I love Hamsterdam…
Episode 29: “Hamsterdam”
“Why you got to go and fuck with the program?” – Fruit
West Baltimore residents get some surprising straight talk from Major Colvin at a community meeting. Colvin has little success convincing area drug dealers to relocate to his tolerant zones. Carcetti reveals his mayoral political ambitions and pursues a campaign manager. Cutty gives up his attempts at straight work and joins the Barksdale Organization. Avon Barksdale is paroled despite the Major Case Unit’s previous work against him. Stringer continues to invest in property development.
New Characters:
Spider (a young hopper)
Theresa D’Agostino
Episode 30: “Straight and True”
“I had such fuckin’ hopes for us.” – McNulty
Frustrated in his grass-roots reform efforts, Colvin arms himself with intelligence from the Major Case Unit and approaches the mid-level drug dealers instead. McNulty sees Stringer is now unreachable as a drug target because of his ties to legitimate business. Stringer throws a welcome home party for Avon and launches a citywide Co-Op for drug dealers but fails to recruit immediate West side rival Marlo Stanfield. Detective Greggs follows Stanfield to his meeting with Stringer.
After the second season I wasn’t Stringer Bells biggest fan. “Straight and True” has changed that! I am actually jealous of Avon, I want Stringer as my best friend, nephew murdering aside…
I didn’t think I’d be so happy to see Avon out of jail but the whole sequence is done so well (the wave as he walks out the door, throwing his jail clothes out the window) that I couldn’t help smiling. I also think the sequence offered a real contrast to Cutty’s release.
I also think having Cutty back in the game is fascinating. It’s a real dig at the prison system. It doesn’t matter if it’s 26 months or 14 years people are just going to end up back in the game. Why even bother locking them up in the first place? And why, why is there no support available when they are released?! I actually have a huge problem with the way people are treated after they are released from prison, I don’t think you should have to declare jail time in a job application (you have to in the UK, I’m assuming its the same here) and parole officers should have a far more active role, and your right to vote shouldn’t be denied (again, I’m using the UK as my base). It just makes me angry, if you’ve served time, you’ve served time- you shouldn’t be continually punished.
Also I thought the way the show dealt with Cutty getting back into the game was fantastic. That shot of Cutty on the back of the truck watching the players in the flashy *insert fancy car name here* was brilliant. It was a really great way of saying, here are the options (ALL the options), what would you do?
On the subject of Hamsterdam…
An interesting article in which Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron argues for the legalization of ALL drugs:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/miron.legalization.drugs/index.html?iref=newssearch
Lilly, I believe I have found your hero! Fodder for more debate I’m sure…
Please excuse two link posts, but I just found this article in the NY Times about New York’s new drug legislation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/nyregion/26rockefeller.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1238042343-hNwYCw4sPS6Jp1aTfF0PNQ
I also hope that people have been following the debacle in Mexico. It all relates to the War on Drugs, which Simon and Burns believe is an utterly catastrophic failure. After all, as Albert Einstein said, “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Every policy maker that has voted to continue this policy is therefore insane.
Read the articles, thought they were great!
So I’ve done some thinking (and a little researching) over break and I’ve decided to stick with my original opinion, I think legalizing drugs is the best (or rather, least worst) option there is for fixing the drug crisis, both in the US and in Mexico. It could also help the economy, stop prisons overflowing, and help fight racism, poverty, and the spread of HIV.
So, some facts (I got some of these from the context, so thanks guys!):
The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world.
One in five black men will spend some time behind bars.
The US spends approximately $40 billion annually on stopping the illegal drug supply.
Americans spend $64 billion annually purchasing illegal drugs.
After Pakistan, Mexico is the next most likely country to become a failed state.
Furthermore, there is no connection between tough drug laws and drug consumption. Basically, because drugs are illegal, criminals control the market for one of the most powerful substances in the world. This is stupid.
Until scientists invent something that renders drugs useless (like a vaccination that you get as a baby that makes you immune to the effects of heroin), people are going to take drugs. It’s going to happen, deal. By making drugs legal the government can offer addicts rehabilitation. The government can also launch a campaign to make drug taking socially unacceptable, in the same way the government changed social attitudes towards smoking.
So my plan: Government institutions, or private corporations, are set up to make coke, heroin, crack, ecstasy, or grow shrooms, weed, and whatever else (I’m thinking everything but Meth). These corporations make a safe product, sold in restricted amounts. The product is taxed heavily, to fund rehab centers and the anti-drugs campaign, but is still cheaper than the street price today.
As for getting coca leaves and poppies, that’s tricky. But could it work in the same way the rest of the US production industry works? The Drug Corp employs Afghani and Columbian farmers to grow the necessary supplies and even with fair trade the price of drugs still wouldn’t be higher than the street price today. I’m not an economist so I don’t actually understand this side of my legalization plan very well…
But the new Drugs Corp will employ American citizens for the process of turning the plants into drugs and this will help the economy, right? And people will buy drugs and either the government or The Drugs Corp will get that money, and this will help the economy, right? On top of that the US will save money because crime will be down so prison rates will be down and the police won’t cost so much.
Admittedly, this is entirely ridiculous and completely unfeasible politically, not to mention that is raises huge moral issues! I’m sure there are poli-sci or econ majors who can tell me I’m wrong but I don’t think legalizing drugs is completely insane.
I got a lot of this stuff from an article in the economist earlier this month, it’s worth reading, even if you don’t agree with me!
http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=348954&story_id=13237193
It’s no more insane than the War on Drugs. There’s got to be a solution in the middle, and one that actually works.
I’ll say this: I’m not sure what the best course of action is, but the status quo is CERTAINLY not working. We should stop treating the War on Drugs as an irreversible crusade, and truly and honestly examine our options. In my opinion, it all starts with containment on the supply side. We need to treat drug addiction as a public health issue, rather than strain our legal system and clog our prisons with people like Bubbles. I personally think that marijuana should be legalized, and the more research I do I’m leaning towards supporting the legalization of all drugs. No, it’s not simple, or even ideal. But we need to be more pragmatic than ideological on all fronts. I just watched the movie “Traffic” last night (HBO is a genius channel; they program movies that are politically relevant). Michael Douglas’ character, the drug czar, gives a press conference at the end of the film that is supposed to be the usual rhetoric. Instead, thinking about his drug addicted daughter, he stops and says “if there is a war on drugs, then many of our family members are the enemy. And I don’t know how you wage war on your own family.” Words matters, and the word “war” is too fucking apocalyptic.
There has to be debate about our drug policy, it’s ineffective and corrupt. If drug dealers had a powerful lobby like the financial sector does ($5 billion spent buying deregulization under the past two administrations), drugs might even be legal. Are drug dealers more detrimental to society than the finance crooks? But these asshole “masters of the universe” are getting and will continue to get billions of dollars and will maintain their oligarchical influence over our government. Sorry for a bit of a focus shift, but it’s all interconnected in my mind and makes me sick.
There is also an undeniable racial component of this policy; the facts prove so. If one in five white people spent time behind bars, would anybody stand for it? As one of the thugs in Sudhir Venkatesh’s “What Do Real Thugs Think of ‘The Wire'” asked: what if the gangs on the show were white? It’s totally unfair and I can’t imagine being black in the ghetto with a life expectancy of under 25 and a 20% chance of incarceration. This must be fixed.
In fact, we need legal drugs now more than ever. The only way to survive the recession may be to get high.
Kidding.
In recent episodes I’ve noticed Simon and Burns using random objects to represent the feeling or direction of a character. Take for instance the way in which Ray Cole dies – on a stairmaster. It seems a little bit of an overkill when Bunk is talking about his death and he keeps harping back on the fact that he died on a stairmaster. Siminlar to Cole’s career, a stairmaster is a lot of work that gets you no where. Then we see Cutty working his landscaping job and like the lawn mower he cannot get to start, his drive to live a legal life is sputtering as well.
This past episode made so clear the importance placed on having things in one’s own name. When Stringer and Marlo are talking he makes sure to ask Marlo is his new Mercedes Benz is in his aunt’s name, and then when he reveal’s Avon’s new pad he stresses that everything is in Avon’s name. In the drug game, the ability to have things in one’s own name is a sign of honor and success. You no longer have to hide the fruits of all your labor.
One scene in this past episode made it so clear how fair-weather the agents in the detail are when it comes to their interest in the case at hand. At one point Lester is bemoaning the lack of progess on the current case by describing their work as nothing more than a few “DNR’s on a couple of payphones.” It’s telling because DNR’s on a couple payphone was the premise of season 1.
One quick scene that I loved was Avon’s departure from jail. He seems so genuinely excited, like it’s the first day of summer. It sort of caught me off guard because of how relatively luxurious his life was on the inside, but seeing him so joyful made it clear how terrible life on the inside always is. One other great scene in Hamersteram was Colvin’s attempt to address the clockers in the school gymnasium. He has zero success, but then the school principal comes to the mic and the crowd goes silent. I think it’s a possible preview of what is to come in the next season.
Fuck, above I meant demand side, not supply side. (A lit major’s mistake).
Jason: Is there anyway to edit a post once you’ve published it?
Not unless you’re an administrator of the site. So we’ll have to live with your post follow-up…
I have to say that I was pretty excited to see Avon out of jail. I think that I felt his excitement because I knew that the game would finally be back in full force with respect to the Barksdale crew. I’m also excited to see what happens if Avon finds out everything that Stringer has been doing behind his back.
I was pretty surprised to see Cutty smack that girl in the face, his character doesn’t seem like the type to do something like that. But I guess it reinforces the old style that he was used to and reminds us that the game has changed since he’s been in jail. He’s definitely an interesting character that I am liking more and more. It will be interesting to see how he progresses.