Talk:War on drugs/Archive 1

message: This page was just a redirect to Talk:Prohibition (drugs).  That was confusing. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirected 

message: This paragraph pretty much reads like original research; it uses material from sources like , but then draws independent conclusions.  It's also fairly POV:
:One important way of analyzing a policy of drug prohibition is to test whether the decrease in the social costs of drug abuse outweighs the cost of prohibition itself.  US Government Agencies do not always make helpful contributions to this analysis.  For example, the ONDCP estimated that the cost of drug abuse in 2000 was over $160 billion (1.6% of GDP); but they included losses in productivity due to incarceration, crime, drug-related illness, and other reasons accounting for over two-thirds of that amount.  Were the drugs in question to be legalized and taxed, many of those costs would disappear, and a legal trade in these substances would develop, as happened at the end of the Prohibition era.  Costs to society would depend largely on any change in the popularity of these drugs, the proportion of abusers, and whether there would be a change in the criminal behavior of drug users.  The ONDCP analysis also failed to take into account the effect of the reduced revenue that would accrue to organized crime in a regulated, de-criminalized drug economy.
-GTBacchus(talk) 01:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GTBacchus, I was one of the people who worked on that paragraph (though I didn't introduce it and User:Slashme changed it substantially).  Having visited the page in the hope of finding a footnote reference for the cost of drug prohibition, I was struck by the fact that the ONDCP report merrily conflated the social costs of drug abuse and the social cost of the war on drug abuse.  Drug policy isn't my area of expertise, so I don't know if this kind of disinformation is common, but if it is, the wikipedia article could do well to illustrate it.   I realise that objective description of this subject is often going to look POV.  Any suggestions? -- pde 09:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This kind of disinformation is all too common from ONDCP, NIDA, etc. Much of the paragraph is sound, but Were the drugs in question to be legalized and taxed, many of those costs would disappear, and a legal trade in these substances would develop is conjectural OR, if also common sense.  It would be easy to fix by making it an observation, The report did not consider whether, were the drugs in question to be legalized and taxed, many of those costs would disappear, and a legal trade in these substances would develop. -SM 08:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry to chime in late, but it isn't OR to believe that the cost to incarcerate drug offenders would disappear if drugs were legal.  No research is necessary for that.  It might be restated that their "cost of drug use" figure was composed mostly of costs that were caused by the war on drugs, not the drug use itself. Robert Rapplean 17:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced paragraph 

message: Some interesting repots, on the U.S.'s war on drugs.  All cannabis specific however.
*http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/MironReport.pdf
*http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/Up_in_Smoke.pdf?docID=1081
*http://sentencingproject.org/pdfs/waronmarijuana.pdf
Zath42 04:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent.  Now let's get some discussion of those numbers into the article :). -- pde 10:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reports

message: Page for Charles Bowden? I don't know how solid his work is, which is why I came here. 
There doesn't seem to be anything on it. I could not see how to place a sensible request via
the front-end wikipedia mechanism, but feel free to move this request to another place. Abu Amaal 05:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: This article is in need of some serious work. There is little coherent orginization, it just seems there are random factoids dispersed throughout. It needs to be shortened, put into chronilogical order and generally made to be more cohesive. Harley peters 23:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: There are way too many external links.  I took a shot at trimming them, but it needs more. Wikipedia is not a link farm. Links should only be added if they have valuable information that does not belong in the article itself and if they are not trying to sell something. If the information in the link does belong it the article, it should be re-written (to avoid copyright issues) and added to the article. In general, articles should have very few links, because very few links fit these criteria. The idea is that we want our articles to be the best possible source of information on a topic, not a short article followed by a long list of links to other articles-- one might as well just google the subject and read the first dozen sites if we are going to assemble long external link lists.
I'll try to get back to this at some point but it would be nice... -- Mwanner | Talk 23:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: The war on drugs cost to the tax payer is significant, and the article does not adress this gradual increase in cost. --Procrastinating@talk2me 09:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  how much does it cost? 

message: Nixon's war on drugs began in 1969 with Operation Intercept - http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/CU59.html
http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/e1960/intercept/Default.htm
(Unsigned remarks)
Is the above intended to say that there was no effort to stop drug smuggling or drug use prior to "Operation Intercept"?  Or is it intended to say that this is when the term "War on Drugs" came into use?  (Actually, I scanned the above two links and did not find term in either one of them.) —Wookipedian 19:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: When Nixon's War on Drugs Began

message: I dispute neutrality and would like to add a NPOV tag. This article is clearly propagandistic.
For the sake of neutrality and minimal "encyclopedicity" I propose the addition of the following elemental description of the title, at the very beginning of the article: 
War on Drugs is a propaganda or rhetorical term used by some American military or paramilitary (such as police) respresentatives and politicians to refer to several military or paramilitary operations justified by the current Prohibition. As Noam Chomsky pointed out, the term takes the rhetoric figure called synecdoche, properly refering to a "war" on certain drugs, and more properly to several armed aggressions to suspected producers, traders and/or users of those. Drcaldev 18:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way is it propaganistic? How can this be corrected?134.10.2.125 03:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Dispute 

message: Drcaldev 18:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you cite the opposition figures, please?  bikeable (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added information on relation with American classism 

message: I have no doubt that everything that the bulk of information in this article is accurate.  Unfortunate, the language in which its presented is somewhat inflamatory, and as such is difficult for anyone without all the facts to want to read.  If they don't read it, then they will never have the facts.  With this in mind, I'm going to propose a few changes in wording, starting with the beginning sentence.
I'd like to suggest this be adjusted to:
I'm going to change the opening paragraph to this one, and would like to hear discussion on it.  
I would also like to start a discussion on terminology.  I noticed that you use "legally controlled drugs", "illicit substances", "illicit mind-altering substances", and probably a few more.  "Illicit" and "legally controlled" are inaccurate terms to use because they play into the mindset of "it's illegal, therefore it must be wrong", which is what's causing this problem in the first place.  Obviously, though, we can't go in with the "chemicals without major corporate sponsorship" approach, so I'd like to hear a few ideas of how we can solidly refer to them. 
Robert Rapplean 22:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An effort towards more neutral language 

message: There have been a lot of good edits to this article in the past week, and I think that we have a decent chance of turning it into something extremely professional.  I've been trying to better differentiate the pieces that need to be extremely factual from those that need to provide lots of citations in order to be acceptable.  In that vein, I've separated the "history" from the "effects".  In the first section, we can put the list of milestones that got us where we are today.  In the second section we can analyze the justifications for it and provide strong statistical evidence about how well it did or didn't meet those justifications.  Does this work for you? Robert Rapplean 22:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the effects section 

message: reverted due to vandalism 142.161.185.76 01:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: This page seems to be subject to a lot of drive-by vandalism, requiring considerably more reverts than actual contributions.  Partial protection prevents people who aren't logged in, and accounts less than five days old from editing it. Would anybody be opposed to requesting it for this page?  I'll let this query soak for responses for a few days.  Robert Rapplean 19:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest requesting partial protection 

message: I have reverted edits by User:OniShikio. My reasoning is thus: Efficacy applies to medicine, social policy, etc., and is "power or capacity to produce a desired effect". Whereas Effeciency is a term from phyics, and is "the ratio of the energy delivered by a machine to the energy supplied for its operation". While both can denote "how well a system is working", I believe "efficacy" is more correct here. --Bhuston 21:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Efficacy vs Effeciency 

message: I've noticed that we've crept into "critizism, counter-criticism, and criticism of the counter-criticism". There already exists a page for Arguments for and against drug prohibition.  We don't need to import that entire argument into this page.  Instead it should be summarized here.  
I'm going to take a shot at the philosophy for drug prohibition, but it will likely look rather NPOV, since there is no factual information to support it. Robert Rapplean 19:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding point and counterpoint 

message: I just reverted this:
: ===Negative effectiveness===  	 
: The net results of the war on drugs is an increase in drug use, plus social costs that far exceed the damage that the drugs themselves could do. The blockade on proper dosage information and quality guarantees results in an increase in the number of people who misuse, overuse, abuse, and overdose on drugs. The damage to life quality caused by legal action exceeds the damage to life quality caused by drug abuse. The cost of enforcement and imprisonment exceeds the medical costs of our drug problems. Imprisonment results in a higher incidence of continued use over treatment.
While I happen to feel this is probably correct, this is in encyclopedia, not a blog, thus assertions like this need to be sourced (and become much stronger in the process). Also another "effectiveness" section is unnecessary. Please make additions to the "efficacy" section.  -- Bill Huston  (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythobeast edits 

message: I added a "Costs" section because money is the one area that everyone has feeling in, the pocketbook. I also added the fact that "The War on Drugs" is only a name, and represents drug control. My wording may not be precise and the point may be further illucidated upon but this is an important point to make from the begining, I did not add it because I do not know how to and remain NPOV but this "war" in not on drugs, but on the users of such drugs. It is widely accepted as a disease, yet we imprison people for having it. Also the use of drugs in the psychedelic ,or entheogen, family is religious in many culters and this makes the war on drugs a war on a religious level contrary to the Bill of Rights. I am very much subjective when it comes to this issue and so I do not feel I can be POV at when it comes to this point and so will leave it for someone else, though I sugest researching Yopo, Ayahuasca, Peyote, Marijuana & Rastafarianism, and the experiments of Timothy Leary at a church in with most of the subjects reported having a religious experience while "high" on LSD which were confirmed by a group which confirms such things. This may be a point made in the "Arguments For & Against "The War on Drugs", but is most definitely belongs in the "War on Drugs" article, under effects, as "The War on Drugs" and made illegal many tribal religions, Rastafarianism, and psychedelic sentiments of a religious nature talked about by people such as Aldous Huxley, Timothy Leary, Terrence McKenna, Herman Hesse, Robert Anton Wilson, Aleister Crowley, and many others. If such is not done by a less subjective person I will attempt a NPOV piece under the "Effects" section.
:Hi, Wombat.  You can't specifically target religion, but it is possible to identify the WoD as an outcropping of the culture war.  In order to establish one culture as "superior" to another culture, it is common to attempt to outlaw the practices and ideas performed by the other culture.  Religion is just the institution most commonly associated with this kind of abuse.  In the middle ages, laws existed that allowed jailing and killing of women who set a broom outside their door, because this was a way of advertising for women who practiced herbal medicine, which was in opposition to the beliefs of the church.  People readily fall for such things, as is evidenced by our current mythology about witches.  Some groups in the US are currently working hard to make the teaching of evolution and actions associated with homosexuality illegal for the same reasons.  This is, however, quite PoV and wouldn't last more than a week on this page. Robert Rapplean 23:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WombatOnslaught's 2 cents 

message: If you ever watched COPS you know the reason drugs are illegal--to circumvent people's civil rights.  As soon as they smell a little pot or think you look high they can search you and do pretty much whatever they want.  If drugs were legal they'd never bust half of the people driving around with guns and stolen cars.  12.41.40.20 19:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 12.41, I'm not sure if you're saying this is a good thing or not.  If Americans have changed their mind and think police should be able to search cars/houses at will then just amend the constitution and let them do it, without the pretext of pot smoke.  If they have reason to think you have an unregistered firearm or stolen car presumably they can search you right now.... -- Subsolar 05:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  COPS 

message: Article states under "United States domestic policy," that, "In 1994, it was reported that the War on Drugs incarcerates 20 million Americans a year."  That's not true (obviously)...actually about 1 million are arrested, but the 20 million number refers to the estimated number of Americans who use drugs, and are thus made into criminals by the drug laws.
How best to correct this? 
Chuao 12:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference misinterpreted 

message: I have heard it argued that a resaonable portion of Nixon's rational for the anti-drug legislation was to disable to "new left" which was the strong anti-war (along with other usually liberal ideas) movement of the 60s and 70s.  The History Channel claimed that since these anti-war protests were usually rife with drug use, having drugs made illegal would (paraphrased) be an excelent excuse to go in and arrest the protestors.
I cannot find a reliable source stating this quote, or any documentation supporting this claim.  I do know it has been on the history channel and has been discussed off hand on talk shows.  I figured I would throw this idea out there and see if any reliable documentation existed for such a claim, and if so, I think we ought to consider adding this to the page. DerwinUMD 17:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "New Left" 

message: Here's an instance of the term "Drug War", used in the movie "Reefer Madness" (circa 1936)
http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/propaganda/images/rmadness34.jpg 24.68.170.164 22:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term "Drug War" 

message: This graph is meaningless as it does not define what it is graphing.  It is slightly more obvious than the graph I have provided at right, but only marginally so.  It should be updated to reflect what is actually going on (essentially, define "drug use") or removed pending a more accurate representation being offered. Lumbergh 20:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prevalence of Drug Use Graph, top of page 

message: In the Criticism section, I think there needs to be a couple of paragraphs on the oppression felt by religious groups concerning the use of entheogens. I'm not that great of a wiki writer and I don't know how to cite the sources. I'm just getting into editing wikipedia, and i've been an avid reader for more than a year. Just a mere suggestion to include this topic under the war on drugs. Also, this article could use a section concerning political standpoints from different political parties, since this article is about the drug war in the U.S. Just a couple suggestions, trying to make wiki a better place --Deadlytab 21:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning Criticism 

message: I removed the following paragraph from the article:
This paragraph has nothing at all to do with U.S. foreign policy, the section in which it appeared. If someone wants to work it in, please find an appropriate place for it and do something to indicate its relevance to this article.
-Fenevad 01:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Jung 

message: The page currently has 
....incarcerates 1 million Americans a year. Of the 1 million drug arrests
It seems to me that many more people would be arrested than incarcerated, so one of the numbers is incorrect... -- Subsolar 05:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  incarceration vs arrests 

message: Here is the text that was removed as it is an essay and does not meet WP standards for an encyclopedic article.  It does not maintain a neutral viewpoint by establishing a "straw-man" opponent to refute.  Feel free to use it as a model but please avoid duplicating the unencyclopedic tone and its hypothetical refutation style - responses to "criticism" would be better done within the paragraph in the article where a criticism is raised instead of rambling at the end:
A common argument heard in support of the War on Drugs is that it is not something that can be "won" or "lost."  Proponents of this argument believe the War on Drugs is similar to medical efforts to end human disease--both have technically "failed." Others point out that it would be absurd to end funding for medical research because it hasn't eradicated all illnesses. This argument implies that while there are negative effects from the War on Drugs, the alternate, decriminalization, would lead to an even worse state in society. '
The weakness of this metaphor is that modern medicine has and continues to make great progress in the treatment of illness, whereas the War of Drugs has been, according to many, unsuccessful. This weakness is exacerbated by the logical problems in likening all drugs to fatal diseases.  In fact, some drugs, like methamphetamines, are more harmful than others.  Others, for example cannabis, are not as harmful. 
Although some believe decriminalization of drugs may reduce criminal activity simply by redefinition, advocates of prohibition claim that increasing the availability of drugs will increase usage, and that the social costs of increased drug addiction would be worse than the costs of prohibition.However, this claim overlooks the fact that various drugs can be legal but their availability can be regulated to various degrees based on their public health risk.  For example, morphine and alcoholic beverages are all legal but regulated differently which greatly influences their availability to the general public.  Opponents argue that the War on Drugs surrenders control over certain drugs to an illegal drug market dominated by violent gangs and drug dealers, which makes it virtually impossible to regulate them.  This absence of regulation creates new public health and safety problems when certain widely-used drugs that pose relatively little harm to individual user or society, such as cannabis, are exploited by drug dealers who desire only to increase their profit by exposing more of the public to hard drugs, such as methamphetamines, cocaine, and heroin.  
Prohibitionists also point out that the cheapest, most popular legal drug, namely alcohol, is responsible for a larger proportion of crime than all illicit drugs combined, indicating that decriminalization of other drugs would indeed lead to an increase in crime.
However, this argument results from the false presumption that all drugs exert the same effects. While alcohol may promote violence and crime, there is little evidence suggesting that other drugs, psychedelics or opioids for instance, directly induce violent behavior.
Criminalization of theft and other crimes has not led to their eradication, but few would suggest that crimes of person and property be decriminalized.  Analogously, prohibitionists argue that the failure of the war on drugs to reduce drug use should not be taken as a reason to decriminalize it.  Although advocates of decriminalization would argue that this is a false analogy, and that that drug use only disadvantages the user, prohibitionists point to the effects of drug use upon others. In response to that point, advocates of decriminalization would point out that tobacco and alcohol have the same effects as other illegal drugs (intoxication) and can lead to the same end (addiction, disease, social problems, death) and are still legal,  so therefore the government is contradicting itself by making certain substances criminal when the legal ones have the same or even worse effects.
Thanks!
Icactus 22:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay of response to criticsm 

message: I don't know if I am correct about this... in the 4th paragraph of the history section it states that marijuana tax stamps were never produced but if you follow the link to the Marijuana Tax Act page, there is an image of a Marihuana tax stamp. Isn't this contradictory or am I mixing up two different tax stamps? Oh, by the way, there seem to be a variety of US state issued marijuana tax stamp available on e-bay, too. CWPappas 05:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tax Stamp in History Section 

message: So, uh, this is a great article about why the war on drugs is bad and must be stopped, but maybe we could write an encyclopedia entry on the war on drugs now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.34.230.69 (talk • contribs).
:So, uh, Go for it!.  You seem to be the only non-stoner here, so your point of view is crucially important. --Slashme 10:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without getting into the POV of the whole article, I'm not sure of the references to the Iran-Contra Affair in the "Effects" section. It currently refers to the Reagan administration's "illegal foreign policy agenda" and states as a matter of fact that various illegal activities occurred. Isn't it the case that many of these activities were never officially confirmed? -Kris Schnee 04:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Chief among the benefits of the war on drugs has been the containment of hundreds of drug users to select wiki pages (ref link: War_on_Drugs), greatly reducing the proliferation of stoner impact upon other wiki pages.  Such impact is characterized by a marked inability to restrain from latching onto and dwelling upon some single personal experience or obscure, marginalized reference that the stoner has encountered.  This containment provides a safe and benign environment where stoners can share a bountiful wealth of true yet inconsequential information with no discernable distraction to the popular majority that does not give a darn.
--Brent 13:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV much?

message: I have seen almost identical statements in "marijuana books"... the "weasel words" thing is completely unnecessary... BriEnBest (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - the statement there is attributed to a particular person.  There is no cite, but there probably could be if someone familiar with Chomsky's writing on this looked it up.   However, the section "Propaganda cover for paramilitary operations" is odd, and does not match the text.  I'll try to improve it. Subsolar (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  can we remove the "weasel words" thing? 

message: This image below isn't relevant, it doesn't fit with the start of the article...
Philipwhiuk (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, don't delete from wikipedia, improve! The image is relevant if you realize that the War on Drugs is what drives very large profits to be made from illegal drug trafficking (you certainly can't make profits like this on prescription morphine and cocaine), and in turn these profits drive the creation of new businesses whose very existance the War on Drugs was created to stop. I had thought this would be obvious from reading the article, but perhaps not. So I'm restoring the image with an explanation. SBHarris 23:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-relevant image removed 

message: This article is clearly the worst one on the entire wikipedia, which is honestly quite an achievement! Full of anarchist-libertine propaganda, without the slightest trace of balance.
Let's face it: ever since Ulysses forcibly took away his oarmen from the Island of Lotus Eaters in Homer's Odysseia, greco-roman-european based culture has always and consistently opposed, banned and punished substance abuse. The whole white civilization is based on this basic fact.
Also it is proof of what is just and right, that all substance abusing civilizations have long fallen. The peace-pipe blowing redskins, the opium-enamoured imperial China, the magic mushroom eating zulu warriors: white race has trampled all of them flat out. This is because whites did not consume drugs to create pleasing hallucinations, thus they had to work hard with sane mind to make their lives better, therefore inventing machines, which co-incidentally afforded them with efficient war-fighting ability. 
God has tasked man to toil endlessly upon expelling him from Paradise but substance abuse makes people just lay around hallucinating, thus disobeying the heavenly command. 91.83.4.102 (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with this argument is that no drug was illegal in the US until 1907. I think the white man had managed to make quite a lot of progress up to then. And he had a lot better drugs available than the "peace pipe" smoking Indian, who certainly wasn't blowing anything stronger than tobacco in the thing. SBHarris 01:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another issue is why are certain drugs prohibited while others are tacitly endorsed (caffeine, alcohol, etc.)? Alcohol can cause hallucinations (not to mention that it is a factor in about 60% of fatal burn injuries, drownings, and homicides; 50% of severe trauma injuries and sexual assaults; and 40% of fatal motor vehicle crashes, suicides, and fatal falls).71.211.190.109 (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but Wikipedia doesn't consider "God" (whoever that is) a reliable source. If you want to be able to modify an article based on what "God" has published, you will need to find another wikiproject, I'm afraid. Have you considered using Conservapedia? Cambrasa 03:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wisdom follows, pay attention! 

message: Added Ulysses and the Lotus Eaters to history section as first ever written account of violent drug-supression activity. 91.83.4.102 (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC}
:Source of this statement that it is the first? Any particular edition, or merely one supplied by the Gods? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In antiquity 

message: the only one that comes to mind is that of jocelyn elders. does anyone know of others? Badmachine (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  how about a new section for voices against the war on drugs from within the usa government? 

message: the video is amusing, but probably doesnt belong here. Badmachine (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 23:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  dr v's private hell 

message: U.S. comparison to other countries
Official agencies and departments tasked with implementing drug policies, such as the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, have published several reports that show several other countries with restrictive drug policies have for decades produced significantly better results than U.S (lower prevalence for use of different drugs, fewer citizens imprisoned for drug crimes). UNODC World drug report 2007UNODC: Sweden's successful drug policy, 2007UNODC: World Drug Report, Consumtion, 2008OECD FACTBOOK 2008 – ISBN 978-92-64-04054-0, 2008
References (talk copies)
I have an issue with the above as it stands. It seems like either synthesis or just straightforward original research to me. For example, I've looked at the UNODC: World Drug Report 2008, Consumption, Statistical Annex and I would argue that it doesn't really support the section's main contention. Let's look at page 276, section 3.5.1.3 - Cannabis - Annual prevalence of abuse as percentage of the population aged 15-64. This shows e.g. USA 12.2%, Italy 11.2%, England and Wales 8.2%, Netherlands 5.4%. Is this supposed to support the argument that "several other countries with restrictive drug policies have for decades produced significantly better results than U.S."? - And if you argue that it does, what does that mean? Isn't it rather random? How do Italy and England show higher figures than the Netherlands? Why isn't the Netherlands top of the table? We otherwise know that in the U.K. when cannabis was reclassified down from class 'B' drug to class 'C' drug the prevalence of usage actually dropped. How could such a softer approach bring the figures down when what is supposed to work is a tough approach? There seems to be no clear statistical correlation here, just one editors cherry-picking interpretation.
--SallyScot (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: SallyScot: Your criticism is based on an incorrect interpretation of the text. You criticize things that are not actually exist in the text. You forget the word restrictive. Moreover, it is actually nothing of any statistical relationships in the text. What is is that there are several countries which for decades has been more successful ... Not more than strange to write that there are several nations which have succeeded better in the world championships in football than Canada. I can mention Finland, Japan, Norway and Sweden. They all have a restrictive drug policy. They have all significantly lower prevalence of different drugs and people in prison for drug crimes than the U.S.. Dala11a (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[War_on_Drugs#U.S._comparison_to_other_countries|U.S. comparison to other countries]] 

message: What is surprising with this article is that is gives very little information of the  methods used on local level in work against dug use. Something started by Nixon is almost zero information. Who is  involved, what resources do the have,  what is the cost for drug treatment if there is any drug treatment and who pays, what are the typical punishment for a minor possession of different drug, for sale of drug of smaller quantities, is there anti drug information i schools, how much, how active are organization that work against drug use, what role has the parent movement etc. etc. Dala11a (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the War on drugs in practise

message: I deleted this awkward section today, because it doesn't really stand on its own without any explanation. Please feel free to re-add the quotes somewhere else:
 06:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awkward 

message: Today this was added:
"The recreational use of drugs being prohibited, the use thereof is usually a sign of rebellion against the strictures of society, and therefore the government feels compelled to act against such flagrant disrepect for the law and societal norms. Illegal drug use is thus a shibboleth, whereby drug abusers and all involved in the traffic thereof are perceived as dissident, disruptive and harmful elements in society. To decriminalize such activity would symbolically surrender authority to those who by nature oppose authority." Hmmmmm, seems like one of my drug-lovin friends may have written this. But we need some citations! I can't see the government saying such a thing. Maybe, go look on a fundamentalist website? I'm sure what you wrote wouldn't be far from what they have to say. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments for the drug war

message: Who is Warren Redlich, and why is he mentioned so prominently in the article, here?  Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: the citation takes you to his site. it looks like he isnt notable, but the citation is interesting. badmachine (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warren Redlich 

message: This page is talking about the "War on Drugs" like it was some official U.S. policy, rather than just a media characterization and catchphrase. There is no "War on Drugs" in the sense of a law or a department or anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.25.56.34 (talk • contribs) 
:Much of the page should be broken out into Drug policy of the United States. That said, policy need not be law. As is repeatedly stated in the article, drug policies from Nixon onwards were frequently described and sold using this terminology. MrZaiustalk 14:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "There is no 'War on Drugs' in the sense of a law or a department or anything." The Controlled Substances Act and the Uniform Controlled Substances Acts of the various states are virtually inseperable from the "War on Drugs" in the sense of a law. They are the basic instruments devised to implement the policy described as "War On Drugs" IMO. The Drug Abuse Control Amendments of 1965 were a significant change in policy and shift of federal-state power but the CSA was an enormous change. It has arguably been the vehicle for the creation of a state religion or new national ideology. Whether they are called departments, offices or something else the US has had no lack of them since the late 60s. ODALE, DEA, ONDCP come to mind immediately. The "War on Drugs" is an historically distinct and extremely important part of American drug policy and national ideological conflict. Definitely merits its own article though I think there are important weakness of placing it in historical context. Indeed, I think the whole subject of US drug policy (including over a century where the "policy" was essentially that drug use wasn't a matter for government policy or intervention) is addressed very poorly from an historical perspective. Wickipedia is young. This may get fleshed out well in the coming years. -- Moss&Fern (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  War on Drugs? 

message: Previously read:
The U.S. government classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug (having no accepted medical use) is contradicted by several scientific studies which suggest that it may in fact have medicinal value as a treatment for ailments such as cancer,[39] glaucoma, Fibromyalgia,[40] and neuropathic pain,[41] among others. 
Added today as a continuation of the paragraph:
In fact, in the abstract for patent number 6630507[42] filed Feb. 2, 2001 "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants", held by the United States of America as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services (Washington, DC), they state "Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia."
The quote has been copied from the US Patent and Trademark website which I believe to be in the public domain and therefore hopefully acceptable. LexRob (talk) 04:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barriers to scientific research 

message: there is nothing in this section that shows that the War on Drugs protects communities. i think this section should be removed, and the template that says War_on_Drugs#Arguments_for_the_Drug_War needs expanded should be replaced.
badmachine (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the section back in again. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The point here is not to establish whether the War on Drugs can indeed protect communities as President Clinton argued, only that the argument has been put forward. --SallyScot (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[War_on_Drugs#Protection_of_communities]] 

message: Tags above added to the top of the main article by BatteryIncluded on 30 November 2008. I agree this is a controversial subject. But while such tags do make a quick visual impact, they also suggest some current and ongoing discussion on the talk page. And, while there are some older postings on the subject above, BatteryIncluded hasn't really elucidated with their particular concerns. I've removed the tags on this basis. I'd encourage anyone who wants to make what they feel would be overall improvements to the article to go ahead. Be bold; edit the content. If this results in disagreement, which it doesn't seem can be resolved in a reasonable time frame by way of discussion, then perhaps such tags are appropriate. --SallyScot (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: the article has been very stable lately. i wonder if its a good article. badmachine (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tags November 2008 

message: this section is prefaced by the following, which doesnt seem to have anything to do with any argument for the war on drugs:
<BR><BR>
The United States Drug Enforcement Administration claims to have had "Successes in the Fight Against Drugs".
am i wrong? this seems out of place and i want to take it out, which would leave this section very bare. otoh, it doesnt seem like a good idea to fill out light sections with out of place content. badmachine (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, i took it out. it was misplaced, and is not relevant to the section. badmachine (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[War_on_Drugs#Arguments_for_the_Drug_War]] 

message: I recently reverted an edit that attempted to acknowledge criticism of the topic in the lead/introduction (due to its lack of nuance and overly abrubpt language), but something should be present. More than half the article is taken up discussing a lengthy multi-faceted debate about the effectiveness and propriety of the topic, but there is nary a mention of any potential drawbacks or criticism in the lead. Anyone care to take a stab at making the lead a better summary of the article per the manual of style (specific guidance at WP:LEAD)? MrZaiustalk 04:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: the lead seems well written and neutral, and that may be why it remains unchanged. the failure of the "war" on drugs can not be stated outright in the article, and is instead demonstrated by the dozen plus criticisms, versus only two (specious) arguments for it. badmachine (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The key goal in the lead, however, isn't neutrality - It's fairly and succinctly summarizing the article that follows. The two-thirds of the article (going by the TOC) that aren't mentioned in the lead result in a poor introduction. The edit that I reverted that issued a clear judgement on the topic before it was in error, but some hint that the policies are controversial in nature and have had an impact (be it positive or negative) are vital to getting this article to good-article status. MrZaiustalk 10:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: i added this, but its not enough. i dont edit this article much because its hard for me to be neutral on this topic. badmachine (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced lead 

message: i see the proposal that the 'criticism section' be split into its own article. this would leave this article with only Arguments for the Drug War, with nothing about the negative criticism. i OPPOSE the split. badmachine (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd also result in a seperate spammy attack piece, a bad thing per WP:CRITIC. That said, a more balanced approach that was titled something along the lines of Debate over the War on Drugs listing common talking points and giving the sides of both the detractors and supporters may be more viable. On the other hand, this article's short enough that it doesn't matter in the short term. MrZaiustalk 09:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. Oldag07 (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

text: please feel free to add any verifiable, valid reasons for this war on drugs. the lack of arguments for the war on drugs has nothing to do with the neutrality of this article, and more to do with fact. this article has already been split once, and i think thats enough. badmachine (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

text: by the way, i OPPOSE the split, as i stated in january. badmachine (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't exactly my article.  I don't exactly have the time to split off the criticisms.  The section is awfully long taking up over half the page.  but I see the argument going both ways.  I am surprised the tag is still up. Oldag07 (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: i removed it. badmachine (talk) 08:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_on_Drugs&curid=1181646&diff=266466085&oldid=266415916 article split] 

message: I see some interesting stuff in the article but, as a whole, it seems a jumble
Looks to me like we need something called Drug control laws, referring to relevant international treaties, listing, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, legislation related to those treaties, and aiming to produce a good trans-national definition of controlled drug
Then we might have a basis from which to make drug-related articles less of a jumble, including those which are about drugs which fall outside the scope of drug control laws (eg alcohol and tobacco in the UK)
Laurel Bush (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Laurel Bush: see List_of_schedules_for_drugs_and_poisons. badmachine (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Define "controlled drug"? 

message: Calling anti-drug ads "propaganda" violates NPOV. "Propaganda" is a loaded term.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.55.212.221 (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loaded Language 

message: First I am a big supporter of marijauna's legalization and other drugs. However this horribly uneven. Drugs such as coke are seriously addictive and drugs such as marijauna have side effects. We need to mention them and we need even it out. YVNP (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is uneven 

message: The reality is the drug war has been fought already on our streets, our murder rate has droped from near 30,000 a year to 15,000 thanks to the effort by our government to fight drug gangs.
If you don't think America hasn't been affected by the drug war, and we been using other nations to fight our own war. Go say that to the black community who was affected by the drug trade and saw more of their own murdered in the 80s, and early 90s then the whole Mexican nation is seeing today.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenthere (talk • contribs) 08:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real drug war in a sence. Death toll in The US. 

message: There appears to be no clear opening attempt to explain WHY the US and other governments (around the world) have adopted criminalization of various drugs from the beginning of time! For instance, why not, before bashing the entire thing, state:
For centuries many nations have sought to protect their societies from the unwelcome effects of a variety of substances, including alcohol; marijuana; cocaine; opium; and certain natural and synthetic psychedelic materials. The unwelcome effects that have been cited include: 
#the reduction in logical, emotional and sociological restraint as compared to a socially-accepted norm by individuals under the influence of these materials;
#loss of ability of users to adequately function in the workplace and home environments (due to #1 above); 
#a deterioration in the stability of the family-structure (due to #2 above), leading to marital abuse, divorce, criminal neglect of children and an increase in people, especially children, living in poverty;
#loss of the economic productivity of users (due to #2 above) which undermines the economic well-being of the society;
#increased crime rates due to those who become addicted to various substances needing (due to # 2 above) an alternative source of funds;
#increased costs associated with police and military efforts to prevent the smuggling and distribution of these materials.
I am quite sure that these concerns could be fully sourced and cited, and it would give the article a cohesion and balance that is currently fully lacking. As a United Methodist Pastor, married to a School-based Social Worker, we deal with the effects of illicit and abuse of legal drugs on a daily basis. As the Prohibition on Alcohol in the United States was the result of a campaign by the church I am a minister of, I am fully aware of the previous failure of that criminalization. Yet, as the number of intoxicated-driving fatalities continues to soar, killing thousands each year (many more than the total numbers in the Afghanistan-Iraq War on Terror), I am grieved by that failure.  
On other note - there are several lists of statistics in this article that try to suggest that marijuana intoxication does not cause ANY fatalities. The problem with such a statistic is that the medical examiners and police who track deaths include all fatalities by any intoxicant together! Frequently the intoxicated driver has ingested multiple intoxicants during the same period, including alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, and/or heroin, such that the cause is listed simply as "Intoxicated" or "Intoxicant-Impaired", for legal purposes. Thus, there is no way to accurately break out the cause of fatalities related to a particular intoxicant.  - - - Such a case leads to the oft-used phrase (back when I was teaching finance and statistics in a university), that there are only two types of statistics, i.e., useful statistics and misleading statistics, with the accompanying truism that the only difference between the two types of statistics is which side of the argument you are on.  75.183.41.145 (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Credible, relevant statistics of any sort are difficult to come by.  As for your stand on alcohol prohibition, which clearly brought organized crime to the United States, I see no credible arguments that eliminating drug prohibition would not reduce the power of said organizations.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPoV? This entire article appears to have been written by NORML 

message: That is not a possible section heading, even if the information is otherwise suitable for addition (which I don't think it is, either; see #Japan above.)  It presupposes that the goal of the War on Drugs is the reduction of illegal drug use, which is a conclusion not supported by any reliable sources.  The most plausible goal of the "War on Drugs" is (a) making most people law-violators and/or (b) justifying massive violations of civil liberties, as, quite often, the only way to determine whether someone is using drugs is to take a blood sample.  The elimination of drug use is an improbable goal, even if it were attainable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Success is possible  

message: I expanded the support of the War on Drugs section.  It might overlap somewhat with the article discussing the pros and cons of prohibition, but I think with some more data and quotes from government officials, etc. it might stand up to the significant bias in the article against the War On Drugs (which I happen to think is a horrible idea).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.50.1 (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The expanded section still doesn't have any sources.  I believe it to be the opinion of some reliable sources, but, as policymakers are real people, some of them living, WP:BLP would seem to apply.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I think you might be raising the issue of verifiability too urgently here, considering the content of the new material.  My thinking was that sources could be added over time by myself or other contributors, as my preference is for information to be presented and then corrected or confirmed rather than removed outright.  WP:Improve offers support for that approach, though perhaps in conflict with WP:Verifiability.  I'm not sure WP:BLP is much of an issue since the "War on Drugs" is de facto supported by the entire U.S. government as well as anyone else who agrees with its mission.  The section does benefit from verification though, and I have added some.12.40.50.1 (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and Support of the Drug War 

message: In response to those who contend that this article unfairly treats the War, have you considered that valid arguments for the Drug War may very well be scarce?  NPOV isn't about giving each side equal time, but about treating all the evidence equally.  This means if you find sources supporting the Drug War, by all means include them.  Don't complain about NPOV just because the data supporting one side of an issue is out there in heaps while that supporting the other side is scant.
Also, noticeably absent from this article (and really discussions of a lot of political issues in modern times) is the condescending nature of this sort of ban.  The presumption is that people are children and unable to take care of themselves, so the government needs to slap their wrists and take away what's bad for them.  This may very well be true, but even if it is, the attitude is still debatable.  That is, should we treat people like responsible adults and let the irresponsible suffer nature's consequences, or should we treat people like children in an attempt to legislate away irresponsibility?
That is my favorite argument against the Drug War (a related one is Chris Rock's "I think all drugs should be legal.  You know why?  'Cause people wanna get high.").  However, I have not gone source-searching, so I cannot comment on its notability.  It may very well not belong in this article for the simple reason that it's not as common an argument and therefore not notable.  Still, might be worth keeping eyes open for. Mbarbier (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and another criticism 

message: Who is winning this so called war?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.75.95 (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results