A significant factor was race. Drug laws were explicitly crafted as a way to punish poor “dangerous” brown people for their supposed sins. “Tough on crime” politicians in both parties could pander to racists without appearing obviously racist. (Extra bonus: once someone has been declared a felon, we can forever prevent them from voting in many states.)

After some years of significant problems in white communities, we’re starting to see some course correction.

Do you have credible sources to prove the significant factor is race?

You see, I believe your point, but that won't convince those who believe it wasn't influenced by racism. They'll say "conspiracy theory" and move on.

Disregarding cannabis, it also seemed to me that LSD was to become illegal to harass the hippie community. But how to prove this?

The way this works appears to be rather easy; you look at the characteristics of your political opponents, and then decide what they have in common which your status quo group doesn't. Then a process is begun to incite FUD. Once that campaign in successful you got momentum in your group and you make a law which makes that thing illegal.

This might not meet your 'credible' source credentials, but it does help point in the right direction:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-frederic-block/war-on-dr...

It surely isn't simply based on race as your hippie example points out: Rather, any group that was or is 'bad' at the time, be it based on race or status (being poor, for example). Not all race and class, but lots of it.

With the exception of some policies in the 10s-20s allegedly targeting Chinese and Mexicans, that article doesn't really support the claim as applicable to the last 60 years.

That's because those are the most openly racist policies out there. At some point in history, it became harder to talk in the same racist terms as before.. Starting in the 60's.

And that makes things a bit fuzzy, unfortunately. Much harder to prove racist policies. And you wind up having to do a lot more digging and use examples. Think of the stereotypical crack dealer: That's from the 90's, if I remember correctly. We know the drug policies disproportionately affect minority communities and poor folks, yet numbers also tell us that addiction hits most levels of society. And have failed to change it. We didn't erase the racist-inspired laws either. To me, this sort of thing all stinks of. And I'm too cynical to think that suddenly, race had nothing to do with it.

Unfortunately, this sort of thing does little to prove any of it to a non-believer.

I'm not a non-believer. I'm neither a believer nor a non-believer. It certainly seems plausible, but I've seen a lot of conflicting evidence and arguments about law enforcement and race.

The memories of one Nixon aid involved in the early days of the drug wars: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richa...

I doubt race is major factor, simply lumping all the poor together is seen as a harmless way by politicians and authorities to show they are having effect. The numbers can be cherry picked to show whatever we like.

The biggest supporters of tough on crime/drug laws is the prison and police unions. this generates jobs in both fields and make for very effective bargaining chips when either position is threatened. There have been cases of the unions posting billboards near opposing politician homes!

The prison system isn't a private issue, it is primarily a government money machine that indirectly supports select politicians through union donations and intimidation. That is why it has been so hard to check