Nikki Finke’s Deadline Hollywood Daily » ‘Wire’ Writers Attack U.S. Drug Policy

'Wire' Writers Attack U.S. Drug Policy

Tomorrow is the 5-year finale of HBO's The Wire. So Time magazine (also owned by Time Warner) published this essay authored by the show's writing staff of Ed Burns, Dennis Lehane, George Pelecanos, Richard Price and David Simon protesting U.S. drug policy and taking a controversial personal stand of their own: that "if asked to serve on a jury deliberating a violation of state or federal drug laws, we will vote to acquit, regardless of the evidence presented. Save for a prosecution in which acts of violence or intended violence..." Also, hear Dennis Lehane speak to NPR's Weekend Edition today."We write a television show. Measured against more thoughtful and meaningful occupations, this is not the best seat from which to argue public policy or social justice. Still, those viewers who followed The Wire — our HBO drama that tried to portray all sides of inner-city collapse, including the drug war, with as much detail and as little judgment as we could muster — tell us they've invested in the fates of our characters. They worry or grieve for Bubbles, Bodie or Wallace, certain that these characters are fictional yet knowing they are rooted in the reality of the other America, the one rarely acknowledged by anything so overt as a TV drama.

"These viewers, admittedly a small shard of the TV universe, deluge us with one question: What can we do? If there are two Americas — separate and unequal — and if the drug war has helped produce a psychic chasm between them, how can well-meaning, well-intentioned people begin to bridge those worlds?

"And for five seasons, we answered lamely, offering arguments about economic priorities or drug policy, debating theoreticals within our tangled little drama. We were storytellers, not advocates; we ducked the question as best we could.

"Yet this war grinds on, flooding our prisons, devouring resources, turning city neighborhoods into free-fire zones. To what end? State and federal prisons are packed with victims of the drug conflict. A new report by the Pew Center shows that 1 of every 100 adults in the U.S. — and 1 in 15 black men over 18 — is currently incarcerated. That's the world's highest rate of imprisonment.The drug war has ravaged law enforcement too. In cities where police agencies commit the most resources to arresting their way out of their drug problems, the arrest rates for violent crime — murder, rape, aggravated assault — have declined. In Baltimore, where we set The Wire, drug arrests have skyrocketed over the past three decades, yet in that same span, arrest rates for murder have gone from 80% and 90% to half that. Lost in an unwinnable drug war, a new generation of law officers is no longer capable of investigating crime properly, having learned only to make court pay by grabbing cheap, meaningless drug arrests off the nearest corner.

"What the drugs themselves have not destroyed, the warfare against them has. And what once began, perhaps, as a battle against dangerous substances long ago transformed itself into a venal war on our underclass. Since declaring war on drugs nearly 40 years ago, we've been demonizing our most desperate citizens, isolating and incarcerating them and otherwise denying them a role in the American collective. All to no purpose. The prison population doubles and doubles again; the drugs remain.

"Our leaders? There aren't any politicians — Democrat or Republican — willing to speak truth on this. Instead, politicians compete to prove themselves more draconian than thou, to embrace America's most profound and enduring policy failure.

" 'A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right,' wrote Thomas Paine when he called for civil disobedience against monarchy — the flawed national policy of his day. In a similar spirit, we offer a small idea that is, perhaps, no small idea. It will not solve the drug problem, nor will it heal all civic wounds. It does not yet address questions of how the resources spent warring with our poor over drug use might be better spent on treatment or education or job training, or anything else that might begin to restore those places in America where the only economic engine remaining is the illegal drug economy. It doesn't resolve the myriad complexities that a retreat from war to sanity will require. All it does is open a range of intricate, paradoxical issues. But this is what we can do — and what we will do.

"If asked to serve on a jury deliberating a violation of state or federal drug laws, we will vote to acquit, regardless of the evidence presented. Save for a prosecution in which acts of violence or intended violence are alleged, we will — to borrow Justice Harry Blackmun's manifesto against the death penalty — no longer tinker with the machinery of the drug war. No longer can we collaborate with a government that uses nonviolent drug offenses to fill prisons with its poorest, most damaged and most desperate citizens.

"Jury nullification is American dissent, as old and as heralded as the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, who was acquitted of seditious libel against the royal governor of New York, and absent a government capable of repairing injustices, it is legitimate protest. If some few episodes of a television entertainment have caused others to reflect on the war zones we have created in our cities and the human beings stranded there, we ask that those people might also consider their conscience. And when the lawyers or the judge or your fellow jurors seek explanation, think for a moment on Bubbles or Bodie or Wallace. And remember that the lives being held in the balance aren't fictional."

Posted by Nikki Finke on Saturday, Mar 8th, 2008 at 08:26AM | Permalink |

« WGA Poker Benefit To Be Held On Sunday '10,000 BC' Almost Clubbed At Box Office »

36 Comments »

Since these liberal writers are most likely users themselves their arguments are garbage. As far as the drug war is concerned its not a war its an arrest them and put them in prison concern. If it was a war then most of the drugies would be executed on the spot saving time and money. Instead we have set up a policy of send them to jail for better training as criminals and then let them go. They also don’t write that most of the murders are drug related as well as robberies and probably a good number of rapes as well acording to the FBI. Unfortunatly any intense crackdown would nessesarily bring an equal loss of liberty far greater than the incarceration of those involved in drug trafficking and its sale that most of the public would not like or sanction. So like it or not we are either going to legalize drugs for personel use or continue the so called war by incarceration for the near future.

Comment by Brian — March 8, 2008 @ 9:05 am
Great bit! Thanks Nikke/TIME

- Aaron.

Comment by Aaron J — March 8, 2008 @ 9:12 am
So typical of the Hollywood community to think that because they write about fictional lives and fictional situations that they are suddenly intellectually equipped to address the most complex of society’s problems. And what’s their answer? Jury nullification. Blame society, prosecutors, the government, law enforcement, but never, ever, blame the people who actually choose to perpetuate the demand (and supply) for drugs. It’s always someone else’s fault. Forget the fact that the very large majority of even the most disenfranchised of citizens manage to ‘choose’ not to engage in drug-taking or drug-dealing. And consider where the writers’ ’solution’ leads us. If jury nullification is reasonable in their minds for drug offenses, then will I be allowed the same understanding if I choose to acquit the next time I’m on a jury because I feel Italians are prosecuted too often for racketeering offenses, or that men are too often charged with sexual harassment, or whatever crime du jour is being assailed by the media as our ‘big’ resource-wasting problem, instead of, of course, the criminals themselves.

Comment by Alfred C. Martino — March 8, 2008 @ 10:20 am
if you legalize drugs Mexico will collapse.That would be bad news for us.If we decriminalize and go after dealers money in civil suits the results will be better.

Comment by Jerry — March 8, 2008 @ 11:07 am
Bravo to the Wire writers!

I second what they said about the drug war and about jury nullification.

The irony about the range of violent crimes attributed to drug abuse is that most of those crimes are related to the drug war itself, not the drug abuse. In other words, if these substances were decriminalized, murder and assault rates would decline precipitously.

There is also, lamentably, a racist aspect to the ongoing war on drugs. Eighty percent of the illegal drug users are white, while 80 percent of those arrested are black. This is reflected in a lopsided incarceration rate of young black men in particular.

As to the implied solution Burns, Lehane, and Pelicano suggest - decriminalization or outright legalization - the history of America’s war on alcohol (AKA Prohibition) in the early 20th century is instructive. When the law is so clearly in conflict with the established behavioral patterns of such a wide swath of society, and the law bars behavior which is at its core a victimless crime, widespread flouting of the law, and even the romanticization of the flouting of that law, becomes the norm. Unfortunately, this also leads to an overall lessening of respect by the general public for the law as a whole, as well as the police charged with enforcing the law.

Who, aside from the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, was most opposed to the reversal of Prohibition? Al Capone and his ilk, because they were making the most money off this colossal mistake.

The solution America found to its war on alcohol, which, let’s be clear, is a powerful and dangerous drug, was to recognize reality. IMHO, the writers of the Wire are asking us to do the same thing with other drugs.

Comment by mheister — March 8, 2008 @ 11:07 am
Alfred C. Martino:

Do you even watch the show? It’s written by former cops, lawyers, journalists, and inner city school teachers. They have a pretty good take on the current situation.

Comment by Writer — March 8, 2008 @ 11:13 am
I wish The Drudge Report would stop linking to this site. The comment section is far more palatable when it’s penned by industry professionals rather than Mr. Drudge’s cadre of white male retirees.

Comment by Chris S — March 8, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
Also, it’s not a Hollywood show. It’s written and produced in Baltimore. Do your homework.

Comment by Writer — March 8, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
Alfred C Martino - how come you’re more qualified to have an opinion?

Comment by Clive — March 8, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
Brian:

With all due respects: You obviously are a strong observant and your rhetoric is nicely articulated; however, I disagree strongly with your commentary. You argue no specific point; the point you eventually argue for

“…So like it or not we are either going to legalize drugs for personel use or continue the so called war by incarceration for the near future.”

will lend no progression to society - at least not the poor/underclass usually exposed to such as the content of the Wire. You ‘hear’ but you fail to ‘listen’. Please consider.

Alfred C Martino:

While I agree with you on saying:

“the very large majority of even the most disenfranchised of citizens manage to ‘choose’ not to engage in drug-taking or drug-dealing.”

I ask that you consider the causes of ‘turning to crime’ that influence those that do so. I would like to highlight the power/influence of one’s surroundings in cahoots with the lack of opportunity in cahoots with the temptation(s) of instant gratification. While the latter may not be defendable, it deserves due consideration when held against taking ‘the long road to success’ (which is NOT as accessible as the cliches suggest - investigate Detroit Public School’s teachers protesting/striking for the past 20+ years demanding adequate resources).

To all: Please consider the actual ‘weight’ of my (and others’) words and if possible, hold back on the cynicism. Ultimately, we are discussing the fate of many.

Comment by Kevin — March 8, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
Regarding the comments of Chris S., Writer and Clive, you’ll notice that my disagreement is not with the quality of ‘The Wire,’ or its importance as entertainment, but with the essay writers’ advocacy of jury nullification in non-violent drug trials.

It would have been more worthwhile and interesting, for all of us, if you could have explained why you thought what they had written was reasonably appropriate for addressing our country’s drug problem.

Just as I don’t think, say, David Chase is qualified to comment on how to address organized crime, nor is Joel Surnow qualified to direct a US counter-terrorism agency, I don’t think the essay’s writers (two of whom — Dennis Lehane and Richard Price — are novelists) are equipped to offer such solutions to the drug problem, particularly when they are advocating something as dangerous as jury nullification.

And, Clive, I do think I’m qualified to comment on the above essay on DHD. I’m at least as qualified as these as writers are in proposing something as potentially disastrous as what they offered in their Time Magazine essay.

Finally, Writer, I think it’s safe to say that ‘The Wire’ is as much a product of the Hollywood entertainment community as anything produced and distributed by HBO, which, of course, is owned by Time Warner, regardless of where its written and shot.

Comment by Alfred C. Martino — March 8, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
mheister,

“Eighty percent of the illegal drug users are white” Where did you get that figure sir? Skewing numbers to make society seem racist is not going to solve this difficult problem. If the numbers are acurate I apologise in advance but I’d be shocked.

Comment by MDOC — March 8, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
Thanks Nikki for linking to this article.

The Wire is truly one of the best shows on TV for many reason, the most important being it’s truth: The accuracy of it portrayals of humanity, humanity at its most vulnerable, at its most primal, at its most selfish, at it’s most valiant, at its most real. I have been affected emotionally and stimulated intellectually more times that I can remember.

Yes, the drug war is a complicated and insidious problem that no TV show can solve, but what the show has done so effectively is demonstrate the failure of the current system and how our attempted “solutions” are hypocrisy at it finest.

I am a believer in personal responsibility. Yes, the drug user can and should choose not to use drugs. The drug seller should choose not to sell drugs. However, choice and responsibility are meaningless slogans in inner city Baltimore. We who are privileged enough not to live or exist in that circumstance are foolish to think otherwise.

Jewerl Ross

(PS. Tip to new watchers: Because the Baltimore accents are so thick, I find that I have a better experience watching the show with the subtitles on.)

Comment by Jewerl Ross — March 8, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
Alfred:

David Simon was a journalist in Baltimore for 12 years. He doesn’t care about entertainment. He doesn’t care about being cinematic. His goal is to create something as close to real as possible. I’m not trying to act like he’s a saint, but a quote from this season sums up his approach more than anything I could come up with myself. “A lie ain’t a side of the story. It’s just a lie.”

This season is about a journalist who believes that no good comes from embellishing or from trying to make life, situations, or crime more dramatic than they already are. The truth is the truth. The Wire is just about the only show in the history of the medium to take an honest look at crime and drugs from every perspective available.

David Chase has said many times that his number one goal with Sopranos is to entertain. And if anything, he’s not trying to create a realistic portrayal of mobsters, he’s trying to show the connection between the actions of people that have no moral compass and our desires that we keep to ourselves. Sopranos is a work of genius, but it’s a different thing.

And it’s not like David Chase, Matthew Weiner, Terence Winter, and others were ever members of the mob. David Simon and Ed Burns are the key creative forces behind he show. As I said before, Simon was a journalist. Ed Burns worked in the Baltimore police department for twenty years. He was a teacher in the Baltimore school system after that. When you have two people writing stories from their experiences, and they focus more on approximating reality and showing how things really are, you’re working on a different level than other shows.

The most important thing to consider is that their DECADES OF EXPERIENCE, not as writers but as detectives, journalists, and teachers, give them a lot more credibility than someone that was “just a writer.”

Comment by Writer — March 8, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
Hollywood as a whole has portrayed drugs as good. Look at the film BLOW that practically idolized the dealer who brought cocaine to Hollywood. The same for Scarface with Al Pacino portraying an up and coming drug lord in Miami. Its no surprise to me that these writers whether they have previously been cops, teachers or journalists would be for subverting the current drug laws. They are most likely in favor of legalizing drugs and should just say so instead of justifying their sanctimonious opinions about how unfair the justice system is.

My only specific comment previously was about the war on drugs and that in my opinion that there is none. If there was it would look much differently than our current policy of incarceration which has obviously failed. If you incarcerate a low level dealer with others they are most likely going to be a better dealer when they get out. Prisons are the Universities for criminals today be it for drug dealers, bank robbers or any other criminal enterprise. Jail had become a badge of honor for a lot of criminals and once out they are given more respect. So what good is incarceration if its not a deterrent to crime. You can I either decriminalize the offense or you can make it so dangerous that the money is not worth the crime. Since we live in a country that would shudder at the thought of brutally destroying the drug trade then we might have to consider the alternative of legalizing them at some point. My preference would be the former but I am sure that would not be a favorable opinion. There are many reasons for an underclass in our society many of which have nothing to do with drugs.

Comment by Brian — March 8, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
I love that we can argue about this point. It may seem cliched to draw on free speech as an introduction to one’s own perspective in a conversation, but I appreciate this freedom because I’ve lived in places where it just isn’t had. Like Saudi Arabia, where a similarly racist war on drugs is underway. In Saudi Arabia, very few actual Saudis are ever punished for drug use, as most of the arrestees are Pakistani or Filipino. But in Saudi Arabia, taxpayers aren’t burdened with the cost of incarcerating one-in-fifteen of their second class citizens, because these drug offenders are beheaded for their crimes. And in Saudi Arabia, if you voice objection to the way they carry out their war on drugs, representatives of the Interior Ministry start following you wherever you drive, your phone gets tapped, and your home is entered and searched in your absence. Their rationale in spying on objectors is that such people are probably drug users themselves, so it’s in the country’s best interest to treat any objection to policy as though it were probable cause or a lead in a crime.

That said, I was quietly bothered by the fact that the guys getting beheaded for drug offenses every Friday before prayers in the parking lot of the Zamzoom Shopping Center in Jeddah always seemed to be Filipinos and Pakistanis (“the niggers of our country,” a Saudi friend once explained to me), and never Arabs. And I say that I was quietly bothered, because my house was already bugged and my phones were already tapped, and I didn’t want to draw any more attention to myself.

But back in the free world, I can say that I object to how our war on drugs is being carried out. I don’t object to arguments that recreational drugs are detrimental to society, but I am bothered by the fact that I was never given the opportunity to vote for or against the scheduling of certain drugs as controlled substances, nor was I ever given an opportunity to vote for or against procedures affecting the enforcement of these policies, like racial profiling. I’m not bothered for fear of being arrested or profiled; I’m white and I haven’t even touched a drop of alcohol in over a decade, much less an illegal drug, so I’m not likely to be imprisoned on drug charges any time soon. I’m merely bothered because I have the moral sense to object to racism and inequality, regardless of how it’s justified or carried out.

It never even occurred to me that I might have a say in our war on drugs until I read this editorial, because I’d never considered the practice of jury nullification as a means of conscientious objection. Now I’m not only considering it, I’m wondering if there are any other means of viable protest against these policies – aside from submitting comments to a blog, of course. I appreciate the freedom to object, but I want to do more than just rant - I want to be involved in choosing the policies that affect my country and my community. So thank you Ed Burns, Dennis Lehane, George Pelecanos, Richard Price and David Simon. And thank you Nikke for putting this out in the blogosphere. I hope I get called up for jury duty soon…

Comment by Jared Wynn — March 8, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
Having seen what drug abuse does to a family, I can’t help but wonder how much blow these guys do. And yes, violence was involved. The problem is these writers/ producers/ useless-hangers-on don’t really grasp what they are writing about.

Just because somebody locks up a major coke dealer who sits in his house not bothering someone doesn’t mean people aren’t being hurt. Go down to the streets and meet the people. For crying out loud.

Comment by Quentin Beck — March 9, 2008 @ 1:04 am
MDOC -

That was a statistic I heard, however, I understand your point.

So I did a couple of web searches, and came up with these links in less than 30 seconds:

http://social.jrank.org/pages/1309/Drugs-Drugs-Arrests-by-Race.html

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00-05.htm
(check out the link to Table 18 for specific numbers)

http://www.drugpolicy.org/communities/race/

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/glance/jailrair.htm

All of these websites - and I included an official government reference in here - clearly show that non-caucasians are far more likely to be arrested for drug use and receive harsher treatment by the system.

As for the numbers I cited, I will happily stand corrected and go by the Human Rights Watch report cited above.

I will also happily stand by my endorsement of jury nullification for non-violent drug offenses.

Brian -

Thank you for bolstering my point about the romanticization of drug use. I would argue that Hollywood movies portraying drug use in a positive light, or at least not condemning their use outright, are reflecting societal attitudes, not shaping them. And in most Hollywood movies about drug dealers, they lose. Tony Montana died in a hail of bullets.

While I understand bringing Hollywood’s product into this discussion because we’re talking about an opinion expressed by television writers, the tendency too often is to shift the argument away from the real problems stemming from illogical and ineffective legislation and unequal enforcement and towards the portrayal of this problem in the popular media. In other words, if you don’t have a case, you shift the argument. In this case, it’s blaming the messenger, or really, the minstrel.

If our goals are to balance justice and compassion while protecting civil liberties and individual human rights, the Wire writers’ arguments are unassailable. No matter how much you flagellate Hollywood about their portrayals, real injustice against real people - especially people of color - continues.

Every American who loves the ideals upon which this republic was founded has a duty to stand up against injustice. Clearly, injustice in drug legislation and enforcement abounds unabated and unchecked. Jury nullification is a valid means by which to take such a stand.

Comment by mheister — March 9, 2008 @ 1:44 am
“The irony about the range of violent crimes attributed to drug abuse is that most of those crimes are related to the drug war itself, not the drug abuse. In other words, if these substances were decriminalized, murder and assault rates would decline precipitously.”
Comment by mheister — March 8, 2008 @ 11:07 am

I won’t touch the other factual inaccuracies in your post but this one is just too much to ignore. The crimes aren’t ‘mostly’ because of the (failed) Drug war. Most of those crimes are because the people can’t afford the drugs and steal/kill for the drugs.
On top of that, you have people who have no real career skills who know they have a tax free job (selling drugs) that is rather lucrative.
One of the Mafia’s largest and bloodiest businessess is selling cigarettes ‘off the back of trucks’ and last I checked there is nothing illegal about cigarettes.

I think we agree the ‘war on drugs’ is a monumental failure and a ridiculous waste of money, but the crime would still be there as the dugs are a potent physically addicting force. There are people who rob stores for alcohol all the time due to their dependence and it doesn’t have quite the stranglehold say heroin has on a person.

Trying to solve all the problems in a comments section on a Hollywood news blog would be futile, but suffice to say ending the drug war cold turkey tomorrow really wouldn’t bring an end to all the problems.

Comment by manny — March 9, 2008 @ 3:57 am
I welcome new and inventive ideas on how to replace the failing, costly, bloody and possibly racist (if the writers’ position is taken as fact) war on drugs with an effective drug policy but I didn’t see any in the essay or any of the subsequent comments.

It’s also hard to listen to the, old prohibition/alcohol argument as an example of the utopian society that awaits us once drugs are decriminalized/legalized. I won’t bother posting links but anyone can do a google search to find statistics denoting the degree of havoc wreaked on society by booze in the form of violent crime of every variety from domestic abuse to felony murder, highway carnage, billions in lost productivity, etc.

Replacing one failed policy with another is not my idea of societal advancement.

Comment by dlw — March 9, 2008 @ 9:05 am
Drug addiction is a spiritual and medical problem. That’s all it ever was.

These writers are heroes.

I think when Nixon set up the DEA in 1973 and passed legislation to kick off the “drug war” it was not part of some greater noble good, but aimed instead at shutting up the hippies and providing the rioting black people with something they never had before, something to hide.

So, I think the whole drug war was a sham to do an end around the first amendment. It was just return fire at the civil rights movement.

Comment by Anonymous — March 9, 2008 @ 9:23 am
For those of you who are considering Jury nulification if they are on one then you are going to commit perjury when sworn in as jurors. Since you are sworn to tell the truth during voidere and will be asked about your views on drugs ect. you will have to lie about it to the judge.

As for Hollywood only reflecting societies values I have to disagee strongly. Hollywood reflects their own values and personel beliefs not those of most americans as far as I have seen. Have you watched any movies or TV shows that promote pro religeous values or non secular liberal values that make drug use a bad thing. I only mentioned two movies off the top of my head and while Tony Montana may have been blown away he is still idolized to the point of a vido game is now available so you can play an up and coming drug lord yourself. The fact is with the exception of a few shows and movies most of Hollywood has promoted drugs as a fun recreational practice that only stodgy old people oppose. So if kidsz are constantly exposed to positive portrayals of drugs in TV and Films then how can ou say they don’t effect them. I’ve heard lots of kids mimicking Tony Montana’s “Have you seen my little friend” line as they played and even adults use the line too. Hollywood writers and others are constantly going on talk shows to deride not only the war on drugs but any meaningful attempt to keep kids away from them. I remember how they laughed at the Just Say No program that offended their liberal views. So to just igmore the impact of such portrayals effect of the views of others is not reasonable.

As for the injustice in sentencing of various drugs I agree. But many of the laws were enacted because of the damage to the minority communities by crack cocaine in particular. So the well meaning lawyers ie. legislators decided to increase those penalties for the more addictive crack and not for powder cocaine that was prevelant in the suburbs. Much of this was driven by some in the minority community who felt like crack was far more devastating and addictive so the punishment should be more. Unfortunatly the result has been too many non-violent offenders being given long sentences instead of treatment. But if jury nulification is the answer then all you will be doing is letting either a long term drug dealer free or releasing a drug addict who will be out without treatment and believing that they can get away with anything.

Comment by Brian — March 9, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
Manny -

1. If drugs were decriminalized the types of drug-related crime that would drop precipitously include but are not limited to petty theft due to artificially high drug prices (supply is suppressed by law enforcement in relation to demand, thus causing price pressure), assaults and murders resulting from turf wars, and recidivism resulting from non-violent offenders learning the crime trade behind bars.

2. Your point concerning alcohol-related crime is well-taken. American drug policy has focused on fighting suppliers to the detriment of funding programs to alleviate demand. In other words, we need to ramp up funding of treatment for drug addicts (alcohol being a drug is included in this).

3. While I’ve been using the term “decriminalize”, the smarter course to take is to legalize, regulate quality, and tax these substances as alcohol and tobacco are taxed. Such a fundamental change in policy would lower medical costs nationwide, lower federal and local law enforcement costs, reduce incarceration rates thus saving taxpayers money on prisons, and in the case of marijuana at least give the free market the opportunity to fully exploit the range of uses this plant lends itself to (as legal hemp is a very cheap source of paper and a range of other products usually derived from trees, this would also alleviate at least some of the pressure on the world’s forest ecosystems).

In addition to the economic arguments, a strong individual liberties case may be made that if a citizen wishes to ingest a harmful substance, and no direct harm accrues to others, then that person has the right to do so. What society holds the individual responsible for is not the ingestion of the substance, but crimes the individual commits whether under the influence or not. We already do this in practice. In the US people may drink and they may drive, but may not drive too soon after drinking.

Comment by mheister — March 9, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
I’m totally against going easy on drug dealers. I’ve seen what it’s done to kids. No, they don’t just go to jail for a while and end up again in million dollar films. Their lives get affected, badly. Sometimes including the terms ‘die’ or ‘permanent damage’ badly. It’s just sad.

I am, however, totally in favor of pirating cable, watching movies on You Tube, and not buying one of those worthless new Televisions that were supposed to buy for some reason.

I was in Walmart and saw 3 for 8.00 films Of stuff I watched in the 90s or even before. That’s sad, because I actually like that stuff. But it’s over let’s just not pay for it anymore. As for fiction, there’s better stuff to pay for.

Comment by Galactus — March 9, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
Saying you want something legal does not mean that you advocate its use.

Drugs are soul sucking, but those of you who think it’s government’s job to ratify some sort of moral life for you and your neighbors, do not value liberty.

Comment by Anonymous — March 9, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
If you don’t have sovereignty over your own body, you cannot say you live in a free country. If some religious do-gooder can tell me or someone else what they can’t do to their own bodies, then at least admit they don’t believe in a free society. And maybe let themselves be opened up to the same scrutiny. How about a ban on fat people? High calorie diets? A quota on exercise per day? I’ll wager dollars to donuts that the medical costs to treat obesity costs and obesity related disorders — heart disease, diabetes, etc. cost as much as drug related medical costs. So how about we enact a rule that says 5% body fat or execution? And why don’t we address the millions of drug addicts who happen to get their drugs prescribed? I’m looking at you middle to upper class housewives and retirees, with your Prozac, oxycottin and other opiate based drugs, lithium, and whole host of pharmaceuticals you have prescribed. They look down on drug users (i.e. people who can’t get a doctor to prescribe them) without any sense of irony or shame.

I can’t stand those that gleefully ban things they do not partake in, and still have the gall to call themselves freedom lovers. And they always have the same excuse — it’s for the protection of the children. No, it’s because you don’t like something, and it makes you seem less petty by saying you’re banning something for such a ‘noble’ reason.

Screw the war on drugs and the thugs that continue it. I will never vote to convict a harmless drug user. So, please, stick me on a jury. I can’t wait.

Comment by Greg — March 9, 2008 @ 10:19 pm
All you people who are totally against changing the drug laws. Tell me how this ‘drug war’ has made any difference. Drugs are still available to the people who want them as much as they ever were. Where the desire is there, people will find a way to make a supply. The only thing the drug war has done is destroy lives. If you’ve seen personally the damage drugs can do, then you’ve seen the damage done by a person seeking to escape… who would’ve done so with alcohol or prescription meds — because the issue isn’t drugs, it’s their deeper psychological issues that drove them to them. If the war on drugs is so great, how come it didn’t stop what happened? Because it CAN’T. There have been studies that have shown that if you put the resources into TREATMENT for people with problems, you would have a much better situation and it would cost 1/10th what the drug war costs. People who want to do drugs are going to find them and the war on drugs is NOT stopping them. It’s just putting criminal records on people who wouldn’t otherwise have them. If someone commits a crime against someone else on drugs they should go to jail… but ingesting drugs for your own personal reasons is a cry for TREATMENT, not to put someone in jail. And a lot of people who sell them do so to enable their own habit.

Comment by John — March 10, 2008 @ 6:21 am
“Since these liberal writers are most likely users themselves…”

And you seriously expect anyone to continue reading after you start like that? Really?

Comment by milo — March 10, 2008 @ 7:29 am
You know, the “drug war” could be won very easily, all you have to do is close the border with Mexico.

And I mean CLOSE it. Give the border patrol and the national guard the authority and firepower to shoot down every unauthorized plane, sink every unauthorized boat, blow up every unauthorized car, truck or van and shoot every person trying to cross the border illegally.

No supply of drugs to sell = no dealers.

No dealers to buy drugs from = no addicts.

And make no mistake, if the government was serious they could do exactly what I described.

But too many people don’t have the stomach to do what needs to be done. So the problem will just go on forever.

Sad.

Comment by Joe Cool — March 10, 2008 @ 10:30 am
Can we all agree that the current drug war is ineffectual? More money thrown at the problem every year and more drugs than ever getting into the country.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

I love the people throwing out “well, they must be drug users” Yep, cast that rock you bastards as you sit in your glass house that no one can find because you’re operating on anonymity of the internet.

Comment by shaun — March 10, 2008 @ 11:33 am
once again, i’ll agree that the drug war is a failed approach to reducing the cost to society of drug abuse.

but while the libertarian argument of “we should be able to do what we want with our own bodies,” is one i agree with in principle, the way it plays out in society, with drugs of all kinds - prescription and alcohol included - is not so simple.

it’s rare that a person’s abuse of intoxicants doesn’t have a ripple effect of harm to families, friends and society at large, even when one believes he or she is harmlessly exercising his personal liberty. once one is intoxicated, judgement is impaired and actions are often taken that put others at risk. like getting behind the wheel of a car drunk or stoned. even if, when sober, that was not the intention.

our culture of intoxication is a tricky mess and simplistic, ideological approaches whether they be, “war on drugs” or “legalize everything,” are unlikely to manifest a solution to what may be the problem of our age. a lot more research into the neuro, emotional, psychological and cultural mechanics of intoxication, addiction and the treatment thereof are necessary before we’ll have any hope of developing effective policy.

even though i don’t feel that jury nullification is a particularly positive response to the problem, i respect the writers of the essay for wanting to at least engage the issue in some way.

Comment by dlw — March 10, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
I’m not sure I entirely agree with jury nulification, but I do agree with “The Wire” writers about this: the War On Drugs is a complete failure.

Backing up that statement would take too long for this message board. Let me boil down to two essential questions. Some forty years into this War on Drugs, illegal drugs are available as much as ever, the criminal underworld supplying them is as powerful as ever, our inner cities are worse off than before, and our prisons are overcrowding with drug arrests (and note-we have greatly increased our prison space over 40 years). So how can anyone say the War on Drugs has been a success? And among those of you that want to keep it as is, what is your defintion of failure?

I have to say that any of these clueless comments slamming “The Wire” writers with the usual “liberal Hollywood” brush are pretty ignorant. As noted before, at least two of these guys lived this stuff every day in their pre-HBO lives. They walked the walk and have more authority to speak to this than any of us, I imagine.

Comment by PG — March 10, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
DLW -

I grant you that a person’s actions do influence the lives of others, and not just those closest to the person.

I do believe, however, even beyond the individual liberty argument (which should by itself be the clincher in a “free” society), that the harm to society caused by the criminalization of narcotics far outstrips the harm that would accrue from their legalization.

If the use of these substances is legal and out in the open, then as a society we can deal more effectively with all drug abuse, including alcohol, in a far more compassionate manner.

It does seem like we’re fairly close to being on the same page.

Galactus -

Alcohol and tobacco have caused immeasurable and irreparable harm to children. Do you favor criminalizing these substances???

I do not advocate the use of any of these substances except under legitimate medical circumstances, especially not by children. I do not drink, smoke, or abuse drugs, prescription or otherwise. Despite my personal opposition to their abuse, I believe the less harmful, more compassionate and more economically viable route is legalization, taxation, and treatment.

I would like to thank the Wire’s writers again for sparking this discussion.

Comment by mheister — March 10, 2008 @ 8:52 pm
I’m all for this and remind everyone that jury nullification has a long history in this country as a means to reject what we see unfit. Great job and kudos to them for bringing it up. For the record I live in downtown Baltimore City.

Comment by espi — March 13, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
As far as I’m concerned, the most fundamental problem in this is the manifest ignorance with regard to what drug use is really about. I don’t advocate that most people try most drugs; but supposedly informed commentators haven’t seem to have a very good grasp of what drug use is really about. There’s this demonized portrait of a wrecked, dehumanized addict, his soul grabbed and sucked dry by a drug. I’m sick of it.
Part of human nature is trying to feel good. We exercise and it makes us feel good. We have sex, and it feels good. We eat chocolate and we feel good. We drink coffee and we feel good. All of these things directly change our mental state–they influence levels of neurotransmitters. This is science.
What do drugs do? The very same thing! The problem, of course, is that they do other things as well. Some incur horrendous costs on the cardiovascular system, others cause cancer, and so on. This, too, is simple science.
The essential point, though, is that people who do these drugs are doing the same thing we all are doing–looking to feel good–but doing so in an irrational way: there are ways of feeling good that don’t have the negative consequences of using these drugs.
Part of the problem is that many drugs offer instant gratification while many sustainable ways of feeling good require a significant investment: so people who are in psychologically bad places are going to be far more susceptible to making poor decisions about using illicit drugs.
In any case, people who come to abuse drugs at some time start using them to escape something–be it boredom, depression or what have you. The need is to focus on making sure people are mentally healthy and know of GOOD ways to escape! This is the challenge we should be focusing on.
And let’s get real…drugs aren’t evil! Drugs are inanimate objects. Even most of the ones viewed as somehow intrinsically evil are used positively in all sorts of ways (opiates are arguably our best analgesics, cocaine is still used as an effective anesthetic for eye surgery). Also drugs don’t just reach out and grab your soul: 75% of people who use cocaine are neither addicted nor abusive! (http://www.drugabusestatistics.samhsa.gov/NHSDA/2k2NSDUH/Results/2k2results.htm ) The sad truth is that our drug policy is still dictated by the pathetic caprice of irrational fear: the price we pay for riding the rusty but reliable wheels of democracy. The more people speak out, the more people will become educated. So, kudos to these folk.

Comment by quinn — March 14, 2008 @ 11:17 am
Those who are suggesting that David Simon doesn’t know what he’s talking about — and who are advocating for the continuation of the war on drugs — should curl up with Simon’s book The Corner, a painful and unflinching NONFICTION work about the toll of the drug trade and the futility of the war on drugs, and how it has absolutely destroyed formerly working-class neighborhoods in Baltimore, turning them into war zones.

I don’t think anyone can read The Corner, Republican or Democrat, and not come out of it with the sense that our “war on drugs” is a failure in every conceivable way.

Thanks for posting this, Nikki.

Comment by Jason — March 16, 2008 @ 6:35 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

'Wire' Writers Attack U.S. Drug Policy

36 Comments »

Leave a comment

Top Ten Movies

Film Spotlight

TV Spotlight

Latest Posts

Archives:

Categories: