[dontbeevil1992]

Of course it's a powerful (alleged) quote, but it's far from the only evidence that the War on Drugs is not based, even in principle, on social good, but rather to serve powerful interests such as private prisons and police.

As far as the pushback from the family, I would just say that it wouldn't be the first time that someone is different at work than with his family. The worst people in history still sometimes had families and pets who they treated much better than minorities and political enemies.

Furthermore, Ehrlichman may not have been racist enough to spout it unprompted, the way Nixon is recorded as being. But he would not be the first person on Capitol Hill to be craven enough to go along with racism when it helps them attain or maintain power.

[res0nat0r]

He made that statement in this interview to a Harpers contributer in 1994: https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/

[mikestew]

That article is from 2016, long after Ehrlichman died. There was no Harper's interview with Ehrlichman in 1994.

[renewiltord]

> That article is from 2016, long after Ehrlichman died. There was no Harper's interview with Ehrlichman in 1994.

Those are facts. Here are some more facts:

* The article is written in 2016 by Dan Baum.

* GP refers to "a Harper's contributor". That person is Dan Baum.

* In the article in 2016, Dan Baum is relating his experience meeting John Ehrlichman in 1994.

* In the article in 2016, Dan Baum claims that John Ehrlichman, during their meeting in 1994, said the quoted text.

* An interview with a Harper's contributor need not be a Harper's interview

* It is possible to publish, in 2016, a statement made by someone in 1994

[mikestew]

Another fact is that if the statement were made in 1994, there were five years to publish it while Ehrlichman might still be around to dispute it. Oddly enough, another fact is that this didn't come out until Ehrlichman was dead for seventeen years. Stake your reputation on such things if you like, but I think there's better material to use to make the point. Ehrlichman had a lot to answer for, but I'm not willing to pile on in this case based on something someone remembers from twenty years prior.

[renewiltord]

This is true. Ultimately, you have to multiply by the likelihood that this Dan Baum fellow is honest and has recollected correctly, using either memory or notes.

[jacobr1]

The "Banality of Indifference" is very real