How Charlie Rangel Changed His Mind About the War on Drugs
The former congressman, who died this week, transformed from a zealous prohibitionist into a drug policy reformer.

It "seemed like a good idea at the time," Charlie Rangel remarked in 2021, referring to the draconian drug penalties he supported as a New York congressman in the 1980s. "Clearly, it was overkill."
Rangel, who died on Monday at the age of 94, came to that conclusion after enthusiastically supporting the war on drugs for decades, going so far as to criticize Republicans as soft on the issue. His transformation from a zealous prohibitionist into a drug policy reformer reflected his recognition of the human costs inflicted by heavy-handed criminalization.
A former federal prosecutor who was first elected to Congress in 1970, Rangel was a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus who represented Harlem in the House until 2017. He played a leading role in drug policy as a member of the House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, which he chaired from 1983 to 1993.
"Even though the administration claims to have declared a war on drugs, the only evidence we find of this war [is] the casualties," Rangel complained in June 1986, a week after the cocaine-related death of Len Bias, a star University of Maryland basketball player who had just been drafted by the Boston Celtics. "If indeed a war has been declared, I asked the question, 'When was the last time we heard a statement in support of this war from our commander in chief?'"
A few months after Rangel demanded action, Congress approved the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which established mandatory minimum penalties for drug offenses, including a sentencing scheme that treated smoked cocaine as if it were 100 times worse than the snorted kind. Two years later, another Anti-Drug Abuse Act made crack penalties even more severe, prescribing a minimum five-year sentence for simple possession of more than five grams—less than the weight of two sugar packets.
In a 1989 Ebony profile that dubbed him "The Front-Line General in the War on Drugs," Rangel explained the rationale for such legislation. "We need outrage!" he said. "I don't know what is behind the lackadaisical attitudes towards drugs, but I do know that the American people have made it abundantly clear: They are outraged by the indifference of the U.S. government to this problem."
Four years later, when Rangel introduced a bill that would have eliminated three crack-specific mandatory minimums, he was already having second thoughts about this get-tough approach. By that point, the senseless penal distinction between crack and cocaine powder had led to stark racial disparities and prompted objections from federal judges, whose criticism would soon be amplified by the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
"In response to the onslaught of cocaine abuse in the 1980s," Rangel explained in 2007, "the nation crafted a drug policy totally lacking in compassion, and worse, that was totally unfair to the weakest, and most disadvantaged, in society." By his telling, "the sudden, frightening epidemic of a new street drug…impelled besieged lawmakers to enact stiff punishments for crack cocaine offenses."
Rather than "reducing drug addiction and crime," Rangel said, those laws "swelled prison populations, created a sentencing divide that victimized young Black men, left a generation of children fatherless, and drove up the costs of a justice system focused more on harsh punishment than rehabilitation." In other words, the "stiff punishments" that Rangel thought would help his community had the opposite effect.
Rangel's evolution extended beyond crack penalties. By 2011, the same congressman who in 1991 had defended the war on drugs in a debate with National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr. was co-sponsoring a bill aimed at ending federal marijuana prohibition.
"It simply doesn't make sense to waste billions of dollars putting hundreds of thousands of Americans in prison for non-violent offenses," Rangel declared in 2012. His change of heart, which began earlier and went further than a similar shift by Joe Biden, provided hope that even the most gung-ho drug warrior can learn from experience.
© Copyright 2025 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
his recognition of the human costs inflicted by heavy-handed criminalization.
A subject Jakey Fakey will never once elaborate on in the rest of his article. While conveniently ignoring the human costs inflicted BY drug use.
"In response to the onslaught of cocaine abuse in the 1980s," Rangel explained in 2007, "the nation crafted a drug policy totally lacking in compassion, and worse, that was totally unfair to the weakest, and most disadvantaged, in society."
Signaling his Marxist pivot away from a genuine concern about the black community - of which he was long since no longer a part of, and therefore becoming less and less relevant - to the classic oppressor/oppressed dynamic of anti-American enemies everywhere.
Peace be to your survivors, Charlie. I doubt you'll find any where you ended up.
Yeah, liberty and individualism are overrated.
In some circles, yes. Extremism in defense of liberty CAN be a vice.
Vernon, makes you look pathetic when you assume no one here knows the Harry V Jaffa Barry Goldwater slogan that you are trying to claim as your own.
Of course we know:
“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
I don't think Vernon was claiming the line as his own, and not a play on Goldwater's famous speech.
Yeah, pretty sure he is assuming that we all get the reference.
"Liberty and individualism" is a skinsuit that anarchists and hedonists wear to hide what they are. It's why they NEVER mention the core of liberty and individualism, which makes both possible to be guaranteed in a civil society: morality.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Did Rangel ever learn how badly government giveaways were damaging his black community?
A: No. He kept up the begging for 50 years.
He was dumb, thankfully gone.
While conveniently ignoring the human costs inflicted BY drug use.
Good grief. Won't someone think of the poor eggs?! But it's not over yet!
But where is the logic. The column suggests 3 things
1)we should get much harder on first time low level drug abuse.The Broken Windows theory. Of course cocaine uses are far up the chain. Who starts with cocaine !!!!
2) Why desert the common sense that it is the big supply (illegal immigrants) that creates the demand. Open a porn store anywhere and people who would never go out of their way get hooked
3) Sure the incarceration breaks up families. of course BUT broken families mean more druggies , dealers, gangs, users, etc. IF you continue down the cause-effect chain, in the Black Community it is obvious
“A vastly expanded welfare state in the 1960s destroyed the black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and generations of racial oppression. In 1960, before this expansion of the welfare state, 22 percent of black children were raised with only one parent. By 1985, 67 percent of black children were raised with either one parent or no parent.
The paper “What Can the Federal Government Do to Decrease Crime and Revitalize Communities?,” issued by the US Department of Justice, offered statistics on children from FATHERLESS homes. The children account for:
Suicide: 63 percent of youth suicides
Runaways: 90 percent of all homeless and runaway youths
Behavioral disorders: 85 percent of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders
High school dropouts: 71 percent of all high school dropouts
Juvenile detention rates: 70 percent of juveniles in state-operated institutions
Substance abuse: 75 percent of adolescent patients in substance abuse centers
I applaud Rangel but it isn't a choice between go after druggies or don't go after druggies, My heavens, how simplistic.
IT's why is society got this downward trajectory. You push for abortion, trans, gays, etc all you get is sick twisted guilty people. You wait behind the billboard of life in your cop car for someone who went crazy years ago --- wait for them to do something illegal.
I often wonder what Biden's great beaming accomplishment with these two , what it affected in the general population. Two sick twisted misfits praised
https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/11/sam-brinton-comp.jpg?quality=75&strip=all&w=1200
JS;dr
JS;dr
Charlie Rangel?
"seemed like a good idea" is Pandora's box of tyranny when left unchecked by the *tool* (Gov-Guns) being used to mature the "good idea".
Good idea's aren't always good idea's when the ends is Gov-Gun'em down.
It was a GREAT idea for padding his political resume and enhancing his personal power in office. There is a long list of boxes to check off before politicians should be allowed to enact a law. American politicians have never in our history checked off ANY of those boxes before enacting over a thousand laws, and "it seems like a good idea" isn't even on that list at any point in the process!
Too little, too late. The abuses of the misnamed "war" on drugs were obvious from the start to anyone with a brain and obvious after the first year to anyone with even half a brain. Yet Rangel did not reverse course until long after - notably, after he had already given up any power to fix the problems he helped create.
Deathbed conversions are better than dying unrepentant but that's not enough to make the person laudatory.
The abuses were obvious before the start, even. Alcohol prohibition was a disaster and should have clued politicians like Nixon in on how a war on drugs would wind up. But that is assuming Nixon and the other drug warriors didn't know that, which I don't believe.
CHARLIE RANGEL!
I don't get it. Is "Reason" trying to rehabilitate the image of one of the worst assholes in the history of politics? If so, why?! Or maybe they're trying to edge in something like, "Even one of the most abusive drug warriors in history had second thoughts as he lay on his deathbed after inflicting unmeasurable harm on millions of people over several decades."
"While conveniently ignoring the human costs inflicted BY drug use."
AT - This has NEVER been about the human costs of drug abuse. You might be able to make a highly questionable case that criminalizing drug abuse and drug sales might have reduced the human costs of drug abuse. Since it quite obviously failed miserably in that regard and also, quite obviously, increased the human costs of drug abuse while creating whole new territories of human cost in every other direction, that excuse will not fly, since they should have abandoned the war on drugs the moment it so obviously failed. Reducing the human cost of drug abuse is a laudable goal and there is ZERO evidence that government could ever achieve that goal even partially. Go peddle it somewhere else.
More, easier access to drugs = more drug use. Period. Feel free to ask the AI of your choice.
*Increased Cannabis Use:
Adults (26 and older): Past-month marijuana use is reported to be 26% higher in states with legalized recreational marijuana compared to non-legal states. Frequent use is also 23% higher in these states, and cannabis use disorder is 37% higher.
Non-college young adults: Studies show a rise in past-month cannabis use from 23% to 28% after legalization in this demographic. Frequent cannabis use increased from 12% to 14%, and cannabis use disorder increased from 12% to 15%.
General Population: Research indicates that people in states with legal recreational cannabis use it about 20% more frequently than those in states without legalization.*
You can be more concerned about the freedom to do drugs than you are about the downstream negative effects drug use causes (or at least contributes to). But you can't pretend they don't exist and they aren't detrimental to society at large, not just the user.
The 'downstream costs' are those of the drug abuser, not MY costs or the fake "costs to society." Go peddle it somewhere where people cannot do the thinking thing ...
Go pedal yourself to any downtown in any blue city and tell me the drug abusers are the only ones paying the costs of their imbecilic decisions. Anyone capable of doing the "thinking thing" knows that we have a bloated, corrupt safety net in America that even super geniuses in the comment section have to pay into. Just like with illegal immigration, don't tell me to accept more fucking parasites of any persuasion until you have successfully ended the money spigot. If you support moah fweedoms without FIRST enshrining into law that I don't have to pay for anyone else's bad decisions, you are a socialist-leaning libertine, not a libertarian.
"More, easier access to drugs = more drug use. Period."
This is, quite simply, FALSE. Period. When you can cite valid epidemiological statistics that show that the "human cost" of drug use increased when recreational drugs were legalized you might have a case. There is no such evidence. And don't make me laugh at the "Cannabis Use Disorder!" This is a fake diagnosis made up by fake scientists in a pseudoscience known as "psychiatry."
Tons of studies show the same thing
'"This data certainly confirms what others have reported with regard to changes in brain structure," she said. "When we consider the findings of the Gilman ... study with our own and other investigations of marijuana use, it's clear that further investigation is warranted, specifically for individuals in emerging adulthood, as exposure during a period of developmental vulnerability may result in neurophysiologic changes which may have long-term implications.""
Information is good. Forbidding adults from using a substance that may change brain structure (BTW, doesn't learning stuff also change brain structure? And do we know that these changes have entirely negative consequences?) is not. No one owes the world an unchanged brain structure. If adults choose to do drugs anyway, that's their problem, not yours. Same as any other potentially risky activity like playing sports, driving a motorcycle or any number of things that no one is seriously trying to prohibit.
Except for the small increase in "cannabis use disorder" (whatever that is), you haven't shown any evidence of additional harm.
I'm not one to deny that drugs, even cannabis, have downsides. But you have to consider the massive downsides and moral implications of prohibition too. And that people are in general allowed to harm themselves and do stupid things, treat their families poorly, etc. There are plenty of things besides drugs that people can become addicted to or otherwise ruin their lives with.
An we [society et al] are grossly negligent in not declaring war against all those other things too! People must be protected from themselves at all costs! If it saves just one life!
Too little, too late.
BIH congressman
All I remember about Charlie Rangel is that he was stupid and corrupt. If he was a champion of any idea you have, it's a warning sign that it might be a bad idea.
I was going to say, that old bastard is still alive? Finally, no, apparently.