I'd say more generally, it's about control and having something police / government can hold over almost anyone, or any demographic, if convenient for whatever reason. That is the danger of these kinds of laws, they are a shortcut around other rules that are supposed to keep police power in check. And as pointed out elsewhere, local decriminalization doesn't really change this. It's a step in the right direction, but what it really needed is an explicit relinquishing of the power over people that these laws afford (in the US, perhaps an amendment even?) Until that happens, drug laws will still serve their purpose
This, in my opinion, is closest to the truth - not to discount the issues of race that have historically propagated downward through the system and continue to affect people today.
From John Ehrlichman, a Nixon associate:
> You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
Note: the veracity of this particular quote has been contested, but the story it purports to tell is compelling in my opinion regardless.
So wrong. Marijuana and heroin were both illegal long before Nixon took office, largely due to laws passed by Democrats.
Now that drug laws have become unpopular, there's an effort to rewrite history and blame it all on the Republicans, especially Nixon. It's surprising that this effort is so successful when the correct history is so easy to find:
Opium, coca, and their derivatives (including heroin) were made controlled substances by the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1915 [1], a law sponsored by a Democrat and signed by Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat).
Marijuana was made a controlled substance by the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 [2], likewise introduced in Congress by a Democrat and signed by Roosevelt, another Democrat. Roosevelt also publicly urged the states to legislate against "the narcotic drug evil." [3]
The Boggs Act of 1951 [4] introduced mandatory sentences for possession or distribution of both drugs. It was, you guessed it, also sponsored by (and named for) a Democrat in Congress, and was signed by Truman (D).
And even the relevant legislation passed during Nixon's term in office, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 [5], was again introduced by a Democrat and passed a Democrat controlled Congress with bipartisan support. This law merely continued the prohibitions introduced by the previous laws after they were successfully challenged in Leary v. United States in 1969 [6].
Well, you've successfully constructed a hell of a strawman! My comment was to express my support for the following statement:
> I'd say more generally, it's about control and having something police / government can hold over almost anyone, or any demographic, if convenient for whatever reason.
I didn't say anything about Democrats or Republicans. I happened to use a quote that touched on Nixon in support of my claim.
I would also note, for people not well-versed in American history, that up until around the 1960s, the concept of a Southern Democrat still existed - people mostly identified with opposing desegregation in the American south. Some of these politicians, including Strom Thurmond, who voted against civil rights and for the Controlled Substances Act, later became Republican figureheads. Party ideals shift over time.
With that said, I don't think the current state of drug laws in the US are an issue of party. It's a lack of evidence-based policy, and it's extremely problematic.
One might not blame politicians for looking at the effects of narcotics and their relation to organized crime in the mid-20th century in America and say: "we need to legislate this, because the problem is ballooning and we don't have any other tools at our disposal." Addiction science didn't exist yet.
One might even forgive the Controlled Substances Act as an extension of this reaction, were it not for the fact that through the subsequent creation of the DEA and the scheduling system, the effects of drugs and addiction became significantly more difficult to research in the US. This happened under Nixon, and I think that's why he receives a significant portion of the blame for the current state of affairs (rightly or wrongly).
The DEA has also simply failed in its remit. They've shown themselves to be completely incapable of assessing the medical utility and controlling the abuse potential of drugs (marijuana on the one hand, prescription opioids on the other). This, combined with the fact that the CSA and the DEA's existence prevent us as a country from evaluating other approaches to the drug problem, make for a lose-lose situation.
> I happened to use a quote that touched on Nixon in support of my claim.
A quote that claimed "what [the drug war] was really all about" was disrupting black communities and the anti-war left.
If Ehrlichman did say that (as you pointed out, even that is disputed) it's quite absurd. The prohibition of drugs started decades before the Vietnam War or the Civil Rights movement, and it was an international effort, in response to real dangers. It's not tenable to argue that it was all about control, nor that Nixon's motives (if those were his motives) were even relevant to the passage of the CSA with only 6 opposing votes in Congress.
That said, I agree that time has shown that prohibition has failed and can be as harmful as the drugs themselves. I just think the Ehrlichman quote adds far more heat than light to the discussion.
> If Ehrlichman did say that (as you pointed out, even that is disputed) it's quite absurd. The prohibition of drugs started decades before the Vietnam War or the Civil Rights movement, and it was an international effort, in response to real dangers. It's not tenable to argue that it was all about control, nor that Nixon's motives (if those were his motives) were even relevant to the passage of the CSA with only 6 opposing votes in Congress.
Nominally, perhaps. But nobody can argue against the fact that widespread enforcement efforts stepped up drastically in the late 60s and 70s, with drugs being a particular focus after Nixon declared war on them explicitly. Just look at any chart documenting the incarceration rates [1], not to mention the literal creation of agency with (in modern times) a multi-billion dollar budget dedicated exclusively to drug enforcement.
The US collectively (cite, state, and federal) spends over $100B per year on policing. The DEA and its $3B budget isn't driving the incarceration rates.
> I'd say more generally, it's about control and having something police / government can hold over almost anyone, or any demographic, if convenient for whatever reason.
That statement glosses over the fact that such restrictive policies frequently come about as a result of trying to control minorities and never the dominant race. After all, if you do that, you'll get voted out of office.
For example, in California, gun control was brought about as a result of Black people carrying guns in public. When white people did it, it was totally fine, but once Black people started utilizing their 2nd amendment rights, the state government curtailed it.
