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.”
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Tomorrow is the 5-year finale of HBO’s The Wire. So Time magazine (also owned by Time Warner) published
“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?
“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.





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.
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.
“Since these liberal writers are most likely users themselves…”
And you seriously expect anyone to continue reading after you start like that? Really?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-Joe Cool
Haha. You realize that every other developed nation would turn against us if we started that, right? Hell, they might start bombing the fuck out of us. You think killing illegal immigrants would solve the drug problem? Ha. The addicts and dealers will ALWAYS find a way to get their fix.