the border.
Beto's not a nut, there are plenty of Congress members calling for the legalization/decriminalization of cannabis and some for all drugs. What can a city councilman do directly? Not a lot. What can opening debate do on a national level? Quite a lot.
Joe History Major
January 8, 2009
Mayor Cook is asking for sensorship of honest, open, "free speech"
d
January 8, 2009
Shouldn't we conduct an unannounced drug screen of all City Council Representatives and the Mayor to insure there is no conflict of interest???
If they test positive, they should abstain from voting on this issue.
vato
January 8, 2009
Not all a waste of time -- El Paso is now in the spotlight on CNN...Cook is a hero with Lou Dobbs while Beto is a local yokal coward.
Lou Dobbs on the El Paso city counsel:
"People are getting a little too cute by half...obviously the members of that counsel really should have, both uh, I mean they should have their brains carefully checked as well as their hearts."
"To tolerate what has been a failure to secure that border...and then have some local yokal (O'Rourke) sitting there talking about 'well should we really think about trying to stop this'...."
"'Legalize drugs and end the war,' that was the intimation on the part of the city counsel man (O'Rourke) against drugs, uh, that sounds like utter cowardice and fear."
"Well, uh, he's (Cook) gotta be a little embarrassed that he has got a counsel that would even think and act in that way, and congratulations to the mayor for having political courage...extraordinary."
spoilthechild
January 8, 2009
thats hilarious d ! lets do some drug testing ! if obama and congress(not stupid beto) could pass the legalization of mota maybe el paso farmers would have another cash crop instead of just pecans,cotton, and chiles in the valleys here.