The War Within

Sadia Said

Professor Hart

English 205

14 April 2015

The War Within

While taking part in naming America the world’s largest jailer, for over 40 years, the War on Drugs has succeeded in imprisoning more than 45 million people. Although one might think that the law enforcement has cleared the streets from drugs, unfortunately, drugs are still more available than ever. Historically, certain drugs that are illegal today were commonly used in America. In the 1800s, drug addiction was looked at as a public health issue, whereas today it’s treated like a violent crime (The House I Live In). Eugene Jarecki, author and director of The House I Live In, argues that the War on Drugs is not only ineffective, but instead of treating drug addiction, it has increased drug abuse. This eventually, triggered the government to create a law enforcement that feeds mainly on America’s minorities. Author Christina Fauchon’s article, “Counterpoint: The Case Against Profiling” (2004), asserts “racial profiling in any environment […] is an unproductive and immoral policy to ensure safety.” Cynthia Godsoe, author of  “The Ban on Welfare for Felony Drug Offenders: Giving a New Meaning to ‘Life Sentence’”(1998), discusses the Welfare Act that “denies both welfare and federally-funded food stamp to any individual convicted of” a drug related crime. Finally, Thomas R. Geers, writer of the article “Legalize Drugs and Stop the War on People” (1995), argues that legalizing drugs will reduce the number of addicts in the U.S. Although all of these articles discuss the negative effects of the War on Drugs, authors Fauchon and Godsoe’s articles clarifies Jarecki’s argument, while Geers article extends his argument. Throughout the documentary Jarecki stays firm to his argument. This resulted in a convincing argument, as there are countless evidences that show the failure of the War on Drugs.

One of the ways in which Jarecki shows the ineffectiveness of the War on Drugs is by discussing racial profiling. In the second half of the documentary, Jarecki argues that drugs like opium, marijuana, and cocaine were widely spread in America. However, when certain ethnic groups became a threat to white people, these drugs became illegal (The House I Live In). Richard Miller, an expert on the history of U.S. drug laws and one of Jarecki’s interviewees, argues, “Historically, anti-drug laws have always been associated with race”(The House I Live In). Some may make the assumption that after decades, the law enforcement may have changed. Miller argues otherwise, stating that illegalizing certain drugs had nothing to do with the drug itself, but the concern was with the people associated with these certain drugs (The House I Live In). Compared to Jarecki, Fauchon’s article, “Counterpoint: The Case Against Profiling,” is more focused on officers that detain certain people solely based on their ethnicity or race. Fauchon quotes law professor Deborah Ramirez as saying, “minorities are no more likely to be in possession of contraband than whites. Moreover, minorities […] are less likely to be carrying contraband”(Fauchon Par. 5). What Fauchon is simply saying is that profiling has never been reliable way to decrease criminal acts (Fauchon Par. 5). Fauchon doesn’t only address the use of illegal profiling, but she also touches on how racial profiling is now being used in airports (Fauchon Par. 8). Fauchon argues that as a western country, America is already looked at “as racist and unfair to minorities,” and “racial profiling confirms these charges” (Fauchon Par. 11). Although there’s insignificant time difference between Jarecki’s documentary and Fauchon’s article, they both agree that racial profiling has not worked and it surely won’t in the future. Fauchon’s article extends Jarecki’s argument while also strengthening it because it shows how racial profiling hasn’t changed even in modern days. Followers of the War on Drugs do not seem to see that minorities are disproportionately represented because they are convinced that the law enforcement is protecting minorities. However, the law enforcement believes that the community of the minorities is completely corrupt. Though this may be somewhat true, the law enforcement has no right to profile people solely base on their race, ethnicity, gender, religion, and/or social status.

One of the issues that the documentary briefly discusses is life after prison. Jarecki argues, “those arrested soon find themselves in a self-perpetuating cycle from which few ever really escape”(The House I Live In). Bluntly, Jarecki is saying that those who go to jail will only go back to jail, even if they are released. For those who have been to jail, finding an appropriate job is nearly impossible. Some of those who have been released are “by law ineligible for certain grants;” consequently, they will not be able to go to school. Due to lack of choices, those released from prison find themselves back in prion (The House I Live In). Some may even be deprived from welfare assistance and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—otherwise known as food stamps. Although Jarecki touches on the issue of life after prison, Godsoe’s article, “The Ban on Welfare for Felony Drug Offenders: Giving a New Meaning to ‘Life Sentence,’” goes into a depth discussion of the Welfare Act which, “is the lifetime ban on benefits to anyone convicted of a drug-related felony”(Godsoe 257). Godsoe is more concentrated on African American women “who are already disadvantaged by addiction and a criminal history” (Godsoe 257). Godsoe’s article first outlines the Welfare Act and “its moral bases, as well as how several states, particularly California, are applying this measure”(Godsoe 257). Godsoe argues that state government has a “misguided belief” that banning welfare benefits “will reduce drug abuse and drug-related crimes” (Godsoe 258).  Frankly, what Godsoe is trying to say is that banning welfare benefits will not reduce drug abuse nor eliminate it. On the contrary, it will increase drug crimes and drug abuse because “it will likely have devastating repercussions in entrenching an abandoned underclass of drug offenders with no resources and opportunities, and no options [but to] return to crime”(Godsoe 259). Godsoe also points out how government officials discriminate against those who had drug offenses. She quotes California state senator Adam Schiff saying:

        We don’t have budget to do all the things we would like to do. And if we’re going

to be spending welfare dollars on those with drug convictions, that means less to        put into, frankly, those who are probably a better prospect at placing into jobs

(Godsoe 259).

Simply, what Godsoe is trying to prove is that the government is making public benefits accessible to those that they think are deserving of it; however, this creates crisis to those who actually are in need of it. (Godsoe 259). Godsoe argues that the War on Drugs “has failed to reduce drug-related crimes, and has not begun to solve the drug addiction problem in American society” (Godsoe 260). Godsoe’s argument may be leaning more towards the law aspect of the War on Drugs policy, but it surely does a great job of clarifying, and also supporting Jarecki’s argument. Both Jarecki and Godsoe believe that banning welfare benefits does no good for both the society and those who were released from jail; rather it harms both the government and the society. Banning benefits from those who need it the most makes the problem bigger than it should be. Denying public housing or welfare assistance to people who need it—regardless of their crime—is plain groundless and unfair. Therefore, the government should either provide job opportunities for these individuals or allow them to use welfare benefits.