How Past Presidents Played the Marijuana Game
The Political Manipulation of Marijuana Prohibition Across Fifty Years
The Political Football of Cannabis Prohibition: How Marijuana Policy Became a Tool for Administrations from Nixon to Obama
… and my thoughts on Trump & Kamala at the bottom!
Cannabis has long been more than just a substance debated for its health implications. Since its criminalization in the early 20th century, marijuana has often been used as a "political football," passed between different U.S. administrations for reasons that extend far beyond public health. From Nixon’s War on Drugs to Reagan’s tough-on-crime stance, Bush’s dramatic displays, Clinton’s contradictions, and Obama’s cautious reforms, marijuana prohibition has been wielded as a tool to advance various political goals—whether it be controlling social unrest, appealing to conservative voters, or addressing public fears around crime and drugs. Despite shifting rhetoric, the strategy has largely remained the same: cannabis prohibition became a versatile issue to serve political ends.
The Shafer Report: Nixon’s Rejection Rooted in Prejudice
One of the most glaring examples of political manipulation in the marijuana debate comes from President Richard Nixon’s decision to reject the findings of the Shafer Commission. Officially known as the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, the Shafer Report was commissioned by Nixon in 1970 to provide an objective look at marijuana use and help shape drug policy.
After thorough research, the Shafer Commission released its report in 1972, concluding that marijuana posed fewer harms than previously thought. It recommended decriminalizing possession and private use, arguing that “the actual and potential harm of use of marijuana is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior.” It further emphasized that marijuana's risks were less severe than alcohol or tobacco, making the criminal penalties surrounding it disproportionate.
Despite this evidence, Nixon disregarded the recommendations entirely. But why? The answer lies in Nixon's personal and political landscape, which was deeply intertwined with his prejudices and desire to suppress cultural movements he opposed. Nixon’s disdain for marijuana was not purely scientific but was also rooted in his broader worldview, which included racism, antisemitism, and a fear of countercultural influences.
In several taped White House conversations, Nixon expressed deeply antisemitic views. At one point, he told his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, “You know, it's a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob? What is the matter with them?” He went on to blame Jewish intellectuals, particularly psychiatrists, for pushing marijuana legalization and reform.
This antisemitism played a role in Nixon’s decision to ignore the Shafer Report. Although Shafer himself was not Jewish, Nixon’s bias against the liberal, intellectual circles advocating for drug reform made him hostile toward the report’s conclusions. In Nixon’s view, decriminalizing marijuana would have been a concession to the very groups he saw as enemies: Jewish professionals, anti-war activists, and civil rights leaders. He weaponized marijuana prohibition as part of his larger strategy to suppress these groups, maintaining his tough-on-crime stance to appeal to his voter base.
By continuing to demonize marijuana, Nixon effectively buried the evidence from the Shafer Report, choosing instead to ramp up the War on Drugs—a policy designed as much to control political dissent as it was to address public health concerns.
Reagan’s Zero Tolerance: Capitalizing on Fear in the 1980s
By the time Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, the War on Drugs was well underway. However, Reagan escalated it to unprecedented levels, turning drug policy into a defining feature of his presidency. The driving force behind Reagan's harsh stance on drugs was the political and cultural climate of the 1980s, where growing fears about drug abuse, especially crack cocaine, became central to national discourse. Marijuana, though a much milder drug, was swept up in this narrative.
The 1980s saw a rise in drug-related issues, particularly with crack cocaine, but marijuana was grouped with far more dangerous substances like heroin and crack. Reagan, eager to demonstrate toughness on crime and protect traditional values, implemented a zero-tolerance policy toward all drugs, including marijuana. His administration launched the highly visible “Just Say No” campaign, led by First Lady Nancy Reagan, which sought to instill fear about drugs in American youth.
But why was this stance politically useful at the time? Reagan’s tough-on-drugs approach resonated with the growing political power of the religious right and conservative voters, who viewed drug use as a moral failure and a threat to the family unit. The post-1960s cultural backlash had elevated these concerns, and Reagan’s crackdown on drugs became a symbol of restoring order to a nation that had endured significant cultural shifts during the prior decades.
Statistically, there was some justification for a crackdown on crack cocaine, but marijuana use was already in decline by the early 1980s. In fact, by 1985, high school marijuana use had significantly dropped from its peak in the late 1970s. Yet Reagan’s administration continued to treat marijuana as equally dangerous, relying on the long-debunked Gateway Theory to justify harsh penalties. The real result was an explosion in the U.S. prison population. Between 1980 and 1997, the U.S. prison population tripled, largely due to drug-related offenses, many of which involved marijuana.
Reagan’s stance was not just about addressing drug problems; it was a political signal to his conservative base, reinforcing a narrative of moral decay and the need to return to traditional values. Marijuana prohibition became a convenient tool in this broader moral and political battle.
George H.W. Bush: The Continuation of Reagan’s Legacy
When George H.W. Bush succeeded Reagan in 1989, he largely continued his predecessor's policies. Early in his presidency, Bush delivered a dramatic televised address in which he held up a bag of crack cocaine and declared that it had been seized across the street from the White House. This spectacle, meant to show how serious the drug crisis was, cemented his tough-on-drugs image. Though crack cocaine was his primary target, marijuana remained lumped into the same discourse about dangerous drugs.
In reality, while there was indeed a crack epidemic in the late 1980s, the broader drug crisis was often exaggerated for political gain. Violent crime did increase during the late 1980s, but by 1990, marijuana use had significantly decreased from the 1970s. In 1990, the Monitoring the Future survey reported that only 27% of high school seniors had used marijuana in the past year, down from 50% in 1979. However, Bush’s policies continued to treat marijuana as a gateway drug, justifying continued harsh enforcement.
Bush’s policies, like Reagan’s, focused on law enforcement and incarceration, not rehabilitation. His administration further expanded the practice of arresting and incarcerating non-violent drug offenders, disproportionately affecting Black and Latino communities. Despite the declining use of marijuana, Bush relied on the public’s fear of drugs to bolster his tough-on-crime image.
Clinton’s Contradictions: Progressive Rhetoric, Punitive Policies
Bill Clinton’s presidency represents one of the most contradictory eras in drug policy. During his 1992 campaign, Clinton hinted at the need for reform, famously admitting that he had experimented with marijuana but "didn’t inhale." This lighthearted admission suggested that Clinton might take a softer approach to marijuana, and his administration did witness the rise of the medical marijuana movement. However, Clinton’s actual policies continued many of the punitive measures from previous administrations.
In 1994, Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which increased funding for law enforcement and introduced the notorious “three strikes” rule, mandating life sentences for repeat offenders. This policy contributed to the explosion of mass incarceration, particularly for non-violent drug offenders, many of whom were charged with marijuana-related crimes.
At the same time, marijuana use among teens began to rise again in the early 1990s. By 1996, 44% of high school seniors reported having used marijuana at least once in their lifetime, up from 33% in 1992. The increase in usage helped fuel Clinton’s continued crackdown on drugs, even as public opinion on marijuana began to soften, particularly concerning its medicinal use.
Clinton’s contradictory approach to marijuana highlights the difficulty of balancing political pragmatism with public opinion. While his administration flirted with reform—especially regarding medical marijuana—Clinton couldn’t afford to appear soft on crime during an era of heightened concern over public safety. Thus, marijuana prohibition persisted as a politically useful tool to maintain his tough-on-crime credentials.
Obama: The Beginning of Change
When Barack Obama took office in 2009, public opinion on marijuana had shifted dramatically. By the end of his first term, a majority of Americans supported the legalization of marijuana, and states like Colorado and Washington were pioneering recreational cannabis use. Obama himself had admitted to using marijuana in his youth, but drug reform was not initially a top priority for his administration.
However, during his second term, Obama’s administration took a more lenient approach. In 2013, the Justice Department issued the Cole Memorandum, which allowed states to pursue marijuana legalization without federal interference, provided they adhered to certain guidelines. This marked a significant departure from the heavy-handed federal enforcement of the past.
Statistically, marijuana use had remained relatively stable during Obama’s presidency. In 2013, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health reported that 7.5% of Americans over the age of 12 used marijuana regularly, a slight increase from previous years but not indicative of a nationwide crisis. The shift under Obama was not driven by an increase in use, but by a broader recognition that the criminalization of marijuana was doing more harm than good, particularly in communities of color.
While Obama didn’t push for federal legalization, his administration’s approach reflected a growing acknowledgment that marijuana policy needed to move away from punitive measures and toward rehabilitation and reform.
Explanation of Data Points:
Crime Rate: Refers to the number of violent crimes per 100,000 people in the U.S. Violent crime peaked in the 1980s and began to decline in the 1990s.
Marijuana Use: Refers to the percentage of the U.S. population reporting marijuana use in the past year. Use dropped in the 1990s but has increased in recent decades as legalization and social acceptance expanded.
Alcohol Consumption: Measures the amount of alcohol consumed per capita in gallons. Consumption saw increases in the 1980s and has generally stabilized since the 2000s.
Sugar Consumption: Refers to the annual per capita consumption of sugar in the U.S., measured in pounds. This increased throughout the 20th century and peaked in the 1990s before stabilizing in recent years.
This comparative table helps illustrate trends in crime, drug use, alcohol, and sugar consumption across the decades.
Past Presidents
From Nixon’s antisemitic and racially charged rejection of the Shafer Report to Reagan’s zero-tolerance crackdown, George H.W. Bush’s dramatic displays, Clinton’s contradictions, and Obama’s cautious reforms, marijuana has been passed between administrations like a political football. Each president used marijuana policy to serve their political goals, whether it was to suppress dissent, appeal to conservative voters, or maintain a tough-on-crime image.
As public opinion continues to shift toward legalization and reform, it's essential to recognize how marijuana policy has been manipulated for political gain, often at the expense of marginalized communities. Only by understanding this history can we move forward with a more just and evidence-based approach to cannabis in the future.
What’s Next?
Trump’s Mixed Messaging: States’ Rights, But Federal Enforcement
During Donald Trump’s presidency, marijuana policy remained a contentious issue, with his administration sending mixed signals. On the campaign trail, Trump suggested he supported medical cannabis, stating, “I think medical should happen — right? Don’t we agree? I think so.” However, once in office, his administration adopted a more complicated approach, particularly under then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a known opponent of marijuana reform.
Trump’s support for states' rights when it came to medical cannabis appeared to contradict Sessions’ decision to rescind the Cole Memorandum in 2018, which had previously provided federal protections for states with legalized cannabis programs. This move left state-legal medical cannabis businesses vulnerable to federal enforcement, despite growing public support for reform. The inconsistency between Trump's stated personal views and the policies of his administration created uncertainty for the cannabis industry.
Throughout his presidency, Trump did not actively pursue federal legalization or broader reform. However, he signed the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized hemp, a move that further blurred the lines between hemp-derived CBD and cannabis-derived products. This did little to clarify federal policy on medical marijuana, leaving states to continue driving much of the progress on legalization.
Trump's messaging on cannabis appeared to align more with a political calculation than a coherent policy approach. His stance reflected an attempt to appeal to both conservative, anti-drug voters and the growing pro-cannabis reform movement, without making definitive moves in either direction.
Kamala Harris: From Tough-on-Crime to Cannabis Reform Advocate
Kamala Harris’s evolution on cannabis policy has been one of the more striking shifts in recent political history. As a district attorney in San Francisco and attorney general of California, Harris initially maintained a tough-on-crime approach, which included opposition to cannabis reform. In her 2014 campaign for re-election as attorney general, she even laughed off a question about supporting the legalization of recreational marijuana in California.
However, as public opinion on cannabis reform shifted, so did Harris’s stance. By the time she ran for president in 2019, Harris had emerged as a vocal advocate for marijuana legalization. She introduced the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act in the Senate, which sought to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level, expunge past convictions, and reinvest in communities disproportionately impacted by the War on Drugs.
As Vice President, Harris has continued to support marijuana reform, but the Biden administration’s actions on cannabis have remained cautious. While Harris is positioned as a champion for legalization, the administration’s focus has been more on decriminalization and rescheduling, rather than full legalization. This approach reflects the delicate balance within the Democratic Party between progressive reformers and more conservative elements who are wary of full-scale legalization.
Despite her past record, Harris’s current advocacy for cannabis reform reflects the broader shift in public opinion and the recognition of the social justice implications tied to the War on Drugs. Her push for the expungement of past marijuana convictions, in particular, underscores her focus on addressing the long-term harms caused by decades of prohibition, especially within communities of color.
A New Crossroads: Cannabis and the 2024 Election
As we approach the 2024 election, the future of cannabis policy hangs in the balance. The journey from Trump’s contradictory signals to Kamala Harris’s evolution from tough-on-crime prosecutor to reform advocate reflects the broader political tug-of-war over cannabis that has spanned decades. While Trump left much of the progress up to individual states, Harris’s current stance suggests a cautious but meaningful path toward reform. Still, advocates for cannabis legalization remain impatient, as incremental changes haven’t fully addressed the harm caused by decades of prohibition.
The manipulation of cannabis as a political football has been a recurring theme, with each administration using it to advance their agendas, whether to appeal to voters or suppress dissent. From Nixon’s racially motivated crackdown to Reagan’s moral crusade, Clinton’s contradictions, and Obama’s tentative steps toward change, cannabis prohibition has been wielded for political advantage rather than rooted in justice or public health.
The question now is whether the upcoming election will finally lead to comprehensive cannabis reform at the federal level, or if it will continue to be a pawn in the political arena. As the American public increasingly supports legalization, the time has come for cannabis policy to be shaped by science, equity, and fairness—no longer dictated by political convenience. The next chapter in cannabis policy could bring us closer to a future where the mistakes of the past are not only acknowledged but actively corrected. Will 2024 be the year the political football is retired for good? Only time will tell.
Posts Published Online (Not Sent via Email):
Upcoming Posts:
Cannabis Seltzers and Colitis: A Cancer Survivor's Unexpected Cure
Discover how one breast cancer patient found unexpected relief from colitis through cannabis seltzers—a journey of hope and healing beyond the diagnosis.
"Balance" in Cannabis Medicine: Myth, Trend, or Truth?
Explore the many interpretations of "balance" in cannabis therapy, from patients to practitioners. What does it truly mean, and why is it essential for optimal health?
Unlock the Power of CBD: Proven Methods for Maximum Impact
From tinctures to topicals, learn the most effective ways t
o take CBD and harness its full potential for relief and wellness.
High THC: Threat or Trend? Why the Fear Might Be Overstated
Check into the evolving world of THC potency—uncover the facts behind the fear and what today’s high-THC products really mean for consumers.