Traffic

Released 2000
Stars Michael Douglas, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Benicio Del Toro, Erika Christensen, Don Cheadle, Luis Guzman, Steven Bauer, Miguel Ferrer, Amy Irving, Dennis Quaid, Jacob Vargas, Albert Finney
Directed by Steven Soderbergh

Our laws against illegal drugs function as a price support system for the criminal drug industry. They do not stop drugs. Despite billions of dollars spent and a toll of death, addiction, crime, corruption and lives wasted in prison, it is possible today for anyone who wants drugs to get them. "For someone my age," says a high school student in the new film "Traffic," "it's a lot easier to get drugs than it is to get alcohol."

The movie tells several parallel stories, which sometimes link but usually do not. We meet two Mexican drug enforcement cops. Two San Diego-based DEA agents. A mid-level wholesaler who imports drugs from Mexico. A high-level drug millionaire who seems to be a respectable businessman. A Ohio state supreme court judge who is appointed the U.S. drug czar. And his teenage daughter, who becomes addicted to crack cocaine and nearly destroys her life. We also meet a Mexican general who has made it his goal to destroy a drug cartel--but not for the reasons he claims. And we see how cooperation between Mexican and U.S. authorities is compromised because key people on both sides may be corrupt, and betray secrets.

The movie is powerful precisely because it doesn't preach. And the facts make their own argument: This war is not winnable on the present terms, and takes a greater toll in human lives than the drugs themselves. The drug war costs $19 billion a year, but scenes near the end of the film suggest that more addicts are helped by two free programs, Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous, than by all the drug troops put together.

Summary by Roger Ebert

I'm sick of drugs--both in real life and in the movies. That said, "Traffic" is a great film. What makes it great is its message that the war on drugs is hopeless. The film is realistic in its depiction of the global problem that simply can't be eradicated through seizures and imprisonment. There's no way to win this "war," because people like to get high. As long as that's true and there are free countries, drugs will be a major factor in our lives.

Whoever came up with the label "war on drugs" did a disservice to everyone. You wage war because you think you can win. There is no way to win this war, and I think the term itself gives the wrong impression to those who don't know better. To those people it gives false hope and leads to us throwing more federal money at the problem each year. To those involved in the war, it's depressing because they know it can't be won. We should call it what it is--law enforcement with stepped up measures to increase seizures. With present methods all we can do is hope to contain the problem as much as possible and to treat the unfortunate addicts. I find the whole issue very depressing. -- Bill Alward June 3, 2001