Slashdot Mirror
"Traffic"
The so-called War on Drugs America has waged with itself and various other parts of the world for more than a generation is one of the greatest policy disasters in recent history. Nobody with more than two brain cells believes this "war" is being won or can be won. Each year, more technology and money gets thrown into the fray, more people end up in jail, the courts are clogged even more, and more drugs come into the country, where significant numbers of Americans, young and old, use them. Understandably, the United States is a laughing stock on this issue.
That few politicians dare to seriously reconsider alternatives to this catastrophe is a commentary on the wretched state of our corporatized, two-party, big media-sponsored political system. Drug policies barely surface in the presidential campaign beyond moral posturing, which shouldn't be that much of a surprise; little else of substance did either.
It's in that context that Traffic is a bracing look at the mess.
It's a pretty amazing movie, too, another worthy addition to the strong holiday line-up -- Crouching Tiger, Hidden DragonL, O Brother, Where Art Thou, Unbreakable-- that made last months' movies far more interesting than those of the preceding eleven.
If Traffic is dazzling at times, it isn't uniformly so -- the story is told in three interwoven parts, each with a distinct cinematic look, pace and style. There are an astounding 129 speaking parts in the 147-minute film, adding to its documentary, fast-paced feel. The first is shot in gauzy brown, the second through blue filters, the third in crisp, bright sunshine. Soderburgh shot the film himself, pseudonymously, often using hand-held cameras. When it works, it really works.
One story centers around two Mexican state troopers (Benicio Del Toro and Jacob Vargas) drawn into the shadowy world of the Mexican cartels. The second focuses on the ponderous, naive policies of a newly-appointed American drug czar, played by Michael Douglas, whose daughter just happens to be turning into an addict, and the third centers on a wealthy San Diego housewife (Catherine Zeta-Jones) who struggles to keep her lifestyle after her husband gets arrested by the DEA and umasked as a drug lord.
Don Cheadle and Luis Guzman are terrific as DEA agents sticking their fingers in the dike. (The movie points out that once NAFTA takes full effect, Mexican trucks will be able to enter the U.S. as freely as they traverse their own country, and any pretense of halting drugs at the border will be gone).
The movie can be powerful, riveting at times, and its all-encompassing style captures the futility and hypocrisy of America's political posturing about drugs and law enforcement. But it stumbles over the drug- czar plot. Douglas is convincing as a politician over his head, but when his bright, preppie daughter (Erika Christensen) gets drawn into freebasing so that he can see the light, the movie turns clunky, predictable and heavy-handed. But never for long. The end result is a brilliant movie, tossed somewhat off-kilter.
Traffic relentlessly drives its potent message home: as a nation, we are in total denial about our failed drug policies. There's no realistic way drugs can be stopped by conventional law enforcement, or by much-touted new monitoring technologies (planes, satellites, computers, money-laundering databases). There is no widespread system of treatment, nor is there a rational political climate in which truth can be approached. So the druglords get richer and the jails get more overcrowded, and we end up waging a war against ourselves. Beyond that much-needed message, Traffic is also cinematically dazzling -- murky, ragged and colorful; shrouded by intrigue and betrayal, sudden violence and futility.
Being critical without an idea for a solution is the worst possible thing.
There are several options. Even do nothing at all about drugs looks better than the war on drugs. Currently, we are in the arctic wearing a coat made of dry ice. By all means, take the coat off!
People don't seek treatment for drug addiction (or even admit they have a problem) because they can't without confessing to a crime. Crime gets involved in drug distribution because of the extremely high profit margins. Violence gets involved because of the huge amounts of money involved and the high cost of getting caught. Very few people shoot it out with the police to avoid a fine for operating a business w/o a license.
The war on drugs has destroyed our sense of justice. That nice kid next door who got caught with a joint (perhaps not even his) will probably do as much or more time than the armed robbers they caught on the corner. It's hard to see judges as wise or the police as the good guys when they keep perpetrating such mind numbing stupidity and needless destruction of young lives.
Realistically, do nothing will probably not be enough. For one, I would suggest taking a fraction of the money being spent now, and use it to fund addiction treatment and counciling programs. Perhaps it could be funded with a modest tax on the drugs themselves. Nobody will complain because even with a hefty tax, pot will still be cheaper than it is under prohibition.
But when it comes to super addictive stuff like cocain and nicotine, I say ban it and enforce it, because this indulgent culture can't stay away from it.
All that will accomplish is trading one problematic 'war' for another. There are a few very simple facts related to the drug war:
The sooner our society (and government) realises this, the sooner we can start spending those billions of dollars a year on something worthwhile. For example, the amount we have spent on the War on (some) drugs so far would have been enough to put every homeless person in the U.S. into a nice apartment complete with food, clothing, and counciling to help them reenter society with enough left over to treat drug addicts and lower taxes.
Drug related violence would disappear overnight. You'll notice that alcoholics rarely get into shootouts with police or each other in the Winn Dixie checkout line in spite of their impared reasoning processes (or DTs).
Police would no longer be able to legally steal Grandma's car w/o a trial under the bizarre (to say the least) legal fiction of charging the car with drug trafficing.
We wouldn't have to listen to the drug czar doublespeaking about how (to paraphrase) drug trafficing has decreased to only double the previous figure.
Your enemies couldn't legally destroy your home and disrupt your life just by making an anonymous call to the local drug squad from a payphone (it's not unheard of, sometimes homeowners get killed that way).
Just for kicks, let's through in the Corporate Government.
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together acknowledges that marijuana is a far less harmful drug than alcohol or tobacco, and recognizes the absurdity of illegalizing it.
The Corporate Government is intent on creating a passive mass public over the next thirty to fifty years. A public that performs its duty as a consumer society, buying every p.o.s. merchandise that they can get their hands on; and working as good little labourers who toe the company line and don't demand better wages, better benefits or better hours.
Those people who use marijuana can only be considered dangerous free-thinking/free-acting radicals who are a threat to the Corporate Government power structure. They're the rabble-rousing riff-raff who would have the guts to demand company medical coverage, safer working conditions or, god forbid, vacation time.
These sorts of people must be eliminated, so that they can no longer influence the passive, mass public.
Goodness. I should be writing for X-Files.
But I betcha there's a kernel of truth in there...
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
The best book on the absurdity of consensual crime is Peter McWilliam's "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do."
:-)
You can [read the entire book online]. It's very thought-provoking, and stands a good chance of significantly changing the way you've been programmed to think.
Free your mind, AC.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
There are some good points in the article. The Drug War under Clinton has failed, just as it did under Reagan. (FWIW, though, Clinton locked up more people than Reagan did, so simply making the laws tougher doesn't seem to work.)
I also believe in holding people accountable for their actions, and becoming intoxicated on anything is a choice. But I do think we need to apply an even standard, and I don't think O'Reilly presents one.
His plan would penalize anyone who "uses illegal drugs or overindulges alcohol" (paraphrasing). So it's okay for people to use alcohol as long as they don't "overindulge", but it isn't okay to use illegal drugs at all (or, presumably, use legal drugs in a non-prescribed way). With regard to current law enforcement policy, this is status quo.
It would make more sense to regulate the currently illegal drugs the same way we treat legal ones, and deal with intoxication in more general terms. It's okay for people to be intoxicated on alcohol, but certain activities (driving) are more dangerous than others (watching TV, talking with friends), and people caught doing those things are treated harshly if they are intoxicated. People below a certain age are not allowed to become intoxicated because they generally do not have the life experience necessary to make that kind of decision.
The exact details of what is dangerous may vary depending on the type of drug and its effects. But I think these guidelines are more rational than giving alcohol (and nicotine) the undeserved status of being safer than other drugs, because we can allow people to indulge in it, but not in illegal drugs. Its intoxicating effects are, in many ways, more dangerous than several illegals
phil
Eventually we'll learn and stop bothering people. Eventually.
--
RumorsDaily
>who struggles to keep her lifestyle after her husband gets arrested by the DEA and umasked as a drug lord.
How do I umask something as a drug lord? I have a user on my system who is a drug lord and I'd like his default permissions to reflect it. Would it be 'umask 0420'?
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
Silly question: why didn't everyone die a century ago when they were legal?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Just a reminder that on July 31 of this year, the federal law banning possession and growing of marijuana expires in Ontario due to an Ontario Appeals Court ruling striking said law down as unconstitutional. Reason: no provision for medicinal users! The feds had a chance to rewrite it, but it appears they're going to let ti slide.
After July 31, the law comes open for attack around the rest of the country, and is likely to fall really fast.
And I imagine there will suddenly be a lot of "pressure" to reinstate the law during the months of June and July from "certain parties." Considering that our prime minister isn't exactly known for having a backbone in the face of international pressure (what can you say about a guy who treated former Indonesian dictator Suharto like a good person and friend while protesters were pepper-sprayed outside?), I can only hope he grows one and holds the line. It'd be nice to see some sanity show up on the North American continent.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Drugs should be legal (or at least decriminalized), but being under the influence should not be considered a justification for the committing of any crime.
I've been around people who've done some pretty stupid and violent things while drunk or stoned or otherwise under the influence. And I can't think of a single case where the potential wasn't there. The drugs may have lowered inhibitions, but most of these people clearly had violent tendencies even while sober. *shrug* I don't think keeping drugs illegal because a small minority is going to be irresponsible is that wonderful of an idea. That's like outlawing the Internet beccause some people post kiddie porn.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
I have to agree with the other posts here. The act of attacking you is a crime, not matter what his state of mind. He must take responsibility for his actions and the drugs are no excuse. This is a case of one guy ruining it for everybody else. I have my own reasons for not taking drugs but as the old saying goes, I may not agree with you but I'll fight to the death to protect your right to do it.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I have seen a lot of posts basically saying this: "The Drug War is a failure and it historically never works, we should just legalize everything as save ourselves the money." Question: Does legalizing everything work either?
Alright, drugs are legalized. What happens? First and foremost, drugs get relatively cheap and most likely get weaker. The hard drugs like heroin and cocaine, who were basically created by regulation, become less widespread. The system becomes less violent because there aren't as many profits to be made. No more drug related shootings in the streets, because the street gangs need to do something else to make their cash. These are the good things.
The bad things? Drug use skyrockets. Lots more users, more addicts, more overdoses, more everything. The barrier to entry is now practically nil so lots of people use pharmaceuticals recreationally. The smart individuals stop after a while when they get tired of it or realize its taking over their lives. The stupid or short-sighted progress to harder drugs and the problems for them escalate. So after about five years the problem will got from a serious criminal problem before deregulation to a serious public health problem afterwards.
In short deregulation is not as simple as it sounds. You could quite possibly end up with a culture reminiscent of mainland china at the turn of the 20th century. Chronic opium use was characteristic of over 30% of the society. How did they finally combat it? The Communists began summarily executing the opium users, providers, and everything else in the whole system. They started and won a Drug War.
So deregulation is trading a huge expensive criminal problem for a huge expensive social problem. The deregulation of liquor did not destroy alcoholism did it? It just brought it back out in the open. I will admit that the war on drugs is a fiasco, but will deregulation be any better?
My guess is no. It will demarginalize the problem and create an epidemic. If we are to really stop the problem of drug use we will need to start going for its throat at the source suppliers instead of biting off its fingers in the distribution networks.
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
For any of you who watch the O'Reilly Factor on Fox News, Bill O'Reilly had an interesting take on the War on Drugs on his show last week.
Certainly interesting and somewhat inflammatory. Gotta say I agree with it though.
--
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
From The Onion's book, Our Dumb Century:
WASHINGTON, DC-- After nearly 30 years of combat, the U.S. has lost the drug war.
Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey delivered the U.S.'s unconditional surrender in a brief statement Friday. "Drugs, after a long, hard battle, you have defeated us," he said. "Despite all our efforts, the United States has proven no match for the awesome power of the illegal high."
"In retrospect," McCaffrey added, "this was not a winnable war."
McCaffrey then handed over power to High Times magazine editor Steven Hager, who will now head the new U.S. Office of Drug Policy, replacing the now-defunct DEA.
"We must all get behind drugs now," outgoing DEA Chief Thomas Constantine said. "I recommend we all get really, really baked."
With the defeat, drugs will begin a full-scale occupation of the vanquished U.S. Massive quantities of crack, heroin, PCP, LSD, marijuana and other drugs will flood the nation legally, saving America's estimated 75 million drug users billions of dollars on their yearly drug budgets.
Street gangs, working in conjunction with Columbian coke lords, will assume leadership of America's inner cities, and federally backed marijuana farms are expected to begin appearing throughout the rural Midwest and Northern California by the end of the year.
Drug kingpin Amando Fuentes said it was "inevitable" that the U.S. would surrender. "We knew we would eventually win this war," Fuentes told reporters from his impenetrable Mexico City palace. "America's relentless campaign of anti-drug slogans, TV public-service announcements and elite elementary-school D.A.R.E. forces were a formidable enemy in this war. But in the end, my well-armed and well-financed army was victorious."
---
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
The very premise of telling people what they should and should not put into their bodies is ridiculous from the get go and a violation of their liberties. When one considers that 80% of prisoners in American penal system are there because of using, selling, manufacturing or trafficing drugs it shows how much more insane the policy is. Think about how many real criminals could be prosecuted if drugs were legalized. The last American Pres and Vice Pres both admittedly used illegal drugs in their past.. should they go serve their time? Everyone knows Bush used Cocaine in his youth.. Is he going to go do his time now? No, of course not rich white people usually don't have to ('cept maybe John Delorean). Even the freaking ex Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop said that drugs should be decriminalized and that the war was not only a failure but was ultimately responsible for killing more people than drugs ever could. This is the same nonsense that people argued about during alcohol prohibition, before they came to their senses and did the right thing. Legalize all drugs and everything will be much better than it is now.
One thing that I've often been curious about is how the WoD could effectively be stopped. For instance I'm a Canadian and generally feel a very liberal attitude among most Canadians that the WOD is absurd and should be abolished. Marijuana is pretty much decriminalized and while you'll be arrested if you sit in front of police headquarters smoking up, generally it is an ignored "crime". There are still images of beatnick police officers standing in front of grossly overstated confiscated "Crops" but these are less frequent and received with much more scorn and derision than every before.
However what if Canada took the initiative and decided to legalize a wide variety of drugs through a national production and distribution chain (for example cocaine, LSD, etc.). Aren't there worldwide conventions and agreements dictating the general drug laws of most countries? What if Canada decided to ignore these (if they do exist) : Could you imagine the treatment Canada would get? Firstly traveling to another country would pretty much guarantee a strip cavity search, and trade over the border would likely grind to a halt as every truck were searched, etc. Every day on the news overpaid, underskilled, entrenched US politicians would be filling the airwaves about the evil emnating from the neighbour to the North, blah blah blah. "Satan on Earth! The next Hitler! Eroding American values and threatening our way of life!"
So where does it start? Realistically I can't see any 1st World nation starting it seriously without the US doing it first due to fear of reprisal from the US (Do I think it would be beyond the US to invade another sovereign nation because they don't follow laws that the US agrees with? Not in the slightest. To see US politicians throwing monkey shit at South American countries because said countries provide what is requested by supposedly free US citizens just blows me away. The extent with which many Americans [obviously not all thankfully!] are willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of freedom is frightening). The likelihood of something like this taking hold in the US seems incredibly unlikely : While the intelligent sector of society has long realized the absolute absurdity of the WoD, there is a large lemming majority that will believe anything they're told by the propagandaists, and there is a large hierarchy that wants things to stay just the way they are : Police have a public enemy to ask for more funds, military can come in and do some trivial action every now and then, the Coast Guard gets lots of dough, and politicians have a public enemy that they can continually declare war on and get good ratings despite metrics that are absolutely abysmal. There is an entrenched and brutally corrupt political structure in the states with everyone having their stake and their frontman pushing their ideas. It just seems very unlikely.
Did you know that mariujana is California's largest cash crop ?
What is going on here ? It seems a bit messed up to me.
"What is the motive? Whom does it benefit?"
Campaign contributors, of course. And law enforcement, as I've pointed out in a previous post. They're in a unique bind. Most organizations can look forward to growth and increased prestige if they do their jobs right; law enforcement done right leads to lower budgets and decreasing power, since there's less crime to fight. So law enforcement is incented to always have an enemy to fight, and preferrably a morally reprehensible one, so we can't use the ineffectiveness of our opposition as an exuse to resign. With an enemy like that, you can go on growing forever....
Apart from law enforcement, here's a few other powerful lobbies that benefit:
phil
I found the movie very immersive, informative, and thought provoking. It lays out quite vividly something that most smart people already know: why the classic "war on drugs" approach can't work, because the enormous demand for drugs will create a supply, no matter what legal prohibitive steps are taken.
I think the move does exactly what you want: it suggests that a large part of the answer is up to us. This is highlighted quite clearly when the drug czar's daughter in the movie ends up in a rehab program (not really giving away any plot.)
You'll see in the reviews something that was made amply clear, in fact stated in so many words, in the movie: that the "war on drugs" is a war, in part, on the people we love: our own children, for example. The movie wasn't saying we should give up; rather, it presents a well-constructed view of the drug industry from a number of different angles, giving some insight into what drives it and why efforts against it have had limited success, and poses the question, is the approach being taking right now really the most effective one? If you're not even willing to discuss the question, then it's your motives that should be scrutinized, not Steven Soderbergh's.
Nobody says drug abuse is good. We're just saying that throwing resources at turning drug abusers into criminals is a waste of the resources because you can't stop drug abuse in that manner. Much better to put those resources into helping drug abusers put their lives in order.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
1. People DO get busted for smoking up. It has happened to people I know within the past year or two.
2. Many of the dangers of heroin and cocaine are a direct result of them being illegal. For example, overdoses happen because of impurities in the drug or because someone gets a more pure batch than usual. Crack was created as a result of cocaine being illegal, much as moonshine became quite popular during Prohibition. There used to be cocaine in Coca-Cola (and lithium in 7-up for that matter), but somehow that didn't seem to be associated with massive social problems. Perhaps full legalization isn't a good answer here, but decriminalization and expansion of treatment centers seems like a damn good idea to me.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
Sadly, this issue was hardly even discussed in this years US election. Even if you watch the nightly news you know nothing about the Wo(s)D's. You don't hear about the people killed by officers busting into the wrong house. You most likely didn't hear about the pit of 100+ dead bodies found just over the border in Mexico. If you want to know more you should go and read back issues of DRCNet's newsletter.
Lastly, support of the War on Drugs is tact support for the mob and cartels. Remember what prohibition does folks. This lesson should have been learned during the 1930's. It isn't a War on Drugs, it is a War on Personal Freemdom. Remember that at all times please.
Matthew
"Drug related crime" is a misnomer, "prohibition related crime" is the more accurate and correct phrase.
I go to school at Kent State University, and one night in October, I was trying to meet new people and I came across a room in my hall which was occupied by several individuals. The door was wide open, with the guys inside sitting around playing or watching Tony Hawk on the TV in the far corner of the room. I peeked in and said "wazzup" and found myself sitting there with them.
No more than fifteen minutes later, a police officer came to the door, saying we were being too loud, something which I can't contest since it it was quite late at night. The officer asked us why we were still up, and why we were being so loud. The kid whom the room belonged to appologized for the noise and assured the officer that we were just getting a little carried away in a conversation. The officer didn't exactly take that too well, and then asked to do a room search. Why he felt compelled to do a room search is still beyond me, my guess is that if you are up past a certain point at night, you must do drugs, being considered "suspicious"... but whatever... my story continues.
The kid said it would be alright if the cop looked around, and quite matter-of-factly stated he had nothing to hide. As soon as the cop turned around, he found several marijuana seeds sitting on the desk behind the door.
I'm now fucked.
The officer then asked to see anything else in the room that may be of illegal nature, and the kid pointed out that there was probably (!!) naddy light in the fridge.
Fucked x 2.
So for the record, since I was simply in the room, I was charged with not only violating my dorms quiet hours policy (low volume levels between 8pm-11am) but was in "possession" of both alcohol and marijuana under Kent State's "Joint Responsibily" clause.
The schools policy on the matter is stated very clearly in the student handbook: First marijuana violation = $100 fine. Nowhere in the book was I able to find a punishment for an alcohol violation. When I went to the schools proprietary court system called Judicial Affairs for an intake hearing, I was told that the pressing punishment was to be kicked out of Kent State.
Let me recap: I was at the wrong place at the wrong time and I am now being told that I face being kicked out of college little over a month after starting. I had no prior offenses.
Paranoid that the school would actually kick me out, I had gone, two days after the late-night incident, to the local health clinic on my own free will, hoping to help clear the charges. I paid $85 for a drug test, which came up negative of all "street drugs," weed included. Armed with the knowladge of both my clean drug screening, and the fact that the school never gave me a sobriety test, I felt a little comfortable going into my hearing.
My parents were there, two KSUPD officers representing the officer which was there that night, my RD, the RA of the floor this happened on, and finally the judge.
Soon after the actual trial started, which was a full month after the incident, I began to feel very cornered and nervous. The judge attacked me for the fact that I was around the guys at all, would not accept that I did not know them before that night, that I did not know the seeds and beer were in the room, and that my grades were low enough (2.0GPA, and this wasn't even at midterms yet, what the fuck...) to warrant my being shoved out the door.
I Fired back stating that they broke their own policies for room search seing that the cop had already entered the room before he asked to search. The punishment being pressed upon me was not in accordance with the printed university handbook. The fact that I had no previous criminal nor Kent State record. The fact that my grades were in the toilet because I had missed a test in Algebra and still needed to make it up, thus giving me an F in the class. (FYI, before the test, I had an "A" and ended up with an "A" as a final grade...)
Finally, the hearing officer told me that I was being both irresponsible for own actions, and being arrogant. He then proceded to actually YELL at me, telling me that I "NEED TO GROW UP AND ACCEPT RESPONSIBLITY" for something which I had no responsiblity for. I didn't see the weed seeds(!) in the room, and I sure as hell don't have x-ray vision to see through refrigerator doors.
I waited till the very end to show him my drug test results. This enfuriated him even more.
The Resident Assistant ( a student ) tried pleading for my case, but to no luck. My Resident Director ( the Kent state employee who is hired to watch after a whole dorm building ) sided with my judge. The cops was obviously clueless, since they weren't there that night.
The judge finally left, came back, and said that he really wanted to remove me from Kent State, but would instead be "lenient" and give me a $100 fine plus 12 months of strict diciplinary probation. In this time, I can not violate any rules, including another noise violation, or even simply locking my keys inside my room. The drug thing was my warning card, I guess. Perfect.
So now I have to go back to this horrible excuse for a higher education facility in a week to begin my Spring semester. I have pretty much lost any chance of transfering out until my probation runs out, since it won't be removed from my record until then, if ever. The appeal I had was answered by the school in a rejection stating that the punishment was fair due to the "overwhelming perponderance of evidence against [me]."
Long story... now a simple question: Who do I turn to in this clear case of being fucked over?
Because the U.S. has been stuck in a low-grade civil war since the 1960s.
Although most of the currently illegal drugs were outlawed early in the century, drug politics didn't really take their current shape until Nixon seized upon a "war on drugs" as a convenient proxy war against young hippies and radicals. It wasn't politically possible to directly criminalize young people in general, so he did the next best thing -- pick what he perceived to be an attribute of his young political enemies -- recreational drug use -- and criminalize that.
Nixon came and went, and Carter toyed with the idea of stopping the drug war, but he didn't do it -- one of the major errors of his administration -- and by the time Reagan was elected, the drug war had already proved extraordinarily effective as a "law and order" issue -- in spite of the fact that drug prohibition causes much of the disorder and lawlessness that getting "tough on drugs" is supposed to correct.
Now, there is simply too much money in the drug war for it to be stopped from within the government. In California, for instance, the prison guards lobby is one of the strongest political entities in the state. Pharmaceutical companies are also in on the game -- with their billion dollar drug testing programs, and with the billions of dollars in patented drugs that do exactly the same thing as unpatentable illegal drugs (Marinol for instance.)
The media profits immensely from the drug war -- they receive millions of dollars in U.S. government anti-drug advertising, and also take money to insert government anti-drug messages in their programming. You can organize an anti-drug-war demonstration, and the only thing that you can be assured of is that it will either not be covered by the media, or mocked by the media. They know who is paying them. When the media are forced to cover anti-prohibition stories, they heavily slant them. Usually, the headline or the first sentence will have a cute little pun -- "Initiative goes to pot", that makes the article appear trivial and funny, and such articles tend to use derogatory terms such as "pothead", or invoke stereotypes -- "The police really suck," said a protester. "We just want to toke up the kind" in the same way that a newspaper of another generation might have used the word "nigger", or invoke negative stereotypes against blacks. Drug users are uniformly portrayed as ignorant, lazy, prone to crime, politically irrelevant, and in need of government suppression and control.
Quite simply, illegal drug users -- be they recreational or medicinal users -- have about as many civil rights in the United States as blacks had in the 1940s.
There appear to be two effective methods of counterattack against the drug war machine.
The first are voter initiatives, in the states that allow them. Right now, the only successful initiatives have been for decriminalizing medicinal marijuana, but initiatives for outright legalization have a surprisingly strong showing. Did you hear about the Alaska marijuana decriminalization initiative? Probably not. The results were hardly covered. 40% of the voting population voted not only to legalize marijuana for all adults, for all purposes, but also to issue pardons and reparations to drug-war prisoners. The organizers of the initiative will try again in two years, and I believe that they will win by the end of the decade.
The second effective resource against drug prohibition is the internet. If you read a newspaper, you'll be lucky to find a single article about the drug war that isn't pro-war, but there are some excellent web sites that are documenting the drug war.
mapinc is an archive of thousands of drug-war related stories gathered mostly from print publications. It's an excellent place to get a good "feel" of the pulse of the drug war. Click on the blue "50000+ Drug-Related News Clippings!" link for the meat of the site.
Richard Cowan's Marijuananews is another excellent resource. Cowan picks out articles, and provides biting analysis. It's one of my favorite sites on the net.
In a nutshell, the drug war continues unabated because it has become part of American life. So many people and entities -- the government, corporations, individuals -- directly profit from drug prohibition, that it has taken on a life of its own.
I believe that drug prohibition will only be destroyed at the polling place, because, in the end, the victims of drug prohibition are individuals, and not just individuals who use drugs. The model employee who has never missed a day in his life who is fired because he went to a concert, and inhaled enough second-hand marijuana smoke to show up on his surprise drug test the next day. The mother whose child was shot to death by the police in a botched police swat attack on the wrong house. The father who stands up against a school drug-testing program, and bears the wrath of his community. The person who sees their best friend -- who is fighting cancer -- arrested and imprisoned for using marijuana to control the symptoms of chemotherapy. The parent who thinks that DARE creates an unhealthy fascination with drugs. The parent whose child becomes addicted to heroin, because their DARE instructor said that heroin is just as bad as marijuana, and because the kid already knows that pot is not addictive, she decides that the officer is lying to her -- which he is -- and starts using an addictive drug. The kid who "just says no" to marijuana, then is hooked on a lifetime addiction to tobacco, while his pot-smoking friends stop using pot when they get tired of it.
Even if you don't use drugs, you should oppose drug prohibition, for the simple reason that you could find yourself, a friend of yours, or a member of your own family on that list tomorrow.
Before the deluge of "what does this have to do with News for Nerds?" posts starts to swell, I'd like to point out that the federal government has, in the last few decades, used two primary examples of "public safety" to get their eavesdropping agenda through:
Of those two, terrorism is mostly only used when there's a major incident (the two that come to mind are the Trade Center bombing and the Murrah Federal Building bombing). Drugs are used whenever there isn't a good explosion somewhere.
You want to know why they think they can put Carnivore through? So they can "finally begin to stem the tide of drugs into our country." (That's not a quote, just a characterization.) Why do you think there's a serious threat of them using Tempest gear in the real world, or cavalierly subpoenaing reams of logging info from your ISP? So they can fight the War on Drugs -- and incidentally have the apparatus in place in case someone declares some other entirely consensual behavior as criminal. Reverse engineering by individuals, perhaps, or encrypted communication with other countries.
And why do such surprising entities as the Motion Picture and Recording Industries think they can take away our rights to our own property so carelessly? Why are people so apathetic that their property, once legally purchased, can be monitored so closely by the manufacturers? Because the government has been softening us up for years with slow encroachments on our freedom, justified by the above drug war.
So if you're fed up with the way our rights as individuals are being trampled on -- first by the government, then by companies with an excellent template to follow -- you're fed up with the drug war. And movies like Traffic really do have a direct impact on you. For that matter, so do "crackpot" (uh, poor choice of words) organizations like NORML, who have pointed out the increasing absurdities of this rationalization for years.
Another thing this Drug War enforces is continual international hostility to the US -- we're constantly tampering in the affairs of other countries, especially those in this hemisphere, and justifying it in the name of "stopping the supply of drugs." If you would rather not have China or Columbia dictate policy to us, and you believe in the Golden Rule ("Do unto others," not the one we generally use), then you, too, are against the Drug War. That's probably not news for nerds, though, so I'll let that drop....
phil
If you put a murderer in jail, you have removed a killer from society. If you put a drug dealer in jail, you have created a job opening.
That, in two sentences, is why a war on drugs cannot work. It is too expensive to control the behavior of third parties. You can control the behavior of people who interact with you at a reasonable cost, but you cannot control the behavior of people who interact with other people. Neither of them will cooperate with you.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
We have a culture which believes that history is bunk, and that we are all much smarter and more sophisticated than our ancestors. Because of this, we forget, or ignore, the lessons of the past, such as the experiment prohibition.
Laws such as prohibition, drug laws, etc., have the effect of turning a large percentage of our population into criminals. This effectivly cuts off the conversation between the public (now criminals) and government. The ensuing mess is reminicent of the "red scare" of the 1950's... with everyone "turning in" those around them, as to not be outcast themselves.
Cutting off the conversation has also caused the great wave of apathy apparent in voter turn out. It encourages the notion that there is nothing a citizen can (or should) do to fix things. The default behavior then becomes to wait until crisis before action, which can often be too late.
It is apparent to me that morality can not be legislated. The only two ways out at this point are to either let the experiment go to it's ugly, terrible conclusion (a totalitarian regime which destroys our republic), or to start a dialog which questions the sanity of our current course, and restores the notions of personal liberty, privacy, and freedom to do as you will (until it effects others).
We have existing laws which cover the behavior of people who chose to become intoxicated. We even have laws which permit the advertisment, sale, and use of substances that kill if used as intented. Why can't we use those same laws to allow the individual to make their own choices, and pay for the consequences?
It's time to choose, destruction, or a way out.
--Mike--
Let me first start by saying that the issue of drugs is probably the only area on which I have anyway conservative views - but even I can see that the 'War on Drugs' launched by America is not only a failure, but a catastrophy.
:"Formally, all U.S. aid to Colombia, which produces most of the world's cocaine and most of the heroin consumed in the United States, is intended for anti-drug rather than counter-insurgency efforts. But in practical terms, the distinction is fading...". Ironic, considering it's pro-government paramilitaries that control the larger proportion of the drugs trade...the very same paramilitaries that routinely commit genocidal raids on villages that have tried to remain neutral...the very same paramilitaries that wander Columbia armed with American made weaponary such as MP-5s and secure in their training from American soldiers...oops! I mean advisors. No-one's saying that the rebels are angels - they too have participated in the drugs trade and kidnapping and so on. I'm just saying when a policy has got it so wrong, both on the American domestic front and on the foreign front, why is the policy persued so fanactically by certain Americans?
I would almost say world-wide catastrophy.
Sites like november.org give a smattering of alarming statistics about the effects in America of the war on drugs(for example "The average sentence for a first time, non-violent drug offender is longer than the average sentence for rape, child molestation, bank robbery or manslaughter..."). Walter Cronkite takes a dim view of the war here. Also, some surprising 'mistakes' of the war on drugs can be found here.
But here's where the international aspect comes in: most of the War on Drugs aid that is being sent to foreign(i.e. non-US) nations is being mainly used to support regiemes that otherwise might topple. For instance Marxist rebels in Columbia have found themselves pitted against a regieme supported by War on Drugs money and soldiers trained by American 'advisors'. As freerepublic.com puts it
Anyway....just to be more on topic, I saw C4's 'Traffikk', pretty good. I hope the film 'Traffic' hasn't dulled the message too much so as to render the message unreadable to the vast majority of people(i.e. non-slashdotters 8).
8)
Concrete analysis...