Talk:Arguments for and against drug prohibition/Archive 1

NPOV

This entry has been stitched together from material from the former Drug legalization entry (which was merged into War on Drugs, now called Prohibition (drugs)), and from the former War on Drugs entry itself. The aim was to move the bulk of argumentative, opioniative material out of the Prohibition (drugs) entry. The first set of material is an extensive argument for the legalization of drugs. A corresponding section putting forth the argument for prohibition does not yet exist. This is why I've flagged the article as non-NPOV. See also the discussion that took place on Talk:Prohibition (drugs) before I split the material off. The second set of material is point-counterpoint stuff, so it should give a fairly balanced view, albeit one not well-suited for an encyclopedia but perhaps a necessary evil for such a complex and controversial issue. Once a decent section on Aruguments for prohibition has been contributed, the article should be moved out of NPOV dispute and in to Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues. Rkundalini 02:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

seems like there's now a decent argument against section. Per your comments above, I'll remove NPOV tag and see what happens.Feco 23:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How come Legalization always gets the last word?66.124.232.231 3 July 2005 06:35 (UTC)

If you feel it's a problem you are, of course, free to add in the "last word" for Illegalization. Ravenswood 02:04, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Actually drugs do get the last word. Its up to us to alter our conscienceness or not.

You know what I think is funny? How anything that doesn't fit Fox News's definition of "Fair and Balanced" is accused of being full of spin. What I mean by this is that often times giving each side of an issue equal support is not actually fair. It would be like a baseball umpire keeping the game tied on purpose even though one team is far outperforming the other. Maybe proponents of drug legalization have the truth on their side on this one. There shouldn't be an obligation to fill half the page with arguments from one side if they aren't based in reality. Toby Ziegler 04:20, March 15, 2006 (UTC)

This article is ludicrously unbalanced. Four times as much space is given to arguments for legalization as against. Furthermore, the arguments against legalization are all neutralized by a "counter-point", whereas the arguments against legalization, many of which are poorly written, get no counter-point.

That the arguments against legalization may actually be rather strong is not something that can be considered by the reading audience since any attempts to add counter-points to the legalization points are instantly deleted by Diza, or at least were today.

Thus, we are left with a supposedly neutral article which espouses a number of manifestly hilarious concepts. For instance, the statement that drug addicts have no control over their actions and are involuntarily driven to commit criminal acts. Who here seriously believes human beings are forced by nature to take drugs, become addicts, and commit crimes? Anyone?

Although the For prohibition argument goes first it is rather short and desperately needs expansion. The majority of the world's nations (everyone except the Netherlands) must have a reason more substantive than the few words currently in the wiki for their stance on drugs. What are those reasons? Personally I am against prohibition so I struggle to think of reasons for but there must some and they must be good. Any For people have some good material? --AndrewC 08:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If there are good reasons for the nations to ban drugs, then it is much harder to back up such claims with citations. It seems to me that much of drug prohibition has been based on arguements that are not rooted in fact. It is very possible that a contreversial case can end up being one sided after research and remain NPOV. If one looks at the common arguements for prohibition one finds that many of them do no meet wikipedia's criteria. However this is not to say the section cannot be increased, surely the health and religous section can be filled out. Or you can find new arguements that are rooted in fact. Thanks for the help, such a topic is very hard to remain NPOV with. HighInBC 12:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Additions

I added

"Drug prohbition as a solution to perceived problems of society"

and

"This viewpoint can be seen as socialist because the people are protected from a perceived negativity that they would not be protected from in a free market capitalist economy. It should be noticed that while chemical addiction is a real and easily tangible thing mental addiction is not and that many other items not considered "drugs" are potentially addictive and thus their users could be exploited just as easily as someone who is addicted to a drug."

The second statement in the second addition borders on being biased, but I tried to present it in a NPOV.

My thoughts on this point:

"If a War on Drugs encourages drug use, does this mean the War on Terror encourages the use of terror? Did the War on Poverty encourage poverty? Did the War against Iraq encourage saddamy?"

I cant offer a counterpoint to it because I beleive it is a horrible point in the first place. "saddamy" is a horrible way to term the actions of Saddam Hussein because it is very close to sodomy. I changed it to

"Did the war against Iraq encourage the formation of Dictatorships and undemocratic actions such as genocide?" -- Eric Urban 7:05 PM 11/28/04(CST)

The War on Drugs may not encourage drug use directly, but it makes selling drugs highly profitable, and thereby creates a motive for drug dealers to encourage use of drugs. It also indirectly glorifies drugs by making them a forbidden fruit. The best method of reducing the use of drugs like cocaine and heroin is the same one employed to reduce use of drugs like tobacco -- that is to ban promotion of the drug, discourage its use without prohibiting it completely, and prohibit use of those drugs in as many public places as possible.

I don't see the relevance to terror or poverty. Drug use (or more specifically, the desire to alter ones own consciousness) is a natural animal drive, like hunger, thirst and sex. The same cannot be said about terrorism or poverty -- the bulk of the population do not desire to be impoverished, nor to terrorize others. On the other hand, a small number of people cannot seem to help themselves in their desire to keep others under their thumb, and will certainly resort to using their power to keep others as powerless as possible through impoverishment, fear mongering, and of course through creation of superfluous laws and restrictions. Of note, neither the War on Terror nor the War on Poverty has done all that much to combat their respective evils... so it's a moot point. Poverty and Terrorism seem to be on the rise -- so maybe these wars do encourage what they fight against. --Thoric 22:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The problem of size

Since this article is heavily related to Prohibition (drugs) it should be discussed in Talk:Prohibition (drugs) I think. -- Eric Urban 7:05 PM 11/28/04(CST)

Point counterpoint

The point counterpoint section seems ridicoulusly long and is probably repetitive and could be condensed.

-- Eric Urban 7:11 PM 11/28/04(CST)

Indeed but you will need to be very careful. It is long-standing content on a controversial issue. Probably the input of some people involved in wikipedia conflict resolution would be good here but here's my thoughts anyway: I like your suggestion from the WikiProject:Drugs talk page of writing down every single point and re-organising them, in terms of removing repetition and giving a better organisational structure. You'd just have to be sure you don't try to overly summarize or eliminate things that seem irrelevant or you might upset some people. I'd suggest doing a two step process:

• 1) re-arrange the existing points into a more coherent structure without changing their wording much or at all--- just re-order them and put in sub-sections.
• 2) delete/merge duplicated/similar points.

There should be a waiting period between 1 and 2 to allow people to comment / react and to make it clear where to find any points you delete that they may wish to reinstate. Rkundalini 02:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm Totally agreed with above. Ok, I go some headers up, but it's pretty roughly categorized. We should wait for some more points/counterpoints, then condense all those points and convert it all into paragraph form. Sounds like quite a chore! --Headcase 23:13, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If cannabis was legalised, less harmful ways of taking it than smoking it could be encouraged and developed. For example, pre-prepared hash cookies and hash cakes could be sold, and cannabis can also apparently be taken in sprays.

What is this line referring to? I would imagine that vaporizers would be the logical thing to mention here, but they have nothing to do with sprays. --128.2.169.22 17:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've created a new category for the point-counterpoint under the 'against prohibition', "Hampers Legitimate Medical Research & Treatment", potentially tying in the difficulties in harm reduction (how should we go about including this?), the section re: methadone formerly under misc, etc. There are probably a few threads in other sections that could get moved there and possibly culled. However, I *really* don't want to contribute to the bloat in this point-counterpoint. Suggestions/help/comments? --Overand 22:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Outsider opinion, as I just ran into this page: this section could really do with a big refactoring into paragraph-style. (Which, yes, I would be willing to do, in the name of putting my money where my mouth is, but not against consensus.) The point-counterpoint has its virtues, but it doesn't read well, and I think a well-written prose style could capture the back-and-forth as well. Or if the sharp contrast is desired, perhaps table format? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It's hard to follow the argument, and clearly see which points are for versus against. --Thoric 21:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Point-counterpoint bullet points is perhaps the worst possible arrangement a page like this could have, as it strongly encourages drive-by-editors helpfully adding their own thoughts on the issue without attributing them or respecting the organization of the page. At the very least, the P-Cp section shouldn't be divided into two sections that more or less replicate each other. For instance, "Immoral" and "Subjective and Unfair" basically go over the same points. Ideally, however, the whole thing would be dropped and the (preferably attributed) arguments converted into paragraphs. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:21, 2005 August 2 (UTC)

Just to add another voice of support for this, I agree the point-counterpoint section needs to be reworked. It's difficult to read, and (to me) it doesn't at all seem to fit in an encyclopedia article. It reads almost like bickering...which I'm sure is not the intent. This style of writing lends an air of competition to the article, as opposed to a presentation of the views of the two sides. The article isn't a place to argue, it's a place to present clear and concise ideas.Pkeck 05:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I just read more of this section, and it doesn't even remotely read like an article. Some of the sections are written like this whole thing is a joke (e.g., Attempting suicide should be legal as well. Successful suicide should earn the death penalty, however.) This section should either be completely rewritten or completely moved to the talk page. It looks exactly like something on a talk page, but it doesn't really feel like it fits in an encyclopedia article. Pkeck 05:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you and would love to see it disappear. However it has been a necessary evil. The history of the situation is that there used to be a single article called War on Drugs, which had a bit of vaguely article-like background, which was frequently subject to POV interjections, and it also had this ridiculous long point counterpoint. If I recall correctly there were edit wars involving moving that material back and forth between the article and its talk page. To remedy this I (then known as Rkundalini) moved all of the argumentative material and the point counterpoint stuff to the present location, Arguments for and against drug prohibition, and tweaked the original page to make it less US-biased, thereby also changing its name to Prohibition (drugs). An effort was made, which has largely succeeded, to keep that article NPOV and encyclopedic in tone-- only a couple of sentences of material on the pros and cons of prohibition have been allowed in that article. Now, I agree with you that the argumentative material actually has no place in an encyclopedia, but at the time it would not have been feasible to remove it -- someone would have simply put it back in. At least this way it was shunted off to a different spot where sensible people could ignore it. I fear any effort to remove the material now might encounter the same problems -- reversion, and potentially contamination of Prohibition (drugs) ... but maybe I'm wrong and you're right. Would you envisage getting rid of the whole of Arguments for and against drug prohibition, or just the point-counterpoint? (By the way, the current US-specific War on Drugs entry was made well after all of the above changes, and appears to be getting into the same old POV/argument problems as we had with the old entry of that name... I'm keeping out of it this time though ;) ) --Russell E 01:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

If it's just going to get put back in, that creates a bit of a problem. The problem I have with this section is best summed up in the first point-counterpoint section, "Immoral." The first point mentions drugs, and then there are six more points before you hear about them again. It's just bickering about how morals are different from person to person. These six points could be either replaced with a link to the article on morals, or replaced with a sentence to the effect of, "Morals vary from person to person and culture to culture; therefore, it's determine what qualifies as 'moral' and what qualifies as 'immoral.'" Everyone knows that different people have different morals, and I really don't think that this article is the place to debate that.

The whole point-counterpoint section just rambles on and on as if it's going to come to some resolution, but it misses the point entirely--there is no resolution. Some people think drugs are moral, some people don't. Some people think they should be legalized, some don't. And there is no solution to this--the only thing we can do is present the arguments on each side in a clear concise way and have people decide their own opinion based upon the information. It isn't the job of this article (or any encyclopedia article) to rally people to one side or another. It's the job of the article to present information, and a point-counterpoint style by its very nature has a feeling of competition where one side is trying to "win." I vote to delete it entirely, or at least condense it down to a few paragraphs for each side at most...but like I said, if it's just going to be put back in, that might be a problem.:) Pkeck 02:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I could be wrong, it may be that activity has died off sufficiently that you could remove it without a problem now. The best solution would be to do as you say (and as suggested above months ago) -- to re-write the whole section presenting a comprehensive but cohesive view of common arguments for and against drug prohibition. It's a lot of work but it would make a great improvement to the article. --Russell E 00:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

If I were WP:BOLDER, I would cut the entire section right now and dump it into a subpage of talk so the salvagable parts can be moved back in. I doubt more than 50% of that content is worth keeping (i.e., not original research, not redundant with what's already there, and substantially relevant to the topic). There is quite a bit of good information there, but the style in which the whole section is written means it will be tough to make NPOV. Easiest to raze the whole thing and selectively rebuild from the ground up. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Go for it!!! .. as long as you make a start at the re-write I'd wager it won't be reverted -- Russell E 01:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

done. Bob A 20:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If I might interject, I believe that the inherent problem here is that the Wikipedia is being used for a purpose for which the wiki tool was not designed. A proper "encyclopedic" entry would contain, similar to the top section, an entry for each point for and against, each followed by the opposition's reasoning behind dismissing the point, and that would be the end of it. If you're looking to do the point-counterpoint thing you need a different tool, where each point is stated, evidence is presented for and against each point, and then each piece of evidence and the top level point are examined recursively. A wiki won't do that because its format is linear instead of branched. If you want to do the branched thing then you need to use a tool like the "Consensus Engine". On the other hand this has been a useful brainstorming exercise.

If anyone is in the process of boiling down the arguments, I would be happy to help. I'm pretty pernicious at point out logic flaws. -- Robert Rapplean 23:54, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Removal

I removed the following because, most importantly, it is not an argument, it is a series of rhetorical questions. Presumably, they are meant to imply something, but encyclopedia articles do not imply, they state facts. In addition, I can't possibly imagine the logic behind this being an argument for drug prohibition. The War on Drugs is different from the War on Terror and the War on Poverty; one is a mostly legal and partially military solution to a problem revolving around the creation and distribution of certain plant materials and other chemicals, one is a mostly military and partly legal solution to a problem revolving around idealogy, and the last is a cultural and legal solution to an economic problem. In addition, I don't think any of the three wars have had much success, so the implication is false (and would be irrelevant even if it were true). Just because a couple phrases begin with the same two words doesn't mean the same ideas apply. Tuf-Kat 17:31, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

If a War on Drugs encourages drug use, does this mean the War on Terror encourages the use of terror? Did the War on Poverty encourage poverty? Did the war against Iraq encourage the formation of Dictatorships and undemocratic actions such as genocide?

Seconded. When I was categorizing all the points, I had no idea what that one was even talking about, but I hate removing stuff, especially in an article like this. --Headcase 03:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From point-counterpoint, re: "Legalization means shutting down the FDA", I removed the counter-point "The FDA should have been shut down in the first place." It was an orphan, opinion-only statement regarding the FDA that wasn't directly related to the debate. Any objections? Also, that whole thread seems to be leaning towards 'flamebait' "legalizing drugs means shutting down the FDA" -- perhaps that thread should be cleaned up, and a more reasonable discussion started in its place, such as "legalizing potentially harmfull drugs with not clear medical benifit seriosuly challenges the purpose of the fda" or something somewhat less inflamitory?--Overand 07:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Amoral Section

I edited the amoral section, basically condensing the counterpoints to morality being subjective, and the previous author's point of the contradiction in advocating drug prohibition but not alcohol, tobacco, or others.

Going through this entire article, it seems COMPLETELY slanted towards the drug legalization side. And many of the arguments are fallacious and branch into other topics (Both the Counterpoint For and Counterpoint Against seem to advocate legalization). I think the arguments really need to be reorganized...

Particularly, I think all of the arguments that keey stating "There is nothing that shows prohibition has limited drug use." need to be eliminated. It is fallacious in that there is nothing to compare prohibition to, because the United States has had a prohibition policy for a long time. Thus, one can't really say that drug use has been on the rise, and automatically state that prohibition has failed to curb drug use, because there are a LOT of other factors involved to single out prohibition policy as the single one, and there is no reference point to tell where drug use levels would be if we DIDN't have prohibition.

But, I'm just a newbie here at wikipedia, and I don't want to do anything outside of my jurisdiction. What do you guys think?

I think the solution is really to attribute opinions to those who hold them. If the DEA claims that drug use will make you rape your mother and NORML claims DEA agents routinely rape your mother, we should coument those arguments, even if they're silly. This would apply, for example, to the bits about drug prohibition not decreasing drug use -- Wikipedia shouldn't endorse certain arguments as valid and others as invalid, but rather explain who believes what. Similarly, if no one actually claims that imprisoning a large portion of the population is inherently detrimental to democracy, then that argument should be removed even if it is logical. Basically, logic is not relevant, as Wikipedia documents illogical views and does not make up logical ones. This would, of course, require rewriting the whole article, more or less, but that's what should be done. Tuf-Kat 23:05, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that either more Wikipedians advocate drug use, or the ones that do are more determined to prove their point, or people against prohibition are just more likely to read this article in the first place. I think it's all three. --Headcase 03:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For the most part, Wikipedians are above average intelligence, and/or somewhat more opinionated than average -- they can think for themselves and realize that the anti-drug propaganda the American (and other) government has been pushing is not entirely true. I would hope that most Wikipedians "do their homework", and actually research subjects before writing about them. It doesn't take all that much research to realize the truth about drug prohibition... you just need to take a look at some comprehensive reports on the subject -- ones that weren't funded by the DEA or ONDCP. --Thoric 04:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

("Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity, opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of even forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein)

a statement to the effect that drug prohibition(the subject is not americas specific 'war on drugs') does not effectivly reduce drug use is supported by regions of the planet that have legalized drugs and seen a decline in use. The assertion that there is no point of comparision is a very ethnocentric view. HighInBC 18:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Racist enforcement of drug laws

Added blurb about WoD being called the "war on black people." As a source, simply do a Google search on the phrase. It's being brought up rather widely. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 22:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nearly every drug was outlawed with intent of controlling a certain group of people. In America it started with Opium to control the Chinese, Cocaine and Heroin to control the black people, especially the black jazz musicians, "marihuana" to control the Mexican immigrants, LSD to control the hippies, MDMA to control the ravers, and it's very likely that the alcohol Prohibition of the 1920s had something to do with controlling Italian and Portuguese (maybe even Irish, French and German) immigrants... but I haven't checked that out yet. --Thoric 01:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To add to this, I think it's also about oppression as a whole. People tend to think in "different ways" under drugs... they become enlightened if you will. Also, drugs tend to relax users. Think as drug prohibition as a weaker form of slavery, making sure the populace works as hard as they can (for the government and corporations). This is opinionated and subjective, hence I'm writing it here instead of in the article. --Headcase 06:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't say I disagree with this. I'm growing increasingly tired of elitists deciding what individuals can do to themselves or to consenting adults. Time for a velvet revolution on this front, no? :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 04:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a conspiracy theory. How would you explain that almost all of these drugs have been prohibited the world over, in countries that have few ethnic minorities, such as Japan, or countries that were 180 degrees opposed to the US, such as Communist Russia, China, Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba. Also how would you explain that the Chinese themselves in the 19th century banned opium? 203.161.88.46 07:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I just added a link and some info in the point-counterpoint to the 20th century history in prohibition_(drugs) in an appropriate segment, hpe this helps to clear up the whole debate rather than just adding more cruft.--Overand 06:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(Removed minor vandalism here -- Ravenswood 08:00, August 6, 2005 (UTC))

Does anyone have any links to sources that show that "current drug laws are enforced in such a way as to penalize African-Americans more harshly and more often than other ethnic groups, and to penalize the poor of all races more harshly and more often than the middle and upper classes," and that this is the intent of the law? This seems highly speculative. It'd be accurate to say that some drugs are more highly punished than others, and then to say that some drugs are used more heavily by some demographics. But to imply (or flat out say) that "Nearly every drug was outlawed with intent of controlling a certain group of people" is awful inflammatory. Every law of every kind was brought about to control people, or were they not? Crossing guards are there to control people, but we wouldn't say that crossing guards are there to control children and deprive them of their freedom to run in traffic, and it would be misleading for me to represent crossing guards in that way. Maybe we could reword the text in the article and move all of the speculation on the intents on the laws elsewhere...unless someone has proof somewhere about the governments intention. Pkeck 05:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

There exists definitive evidence that racial prejudice is exercised in the enforcement of drug laws. Our population is between 15-18% black. According to the statistics annually put out by SAMSA and Monitoring the Future, blacks have a lower rate of drug use than whites. Based on nationally compiled arrest records, 35% of all drug arrests are for blacks. Around 50% of those cases that go to court are black. Roughly 90% of those who are given prison time are black.

I would agree that there is absolutely no evidence of intent, but there doesn't have to be. Roughly 35% of our population uses some form of illegal drug. Only about one in 50 will ever get caught. Our complete inability to effectively persue all drug users results, out of necessity, in selective enforcement. For mere humans, selective enforcement is always descriminatory. While the laws may not have been written with descrimination in mind, they were written in a way for which non-descriminatory enforcement is impossible. - Robert Rapplean {23:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)}

The most cited evidence for racial bias in sentencing is the vastly disparate sentences handed out to those who posses cocaine, depending on the form the coke is in. Crack is treated much more harshly than powder. While this is usually cited as clear evidence of discrimination it is usually overlooked that it was at the urging of the African American community that these guidlines were adopted. It seems to me the conclusion is inescapable that the penalties for crack are far too harsh ( I am a proponent of legaliztion), but it is unfair, and incorrect, to simply label the enforcement as racist, as it ignores the part that people of color played in the propogation of these paternalistic laws.Levi P. 22:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"Think as drug prohibition as a weaker form of slavery" so addiction = freedom? doublethink anyone?

non sequitur HighInBC 18:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-standard link footnoting

I noticed that many external links in the article had footnote numbers specified for them. Since this isn't the Wikipedia standard, I removed them. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 16:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reorg needed

This page needs to be broken-up and reorganized. It's all over the map, as anything would be if cobbled together by a bunch of people working on it at different times and places with different goals. The trick, of course, is to do it without eliminating anything anybody has said (lest the editors be accused of censorship).

We also need, IMO, to break it into three seperate sections: Marijuana, Other soft drugs, and Hard drugs. A lot of the 'pro-drug' comments use the 'change the argument' fallacy (sorry I don't know the actual name of the fallacy). If you say "drugs are dangerous", they'll respond with "marijuana is harmless". The only way to circumvent this (as far as I know) is to break-out marijuana into its own category, thus preventing them from using that technique. -- Ravenswood 02:43, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I also think that the article should be composed of normal sentences and paragraphs without this message-board like bullet point structure. Why can't all of these points be made in a normal style of writing? Tfine80 18:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if maybe this page is a bad idea. A lot of people are making a lot of outrageous claims, and there's very little proof of any of it. I've tried to find proof to a few of the points raised, but there don't seem to be any good statistics kept anywhere. Any time you find two web pages that agree, it turns out that one of them is citing the other as a resource. Tfine80 is right, but I don't know how to accomplish it. Ravenswood 22:38, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to make some rebuttals on the article page, but it would involve writing This is the Two wrongs make a right fallacy in about twenty places, and this is an irrelevant point in about twelve places, and several other edits that have to be made in multiple locations. It's starting to look like it's all going to be terribly repetetive. There's got to be a better way.

Perhaps this page needs to be deleted and re-written as a debate. Special rules apply: No anonymous edits, everybody signs it as "Pro" or "Anti" at the top of the page, and must sign their edits in the document body. Wikipedia Administrators will fill the role of the debate moderator.

Actually, it's starting to sound like a seperate Wiki-Project... Does anyone else have any opinions? Ravenswood 23:05, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

This sentence: "Arguments against drug prohibition tend to fall into one of three categories:" may need to be changed. After the colon, there are 4 bullets, which belies the concept of three categories. - DEL

Repeated edits by 24.227.127.xxx

24, dude, if you actually believe what you say, then please register and create a user name. Also, whether you do that or not, please make your edits on the "Prohibition (drugs)" article, or better yet, on that article's Talk page. The comments you are making do not belong on this page. If you MUST put them on this page, post them as a counter-argument to the statement that the state does not condone drugs. On this type of page, if you disagree with a statement, you do not alter the statement itself, you leave the statement alone and post your response after it. I'm sorry if that wasn't made clear. Ravenswood 23:04, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

(Removed minor vandalism here -- Ravenswood 08:00, August 6, 2005 (UTC))

Boilerplate Text

I hate hate hate the boilerplate text I've placed at the top of the page. Could somebody re-word it to make it sound better? Also, how do we go about making it an official Wikipedia Boilerplate so it looks nice and can be used on other pages? Ravenswood 23:12, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I edited it, but I still don't like it. Ravenswood 07:21, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to remove that text entirely. In fact, I decided to be bold and remove it. In general, messages on the article page should be directed at readers, not editors. I added the "controversial" template to this talk page so editors are aware they should read up before editing. Carbonite | Talk 16:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic

Certain parts of this article read like a talk page. Perhaps it would be best if someone were to entirely re-write the article? R'son-W 04:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree it is non-encyclopedic. However, it is also informative and interesting in the extreme, ridiculously long and spans impossibly many subjects. Probably extremely difficult to cut down into something encyclopedic without loosing important information.

So, shouldn't this be made into a Wikibook? I'd like to say that from what little I know, it could easily be the most balanced and evidence-based book on the subject. I'm not gonna do it (hardly an expert on the subject), but contibutors to this article might want to make their combined product available in such a form. Denial 02:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

agreed. the point-counterpoint section is absolutely ridiculous. Bob A 03:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Crime rates(removed section)

I feel inclined to say something about the "Crime Rates" section of Arguments for Prohibition. I do not believe this to be a remotely valid argument, since it considers possession as a crime committed by users. It seems to be a logical fallacy without relavency. While crimes committed by actively addicted drug users would certainly be an interesting metric and potential argument, it is not rational to include simple possession as part of the metric. I'm inclined to ask that this section be modified to exclude possession as a crime that justifies prohibition, or the complete removal of this section. Please comment.

Studied drug addicts in Baltimore committed crime (including the possession of the drug as a crime) on an average of 255 days per year, during which time they were "actively addicted" to heroin.

If possesion of books were illegal, and a study of whether readers were criminals, and possesion of a book was counted, then the study would of course show that crime was tied to reading.

The arguement seems to be that possesion of drugs causes crime, when in fact it seems that the prohibition of drugs then including this new crime in the study has skewed these crime figures. It is like saying meat eaters are more likely to possess meat, it is an arguement unrelated to the topic. This seems like double speak to me I am going to remove it as nobody has argued against it. HighInBC 17:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This part doesn't make much sense

"Opponents point out that property crime to support addictions to LEGAL drugs (such as alcohol) is hardly unknown and that if all drugs were legalised they would be more affordable and therfore there would be less necessity for addicts to resort to crime to fund their addiction"

Is hardly unknown? That implies that it is known, which seems to contradict what the sentance as a whole is attempting to convey.

70.32.224.116 06:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Neither does this parantesis make much sense: "Some claim it may not be morally acceptable to incarcerate people for selling products that are legal to possess (although gun sales are accepted in some countries), or if not actually legal, only a civil offense." I'm not sure what the parantesis means, but it seems to imply that gun possession is legal everywhere and sale too except a few countries where gun sales are only accepted(?). I actually thought that both possession and sale of firearms were strictly regulated in most counties. I guess the parantesis was written by an "American" beleaving that the US "right to bear arms" is universal. (I have removed the paranthesis, btw) Qvasi 16:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I would have no objection to a major change in that area, it does seem a bit unencyclopedic. HighInBC 16:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Effect on producer countries

This section only discusses Latin America. Given the current world crisis, the role of drug trafficking in financing terrorism, Afghanistan having displaced Colombia as the world's major producer of illegal drugs, and Afghan heroin increasing its share of the US market, it would seem advisable to expand this section to include South and Central Asia and the Middle East. The same arguments would apply ; drugs being illegal drives the trade into the hands of terrorists and their close allies, and legalization would deprive terror groups of a major source of their income.

Do you really believe that the US government has no hand in foreign drug markets? Commodities produced for mere peanuts and traded for small fortunes are all that keeps the US enconomy alive. Foreign drug imports are like government contracts ;) --Thoric 00:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

UN Law?

The section that states

The vast majority of medical opperations in the world are performed without anasthetic as pharmaceuticals are unaffordable. However, effective general anaesthetics could be produced cheaply and localy in the third world using opium poppies - this practice has been recorded earlier than ancient babylon. Currently the war on drugs prevents this from occuring as UN law prohibits the cultivaton of opium poppies as they can be used to make heroin.

What UN law? Many countries produce poppies for medical uses, in particular India and Turkey. The statement above is clearly wrong and should be removed. Morphine and all other nonsynthetic opiates are derived from poppies so if there were a UN law prohibiting any UN nation from growing poppies there would be no nonsynthetic opiates.

Writing a research paper

...

...

...hmm, I'm writing a research paper on this...

...

...great citing of sources...

...the teachers just love citing...

...hehe...

...216.11.222.21 13:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)...

...

• FYI...this article began as a copy of a research paper of a 9th grader.--AAAAA 12:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Heh, that's pretty funny. -24.210.224.99 01:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

external links ,reorder by PRO AND CON

I believe the external links passege should be reoredered ,as to an researcher to have an esier time finding sources for this debate. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 15:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

rewrite of the "Arguments against prohibitionn" segment

The Pro legalization segment was very badly written. I have integraded my changes into the Pro section in a single edit:

• removing NPOV statemnt
• removing illogical or contradictory claims(sometimes made in the the line..)
• rewording into a neutral point of view
• reordering and merging of similar claims into segments.
• I haven't removed anything.
• added the monopoly claim.

See For my published version User:Diza/My bucket I hope I have'nt missed anything ,though I tryied to diffrintiated the claims there still could be some similiarties. I may have some typo's so help me out. :) --Procrastinating@^talk2me 18:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Headline text

Change in Info

Note: I erased Some misleading statements that said that "empirical evidence has shown... deacrease use of drugs in Neyherlands"... Honestly, that is acceptable for soft drugs only; The Netherlands Still have a strong policy against Hard drugs; This drugs are not legal for recreational use. The Netherlands still fights to stop drug traffic. The hard drugs/soft drugs distinction is an important part of their drug policy. And hard drug use there merely gained stability, not decreased in the complete sense of the word. This may be because of people who wanted to quit their use and the medical policy on these drugs helped them. Medical use is not complete legalization, and it should not be considered that way beause of the huge difference beetween recreational use and medical use of these drugs.

WaveDr.

"Counter point" to only one section of the article. A debate:

Why are there counterpoints to all the "for prohibition" points, and none for the "against prohibition" ones? It certainly gives the impression of bias regardless of intent. --163.1.137.58 18:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think the whole idea should be scrapped.Russell Abbott 18:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

start of debate

An IP user made an honest and earnest attempt recently to add counter-points to the pro-legalization arguments of the page. However, due to the nature of this article, and the nature of the people who are more likely to visit such an article, his efforts were in vain. The logic was stunning to say the least : "REVERT. IP user's POV statements. this article is alreday sectioned for the 2 opposing sides." We have some highly-motivated and highly-ignorant people working on this page, and reaching a reasonable NPOV for this page is far off, if even possible, but I have a quick-fix: vote for a title change to the article to a topic both sides would agree is deserving of a slant. My two working titles (please, suggest more):

"List of reasons why extreme Libertarians think everyone else is a socialist/fascist" OR...

"Website extreme Libertarians visit for self-gratification inbetween pornographic sites."

</sarcasm>

I hope you enjoy the humor, this whole article is hilarious...can't even get a NPOV tag on it it's so whacked.--Jim 04:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jim, it seems you are probably the Ip user you were speaking of, either case the article currently has 2 opposing sections: A pro section and it's opposition. what was reverted was an attempt to mix the two by putting "counter points" in each section. we can only strive for a NPOV, and currently the best way for this kind of an article is by splitting it into the current two sub sections. if you have further new points (to any side) please feel free to add them here.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 19:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that some form of counterpoint is reasonable. After all, in logical debate, one should be allowed a chance to refute the arguments that others make. Legitimate, factually based counterpoints should be permitted. Either inline or in two new sections. --Eyrian 08:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, either we should remove the counterpoints on the "against" section or we should add some on the "for" section. Also, I believe several of the "for" sections could be combined into a number comparable to the "against" sections.--Russell_Abbott 23:15, 4 May 2006 (PST)

I concur. Yet your recent massive edit seems to have done considerablly more than a simple removal of the "counter" parts. please revert that edit(youself preferable), and split it to several sections, with a proper edit summary each. It is impossible to keep track of what you did. thank you.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 15:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Major Reorganization

Addressing my earlier idea: I think there are too many sections on the "against" half. I think these could be combined into a few sections, possibly under the following subject headings: Personal freedom, economic arguments, crime reduction, harm reduction, and international effects. This happens to match the number of sections in the "for" half.

Also I think the point-counterpoint thing is unnecessary...I think each half should address the other's arguments without resorting to that. Either get rid of it or at least add some counterpoints to the "against" section. If this was done properly I think this article could be back to NPOV. I could take a stab at it, but I'm not sure...thoughts?--Russell_Abbott 23:40, 4 May 2006 (PST)

I went for it and condensed the "against" section and removed the counterpoint section on the "for" section. I think this has made the whole thing a lot more NPOV and generally more coherent...however I probably screwed up here and there, so feel free to go over everything with a fine-tooth comb. I still think the "for" section needs some work, but this is good step.Russell Abbott 08:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The removal of non NPOV "counter points" is great. Yet your reoranization is very unclear at best. please revert your edit, and split it to several edits with a clear edit summary. such as: 1.Removal of "counter point" as per talk page. 2.merging section A and B into section C.

thank you. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 15:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

--Procrastinating@^talk2me 17:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. I hope my re-edits are clear enough. I think the removal of the counterpoints is a no-brainer, but I guess I may have overstepped my bounds with the massive edit. I felt that the article was gave an impression in bias by the obvious disparity in the number of sections under the "against" side. I also thought that half was redundant in several places and could have been easily corrected with a reorganization; also the style often slipped into POV, something which I also tried to correct. As far as content, I believe I left everything in except for the "romantization" section, which I thought was too weak to be worth the increase in length. Anywho, I imagine that was a huge waste of time and someone will revert it back soon. What can I say? It was late and seemed like a good idea at the time.Russell Abbott 16:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort russel.

Yet merging and reorginizing for asthetics is one thing, and removing whole sections is yet another. I have reverted some of your edits since whole sections or aguments were erased in this merge. many of them actually.

WHEN the article gets huge, we'll discuss removal or splitting of some of it. I also changed the "romanticizing" arguemnt title to "forbidden fruit" ,and reincorporated your police argument and your racial statistics.

wow. It has taken me almost 15 minutes to manually put back all the information you mislocated or that was "lost in the merger". I hope I haven't missed any thing you removed.

In the future prediscuss significant edits such as reducing the article's pro section size by 25%. Thank you.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 11:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I suppose I went a overboard, and didn't put enough time into the edit. Ah well, only one way to get better at this sort of thing. Someday I won't be a waste of oxygen. Sorry for the hassle I've put your though. I appreciate you not just reverting things back to they way they were before. I think the article is better now, though. Good work, and thank you.Russell Abbott 07:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you'r skills will improve. thank you for noticing my efforts to maintain a "nice to work in" enviroment. some admins never do those kinds of gestures.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 17:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Worker productivity

It is ironic that increasing worker productivity is protrayed as an argument for drug prohibition, when opium smoking was specifically prohibited in North America due to the fact that Chinese immigrant workers were able to work longer hours in unfavorable conditions because smoking opium made work more enjoyable. Also note that legal stimulants such as coffee and tea tend to make office workers more productive as well.

The only drug that has been proven to cause a strong and notable negative impact on productivity is alcohol, and it is certainly self-regulated without problem in the workplace. Employees that come to work drunk are usually fired. --Thoric 21:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think that either a note should be placed stating that this claim is unsubstantiated(like many prohibitionists and anti-prohibitionist claims alike). Or, a citation showing it is true should be added. I do not think it should be removed because it is a well known and well used argument. Whether it is right or wrong it should still be there, but it should be made clear whether there is evidence to support it or not. I am adding a {{Fact}} tag to it, if no citation is added in a day or so I will add a not stating that no evidence has been presented to this argument. HighInBC 15:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that this section be removed, but that it be noted that while this may be an argument for prohibition, there is little to no evidence to support the idea that if drug prohibition didn't exist that a lot more people would be goofing off getting high on drugs rather than being productive citizens. --Thoric 18:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be there with such a note, however until that information is laid out in such a fashion I feal it would be better to leave it out. The text will remain accessable for anybody who wishes to improve it. HighInBC 19:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the logic of the claim, it is preferable that you at least try to make it more NPOv before totally removing it. for the sake of apperance if not anything else. I have put it back . Youy do have to recall though that this is NOT meant ot be a NPOV clear artcle, just look at it's title...--Procrastinating@^talk2me 11:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

All articles (in the main namespace...) on Wikipedia are supposed to conform to NPOV. This article is supposed to present the logical arguments that have been made in regards to a specific social policy, from either side. It doesn't mean that uncited opinions or allowed, or that you can make things up for any side (and uncited claims and made up stuff are rather indistinguishable). --Eyrian 13:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There was a junk-science study that tried to say that drug use lead to loss of productivity... I'm still trying to track it down. In my searches I found a study that showed that drug testing employees reduces productivity ;) [1]. --Thoric 15:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I found a cite to the study, but still have to locate an online copy to read... H. J. Harwood, D. M. Napolitano, P. L. Kristiansen, J. J. J. Collins, Economic Costs to Society of Alcohol and Drug Abuse and Mental Illness (Research Triangle Park, N.C.: Research Triangle Institute, 1984). Apparently this study is often cited, but has been debunked. It is junk science. --Thoric 15:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, where was it debunked? --Eyrian 19:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In a study done by the ACLU... I put a link to an overview of it above. Unfortunate I haven't been able to find the report itself as the link to it is dead. --Thoric 19:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

POV links : Facism

I am a little bothered by these edits: [2] [3] [4] [5]

They are all done by differnt IP's by are all the same POV link adding. I beleive it is one person, if you are please explain on this talk page why you think this link is appropriate? One should not argue a point here simply by being persistent, please explain your opinions. HighInBC 17:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a fucked up spammer. He is most invited to join this discussion or be reverted by the mnay authors of this artcile untill he get tired of it. don't get too excited about it, it's part of the game :) Procrastinating@^talk2me 22:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to excited, I enjoy the game too... and who knows, mabye I can make contact and talk some sense into the person... doubt it though. HighInBC 02:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Economic and psychosocial factors

This section was reverted to its previous (weak) version.

The comment on the deletion was that the edit was

'Poved and non-encyclopedic. -->2Editort: ry reinserting a Much shorter version instead fir'

... This wikipedia page is representing pro and con arguments, so the entire page is POVed as it is there to demonstrate different points of view.

Please leave the economic and psychosocial factors section in -- there are many more pro-prohibition arguments that need to be added, and the anti-prohibition arguments need to be argued better.

-- This entire page at the moment needs considerable work before it provides a balanced viewpoint on drugs prohibition issues. Where it is not simply under-researched and sophomore, this page currently (July 2006) reads like an anti-prohibitionist tract, ignoring or taking judgment on the valid arguments from both sides.

-- Much good work is being done on comparing licit drug use (and problem use) with illicit drugs. The jury is still very much out on the economic/public health effectiveness of liberal drug policies (e.g. the Netherlands' tolerance of cannabis) vis-à-vis more restrictive policies (e.g. Sweden's).

Necessary References

This article is incomplete without a link to Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/studies.htm

It is not like these arguments are exactly new. There have been numerous major government commissions that have studied the subject over the last 100 years. That link contains the full text of most of them. Anyone who reads it will find that they all reached remarkably similar conclusions.

Until you have read those, you simply don't know the issue. For those who are new to the subject, the one book to read if you only read one is the Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm That will give you a good summary of what you would learn if you read all the other major studies.

Wolfman97 15:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I am sure someone will look into those. HighInBC 16:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Naturally there are More sources out there. the point is to make the information concise enough for a quciker read than a full length book. if there's something NEW to add, please do. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 23:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Illegal drugs are far less toxic than legal drugs

This argument is a logical fallacy and should be removed. 68.40.167.60 12:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The whole thing reads like an argument _for_ drug prohibition. 68.40.167.60 16:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Arguments for and against drug prohibition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080610200719/http://www.independent.co.uk:80/news/uk/crime/antonio-maria-costa-cannabis-call-it-anything-but-soft-441735.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/antonio-maria-costa-cannabis-call-it-anything-but-soft-441735.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)