10 U.S. Policies That Were Passed Based on False Information - Listverse (2024)

Throughout history, governments have sometimes enacted policies based on flawed data, misunderstandings, or even myths. Some of these policies had lasting impacts on society, shaping public behavior, influencing economic trends, or restricting freedoms—all based on information that was later proven incorrect. Here are ten historical examples of policies that were set into motion by misinformation, highlighting how flawed facts can lead to significant consequences.

Related: Top 10 Outdated Laws You Didn’t Know You Were Breaking

10 Prohibition in the United States (1920–1933)

The Prohibition era in the United States, initiated by the 18th Amendment and enforced by the Volstead Act, aimed to curb alcohol consumption, which reformers believed was the root of social ills like poverty, domestic violence, and crime. Advocates of Prohibition relied on exaggerated data that suggested the majority of crimes, accidents, and instances of poverty stemmed from alcohol consumption. Statistics were often cited out of context or misinterpreted, fueling a narrative that alcohol was an uncontrollable societal poison.

As Prohibition went into effect, it had the opposite effect of what reformers intended. Instead of reducing crime and poverty, the ban on alcohol led to the rise of organized crime, illegal speakeasies, and widespread disrespect for the law. By the time Prohibition was repealed in 1933 with the 21st Amendment, it had created a more dangerous and corrupt social landscape based largely on the misguided belief that alcohol was inherently responsible for America’s social issues.^[1]

9 The “Crack Baby” Scare and Harsh Drug Sentencing (1980s–1990s)

During the 1980s, media outlets and policymakers spread the belief that babies born to mothers who used crack cocaine would suffer from permanent disabilities, cognitive deficits, and behavioral issues, dubbing them “crack babies.” This alarming rhetoric spurred harsh anti-drug policies, including mandatory minimum sentences and severe penalties for crack cocaine possession, which disproportionately affected low-income communities of color. The federal government allocated billions to combat what was seen as a devastating crisis.

Years later, research found that the long-term effects of prenatal crack exposure were often mild and not as severe as initially portrayed. Studies showed that many health outcomes attributed to crack cocaine exposure were actually linked to poverty, lack of healthcare, and other environmental factors. The “crack baby” myth, based on sensationalized claims, had already led to years of harsh sentencing policies that contributed to mass incarceration in the U.S.^[2]

8 Eugenics Laws and Forced Sterilizations (Early 1900s–1970s)

The early 20th century saw the rise of eugenics, a movement that promoted “improving” the human race by preventing individuals deemed “genetically inferior” from reproducing. Influenced by misunderstood genetics and pseudoscience, many states enacted forced sterilization policies aimed at people with disabilities, mental health issues, and those labeled as “socially undesirable.” Supporters of eugenics argued that these measures would strengthen society and reduce crime and poverty.

Decades later, eugenics was discredited as a harmful and unethical pseudoscience, and the policies that stemmed from it were widely condemned. By the 1970s, over 60,000 people in the U.S. had been sterilized against their will, with a disproportionate impact on women and people of color. These policies, grounded in false assumptions about heredity and behavior, left a dark legacy and have since been acknowledged as a grave violation of human rights.^[3]

7 Three Strikes Laws (1990s)

In the 1990s, the U.S. saw the introduction of “Three Strikes” laws, which mandated life sentences for individuals convicted of three or more serious crimes. The laws were driven by public fear of violent crime, which media reports often exaggerated with stories of repeat offenders roaming the streets. Proponents argued that these laws would reduce crime and keep communities safer, basing their beliefs on the notion that most crimes were committed by a small group of repeat offenders.

Research eventually showed that “Three Strikes” laws had limited impact on violent crime rates, and instead, they disproportionately affected non-violent offenders. The laws also led to prison overcrowding and exorbitant incarceration costs, prompting states to reconsider their sentencing policies. Many states have since reformed or repealed their Three Strikes laws, acknowledging the unintended consequences of policies based on public fears rather than accurate data.^[4]

6 Anti-Cannabis Laws Influenced by Racial Stereotypes (1930s)

In the 1930s, the U.S. government passed sweeping anti-cannabis laws based largely on racially-charged misinformation and propaganda. Officials like Harry Anslinger, the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, argued that marijuana use was rampant among immigrant and minority communities and that it led to violent and immoral behavior. These unfounded claims were widely circulated, painting cannabis as a dangerous drug that would corrupt society if left unchecked.

Years later, studies debunked the notion that cannabis use was linked to violent behavior, and many experts pointed out the racist underpinnings of anti-marijuana rhetoric. Despite this, the policies initiated in the 1930s laid the groundwork for decades of harsh marijuana laws, impacting millions of lives. Today, as states move to legalize cannabis, there is greater awareness of the harmful stereotypes that shaped initial anti-cannabis legislation.^[5]

5 The Gold Standard Act Based on Fears of Silver Inflation (1900)

In 1900, the U.S. passed the Gold Standard Act, which put the country’s currency on a gold standard, abandoning the previous bimetallic system that used both gold and silver. This policy shift was heavily influenced by fears of silver-based inflation and economic instability. Proponents argued that silver was too volatile to support a stable economy, claiming that the gold standard would prevent inflation and strengthen the dollar’s value.

However, many economists later argued that the gold standard actually limited economic flexibility, constraining monetary policy and contributing to deflation during economic downturns. The Great Depression exposed these flaws, leading the U.S. to eventually abandon the gold standard altogether in 1933. The initial policy, driven by exaggerated fears of silver inflation, ended up contributing to economic stagnation rather than stability.^[6]

4 The War on Fat in American Diets (1980s–1990s)

In the 1980s, the U.S. government adopted low-fat dietary guidelines driven by studies that linked fat intake to heart disease and obesity. These recommendations led to the mass production of “low-fat” and “fat-free” products, often packed with sugar and artificial ingredients to compensate for taste. The government’s guidelines ignored emerging evidence suggesting that not all fats are harmful and that sugar plays a significant role in weight gain and metabolic disorders.

As research advanced, scientists found that healthy fats were actually beneficial, while sugar consumption was a major factor in obesity and heart disease. The push for low-fat diets ultimately contributed to the obesity crisis, as people consumed more sugar-laden “low-fat” products. This campaign, based on incomplete science, had lasting effects on public health and nutritional habits in America.^[7]

3 Redlining Policies and Racial Segregation (1930s–1960s)

Redlining, a practice spearheaded by the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation in the 1930s, marked neighborhoods with predominantly minority populations as “risky” for investment, preventing residents from obtaining loans or mortgages. This policy was based on the flawed notion that property values in these neighborhoods were inherently lower due to the residents’ race, leading to severe economic disparity and racial segregation across American cities.

Decades later, redlining was discredited as a discriminatory practice that not only marginalized Black and minority communities but also created systemic economic inequality that persists today. While redlining was eventually outlawed, its legacy has left lasting impacts on urban development, wealth disparity, and neighborhood demographics across the U.S., rooted in false ideas about race and property value.^[8]

2 The Satanic Panic and Child Care Laws (1980s)

The 1980s saw widespread fear of satanic cults allegedly operating in the U.S., with media and politicians warning of ritual abuse happening in daycares across the country. This led to the implementation of stricter regulations on childcare providers, with some facilities facing accusations of involvement in satanic practices. Despite the lack of concrete evidence, widespread fear of satanic cults and “ritual abuse” led to numerous high-profile court cases and life-altering convictions based on dubious testimonies.

As investigations proceeded, it became clear that the Satanic Panic was rooted in mass hysteria rather than fact. Many of those accused were eventually exonerated, but the damage had been done. This era highlighted how unfounded fears could lead to harsh policies and wrongful convictions, forever altering the lives of those affected.^[9]

1 Voter ID Laws and the Myth of Widespread Voter Fraud (2010s)

In the 2010s, a wave of new voter ID laws swept across the United States, with proponents arguing that these laws would combat widespread voter fraud. Politicians claimed that requiring photo identification to vote would protect election integrity, referencing isolated cases of fraud as justification. However, studies repeatedly showed that voter fraud was extremely rare and that these laws could instead disenfranchise voters, particularly those in low-income and minority communities who may face barriers to obtaining IDs.

Despite mounting evidence that voter fraud was not a significant issue, these laws gained traction, sparking debates about voting rights. Critics argue that these laws are a solution in search of a problem designed more to restrict access than to address actual fraud. The push for voter ID laws, fueled by exaggerated fears, has since ignited legal challenges across the country, impacting voting accessibility in numerous states.^[10]

fact checked by Darci Heikkinen