Here’s a trailer to a movie that (according to IMDb) I cannot see because it isn’t anywhere in my area:
A pity I can’t see it, because the Forbes review called it “The Most Important Drug War Film You’ll Ever See.”
It’s a film about the human consequences of execrable War on Drugs and there is a review and interview with the author here:
…The House I Live In, an acclaimed collection of interlocking stories about the mournful human impact of America’s failed war on drugs. Did you know there is a man serving a life sentence in Oklahoma for “trafficking” three ounces of methamphetamine? Did you know that the rise of privately-owned prisons means that there is now a direct financial incentive to incarcerate people?
The 11 months in between these two statements were extraordinarily fruitful ones in this area of law and justice. And almost all of the change seemed to reflect a growing sense of unease, or even disgust, on the part of America’s criminal justice community — lawyers, judges, politicians, prison officials, etc. — a sense that the status quo is unsustainable, that America can no longer afford, on either financial or moral terms, to keep millions of its citizens locked up. It’s too early to label 2012 a turning point in our war against the war on drugs. But it’s not to early to see a definitive trend in that direction.
I’ll believe it when I see it. The main problem with the war on drugs is that it is bipartisan, which makes it nearly impossible to get rid of. And as the film points out, there are huge vested interests in the WoD who will fight like demons to protect their turf.
Fortunately, there are a few dissenting insiders who are willing to speak up, some of whom are featured in the film:
Last month, a federal judge in Iowa, Mark W. Bennett, who appeared in Jarecki’s film, wrote a poignant piece in The Nation. “If we don’t speak up, who will?” he asked.
To his immense credit, Jarecki is speaking up. He says his film is no advocacy piece but rather a movie “driven by real people’s stories.” But the advocacy is there, in virtually every scene. The “real people” Jarecki shows us are complex individuals, generators of sympathy and empathy, outrage and sorrow, sometimes all at the same time. And in that sense, if no other, they are powerful tribunes for the message he seeks to send: Drug crime is caused by drug addiction, drug addiction is a public health matter, and all of us pay in one manner or another for short-sighted policies that treat drug abuse as a matter for the criminal courts.
Jarecki contends that the “war on drugs” is more warlike than any of us are willing to believe and that it has been waged disproportionately for decades on America’s poor. If every lawyer, judge, cop, prison guard, politician, policy maker, and economist in America saw this film, fewer families might be devastated by the “lock-em-up” approach to the problem.
From a constitutional perspective, the war on drugs has been monstrous from the start (as M. Simon and I have pointed out countless times). It has also damaged incalculably the traditional high regard Americans once had for law and law enforcement. In that respect I think it has done more damage than Prohibition did — which is saying something if we consider that earning back respect for the law was a primary reason for repealing Prohibition. (Considering that the advent of the Depression was making new heroes out of bank robbers, the repeal of Prohibition couldn’t have come a moment too soon for those who worried about a restive populace holding authorities in bitter contempt.)
What we tend to forget is that ridiculous as the idea was, Prohibition enforcement was pitifully lame compared to today’s War on Drugs. SWAT Teams did not invade people’s homes. Individuals were not sentenced to lengthy prison terms even for dealing, and ordinary possession of booze was legal. And for those who had a few coins to spare, prescriptions for pure, legal booze could easily be had from doctors who, even if they prescribed for alcoholics, never feared being prosecuted and sent to prison as doctors do today. Moreover, like it or not, Prohibition was at least constitutional. It was done the right way, by amending the Constitution with what I call the telltale Amendment because it tells us a lot about the constitutional democracy we once were.
But beyond the destruction of respect for law and the harm it caused to millions of people, I think the greatest harm the drug war has done to this country over the past decades is in subverting and destroying the idea that we are a free country with a meaningful Constitution that guarantees, say, the Fourth Amendment right to be free in our persons and papers from unreasonable search and seizure.
I realize that I’m constantly complaining about these things, but earlier I read about the United States Senate’s complete disregard for the Fourth Amendment:
I haven’t passed the bar, but I know a little bit about the 4th Amendment. Have you read it lately? “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,” it states in plain English, “and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
That’s all of it.
The landline in your house? The government needs a warrant to tap it. The letters in your mailbox? The government needs a warrant to read ’em. It’s like the Framers said: probable cause is required.
Yet a text or an email, even one sent from your bed, is treated differently — it’s afforded much less protection from government snoops, even though we’re increasingly going all digital in our communication.
Why?
Read it all. Congress also accords the Fifth Amendment with similar disrespect. And we all know how much respect the bastards have for the Second Amendment, don’t we?
At the rate we are going, the United States Constitution will become like the famous Soviet Constitution under Stalin, which guaranteed all sorts of rights, but which meant absolutely nothing because it wasn’t observed in any way, shape or form.
How did America reach the point where the Constitution has come to mean next to nothing? It did not happen overnight, but I think that over the long run, the war on drugs did more to get us where we are today than almost any single factor.
A government that can tell you what you can and cannot put in your body can certainly regulate your medical care. A government that can make it a felony to grow unapproved plants in your backyard can certainly make unapproved wood a felony. A government that can break down your door and invade your house with lethal force to look for evidence of victimless crime can certainly read your email. A government that can lock you up for life for possessing a disapproved substance can certainly declare you a terrorist and lock you up.
Etc.
Comments
13 responses to “The Most Important Drug War Film I’ll Never See?”
So I guess one thing any reasonable person should do, upon learning just how unfair the drug war is,is stay far far away from drugs and those engaged with drugs. Yet these sorts of stories always seem to lead to the opposite conclusion: “The CIA imported drugs into the ‘urban’ community therefore we’re going out to buy some crack.”
I conditionally agree with much of what you say and have said about the WoD.
My condition though is that you cannot decriminalize/legalize in a vacuum.
I will not, repeat, will not work as hard as I do to be a responsible adult AND have a chunk of my earnings go to feed/clothe/house/provide.med.care to someone who chooses to spend 24/7 high.
Drug testing for all welfare/Section 8 recipients. And positives lose their redistributed-from-my-pocket entitlement.
Putting them in jail doesn’t cost you anything?
Darleen,
Do you apply that to alcoholics? A 20X bigger problem?
Your problem is with the welfare state. But instead of putting ALL your efforts into that you express a grudge against drug addicts.
You have been coopted.
Scott and Darleen,
Do you know what will happen when the Democrats finally get in front of the parade and champion an end to Prohibition?
The Prohibitionist Republican Party will be a zero in national politics for several decades to come.
Remember 1932?
I’ve already given up on the GOP. That party has decided to ride the flaming wreckage all the way to the crash site crater, no matter how many political consultants they must make wealthy.
Scott,
It is worse than that. Conservative thought will be called into question. The refrain will be something like:
“If conservatives are so smart how could they let something like this happen?”
[…] in his post The Most Important Drug War Film I’ll Never See? linked to this Forbes article where I found this comment: The War on Drugs needs to be replaced […]
I hang out at a site that attracts a fair number of Prohibitionists. I keep telling them that the end of Prohibition will pull down the Republican Party nationally. Their response is to double down. Even though they too can see it coming. It amazes me.
When I point out that the Left likes to find a fault on the Right and use it to discredit the whole program on the Right they agree. And yet they can’t stop.
Damnedest thing I have ever seen.
===
And it goes without saying – thanks for the mention.
Good video on the movie here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50135504n
Moderator, it’s not just that the political-media complex will blame conservative thought, they will do that anyway, no matter how hard they have to stretch or what they have to make up. The political-media complex is happy to label McCain reasonable or radical, just as they are happy to label Romney reasonable or radical. Nothing can be done to prevent the p-m complex from lying, that is their way of being. Therefore, I don’t try the foolish exercise of trying to make them like me or act so as to avoid the inevitable name-calling they will do.
I would not give my kids or my roommate to use drugs in my house, just because it’s my house and doing so undermines them being responsible in all of the other ways we need to be responsible. Prohibition AND legalization both bring a whole string of unintended consequences. We have the most experience dealing with the consequences of prohibition and we know legalization will lead to a spike in drug users.
Does anyone anywhere seriously expect anything in this country to improve if we increase the number of drop-out dopers while we have unemployment insurance and disability insurance? Legalization is just the libertarian’s version of utopia and like other utopias it is doomed to fail. And libertarians, being libertarians, will take zero responsibility for the problems of legalization. To them society is just a theoretical exercise in political purity. They seem to take huge pride is announcing they accept the most heinous of acts if they can get purity points by doing so.
I would no more legalize drugs than legalize consensual pederasty. There are always going to be some limit in any society, why not find a way to live within one of those limits from time to time? This legalization efforts smells too much of “I’m tired of hiding my drug use” or “I had fun getting high x years ago and nothing bad happened to me, so let’s try it.” I remind people to look at the people driving on your roads. People will be no more responsible with their drugs than with their cars. Only, with cars you can pay extra attention and avoid most of the idiots. You won’t be able to with stoners because they will always search you out to inflict their hippy philosophizing on you before bumming a ride, a cig, eats, or cash.
We don’t need more hippies and slackers.
Scott M,
I guess a police state in the name of enforcing Prohibition is preferable to more hippies and drop outs. Like Steve Jobs.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steve-jobs-fears-kidnappers-praises-drugs-pentagon-335941
Do you apply that to alcoholics? A 20X bigger problem?
Do you see any irony in that statement? We traded a larger problem with alcoholics for getting rid of Prohibition.
Just.not.worth.the.hassle.
Yet you admit a big problem of alcohol while asking for the legalization of all drugs?
Sure, I have little problem with making sure welfare recipients are sober. They can get drunk/high as they want on their own dime (or charity’s dime, as charity by definition is voluntary funds)
But as long someone demands a portion of MY property as their “right” because they “need it”, I will claw back any control over how that money is used as I can get.
So don’t call me a “prohibitionist” as least I call you a “redistributionist”.