Nixon Aide Admitted the 'War on Drugs' Was Designed to Screw Over Blacks and Hippies

There was a renewed push in the war on drugs right after Basketball star Len Bias died right around 1990. Crack coc aine was implicated in his death due to a heart condition. I had an editorial published in our local paper titled: The war on drugs is a war on Blacks, because crack was really only a problem in inner cities. I listed the effects of increased arrests and convictions: More broken families and single-parent homes, higher unemployment due to criminal records, decline in economic conditions for blacks and how the stress would hurt their children academically.

Here we are 26 years later and what I said has come to pass. There was nothing psychic about my predictions, they were the only logical outcomes of the increased arrests and convictions on the Black community. Crack coc aine was documented as a CIA operation to both: fund government black budget activities and destroy the inner cities. Some will say Bill Clinton was elected due to his cooperation by covering up the Mena airport connection where drugs were flown in to the country. A string of deaths in Arkansas were linked to Mena. Don't forget Hillary was riding on the coattails of this man.

Similar can be said of a small airport in Florida where Jeb Bush was governor, Huffman aviation would later be implicated in the 9/11 attacks and their records would be seized and destroyed by Bush before the FBI could get to them. The list goes on and on but the war on drugs had nothing to do with protecting the public and everything to do with tens of millions of dollars and destroying the communities of urban Blacks.

a reply to: cuckooold

And I thought my professor was crazy and biased, she may be right. We're actually studying this now based off the book "The new Jim crow".

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Seems like the highest ranking public servants do have a thing against their constituents, or if they don't, they certainly imagine their career as more important than justice.

What would be the best reaction according to you?

We were told at the time that Nixon was afraid of marijuana. He blamed it for the protests against the war. What was wrong with us not wanting to stay in Nam /s. Now we are in our 60's. Except for the 55,000 that died over there.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Seems like the highest ranking public servants do have a thing against their constituents, or if they don't, they certainly imagine their career as more important than justice.

What would be the best reaction according to you?

Decriminalizing drugs, even hard drugs. Switzerland has clinics where junkies can get a fix and transition from in to treatment. No dirty needles, no overdoses and help transitioning back in to society. In places where marijuana is legal the use of hard drugs goes down. Treat addicts as a medical problem, not a criminal problem. Half the inmates in Federal prisons are there because of drug convictions. It would also cut recidivism as people who use would not be stigmatized by employers for their criminal record.

It also removes the profits to be made by gangs and the violence that is spawned from competition. If Black lives really mattered to our leaders this step alone would cut murder rates easily in half.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Thanks for your response

I too think the war on drugs should end yesterday.

I don't know much about heroin.

Personal anecdote: having been incarcerated and tortured after a marijuana raid on my CA home in 2012 without a trial, while in possession of my physician's script for the ten marijuana plants who were growing in my wholly owned secluded acres of garden which included pistachio, apple, peach, strawberry, vine which were also destroyed [sic], I know this:

It would indeed cut murder rates.

And so does legal procedure: I'm still prohibited from entering the USA now and am considered a fugitive, although the case did eventually make it to court where no charges stuck.
I have proof of this through their own files named FBI /462383TD8 and SBSD #071205233 & #071205422, medical license #315258113

These "law enforcement" are the gangs: they fly the drugs in, and when they don't have control of the drug pyramid they do shoot.

Not a pleasant experience but at least I know it's not just the Nixon administration.

a reply to: MOMof3

Yes. And it's not that anti-war demonstrators/protesters were "Communist sympathizers". We saw it as another useless war fought using poor, minorities, and young as "cannon fodder", while those with connections and money could get into the National Guard (like George W. Bush). I had a relative who quit the military in 1963 (a higher ranking officer) over the corruption he saw even back then.

Nixon was paranoid about many things. Those around him compiled his "Enemies List". He definitely could start a "war" to "screw over blacks and hippies", some of his "enemies", groups he didn't like.

Hofstadter coined a witty phrase for this kind of behavior: “Imitation of the Enemy.” This is the key to understanding Nixon. Before Nixon victimized others, he convinced himself that they were victimizing him. By telling himself that he was acting in self-defense, Nixon could go from condemning the idea that the end justifies the means to embracing it in a matter of moments: “We’re up against an enemy. A conspiracy. They’re using any means. We are going to use any means. Is that clear? Did they get the Brookings Institute [sic] raided last night? No. Get it done. I want it done. I want the Brookings Institute safe cleaned out.” 35

A Rough Guide to Richard Nixon’s Conspiracy Theories


ETA a reply to: Asktheanimals

I don't think back then, that the underground "drug" economy was as big a part of the general economy as it later would become under Reagan. IMO the great infusion of coc aine in the 1980s would help take the edge off the anti-inflation efforts of the Reagan administration. There was a lot of money to be made and spread around in the 1980s by the lower and middle classes.

originally posted by: desert
I don't think back then, that the underground "drug" economy was as big a part of the general economy as it later would become under Reagan. IMO the great infusion of coc aine in the 1980s would help take the edge off the anti-inflation efforts of the Reagan administration. There was a lot of money to be made and spread around in the 1980s by the lower and middle classes.

Just a little personal observations from those times..... there were people from the urban areas of the state coming in to the community with cash, buying up houses and apartment buildings and commercial property. People were paying cash for BMWs (I'm sure that's how BMW became a popular car and built up many new dealerships lol). We're talking the equivalent of today's dollars, hundreds of thousands for property and tens of thousands for BMWs. Cash.

It was at that time, because of this flow of large sums of cash, that the fed govt wanted to fight back against drug dealers, so they made mandatory reporting of any financial transaction involving $10,000 cash (such as paying for property or cars). I knew a young couple who had saved over $10,000 to help buy their first house; but, because of their culture, they had saved it at home, not a bank. When they went to the bank with all their cash, to get a loan for the rest of the price, the bank accused them of being drug dealers. Sad but true. At first they were horrified, then they just laughed it off.

I remember VCRs were just coming out then, were extremely popular, but expensive. If you were working poor but wanted to buy the latest gadget that the middle class sought, all you had to do was sell a little bit and you had the money to buy a popular item that the regular economy denied you.

And another thing with the "war on drugs", it seemed to me that Nancy Reagan's "Just say no" campaign didn't start up until the coc aine epidemic hit the white middle class. It was one thing to have drugs destroy poor, inner city areas, but quite another when a white, middle class suburban housewife or lawyer became addicted or an abuser.

a reply to: wisvol

In the vernacular of a heroin addict,"having a habit" is slang for being addicted. Either way, imbibing in Thai Stick isn't habit forming. I like the analogy with Dooku and the Trade Federation though. It's pretty accurate.

It's not surprising,considering the kind of guys Old Tricky Dick had as advisors.It's a tactic as old as the hills.Only now there's multiple targets to choose from.

a reply to: cuckooold

S+F for you! The truth is however that this started long before Nixon. Marijuana was originally criminalized as a move to oppress Mexican migrant workers who used it. Obviously there is much more to all of it but it's interesting to point out none the less. These people are very adept at controlling and shifting the narrative to serve their own agendas and goals. Hell, look at Nixon's southern strategy that essentially caused a huge political realignment in the USA. Somehow they were able to get together board room Republicans that really only cared about profit, evangelicals that cared about things like abortion, southern segregationists and the pro gun lobby. Those things have absolutely nothing to do with each other! But somehow they pulled it off. I believe it was LBJ who exclaimed something like "We have just handed the South to the Republicans" in response to civil rights legislation.

I find it funny that blacks have been saying this all along but NO ONE wants to help or is concerned with our issue but when someone else says it THEN it becomes a problem. Bottom line is, even though this issue has been mentioned in this forum and many others, nothing will be done because fixing this issue will lead into fixing many others issues in urban-black communities. Therefore, nothing will get done. May the slaying on us continue!

a reply to: cuckooold

Would it surprise you to learn that the War on Drugs had it's origins in neutralising the enemies of the Nixon administration?

How is that ?

The 'war' on drugs have been waged a very long time.

Starting in 1880 on Opium.

During the Nixon era, for the only time in the history of the war on drugs, the majority of funding goes towards treatment, rather than law enforcement.[10]

Well that was interesting.

en.wikipedia.org...

This too.

1988: Near the end of the Reagan administration, the Office of National Drug Control Policy was created for central coordination of drug-related legislative, security, diplomatic, research and health policy throughout the government. In recognition of his central role, the director of ONDCP is commonly known as the Drug Czar. The position was raised to cabinet-level status by Bill Clinton in 1993.

originally posted by: soulsurvivor444
I find it funny that blacks have been saying this all along but NO ONE wants to help or is concerned with our issue but when someone else says it THEN it becomes a problem. Bottom line is, even though this issue has been mentioned in this forum and many others, nothing will be done because fixing this issue will lead into fixing many others issues in urban-black communities. Therefore, nothing will get done. May the slaying on us continue!

I'd like to pose a question to you. My question comes from honest observation and life experience. I have, over the years, lives in many low income, inner city communities, where I was in the minority as a white male. There is obviously alot of drugs, violence and prostitution. These things are endemic to poverty. May I ask however; what drives the poor on poor violence or more specifically black on black violence? Is it purely economic? What is fracturing these communities to this extent? Why are the homes falling apart? Surely the landlord's hold much of the blame here but rarely have I seen the residents try to take it into their own hands? Is it because of the crumbling infrastructure that surrounds these communities? Poor educational opportunities and crime rates? A product of all of the above? I am very curious as to the core sociological cause to all of this. I often hear about "thug" culture. And yes it is annoying when I see it. I know what it is as I've lived it. The question is however is this phenomena a function of poverty and unemployment or is there something bigger and more sinister at play in all of this? Things like a controlled drug trade for instance?

I'm very interested to hear your views on this, primarily from an academic standpoint.

Even if the Nixon aid didn't say anything we already knew this anyway

Jump to Ronald Reagan with the AIDS epidemic of the 80's. The disease mostly spread through promiscuous gay men and drug addicts who share needles. See, it's no wonder Ronnie was very silent on the issue. He probably thought like many other righties and fundies that it was "God's wrath".

a reply to: rupertg

Well in fairness, IRCC, Ronnie was part of the same overarching church as the illustrious Jim Jones and his wife apparently built his schedule around astrology. That is after the assination attempt.

originally posted by: MOMof3
What was wrong with us not wanting to stay in Nam /s.

That would be the lost profits. Lyndon Johnson can't have his friends walking around in rags, can he?

The war on drugs was the second lost war of the US society. The first was the war on poverty that they lost also.

The war on drugs served the purpose of not only incarcerating thousands of minorities and actually assisting in making poverty thrive in America, but it also was the first part of the war on freedom in that it led to the government being able to monitor everyone’s wealth through for example the 10,000 dollar reporting obligation to the IRS. This all don’t in the name of stopping drug lords wealth.

All of these fake “war” on periods have all led to the diminishing of our rights

The final one, the war on terrorism, will likely lead to the total end of our rights.

So we can say all these wars have been a war on American rights

BTW the war on drugs was also started (imo) because too many drug dealers were accumulating too much wealth...so much that they would soon affect the economy

a reply to: cuckooold

Would it surprise you to learn that the War on Drugs had it's origins in neutralising the enemies of the Nixon administration?

Nice Nixon thread! S&F for you! Nixon was being advised by his religious right contingent Art Linkletter, Rev. Billy Graham, etc., and his position was that marijuana was fundamentally different than the harder drugs (heroin, '___') but that marijuana was a gateway drug. I didn't see him using the terminology "gateway drug" but as he explained that is what he thought about smoking & legalization.

Here are some genuine transcripts of Old Dick and his buddies on the subject of the drug war:

May 26, 1971, Time: 10:03 am - 11:35 am -- Oval Office
Conversation: 505-4 -- Meeting with Nixon and HR 'Bob' Haldeman

RN: "Now, this is one thing I want. I want a Goddamn strong
statement on marijuana. Can I get that out of this
sonofabitching, uh, Domestic Council?"

HRH: "Sure."

RN: "I mean one on marijuana that just tears the ass out of them.
I see another thing in the news summary this morning about it.
You know it's a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are
out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the
matter with the Jews, Bob, what is the matter with them? I
suppose it's because most of them are psychiatrists, you know,
there's so many, all the greatest psychiatrists are Jewish. By
God we are going to hit the marijuana thing, and I want to hit it
right square in the puss, I want to find a way of putting more on
that. More [ unintelligible ] work with somebody else with this."

HRH: "Mm hmm, yep."

RN: "I want to hit it, against legalizing and all that sort of
thing."
Source www.csdp.org...

and

June 2, 1971, Time: 3:16 pm - 4:15 pm -- Oval Office Conv. 510-3
-- Nixon met with John Ehrlichman

RN: "Why in the name of God do these people take this stuff?"

JE: "For the same reason they drink. It's a, they're bored, it's
a, it's a diversion."

RN: "Drinking is a different thing in a sense. Uh, Linkletter's
point I think is well taken, he says, 'A person may drink to have
a good time' -"

JE: "Mm-hmm"

RN: "-- but a person does not drink simply for the purpose of
getting high. You take drugs for the purpose of getting high."

JE: "Yep, yep."

RN: "There is a difference."
Source Same source

and

March 24, 1972, 3:02 pm - 3:39 pm -- Oval Office Conversation No.
693-1 -- press conference

[snip]

Unknown reporter: "Mr. President, uh, do you have a comment sir
on the, uh, recommendation of your commission on drugs that the
use of marijuana in the home be, uh, no longer, uh, considered a
crime?"

RN: "Um, I met with Mr. Shafer, uh, I've read the report, uh, eh,
it is a report that deserves consideration and will receive it.
However, as to one aspect of the report I am in disagreement. I
was before I read it and reading it did not change my mind. Uh,
I, uh, oppose the legalization of marijuana, and that includes
the sale, its possession, and its use. I do not believe you can
have effective criminal justice, uh, based on the philosophy, uh
that something is half legal and half illegal. That is my
position, despite what the commission has recommended." Source same source

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Great quotes. Too bad(for him) he listened to LBJ about having a taping system. Or so the story goes. Too bad they all weren't recording and that the public doesn't have complete access to all the recordings that were made by other presidents! One can only imagine those unheard gems!