The Roots Of The Drug War: Going After Black People And The Anti-War Movement
Dan Baum, who was writing a book on the politics of drug prohibition, writes at Harpers of his interview with disgraced Nixon aide John Ehrlichman and Erlichman's words on the drug war:
"You want to know what this was really all about?" he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. "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."
The government has no right to tell you what plants or powders you can and cannot put in your body.
Also, from Baum's piece:
What exactly is our drug problem? It isn't simply drug use. Lots of Americans drink, but relatively few become alcoholics. It's hard to imagine people enjoying a little heroin now and then, or a hit of methamphetamine, without going off the deep end, but they do it all the time. The government's own data, from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, shatters the myth of "instantly addictive" drugs. Although about half of all Americans older than twelve have tried an illegal drug, only 20 percent of those have used one in the past month. In the majority of those monthly-use cases, the drug was cannabis. Only tiny percentages of people who have sampled one of the Big Four -- heroin, cocaine, crack, and methamphetamine -- have used that drug in the past month. (For heroin, the number is 8 percent; for cocaine, 4 percent; for crack, 3 percent; for meth, 4 percent.) It isn't even clear that using a drug once a month amounts to having a drug problem. The portion of lifetime alcohol drinkers who become alcoholics is about 8 percent, and we don't think of someone who drinks alcohol monthly as an alcoholic.
And what has happened in Portugal with decriminalization?
So consider Portugal, which in 2001 took the radical step of decriminalizing not only pot but cocaine, heroin, and the rest of the drug spectrum. Decriminalization in Portugal means that the drugs remain technically prohibited -- selling them is a major crime -- but the purchase, use, and possession of up to ten days' supply are administrative offenses.No other country has gone so far, and the results have been astounding. The expected wave of drug tourists never materialized. Teenage use went up shortly before and after decriminalization, but then it settled down, perhaps as the novelty wore off. (Teenagers -- particularly eighth graders -- are considered harbingers of future societal drug use.)
The lifetime prevalence of adult drug use in Portugal rose slightly, but problem drug use -- that is, habitual use of hard drugs -- declined after Portugal decriminalized, from 7.6 to 6.8 per 1,000 people. Compare that with nearby Italy, which didn't decriminalize, where the rates rose from 6.0 to 8.6 per 1,000 people over the same time span.
Because addicts can now legally obtain sterile syringes in Portugal, decriminalization seems to have cut radically the number of addicts infected with H.I.V., from 907 in 2000 to 267 in 2008, while cases of full-blown AIDS among addicts fell from 506 to 108 during the same period.
The new Portuguese law has also had a striking effect on the size of the country's prison population. The number of inmates serving time for drug offenses fell by more than half, and today they make up only 21 percent of those incarcerated. A similar reduction in the United States would free 260,000 people -- the equivalent of letting the entire population of Buffalo out of jail.
When applying the lessons of Portugal to the United States, it's important to note that the Portuguese didn't just throw open access to dangerous drugs without planning for people who couldn't handle them. Portugal poured money into drug treatment, expanding the number of addicts served by more than 50 percent. It established Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction, each of which is composed of three people -- often a doctor, a social worker, and an attorney -- who are authorized to refer a drug user to treatment and in some cases impose a relatively small fine.
Nor did Portugal's decriminalization experiment happen in a vacuum. The country has been increasing its spending on social services since the 1970s, and even instituted a guaranteed minimum income in the late 1990s. The rapid expansion of the welfare state may have contributed to Portugal's well-publicized economic troubles, but it can probably also share credit for the drop in problem drug use.
For more on this subject, science journalist Maia Szalavitz has an excellent book about to be published, The Unbroken Brain, arguing that addictions are learning disorders. It's smart and it's very moving -- she chronicles her own struggle with addiction.
I've read it and will have her on my podcast (just as soon as I dig out from finishing a particularly hard chapter for my next book and editing a researcher's book on rush -- probably in mid-April).
via Lenona
Amy writes: The government has no right to tell you what plants or powders you can and cannot put in your body.
Yes, they do, if such plants or powders cause you to present a danger to surrounding citizens.
Patrick at March 28, 2016 6:23 AM
Trust some lefty journalist to try and blame this on Nixon.
The truth is, the drug war had its origins much earlier. They really got going in the 1920s as the drug war was hand in glove with the temperance movement.
You know Absinthe still can't be sold in the US? Although it isn't illegal to possess.
Isab at March 28, 2016 6:54 AM
Time to move on from "who" is to blame and simply recognize that we need to "tweak" things using 20/20 hindsight on what (if anything) is working, what is not working (a lot), what other countries are doing or have done, and simply try something.
Dems/Repubs don't want to do this. (So disappointed in Obama. It's like they get elected and someone sits them down and tells them "Look, this is the deal ...").
Good article Lenona.
Bob in Texas at March 28, 2016 7:20 AM
"Nor did Portugal's decriminalization experiment happen in a vacuum. The country has been increasing its spending on social services since the 1970s, and even instituted a guaranteed minimum income in the late 1990s. The rapid expansion of the welfare state may have contributed to Portugal's well-publicized economic troubles, but it can probably also share credit for the drop in problem drug use."
So you are in favor of comprehensive socialism now, if it curtails drug use?
Be wary of socialist countries touting the *statitistical* success of their government policies. Would you really expect them to publicize utter failures or do you expect them to massage the data to show what they want it to show?
I know which explanation I lean towards.
As someone basically in favor of decriminalization who thinks a massive rewrite of laws will become necessary in the near future with self driving cars: Studies of this sort are a red herring.
The true danger of unregulated drug use is the fact that for a large portion of the underclass, the taxpayers are basically subsidizing a really irresponsible life style.
A lifestyle I might add, that if adopted by enough people, will eventually lead to most of the country looking like Detroit.
Isab at March 28, 2016 7:23 AM
So I was reading something recently, I think it was in The Atlantic, about Nelson Rockefeller and the beginnings of the drug war in New York in the 1960s. One of the things the article points out is that, at the time, most of the black community leaders were all in favor of cracking down on drug use; they were seeing what it was doing to the youth in their communities and they were horrified. (It was a different time, back when integration and assimilation were still considered desirable things to pursue.) They saw it as a civil rights issue: the right to live in a peaceful neighborhood free of the crime and decay associated with drug users and pushers. So they supported Rockefeller's pushing through legislation that established punitive penalties for drug use in New York. It was only later, when a younger and more radical generation had pushed the 1950s civil rights crusaders out, that it became seen as a racist issue. I have no trouble dismissing Erlichman's words as just more self-aggrandizement from an egomaniac; it's not the first time he's been to that rodeo, and it's just a continuation of the behavior patterns he exhibited as a Nixon aide. (Among other things, if Nixon really had concentrated on a "Southern strategy" like Erlichman hints at in 1968, he might have lost because George Wallace took that audience away from him.)
Anyway... that's not doing a lot of good right at the moment. The question now is: how do we back away from the edge of the cliff? There are an awful lot of people and resources invested in the War on Drugs. And like any battle plan, once the logistics get rolling and it gains momentum, it's awfully hard to stop. Here's an interesting thought experiment: what if the "enemy" in the War on Drugs surrendered today? What if all of the drug dealers and organized crime put out white flags today and said, "OK, we give up, you win"? How long would it take to shut down the whole War on Drugs apparatus? Or would it just turn its focus to something else? Possibly something with even less legitimacy?
Cousin Dave at March 28, 2016 7:53 AM
Sure, the "Keep Darky Down" movement was strong in those days. But there could be another angle to this.
In December 1970 Elvis drove up to the gates of the White House. He was trying to get a DEA badge for his collection. He met with Nixon and handed him a commemorative .45 Colt 1911 he'd brought with him. He pledged his support for the fight against drugs and remarked on what he had seen in Hollywood.
Nixon was a political animal, and with Elvis on your side, what could go wrong? Six months later he rolled out his War on Drugs.
Buzzfeed has the whole thing here:
//www.buzzfeed.com/briangalindo/the-bizarre-story-behind-the-time-elvis-met-nixon#.xbL57Ppyp
Canvasback at March 28, 2016 8:36 AM
Sure, the "Keep Darky Down" movement was strong in those days. But there could be another angle to this.
In December 1970 Elvis drove up to the gates of the White House. He was trying to get a DEA badge for his collection. He met with Nixon and handed him a commemorative .45 Colt 1911 he'd brought with him. He pledged his support for the fight against drugs and remarked on what he had seen in Hollywood.
Nixon was a political animal, and with Elvis on your side, what could go wrong? Six months later he rolled out his War on Drugs.
Buzzfeed has the whole thing here:
//www.buzzfeed.com/briangalindo/the-bizarre-story-behind-the-time-elvis-met-nixon#.xbL57Ppyp
Canvasback at March 28, 2016 8:37 AM
Sure, the "Keep Darky Down" movement was strong in those days. But there could be another angle to this.
In December 1970 Elvis drove up to the gates of the White House. He was trying to get a DEA badge for his collection. He met with Nixon and handed him a commemorative .45 Colt 1911 he'd brought with him. He pledged his support for the fight against drugs and remarked on what he had seen in Hollywood.
Nixon was a political animal, and with Elvis on your side, what could go wrong? Six months later he rolled out his War on Drugs.
Buzzfeed has the whole thing here:
//www.buzzfeed.com/briangalindo/the-bizarre-story-behind-the-time-elvis-met-nixon#.xbL57Ppyp
Canvasback at March 28, 2016 8:37 AM
Sorry, it sai it timed out.
Canvasback at March 28, 2016 8:42 AM
This cannot be real.
FFS, Ehrlichman? In 2016? You've had this in the files all these years, but haven't had the context to publish?
No.
Other commenters have noted that calling everything "racist" is a pattern from those who don't actually have intimacies with other kinds of people... As if, to steel themselves for a world full reel meenies, they want to imagine the worst thing they most possibly can, and then fight a battle with their own imagination.
No.
That quote is far too pungent to have sat in someone's file cabinet for two decades.
Crid at March 28, 2016 8:49 AM
Crid just put it more succulently than I did: "Erlichman? In 2016? Seriously? What's next, bell bottoms?"
Cousin Dave at March 28, 2016 8:57 AM
This cannot be real.
FFS, Ehrlichman? In 2016? You've had this in the files all these years, but haven't had the context to publish?
No.
Other commenters have noted that calling everything "racist" is a pattern from those who don't actually have intimacies with other kinds of people... As if, to steel themselves for a world full reel meenies, they want to imagine the worst thing they most possibly can, and then fight a battle with their own imagination.
No.
That quote is far too pungent to have sat in someone's file cabinet for two decades.
Crid at March 28, 2016 9:01 AM
"The rapid expansion of the welfare state may have contributed to Portugal's well-publicized economic troubles, but it can probably also share credit for the drop in problem drug use."
I would love to see some evidence for this. If anything I would expect the opposite. Without social support heavy drug use tends to kill the user.
Ben at March 28, 2016 9:04 AM
Be careful asking for "evidence" from any government. It might be easier to make you disappear than it is to protect the "evidence".
Just kidding. I mean just look at the Clinton's history - a lot of suicides, unexplained deaths, and so on. I'm sure the fact that they are acknowledged to have a "Clinton" machine and now a "Foundation" has nothing to do with their long long long history of "stuff".
Dare you to wear a "Che was a monster" T-shirt in Cuba and actually make your return flight.
Bob in Texas at March 28, 2016 12:45 PM
I was asking Dan Baum.
It is a throwaway line with no basis other than Mr. Baum's religion. Same as claiming poverty causes criminality. Women are underpaid. Yada yada yada.
As for fighting some governments, try taking pro-North Korean propaganda from North Korea. Torture and death are the high points.
Ben at March 28, 2016 2:00 PM
Legalizing drugs would take the illegality premium out of the production, thus defunding cartels, whole governments, corrupt police departments and all manner of constituents who could be counted upon to object.
Richard Aubrey at March 28, 2016 2:29 PM
Patrick, cite on the dangers of drug users? Or is this an Emory-style fear?
phunctor at March 28, 2016 6:17 PM
Richard,
Portugal didn't legalize. They decriminalized possession of small amounts. It is still illegal to sell or produce.
Ben at March 28, 2016 7:15 PM
"Patrick, cite on the dangers of drug users?"
This should be obvious!
Government does indeed have the power to tell you what you can and cannot ingest.
Alcohol, or any other drug which impairs you, makes you a valid threat to the public if you are out and about, and so government has been given the power to arrest and confine you for having done so.
Amy's statement, "The government has no right to tell you what plants or powders you can and cannot put in your body" is an absolute, and as many such is incorrect, even if you ignore that governments have powers, not rights.
Radwaste at March 28, 2016 10:50 PM
Ben; I know. I was referring to complete legalizing. In Portugal, the illegality premium remains. Drugs hurt the user, who can be said to have volunteered. The illegality premium funds that which hurts the rest of us, who haven't volunteered.
Richard Aubrey at March 29, 2016 5:25 AM
"Trust some lefty journalist to try and blame this on Nixon."
EXACTLY, Isab.
Blaming Nixon for continuing the drug war is like blaming Nixon for continuing the Vietnam police action.
It was there when he go took office! How do you blame a man for not ending an atrocity he didn't create?!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at March 29, 2016 6:10 PM
I think more significant is the continuing effort to blame the war on drugs on Nixon, Gog. Nixon was out in 74. That's 40 years ago! We're supposed to keep getting worked up of this? At the same time Benghazi happened in 2012 only 4 years ago and as Hillary famously said "What difference at this point does it make?"
Ben at March 30, 2016 6:50 AM
Leave a comment