While we wait for a comprehensive and scholarly answer to this question to be written and posted, here are some previous discussions on similar topics in this subreddit to whet your appetite.
Is there evidence that the FBI flooded black communities with drugs in the civil rights era?
Did the CIA really introduce cocaine/crack to the U.S?
Is there any truth to the claim that the CIA peddled drugs to black communities in the 70s and 80s?
Paging /u/gent2012
Hey there,
If you want to send RemindMeBot a PM to be reminded of this post in 2 days, click here.
!If you've come to the thread and are wondering why the comments have been removed, well, many AskHistorians mods are CIA plants who--: Actually, the real reason is that, !<here at the /r/AskHistorians Intelligence Agency, we'd rather have no answer than a thread cluttered with bad answers, wisecracks, and people saying "where are all the comments?". By removing the short, quick, bad answers that would otherwise crowd them out, the well-researched in-depth answers (that take people time to research and write) are more likely to be seen (see this graph for more detail).
This heavy moderation works: we have found that it takes an average of 9 hours for a good answer to appear on a popular thread - properly researching and writing an answer takes time - and that 90%+ of popular threads get an answer. Additionally, >!many of our agents, I mean, flairs, are currently working on black ops missions installing new /r/AskHistorians-backed governments at /r/AskAnthropology and /r/linguistics, and the rest are at a party but you don't have the security clearance to know about that, which means that!< maybe a good answer might take longer. The last time we did a survey, ~88% of /r/AskHistorians subscribers who had an opinion on our moderation approved of it, while another 6% thought we should be stricter >!- and well, the CIA man sitting behind me telling me what to write has some interesting ideas about that...!<
In other words, patience, good people. If you want to be reminded to look at this thread later, please see this really awesome Roundtable post for a list of ways (or click the thing above to send RemindMeBot a PM). And if you're wondering why Reddit never shows you an AskHistorians thread with answers, consider sorting your Reddit home feed by 'Hot' rather than 'Best' - 'Best' seems to give precedence to newer posts (which are less likely to have an answer on this subreddit, of course) and threads you haven't already looked at (e.g., it'll show you something else next time you log in, even if this thread is still getting lots of upvotes because there's an actual answer now).
If you're wondering what's in the 19 removed comments at the time of writing, well, there's some one sentence answers, someone trying to call RemindMeBot, and someone wondering where all the comments are None of which meets the standards in our subreddit rules. There was also someone linking to a previous answer (without crediting the original author) and some cluttersome comments in reply. All of these comments get removed on /r/AskHistorians because >!the Deep State, oh wait, I mean, !<the huge majority of our subscribers really do want accurate, comprehensive, in-depth historical answers based on good historical practice and high-quality sources. It's amazing how many downvotes and reports an obvious shitpost can attract on a popular thread on /r/AskHistorians within minutes, thanks to our readers (if you see it, report it, >!and the AskHistorians Intelligence Agency will be on the grassy knoll removing that comment with prejudice!<.)
What makes a good answer on /r/AskHistorians? Well, we want people answering questions to be able to explain not just what the basic facts are according to academic research, but why we know that these basic facts are right, and to put those basic facts into context. This is why we encourage the use of primary and secondary sources in answering questions, rather than tertiary sources like Wikipedia, podcasts and textbooks.
Unfortunately, the downside of encouraging in-depth and comprehensive answers is that we have to remove a lot of shitposts and comments wondering what happened to the removed shitposts. The upside, however, is that our contributors consistently post amazing stuff to /r/AskHistorians (which we collate the best of every week in our Sunday Digest), and daily on our Twitter. Alternatively, if you want to freebase history stories with much less focus on accuracy and depth, /r/history or /r/askhistory might be more appropriate subreddits for you than /r/AskHistorians.
Okay, so I’m not a historian, but I do know a bit about the subject; so I can provide a semblance of an answer until someone more qualified comes along.
One of the biggest connections between the CIA and Crack Cocaine lies in a single individual, “Freeway” Ricky Ross, a drug trafficker from LA, who sold up to $3 million worth of cocaine a day during his height, and namesake of rapper Rick Ross. Ricky Ross claims to this day to have been provided with cocaine by the CIA, but is this true?
Now one of Ross’s sources for cocaine was Danilo Blandòn, a Nicaraguan national who was exiled after the overthrow of the Somoza regime. He moved to the States and used his resources in Nicaragua to produce cocaine which he sold in US markets. He then used the profits to support the FDN, a contra group. Contras obviously bring up images of Oliver North and the infamous Iran-Contra scandal, so at the very least the CIA was in the periphery.
So we have the CIA, supporting a group, which is also supported by a man, who is the supplier for one of the largest drug kingpins in LA. This is where a conspiracy theorist says connect the dots, but this isn’t an episode of scandal makers, and I’m here to examine what carries water.
First let’s examine the drug in question: crack cocaine. Which although treated and thought of differently then cocaine, essentially isn’t. Crack is a form of cocaine which is prepared to be free based, or smoked, giving it a more intense high. Think of it as oranges versus orange juice. While you can make your own orange juice from oranges it takes time and effort. In the same way the ability to smoke cocaine (without making it into crack) is there, but takes time and effort. So you can go to a corner store and buy orange juice, in the same way you can go to corner boy and buy crack. One claim brought up often in this is the CIA invented crack, which is more than likely untrue. Smoking cocaine has existed for as long as the drug, and even Sigmund Freud was know to enjoy cocaine cigars, and the practice predates the CIA, by some 60-70 years. More than lucky some ingenious drug dealer simply by seeing an untapped market, and created a product by mixing cocaine and some additives. Even Ross saw cocaine at 19 in ‘79, so it was established well before the crack epidemic of the 80s, and likely without CIA assistance.
Okay, so then how involved was the CIA in importing the most important ingredient cocaine. So this is where it starts getting murky. The CIA certainly assisted the contras, and the contras had known cocaine ties. A congressional committee led by John Kerry found that there was:
Involvement in narcotics trafficking by individuals associated with the Contra movement.
Participation of narcotics traffickers in Contra supply operations through business relationships with Contra organizations.
Provision of assistance to the Contras by narcotics traffickers, including cash, weapons, planes, pilots, air supply services and other materials, on a voluntary basis by the traffickers.
Payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies.
With this we can see that the Contras were certainly involved in the cocaine trade, and US aid was going to help contra traffickers. Furthermore the Kerry Committee’s report also states:
the CIA's Chief of the Central American Task Force went on to say: We knew that everybody around Pastora [a contra leader] was involved in cocaine ... His staff and friends (redacted) they were drug smugglers or involved in drug smuggling.
So we see, the CIA was aware of the connections between contras and cocaine and did essentially nothing. Further supporting this is a report by the CIA itself which states that 8/22/82 The CIA was aware of a drugs for arm deal, between contras and US arm dealers and did nothing to stop it. So at the very least the CIA was neglectful of the situation to the point where they did not stop such action which they knew were going on.
As far as cold hard facts that’s all we have. The CIA was complicit, but not directly involved in the cocaine trafficking of the 1980s which led directly to the crack epidemic. There has, on the other hand, been a lot of conjecture. Ricky Ross was apprehended after a drug sting by the DEA which was organized by Blandòn, after he was captured by the DEA. Blandòn himself received a rushed permanent residency in the US. Ross asserts that he had dealings with the CIA itself, and that he was in essence set up as a fall guy. Other active drug dealers of the time also claim to have met with CIA agents. And the conspiracy goes on, but these are testimonies by people, generally jailhouse confessions, and cannot be collaborated. However, it is certain, at the very least, the CIA was passively complicit in the drug trade.
Webb, Gary (1996-08-18). "America's 'crack' plague has roots in Nicaragua war". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on December 20, 1996
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Communications and International Economic Policy, Trade, Oceans, and Environment of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate (1989). Drugs, law enforcement, and foreign policy : A report. Washington: GPO.