The 2000 Film Traffic Addresses

the 2000 film Traffic addresses the War on Drugs by making powerful political commentary about its futility. Director Steven Soderbergh illustrates the far-reaching consequences of the war on drugs, through the intersecting lives of the film's main characters. The filmmaker shows that drug prohibition does nothing to curb addiction, which is shown to be a separate issue altogether. Traffic suggests that the war on drugs fuels organized crime and violence. The Drug Czar Robert Wakefield, played by Michael Douglas, is a key figure in Traffic. Wakefield experiences a personal epiphany after discovering that his own daughter is addicted to drugs. The film concludes with Wakefield giving a speech in which he shocks the audience saying that the War on Drugs is a war against our own families. The Drug Policy Alliance Network issues a similar statement: "The war on drugs has become a war on families, a war on public health and a war on our constitutional rights."

Soderbergh's decisively anti-drug war stance is one commonly held by Americans but one rarely acknowledged or vocalized. Political impetus for the War on Drugs began first with Richard Nixon, who coined the term and subsequently created the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Nixon also called drug abuse "public enemy No. 1," ("Timeline: America's War on Drugs"). Nixon's heavy-handed approach to drug trafficking and drug abuse became and remains the prevailing political drug policy in the United States. During her husband's presidency, Nancy Reagan became an outspoken advocate of the War on Drugs. Nancy Reagan launched the "Just Say No" advertising campaign, which further drove drug problems into the criminal justice sector and away from the public health sector.

Traffic critiques the War on Drugs, showing how its fundamental philosophy is unfeasible, unreasonable, and ineffective. Soderbergh does so without condoning drug use, too: the filmmaker does not glorify drugs in any way. In fact, he shows how insipid the supply chain is and how sordid drug abuse can become. Through Caroline Wakefield, the Drug Czar's daughter, Soderbergh paints the picture of how an upper-middle class white girl can easily fall into a life of despair and addiction. If her parents were unable to help her, Caroline could easily have died.

The War on Drugs is shown to be a political model that works largely in the favor of cartels. Soderbergh barely hints at the role the American government plays in perpetuating the war on drugs. According to Greer's drug war clock, "The U.S. federal government spent over $19 billion dollars in 2003 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $600 per second. The budget has since been increased by over a billion dollars," not including state and local anti-drug budgets. By another estimate, about $44 billion per year is spent on the War on Drugs (Cafferty).

However, Soderbergh does indicate an appreciation for the corruption endemic at the level of government in Mexico. The governments of Mexico and other big suppliers to the United States are frequently as complicit as they are portrayed in Traffic. As Cafferty points out, "The Mexican drug cartels now have operations in 230 American cities." Government officials sometimes play both sides of the war. In Traffic, Mexican General Salazar profits directly off of the cartels and hence, off the War on Drugs. The United States may not be as overtly corrupt in its approach to the War on Drugs but it is highly likely that the campaign is not entirely an innocent one. Issues of corruption aside, the War on Drugs is categorically "insane," if the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and expecting a different result each time," (Cafferty). Alcohol prohibition failed miserably, and so too is the War on Drugs.

Although the audience does not sympathize with Salazar or the Obregon cartel, the Mexican drug runners are not the primary antagonists of the movie. For much of the movie, Robert Wakefield is the main antagonist. Wakefield represents the American government's complicity in perpetuating an outmoded political policy. Thus, Traffic portrays the American government's War on Drugs as being antithetical to American values. Wakefield is initially blind to his daughter's plight, and is depicted as being too career-driven and closed-minded to notice that the War on Drugs is a war on his family and his country. However, Wakefield does wake up. At the end of the movie he perceives the connection between his actions as Drug Czar and the supply chain his daughter has access to. Wakefield's awakening is Soderbergh's call to America to end the War on Drugs policy.

Traffic ends on a note of optimism while also leaving the War on Drugs unresolved. Soderbergh seems aware that United States drug policy will not change any time soon. The film also offers a scathing critique of the way foreign governments become entangled with organized crime: to the point where the two become indistinguishable as with Salazar and the Obregon brothers. Soderbergh does not venture a suggestion on how to tackle Mexico's problems. However, the filmmaker does strongly imply that government officials in the United States become more aware of the ramifications of the War on Drugs. If politicians and policy makers act as Wakefield does at the end of Traffic, then it might be possible to change policy toward a more meaningful eradication of organized crime. The current policies create a lucrative black market economy that is especially seductive in poor countries like Mexico. Income disparity and the lack of upward social mobility entices poor people to become involved in the drug trade, just as street-level traders in American urban gangs are drawn to drug trading too. Decriminalization of drugs would essentially drive out the black market, minimizing the need for guns, gangs, and attendant violence.