The bit about Nixon is obligatory for a good reason. It sidesteps a lot of historical nuances but is factually correct and underpins the key issue which emerges when people discuss drugs: people imagine that drugs are criminalized for good reasons while in fact the heavy handed judicial approach hurts taxpayers and it hurts the people needing help by stigmatizing them.

The criminal process does not help public health outcomes.

There is this fallacy among even smart people that if a thing has legislation controlling it must be well thought out and they can stop analyzing it.

The Nixon bit is a strong reminder that sometimes things are like they are for some obscure political reason rather than common sense. Daylights saving time used in many countries is a similar weird political vestige.

There is a strong moral sentiment about drugs in some segments of population. There are good reasons to fear substance abuse. But, churches also have good political reasons to fear them. If people can get raptured sitting at home with a group of friends what purpose would a conregation serve then?

Therefore, from churches perspective it's politically expedient to stigmatize drug use as morally corrupt.

Confusing drugs as morally corrupt adds to the odd ball mix of criminalization.

Addiction is never good, mmkay. People need help to fight it. Social networks are among the most important bits of this help. That's why shaming and stigmatization of addicts is one of the cruelest and counter productive things a society can do.

My mother perished of alcohol abuse recently. While I don't blame anyone, the stigmatization of society did not help.