That thought doesn't really capture the reason. It applies in some circumstances but not this one.
In a republic, people are only paid to enforce restrictive drug policy because the people want them to.
Most people look at the issue in simple terms. "Drugs are bad, so keep them away from people". Legalization is a counterintuitive way to lower incidence of use and addiction, it will take a lot to convince people it is good for society.
Edit: Blaming public support for restrictive drug policy on "media" and "politicians" puts the cart before the horse.
Society often moves down the path of least resistance. Tough drug policy is appealing to people because it sounds logical. Therefore the elements of society that depend on the acceptance of the people - politicians, media, etc - also accept it and tow the line.
Influencers do not exist in a vacuum. They are influenced by the prevailing mood just like everyone else.
> That thought doesn't really capture the reason. It applies in some circumstances but not this one.
By 'this circumstance' do you mean the USA, or why drug decriminalisation isn't tried elsewhere?
If the former, consider this fun fact from Wikipedia [1]
"At the beginning of 2008, more than 1 in 100 adults in the United States were in prison or jail. Total US incarceration peaked in 2008. Total correctional population (prison, jail, probation, parole) peaked in 2007. If all prisoners are counted (including juvenile, territorial, ICE, Indian country, and military), then in 2008 the US had around 24.7% of the world's 9.8 million prisoners."
And this one from the same page:
"The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges."
I believe state numbers are a bit fuzzy, but at a federal level in 2016 it was around 75% of inmates were in private facilities.
So, long story short, there's a lot of wealthy people keen on keeping things as they are -- the fact that it's an easy political sell to the average not-terribly-well-informed voter is a bonus.
Nothing special about a Republic. If it has a large police force whose allotments of funds come on the basis of superficial law enforcement activity which can be tracked and used by politicians for campaign talking points, the fundamental incentives at play are still power and wealth.
The politician's salary depends on his understanding of getting elected, and not much else. The politician controls the policeman's salary, which now depends on doing things that will make the politician look good.
Some politician, or group of them, figured out that tough-on-crime looks good as a talking point. Nixon figured out that war-on-drugs looks great as a talking point. But at some point, the financial incentives for a whole built out bureaucracy become self reinforcing, even if the citizens' aggregate beliefs change.
But there's nothing special about a Republic. The mob, a totally different sort of shadow-government, though empowered by prohibition, continued to exist long after, up to today. There was a self reinforcing financial incentive for it to continue.
Related is another quote I like, the Shirkey principle:
“Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution.” —Clay Shirky
This. We saw same thing with "three strikes" in CA and mandatory sentencing in the US in general --and lest anyone forget, this was supported by the Clintons and Gores in the 90s (if you want to recall the wild extremes, just look into the Gores and the PMRC[1] and metal=satanic, etc.)
So in that sense it wasn't Rs vs Ds, it was rather Ds & Rs pushing strong for "law and order" --which was likely precipitated by the high crime rates of the 80s and early 90s as well as shoddy studies[2] about criminality.
"because the people want them to" is a bit of an oversimplification to say the least. The people, influenced by media, various factions and their own interest, vote for people who then may or may not do things that "the people want", because they operate within a particular context, zeitgeist, resistance to change, optics, party dynamics, outside money and what they perceive the people to want.
Do you have any numbers that prove the general public wants harsh drug laws to be enforced in the US (or anywhere)? As a counter example: the last few major elections for marijuana legalization have all gone overwhelming in support of legalization.
In recent years attitudes towards marijuana have definitely shifted. Attitudes towards MJ have always been closer to acceptance than any other drug. Ask the average person if they think heroin should be sold legally.
Thank the gods someone else knows this quote. It explains a great deal about the sources of cognitive dissonance of wealth entitlement and conservative ideology: fundamental dishonesty in regards to the plight of other people and willful ignorance about existential survival issues like climate change.
PS: modernizing it:
It is difficult to get someone to understand something, when their salary, lifestyle or belief-system depends upon them not understanding it.
I've always believed power and wealth interact with human nature at a lower level than ideology (to use a bit of a software metaphor). Relating Sinclair's observation to a particular contemporary political group or hot-button issue misses the forest for the trees.
That's about it really. There are a whole lot of people across the world whose salaries depend on an unending drug war.