3 ms·

You are right, of course. Some simple research would have enlightened me. Appreciate the detailed response. I think my memory is being influenced by what I r

You are right, of course. Some simple research would have enlightened me. Appreciate the detailed response. I think my memory is being influenced by what I remember vs. what I read in history class. Reagan did say "We’re taking down the surrender flag that has flown over so many drug efforts; we’re running up a battle flag", and he did increase funding (including a big jump in the late 80s). Still, it's clearly not accurate to state he started the war (although I think he helped/supported/funding the militarization of that issue). Please consider my incorrect view of history to be amended.

hga 13y ago
Well, in the '70s the Democrats were perceived as weak on drugs, the party of "acid, amnesty and abortion" circa McGovern's run in 1972. And the Supreme Court delivered on abortion in 1973's Roe v. Wade, and Carter on amnesty for Vietnam era draft dodgers on his first day in office in 1977. But I don't remember any president in my politically aware lifetime really being "weak" on drugs (any more than they were weak on crime, that is). And by the same token, opposition to the War On Drugs is not particularly ideological, it's a requirement for libertarians, lots of notable conservatives including William F. Buckley have opposed it ... overall it's a colossal mess. Although I'm entirely uncertain a complete reversal would be better for anything but civil rights, especially since efforts in that direction in other First World countries have not worked well to my knowledge. And there are worrying studies that indicate marijuana might kindle schizophrenia, which we as a society no longer handle well at all. Me, I said prior to all we've learned in the last few months that make it look like a sideshow, that we could have a free society or a war on drugs, pick one. This made no impression on parents I've discussed it with, they are terrified their kids will be harmed by them.

hga 13y ago

Well, in the '70s the Democrats were perceived as weak on drugs, the party of "acid, amnesty and abortion" circa McGovern's run in 1972. And the Supreme Court delivered on abortion in 1973's Roe v. Wade, and Carter on amnesty for Vietnam era draft dodgers on his first day in office in 1977. But I don't remember any president in my politically aware lifetime really being "weak" on drugs (any more than they were weak on crime, that is). And by the same token, opposition to the War On Drugs is not particularly ideological, it's a requirement for libertarians, lots of notable conservatives including William F. Buckley have opposed it ... overall it's a colossal mess. Although I'm entirely uncertain a complete reversal would be better for anything but civil rights, especially since efforts in that direction in other First World countries have not worked well to my knowledge. And there are worrying studies that indicate marijuana might kindle schizophrenia, which we as a society no longer handle well at all. Me, I said prior to all we've learned in the last few months that make it look like a sideshow, that we could have a free society or a war on drugs, pick one. This made no impression on parents I've discussed it with, they are terrified their kids will be harmed by them.