The movie "Traffic"

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

Anyone else see the movie Traffic? It's not what you call a feel-good movie but I thought it was well done (except for the cinematography---the whole movie was shot in odd off-color tones of blue, yellow, etc. It bugged me).

Traffic is a straightforward look at the realities of the drug trade, especially as it comes now from Mexico. I didn't think it took a position on legalization. It just showed all dimensions of the drug business--upper, middle and lower class use, hypocrisy of middle-class alcohol abuse, corruption in law enforcement, brutality between drug cartels.

I have never been able to decide if legalization is a good idea or not. There is a strange alliance of legalization advocates including the Conservative National Review magazine. Yes, it would take the crime out of the drug trade but it might also lead to greater usage. It certainly won't take the profit out of the business. The new profiteers will be whoever legally markets the drugs and the government which will gather billions in taxable income a la legalized gambling.

I suppose the pros and cons of drug legalization have been discussed on this forum many times. But now might be a good time to do it again because of this movie and because of our new president (who has close ties to Mexico).

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), January 22, 2001

Answers

I did not inhale that woman!

-- (Willy@homeless.shelter), January 22, 2001.

Lars:

Experience elsewhere (and elsewhen) shows that if decriminalization of drugs increases usage generally, this increase is not measurable. Those who wish to use these drugs are using them. And of course experience shows that there will still be profit in selling drugs, we'd only eliminate about 99% of the current profit.

The indirect effects of decriminalization are overwhelmingly positive, every which way. Whole books of lists of benefits have been written. There is NO known downside to decriminalization, with one single exception -- that public wishful thinking and willful ignorance keeps the politicians in office who vote against this.

Directly, "traffic" takes no stand for or against. Indirectly, of course, none of the things "traffic" describes would even exist except for this legal jihad. "Traffic" describes the *results* of the drug war, and if not for very very bad laws, the movie might as well have been about the coffee trade, and just as boring.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 22, 2001.


I concur with Flint.

Lars, you may want to read the book Smoke and Mirrors by Dan Baum. Mr. Baum was a reporter for the WSJ. While it is true that addiction to some drugs may lead to disasterous health problems, Baum makes a pretty good case that the drug war does little good and massive harm.

Public support for the drug war has been the result of a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation and selective information. The antidote is to inform oneself.

-- Me, Myself and I (my@email.address), January 22, 2001.


Flint, you talk about "decriminalization". What about outright legalization?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), January 22, 2001.

Loved the movie. Actually enjoyed the strange cinematography. The yellows in the scenes from Mexico added to the feeling of "sickness" inherent in addiction. It was the best movie I saw all year. The movie portrayed addiction and recovery language very realistically. The screenwriter won the golden globe last night, and he thanked all the recovering people who gave him insight into the illness and the recovery process. I said to my wife right after the movie that the recovery language used was the most realistic I had ever heard in a movie. Last night I found out why.

Hat's off to a young screenwriter who does his homework, and to Steven Soderberg, a visionary american film maker.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 22, 2001.



Lars:

This is one of those political things. I don't think most people would be comfortable being able to buy crack or heroin at the local 7- 11. I don't think I'd be comfortable with it either. So I envision a more restrictive approach, such as we currently have with hard liquor but not quite as restrictive as prescription drugs. I think I should have to meet certain criteria before I can legally purchase these drugs, at the very least some minimum age. Perhaps some other things would be sensible, and represent some useful tradeoff between universal unrestricted availability and so many hoops to jump through that it would be like getting a concealed carry permit in California.

But these things would all be worked out in huge detail once the initial hump is cleared of getting people to realize that we have declared open season on our own foot and this has to be stopped. One thing at a time.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 22, 2001.


Flint, it sounds like you want a partial prohibition. But wouldn't your "restrictions" still result in a criminal black market? I would like to try something along the lines of what you advocate but what happens if a criminal drug trade remains?

Yes, the politics. There are huge vested interests im keeping drugs illegal. The "war" on drugs is big business. DEA needs a new mission. An odd fact. I am not prepared to supply statistics right now but I am sure that I have seen data that show that prohibition of alcohol did indeed reduce consumption. At what price? Well we know. But narcotics are not now legal. Do we want to open that jinii's bottle?

Interesting take FS. How do you feel about legalization?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), January 22, 2001.


Lars:

Yes, I too have seen data suggesting alcohol consumption went down during prohibition. But I've seen studies of these studies, showing that consumption data were (1) not readily available, since consumption was nominally illegal; and (2) largely fabricated, since the reduction of consumption was an article of faith to be established by any means necessary. In other words, we can't really know. We *do* know that when prohibition was lifted, consumption rates (as represented by sales) resumed where they left off.

My reading is that prohibition then, and the drug war today, represent class warfare. Why is the penalty for crack so incredibly larger than for powder? Why are the poor so overwhelmingly likely to be caught and jailed? Why was prohibition enforced so diligently against the poor, by the same cops who drank with the middle class in speakeasies? And of course the rich had access to as much as they wanted, wherever they went. Everyone knew it. But those people "could handle their liquor", a code phrase meaning that they had private places to get drunk and their experiences simply weren't to be mentioned.

Anyway, your question nails the issue perfectly IMAO. If restrictions are too great, the black market remains too profitable. And yet in the wrong hands, drugs are dangerous, and we should probably take some steps to minimize this danger if we can. There must be some middle ground. If crack at the 7-11 is the best approach, so be it. But we won't get there all at once, and if we try we'll get nowhere. Politics works incrementally. Start with what you can get, and add to it little by little. The boiling-frog approach got taxes to where they are now, and can work wonders given enough time.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 22, 2001.


Carrie, you've done us very proud

Carry A. Nation, the militant crusader against illegal saloons, launched her career of saloon-smashing in Kiowa. She and her followers in Medicine Lodge, her home town, had closed the local saloons by holding prayer meetings on their premises and displays of force. However, as the Women's Christian Temperance Unions jail evangelist, she found as many drunks as ever in the county jail. These men named Kiowa as their source of supply. A voice spoke to Carry, telling her to go to Kiowa and smash the saloons. On June 1, 1900, she attacked three "joints" in Kiowa, using stones, brickbats, full malt bottles, and one billiard ball as ammunition. Carry's attack surprised local officials, but because of the fact that the operation of such "joints" was illegal she was not jailed as she would be later in other communities. She did not adopt the use of her now famous hatchet until her visit to Wichita some six months later.

The Kiowa attack quickly received national attention and instigated great debate even among the temperance organizations. Carry Nation spent the remainder of her life in the crusade against the liquor interests and lecturing on prohibition. She died June 9, 1911.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), January 22, 2001.


A review of Traffic by the Libertarian magazine Reason. They weren't impressed.

Traffic

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), January 25, 2001.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ