>It is always worthwhile at least _to consider_ that the apparently
>unintended consequences of a policy are in fact its intended effects. I
>think, for example, that this is the case in reference to the War on
>Crime and the War on Drugs launched during the Nixon Administration,
>part of his 'Bismarckian' policy of concessions (OSHA) combined with
>heavier repression
The war on crime started under Johnson and Nixon declared the drug war but he wasn't the worst of the lot. The more consequential ramp-up in the war on drugs starts with Reagan and locking people up in the record numbers we have now starts in earnest in the early '80s.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/buyers/doitwork.html
Richard Nixon--the first U.S. President to declare an "all-out war on drugs"-- was also the first, and only, president to recognize the value of treatment as a sound investment of public funds. In June 1971, Nixon requested an extra $155 million to fight the drug war--$105 million of that amount was targeted for the treatment and rehabilitation of addicts. Under the Nixon Administration, Dr. Jerome Jaffe headed up the newly-established Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention (SAODAP). Faced with rehabilitating thousands of Vietnam vets returning home addicted to heroin, Jaffe encouraged setting up nationwide treatment programs. But Nixon's program for treating heroin addicts was dismantled by Ronald Reagan. Nancy Reagan preached the message of "Just Say No" as her husband cut into the federal budget for drug treatment. (see chart on budget percentages going towards treatment and prevention). Law enforcement became the priority, and the few treatment centers that did survive fiscal cuts were overwhelmed by the onset of the crack epidemic.