After watching The House I Live In, the documentary from Eugene Jarecki about American drug policy, I was left with some questions. As the movie shows, American drug policy is clearly inadequate, targeting minorities and lower-class people, leading to a culture of incarceration where the focus is on criminalization rather than rehabilitation. Non-violent offenders become locked in a cycle of imprisonment, economic disenfranchisement, and often re-imprisonment because of their lack of economic options. This system, supported by an ineffective policing model and the cultural buzzy-ness of dangerous drugs, plays out in painful fashion time and again. Stressed in the film was the fact that the so-called “War on Drugs” is happening in our own country, not in some foreign land, and is affecting our citizens.

Yet I couldn’t help but wonder about how American foreign policy plays into this issue. The focus of the film was narrow – and that is not a fault, because that is the story Jarecki decided to tell – and barely touches on how drugs like cocaine and heroine get into the country in the first place. Many drugs like methamphetamines and marijuana can be made or grown domestically, but it is much harder to hide production of some of the harder drugs in the United States, so they must be made elsewhere. South American countries in particular, like Peru and Mexico, import a large amount of narcotics into America, taking advantage of the US’s active drug market. The sheer amount of transportation, both legal and illegal, between the US and Mexico alone makes the thought of regulating drug trafficking sound difficult, but it seems like there could be more done to prevent drugs from entering the country. I’m not talking about a border fence. I’m talking about working with governments in South America to regulate the manufacturing (or growing) of drugs. There is another issue here, in that many governments are incredibly corrupt, and are profiting off the drug trade. This means that there is little incentive for them to cooperate.

So what is to be done? I am not an expert, but I know as well as anyone that money lies at the heart of nearly every issue. Perhaps taking a hardline economic approach with drug exporters could help provide governments incentives to clean up their acts, but in reality the problem lies with us. Without a market for a product, no one will want to sell that product. If there were no market for drugs in the United States (possibly a ludicrous notion), then drugs and all the societal and economic harm they cause would disappear. But how do you take away a market for something that is in high demand, is highly addictive, and forms the backbone of many micro-economies? Education and economic opportunities. Many people turn to drugs because of difficult economic situations, and more become involved in the drug trade for the same reason. Selling drugs is the only opportunity in many places. America needs to find better uses for those who would otherwise turn to selling drug.

I am an advocate of technical high school education, because it requires less time than a college degree, and offers a much greater chance of immediate employment. We shouldn’t be stressing the classic liberal arts education model (although a basic understanding of arithmetic and writing are crucial for success), but instead giving children the practical skills they need to get employed. A liberal arts education is a luxury most poor children cannot afford. We don’t need every child in America to go to college. We need every child in America to have the tools to succeed in the job market.

If, say, you spend four years teaching a student how to be an electrician or a plumber, or any other field where the most important tool is technical ability, then they are much more likely to be employed gainfully, rather than selling drugs. One generation’s opportunity leads to an upward spiral, in which each generation has greater economic opportunities. Maybe the student going to a trade school won’t ever go to college, but their child might.

So what’s the problem? Money. America, as we all know, is broke. There is no room in local budgets for technical education (which is more expensive than traditional education per student, although it costs less to finance one child’s technical high school education than to send them to four years of high school and then two or four years of college). The schools we have are barely scraping by. Education needs to be a priority in budgeting, but not just Obama’s lofty every child should go to college ideal; we need more practicality in education when economics look like they do now. A liberal arts education may create a well-rounded person who can enter the workforce at the middle rather than the bottom, but that’s not the point. Low-income children don’t need to be CEOs and managers. They just need jobs that pay a living wage and give a sense of worth and individual accomplishment to their lives.

I began this post thinking I was talking about the inadequacies of America’s international drug policy, but, writing being the meta-cognitive process it is, I found myself where I always end up when I think about the “War on Drugs.” It is ultimately a battle that must be fought on our home turf, but not against drug dealers. The key is not to arrest every low-level drug dealer in the country – which in turn ruins any future financial opportunities because of their criminal record – but to give them better alternatives. Education, particularly of low-income individuals, is a vital step in empowering those who have been crippled by the flawed system. Then we can take a look at the system itself.

-epn