This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Arguments for and against drug prohibition article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was created or improved during WikiProject Cannabis' "420 Collaboration" in 2022. |
When Sweden reduced spending on education and rehabilitation in the 1990s, illicit drug use rose [1] but restoring expenditure from 2002 again sharply decreased drug use as student surveys indicate. [2]
References
As we all should know "even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research." In this case UNODC does not make the the argument, Minphie, a Wikipedia editor, does with the help of statistics in the report. So it is WP:Original research. The first leg, where reduced spending on education and rehabilitation is said to lead to increases in drug use, have no direct support in the sources. (Although the second leg have some support.) Steinberger ( talk) 14:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems that within this debate there is an enormous amount of ambiguity regarding terms - in particular 'drugs' and 'addiction' - and that this ambiguity is often deliberate. As an example, the arguments under the "addiction" heading that 'drugs' are a societal burden due to 'addiction,' or that the use of 'drugs' is not a legitimate matter of free choice because of 'addiction,' depend entirely on what is meant by the two terms. If by 'drugs' and 'addiction' someone means dramatically physically addictive substances like crystal meth, then the implication that use of 'drugs' is debilitating and not a matter of choice is quite arguable. However, in the context of the statement, 'drugs' refers to all controlled substances, many of which have been shown to have a much lower chance of 'addiction' than, for example, alcohol (to say nothing of the difference between a dramatic physical addiction and dependency or habituation). I'm not sure if there is much to be done regarding this re the article, but as it is a serious obstacle to clarity I thought I'd mention it in case someone thought of a legitimate way to clarify; as with many other controversial topics, use of ambiguity and semantics to damage the clarity of the discussion is a popular tactic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.136.217 ( talk) 04:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
SallyScot, I am reinstating various sections where the original text contains explicitly more detailed information than the text you replaced it with. For instance, where you have used a DEA quote, their information is not addressing the last 100 years of prohibition as is the original text, but rather speaks of only the last 30 years of that 100 year period. The text that was there previously addresses a. success over the 100 year period, b. reasons for increases in drug use since the 60's, c. as well as the fightback of the 80's AND d. stats on how well that worked. This is far more comprehensive than the DEA quote. Also, a comparison between the percentages of illicit drug use versus licit drugs is crucial to any analysis of the effectiveness of prohibitive drug laws, especially when use of the prohibited drugs is so much lower than the licit drugs. These, of course, are arguments unpalatable to those working to legalize drugs, but they are correct and fully cited, and are crucial to the argument. Minphie ( talk) 00:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm quite surprised to see no reference to the extremely heavily researched The_Corner:_A_Year_in_the_Life_of_an_Inner-City_Neighborhood
I've not read it for a while but it definitely left me with the impression that that drug prohibition and the war on drugs was almost completly ineffective in reducing drug usage.
EdwardLane ( talk) 11:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
It would be good to have a table with a quick overview of the arguments, because it is very hard to process the data in the current format.-- Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ ( talk) 19:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
According to this link in the guardian a report (in which Richard Branson appears to have been a part) seems to have found in favour of taxation rather than prohibition. EdwardLane ( talk) 16:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The section for 'Drug laws are effective' features 12 data points, 2 anecdotes and 3 opinions in 563 words. The section for 'Drug laws are ineffective' features 1 data point, 10 anecdotes and 14 opinions in 1665 words. Personally I am struggling to form an opinion on this matter and this kind of rhetoric is not helping. 46.182.185.40 ( talk) 09:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Torr
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Arguments for and against drug prohibition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.nida.nih.gov/nida_notes/nnvol15n4/DirRepVol15N4.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 20 external links on Arguments for and against drug prohibition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087800000004lrP,{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087800000004muZ,{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blueprint%20download.htm/Transform'sWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The BMJ has recently published an editorial criticizing the war on drugs, citing a few peer reviewed studies to support their claims. Watching editors may be interested in incorporating it into the article. Saturnalia0 ( talk) 07:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Arguments for and against drug prohibition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/09/87/50/0dcba6c7.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Arguments for and against drug prohibition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I jumped in Prohibition of drugs and discovered a mess. It points to way too many Main Articles. That means it could be made shorter with summaries. This article is way too long, and it has too few Main article references. It should likely be divided. In my view, the argument is simplified when we deal and dispense with the definitional problems first. What is a drug? (in the context of prohibition)
We need to think of these articles in a hierarchy. Completeness is when all the topics are covered. Encyclopedic style is achieved when each article only summarizes what falls below it in the hierarchy. Here is an incomplete proposal:
Just my two cents Rhadow ( talk) 15:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Regarding this edit characterizing Mark Kleiman as the czar of Washington State. Kleiman had been mentioned in some 2013-ish press as formulating Washington's policy [1] but I don't think he's currently involved; and he resides in Los Angeles as far as I can tell. The state has a policy body called Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB). ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Arguments for and against drug prohibition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Arguments for and against drug prohibition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Kush 197.215.23.227 ( talk) 09:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)