Eugene Jarecki’s new documentary “The House I Live in” tells touching and gut wrenching stories set in the background of America’s effort to curb vice, the War on Drugs. Brad Pitt takes a producer role as well in a beautiful, but subtly biased documentary that gives an up close look at why America’s drug war fails on so many levels.
Heroes of the Left and Right are trotted out to make quotes defending the attempt to reform society through a violent war on their own their own people. Vice President Joe Biden, Bob Dole, Charles Rangel and President Barack Obama made appearances to shed light on why they believe we should continue to prohibit victimless crimes. The audience at the West End Cinema in Washington gasped at clips of the President compromising on reducing the sentence for crack cocaine vs. powdered possession from 100x to 18x. The mostly Democrat audience sounded like children learning for the first time that their parents aren’t perfect. However, amongst the sincere and active civil libertarian community, it has been known for some time that crack cocaine in rock form is punished at more severe rates than is powdered. The reason for the differentiation of penalty offered is because blacks apparently use the crack form more than whites.
The filmmaker excellently illustrates the problem with non-violent drug offenders who get caught up in economic situations where drug sales are one of the only feasible options to gain wealth. The incentives to succeed are not in place when a drug dealer who offers free sneakers and cash to the community is regarded as the hero and person to admire.
But despite the fact that the incentives are wrong, it is in part a personal failure of a community to provide good, strong leadership to their young people. The documentary deliberately attempts to deflect away from the concept of personal responsibility and instead states that “institutional roadblocks” are to blame. The director does get full credit for naming those institutions however. The DEA, ATF, FBI and other alphabet agencies involved in our failed policy bear a huge portion of the responsibility for this national shame and they are roundly criticized in a moment that saw an audience clapping with glee at the recitation of their names. It seems irresponsible however to not place any value whatsoever on personal responsibility.
The film attempts to humanize the participants in both sides of the war, interviewing officers and offenders, while providing only snippets of data on incarceration rates and demographics of offenders. One major issue highlited in the documentary that more Americans need to know about is the issue of civil asset forfeiture. Civil Asset Forfeiture is the concept that the police can take money and property from people not convicted of crimes but because of alleged crimes. Police officers in the documentary are shown gleefully demonstrating the spoils of war given to them because of seized assets of victims and offenders in the war on drugs.
The stories of woe from non violent drug offenders who are victims of mandatory drug sentencing laws are painful and hard to watch. It’s wrenching to to watch the drama inflicted on a little girl who will be separated from her father for at least ten years because of our draconian enforcement of drug laws. Mark Bennett, a US Federal Judge from Northern Iowa appears to bolster the claim that mandatory sentencing laws are unjust. Bennet claims that there have been too many cases where he has been forced to send people away, knowing that the repercussions of doing so will be greater than the crime they have committed.
A major flaw with the documentary it fails to connect the concept of how these communities fail through lack of options and the fact that it is because they have a lack of ability for entrepreneurship. The more heavily regulated these communities are and the less ability they have to claim ownership of their property (and their bodies), the more they will become dependent on evils such as government welfare and drugs. The more they are given the incentives to engage in profit seeking enterprises other than drug dealing, the better off they will likely be. Social Democrats always seem to connect half of the economic equation for why many of these problems arise, but they miss that the solution is going to be giving a community better, more profitable options instead of the drug trade.
Another major flaw in the film is an overemphasis, or totally incorrect attempt at congruence, with the effect that private prisons have on the drug war in the United States. Authors trotted out as experts give us ominous aspersions of the effect that a profit motive might have on increasing the amount of incarcerations. However, since this film is aiming at emotional contact, it is light on data to support the claims that private industry is a bogeyman in the battle to keep substances prohibited today. At the moment only 3-4% of Americas prisons are privatized and it would be a mistake to believe that they have some disproportionate effect on the nature of drug laws in the US. Some even place too much blame on the alcohol industry, who lobby against legalization of drugs like Marijuana (supposedly for fear of competition).
However, despite the fact that private prisons offer a cost savings to their communities, they are hardly the reason that we have a national disaster in the form of drug policy in this country. The real reason is because of the legislators who are aptly called out in this documentary. Lobbying is technically free speech, and shouldn’t be restricted no matter how wrong the lobbyist is. The real problem lies in the legislation and the legislators. There are many good non profit organizations that lobby for causes that civil libertarians believe in. Legislation that restricts lobbying on private prison corporations also restricts lobbying on less powerful organizations like the Marijuana Policy Project who are fighting for reform. Restricting anyones free speech to lobby means restricting everyones free speech to lobby.
In conclusion I believe the documentary does an excellent job at humanizing many of the victims of our nations drug war. The personal tales of woe from victims who are innocent bystanders, caught up in the crossfire of our ham handed policies makes ending prohibition again even more appealing. However, it is unlikely to have much effect on the people waging the war as they are generally immune to empathy anyway. Also the fact that alternative options to the war are not given, or bogeymen like “profit incentives” and “private prisons” being to blame tarnishes the credibility of those who claim to want reform. Real reform will come when these communities are given better economic options and stronger personal property rights.
Trailer below:
2 comments