Cannabis News
The Guy Who Made Marijuana Illegal in 1971 Said Weed Really Isn’t That Bad on Secret Tape Recordings
Secret Tapes Reveal that the Father of the Drug War didn’t think that weed was that bad
Richard Nixon, often regarded as the “Father of the Drug War,” left an indelible mark on American drug policy that continues to shape our society today. In 1971, Nixon signed the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) into law, setting in motion a series of events that would dramatically alter the landscape of drug regulation and enforcement in the United States. This pivotal piece of legislation not only granted pharmaceutical companies a virtual monopoly over drug production and distribution but also weaponized the justice system against non-violent individuals who chose to consume substances deemed illegal by the government.
Nixon’s public stance on drugs, particularly marijuana, was uncompromising and harsh. He championed a zero-tolerance approach, famously declaring drug abuse as “public enemy number one” and calling for an “all-out offensive” against it. This rhetoric laid the groundwork for decades of aggressive anti-drug policies that have led to the incarceration of countless individuals for non-violent drug offenses.
However, recently uncovered secret recordings paint a starkly different picture of Nixon’s private views on marijuana. These tapes, captured in the intimate chambers of his staff meetings, reveal a man whose personal opinions on cannabis were far more nuanced and less severe than his public pronouncements suggested. The disconnect between Nixon’s public policy and private thoughts raises troubling questions about the foundations of the War on Drugs and its lasting impact on American society.
Today, we’ll take a deep dive into Nixon’s recorded statements, analyzing them in the context of a nation where hundreds of thousands of people continue to face legal consequences for cannabis-related offenses. As we examine these private conversations, we’ll confront the unsettling reality that the architect of America’s drug war may have been fully aware of the disconnect between marijuana’s actual risks and the draconian measures he publicly supported to combat its use.
The public persona of Richard Nixon was that of a staunch anti-drug crusader, a man who viewed drug abuse as an existential threat to American society. In June 1971, Nixon famously declared drug abuse as “public enemy number one” and called for a “new, all-out offensive” to combat it. This declaration effectively launched the War on Drugs, a campaign that would reshape American criminal justice policy for decades to come.
Nixon’s public actions matched his rhetoric. He signed the Controlled Substances Act in 1970, which established the scheduling system for drugs that remains in place today. Under this system, marijuana was classified as a Schedule I substance, alongside drugs like heroin, deemed to have “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” This classification flew in the face of scientific evidence even then, but it aligned with Nixon’s public stance on cannabis.
The case of Timothy Leary, the LSD researcher and counterculture icon, exemplifies Nixon’s public approach to drug enforcement. In March 1970, Leary received a draconian sentence of up to 10 years in prison for possessing less than an ounce of marijuana. Rather than viewing this as an excessive punishment, Nixon doubled down. As he told his Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman in May 1970, “I want a goddamn strong statement on marijuana. By God we are going to hit the marijuana thing, and I want to hit it right square in the puss.”
Nixon’s public rhetoric often took on racist overtones, particularly when discussing drug use among minority communities. He frequently associated drug use with African Americans and other minorities, using coded language to appeal to white voters’ fears and prejudices. This racialized approach to drug policy was later confirmed by Nixon’s domestic policy chief, John Ehrlichman, who admitted in a 1994 interview that the War on Drugs was designed to target “the antiwar left and black people.”
However, behind closed doors, a different Nixon emerged. Recently uncovered audio recordings reveal a man who privately held much more nuanced views on marijuana. In a March 1973 recording, Nixon candidly admitted, “I know nothing about marijuana. I know that it’s not particularly dangerous; I know most of the kids are for legalizing it.”
This private acknowledgment stands in stark contrast to his public actions and statements. Nixon even expressed misgivings about harsh marijuana penalties, telling John Ehrlichman, “The penalties are ridiculous. I have no problem with the fact that there should be, there should be an evaluation of penalties on it, and there should not be penalties that, you know, like in Texas where people get 10 years for marijuana. That’s wrong.”
In another recording from September 1972, Nixon admitted to being in favor of “modification of penalties in many areas” related to drug offenses, but noted that he didn’t “talk about it anymore.” This suggests a calculated political decision to maintain a tough public stance on drugs, even while privately harboring doubts about the wisdom of such policies.
The disconnect between Nixon’s public and private personas on drug policy is striking and deeply troubling. While publicly championing a war that would lead to the arrest and incarceration of millions of Americans, particularly from minority communities, Nixon privately acknowledged the relative safety of marijuana and the excessive nature of drug penalties. This dichotomy raises serious questions about the true motivations behind the War on Drugs and the lasting impact of Nixon’s public policies on American society.
The ramifications of Nixon’s Controlled Substances Act (CSA) continue to reverberate through American society, more than half a century after its inception. This legislation has fundamentally altered the fabric of the United States, creating criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens for non-violent offenses. Perhaps even more insidiously, it has provided law enforcement with broad powers to seize assets from individuals suspected of drug crimes, often without due process or even a conviction.
One of the most troubling aspects of this policy is civil asset forfeiture, which allows law enforcement to confiscate property they believe is connected to criminal activity. This practice has led to numerous abuses, with innocent people having their possessions seized simply because of proximity to alleged drug activity. A stark example of this overreach occurred recently when a Sheriff’s department seized cash trucks from legal cannabis dispensaries. While the company eventually recovered their funds, this incident highlights the ongoing tension between state-level cannabis legalization and federal prohibition.
The human cost of these policies is staggering. Tens of thousands of individuals remain incarcerated for cannabis-related offenses, their lives derailed by laws rooted in Nixon’s public stance on drugs. These are not just statistics; they represent shattered families, lost opportunities, and communities disproportionately impacted by the War on Drugs.
So why should we care about the disparity between Nixon’s private beliefs and public actions? This disconnect exposes the fundamental hypocrisy underpinning the entire War on Drugs. If even the architect of these policies privately acknowledged that marijuana was “not particularly dangerous” and that the penalties were “ridiculous,” it calls into question the entire rationale behind cannabis prohibition.
Nixon’s private admission that he favored “modification of penalties in many areas” related to drug offenses, while publicly championing harsh measures, is particularly damning. It suggests that the severe approach to drug policy was not based on a genuine belief in its necessity or efficacy, but rather on political expediency. This revelation should prompt us to critically re-examine the foundations of our current drug policies.
If the “Father of Prohibition” himself didn’t believe we should be so harsh in our punishments, it’s high time we rethink our entire strategy. The disconnect between Nixon’s private views and public policies underscores the need for a fact-based, compassionate approach to drug policy that prioritizes public health over punitive measures.
Moreover, this discrepancy between private beliefs and public actions is deeply troubling in a leader of a nation. It erodes public trust and undermines the integrity of our democratic institutions. We cannot afford to have leaders who advocate one thing publicly while holding contradictory views privately, especially on issues that have such profound impacts on citizens’ lives and liberties.
The revelations about Nixon’s private views on cannabis should serve as a catalyst for change. They provide compelling evidence that our current approach to drug policy is not just ineffective, but was built on a foundation of political manipulation rather than genuine concern for public welfare. As we grapple with the ongoing consequences of the War on Drugs, including mass incarceration, racial disparities in enforcement, and the erosion of civil liberties, we must use this knowledge to push for meaningful reform.
It’s time to align our drug policies with scientific evidence and principles of justice, rather than political expediency. The hypocrisy revealed in Nixon’s private statements should embolden us to challenge the status quo and work towards a more rational, humane approach to drug policy – one that doesn’t criminalize personal choices and destroy lives over a substance that even the architect of prohibition privately admitted was “not particularly dangerous.”
NIXON ON CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES, READ ON…
Why Are Autoimmune Conditions On The Rise? And How Cannabis Can Help
Autoimmune diseases refer to a group of medical conditions that occur as a result of the immune system attacking your own tissues.
In a normal human body, the immune system is responsible for protecting the body by producing antibodies that prevent toxins, cancer cells, and viruses from harming the body. However, when one is struck by an autoimmune disorder, the immune system is no longer able to distinguish the difference between dangerous cells and healthy cells. As a result, the healthy cells are attacked, too.
Today, we know of around 100 different kinds of autoimmune conditions. Some of the most common examples of autoimmune conditions include rheumatoid arthritis (RA), lupus, inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, Type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis (MS), and the Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) to name a few. Others include Graves’ disease, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, psoriasis, and vasculitis.
According to the National Health Council, around 50 million Americans are affected by autoimmune diseases today. This is a conservative estimate, considering that several autoimmune conditions are tricky to treat and so many people go undiagnosed for long periods of time. It’s worrisome to note that there are more people developing autoimmune diseases these days, many of which have reached levels comparable to epidemics.
But cannabis can help!
How Cannabis Can Help Curb And Manage Autoimmune Diseases
Not one single cause is responsible for the alarming growth of autoimmune diseases, though there are several factors at play. While there isn’t just one cause we can point at, it’s certain the reasons lie in our environment. After all, human genetics haven’t changed significantly yet the chemicals, toxins, and pollutants in our food and everyday items have risen dramatically.
In addition, people are getting less sleep than ever; stress rates are through the roof, and people are constantly worried. There is a clear link between psychological stress and physical health as well as immunity, which is why it isn’t unusual – it’s even common – to see many autoimmune disease cases flare up after people experience severe stress caused by grief, an accident, job loss, or the death of a loved one. These highly stressful and traumatic conditions wreak havoc on the body’s immune response, causing inflammation all over the body.
Conventional treatments prescribed to treat autoimmune conditions are focused on taming inflammation; these usually include steroids but also some non-steroidal drugs. These drugs often come with unwanted side effects, but research has shown that cannabis can work with the endocannabinoid system through THC and CBD, as well as other cannabinoids, to simulate similar results. In one study for example, we can see the clear association of the endocannabinoid system for neurodegenerative and inflammatory processes seen in Multiple Sclerosis and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.
There has also been an increasing number of studies proving the efficacy of cannabis for treating several autoimmune conditions.
Cannabis For Multiple Sclerosis
Multiple sclerosis is one of the autoimmune conditions where a growing number of studies have come out supporting the therapeutic benefits of cannabis for. In a 2024 study, patients with multiple sclerosis reported several improvements in quality of life after using cannabis-based medical products (CBMPs). For the study, British investigators analyzed the impact of cannabis based medicinal products made from either oil or extracts in 141 patients who were enrolled in the UK Medical Cannabis Registry.
The researchers then analyzed the changes in patient outcomes after a month, then three and 6 months after. According to the patients themselves, they were able to sustain improvements in their mental and physical health after marijuana therapy.
“This case series demonstrates a potential association between the initiation of CBMPs and improved patient reported outcomes in sleep, anxiety, and general HRQoL [health-related quality of life] measures, over six months,” said the study authors. “Additional measures for HRQoL, including various physical and mental health subdomains, also exhibit improvements up to six months when compared to baseline,” the authors concluded.
In another study from 2023, patients with multiple sclerosis reported significant improvements in symptoms after cannabis use. For the study, researchers from the Dent Neurologic Institute in Buffalo, New York, analyzed the medical records of 141 patients with multiple sclerosis, who were also legally authorized to consume medical marijuana products. They then analyzed data from the patients after one up to 4 follow-up sessions after the initial session of cannabis therapy. Sixty-five percent of patients consumed 1:1 THC:CBD tinctures.
According to the authors: “The results of this study indicate that use of MC [medical cannabis] to alleviate symptoms of MS is largely efficacious, with improvement in pain (72 percent of patients), muscle spasticity (48 percent of patients), and sleep disturbance (40 percent of patients) frequently reported.”
“More than half of opioid users at baseline were able to either discontinue or decrease their opioid use after starting MC. The mean daily MME [morphine milligram equivalents] was significantly reduced from the initial visit (51 mg) to the last follow-up visit (40 mg). This is consistent with previous literature showing that MC legalization is associated with decreased opioid use and that MC use is associated with decreased opioid use in patients with chronic pain. These findings indicate that MC may represent an alternative analgesic to opioids for some patients,” they wrote.
Anecdotal Evidence
While more studies are needed to determine cannabis’ effect on other autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, we can rely on anecdotal evidence. In 2020, data from the medical journal, Rheumatology, revealed that patients who have this condition, along with those who have lupus and fibromyalgia, consume cannabis.
In fact, it was reported that marijuana was extremely common especially for patients with fibromyalgia. “In this meta-analysis, we found that one in six patients suffering from rheumatologic disease actively consumes cannabis, reducing pain reduction… A favorable effect of cannabis on pain in our meta-analysis reinforces the idea that cannabis could be used for analgesic purposes,” the authors concluded.
Conclusion
Cannabis is a safe and natural way to help prevent and treat the symptoms of autoimmune disease. It targets inflammation at its root, and is a proven natural way to help cope with stress, pain, insomnia, and inflammation all while protecting the brain. However, it’s important to ensure you medicate with clean, organic sources of marijuana.
AUTOIMMUNE AND CANNABIS, READ ON…
As the movement for marijuana legalization gains momentum across the United States, a significant barrier remains in place in many conservative states, forming what advocates and analysts have termed a “red wall.” This phenomenon highlights the stark divide between states that have embraced cannabis reform and those that continue to criminalize its use, particularly in areas where Republican leadership is firmly entrenched. This article will explore the current landscape of marijuana legalization, the factors contributing to this resistance, and the implications for consumers and advocates alike.
The Current State of Marijuana Legalization
Over the past decade, public opinion regarding marijuana has shifted dramatically. According to recent polls, approximately 68% of Americans support legalizing cannabis for recreational use. This shift has translated into legislative action, with 38 states and the District of Columbia allowing medical marijuana and 24 states legalizing it for recreational use. States like California, Colorado, and Illinois have set precedents with robust frameworks for both medical and recreational cannabis markets.
Despite this progress, a significant number of states remain resistant to change. As of 2024, there are still 20 states where marijuana is illegal for recreational use, many of which are governed by Republican majorities. This resistance is often attributed to a combination of political ideology, cultural attitudes, and concerns about public safety.
The Red Wall: A Political Barrier
The term “red wall” refers to the political landscape in conservative states where Republicans maintain control over both legislative chambers and the governor’s office—known as a trifecta. In these states, efforts to legalize cannabis face substantial obstacles due to party alignment and prevailing conservative values.
States such as Wyoming, Idaho, and Nebraska exemplify this red wall. Here, despite growing public support for legalization, lawmakers remain hesitant to advance legislation or allow ballot initiatives that would enable voters to decide on cannabis reform. The result is a patchwork of laws that leaves millions of Americans in conservative regions without access to legal cannabis.
Factors Contributing to Resistance
One of the primary reasons for the red wall against marijuana legalization is the deeply ingrained political ideology within conservative circles. Many Republican leaders view cannabis as a moral issue rather than a public health or economic one. This perspective is often rooted in traditional values that prioritize law and order over personal freedom.
Additionally, some conservative lawmakers express concerns about the potential societal impacts of legalization, including increased drug use among youth and impaired driving incidents. These fears can overshadow empirical evidence from states that have legalized cannabis, which often show no significant increase in youth usage or traffic accidents.
Cultural attitudes toward marijuana also play a significant role in shaping policy decisions in conservative states. In many regions, cannabis remains stigmatized as a dangerous drug associated with criminal behavior. This stigma can lead to fear-based policymaking that prioritizes prohibition over regulation.
Moreover, conservative communities may have strong ties to traditional industries such as agriculture and law enforcement that view marijuana legalization as a threat to their interests. These cultural dynamics create an environment where lawmakers are reluctant to support reform efforts that could alienate their constituents or undermine their political base.
Legislative Challenges
In addition to ideological resistance, practical legislative challenges further complicate efforts to advance marijuana legalization in conservative states. Many red wall states have stringent requirements for ballot initiatives or legislative proposals that make it difficult for advocates to gain traction.
For instance, some states require an exceptionally high percentage of signatures from registered voters to qualify for a ballot initiative. In Florida, a recent attempt to legalize recreational cannabis fell short of the required 60% supermajority needed for passage, despite receiving majority support from voters. Such hurdles can stifle grassroots efforts and limit opportunities for public input on cannabis policy.
Recent Developments in Red Wall States
Historically, ballot initiatives have been an effective strategy for advancing marijuana legalization in various states. However, this approach has faced increasing challenges in conservative strongholds. In North Dakota and South Dakota, recreational cannabis measures were defeated again in 2024 after previous attempts had also failed.
In South Dakota specifically, voters approved a legalization measure in 2020 only to see it challenged by state officials who argued it was unconstitutional. This led to protracted legal battles that ultimately stalled implementation efforts. Such experiences highlight how state officials can actively work against voter-approved measures when they conflict with prevailing political ideologies.
Legislative Efforts: Stalled Progress
In addition to ballot initiatives failing at the polls, legislative efforts in red wall states have also struggled to gain traction. For example:
-
Kansas: Despite growing support among residents for medical marijuana legalization, Republican lawmakers have repeatedly blocked proposals aimed at establishing a regulated medical program.
-
Kentucky: Efforts to legalize medical cannabis have faced significant hurdles in the state legislature despite bipartisan support among constituents.
-
Wisconsin: Governor Tony Evers has proposed measures to legalize both medical and recreational marijuana; however, these proposals have consistently met resistance from Republican-controlled legislative chambers.
These examples illustrate how even when there is public support for reform, entrenched political opposition can thwart progress.
Implications for Consumers and Advocates
Continued Criminalization
The persistence of the red wall means that millions of Americans living in conservative states continue to face criminal penalties for cannabis use. Individuals caught with small amounts of marijuana can face fines or even jail time disproportionately affecting marginalized communities.
Moreover, the lack of legal access forces consumers into unregulated markets where product safety cannot be guaranteed. This situation poses health risks associated with untested products and contributes to ongoing cycles of criminalization rather than promoting responsible use through regulation.
Economic Consequences
The economic implications of maintaining prohibition are significant as well. States that refuse to legalize cannabis miss out on substantial tax revenue generated from regulated markets. For instance:
-
Colorado: Since legalizing recreational marijuana in 2014, Colorado has generated over $1 billion in tax revenue from cannabis sales.
-
California: The state’s legal cannabis market is projected to generate billions annually in tax revenue—money that could be used for education, infrastructure, and public health initiatives.
In contrast, conservative states that uphold prohibition forego these potential revenues while also incurring costs associated with enforcing drug laws and managing related criminal justice issues.
Advocacy Strategies Moving Forward
Given the challenges posed by the red wall, advocates for marijuana legalization must adapt their strategies if they hope to make progress in conservative states:
The Future of Marijuana Legalization
As we look ahead, it is clear that overcoming the red wall will require persistent effort from advocates committed to changing hearts and minds within conservative states. While progress may be slow and fraught with challenges, shifts in public opinion suggest that change is possible.
The ongoing conversation surrounding federal rescheduling under President Biden’s administration could also influence state-level policies. If cannabis were moved from Schedule I to Schedule III under federal law—a move some speculate could happen under future administrations—states might feel pressured to reconsider their own prohibitive laws.
Ultimately, navigating this complex landscape will require resilience from advocates who understand both the political realities at play and the potential benefits of legalization for consumers and society as a whole.
Conclusion
The “red wall” against marijuana legalization represents a formidable barrier within many conservative states where outdated perceptions about cannabis persist alongside strong political opposition. As public opinion continues to evolve nationally favoring greater acceptance of both medical and recreational use advocates must adapt their strategies accordingly.
By building coalitions across diverse groups and focusing on education at the community level while pursuing incremental reforms where possible, advocates can work toward dismantling this barrier over time. The journey toward comprehensive marijuana reform may be long and challenging; however, with sustained effort and commitment from supporters across all sectors of society including those residing behind the red wall progress is achievable.
CONSERVATIVES BLOCKING CANNABIS BILLS?, READ ON…
Autoimmune Conditions Are Rising Fast in American Medicine, Can Cannabis Help?
Hemp and the New Senate Farm Bill
The Red Wall Blocking Marijuana Legalization in America, Real or Imagined?
Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management Issues Rejections to Majority of Social Equity Applicants
Find LivWell in Colorado
Find Verilife in Massachusetts
Find Verilife in Illinois
Find Verilife in New York
Ohio Non-Medical Cannabis is available at Verilife
Where quality meets savings: Independently owned Giving Tree offers fantastic deals
Distressed Cannabis Business Takeaways – Canna Law Blog™
United States: Alex Malyshev And Melinda Fellner Discuss The Intersection Of Tax And Cannabis In New Video Series – Part VI: Licensing (Video)
What you Need to Know
Drug Testing for Marijuana – The Joint Blog
NCIA Write About Their Equity Scholarship Program
It has been a wild news week – here’s how CBD and weed can help you relax
Cannabis, alcohol firm SNDL loses CA$372.4 million in 2022
A new April 20 cannabis contest includes a $40,000 purse
Your Go-To Source for Cannabis Logos and Designs
UArizona launches online cannabis compliance online course
-
Cannabis News2 years agoDistressed Cannabis Business Takeaways – Canna Law Blog™
-
One-Hit Wonders2 years agoUnited States: Alex Malyshev And Melinda Fellner Discuss The Intersection Of Tax And Cannabis In New Video Series – Part VI: Licensing (Video)
-
Cannabis 1012 years agoWhat you Need to Know
-
drug testing11 months agoDrug Testing for Marijuana – The Joint Blog
-
Education2 years agoNCIA Write About Their Equity Scholarship Program
-
Cannabis2 years agoIt has been a wild news week – here’s how CBD and weed can help you relax
-
Marijuana Business Daily2 years agoCannabis, alcohol firm SNDL loses CA$372.4 million in 2022
-
California2 years agoA new April 20 cannabis contest includes a $40,000 purse