Sandwiched between violent cartels and a brutal military occupation force, the Mexican people are understandably running out of patience:

Hundreds of people in Mexico have blocked key crossings into the US in protests against the deployment of the army fighting drug traffickers.

Traffic was brought to a halt on a number of bridges in several border towns in northern Mexico.

The protesters accused the army of abuse against civilians. [BBC]
We tend to view the U.S. and Mexican governments as well as the cartels as the primary actors in shaping the discussion of the nation’s drug war, but the Mexican people themselves will likely begin to play a more visible role as the situation further deteriorates. Rampant civil rights abuses by the Mexican military are quickly becoming regarded as a cure worse than the disease and it may only be a matter of time before public sentiments tip in favor of a dramatic change of course.

As one might expect, the Mexican government has been quick to dismiss the protestors, even going so far as to accuse them of collaborating with the drug traffickers:

…the governor of one state - Nuevo Leon - said he believed the Gulf drugs cartel and its armed wing, the Zetas, were behind the border protests.

"There are reasons to believe it has to do with the Gulf cartel and the group known as the Zetas," Governor Natividad Gonzalez said.

Unbelievable. I guess the idea that the citizens of Mexico would complain about human rights violations by their own military is so inconceivable that it simply must be the drug lords who made them do it.

Ultimately, it should prove difficult for the government to continue portraying public opposition as a PR experiment sponsored the traffickers. Trivializing public sentiment is a losing proposition in the long term, especially when you’re thoroughly unprepared to address the conditions that are pissing everyone off.

If anyone is serving the political and financial interests of the drug traffickers it is the U.S. and Mexican government officials who continue to champion the failed drug strategy that is ripping Mexico apart before our eyes.

Calls for legalization in the aftermath of the Michael Phelps media frenzy haven’t met with much backlash, probably because the gold-medal winning bong-monger kinda breaks the mold as far as stoner stereotyping goes. So we should be grateful, if anything, for the few anti-drug zealots that are so unhinged, so consumed by reefer madness, that they feel compelled to speak even when doing so serves only to further expose and embarrass their crazy beliefs:

The recent incident involving Michael Phelps getting caught smoking pot has caused the age long debate to rear its head again on whether or not we should legalize or at least decriminalize our drug laws. The idea in attacking the drug laws is that people should be free to make their own decisions. The problem with that line of reasoning is that you would never be able to draw the line on establishing any law. Everything would have to be legal, including armed robbery, murder, assault, etc. In essence, it would be anarchy. [Shreveport Times]

Ok, I don’t think you understand. We want to legalize marijuana, but not murder. Does that make sense? Armed robbery, etc. would still be illegal. No one will ever try to legalize violent crime, so shut up and stop worrying about that.

It’s a shame what marijuana does to some people’s brains.