BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mexico is poor; it is the economic conditions that drive conflict not the U.S.

As Mexico’s biggest trading partner the United States always has a major role in the state of the Mexican economy. The United States is also partially to blame for the Peso crisis. Wall St in particular played up a ‘Mexican miracle’ helping to create a bubble, and idea that was also boosted by the US government which was making the case for the North American Free Trade Agreement at the time.[1] We should also not be too quick to blame the economy as there is always some uncertainty in the figures; using different statistical methods you get different results. A study implies a growth rate of household income for Mexico of 4½-5½ percent per year in 1984-2006, which is substantially higher than the 2 percent implied by standard methods.[2] If this was the case then a poor economy could not be seen as much of a factor in the increase in violence and drugs trafficking. [1] Edwards, Sebastian, ‘The Mexican Peso Crisis: How much did we know? When did we know it?’ NBER working paper series, Working paper 6334, p.4 [2] Carvalho Filho, Irineu de, and Chamon, Marcos, ‘The Myth of Post-Reform Income Stagnation: Evidence from Brazil and Mexico’, IMF working paper, (Aug. 2008), p.27.
U.S. demand for drugs

It is the rich US that creates the demand for drugs in the first place. Without this demand the price of drugs would be low and the profits of drugs trafficking through Mexico to the USA would disappear. In 2010 an estimated 22.6 million Americans aged 12 or over were illicit drug users.[1] And this immense drugs market was estimated to provide Mexican cartels with earnings between $13.6 and $48.4 billion.[2] Drugs are therefore a problem that is best dealt with from the perspective of reducing demand. Hillary Clinton accepted this when she said “Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade”. However the US' answer to the drugs problem has so far been the 'war on drugs' concentrating massive investment on trying to reduce supply and this includes funding the Mexican government in its war as well and at the same time as making this admission Clinton was giving $80 million to provide Mexico with Blackhawk helicopters.[3] [1] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, ‘Results from the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings’, NSDUH Series H-41, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 11-4658. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2011. [2] Cook, Colleen W., ‘Mexico’s Drug Cartels’, CRS Report for Congress, 16 October 2007, p.4 [3] BBC News, ‘Clinton admits US blame on Drugs’, 26 March 2009.
U.S. supplies the guns used by drugs cartels

While the US complains about the Mexico’s inability to stop drugs flowing north the USA seems equally unable to stop guns and weapons flowing south into Mexico. As Clinton says “Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians.” Clinton argues that one problem is that the bad guys outgun the law enforcement officers and so is supplying Mexico with better equipment such as night vision goggles,[1] however at least in the short term the only result can be an arms race and more violence as shown by the increasing violence in 2010 and 2011.[2] So long as the cartels are able to easily buy guns then the problem will not be solved. Here again the United States is to blame. The United States has 54,000 licenced gun dealers while Mexico only has one heavily guarded compound so the cartels smuggle their weapons in from the U.S.[3] [1] BBC News, ‘Clinton admits US blame on Drugs’, 26 March 2009. [2] AFP, ‘Mexico drug death toll rising again in 2011’, Fracne24, 11 January 2011. [3] Beaubien, Jason ‘At Mexico’s Lond Gun Shop, Army Oversees Sales’, NPR, 24 June 2009.
U.S. anti-drugs policy focuses on the supply of drugs not the root problem of demand

For the last two decades the USA has been focused on the supply side of reducing the drugs trade. Making it a 'war on drugs' forces a fight back from the drugs cartels leading to gunfights and instability in the countries en route. This happened in Columbia, in Peru and now in Mexico. The focus on supply, or else the containment of drugs in Mexico, is shown by the Obama's US-Mexico border policy press release that devotes a lot more space to extra boarder security to catching the drugs as they reach the US compared with one small paragraph on demand.[1] The U.S. war on drugs focusing on supply and transit routes has clearly failed and has been failing for decades. Back in 1992 Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori declared the war a failure while claiming that between 1980 and 1990, when the U.S. was engaging in military efforts to stop production and transportation, coca production increased tenfold.[2] [1] Napolitano, Janet et al. ‘Administration Officials announce U.S.-Mexico Border Security Policy: A comprehensive response & commitment’, The White House, 24 March 2009. [2] Williams, Ray B., ‘Why “The War on Drugs” Has Failed’, Psychology Today, 6 June 2011.
U.S. policies have helped create the cartels

A change in US immigration law in 1996 meant that non-citizens and foreign born citizens sentenced to more than a year in jail are deported. This moved the problem from the USA’s cities to cities in Central America creating new gangs that were already bound by ties created in the US. Effectively gangs created in the US thrived in central America where they were able to overwhelm the local government and spread north to Mexico and back into the USA helping create the network of gangs and drugs traffickers that plague Mexico today.[1] Similarly the problems in Mexico represent the success of the US in cutting of the routes through the Caribbean used previously by drugs traffickers. Colombian criminals as a result simply switched routes and began smuggling cocaine and heroin through the Central American isthmus and Pacific routes. Both smuggling routes led through Mexico. The successes of the war on drugs in Columbia has reduced the size of the drugs groups in Columbia reducing their ability to control the whole route to the USA making room for the Mexicans to take the role of middleman through Central America.[2] [1] Wolfe, Adam, 'Central America's Street Gangs Are Drawn into the World of Geopolitics', Power and Interest News Report, 25th Aug. 2005. [2] Logan, Samuel, ''Mexico's Internal Drug War'', Power and Interest News Report, 14th August 2006.
Weak Mexican government is to blame not the U.S.

When there is an internal conflict such as this it is almost always a weak government that is to blame for not preventing an escalation of violence. The government is to blame as it is meant to have a monopoly on the use of force, conflicts such as this drugs war occur when that monopoly  on violence is broken. In Mexico the election of Vicente Fox as president may have been a democratic triumph for ending the 70 year one party rule by the P.R.I. but in terms of the effectiveness of the central government it was not a success. The National Action Party has been weak in the lower house and senate so unable to advance a legislative agenda.[1] An inability to legislate significantly reduces the ability of the federal government to respond to the drugs crisis. This reduces the ability of the Federal government to step in and sort out local problems. There has been an upsurge of social unrest of all types, not just drugs violence but protests, riots and strikes as well.[2] Drugs traffickers have taken over many local areas, the local government, police and even some of the army has been penetrated by the drugs traffickers. This leaves the local government unable to do anything against the traffickers. It was not the drugs traffickers who created the institutional problems that allowed the government to become penetrated in the first place; corruption, inefficient police forces and a weak judiciary were already a problem.[3] [1] The Economist, ‘The siesta congress’, 21 January 2012. [2] Gundzik, Jephraim P. , ‘As Elections Approach, Mexico Faces Internal Instability', Power and Interest News report. [3] Freeman, Laurie, ‘State of Siege: Drug-Related Violence and Corruption in Mexico Unintended Consequences of the War on Drugs, WOLA Summer report (2006), p.2.
Violence creates a downward spiral of violence

Just as the United States cannot be blamed for weak governance in Mexico it cannot be blamed for the spiral of decline that occurs as a result of that weak government. Once the police and local government are infiltrated it becomes very difficult to stop the violence. The gangs gain enough control and power that they can no longer be stopped without a massive investment by the central government. Any who do stand up to the traffickers are killed as, for example, was Alejandro Domínguez when appointed to serve as the city police chief of Nuevo Laredo. Domínguez made it clear that he would not negotiate with the cartels. As he was leaving his office on June 8 2005, his first day on the job, he was ambushed and killed by gunmen.[1] A culture of fear exists in Mexico, as in other countries where the government fails to suppress gang warfare. Fear within the government and police force paralyses both into inaction Municipal and state officials insist that the problem is not theirs to solve, since drug trafficking is a federal crime, or they engage in denial, claiming that the situation is improving and that the violence will soon end. While journalists report the death and violence they fear to report on who caused them, the background or the causes of the violence; the media self-censors itself.[2] [1] Althaus, Dudley, and Buch, Jason, ‘Nuevo Laredo police chief killed on street’, Houston Chronicle, 3 February 2011. [2] Laurie Freeman, ‘State of Siege: Drug-Related Violence and Corruption in Mexico Unintended Consequences of the War on Drugs, WOLA Summer report (2006), pp.5-7.
Patients will be better informed than under the status quo

Advertising prescription drugs enables patients to learn, and to request innovation faster in order to benefit from the new drugs that health personnel still have not gotten used to. Advertising increases consumer awareness of drugs, which makes consumers more likely to take appropriate medication. The drugs market is complex and so advertising can help explain the differences between treatments, for example between contraceptive pills intended to reduce period pain, period flow and those simply to prevent pregnancy. Advertising under current rules is used to inform patients of new drugs which may be appropriate for conditions which they suffer from (such as recent asthma drugs which reduce the frequency of attacks), but which their doctor might overlook or not have the time to crosscheck against her list of patients.[1] 56% of AMA general practitioners believed that direct-to-consumer advertising had prompted some of their patients to seek treatment for a condition which would have otherwise been neglected.[2] If a patient has taken the time to actively consider a particular drug and then visits their doctor, whether they are prescribed it or not, they are building up a positive relationship with their doctor and are more likely to continue to take an active interest in their health. Further on, in states where there is no direct to consumer advertising but there is advertising to doctors, patients are disadvantaged because it is in the interest for private medical insurance firms or national health services to keep information about expensive new drugs from patients. In the UK it was because of cost that the Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) refused to allow the prescription of Herceptin, a drug which US studies have shown reduces the damage done by breast cancer. Ultimately pressure from Roche, the drug’s manufacturer and from patients resulted in the drug being authorized for use, but the process was much faster in the US where Roche could run advertisements alerting consumers to the potential benefits of Herceptin, and thereby immediately giving patients access to a similar level of information as their doctors and allowing them to push for its authorization.   [1] Patient View – for improving patient care, Information on prescription medicines: the views of EU-based patient groups, http://www.patient-view.com/projects4.htm, accessed 08/07/2011 [2] Lyles A., Direct Marketing of Pharmaceuticals to Consumers, Annual Review of Public Health, published May 2002,  http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140537, accessed 08/08/2011
Advertising will enable patients to get better treatment earlier in their illnesses

Advertisements—especially those that identify symptoms—can lead to a healthier citizenry, as consumers become aware of their diseases earlier, and can thus find the drug that targets their problem at an earlier stage. Many drugs can prevent or reduce the likelihood of a patient requiring surgery (for instance anti-cholesterol drugs can reduce the buildup of atheroma in blood vessels, which cause cardiovascular heart disease and strokes, thus reducing the likelihood of a heart bypass being required and improving any post-stroke rehabilitation). This not only saves money but is also better for patients. Surgery involves the risk of complications as well as taking time both directly and in post-operation rehabilitation. Also many degenerative conditions can be best treated by early intervention; if patients are aware of the drugs that are available at an early stage they are more likely to take them, thereby increasing their standard of living and reducing their long-term cost to state or private health cover providers.
Adverts generate profit. Profit funds research into improved drugs

We should not attack drugs companies for making profits from their products, nor for encouraging patients to use them. Each new drug costs an average of $500m to produce and very small percentage of the drugs that are researched ever make it to the market.[1] The more profitable the industry, the more new drugs it can afford to research and develop and thus the more patients who can receive appropriate treatment. Many of the complex cures being developed for diseases like cancer, HIV/AIDs, SARS and Avian Flu will take decades to research. In the meantime, drug companies require funding streams from other drugs to continue research. Drugs have become increasingly expensive and advertisement helps to cover those costs. From 1980 and 2004, from about $6 billion (in 2005 dollars) to $39 billion. There has been a real growth rate of about 8 percent a year, on average. By comparison, drug firms’ gross margins—sales revenue minus costs and income taxes—have been increasing more slowly, by about 4 percent annually.[2] So, with more personalized medicine and greater costs in drug development, the industry needs a greater source of revenue in order to research therapeutics further.  Advertising would provide this revenue. [1] Hollis A., Me-too drugs: is there a problem ?, University of Calgary, published December 2004,  http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/topics/ip/Me-tooDrugs_Hollis1.pdf, accessed 08/08/2011 [2] Congres of United States, Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry, October 2006,  http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-DrugR-D.pdf, accessed 08/01/2011
Advertising puts pressure on doctors to prescribe inappropriate drugs to their patients

The majority of products that are advertised treat currently under-treated conditions. Drugs dealing with diseases such as depression, diabetes, and high cholesterol are some of the most frequently advertised. These advertisements can help inform viewers about their conditions, and prompt visits to physicians, who can help treat the problem early on.  Additionally, informed citizens are good for society, as physicians do not always recommend necessary or helpful drugs. In the status quo, patients do not visit their doctors often enough to be diagnosed. Only approximately half the patients in America get beta blockers after a heart attack. Clearly, an advertisement for beta blockers would be informational, rather than harmful.
The costs and effects of advertising will place an additional burden on the healthcare system

According to a financial study conducted by the Villanova School of Business explained that there is no significant burden to the health care system due to direct-to-consumer advertising. The study, conducted in the years 2001 – 2005 in the United States, shows that there is no significant relationship between advertising and price sensitivity. The comparison with other countries shows, the prices of pharmaceuticals and the price for health care (for drugs) have not risen in the United States. Through advertising, after the introductory phase of a drug, the health system is not burdened more. Simply put people are just able to choose between drugs, in a comparable price range easier and therefore do not cost additional money to the state.[1] So a greater financial burden is no excuse from prohibiting companies to advertise products.  [1] Villanova University, DOES DTC ADVERTISING RAISE PRICE? THE IMPACT OF PHARMACEUTICAL ADVERTISING ON CONSUMERS’ PRICE SENSITIVITY, published 2005 http://www.brandweeknrx.com/files/dtc_drug_advertising_and_drug_prices_study.pdf, accessed 08/07/2011
Advertisements for prescription drugs are not significantly different from any other advertisement

Advertising does not attempt to tell the truth, but to give a biased view of a product. Companies spend millions of dollars a year on advertising, and would not do so if there were no return on this investment. While purchasing a particular brand of cola on the basis of an advert might not be disastrous for the consumer, using an inappropriate drug could be. Drugs companies have also shown their willingness to abuse their advertising rights. For instance the FDA has recently had to insist that the possible side effects of drugs must be listed as an integral part of TV advertisements, because advertisements were being produced in which the list of side effects was read at too fast a pace to be understood. It is thus understandable that in a survey soon after the 1997 regulations on direct to consumer advertising, 80% of American Medical Association (AMA) General Practitioners (GPs) thought it was not a good idea and undermined their role.[1] [1] FDA: Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs:Looking Back, Looking Forward, published October 2005,  www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm095993.ppt, accessed 08/07/2011
Patients will be better informed than under the status quo

Many ads don't include enough information on how well drugs work. For example, Lunesta is advertised by a moth floating through a bedroom window, above a peacefully sleeping person. Actually, Lunesta helps patients sleep 15 minutes faster after six months of treatment and gives 37 minutes more sleep per night. The Majority of ads are based on emotional appeals, but few include causes of the condition, risk factors, or important lifestyle changes. In a study of 38 pharmaceutical advertisements researchers found that 82 percent made a factual claim and 86 percent made rational arguments for product use. Only 26 percent described condition causes, risk factors, or prevalence.[1] Thus not giving the patients balanced information that would make them aware, that taking one of the pills is not a magic solution to their problem. Actually, according to a study conducted in the US and New Zealand, patients requested prescriptions in 12% of surveyed visits. Of these requests, 42% were for products advertised to consumers and consumers could not recall more than 4 different products of medicine.[2] This proves that the decisions made by the patients are not more informed and mainly only pressure to the advertised drugs.  [1] Creating Demand for Prescription Drugs: A Content Analysis of Television Direct-to-Consumer Advertising. Ann Fam Med. 2007 January; 5(1): 6–13.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1783924/ [2] Mintzes B. and co-workers, Influence of direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising and patients' requests on prescribing decisions: two site cross sectional survey, BMJ 2002,  http://www.bmj.com/content/324/7332/278.full.pdf, accessed 08/01/2011
Advertising will enable patients to get better treatment earlier in their illnesses

This leads to patients requesting drugs they do not need and in many cases are even harmful to them. The prescription drugs are very different from freely available drugs. They often treat serious diseases, and so advertising those should target mainly people that are very ill and especially vulnerable. On the other hand, with direct-to-consumer advertising, many people who do not have a serious disease become convinced that they need the prescription drug, because the advertisements scare them. Because of such advertisement, in the U.S. there was a rapid widespread exposure to dangerous drugs before risks were fully recognized, as with troglitazone (Rezulin) for diabetes and cisapride (Propulsid) for nighttime heartburn. Causing people to become more ill instead of healthier, because this leads to a higher “self-diagnosing”. [1] [1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission’s Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011, http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/DTCA/BMintzes_en.pdf, accessed 08/07/2011