With the costs of the war now in the trillions of dollars , the countless human lives lost and ruined, and no foreseeable possibility for victory, it’s time to end the war – on drugs.
I can only hope someone will stand up and frame that question in that way to one of the presidential candidates.
The writers of the HBO series The Wire collectively suggest how the common citizen can do their part to fight the injustice that is the War on Drugs. Some argue that this tactic, jury nullification, is problematic as a form of civil disobedience. Others argue that it is our civic duty to judge not only the facts but the law. This article, recently making the rounds on the internets, goes into depth about it.
Regardless, if you feel, as I do, that the War on Drugs is immoral and unethical, the first step is working towards reformation of our laws. Contact your legislators. Chances are that they won’t be able to do anything differently. As the writers of The Wire point out, the system is too entrenched. Bucking the trend towards increasing anti-drug efforts is almost surely political suicide. Still, the alternative, remaining silent, is guaranteed to change nothing.
Speaking up for what you believe in is everyone’s right.
Me and the other writers over at Highbrid Nation loved The Wire. Actually, one of our guys just did a post today talking about how important The Wire was to viewers as well as the cast.
I think The Wire is one of those shows that most people won’t truly get until years from now. 20 years from now people will look back on the Wire as one of the greatest shows ever created.
By: Mike Belgrove on March 12, 2008
at 3:45 pm
I find the jury nullification essay you link to less than persuasive. While it is true that a jury can return a not-guilty verdict whenever they want to, the idea that juries should be allowed or encouraged to “interpret” the law in a manner contrary to the instructions of the court is generally a bad idea. Without a consistent interpretation of the law, individuals will not be treated equally, there will be greater uncertainty in the result of cases (leading to more expensive litigation), the intent of the people (as expressed through legislation) will not be enforced, and the ability of appellate courts to review decisions and create uniformly applicable rules would be undermined. The article’s historical examples of nullification notably leaves out the refusal of white juries in the south to convict white criminals.
By: mm on March 16, 2008
at 12:40 am
I was waiting for your comment, MM. I realize that missing bit about white racist juries in the argument. It was the best essay I could find in support of jury nullification.
I see the problems arising from the fact that this is basically democratic. On the one hand it idealistically assumes that all citizens are well-informed, educated and moral. So, they will make decisions accordingly and there would be no problem with doing this. On the other hand, as a democratic process, it has all of the shortcomings of mob rule, especially considering that all citizens are not perfectly rational nor morally sound.
I feel it’s analogous to Thoreau’s withholding his taxes in protest of the Mexican-American war. It’s a meaningless protest if only one person, or a handful, does it. With a critical mass it can be a very effective tool, but if a critical mass can be achieved, the ends of the whole protest should be achievable through the normal democratic system. The corollary being that if you cannot create the critical mass of people to participate in these protests, then perhaps it’s not a case of suffering under the tyranny of the majority or the inequities of the system, but rather that the protesters are wing-nuts. (or just plain wrong)
The big ethical question here seems to me to be how to be ethical in the face of the injustice of the Drug War; undermine the rule of law or be complicit in the travesty while working towards changing the laws?
By: Trenton on March 16, 2008
at 6:30 pm
I did read your comment, but I thought, “Well, that is very good. Enough said.”
But, you must have reasonably suspected, “That mm. He is never a loss for words! And always needs to have the final one… He must not have read.”
The question you pose could be rephrased as: When is it proper to engage in civil disobedience, and what type of disobedience is appropriate?
I know smarter people than I have written great essays and books on these topics. My initial thought is that one should consider the legitimacy of the policy and decision making process when determining whether to violate a rule. For example, laws imposed by an unfree, undemocratic government would be less legitimate. In addition, greater suspicion should fall on laws that punish an minority group that (1) does not have equal access to the political process, or (2) is insular and has immutable characteristics.
Applying these sources of legitimacy to the drug war in the US, it appears that the war–however bad a policy decision it may be–is generally a legitimate exercise of government power: current drug laws are generally popular with the population (even if the population is generally ignorant); anti-drug war proponents are not be silenced by the government and have even passed medical marijuana legislation in California; the decision to participate in the drug economy is generally a free choice (perhaps with the exception of medical necessity); drug-users do not (like, say African-Americans or homosexuals) have largely immutable characteristics that make them the target of irrational discrimination; and, finally, there are legitimate reasons for society to restrict the use of some substances (e.g., protecting individuals from abuse, protecting children and families from an abuser, encouraging higher valued behaviors) even if the attempts to do so are often counter-productive.
By: mm on April 13, 2008
at 5:07 pm