Nixon's War on Drugs Led to Cocaine Abundance

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Thu May 03, 2007 at 01:09:06 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

So I'm reading the new biography of Iggy Pop (Iggy and the Stooges) because I knew him a little back in Ann Arbor when I went to college and worked at the Discount Records where all the cool rockers stopped by on a regular basis (Iggy, Alice Cooper, the MC5, Commander Cody, Bob Seger and so on) and because drugs were so much a part of life back then (no surprise I later became a drug defense lawyer) as were protests against the Administration and the Vietnam War, and I spotted this passage, which was news to me.

A few days later, on Memorial Day weekend, Dave, Scott and Steve flew back to Detroit. Jim (Iggy) and Ron followed a few days later. When Jim returned, he looked healthier than anyone could remember, tanned and relaxed.

But according to several denizens of the Fun House, when Jim hit Ann Arbor, so had cocaine, almost as if it was planned. (In some respects it was; Nixon's Operation Intercept, launched in late September of 1969 to cut down the supply of marijuana, had inspired Michigan grass-smokers to seek out alternatives: at first, opiated hash from Canada, then cocaine and finally heroin.)

More....

While I was there, cocaine reigned supreme, next to Quaaludes and pot. Who knew there was a government push?

Other reasons to read the book: For the entire Ann Arbor music scene in those years, a little about John Sinclair who was the cause celebre for getting ten years for possession of two joints and for the details on the back room of Max' Kansas City in New York (although other books have done that and the Warhol scene much better.)

Where's Iggy now? He's 60 and still performing and now crowned as the Godfather of Punk. Way to go, Iggy.

It's a great week for this remembrance. Kent State and "Four Dead in Ohio."

< Edwards Supports Reid-Feingold | Questioning the Use of Police Informants >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Nixon's War on Drugs Led to Cocaine Abundance | 48 comments (48 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Jeralyn, you and I... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by rdandrea on Thu May 03, 2007 at 11:27:03 AM EST

...might be the only people left alive who remember Commander Cody And His Lost Planet Airmen.

Really? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by squeaky on Thu May 03, 2007 at 11:45:04 AM EST

If you think that is true you must be lost in the ozone.


Thanks btw, rdandrea (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 02:36:13 PM EST

Commander Cody was one of the few I kept meaning to but never got around to converting to mp3's so I could play them with WMP.

Until you reminded me this morning. It's been awhile since I listened to them do House Of Blue Lights. ;-)


: Anbody feel like jivin'? (none / 0) (#9)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 02:52:42 PM EST

It's a great song!

you can count me too (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by conchita on Thu May 03, 2007 at 09:41:42 PM EST

"War on" anything .. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by jondee on Thu May 03, 2007 at 12:29:21 PM EST

Is sure to get the attention of a certain "targeted" reflexive -thinking segment of the population. Another side effect of what happens when the preeminent goal is consolidating power by rallying your side with an old fashioned, sufficiently punative, moral crusade in lieu of the dreaded, in-depth public discussion.

The only thing they'll (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by jondee on Thu May 03, 2007 at 12:30:11 PM EST

never declare a war on is war.

Why is it (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 02:41:07 PM EST

that seemingly every problem these people "invent" and go to "war" against get bigger and bigger?

It's always self defeating for them.

War on drugs = more drugs.
War on terror = more terrorists.

War on thinking = ?


The first reference I can find to (none / 0) (#10)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 03, 2007 at 03:40:51 PM EST

"The War on blah blah" is The War on Poverty.

This is the name for legislation first introduced by Lyndon B. Johnson during his State of the Union address on January 8, 1964.

In case you forgot, LBJ was a Dem.

I'm pretty sure your weren't referring to your fellow moonbats in your little pissant troll comment above, but do I agree with you that it does not seem any of these "Wars On" - regardless of the political party involved - yield much in the way of successful results.


Poverty? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 04:07:47 PM EST

One of the legacies of six years of the George W. Bush Administration is that America has gone "From $20 trillion in fiscal exposures in 2000 to over $50 trillion in only six years? What shall we do for an encore... shoot for $100 trillion?.

The US is insolvent. There is simply no way for our national bills to be paid under current levels of taxation and promised benefits. Our combined federal deficits now total more than 400% of GDP.
That is the conclusion of a recent Treasury/OMB report entitled Financial Report of the United States Government that was quietly slipped out on a Friday (12/15/06), deep in the holiday season, with little fanfare.

Back to Content (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by squeaky on Thu May 03, 2007 at 05:18:34 PM EST

I have to agree with Edger and wonder why you pointed out the one democratic war as an argument, because it did lower poverty.

Unlike the WOT and the WOD poverty actualy dropped from the start of WOP. Before the WOP, in 1959 the poverty rate was 22.4%, when LBJ started the WOP in 1964 it was at 19%.

In the decade following the 1964 introduction of the war on poverty, poverty rates in the U.S. dropped to 11.1% and have remained between 11 and 15% ever since.

The war on terror= increased terror
The war on drugs= increased drugs
The war on poverty=decreased poverty


I also (none / 0) (#20)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 05:33:46 PM EST

call the war on terror the War On Thinking because IMO that's what it really is. Propaganda and branding. And it appears to be causing more thinking, although the growth has been a very slow process. But it seems to be reaching a point of exponential growth now.


Really? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by squeaky on Thu May 03, 2007 at 05:43:24 PM EST

My take is that the war on thinking is a smashing bi partisan success. Although the Republicans are much more up to date. They use postmodern strategy to quell thought, while the Dems seem stuck in plain old Modernist strategy to insure that their constituents think as little as possible.


: I guess I should say I HOPE it is. (none / 0) (#22)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 05:49:40 PM EST

Though I think if people weren't thinking more then we wouldn't even have any argument between Bush and the Democrats. They would have funded him in their sleep with no fight at all. I also take Bush's approval ratings as a general indicator. And... there are a lot less Bush supporters and trolls around here than there used to be.

squeaky (none / 0) (#23)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 03, 2007 at 05:53:01 PM EST

let me get this straight, as far you're concerned the War On Poverty worked? iow, you are happy with the level of poverty?


Sarc (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 05:59:06 PM EST

Squeaky said it was lower. And supplied stats to back it up. There was no mention of being "happy".

This is frustrating to run into because it happens too often - and is too often intentional attributing of something not said. It's used as a trolling strawman tactic regularly.


What is frustrating (none / 0) (#29)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 03, 2007 at 06:16:57 PM EST

to me is that I asked squeaky a question that was not attributing anything to anybody.

Illicit drug use, ages 18-25, past year
1979 - 45.5%
2001 - 31.9%
ie., 30% reduction.

But so what?

We could go back and forth on data points 'till the cows come home but it's all be a big waste of time.

All that really matters to me is, to you, has the War on Poverty has been successful, iow, are you happy with the level of poverty?


I'm not "happy" (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 06:29:28 PM EST

with the results of it myself because I suspect (I don't have figures handy) that the lower stats might be the result of "redefining" poverty levels. That's a tactic all governments use, I think, to try to report progress. An example is when they stop including people in unemployment levels who have exhausted unemployment insurance benefits.

I also think those stats might be deceiving considering the link I gave you here.


None of which has anything to do (none / 0) (#34)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 06:30:57 PM EST

with the topic of this thread, so I'm going to stop here.


: One exception (none / 0) (#36)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 06:34:51 PM EST

Poverty in America Project
Recent Census estimates reveal that the population percentage considered severely poor has reached a 32-year high. Between 2000 and 2005, the percent living at half of poverty-level income increased by 26%.
...
The abjectly poor in America are individuals living on $5,250 a year. For a family of three, two adults and a child, the level of income is $6,922; for a family of four, $10,222.

Data Points? (none / 0) (#31)
by squeaky on Thu May 03, 2007 at 06:21:41 PM EST

OK that must also apply to the WOP.

I am unhappy with poverty at any level. How bout you?


yes (none / 0) (#35)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 03, 2007 at 06:33:57 PM EST

the WOP data points show a drop in poverty of about 1/3, the drug use data points show a drop of about the same.

Again, so what?

We could go back and forth on data points all day long, it's meaningless.

If you (or I) are happy with the results of any "War On" then we consider that WO to be successful, if we're not happy with the results, then we don't consider the WO to be successful.

No, I'm not happy with the level of poverty, the WOP has not been successful.


iow (none / 0) (#37)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 03, 2007 at 06:47:01 PM EST

the data points can only show that one is mildly less unsuccessful than the other, as they're both unsuccessful.

So, we've come full circle. The initiating comment was a lament about "these people" and "them" always dreaming up these "Wars On" and how the "wars" aren't successful.

Well, it seems "those people" who invented the "Wars On" concept and slogan were Dems, and their first invention - The War on Poverty - is, also, not successful.


I don't know where you get that from. (none / 0) (#38)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 06:50:33 PM EST

Even if so (none / 0) (#39)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 06:52:04 PM EST

Many "dems" are right wing from where I sit. Some "social liberals", and their friends, too.


Of that I'm sure ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 03, 2007 at 06:55:46 PM EST

So it seems that the labelling (none / 0) (#40)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 06:52:55 PM EST

is an evasion.


Evasion? Huh? (none / 0) (#41)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 03, 2007 at 06:54:26 PM EST

Who? About what? Please elucidate...


: I wasn't thinking of (none / 0) (#43)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 07:08:08 PM EST

democrats or republicans when I made my original comment "that seemingly every problem these people "invent" and go to "war" against get bigger and bigger?"
I was thinking of wingnuts (shorthand for non thinking troglodytes) in general. Though I do think there are more "right" wingnuts than not.
So I blame it on nuts... who don't think things through and figure that a "war on" something will eliminate a problem when in fact it almost always makes the problem worse... not on parties.

Eder (none / 0) (#49)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 05, 2007 at 02:29:39 PM EST

No. He provided unsupported stats.

That's not proof.


Sorry to jump in there Squeaky. (none / 0) (#26)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 06:00:04 PM EST

Happy (none / 0) (#27)
by squeaky on Thu May 03, 2007 at 06:06:43 PM EST

That is a non-sequitur. My point was that Edger's comment made sense and was accurate. Yes, the war on thinking was ironic humor.

You took a left turn and got all republican. That is ok except your example fell on its face, because poverty levels decreased after LBJ's initiative.

Don't see how this has to do with me being happy about poverty. Or are you conceding by changing the subject.


: Fair enough (none / 0) (#32)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 03, 2007 at 06:25:28 PM EST

I guess technically Edger's statement was different than mine:
but do I agree with you that it does not seem any of these "Wars On" - regardless of the political party involved - yield much in the way of successful results.
as I usually consider successful results as being, well, results I'm actually happy with, and my statement was what I was mostly thinking about when I asked you the question, but, regardless, I see no reason why you'd be afraid to answer it.

That was m y point. (none / 0) (#12)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 04:03:36 PM EST

Did I try to insult you? I obviously hit an exposed nerve though.


Your point was the Dems invented the (1.00 / 1) (#13)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 03, 2007 at 04:05:14 PM EST

"War On" slogan? Why didn't you just say so?


You're better than this, Sarc. Smarter, too. (none / 0) (#15)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 04:17:20 PM EST

Remember the other day (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 03, 2007 at 05:04:24 PM EST

when you slammed somebody out of the blue, and Wile E., I think, responded "Wow" and you then said something along the lines of "I'm not in the mood to make nice today?"

That's how I am right now.

You are often very aggressive on TL.

No, not usually with me, but you post a lot and love to throw around words like "troll" & "wingnut," etc.

Some who post here are plainly idiots and much of what they post is repetitive idiocy, yet you seem to let them get your goat and respond with troll/wingnut/etc./whatever every single time.

Threads which could be of interest often just devolve into uselessness when words and/or intent like that are used.

Maybe a good rule of thumb is that if someone's post makes you want to use those types of words, maybe you, me, all of us should just move on to another thread?

Anyway, as I said, you are not usually aggressive with me, but, seriously, I think you are better than words like that, no matter who's pushing your buttons, and, yes, smarter too.


I do that, yes (none / 0) (#17)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 05:11:57 PM EST

I'm also very rarely mad. And yes, I am often very aggressive here, with people who support and shrug off as if they were nothing the killing of nearly a million people. It's to force them into a position of having to defend the indefensible and try to make them think. It doesn't work with most of them. It does work with people who can, I think.


And yes (none / 0) (#18)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 05:15:54 PM EST

It's also meant, for the ones who can think but won't, the ones who laugh about the killing, to make them feel as utterly worthless as I can.


All good (none / 0) (#24)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 03, 2007 at 05:57:16 PM EST

I don't remember anything more about what that particular thread was about, if that's what you're referring to.


It was the thread about (none / 0) (#28)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 06:08:16 PM EST

the Virginia Tech murders, which Bill (and I) called an act of terrorism, and was attacked for it. I got very aggressive attacking back because I agreed with him, and he wasn't around to refute the attacks.


: Oh yes (none / 0) (#30)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 03, 2007 at 06:18:15 PM EST

I certainly remember now...

Reagan did the same (none / 0) (#1)
by Cheesehead on Thu May 03, 2007 at 04:05:15 AM EST

What I remember is Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign, while I lived in Madison WI, which increased the price of marijuana about 300% (and did about the same for the quality :) But it also lead to a proliferation of cocaine.

Basically, the DEA went after the bulky drug, easily identified by dogs, for the press it generated. They knowingly inflated the "street value" to keep up the FUD in the general population, while basically ignoring the cocaine problem. The DEA has an ostrich mentality with enforcement of the hard stuff (until very recently meth), and a cherry-picking philosophy with the easy stuff.

That sounds an awful lot like...... (none / 0) (#2)
by kdog on Thu May 03, 2007 at 06:48:43 AM EST

the claims that marijuana is a "gateway" drug.

Put it this way, when I see my street-corner pharmacist, I don't ask "whats cheap today?" and buy accordingly. That would be akin to going to the grocery store for eggs and buying lemons because lemons are cheaper...nobody does that.

I suppose there is a very small segment of the illegal drug using population that will do any drug they can get their hands on...but that is not the norm.

Keeristalmightee (none / 0) (#44)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 03, 2007 at 07:19:13 PM EST

"So I blame it on nuts... who don't think things through and figure that a "war on" something will eliminate a problem when in fact it almost always makes the problem worse... not on parties."

Replace "nuts" with "government" and "war on" with "gvt involvement" and you'd be a conservative!

Well, 5:00PM, time to go home, have a good evening.

I'd be happier (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 07:37:30 PM EST

if I needed a microscope to see the government, not to mention hold them accountable.


Yep. (none / 0) (#45)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 07:23:55 PM EST

: But not (none / 0) (#46)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 07:25:16 PM EST

what usually passes for or calls themselves conservative these days. Those are most often psychotic nuts, IMO.