[bgroins]

The reasoning is well established at this point. It was started by the Nixon administration to reduce the amount of left and left-leaning voters, particularly black Americans.

"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." — John Ehrlichman, to Dan Baum for Harper's Magazine in 1994, about President Richard Nixon's war on drugs, declared in 1971.

[pmoriarty]

I'm about as anti War on Drugs as it's possible to get, but agree with those who consider that quote to be highly suspect.

Ehrlichman supposedly said it in a private interview with Baum, and there was no public record of it for 22 years after it was said, and 17 years after Ehrlichman died.

It's very rare to hear such mea culpas from powerful, politically adept figures that cast their subjects in such a negative light. When they speak of their actions at all they tend to talk of them with plenty of room for interpretation and plausible deniability -- especially if they're lawyers, as Ehrlichman was.

So as much as I believe that the War on Drugs was in fact in great part a racist war and one greatly based on suppression of dissent and the 60's and 70's counterculture, I very much doubt that Ehrlichman ever confessed.

[howenterprisey]

Ok, what about this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Ehrlichman#San_Franc....

> NIXON: [...] Let's look at the strong societies. The Russians. Goddamn, they root 'em out. They don't let 'em around at all. I don't know what they do with them. Look at this country. You think the Russians allow dope? Homosexuality, dope, immorality, are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and left-wingers are clinging to one another. They're trying to destroy us. I know Moynihan will disagree with this, [Attorney General John] Mitchell will, and Garment will. But, goddamn, we have to stand up to this.

[thaumasiotes]

That quote doesn't really support the idea that "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." Instead, it supports the idea that Nixon thought drugs undermined society and stamping out drug use was valuable for its own sake.

[howenterprisey]

Yes. It's roughly as indefensible, though.

[dylan604]

>"Homosexuality, dope, immorality, are the enemies of strong societies."

Is it really though? It seems like it would be the enemy of an uptight conservative society that only speaks of freedoms from the side of their mouth while limiting the freedoms to only those things which they agree.

[aurelius83]

There is literally no proof that John Ehrlichman said this to Dan Baum in 1994 and when Dan Baum made this statement John Ehrlichman was already dead and could not refute it. Note that his estate has denied this statement.

It also is not accurate that the Nixon administration increased incarceration of drug use. That occurred under Reagan and Clinton.

However, Nixon was the first president to coin the term "war on drugs" but this was a rhetorical flourish. The Nixon Administration repealed the federal 2–10-year mandatory minimum sentences for possession of marijuana and started federal demand reduction programs and drug-treatment programs.

[ElViajero]

> It was started by the Nixon administration to reduce the amount of left and left-leaning voters, particularly black Americans.

That is interesting information, thank you for commenting.

It shows that there was not a misinterpretation, as the article suggests, at least, not the initiators of the "War", but more of a well-calculated hidden agenda that had nothing to do with "drugs".

[lpa22]

This documentary is an absolute must-watch and shows how devastating the war on drugs is and was from a race perspective https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krfcq5pF8u8

[mathattack]

Perhaps some instigators had ulterior motives, but many who jumped on were part of the grand miscalculation. Though perhaps they should have looked at Prohibition for guidance too.

[coopsmoss]

I still find it abhorrent that incarcerated people can't vote in the US. That seems so obviously exploitable.

[karaterobot]

As with so many generalizations about the U.S., it's more complicated than that, and varies on a state-by-state basis.

Most people in jail retain the right to vote, regardless of state.

People currently in prison on felony charges CANNOT vote in most states, but this is up to each state. In many states, you get your enfranchisement restored after completing your sentence.

https://www.thoughtco.com/where-felons-can-and-cannot-vote-3...

[tyingq]

>Most people in jail retain the right to vote, regardless of state.

They may have the right to vote. Whether the facility lets it actually happen is another matter.

[whakim]

Not only this, but in many cases felons permanently lose their right to vote, even after they serve their sentence.

Edit: I stand corrected, this is true in some states but not others.

[drdavid]

You may want to see this:

https://www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/voter-restoration/...

[whakim]

I stand corrected. Thanks for this.

[drdavid]

I used to think the same thing, until I read an article that made me look into it. The article I read was a local affair that pointed out that inmates are encouraged (in my state, Maine) to file absentee ballots in the town they lived in prior to incarceration.

There are just a couple of states that allow that, but I learned that quite a few jurisdictions restore rights after incarceration, after probation, etc...

[BurningFrog]

Voters should select their politicians.

Not the opposite!

[HumblyTossed]

And even when people vote to try and correct it (Florida), the GOP find some other reason to stop it.

[macspoofing]

That particular quote always makes the rounds in these kinds of discussions, but the veracity of it is challenged and suspect[1]. I'm inclined to disbelieve it on those grounds and also that it is so politically self-serving that is crosses into the "too good to be true" category.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ehrlichman#Drug_war_quote

[cowmoo728]

Nixon is actually quite removed from the beginning of the War on Drugs. That quote is also of questionable authenticity, so doesn't illustrate the point very well. Reefer Madness, for example, was released in 1936 when Nixon was only 23.

Harry Anslinger was actually one of the most influential figures in the beginning of the modern big-government war on drugs. The anti-marijuana movement was a marriage of convenience between sensationalist yellow journalism from the Hearst empire, and good old-fashioned racism.

"By the tons it is coming into this country — the deadly, dreadful poison that racks and tears not only the body, but the very heart and soul of every human being who once becomes a slave to it in any of its cruel and devastating forms. ... Marihuana is a short cut to the insane asylum. Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters. Hasheesh makes a murderer who kills for the love of killing out of the mildest mannered man who ever laughed at the idea that any habit could ever get him."

"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger

[Aunche]

It's worth noting that Dan Baum didn't publish this quote until 16 years after Ehrilchman had already died.

[IncRnd]

He could have peddled that quote sooner if he had used the line they use nowadays, "according to a source familiar with the matter..."

[Falling3]

Thanks - I was wondering why I remembered that information coming to light so much more recently.

[throwaway0a5e]

Whether or not it was Nixon and friends acting like racists is secondary. Tons of individuals and institutions piled on because there was power and money in it for them.

[uberdru]

My read is that your statement is incorrect, in that they were not simply 'acting like racists'. Instead, they were instituting racially motivated policies to combat the advances of the civil rights movement through the '60s. Plus ca change.

[throwaway0a5e]

Isn't that exactly how you'd expect racists to act?

[tolbish]

The difference is that racism is not a secondary motivator. Racism would be baked into the desire for power, as it would then be a desire to instill white supremacy.

[jhgb]

Why couldn't racism be either primary or secondary motivator for something?

[tolbish]

It absolutely can be. It just is not in this case. They were not merely "acting like racists". I hope this distinction helps.

[nuclearnice1]

You can say it’s secondary, but it’s a good answer to the question raised by the parent: “it would be very interesting to know the reasoning to start it.”

[ZeroGravitas]

Its not an uncommon thing in history either. One of the incarnations of the KKK supported prohibition because it gave them an excuse to persecute catholic irish immigrants.

[foldr]

This seems oversimplified. Lots of politically very diverse countries around the world have harsh penalties for possession of heroin.

I don't doubt that the Nixon administration exploited the war on drugs for nefarious ends. However, I think the idea that the entire impetuous behind it was to target particular social groups is bordering on a conspiracy theory. It is a bit like suggesting that Democrats are pro immigration only because immigrants tend to vote Democrat. I'm sure it hasn't escaped the notice of Democratic electoral strategists that the party could stand to benefit from immigration. But it would be implausible to suggest that this is the only reason that Democrats tend to favor a more liberal immigration policy than Republicans.

[x86_64Ubuntu]

So having rules and laws designed to leverage the justice system against Black Americans is conspiratorial? That's literally the history of this country, from The Black Codes, to Jim Crow, to the War On Drugs this has been standard operating procedure.

[foldr]

Steady on – that's not what I said. I'm sure the Nixon administration exploited the war on drugs for racist ends (just as they exploited many other things for racist ends). That doesn't mean that the sole explanation for the war on drugs is a Nixonian plot.

[neither_color]

I don't buy it. That's one administration's decision to capitalize on anti-drug sentiment, but it really is a world-wide phenomenon with many powerful countries not controlled by the US choosing to continue outlawing drugs, like middle eastern countries and China. Most Asian countries still have very harsh penalties for drug possession. If you use an earthquake or a hurricane to engage in some crony capitalism, it doesn't mean you started the earthquake. Likewise, something about drug control means most governments have a stake in perpetuating it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis

[whakim]

China and Middle Eastern countries are one-party states, not peer countries with comparable independent systems of criminal justice. Yes, many drugs are illegal in other peer countries (the UK, France, Canada, etc.). But the percentage of the United States' population incarcerated on drug-related charges alone is higher than the percentage of peer countries' population incarcerated on all charges. So the United States isn't simply outlawing drugs, it is choosing to crack down in a way that peers aren't. As far as the racial element goes, it's hard to separate racism from drug enforcement: the vast majority of those serving prison time on drug related charges are people of color (the percentage is greater in federal prisons than state prisons), even though substance abuse rates are similar across groups.

[randomhodler84]

I buy it. It was forced on the world by the UN with the convention of psychotropic substances 1971. Only a handful of nations, now including the US are seeing this as a horrible mistake.

It is, was and always will be a horrible mistake, maybe the worst sociopolitical action in the 20th century. The brutality we have seen as a result of these policies leaves little moral ambiguity.

[neither_color]

The argument is that Richard Nixon, a disgraced and impeached president, is conveniently responsible for all of the world's drug control "because racism." That sounds a little too comic book villainy to me. Nixon was such a failure that his successor could've immediately reversed that decision. To say that China is still to this day executing drug dealers because Richard Nixon was racist(which is true, I don't dispute that) is missing the forest for the trees.

[randomhodler84]

Nixon was a comic book villain. China executes political prisoners and sells their organs. What China does has no baring on sensible drug policy; quite the opposite.

[damagednoob]

Isn't it a convenient excuse for other countries, too? In the same way that 'think of the children' is an argument for more censorship and Big Brother-style laws.