I hate the drug war and I think it's stupid, but I don't think people should use that quote for evidence of anything. I think it was either made up or taken completely out of context, and obviously Ehrlichman isn't around to contest it. It encapsulates liberal conspiracy theories about the drug war far too perfectly, it's as if a Breitbart reporter claimd an Al Gore staffer who had died "admitted" liberals all knew global warming was a hoax and pushed it just to increase taxes and punish Republican leaning businesses with harsh regulations.
I don't know if this is a reputable site but the basic story about timeline of the quote is not disputed as far as I know: http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/720681
It's not nearly the same thing. We know that there are plenty of self-serving scientists that would absolutely love the notoriety of debunking global warming if it was actually false. To believe that scientists made it all up is utterly insane if you actually have worked with real scientists. The number of physicists I've worked with that daydreamed out loud at lunch about having a law or parameter named after them is astounding. If they wanted money they could easily go into a quant job and make double or triple what they've been making and no longer have to drive their shitty 20 year old cars.
The issue you're proposing as a liberal conspiracy is purely an issue of he said, she said nonsense. We have the input and the output. Republicans yet again made life worse for the lower classes. Big surprise. Why doesn't matter and it's naive as an adult to even care about intent.
It's after Nixon "war on drugs" stance that we begin to see harsher and harsher penalties for possession, criminalisation of usage (and this still applies here in Sweden, it's not only illegal to buy, sell or possess drugs but also to take them, if it's detected in a urine or blood test [mandatory tests if you are caught by the police] you have committed an offense) and then the Convention on Psychotropic Substances happened in 1971, very influenced by the US and UK stances on drugs.
So as much as he tried to only "look tough", Nixon has fomented one of the worst problems in modern society, I really don't think we as a society should give him any credit, that façade has fucked up a lot some parts of the world and has killed an uncountable number of people.
We have a problem now that we need to fix. We don't need to dwell in the past or blame people. We're more knowledgeable now - so we need to use that knowledge to fix the problems - or at least work with / around them to the betterment of people.
BUT, blame does have an important side as well. Recognizing the possible or likely contribution of Nixon's actions, for example, informs us of the possible dangerous consequences of authoritarian approaches to drug policy. While it can't definitely establish a causal link, it can serve at least as a basic 'this approach can lead to X' or 'this approach was tried and did not prevent X' lesson. Hopefully, it can enable us to have a better discussion and teach us about the realities of the situations involved. Often things can look great on paper, but when implemented on large numbers of varied people they fall apart. Learning what works on those large groups of varied people can really only be done phenomenologically. You have to try things and observe the result. If the result is bad, but the 'on paper' form looked (or felt) really good, it's always a fight to change things. We see this with drug policy, supply-side economics, anti-sex moralism born with the Industrial Revolution, all kinds of things. Knowing where it started, and how people were convinced of things can be useful to show how people might be convinced differently or at least what to be afraid of when you see similar tactics being used in other arenas.
It's just important to direct blame so we can understand history and how events unfolded from that point, there are people and policies to blame and a chain reaction of events which culminated in our current situation, not necessarily we're dwelling in the past pointing fingers and then feeling good that something was solved.
To take a contemporary example, it's very possible that within the not so distant future the first amendment may be overturned. And it's equally possible that 50 years later it comes to be that deciding to allow the government to criminalize speech at their discretion somehow doesn't turn out so well. So people would go back to the past to try to figure out what happened. And perhaps they would decide to blame President McPolitic, who oversaw the overturning of the amendment, as the source of the problem. Surely they just used their powers to make a decision that turned out very bad. But of course it wouldn't be that individual - but rather society that somehow moved in a direction that in hindsight might seem otherwise inexplicable.
The nice thing is that people looking back at today will [hopefully] have access to internet archives and they can see how things evolved. The NSA's surveillance and data collection are, in this regard, doing society a great service. They are effectively creating the greatest global social archive in the history of our species --- a sort of time capsule that encompasses the entire existence of humanity in the developed world.
But we don't have that privilege when we look back at the past today. So all we can do is look at the data. Historic record, such as "the Nixon quote", cannot be taken at face value. Those casting such aspersions (or praises) have their own biases and agendas. What we do from the data is that violent crime in the 50s and 60s was very rare. But then something happened. It started skyrocketing. From the 60s to the 70s the per capita crime rate more than doubled. And drug use and abuse was also skyrocketing. Is it not reasonable to assume that people, somewhat naturally, began to link the two since they did rather often compliment one another?
Now we look at drugs much more tolerably, but that too follows an interesting trend. Violent crime started sharply declining a decline in the 90s. That's a trend that continues to this very day. And our views, as a society, are reflective of this change. Ultimately I think leaders are products of society, rather than society being a product of its leaders. And thus attributing blame (or praise) to any individual is, at best, a misrepresentation of an event.
Because if politicians are not held accountable for their actions, it removes the incentive to be genuine and honest on their part.
The only movement that I have seen is at the State level, where the people are literally telling the "authorities" to GTFO and legalizing (or decriminalizing) at the state level. If anything the politicians are reaping the rewards by playing both sides of the issue. Blaming them doesn't work.
I don't know about other countries but the real push for harsher penalties in the US came in the 1980s after basketball star Len Bias died of cocaine overdose:
>...It became the sole focus of legislative activity for the remainder of the session on both sides of the aisle. Literally every committee, from the Committee on Agriculture to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries were somehow getting involved. Suddenly, the Len Bias case was the driving force behind every piece of legislation. Members of Congress were setting up hearings about the drug problem and every subcommittee chairman was looking to get a piece of the action
http://www.salon.com/2011/06/19/len_bias_cocaine_tragedy_sti...
>...(and this still applies here in Sweden, it's not only illegal to buy, sell or possess drugs but also to take them, if it's detected in a urine or blood test [mandatory tests if you are caught by the police] you have committed an offense)
This sounds like an internal issue in Sweden - I am not really sure how much you can blame the US for this. Certainly other countries near Sweden have more reasonable drug policies and the US doesn't try and stop that or punish the countries that I know of.
>...and then the Convention on Psychotropic Substances happened in 1971, very influenced by the US and UK stances on drugs.
The 1971 wasn't the first treaty on drugs. For example, the International Opium Convention that adopted restrictions on the opium poppy's psychoactive derivatives was in 1912.
According to wikipedia:
>...The Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971 is a United Nations treaty designed to control psychoactive drugs such as amphetamine-type stimulants, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, and psychedelics signed in Vienna, Austria on 21 February 1971. The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 did not ban the many newly-discovered psychotropics,[1] since its scope was limited to drugs with cannabis, coca, and opium-like effects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Psychotropic_Sub...
>...So as much as he tried to only "look tough", Nixon has fomented one of the worst problems in modern society,
I don't think that Nixon was the first politician who tried to look tough on drugs in the US (or in other countries). Anti-drug propaganda has been produced since before "Reefer Madness" and politicians have been ranting about drugs for a long time. A difference really was that Nixon was one of the first to try to greatly expand drug treatment and reform sentencing at least in a small way:
>...the mandatory minimum sentence in a federal prison for marijuana possession was 2-10 years until Nixon slashed it to 1 year with a judicial option to waive even that sentence. No federal mandatory drug sentence would be rolled back again for 40 years (in the Obama Administration).
http://www.samefacts.com/2011/06/drug-policy/who-started-the...
Agreed.
>...Nixon started the war on drugs anyway as a mean to attack left and black activists
This point is a little controversial, in, as far as I know, we have to take Ehrlichman's word on this.
https://www.quora.com/Is-John-Ehrlichman-a-credible-source-w...
While Nixon is remembered for "war on drugs", the actual substance of his policies seems to be different than what people think it was:
>...Their consensus is that because he was dramatically expanding the U.S. treatment system (by 350% in just 18 months!) and cutting criminal penalties, he had to reassure his right wing that he hadn’t gone soft. So he laid on some of the toughest anti-drug rhetoric in history, including making a White House speech declaring a “war on drugs” and calling drugs “public enemy number one”. It worked so well as cover that many people remember that “tough” press event and forget that what Nixon did at it was introduce not a general or a cop or a preacher to be his drug policy chief but…a medical doctor (Jerry Jaffe, a sweet, bookish man who had longish hair and sideburns and often wore the Mickey Mouse tie his kids had given him).
http://www.samefacts.com/2011/06/drug-policy/who-started-the...