Talk:Arguments for and against drug prohibition/Archive 2

message: "Illegal drugs can be hard to obtain for people who have difficulties with social relations. This limits not only drug abuse but spiritual, medicinal, and recreational use as well."
I would like to add this but it was removed with a request for citation, though it seems obvious to me. Can anyone help me find a reference? 68.40.167.60 16:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ilegal drugs prerequisite an ilegal trader, so it's a truth of it's own, your further deduction implies a subjective opnion, and Should be delted. ("This limit not only..but..also good stuff"). --Procrastinating@talk2me 21:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Availability 

message: This argument is a logical fallacy and should be removed. 68.40.167.60 12:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, lots of things we consume are toxic to some degree, I think less toxic is a valid arguement against the prohibition of consuming an item. That logical fallacy refers more to moral problems, not health problems. That is just my personal reading of it though. HighInBC 13:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Just because illegal drugs cause less health problems than legal drugs doesn't mean that the health problems they do cause are insignificant. 68.40.167.60 15:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No of course not insignificant, but not so signification as to make the arguement invalid. I am interested in more editors opinions on the matter, as it does not seem clear cut. HighInBC 15:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The whole thing reads like an argument _for_ drug prohibition. 68.40.167.60 16:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since my arguement for the statement is weak, and nobody else has commented, I think that it can be removed per being a logical fallacy. HighInBC 16:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegal drugs are far less toxic than legal drugs  

message: This summery seems out of place, it states a few blanket issues that most arguement apparently fall under, then many of the sub sections below do not match any of these catagories.
I think they should be moved into the appropriate sub sections below leaving only a short paragraph or nothing as a summery. The section Arguments for prohibition should match this stylistically. I am going to work on this. HighInBC 16:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summery of Arguments against prohibition 

message: "Given the high social cost of existing licit drugs (alcohol and tobacco), prohibitionists can confidently argue that legalisation of illegal drugs will lead to widespread availablility and aggressive marketing by manufacturers."
Does this sentence make sense? 68.40.167.60 18:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is poorly worded speculation. Good catch. HighInBC 19:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economics and psychosocial arguments 

message: "While politicians blame drug users for financing terrorists, no clear evidence of this link has been provided. On the other hand, US government agencies and government officials have frequently been caught trafficking drugs to finance US-supported terrorist actions."
Drug users were on the other end of this trafficking. 68.40.167.60 19:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what your complaint is here, there is no clear evidence of this link and the US government has been caught trafficking drugs. HighInBC 19:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see how that invalidates the point, who else are they going to sell them to? HighInBC 19:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah I see your point. Well the drug users are not actually financing the terrorists unless they know that they are buying from the government and they know the government is financing terrorists. While the government has knowingly used drugs for such purposes. It is worded poorly, I will take a stab at it. HighInBC 19:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Phew, how does that look? I think the key distinction here is that the accusation is that it is a major form of funding. HighInBC 20:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradiction 

message: About the worldwide view tag on this article, this article must center on areas where drug prohibition is actually taking place due to the subject. Is the tag there because a particular regions POV is being neglected or a regions POV being given too much attention? HighInBC 19:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the crux of the arguement is that if it makes up a significant portion of the economy, then there is a clear demand for it. HighInBC 16:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I see, I misread the statement. Your right. Not only is it not really relevent, but a bit confusing as written. HighInBC 17:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: A statement does not need examples from throughout the world to be verifiable. Do you think that the US is bias in some way toward the argument Prohibition causes more harm than good? I would say their bias go towards the opposite of the spectrum. It seems every objection you have to the worldwide view is an objection to a US sources. The US has a major role in prohibition, and it is not bias to represent that role in the citations. HighInBC 22:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As I said before, US drug polices directly influence the drug policies throughout the world. Here are some examples of this in publication: 
"US policies directly influence the drug policies throughout the world, and in the US drugs have become more accessible, thus drugs have become more accessible everywhere." This doesn't hold. 68.40.167.60 23:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Once again you are putting words I did not say into my mouth, this time using quotes, please don't do that. What I said what more along the lines of "The US has a major role in prohibition, and it is not bias to represent that role in the citations.". HighInBC 23:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldwide view 

message: I removed this cause it seems to be lack of worldwide view, taken from an argument that the US should legalize. This fact is neither surprising nor relevant. Drugs should be legal cause the US consumes more drugs than other countries? 68.40.167.60 16:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the crux of the arguement is that if it makes up a significant portion of the economy, then there is a clear demand for it. HighInBC 16:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I see, I misread the statement. Your right. Not only is it not really relevent, but a bit confusing as written. HighInBC 17:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  us market is the largest illegal drug market 

message: The sources cited here seem to be talking about the US only, but the article does not mention this. 68.40.167.60 21:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A statement does not need examples from throughout the world to be verifiable. Do you think that the US is bias in some way toward the argument Prohibition causes more harm than good? I would say their bias go towards the opposite of the spectrum. It seems every objection you have to the worldwide view is an objection to a US sources. The US has a major role in prohibition, and it is not bias to represent that role in the citations. HighInBC 22:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As I said before, US drug polices directly influence the drug policies throughout the world. Here are some examples of this in publication: 
"US policies directly influence the drug policies throughout the world, and in the US drugs have become more accessible, thus drugs have become more accessible everywhere." This doesn't hold. 68.40.167.60 23:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Once again you are putting words I did not say into my mouth, this time using quotes, please don't do that. What I said what more along the lines of "The US has a major role in prohibition, and it is not bias to represent that role in the citations.". HighInBC 23:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prohibition causes more harm than good 

message: Some of them should be grouped together or something. 68.40.167.60 20:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why too many against? I think there are too many in general. NPOV does not mean giving each arguement equal coverage, it means giving each arguement the coverage justified by existing research materiel. Grouping together is a great idea on some of them, mostly a question of making good sounding sentences(not my strong point). I merged a few points yesterday. I am glad to see this article under scrutiny. HighInBC 17:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  too many against arguments 

message: drugs should be legal because some drugs (alcohol and tobacco) are really bad for us? 68.40.167.60 22:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That one is a bit shaky. And we do have too many arguements. Be sure to try to salvage what you can if you deleted it and put it into other areas. HighInBC 02:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  consistency 

message: Just because drug trafficking and use have increased doesn't mean they wouldn't have increased more if drugs were not illegal. I don't believe what this section claims and it needs to cite sources if it wants to stay in. 68.40.167.60 03:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, the section is all wrong. It should be pointing to the fact that the amount of people arrested is neglegable to the amount of people doing drugs. Or the fact that the amount of drugs they confiscate is neglegable to the amount of drugs on the market. I will have to do some searching for citation on that subject. You are right, the way it is now is like saying something isn't toxic because the population keeps rising. HighInBC 16:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  proven ineffectiveness 

message: I'm not sure about the last edit . They are actually last names, and if you search the list of references in the bottom you will find the full names and works of these authors being referred to. They could certainly be switched to  , or [#] style cites though.  68.40.167.60 16:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, I have never seen that citation style before. If the citations are valid they I guess the statements should be there, as it was though it was not clear which citations they were refering to. HighInBC 16:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  citations in the 'criminilization increases...' section 

message: Making murder illegal increases profits for hitmen. Thus, murder should be legal.
I'm seriously thinking about junking this section. 68.40.167.60 16:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That analogy is flawed. Murder is something done to other people, wheras drugs are done to oneselves. The secondary crimes cause by the inflated prices of drugs can lead to more harm than the drugs themselves are doing. The secondary crimes related to murder do not generally exceed the harm caused by the murder itself. HighInBC 16:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Often the better solution is to fix a section of an article than to junk it. This is not terribly important as editors can go back into the history an rescue deleted material, but it does help alot. HighInBC 16:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  criminilization increases profits for drug dealers 

message: OK, so forbidding something romanticizes it, thus drugs should be legal. This argument fails because it is not necessarily bad that it is romanticized in this way. Again, you could apply this argument to murder. 68.40.167.60 18:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You like to compare things to murder heh? HighInBC 21:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you murder analogies are like the Nazi analogies that pop up in heated arguemnts all over the net. Murder of a fellow citizen for the sake of personal gain is absolutely accepted as not moral in All coltures. substance abuse is not. it's actualyl a fairly new thing, as european royalties of the 18 century used to have opium parties in public.--Procrastinating@talk2me 09:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  forbidden fruit 

message: The statement "there were 15,852 drug-induced deaths;" worries me a bit, because when I look at the citation the document gives that number refering to drugs in the classes:
"(F11.0-F11.5,F11.7-F11.9,F12.0-F12.5,F12.7-F12.9,F13.0-F13.5,F13.7-F13.9,F14.0-F14.5,F14.7-F14.9,
F15.0-F15.5,F15.7-F15.9,F16.0-F16.5,F16.7-F16.9,F17.0,F17.3-F17.5,F17.7-F17.9,F18.0-F18.5,
F18.7-F18.9,F19.0-F19.5,F19.7-F19.9,X40-X44,X60-X64,X85,Y10-Y14)"
The document does not seem to explain what these classes represent, thus there is no way to tell if this information is relevent. I may have to removed the material sourced to that citation unless this is addressed. HighInBC 21:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As explained in the section "cause-of-death classification" in said document, those codes refer to the WHO's International Classification of Diseases. 68.40.167.60 22:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 68.40.167.60 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 68.40.167.60 02:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You have to do a little clicking. Look up the numbers in the document, they say for example F11.0. So you click on the link that says F00-F99. Then you click F10-F19. 68.40.167.60 21:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 68.40.167.60 08:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And I'll the be the first to admit they apparently included tobacco in 'drug-induced.' I got that one as well as the thing about cocaine addicts increasing from 2 to 20 million from a dea page about legalization, but when I searched for the source on the addicts one I found a quote saying it was actually 'cocaine abusers,' which in the context of that paper most likely meant 'cocaine users.' I thought I had found a good source of information, but I should have known not to trust the government about drugs. 68.40.167.60 09:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, the same study  from which the consistency section gets its argument that alcohol use kills 80,000 a year gives an even higher number for deaths caused by 'illicit use of drugs': 17,000. Perhaps it should be noted that while there a six times as many alcohol users as drugs users, there are only 4.7 times as many deaths caused by alcohol. 68.40.167.60 09:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference though. alcohol related deaths are usually he result of a long physical abuse or car accidents. illegal drug use usualyl only causes death by and Overdose (relates to the problem of uncontrolled purity). furthermore death by ALL illegeal drugs against the death toll from a Single drug, is hardly a rightful lcomparison. I advice you to register wikipedia in order to better communicate. --Procrastinating@talk2me 10:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drug induced deaths 

message: For: Drug prohibition prevents harmful use.
Against: Drug prohibition prevents beneficial use.
The question is whether the harmful use prevented is worse than the beneficial use prevented is good and whether the difference warrants the energy spent on (or lost by) enforcing prohibition. 68.40.167.60 04:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your agenda is becoming more clear. HighInBC 04:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you caught me. I hate drugs. ;) 68.40.167.60 05:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments for and against drug prohibition 

message: My edits weren't vandalism! You are just locking the page to keep IP's from editing. 68.40.167.60 17:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it was not vandalism. But it was harmful to the article. It is better to repair than destroy here. The problem is many people can share the same IP, so when an IP user does something that is harmful(such as removing vast amount of content) it is often assumed to be a vandal sharing the same IP as other editors. Basically, we have no way of knowing if you are the same person from one edit to another. I suggest a user name which is more anonymous as your IP is hidden that way. HighInBC 17:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If said content is irrelevant, unsourced, and untrue, then yes it would not be harmful. But your arguement for removing them were mostly based on your opinions, not citation or wikipedia policy. And while you did announce some of it on the talk page, it was not much of a discussion. HighInBC 17:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You can request the page protection to be removed here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_unprotection. HighInBC 17:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: When information may be correct it is better to research and find a citation for or against it than to remove it. Often content is added first, and citations come later. Text can be immediatly removed when the fact is dubious, but this should be done sparingly not wholesale. It is better to put  tags there for a while to give someone the chance to find citations. But as I said, the place to oppose a page block is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_unprotection. State your case there and people may agree with you. HighInBC 18:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Due to recent vandalism...