In my previous post, I made the claim that as long as Americans keep buying drugs, someone will keep supplying them.

Mexico has not always been the primary supplier of drugs to American consumers. The supply has shifted repeatedly over time, tracking enforcement pressure, geopolitics, and—most importantly—where demand could be profitably met.

This is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that the drug war is fundamentally demand-driven, not country-driven.

Below is a clear, historically grounded walkthrough.

When France Was the Supplier: The French Connection (1950s–1970s)

During the mid-20th century, France—specifically Marseille—was the center of the heroin trade supplying the U.S.

This was known as French Connection.

How it worked:

• Opium grown in Turkey
• Processed into heroin in France
• Smuggled into the United States
• Distributed primarily through American criminal networks

For years, France was “the problem” in U.S. political and law-enforcement rhetoric.

Until it wasn’t.

When U.S. and French authorities cracked down in the early 1970s, the route collapsed.

Demand did not.

So the supply moved.

The Shift to Southeast Asia: The Golden Triangle (1960s–1980s)

After France, major heroin supply shifted to Golden Triangle:

• Myanmar (Burma)
• Laos
• Thailand

This region supplied large portions of U.S. heroin during the Vietnam War era.

Again:

• Enforcement pressure increased
• Routes were disrupted
• Production declined

Demand stayed constant.

So supply moved again.

Cocaine Era: Colombia & the Andes (1970s–1990s)

In the late 20th century, Colombia became synonymous with drug trafficking—especially cocaine.

Key supplier countries:

• Colombia
• Peru
• Bolivia

This era gave us:

• Cartel mythology
• Militarized responses
• “Kingpin” strategies
• Massive violence in producer and transit countries

Sound familiar?

When Colombia cracked down in the 1990s, cocaine didn’t disappear.

Mexico became the logistics hub.

Mexico’s Rise: Geography + Enforcement Displacement (1990s–Present)

Mexico was been in this game for a long time, but Mexico didn’t suddenly “become evil.”

It became strategically necessary.

Why?

• Close proximity to the U.S.
• Established smuggling routes
• Fragmentation of Colombian cartels
• U.S. pressure pushing supply chains north

Mexico transitioned from transit country → producer → distributor.

And today, Mexico bears the brunt of violence for:

• Cocaine
• Heroin
• Methamphetamine
• Fentanyl (with chemical precursors often originating elsewhere)

Mexico is the current node in a long chain of suppliers.

Not the first.
Not the last—unless demand changes.

Other Countries That Have Supplied the U.S. Drug Market

Depending on the era and drug:

• Turkey – opium (mid-20th century)
• Afghanistan – heroin (global, indirect U.S. impact)
• China – chemical precursors (fentanyl era)
• Netherlands – synthetic drugs, ecstasy
• Canada – marijuana, synthetics (periodically)

Every time enforcement tightens in one place, production and trafficking relocate.

This is called the balloon effect: Squeeze here → bulge there

The Pattern Is the Point

Countries change.
Cartels change.
Routes change.
Substances change.

Demand does not.

That’s the throughline.

So when people say:

“Mexico is the problem”

History answers:

“Mexico is the current supplier — because Americans are the constant buyer.”

France paid the price once.
Southeast Asia paid the price.
Colombia paid the price.

Now Mexico pays the price.

Until the U.S. owns its role in demand, someone else will pay next.