11 ms·

> "The war on drugs was an absolute miscalculation of human behavior," said Kassandra Frederique, who heads the Drug Policy Alliance, a national group that advo

> "The war on drugs was an absolute miscalculation of human behavior," said Kassandra Frederique, who heads the Drug Policy Alliance, a national group that advocates for total drug decriminalization. For me it would be incredibly interesting to know how much it was a miscalculation or actually it was very well calculated. The "War on Drugs" have failed to make USA safer, healthier or any other positive metric. But, it has provided many with an excuse to pass restrictive laws, to win elections, to gain contracts with the government. I am sure that many believed, even believe today in the "War on Drugs". But, it would be very interesting to know the reasoning to start it. And how much the people that started it failed to understand human behavior, or it is just that their goals had nothing to do fight drugs problems.

MuffinFlavored 5y ago
> a national group that advocates for total drug decriminalization. Will this ever be achieved in the US in the next... 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years?
- sokoloff 5y ago
  I tend to expect a federal decriminalization of marijuana in the next 10 years. I doubt we'll see a decriminalization of crystal meth in the next 50 years.
  - MuffinFlavored 5y ago
    What drug would be next to target on the list of "good candidates for decriminalization" after marijuana?
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      I don't know enough to judge and I would hope that we'd look to the science, medicine, and what other countries have done with success to make that determination. Psilocybin is the first possible candidate that comes to my mind, but I'd rather have us use a sound framework of harm-minimization than to favor/disfavor any particular drug.
    - bosswipe 5y ago
      Psychedelics are probably next. Already there is some movement, Oakland and Denver have decriminalized magic mushrooms.
      - monocasa 5y ago
        Also the entire state of Oregon has both decriminalized, and has approved and is setting a legal medical infra just like with marijuana.
    - cwkoss 5y ago
      In order of ascending net harm to individual and society: Mushrooms, buprenorphine, LSD, Ecstasy, Steroids, Khat https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/what-does-science-tell-us-about-the-relative-dangers-of-drugs-alcohol-is-by-far-the-no-1-most-dangerous-drug/ https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/what-does-science-tell-us-abo... Personally, I think a great amount of harm reduction could be achieved by legalizing at least one recreational drug in every class, determined by which has least relative harm to the user. If there was a clean, legal and affordable option, I believe demand for the more-harmful drugs in the class would be significantly reduced. i.e. "stimulant" demand is somewhat elastic, and by making the least harmful stimulant (not sure if that is Khat or not) easily available, demand for Meth would be significantly reduced and market effects would make its availability much less widespread
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - kragen 5y ago
    Crystal meth was discovered in 01893; it has been legally available by prescription in the US since at least the 01950s. I don't think it's ever been entirely illegal like marijuana. Nowadays its main legal use is for obesity treatment under the name Desoxyn.
bgroins 5y ago
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.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  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.
  - nuclearnice1 5y ago
    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.”
  - uberdru 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      Isn't that exactly how you'd expect racists to act?
dlsa 5y ago
Personally I think it had more to do with corruption than anything. The CIA was happy to profit off it. The anti-drug people loved it, particularly those who were against cannabis. anyone who hated hippies. Anyone working against the antiwar movements. Those against hemp were happy. That's a lot of money just there. Politicians could use it to demonstrate a hard line stance against crime. Or just use it to target particular groups. Then theres the people lobbying for anti-drug laws to expand the prison population. Lawyers and respective district attorneys that were happy as well. The drug war was basically a felony printer as well. This made all sorts of social problems including unemployment / housing even more problematic. It tore apart families and still does. Meanwhile other legal drugs (opioids in general) flourished. Then there's the overdoses / poisonings because the source and distribution networks are utterly motivated to mess with the supply. The truly stupid aspect is that drug use has not significantly decreased. The whole "war" aspect was a complete failure. So it wasn't a good investment anyway. So many parallels with prohibition. Government poisoned that supply as well and killed thousands. Just say no. Indeed.
- livueta 5y ago
  Indeed, "bootleggers and baptists"[1] very much didn't go away with the end of prohibition. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists
snomad 5y ago
If you haven't heard of him before, you may want to read up on Harry J. Anslinger[0]. Joe Rogan also has a really in depth episode on him. He was deputy commissioner of the federal department that oversaw prohibition. when that ended, he went on to narcotics enforcement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger
jimbob45 5y ago
>The "War on Drugs" have failed to make USA safer, healthier or any other positive metric. Speak for yourself. My methhead sister-in-law is in prison and I certainly feel safer. Addicts cannot be trusted and bring families down. People raised away from addicts (read: white liberals) don’t understand how destructive they can be to a community.
- ericbarrett 5y ago
  People destroy their lives with alcohol just the same. Should we abolish liquor again? (I have meth-addled family too btw)
  - jimbob45 5y ago
    I would argue that we (assuming you're US, like me) largely already have with the liquor ban until 21. However, no, I don't agree that alcohol is "just the same". People rarely commit robbery and murder to get another hit of alcohol. Conversely, many drug addicts are unable to stop themselves from taking desperate measures to get their next hit when it is not easily accessible.
    - whydoibother 5y ago
      >People rarely commit robbery and murder to get another hit of alcohol. Weird. Almost like making it legal, relatively cheap, and easily accessible makes it so you don't have to resort to desperate means.
      - passivate 5y ago
        > Almost like making it legal, relatively cheap, and easily accessible makes it so you don't have to resort to desperate means. I think the question of legality muddles the argument. Its illegal to drive under the influence yet many do and some end up in horrific accidents. We're stewards of the next generation. We're their parents, teachers, role models. Our aim should be to reduce the use of crystal meth, and other drugs that cause self-harm. No different than promoting exercise, knowledge, healthy lifestyles, etc. Making something illegal is a powerful disincentive - but we don't expect it to work 100% perfectly. Its important to recognize when something isn't working - but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Government policies are like supertankers and once they're operating at speed, they're hard to stop/steer.
dfraser992 5y ago
"Drug Warriors and Their Prey" takes a look at the WoSD from another angle [0] Basically, the WoSD 'was' (still is?) a mechanism by which authoritarians could impose control on society by oppressing society's undesirables. Echos of the Nazis, engender a police state, control Black people, etc etc. But the WoSD hasn't gone so well, so it (as the main phenomena) was been supplanted by the War On Terrorism (cue the Patriot Act...) That has gotten a bit stale (but is still in effect?), so now it's ... Russians? Covid-19 and all the relevant restrictions? Or the GOP has decided to stop being indirect and now is going blatantly full out towards overt authoritarianism using The Big Lie as the mechanism? In some parallel universe, liberals are now being rounded up and put into FEMA re-education camps on President-For-Life Trump's orders because they tried to steal the election (and every future one as well). There is no one Single True Motivation to this sort of social phenomena - they are all different expressions of the sociopaths in charge's drives for power. [0] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Drug-Warriors-Their-Prey-Police/dp/0275950425 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Drug-Warriors-Their-Prey-Police/dp/...
- asoneth 5y ago
  WoSD = "War on Some Drugs". (Primarily used by drug legalization advocates, presumably to convey the arbitrary distinction between legal and illegal drugs.)
tempodox 5y ago
It also creates an unholy amount of bullshit jobs in law enforcement and the prison industry. Can't lose those voters.
cwkoss 5y ago
The historical goals of the "War on Drugs" have not been to make the USA safer (though proponents often claim that). The goal has been white supremacy, which is served by giving cops laws that they can enforce based on racial prejudice. Cannabis was made illegal because it was mostly used by Mexican immigrants. https://www.history.com/news/why-the-u-s-made-marijuana-illegal https://www.history.com/news/why-the-u-s-made-marijuana-ille... Crack was sentenced at a 10x higher rate than cocaine because black citizens disproportionately used crack, while white users disproportionally used cocaine.
- RookyNumbas 5y ago
  The crack vs. cocaine comparison is no good, we should stop using it. Free base is a very different drug than cocaine. An equivalent "white" version of crack would be crystal meth, which has had similar sentencing guidelines to crack.
  - cwkoss 5y ago
    I was under the impression that they are pharmacologically identical and main distinction is that crack can be smoked/vaporized and while cocaine is predominantly snorted. I would be surprised if the harms of smoked crack were worse than the harms of IV cocaine.
    - imrelaxed 5y ago
      Based on studies: Under 7% of cocaine abuse is IV. Self reported ratings of high, liking and stimulated are greater after smoking than after IV with similar plasma concentrations.
- imrelaxed 5y ago
  I am all for decriminalizing drug use but let’s not throw around false narratives. Here are the actual reasons for the “war on drugs” straight from the horses mouth: 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. With regards to the differing penalties for crack and cocaine, there are logical (though fundamentally misguided) reasons for it that have nothing to do with race as well. Crack cocaine is designed to be smokable, which makes it far more potent and addictive than regular cocaine . In addition, due to these properties, crack is significantly more correlated to other criminal behaviors than cocaine.
Aa9C4xPz43Gg7k6 5y ago
Policies should be judged by actual results not by stated goals. If it was politically profitable then it's a good enough reason.
dfxm12 5y ago
But, it has provided many with an excuse to pass restrictive laws, to win elections, to gain contracts with the government. Don't forget: prevent people from voting (https://www.aclu.org/blog/smart-justice/sentencing-reform/right-vote-another-victim-war-drugs https://www.aclu.org/blog/smart-justice/sentencing-reform/ri...), funnel people into for profit prisons (https://www.axios.com/war-drugs-prison-america-e66ffe61-c876-43e9-a954-f51bcfcc0b19.html https://www.axios.com/war-drugs-prison-america-e66ffe61-c876...), steal assets from citizens under the guise of civil asset forfeiture (https://drugpolicy.org/issues/asset-forfeiture-reform https://drugpolicy.org/issues/asset-forfeiture-reform), all while targeting minorities (https://drugpolicy.org/issues/race-and-drug-war https://drugpolicy.org/issues/race-and-drug-war). It's clear that this is very well calculated and understood.
ineptech 5y ago
A great deal of the credit/blame for the modern drug war goes to Harry Anslinger[0]. Imagine being the nation's top enforcer of Prohibition - what do you do when it's repealed? Just close up shop, fire everyone, and turn the lights off before you lock the door? This is a somewhat partisan issue and I'm far from unbiased, but reading his wiki page will convey most of the story better than a screed. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger
NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
>But, it has provided many with an excuse to pass restrictive laws, to win elections, to gain contracts with the government. And militarize the police.
K0balt 5y ago
OTOH, the war on drugs has made an incredibly powerful covert foreign policy tool, in terms of being able to arbitrarily restrict or provide funding, as well as using martial force to control the right to manufacture and distribute illicit substances. None of this would work unless drugs were incredibly profitable… and they aren’t incredibly profitable without strongly enforced artificial scarcity. Simply by turning a blind eye to one group and continuing aggressive enforcement against another the USA can tilt the political balance of power in many smaller nations. When you create a default state of War against most of the world, selective peace becomes your most powerful weapon. Destruction is so much cheaper than building value, it creates a wildly disproportionate incentive to cooperate.
ridgeguy 5y ago
A good read on the genesis of the American War on Drugs is the book "Chasing the Scream", by Johann Hari.
ttonkytonk 5y ago
I don't believe it's helpful to demonize the people behind this (or anybody for that matter. They may not have minded the side benefits, but it's reasonable to believe they had a genuine public health concern.

MuffinFlavored 5y ago

> a national group that advocates for total drug decriminalization. Will this ever be achieved in the US in the next... 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years?

sokoloff 5y ago
I tend to expect a federal decriminalization of marijuana in the next 10 years. I doubt we'll see a decriminalization of crystal meth in the next 50 years.
- MuffinFlavored 5y ago
  What drug would be next to target on the list of "good candidates for decriminalization" after marijuana?
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    I don't know enough to judge and I would hope that we'd look to the science, medicine, and what other countries have done with success to make that determination. Psilocybin is the first possible candidate that comes to my mind, but I'd rather have us use a sound framework of harm-minimization than to favor/disfavor any particular drug.
  - bosswipe 5y ago
    Psychedelics are probably next. Already there is some movement, Oakland and Denver have decriminalized magic mushrooms.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      Also the entire state of Oregon has both decriminalized, and has approved and is setting a legal medical infra just like with marijuana.
  - cwkoss 5y ago
    In order of ascending net harm to individual and society: Mushrooms, buprenorphine, LSD, Ecstasy, Steroids, Khat https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/what-does-science-tell-us-about-the-relative-dangers-of-drugs-alcohol-is-by-far-the-no-1-most-dangerous-drug/ https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/what-does-science-tell-us-abo... Personally, I think a great amount of harm reduction could be achieved by legalizing at least one recreational drug in every class, determined by which has least relative harm to the user. If there was a clean, legal and affordable option, I believe demand for the more-harmful drugs in the class would be significantly reduced. i.e. "stimulant" demand is somewhat elastic, and by making the least harmful stimulant (not sure if that is Khat or not) easily available, demand for Meth would be significantly reduced and market effects would make its availability much less widespread
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- kragen 5y ago
  Crystal meth was discovered in 01893; it has been legally available by prescription in the US since at least the 01950s. I don't think it's ever been entirely illegal like marijuana. Nowadays its main legal use is for obesity treatment under the name Desoxyn.

bgroins 5y ago

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.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
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.
- nuclearnice1 5y ago
  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.”
- uberdru 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    Isn't that exactly how you'd expect racists to act?

dlsa 5y ago

Personally I think it had more to do with corruption than anything. The CIA was happy to profit off it. The anti-drug people loved it, particularly those who were against cannabis. anyone who hated hippies. Anyone working against the antiwar movements. Those against hemp were happy. That's a lot of money just there. Politicians could use it to demonstrate a hard line stance against crime. Or just use it to target particular groups. Then theres the people lobbying for anti-drug laws to expand the prison population. Lawyers and respective district attorneys that were happy as well. The drug war was basically a felony printer as well. This made all sorts of social problems including unemployment / housing even more problematic. It tore apart families and still does. Meanwhile other legal drugs (opioids in general) flourished. Then there's the overdoses / poisonings because the source and distribution networks are utterly motivated to mess with the supply. The truly stupid aspect is that drug use has not significantly decreased. The whole "war" aspect was a complete failure. So it wasn't a good investment anyway. So many parallels with prohibition. Government poisoned that supply as well and killed thousands. Just say no. Indeed.

livueta 5y ago
Indeed, "bootleggers and baptists"[1] very much didn't go away with the end of prohibition. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists

snomad 5y ago

If you haven't heard of him before, you may want to read up on Harry J. Anslinger[0]. Joe Rogan also has a really in depth episode on him. He was deputy commissioner of the federal department that oversaw prohibition. when that ended, he went on to narcotics enforcement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger

jimbob45 5y ago

>The "War on Drugs" have failed to make USA safer, healthier or any other positive metric. Speak for yourself. My methhead sister-in-law is in prison and I certainly feel safer. Addicts cannot be trusted and bring families down. People raised away from addicts (read: white liberals) don’t understand how destructive they can be to a community.

ericbarrett 5y ago
People destroy their lives with alcohol just the same. Should we abolish liquor again? (I have meth-addled family too btw)
- jimbob45 5y ago
  I would argue that we (assuming you're US, like me) largely already have with the liquor ban until 21. However, no, I don't agree that alcohol is "just the same". People rarely commit robbery and murder to get another hit of alcohol. Conversely, many drug addicts are unable to stop themselves from taking desperate measures to get their next hit when it is not easily accessible.
  - whydoibother 5y ago
    >People rarely commit robbery and murder to get another hit of alcohol. Weird. Almost like making it legal, relatively cheap, and easily accessible makes it so you don't have to resort to desperate means.
    - passivate 5y ago
      > Almost like making it legal, relatively cheap, and easily accessible makes it so you don't have to resort to desperate means. I think the question of legality muddles the argument. Its illegal to drive under the influence yet many do and some end up in horrific accidents. We're stewards of the next generation. We're their parents, teachers, role models. Our aim should be to reduce the use of crystal meth, and other drugs that cause self-harm. No different than promoting exercise, knowledge, healthy lifestyles, etc. Making something illegal is a powerful disincentive - but we don't expect it to work 100% perfectly. Its important to recognize when something isn't working - but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Government policies are like supertankers and once they're operating at speed, they're hard to stop/steer.

dfraser992 5y ago

"Drug Warriors and Their Prey" takes a look at the WoSD from another angle [0] Basically, the WoSD 'was' (still is?) a mechanism by which authoritarians could impose control on society by oppressing society's undesirables. Echos of the Nazis, engender a police state, control Black people, etc etc. But the WoSD hasn't gone so well, so it (as the main phenomena) was been supplanted by the War On Terrorism (cue the Patriot Act...) That has gotten a bit stale (but is still in effect?), so now it's ... Russians? Covid-19 and all the relevant restrictions? Or the GOP has decided to stop being indirect and now is going blatantly full out towards overt authoritarianism using The Big Lie as the mechanism? In some parallel universe, liberals are now being rounded up and put into FEMA re-education camps on President-For-Life Trump's orders because they tried to steal the election (and every future one as well). There is no one Single True Motivation to this sort of social phenomena - they are all different expressions of the sociopaths in charge's drives for power. [0] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Drug-Warriors-Their-Prey-Police/dp/0275950425 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Drug-Warriors-Their-Prey-Police/dp/...

asoneth 5y ago
WoSD = "War on Some Drugs". (Primarily used by drug legalization advocates, presumably to convey the arbitrary distinction between legal and illegal drugs.)

tempodox 5y ago

It also creates an unholy amount of bullshit jobs in law enforcement and the prison industry. Can't lose those voters.

cwkoss 5y ago

The historical goals of the "War on Drugs" have not been to make the USA safer (though proponents often claim that). The goal has been white supremacy, which is served by giving cops laws that they can enforce based on racial prejudice. Cannabis was made illegal because it was mostly used by Mexican immigrants. https://www.history.com/news/why-the-u-s-made-marijuana-illegal https://www.history.com/news/why-the-u-s-made-marijuana-ille... Crack was sentenced at a 10x higher rate than cocaine because black citizens disproportionately used crack, while white users disproportionally used cocaine.

RookyNumbas 5y ago
The crack vs. cocaine comparison is no good, we should stop using it. Free base is a very different drug than cocaine. An equivalent "white" version of crack would be crystal meth, which has had similar sentencing guidelines to crack.
- cwkoss 5y ago
  I was under the impression that they are pharmacologically identical and main distinction is that crack can be smoked/vaporized and while cocaine is predominantly snorted. I would be surprised if the harms of smoked crack were worse than the harms of IV cocaine.
  - imrelaxed 5y ago
    Based on studies: Under 7% of cocaine abuse is IV. Self reported ratings of high, liking and stimulated are greater after smoking than after IV with similar plasma concentrations.
imrelaxed 5y ago
I am all for decriminalizing drug use but let’s not throw around false narratives. Here are the actual reasons for the “war on drugs” straight from the horses mouth: 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. With regards to the differing penalties for crack and cocaine, there are logical (though fundamentally misguided) reasons for it that have nothing to do with race as well. Crack cocaine is designed to be smokable, which makes it far more potent and addictive than regular cocaine . In addition, due to these properties, crack is significantly more correlated to other criminal behaviors than cocaine.

Aa9C4xPz43Gg7k6 5y ago

Policies should be judged by actual results not by stated goals. If it was politically profitable then it's a good enough reason.

dfxm12 5y ago

But, it has provided many with an excuse to pass restrictive laws, to win elections, to gain contracts with the government. Don't forget: prevent people from voting (https://www.aclu.org/blog/smart-justice/sentencing-reform/right-vote-another-victim-war-drugs https://www.aclu.org/blog/smart-justice/sentencing-reform/ri...), funnel people into for profit prisons (https://www.axios.com/war-drugs-prison-america-e66ffe61-c876-43e9-a954-f51bcfcc0b19.html https://www.axios.com/war-drugs-prison-america-e66ffe61-c876...), steal assets from citizens under the guise of civil asset forfeiture (https://drugpolicy.org/issues/asset-forfeiture-reform https://drugpolicy.org/issues/asset-forfeiture-reform), all while targeting minorities (https://drugpolicy.org/issues/race-and-drug-war https://drugpolicy.org/issues/race-and-drug-war). It's clear that this is very well calculated and understood.

ineptech 5y ago

A great deal of the credit/blame for the modern drug war goes to Harry Anslinger[0]. Imagine being the nation's top enforcer of Prohibition - what do you do when it's repealed? Just close up shop, fire everyone, and turn the lights off before you lock the door? This is a somewhat partisan issue and I'm far from unbiased, but reading his wiki page will convey most of the story better than a screed. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger

NaturalPhallacy 5y ago

>But, it has provided many with an excuse to pass restrictive laws, to win elections, to gain contracts with the government. And militarize the police.

K0balt 5y ago

OTOH, the war on drugs has made an incredibly powerful covert foreign policy tool, in terms of being able to arbitrarily restrict or provide funding, as well as using martial force to control the right to manufacture and distribute illicit substances. None of this would work unless drugs were incredibly profitable… and they aren’t incredibly profitable without strongly enforced artificial scarcity. Simply by turning a blind eye to one group and continuing aggressive enforcement against another the USA can tilt the political balance of power in many smaller nations. When you create a default state of War against most of the world, selective peace becomes your most powerful weapon. Destruction is so much cheaper than building value, it creates a wildly disproportionate incentive to cooperate.

ridgeguy 5y ago

A good read on the genesis of the American War on Drugs is the book "Chasing the Scream", by Johann Hari.

ttonkytonk 5y ago

I don't believe it's helpful to demonize the people behind this (or anybody for that matter. They may not have minded the side benefits, but it's reasonable to believe they had a genuine public health concern.