Talk:Supervised injection site

message: Up until present, this paragraph was present in the article:
:"The Drug Free Australia team included an epidemiologist, an addiction medicine practitioner, social researchers and a senior welfare practitioner. Three of these analysts were well-published authors of research papers in 20 different peer-reviewed medical journals. They released their findings to the media and to politicians, leading to a robust debate in Australia regarding the effectiveness of aspects of the Sydney MSIC."
Three sources was used. One was a blog reproducing an excerpt from Daily Telegraph. It could possibly be used for "The Drug Free Australia team included an epidemiologist, an addiction medicine practitioner, social researchers and a senior welfare practitioner" as it do state the authors credentials. However, then the blog then goes on to a letter to the editor by Ingrid van Beek criticizing that DFA's report is used to prove the failed nature of the experiment "despite a range of health professionals respectfully pointing out the various flaws in its [the DFA report] extrapolations over the past several years." 
Another was ABC's Lingua Franca with a program called "Graeme Turner on the Rhetoric of Alan Jones" and reading trough the transcript I can't find anything that do corroborate anything in the Wikipedia article at all. The show goes on to criticize the rhetoric of Alan Jones, who is critical of Sydney MSIC. It is argued that his eight minutes of ranting over the theme that "politicians and academia [are] fabricating evidence to protect themselves, their reputations and their agenda" are a typical propaganda stunt and that it becomes hard, if not impossible for the defenders of Sydney MSIC that he later introduced to his show to make any valid point in that context.
The third was a parliament debate over Sydney MSIC. It was dubious at best and that it supports that claim that DFA's report was "leading to a robust debate" takes quite alot of imagination. It is true that DFA was qouted in the debate, but it is also true that DFA where said to convening "misinformation to political decision makers at this crucial time", that DFA is "peddling misinformation about the center" and that the center provides "information that refutes a number of claims by Drug Free Australia" and so on. To me, a debate where the material used by members come under such criticism can't be said to be robust. 
So, the first sentence can stay, the second lacks support in the sources. The first leg of the third is supported by the hansart while the second leg is not. I have now edited the article to reflect this and notes that this article needs a through factcheck. Steinberger (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Steinberger, first an apology for performing an 'undo' which inadvertently removed a paragraph of yours elsewhere I had no quibbles with. Secondly, I am happy to go with two quotes to illustrate a robust debate in Australia.  The blog, of course, is from Piers Akerman, one of the most read journalists in the country, and it is on the Daily Telegraph site, thus conforming with Wikipedia policy.  The Hansard debate does very well illustrate that there was a solid debate around Drug Free Australia's analysis, and all the mud-slinging that is done in Parliament by those politicians trying to defend their decision to open the Sydney injecting room does not for a moment change anything about my statement that it led to robust debate.110.175.209.31 (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The hansart is WP:PRIMARY! WP:NOR state that sources, especially primary sources, should never be interpreted. They should be conservatively summarized, if used at all. Steinberger (talk) 08:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Steinberger, there is no interpretation of the use of Hansard.  I have stated that Hansard shows a debate which is a descriptive statement, not an interpretive one.  Again you are trying too desperately stretching Wikipedia policy in ways that it does not intend, as per Literaturegeek's manifest concerns with your approach on the Harm Reduction Discussion page.  There is clearly no new conclusion drawn from Hansard or statement in Hansard that are somehow synthetic, as Literaturegeek had observed on a very similar matter on that same Discussion page.  And of course my description of there being a robust debate in Australia, for which the Hansard page is cited as one source of evidence, is a very conservative description of a primary source as you suggest Wikipedia would want.  If Hansard records debates, which it does, and there are two opposing views in this obvious debate which both mention Drug Free Australia's analysis, then this has been very conservatively but very truly described as a debate.  How could it be otherwise?  Minphie (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A debate, yes. But to call the debate a "robust" one is to evaluate it, that is to interpret and not to describe. To me a "robust debate" is a debate where the premises is agreed upon, that is not the case here, is it? So, it is not a robust debate and you are over-interpreting the source when getting to that conclusion, in the face of WP:NOR. Again. Steinberger (talk) 08:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Three of these analysts were well-published authors..." and other outsourced claims 

message: I have reinstated sentences and citations removed by Ohiostandard who appears to have assumed that there is some kind of academic consensus that addiction is a medical issue, rather than a psycho-social one.  There is no such consensus, and so Ohiostandard has no right to impose an individual belief or view on Wikipedia readers as authoritative.  
Even more extraordinary is that the sentence and citation reinstated were not even remotely medical in any shape or form.  European consumption rooms are not medical entities in any shape or form either, with not a nurse or a doctor to be found in most - they are a psycho-social intervention.  The Sydney and Vancouver centres have medicalized one part of SIS operation, which is intervention in overdose events. In some there may be medical advice on injecting, but the rest of the intervention entails education and psycho-social supports and distribution of injecting paraphernalia.  Such supports in a needle exchange setting are not perceived or promoted as medical in nature.Minphie (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have again reinstated citations and text related to the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice.  It has been established elsewhere that the journal is most-definitely peer-reviewed, that it is treated as a reliable source for one of the most authoritative reviews on needle exchange (see Needle Exchange Talk) and that contributors to the journal share hundreds of PubMed articles between them, making it compliant as WP:MEDRS.  Added to this is that the relevant injecting room articles are largely not addressing medical data, but rather discussing data within a psycho-social context, which makes WP:MEDRS superfluous. Minphie (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It have been discussed several times and the consensus is not that the journal is peer-reviewed. Rather the opposite. However, some - not all - think that it could be used anyway in specific situations. Second, I tried to dubble-check your statements that the editorial board are represented with several articles indexed in PubMed and did not find any on the names I picked for a try. How exaclty did you find that they had authored hundreds articles between them? Steinberger (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Steinberger, go to this and type dupont rl into the search box under the Search = Pubmed option. Minphie (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have results. Checking at some though (voith ea[au]) they are all comments or letter to the editor, not studies. Steinberger (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addiction psycho-social rather than medical 

message: I've had a read of the article history and the Talk page.  I'd like to suggest this article be rewritten- the coherency of the  current article seems to suffer from endless minor edits and and compromises.  My main points are that the evaluation section seems way too long, all those headings could be condensed into a sentence or two,  and that the article could have a more narrative flow.  Are there any users who object to this suggestion? --Dasket (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I too think that the evaluations section is to long, so agree. And if you have not seen it, the reliability of "Drug Free Australia"-material have been discussed at RSN and the organisation was not considered reliable enough to be cited for facts (but may, if considered a notable enough participator in the public discussions, be cited for its own opinions).   Steinberger (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

text: With respect, Dasket, your suggestion raises some concerns for me. This article has been very hotly contested for years, with literally every sentence the result of compromise, and it seems unusual that a two-day old account would show up to suggest a rewrite. I'll take my concerns to your talk page, however. --OhioStandard (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Well, let's see what arguments, if any, he makes in further discussions. Steinberger (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Coming in cold, it looks like he took flight for the hills as soon as a possible connection with DFA was suggested.  How long is it considered polite to wait? --Dasket (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, you mean that we should wait for his input before any changes? That is not necessary per WP:BRD-cycle. If he objects however, we can't say beforehand that we are to ignore him. Steinberger (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-write 

message: There's a number cited (apparently disputed) about how many people have been referred to detox programs, but I'm not seeing many numbers about how many people are confirmed to have kicked the habit of whatever drug they're on from using an injection site. The numbers for ODs and HIV infection are important but the assumption is most of these people because they don't die or get sicker will continue using. Are there any numbers to show, for example, X% of Insite users in 2014 later indicated they were drug-free after being referred to a program directly due to Insite? 68.146.52.234 (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistics for people kicking the habit through these sites

message: Please change to the second citation. The first version is improperly cited and is preventing it from being collected by citation analysis algorithm.
McNeil, R; et al. (13 March 2014). "Impact of supervised drug consumption services on access to and engagement with care at a palliative and supportive care facility for people living with HIV/AIDS: a qualitative study". Journal of the International AIDS Society 17.
1738details (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Where in the article is the citation that needs to be changed? clpo13(talk) 17:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2016 

message: It should be noted that Toronto is moving forward with the installation of three injection sites within the city, provoked by the success of InSite in Vancouver. As of this writing, Toronto City Council has approved Board of Health supervised injection site recommendations (36 in favour, three against).http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2016.HL13.2 Given the number of supervised injection sites currently operating in Canada and the world, these additions are highly significant. Debasedhero (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian supervised injection sites 

message: This needs to be discussed  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.98.51.36 (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impacts on surrounding real estate price? 

message: On this page about Supervised Injection Sites, under the first heading OPERATING FACILITIES, the last sentence is unsourced and reads "In April 2016, the Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program opened the 'Supportive Place for Observation and Treatment' or 'SPOT'."  While this is technically accurate (SPOT did open last April), it is misleading.  SPOT is NOT a supervised injection facility.  I propose removing this sentence entirely, as it does not pertain to the page topic.
How do I know all this?  I am a physician at Boston Healthcare for the Homeless.  I work in SPOT.  I know of what I speak!  Supervised injection is not legal anywhere in the United States (yet), and is definitely not tolerated in SPOT.  There was some misleading coverage in the news last year when we opened SPOT, and it made its way onto this page.  I am happy to clarify further if needed.  
Thank you very much,
Gabriel Wishik, MD, MPH
Boston Healthcare for the Homeless program Gwishik (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2017 

message: We propose to add a policy section to the article. We will be focusing on section AB 186 in particular. We will detail the background and arguments behind this proposal. Our group will have more information on this once we meet with our district representative Scott Weiner.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DNf999 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 17 October 2017 

message: A detail description of the Media video
Background of the bill/History of bill/How it started 
Impact of the bill on SF community - reference research articles
Include statistics that are specific to the drug usage population in San Francisco
Success/failure of current needle exchange programs created to remedy the needle disposal and open drug usage issue
Dangers posed by the status quo → Where are the needles being disposed of now?
Current issues and how the bill can resolve them → 
https://sf.curbed.com/2018/8/22/17768842/sf-senate-safe-injection-ab-186 
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/California-bill-to-let-SF-open-safe-13270836.php
Current progression of the bill - where is it now, where it’s headed in the future  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amendala (talk • contribs) 04:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  CP133 2018 Group 25 Proposed Edits 

message: The draft submission seems to reflect a neutral point of view. While the first paragraph could be misconstrued as persuasive, after reading it more than once, I believe it provides the background necessary to understand the issue of the opioid epidemic, and why San Francisco has been particularly involved with this issue. The paragraphs that follow serve to provide information with regards to the legislative efforts relevant in the city, and do not attempt to support a particular side of the issue. Great job staying neutral and providing important information!Evelyn.coria (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…  

message: I thought that the edits made by the group were very high quality and in depth. It looks like a lot of research was done to find the exact relevant bills and policies in place that are related to their topic. It was a well organized, brief timeline of events describing the supervised injection site policy progress in San Francisco. 
As a general rule of thumb, Wikipedia encourages a simple writing style with the goal of being as easy to understand as possible. In the Supervised injection site wikipedia article, I thought that something that could be improved was to add some subtext under the title heading of Proposed Policies because jumping straight into the San Francisco section without any lead section writing can be confusing for some readers. Other than that, all of the other style elements seem consistent with the Wikipedia manual of style. The grammar, organization, and spelling is all appropriate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianmaucsf (talk • contribs) 18:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify…  

message: Yes, the edits made to the Wiki page are verifiable with cited secondary sources. Each statistic and number mentioned in a sentence is cited, and the citations are from reputable sources such as the CDC and SF Department of Public Health. The sources are also freely available and did not require any membership or account sign up to view. Overall, the number and quality of citations greatly lends to the credibility of the edits.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:4100:B8DF:805A:158E:DA7B:5BF6 (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify… 

message: We would like to thank our colleagues for all their feedback. As per the suggestion regarding Wikipedia’s manual of style, we have added a brief introduction before jumping into the San Francisco subsection of Proposed Policies to make it flow smoother and decrease possible confusion.Jessica Tran (talk) 06:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Peer Review 

message: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/awash-in-overdoses-seattle-creates-safe-sites-for-addicts-to-inject-illegal-drugs/2017/01/27/ddc58842-e415-11e6-ba11-63c4b4fb5a63_story.html?utm_term=.d6c31913252b Egberts (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seattle safe injection site, 2017 

message: I made an edit on this page, adding "Australia" after "Sydney", and this was reverted, with the question "Why does Sydney need a country and New York not?", posted by HiLo48.
My reasoning for the edit is that it's clear to anyone which New York City is being referred to, as there is only one New York City (to my knowledge), and just about anyone is aware that it's located in the USA. As for Sydney, Australia, even though it's likely the most common and prominent place of that name, there are other Sydneys/Sidneys, such as Sidney, Victoria, Canada (yes, the spelling is different, but that is a difference which some people may overlook), and the transition within one sentence from North America to Australia may not be immediately obvious to some readers. For this reason, I think my edit should remain. werewolf (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: One of Wikipedia's big biases is US-centrism. Having a single sentence where one city is tagged with its country and the other, the American one, is not, is a perfect example. HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Sadly, nobody else seems interested in this matter. I surrender, though it seems clumsy to list two significant cities, and list the country for one but not the other. HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

text: There must be thousands of articles where American places are mentioned without any such clarity being provided. HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  In this article, Sydney should be followed by Australia. 

message: SIFs users are 30 percent more likely to enter drug cessation programs then non-SIF users.Debeck, K., Kerr, T. B., David, M., Tyndall, M., Montaner, J., & Wood, E. (2011). Injection drug see cessation and use of North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility. Journal of Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 113(2-3): 172–176. 
In the first two years after Vancouver's SIF opened, the surrounding area had 35 percent fewer overdose deaths with no rise in crime. Ducharme, J. (2018, February 6th). The Country's First Safe injection facility may Soon open in philadelphia. here's what you need to know. Retrieved from Time.com: http://time.com/5128626/safe-injection-facilities-us-philadelphia/
In Vancouver, BC after a SIF was introduced the overdose death rate fell from 253 per 100,000 all the way to 165 per 100,000.Ng, J., Sutherland, C., & Kolber, M. (2017, Nov). Does evidence support supervised injection sites? Retrieved from ncbi.nlm.nih.gov: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5685449/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredmarvel (talk • contribs) 16:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible additions to 'Impact on community levels of overdose' 

message: Here is a good study that was recently published. Might be worth adding to external links. --101.173.78.130 (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  a good study 

message: 1) Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? if not, specify...
I believe that this article has reflected a neutral point of view. There was not much biased or persuasion but in the first sentence of operating facilities, they used the word "disparagingly" which can give off a negative connotation for the "shooting galleries." In trying to maintain a neutral POV, it would be best to avoid words that negatively describes an object. Alison.chen (talk) 08:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group 16 Peer Review 

message: 1. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify… 
I do believe that in general the article (and new edits made) use neutral language; however, the lead of the article (first paragraph) appears to use some terminology that may seem somewhat harsh towards the opioid-abuse population, such as "nuisance". Other than that, the article was able to maintain perspective that was aimed towards providing information about supervised injection sites without showing any sort of bias or persuasion. Tandenise (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group 21 Peer Review 

message: I would like to propose that the title be changed to - Overdose Consumption Site - or Supervised Consumption Facilities - as it is the term being more accepted by the public, used by government, policy advocates and medical journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catfish2008 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested the change also on Wikiprojects medicine and there's a general support for the change, but the title needs to be globally representative and what to change it is still not firm. Graywalls (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose changing title to - Consumption Site - or Supervised Consumption Facility 

message: I have removed a large section discussing claims by Drug Free Australia, because the section was almost entirely sourced to primary sources, such as pamphlets and documents published by Drug Free Australia, and a magazine article written by Gary Christian, . These are obviously not independent reliable sources, and they particularly cannot allow us to make the wild claims (, and the absurd conspiratorial reference to climate change denial) which are contained in the section. Perhaps there is something to be written about the Sydney supervised injection sites, but this isn't it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be so. But we absolutely cannot use a column written by an officer of Drug Free Australia to state that "evaluations were demonstrably the production of partisan sympathizers." That is right out. 100% unacceptable. We need reliable secondary sources to make claims of wrongdoing or research misconduct. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section on Drug Free Australia 

message: In this edit, field observations and interviews conducted by a reputable media source who visited Canada from Philadelphia was removed. Primary source, such as as an uninvolved journalist's observations in non-partisan manners shouldn't be a problem. However, the article contains first hand reporting from involved parties, like the various consumption sites that have entrenched interest to present the data in a way that makes the program look more successful. I would like to discuss this. Graywalls (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  News reporter observation 

message: This has outdated information. The first safe injection site is approved and will be in Rhode Island. 100.40.13.53 (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2021 

message: This article devotes considerable top-level space and multiple references to a single survey commissioned by the City of Lethbridge. This study has been widely criticized as it did not measure any objective markers of social disorder, and instead took the form of a "perceived differences" survey of business owners, which is heavily subject to the well-documented effects of media coverage in shaping opinion. The study itself makes note that the city police service inexplicably denied the release of proper metrics one would use to validate the opinion results, like calls to service, geographic data, and other information which can not be easily altered by factors like social media engagement.
This appears to be an especially egregious oversight, as in the years since the release of the survey, the Lethbridge Police Service has, in accordance with the law, published its crime severity data for the years the SCS was open, and showed that the years Arches operated marked the end of a multi-year crime wave, and actually had the first year since 2013 where crime decreased.
At best, low quality research like perception surveys should be listed under the "Lethbridge" subheading only, not the much more prominent "Canada" section. The speculative portions language should also be dropped altogether - there's some fairly rampant speculation concerning the driving factors of any changes in social disorder that the survey didn't even attempt to examine, and so has no place being presented as a references passage.
Frankly, the entire "social disorder" section is a mess and needs an NPOV workup and rigorous review of sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:4A1:4AC4:84BE:D502:11E9:904 (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lethbridge social disorder study 

message: The passage early in the article:
"In August 2020, the largest SCS in North America ARCHES Lethbridge located in Lethbridge, Alberta closed shortly after province revoked their grant for misuse of grant funds.[18] It had been open since February 2018[19] and after it opened, it started causing calls for police service and opioid related EMS calls to the immediate vicinity.[20] Three weeks after its closure, the city already noticed a 36% decline in opioid related requests for emergency medical service.[21]"
Contains a mixture of NPOV and very outdated information. Most notably, it presents the Government of Alberta report on injection sites as its source, without making mention of the extensive criticism it has received for its lack of scientific value and numerous factual shortfalls, all of which have been extensively documented in scholarly and mainstream venues.
Some examples:
"Canadian scientists call on province to retract supervised consumption sites report"
https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/canadian-scientists-call-on-province-to-retract-supervised-consumption-sites-report
Calgary doctor on consumption site review panel says he's sorry it fuelled fears around sites' future
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/consumption-site-review-1.5493307
Bad Data Lingers: Happy Birthday to the Alberta SCS Report
https://uphns-hub.ca/bad-data-lingers-happy-birthday-to-the-alberta-scs-report/
Academics question methodology of UCP-approved supervised consumption sites report
https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/academics-question-methodology-of-ucp-approved-supervised-consumption-sites-report
Supervised consumption sites and crime: scrutinizing the methodological weaknesses and aberrant results of a government report in Alberta, Canada
https://harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12954-020-00456-2
Alberta's safe consumption review biased and flawed, researcher says
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-s-safe-consumption-review-biased-and-flawed-researcher-says-1.5867053
Alberta’s Discredited Anti-SCS Report Still Raised Across North America
https://filtermag.org/alberta-safe-consumption-report/
In general, it's quite important that editors pay close attention to differentiating between neutral and biased sources when adding references, especially if they are the basis for entire sections. In this case, the the United Conservative Party actually campaigned heavily on rolling back harm reduction platforms before commissioning the report, which was not subject to any outside review or standards of evidence before publication.
The passage also contains some factual incorrect and vastly outdated information, with overdoses in Lethbridge being higher in the year post-closure than the year before, as reported on in the media and pulled directly from the Province's "Alberta Substance Use Surveillance System" dashboard, accessible here:
https://www.alberta.ca/substance-use-surveillance-data.aspx
A number of the extensively flawed edits found throughout the page appear to be the work of a single user, who often uses unscientific and derogatory language in their change summaries, and I would suggest that a very thorough vetting of their contributions take place. Until then, I suggest an NPOV disclaimer is added.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:4A1:4AC4:84BE:D502:11E9:904 (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada NPOV 

message: Why all this article is giving so much credibility to those organization ? 
I think this is scientifically unacceptable  and I’m wandering why academics and other people wouldn’t they protesting about it ,the half article is their views … PeerNUPS (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drug free Australia