[munk-a]

I think it's generally because most Americans would be looking at ridiculously long prison sentences for common actions if they got caught (like possession) and because the US's general view is that there isn't anything in the world that can't be cured by throwing more prison time at it.

[whimsicalism]

Really? Where in America are you looking at a "ridiculous" long prison sentence in 2020 for possession?

The war on drugs sucked, but it was still mostly a war against dealers.

[lamontcg]

Not if you were black and used crack. And pretty much any prison for posession and use is rediculous, if its a problem for the user it is a mental health issue and prison is the wrong treatment. And of course the limits on what determines if you're a dealer is set low enough, and carrier laws meant that many users were getting prosecuted like dealers. And what defines a "dealer" since someone doing a group buy for three friends is significantly less socially problematic than someone trafficking drugs across the border.

[asveikau]

Afaik there is a recording of Nixon saying that they want to use drug penalties to go after black people and hippies. A lot of times those racially biased outcomes are the product of many unrelated parts of a big and complicated system, but in this case the top of executive government seemed pretty deliberate about this.

[whimsicalism]

There is no such recording. A reporter who interviewed an aide of Nixon for his autobiography claimed that that aide said that (but he only claimed so after the aide had died).

[wharryman]

I don't know about blacks or hippies, but Last Week Tonight played an Oval Office tape of Nixon wanting to target marijuana laws because those in favor (of legalization) were Jewish.

https://youtu.be/BcR_Wg42dv8?t=153

[munk-a]

There is indeed no such recording - but calling the official an "aide" is a bit inaccurate, the official in question was the domestic policy chief[1] - rather than a random secretary that claims to have overheard something.

That all said, for all of the negative PR Nixon has received over the years he was a rather progressive and surprisingly egalitarian executive who has been praised by Indian Country Today[2] and appears to have stuck pretty close to his quaker upbringings. I think a lot of people conflate Nixon and Regan - which is pretty ridiculous when you look at the policies those two presidents actually pursued during their terms... And even more folks are getting second hand vibes from Nixon's infamous presidential debate[3] which pitted a rather uncharismatic man against JFK and led to a pretty obvious outcome.

1. https://www.vox.com/2016/3/22/11278760/war-on-drugs-racism-n...

2. https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/barack-obama-and-rich...

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9cdRpE4KKc Just FYI - if you've never seen this I'd suggest giving it a go sometime. Given recent politics it's almost fantastical to listen to two folks come into a debate focused on the issues and minimizing the ways they attacked each other.

[whimsicalism]

I think the important bit is that the chief/aide/whatever didn't claim to have overheard anything at all, rather someone who talked to them claimed that they said Nixon had said that.

Hard to laud Nixon in my view, he was pretty clearly a racist man and was the originator of the "welfare queen" rhetoric (and the corresponding cuts in SNAP, etc.).

[harry8]

Boomers hated Nixon because he undermined the Vietnam peace process for personal political gain elongating the war that they then had to go to the trouble of dodging the draft (as long as they were rich enough).

We can be as cynical as we like about boomers and then going on to be Reagan voters, it doesn't change Nixon and Kissenger's status as unprosecuted war criminals.

I'm not overly familiar with Quaker orthodoxy, I'd be surprised if dropping bombs killing 500k Cambodians is consistent with it. Nixon wasn't all bad because no human is, even he who must not be named was kind to (some) children, we're told.

Not all bad can still be utterly horrific.

[asveikau]

I must have misremembered then. There are so many recordings of Nixon saying offensive things that I can't keep them all straight.

[whimsicalism]

I of course agree. It is ridiculous. I also grew up in one of the cities that was the center of the so-called "crime epidemic." We've definitely improved on sentencing since 30 years ago.

I just don't think it is accurate to say that people are getting super long sentences for possession anymore and I don't think it is right to use that as justification for longer sentences for other people.

[lamontcg]

Well #1: yes the are. #2: drug addiction is a mental health problem (and not all drug use is addiction) and any sentence for possession is too much.

[whimsicalism]

yes the are what?

#2: I completely agree.

[lamontcg]

yes theY are [still getting super long sentences]

three strikes laws still exist, it is still possible to push possession into felony territory. if there's a gun anywhere near the arrest you can probably tack on firearms charges, etc.

if you're reasonably white and middle class those extras will be ignored for a lighter sentence. if you're black or for whatever other reason they just don't like you then they'll tack those extras on and three strikes you.

there is a lot of "prosecutorial discretion" still, and if you dig into it hard enough that's a code word for racially biased prosecution. the fact that they we reasonable with you or your college buddies who got busted with some MDMA or something is not the same experience that lower income black people get.