War On Drugs Case Study

During the 20th century, lawmakers took the lead in the War on Drugs, attempting to prevent the near epidemic level of narcotic abuse. As the number of laws banning substances increased, the issue of ceremonial hallucinogens and narcotics arose. The Constitution of the United States, in the First Amendment, states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” One case in particular, Employment Division v. Smith, tested this amendment and the battle between independent religion and structural government powers. This paper will examine this case in its decision as an outgrowth of the war on drugs and how it tipped the scales toward government. Policy makers often discuss ideologies,

citizens. While in office, he signed the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) that regulates certain drugs and substances based upon a scale of one to five, with number one holding the “most dangerous” drugs. Furthering his need to eliminate recreational drug use, Nixon created the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in 1973 to control and regulate drug use and smuggling in the United

With the most compelling example in 1994, John Ehrlichman’s interview, Nixon’s domestic policy chief, stated that the War on Drugs campaign design was to keep away Nixon’s two enemies: “The antiwar left and black people.” This led to excessive comments on Nixon’s campaign and whether racism played a major role. Ehrlichman stated that they wanted the “public to associate the hippies with marijuana and the blacks with heroin, and then criminalize both heavily” to disrupt the minority