Editorial:
Hollywood
and
the
Drug
War
2/27/98
Last week, a group calling itself the Caucus of Producers, Writers and Directors met with Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey and promised to work more anti-drug themes into their productions. "If anybody knows how to reach the adolescents of America, it is the people in this room" McCaffrey told the group. This is ironic, of course, because if there is anybody who doesn't know how to reach the adolescents of America, it is the people who are prosecuting the Drug War. Over the past several years, the Hollywood community has been high on the list of allies that the Clinton administration has attempted to enlist in the War effort. Propaganda works of course, and if the information presented to kids through the entertainment industry is accurate (the Madison Avenue-issued Partnership For Drug Free America ads have been repeatedly attacked for employing more hyperbole than honesty), then surely no one could quibble with trying to warn kids about the dangers inherent in using drugs. But with the industry itself rife with illegal drug use, the apparent hypocrisy may well intrude on the effectiveness of the message. And that hypocrisy goes well beyond the "do what I say, not what I do" variety. The General, while he talks a lot about treatment and prevention, is the front man for a policy that is directly responsible for making the US the world's #1 per capita incarcerator, with one out of every 144 Americans behind bars, and one in three young black males under criminal justice 'supervision". And while it is well known that drug use is common in the entertainment industry, trips to expensive rehab programs are still the rule, with arrests the notable exception. For unless a celebrity is caught doing something incredibly stupid or outrageous (such as smuggling drugs across a border, or being arrested for gross public displays of delirium), state and federal law enforcement agencies have shown little interest in intervening. When was the last time you read about a big Hollywood party being raided, resulting in arrests and asset forfeiture? So the Hollywood community is safe to go about its business, secure in the knowledge that the Drug War is a war against others, and that their friends in and around "the business" need only keep their use relatively private in order to avoid the consequences that the General and his War have in store for "regular people." One would imagine that few members of the entertainment industry believe that any of their drug-using colleagues would be better off doing a five or ten year mandatory sentence for possession or conspiracy. And of course, they would be right. But while countless stars and starlets appear on the Oscars telecast sporting ribbons for AIDS research, or against cruelty to animals, or whatever undeniably worthy cause for which they wish to speak out, on the issue of the drug war, there is deafening silence -- even complicity. In the absence of dissent, a Czar calls forth their talents and their influence in service to a policy that is destroying the lives and communities of "regular people" while failing spectacularly to put a dent in either the availability or the abuse of drugs. Public service announcements and anti-drug messages in entertainment are fine, but the fact is that an American child has a better chance of growing up in a community torn apart by the black market, or to lose a parent to the criminal justice system, or even to end up being sucked into the trade itself, than he or she has of ever becoming addicted to drugs. And this is true even though the current system virtually assures that kids have unfettered access to even the most dangerous substances. Pardon the cynicism inherent in this question, but is there a quid pro quo here? Clearly, a few well-timed busts could put a very large and very public hole in the Hollywood community. The damages would extend far beyond the lives of the celebrities involved, what with contracts and ongoing projects and current work all dependent upon the viability of the "stars". Is Hollywood's latest bow to America's longest war some sort of insurance policy against such ugliness? Even if only implicitly? One can almost hear, of course, the worried voices of agents and PR people warning the talent to stay far clear of this third-rail. Even those who support reform know that the majority of Americans is woefully misinformed about the issue. But in this case the image-makers are behind the curve. Europe is experiencing a virtual revolution of thought on the issue of drugs and policy, as is Australia and Canada. The Independent on Sunday, a British paper, is in fact in the midst of a very well-publicized campaign to legalize cannabis. They have garnered support from all segments of society, including the very public backing of Sir Paul McCartney. Of course, you won't read about the debate raging in the UK in the US media. Here at home, polls indicate that over 50% of Americans know the Drug War has been a failure. That they often support even tougher measures, flawed though that strategy is, only underscores the fact that there are no other options being discussed by those with serious media access. A couple of Hollywood names could begin to remedy that in about a week. The fact is that the cutting edge of opinion on the issue is anti-war, which makes choosing propaganda over principle akin to taking the lead in "Big-Budget Part IV" instead of an artistically brilliant little piece, better for the soul than the bank account. But artists, in the end, must nourish their souls. General McCaffrey is right about one thing--the power of celebrity is indeed awesome. That is why it would take just a few brave souls within the industry to stand up against this insane War to give the movement an enormous shot in the arm both in public awareness and in financial contributions to the badly outspent reform organizations. The Drug Warriors, McCaffrey included, like to answer questions about the War by reiterating that, well, drug abuse is bad, thereby implying that reformers think that drug abuse is somehow OK. That is not the reformer's point, of course, but the effect of such public implication is to chill the willingness of the non-believers to speak out. Thus far, the most notable recent example of bravery coming from Hollywood has been that radical Woody Harrelson, talking about industrial hemp. For a business that prides itself on independent thinking and progressive (on both the left and the right) politics, that is a pretty lame output. If the professionals of the entertainment industry have not been threatened into cooperating, and remain silent simply for want of information, then it is certainly time for the voices of reform to access the industry and to educate it. But perhaps it is true. Perhaps the people of the entertainment industry, living in glass houses, er, mansions, are really afraid to throw stones lest the Feds show up at their next party with glass-cutters and warrants. If the entertainment industry has indeed been so cowed, it is a shame. It is also an indication of the absolute corruption of the war, both in its principles and in its execution. Nearly fifty years ago the same industry was intimidated into silence during the red scare, and that silence destroyed careers and nearly destroyed a nation. It was not the industry's proudest moment. Today, only Hollywood knows why Hollywood has agreed to play a supporting role in the General's multi-billion dollar farce. But one thing is certain. Those who appear in the Drug War credits will have to live with that billing for the rest of their lives. Especially if they took the part for all the wrong reasons. Adam J. Smith
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
