Charts, maps and infographics

Daily chart

Daily chart: Drugs in Mexico

A gruesome paradox

Feb 2nd 2011, 15:14 by The Economist online

An interactive map of Mexico's security crisis

AS THE tally of murders linked to organised crime has risen over the past four years in Mexico, analysts have warned that insecurity is spreading to areas that were previously unaffected. The Mexican government insists that, on the contrary, the violence remains highly concentrated. Who is right? The answer, oddly, is both. In 2007, the first full year of the crackdown against the “cartels”, as the mafias are known, 70% of homicides linked to organised crime took place in just 4% of the country’s municipalities. In 2010, again, 70% of killings took place in only 3% of municipalities. If anything, the violence has become slightly more concentrated over time. But total annual killings have risen dramatically. The total for 2010 was more than five times that of 2007 (though there was an encouraging dip towards the end of the year). So although 97% of the country still sees only 30% of all the violence, that 30% represents a much larger number in gross terms than it did four years ago. The map above illustrates the paradox that violence in Mexico has spread extensively, while remaining highly concentrated.

You must be logged in to post a comment.
Please login or sign up for a free account.
1-20 of 32
The Mexican wrote:
Feb 2nd 2011 3:33 GMT

Good Graph but I'm pretty sure that the numbers in michoacan are higher than the one showed in this graphic! Michoacan as chihuahua and tamaulipas and sinaloa is one of the based of the organized crime

abjecthorror wrote:
Feb 2nd 2011 3:53 GMT

So not a paradox, just a nuanced argument.

Sorry, I am on a crusade against the unecessary use of the word paradox.

Comes from being in a scientific field populated by physicians who think that data that doesn't fit their hypothesis must be a paradox

mbstra wrote:
Feb 2nd 2011 4:02 GMT

The map would be more informative if it also showed homicides linked to crime as a ratio of population (e.g. per 100,000 inhabitants).
@abjecthorror: You could argue that there are no paradoxes at all, just false premises, couldn't you?

abjecthorror wrote:
Feb 2nd 2011 4:09 GMT

A paradox is a logical impossibility, so you are quite correct

J. Kemp wrote:
Feb 2nd 2011 4:39 GMT

"The total for 2010 was more than five times that of 2007 (though there was an encouraging dip towards the end of the year)."

What an extraordinary gain in productivity!

A 5-fold increase in murders related to America's ill-conceived "war on drugs" in merely 4 years!

Who says that America doesn't export productivity gains to its neighbors?

LaContra wrote:
Feb 2nd 2011 6:21 GMT

Off topic a bit but the map labels the expanse of water between the Baja Peninsula and mainland Mexico as the 'Gulf of California'.

Having lived in Cabo San Lucas and Guymas, and having sailed those waters extensively, I have never heard it called the 'Gulf of California' by anyone and nor have I seen it referred to on a nautical chart, as anything other than the Sea of Cortes?....

paco M wrote:
Feb 2nd 2011 7:02 GMT

It would be very enlightening if you showed the other half of the equation, drug routes, cartel areas, and gun sales un the US..... because it just doesn't stop at the border....

NorthernCali wrote:
Feb 2nd 2011 9:30 GMT

The lines aren't drawn in precisely the right areas. However, for purposes of making a point about crime distribution in Mexico, it works.

Slugdoc wrote:
Feb 2nd 2011 10:41 GMT

According to Groucho Marx, a paradox= 2 ducks....

Faedrus wrote:
Feb 2nd 2011 10:49 GMT

No doubt as opposed to a unidoc. :)

pchas wrote:
Feb 2nd 2011 11:00 GMT

Ay Chihuahua!

It would be interesting to see the distribution within each province. My Mexican-American coworker told me that while the number of murders in Michoacan are relatively small, most of the crime is in Morelia.

@La Costa: If Google analytics are any clue, Gulf of California is the preferred name for that body of water. Sea of Cortez does't make an appreciable showing until after 1940.

@The Mexican: I showed the table to a Mexican-American coworker, and she told me that most of the cr

Nobody wrote:
Feb 2nd 2011 11:12 GMT

It would also be nice to see the neighboring US states numbers :)

okne wrote:
Feb 2nd 2011 11:47 GMT

@J. Kemp,

So because Americans use drugs, it is our 'war on drugs'? Or efforts to enforce laws, you agree with or not, is the cause of this? That is the most ridiculous notion I have seen repeated over and over again.

Mexico is a country with a strong population, generally very nice natural resources in the Gulf, and entry into a free-trade agreement that Canada has embraced and grown from. It is also a country that has high endemic drug use amongst its own population, who exports mass amounts of drugs to America and Europe (and not just marijuana, which I am ambivalent about), who exports about 6 million (minimum) stable illegal immigrants to America who then send home remittances worth about 20-30% of Mexico's GDP, a nation who has had many opportunities to turn things around.

Yes, some Americans like drugs, and some Americans like guns. Do I agree with either? No, but they are the written laws, and here they are enforced. If you have issues with the 2nd ammendment, that's one thing, to blame Americans for embracing a centuries old part of the constitution for the motives of massive drug cartels who will fuel their trade with violence of any means, is absurd. I get that it is trendy to blame America but have some perspective and some respect for human nature; the violence and greed and lust for weapons is an intrinsic characteristic of Mexican criminal elements, who sell out their own countrymen. And unfortunately, they exploit the laws of my nation, illegally.

I would seriously like to know what your answer to the war on drugs would be, when you share a large border with a country who has no reason to use them as a major export, but does. Legalize everything? Give them economic aid? We have shared millions of free dollars and technical expertise with the Mexican oil company to help their operations 30 years ago, they responded by 'nationalizing' it even further and in those decades its investment and expertise has gone down hill so fast that it is having trouble meeting production goals on wells that are full of oil, or drilling at new sites in a oil rich region. We included them in a free trade agreement that sent hundreds of factories, with hundreds of thousands of jobs, with a chance to develop a middle class and demand and better standards. Did we enjoy the cheap labor? Of course we did, but NAFTA gave them a much bigger chance to expand, to open our market to them, to allow investment in them. We didn't need such a large agreement just to use them, as can be seen in how many multinational manufacturers now work.

I'm sick of this criticism. Blame the war on drugs? We opened ourselves to Mexico in many ways many times trying to elevate them, that it has come to this is surely partly to blame on a minority of our population's drug use.... but our war on drugs? We tried the olive branch and the greenback before, they didn't take pal. Apparently these days America cannot be recognized for doing anything good ever. That's fine by me, just makes me work harder.

ArbyH wrote:
Feb 3rd 2011 12:13 GMT

The "War on Drugs" as it relates to marijuana is a fool’s errand. Legalizing marijuana would solve many current problems and actually create some benefits for the public good. Certainly the current way the government deals with this problem only prolongs the problem.

Marijuana never should have been included on the list of dangerous drugs. Marijuana isn’t dangerous, and it isn’t a feeder drug. I believe the La Guardia Committee Report made a clear case on the harmlessness of marijuana and exposed the blatant propagandized lies. Everyone knows how wrongfully propagandized, distorted, and racially motivated the law enforcement efforts were in the America's anti-marijuana campaign. Harry Anslinger was an ambitious, lying, and deceitful man with a bureaucrat’s interest in the slander and disinformation of marijuana. Other organized interests were against hemp as a resource: Logging wanted to capture the paper industry; cotton growers and synthetic cloth manufactures, such as DuPont, were also to blame for this inclusion while trying to eliminate hemp fiber competition.

Legalizing marijuana would:
-Cause the black market in marijuana to be gone, along with the violence related to it. You can’t beat that.
-All of the marijuana money going south would stop, and remain here to be spent legally in our own economy. That is 60% of a cartel’s income. Losing that would be a serious blow to these groups.
-Law enforcement, judicial, and incarceration expenditures of public funds for this would no longer be needed- Free the people.
-The growing on and damaging of public lands would end, as people would rather grow it at home, ending the illegal cartels involvement.
-People with medical needs would be able to seek some small comfort there.
- (IMO) A decrease in drunk driving statistics would occur. People would soon realize that they enjoy marijuana more than the oncoming sickness of drinking, thus the non alcoholic would drink less, and be safer to the public concern overall.

Another very important factor: Legalizing marijuana would allow for the acceptance of a large group of productive and responsible American citizens who only differ from everyone else in one intelligent way: they intuitively prefer thought stimulating marijuana to the dangerous sloppiness and oncoming sickness of drinking.
Liquor lobbyists and the pharmaceutical companies would fight against legalization of marijuana for their self preservation reasons, as would the DEA. The DEA is a major recipient in the forfeiture of assets game, and they love the power they have, and they, along with the prison guards, and Wackenhut, want to remain fully staffed and budgeted.
Let me stress that marijuana is safer and more enjoyable then liquor. Liquor companies know this, but do not want the public to adapt and adopt a safer smarter way. I’m no expert but, if people self medicated with marijuana wouldn’t that reduce the need for Zoloft and a dozen other mood drugs? Certainly there is little better with coming to grips with PTSD than the herbal remedy.

The government’s issue is: Who will grow it and sell it? How do we manage it? How do we tax it? How can we monopolize it, diminish it‘s quality, and tax it for as much as we can get away with? Those are greedy selfish interests, and as usual the government should leave it alone and stop looking at things in that self serving manner. The government needs to stop playing omnipotent God. In most cases government regulation creates more problems than it solves.

I propose that American citizens, of legal age, be allowed to "grow their own". If every citizen of age that desired could grow say 12 mature plants for personal use, then all illegal black markets would dry up. The surplus would cause marijuana to not have much monetary value.

One economic plus for my proposal is that good citizens who enjoy marijuana are a smart proud group of sociable people and will invest money into growing supplies. Your average proud grower will invest a few hundred dollars, or more, in the domestic economy to be able to properly grow, and show off, their little crop. This expenditure times 22 million people and you have a major boost in our economy, instead of the current hemorrhage of funds going to illegal drug lords, and the ugliness that comes with that.

In conclusion: the current way the government deals with marijuana only prolongs the problem. If profit is to be made a black market will always exist. It is high time Americans stood up for freedom and demanded these repressive marijuana laws be changed, ending decades of unjust persecution. Give marijuana back to the people and freedom and liberty itself will turn what was an ugly problem into a favorable outcome.
I can not get on a soap box and argue the merit of other drugs, but as far as marijuana I will defend it and speak my peace as a freedom loving American.

DrJer wrote:
Feb 3rd 2011 12:18 GMT

@okne,

"So because Americans use drugs, it is our 'war on drugs'? Or efforts to enforce laws, you agree with or not, is the cause of this?"

Well... yes.
The current criminal approach on drugs is the reason why there are criminals behind the drug trade (with the collateral damage of 30k bodies south of your border in the last few years). The US has used the same strategy over decades, apparently without realizing how futile it is and without realizing how it is pouring billions into the pockets of mobsters.

sjcd wrote:
Feb 3rd 2011 1:09 GMT

Here's a solution to the drug problem, Make the possesion, sale and distribution of all drugs legal, (CVS can buy and sell ?) BUT keep the actual use of the (illegal) drugs illegal.
Gets rid of the drug lords and street sellers, and keeps the status quo as far as useage is concerned.

Spound silly ?
Compare this to the gun ownership policy of america...
I can buy a gun but can't use for what is was designed for (kill people) except in exceptional circumstances.
Same for drugs, no problem

jvictor1789 wrote:
Feb 3rd 2011 1:25 GMT

Regarding the Sea of Cortes of course a place is named in the way its inhabitants see fit.That is why Bombay is Mumbai,Peking is Beijing and Kinshasha is (thankfully) not Leopoldville. Google just tries to do an approximative job but of course it is not a World Official Baptizer dripping sacred water on the planet.
Imagine if Google or its future successor was spanish-based it could name San Francisco "El Presidio" (the prison colony). Of course should it be mexican-based it would simply call California and Texas "Northern Mexico".
Both names Gulf of California and Sea of Cortes are used in Mexico but Sea of Cortes is more commonly used in the states that border it, and has a far more romantic ring to it.

Regarding Okne`s posting I think we may need to make a few corrections.

Most of us know Mexico has a GDP of one trillion dollars, the 14th largest in the world. That is in real dollars. If you take into account cheaper prices in Mexico and do the PPP adjustment(see CIA`s figures, for example) this rises to around 1.4 trillion dollars, 11th largest in the world, ahead of Canada, Spain and South Korea. Mexico City alone is the second largest metropolis in the World after Tokyo-Yokohama, and its GDP, as a single city, is the 8th largest in the world behind only such places as Tokyo, New York, L.A. , London or Paris.

Remittances into Mexico are worth 25 bn $. My friend, we may not need a calculator to see that amounts to only two per cent of the mexican economy, not the 20-30% you posted.

You also write "Mexico exports 6 million(sic) stable(sic) illegal immigrant to America" ... "stable!" Now I understand. You must be speaking of farm animals, pigs, cows and so on who are the ones who usually live in a stable.
Indeed you could bite them upon seeing them in your local supermarket.

Bankofmouse wrote:
Feb 3rd 2011 4:48 GMT

Every time I show these graphs and maps to my wife she wants to know how the numbers are determined. How is it determined whether a homicide is related to organized crime?

Feb 3rd 2011 5:17 GMT

Insecurity also is spreading to El Paso, Texas, where I reside. After buildings in El Paso twice have been hit by live fire from shootouts in our Sister City of Juarez, we wonder how long it will be before the violence spills over the border and we have gun battles in our streets.

The real paradox to us is, how can we continue to live in one of the safest cities in America and be only a short bridge walk across from the most dangerous city in Mexico? We wonder when the other shoe will drop.

Many other El Paso residents refuse to go to Juarez anymore for fear of the violence, and the tourist trade has just about dried up. But sometime this coming week, my wife and I will make our bi-monthly walk across that short bridge. We will visit our pharmacy and our favorite restaurant. We will bemoan the deserted streets and pray for Divine intervention. But one thing we will not do - give in to fear.

Onelifetolive wrote:
Feb 3rd 2011 6:00 GMT

What about the graph showing the source and route of cash and guns coming from certain states in the USA.

1-20 of 32

About Daily chart

On this blog we publish a new chart or map every working day, highlight our interactive-data features and provide links to interesting sources of data around the web.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Latest blog posts - All times are GMT

Kabuki comes home
From Asia view - 1 hrs 55 mins ago
Link exchange
From Free exchange - March 2nd, 21:42
An abundance of activity
From Multimedia - March 2nd, 21:14
About that Goldman estimate
From Free exchange - March 2nd, 21:10
More from our blogs »
Products & events
Stay informed today and every day

Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.


Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter


See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.

Advertisement