Talk:Arguments for and against drug prohibition/Archive 3

Beware of criticising weasel words
Beware of overly criticising weasel words in articles that are arguments. That something "may be" true is an argument for consideration of it. It does not need a citation to say that it is true. --Keithbowden (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Reordering Civil Liberties Section
Since the arguments from civil liberties are conventionally used by the pro-legalization side, I think it would make sense to have the Pro section first here, since the Anti part is largely a response to the Pro argument.

Splitting and general reorganizing
I think that the article has gotten big enough to deserve a split, and also the arguments against does not have a rebuttal section so if anyone has a rebuttal they should add it, I think the split should be for prohibition & against prohibition.


 * I agree. Lonjers 21:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. --mms (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Unjust drug laws and enforcement
I think some drug laws could be used to argue against prohibition. For example, civil asset forfeiture is a very controversial practice that charges people's possessions rather than the people themselves. Here is a good discussion: Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform act of 2006

Although I can't find the sources right now, I know that money from this forfeitures was (and may still be) funneled directly back to states. Under federal law, it should go to the federal government. In addition, I remember a debate about U.S. police having money funneled directly back to them from forfeitures. That's basically a self-funding police force, and I belive it is unconstitutional. Again, I don't have sources right now, but maybe I can dig this stuff up if no one else knows what I'm talking about.

In addition, enforcement in the U.S. certainly targets minorities disproportionately. I'm not sure if it's still the case, but crack used to carry much heavier jail sentences than cocaine, even though the health effects are similar. And although drug use patterns are similar among African Americans and caucasians, I'm fairly sure far more African Americans are imprisoned or arrested.Josh 18:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Validity of Debating Drug Policy
When discussing the feasibility of either legalizing or criminalizing drugs it is important to note that it is likely that any policy will fail due to the fact that frequency of use varies so highly amongst users. Even those users that use only one drug--marijuana, for example-- will exhibit a wide range of drug dependency. Those who smoke marijuana daily will respond to legalization policies differently than those who partake in the drug on a less-frequent basis. On the other hand, if marijuana remains illegal and is regulated by fines or jail time, those who smoke daily will certainly suffer a heavier burden for their habits than those who do not. The discussion over drug policy needs to focus not only on the types of drugs and whether or not they will be legal, but also the types of users and the frequency of use. Lumping people into two categories (drugs users, those who abstain from drugs) is not an optimal way to approach this debate. --Krt869 11:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Trueish, but can you find a citation for this theory? HighInBC 13:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have a citation for this theory at the present time. The way I arrived at this conclusion was by thinking about this hypothetical example (using the United States and marijuana as variables):
 * Let’s say that the U.S. government decides that marijuana shall remain illegal but users who are caught smoking/possessing the drug will be subject only to a hefty fine with no possibility of jail time. Let’s also assume that the monetary ‘punishment’ for using drugs is channeled back into the local communities from which the money is taken and not dispersed at a national level. In theory, those people who choose to use marijuana will be caught on occasion and will be forced to pay back to their community for their decision to break the law. But the frequency with which certain individuals may be caught varies enormously amongst users of marijuana. Those people who smoke regularly will be caught more often, will be subjected to fines more often, and will watch their own personal welfare decrease substantially because of their habits. Those people who smoke less frequently will be caught less frequently, will pay less monetary damage, and will be able to hold on to their personal wealth. Over time the community will begin to see a marginalization of those people who are both addicted to marijuana and are also poverty-stricken because of their habit, while those who smoke recreationally will still be able to live comfortably.
 * The problem with this model is that on a moral level the recreational smokers are not ‘better’ than those who are addicted, but society will view them as such because they will likely be wealthier than those who are addicted to marijuana. The message being sent by the law is therefore unclear: is it morally just to be wealthy and abstain from marijuana (or use it infrequently), is it a violation of individual autonomy to fine people for their personal habits, or is it acceptable to allow the personal habits of some members of society to reduce them to levels of poverty?
 * Also, if the monetary damage is kept at a local level, is it adequate to establish rehabilitation facilities for those people who are addicted to marijuana if, in theory, they are the ones that have already paid for the facilities before they become patients? Should that money be put into other public works that would better other citizens, perhaps those that use marijuana less frequently but do not abstain altogether (which would further the gap between addicts and non-addicts)?
 * I guess the basic point that I’m trying to make is this: if the government were to attempt to approach punishment for smoking marijuana in a less-criminal way (be it through fines or community service but not through jails), a distinction needs to be made between the punishment for those who become addicted and the punishment for those who do not. It may seem unfair in principle to say that infrequent users should have to pay a larger fine than those who are addicted, but to avoid creating a cultural stigma and isolating addicts from society, it would be very difficult to enforce a flat fine without looking at the user as an individual and assessing his/her personal habits.
 * I doubt that made sense but see if you can work with it… —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krt869 (talk • contribs) October 4, 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but none of this can be used unless it was previously published by a reliable source. On wikipedia we do not allow original research. These policies are for good reason, you theory relies on many assumptions and lacks any sort of scientific method. I would like to point out that no evidence of the addictive nature of cannabis has ever been shown. HighInBC 15:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nor did anyone has ever died from an overdose in more than a 100 yeasrs..-- Procrastinating@ talk2me 11:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Marijuana is not physically addictive.


 * It is not true that people who smoke daily will get caught more often. Some people are more responsible with their habits and are not likely to get caught, period. Others are more reckless and though they don't smoke as often, are more likely to get caught because they are not careful. Just because you smoke everyday doesn't mean that you're any more likely to get caught. You seem to have a bias, and attempt to hide this by presenting your argument in terms of "addicts" vs. occasional smokers. There is nothing at all wrong with imposing the same fee for getting caught on all persons who are caught, no matter how often. It is the individual's fault for getting caught that often - what would you propose, giving them a higher rate for each infraction as they do for other infractions? In that case they'd be contributing MORE money...so are you saying that an individual who gets caught more often should pay LESS each time, like customers of certain businesses do for being a repeat customer?? Your argument doesn't make sense, maybe you didn't represent it accurately. Or maybe it's just crap.


 * Acutally the example is sound -- it is a simple game of statistics and is based on the single assumption that when you use drugs you increase the chance of being caught (that's really the only assumption). Just replace marijuana with any drug that actually does cause addiction and you've fixed the example. I suppose the problem the example highlights is that when you are addicted to something you are less resposible for it (since you have reduced choise in the matter -- possibly no choise at all). Alas, this is not the place for debates on this subject. This would then be an arugment that the penalty for infractions should be reduced, relative to having full choise in the matter.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.145.44 (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Phosgene/Phosphine
This was from a paragraph describing methamphetamine production:

Phosgene gas (COCl2) contains no phosphorus. A more likely candidate is phosphine (PH3), which is also very toxic. --24.18.201.157 15:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I have removed that sentence until a citation can be found to confirm the accuracy of it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Constitutional Issues
While you have provided several citations for this section, it seems that all of them are links to the US constitution, the declaration of independence and dictionary definitions.

It seems that you have made the common mistake of assembling different sources into an original position. This is not allowed and is described at No_original_research.

Unless a previously published reliable source has interpreted these sources in such a way then the position put forth is not cited. In this case a reliable source would be the governing bodies in charge of interpreting the US constitution. I am going to remove this as the citations do not support the statement The abject failure of the war on drugs is self evident proof that these rights are denied only at great expense and injustice., and without that idea the whole section is off topic.

Do not take this as a slight against you, or my prefering a particular position. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations?
This article seems to be missing a lot of citations. Parts of it also look like original research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.14.185.224 (talk • contribs) 11:22, November 11, 2006 (UTC)


 * Please feal free to find citations, or mark specific factoids as needing a citation by putting the tag after it. Thanks for the help. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

on the topic of citations, I noticed that there is a citation needed marker after the statement saying there are no conclusive studies to prove the gateway theory. I do not see why this is necessary. There are studies that have come up inconclusive at best, and those can be sited, but how is someone suppose to site the lack of a study? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.162.154 (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It should be easy enough to find a study something along the lines of "Testing the Gateway Drug Hypothesis", and its conclusion being, "We have not found any evidence to support."--Loodog (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The article currently states that gateway drugs exist by "some studies", but even the one study in the citation questions whether they exist. Schnarr (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-NPOV article
I am confused by the introductory statement, "This is an inherently non-NPOV article." First of all, that is a self-reference, which does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Second, this topic can easily be covered by NPOV, so the statement doesn't make sense. Lastly, non-NPOV articles aren't allowed. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 08:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. Chondrite 08:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. remote this nonsense.
 * Also, this sentence is false. :) -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 13:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we should take this out, then all the inherently non-NPOV content. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * dido Lonjers 05:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The arguments for prohibition need to be rewritten by much stronger support. Extensive research has been done for legalization, but not for prohibition. Thepushkins 04:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization of arguments against prohibition
This whole section can be improved greatly. First, I think the arguments need to be named and organized more carefully. Here's my proposition: Thoughts? I'll eventually work on implementing it, if nobody objects.
 * 1) Economic costs and ineffectiveness
 * 2) General ineffectiveness
 * 3) Forbidden fruit effect
 * 4) Direct costs
 * 5) Indirect costs
 * 6) Black market effects
 * 7) General violence
 * 8) Funding of terrorists and other harmful groups
 * 9) Higher prices and user crime
 * 10) Poor user health and drug quality
 * 11) Infringement of rights
 * 12) Inconsistency and racism
 * 13) Medical use and research
 * 14) Moral and religious
 * 15) Societal

I think I've covered everything that's in the current article, save "Possible compromises" and "Legal dilemmas". If "Possible compromises" belongs anywhere, it should be under "Arguments for prohibition". And I'm not sure about "Legal dilemmas". FAL 06:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you renaming or reordering? the pro or con section? Please put a list of before and after. This order if it to take place MUST NOT subtract anything. thank you.-- Procrastinating@ talk2me 10:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm mainly interested in improving "Arguments against prohibition". I think the sections should be both reordered and renamed. I'm not sure if all of the current content would fit into the scheme I posted, but I can add it. I'm not going to rewrite anything yet, but I think much of the section should eventually be rewritten, once it's organized better.


 * Who do you say that nothing can be subtracted? For example, I think the inclusion of "Possible comprises" is arguable.


 * What do you mean by "please put a list of before and after."? FAL 21:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Unequal proportions
The material of this article that is dedicating to elaborating on legalization appears to be much longer than that which is dedicated to prohibition. That makes it appear biased.

There just does not seem to be enough material in favor of drug prohibition to even out the sections. Lonjers 20:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * While this is speculation on my part, I imagine this is because there are fewer arguments to support prohibition than there are to support legalization, at least if you stick to arguments that directly address the issue. That said, different people can and will assign different weight to each argument, but as WP is an encyclopedia, it should leave doing so up to the readers.
 * Do not mistake quantity for quality, nor make the mistake of assuming that a greater volume of arguments for a position than against is equivalent to a stronger argument for than against. Personally, I'd say the argument for legalization is stronger, but the article should be concerned with coverage, not strength, and there is a lot more pro-legalization to cover. Zuiram 06:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There's also the somewhat subjective hierarchies of the arguments which makes them seems more in quantity on the Table of Content. But this too is a fairly poor non content related argument, I for actually reading the thing and deciding for your self.-- Procrastinating@ talk2me 10:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It could be that prohibitionists don't have good arguments.

On the other, hand, there is a section for rebuttals to the arguments against, but not to the arguments for, prohibition.--Robbie251 12:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I got that the wrong way round.--Robbie251 12:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The arguments for prohibition seem to be written by the same people who wrote the pro-legalization arguments. It seems pretty clear to me that the legalization argument is much stronger than the prohibition- not because legalization is a stronger argument, but simply because it is poorly covered and written. As an encyclopedia, and as an article claiming to show both sides, the prohibition needs serious work, preferably from those who strongly believe in it. This is because no matter how open-minded youre, it is up to the people who truly believe in it to write it with their strongest position. Thepushkins 04:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

this part didn't make any sense to me
okay and thats all well and good but does it say 1000,000,000 per year? does that mean one billion per year? cause that wouldnt make any sense given the above statement that yearly drug trafficking is worth 60 billion per year... cause thats a big differance in money... So which is it? someone please look into this I havent edited anything before and that just jumped out at me as being WIERD... so uh correction please... also if you do correct it delete this... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sniper17mc (talk • contribs) 07:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC). - note that the two figures are U.S. and worldwide, respectively
 * Which just makes it even weirder -- the sum of all drug trade far less than what it is in the US alone... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.145.44 (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Legal Alternatives Section
I have no idea why the legal alternatives section got added but I can not see how it makes a logical argument. It is also unsighted. Unless someone puts up an argument for it in the next couple of days I think it should just be gotten rid of. Any comments. Lonjers 03:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I welcome the removal of this as off topic and original research. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * legal highs are legal only for a short period of time..until they become illegal..BECAUSE they get you high. The author completely failed to see the main point drugs are ilegal in the first place.-- Procrastinating@ talk2me 22:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * thank's for the removal Lonjers. -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 14:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Forbidding drugs can romanticize them
Maybe a source should be added about the decline in heroin use in Switzerland since it has been decriminalized -- addicts in that nation are now treated like people with any other medical problem, and thus patterns of new use have declined. Peoplesunionpro 18:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be a good source that would improve the article, do you know of any? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing issues
This article has several different methods of sourcing. Some items are sourced with a link, and others with proper intext footnote refs that show up at the bottom, others use intext citations rather than footnotes. This article needs to be fixed to be uniform in how it presents references. Also, there are vast areas of this article that have none at all. --Lendorien 19:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Pro Arguments: Health
How can health-Issues that derive from the illegal status ("co-morbid diseases such as HIV [...] and Hepatitis C")be a pro-argument? It sounds as if one goal of the prohibition were to spread deseases between drug-users. -81.173.224.226 18:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if (as is my experience) the vast majority of drug related health issues are caused by IMPURITIES then I guess legalising and regulating them would alleviate this situation tremendously.


 * It DOES seem to me as if one goal of prohibition is to make users health worse. Keithbowden (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Information regarding marijuana
Much information regarding marijuana is incorrect. Marijuana is becoming a very legal substance, especially in Ontario, Canada in which marijuana was recently decriminalized. There was also no mention of how in the Netherlands, there is absolutely no argument about their legalization of Marijuana and how it benefits their economy and tourism. Please make sure your facts are straight about Marijuana, becuase it is a highly controversial topic.
 * AFAIK, marijuana was not "recently decriminalized." If you're referring to that judge's decision in the local Ontario courts, it isn't yet binding, it can merely be used in considering the matter by other judges. Anyone who wants more information can check the forums at Cannabis Culture, which has a rather lengthy (25 pages or so?) analysis of the trial, the findings, and what they exactly mean for the law. Zelse81 02:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also your "facts" about Marijuana in the Netherlands are incorrect. Dutch police are actively prosecuting large scale production of cannabis while sale in coffee shops is officially illegal but not prosecuted. And I think that total legalization remains a controversial topic in the Netherlands. See also the article Drugs_in_the_netherlands (specifically the end of the Hard_drugs/soft_drugs section) 145.97.201.67 13:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Very true. But seeing that you can walk into just about any "coffee shop" in Amsterdam and walk out with a bag of sweet chiba, it isn't exactly 100% illegal. The point is that the Netherlands typically only bothers to prosecute Marijuana offenses when connected with other crimes or when rediculously large amounts turn up. Just as long as you stay "safe and sane" in Amsterdam, you don't have to worry about the reefer madness.

Beer and Wine
The following statement, found under Economics and psychosocial arguments is a bit of a fallacy.

Such a statement gives the impression that beer and wine were invented by retail outlets.

The earliest evidence suggesting wine production comes from archaeological sites in Georgia and Iran, dating from 6000 to 5000 BC. Beer is one of the oldest beverages, possibly dating back to the 5th millennium BC, and recorded in the written history of Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. Beer and wine predate retail outlets.

I suggest changing the present statement to:

Eyejuice 05:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue should be how the American "partnership for a drug-free America" is primarily funded by Tobacco and Alcohol companies. After all, it would be a shame if booze companies had to compete with people growing reefer in their backyards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.229.213 (talk) 06:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There is some validity to this claim, in regards to laws governing which businesses may or may not be issued permits to sell beer/wine/liquor. In many American states, only liquor stores are allowed to sell either hard liquor, or any type of alcohol. When a measure/proposition to allow grocery stores to sell beer/wine or all types of alcohol is put to the voters, grocery stores and chains lobby for the measure, while liquor stores vigorously oppose it. I think this is more what Eyejuice may be getting at here, that certain retail outlets may support making "low-potency products" more available through themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.106.94.191 (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup - TO DO
Add items as needed. Following is a list of issues this article has that desperately need attention: --Lendorien 15:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Article is wildly inconsistant with it's use of sources. At least three seperate sourcing techniques are used. All sources need to be converted to Inline citations.
 * 2) References and External links section needs to be broken out into seperate sections. External links should be a seperate section in line with the standard use in most wikipedia articles. Likewise, the resources need to be changed into inline citations (footnotes) to specify to where they refer.
 * 3) Article needs to be checked for pov issues.
 * 4) Some consideration and discussion should possibly be made to reorganize the sections. The current format of the article is overwealming and not entirely useful for the casual reader.

POV
Just looking at the length and quantity of arguments in each direction, I'd say this article has acquired that wonderful wikipedia bias. Could we at least try to balance this away from the young left intellectual stance so characteristic of wikipedia?--Loodog (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Why can't we do more to accomodate older Wikipedia users, conservatives, and stupid people? 76.208.68.149 (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Theory: Stupid druglaws create disobeyers
People tend to disobey other laws as drug laws after feeling the inconsistency of the drug laws and after disobeying druglaws themselves. Growing up facing stupid druglaws makes it hard to see the rightfullness of other laws. Druglaws hamper the development of conscience. "If this law is so stupid then the others will also be stupid". Ok my English is not perfect. I hope someone can work out this argument (there is even scientific data supporting it) and edit the main article according.

Eindhoven 27-12-2007 88.159.65.60 (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the hint. To everyone: Please find a reliable source for this theory. --mms (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

For/Against?
I thought this article was supposed to have arguments For AND Against Legalizing drugs...? I see several pages on arguments for, a brief paragraph against, and a few pages on "compromises." So why is this article entitled, 'Arguments For/Against drug legalization'? It's too blatantly imbalanced to be appropriate as a source, since an article like this implies that there are no arguments against. It should at least be entitled, 'Arguments For Drug Legalization', and the sparse material opposed to the arguments deleted for the sake of the most fundamental integrity of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.166.7.200 (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Due to my conviction I can't contribute to the arguments pro prohibition much. If you can, go ahead. The article does list arguments for any relevant position to this question. --mms (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blatantly pro-drug legalization POV. It reads like some high school druggie's english paper.--Loodog (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't feel accosted. As I said above, I can't follow the arguments pro prohibition. If any of you can, please elaborate the section. --mms (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree their should be a section dedicated for arguments against the legality off recreational drugs and becuase the issue is so contriversal their should be a debating section to allow agruments to be fully expored. --Debater (talk) 1940, 27 October 2008 (Aest) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.38.205 (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

On confusion and bias
I have included a new introduction which tries to show how many factors there are which confuse rational debate. I have tried to comment from both points of view, for instance mentioning conspiracy theories (although someone thoughtlessly removed my examples).

The fact that not enough people are contributing arguments for prohibition is NOT sufficient evidence to claim that this article is biased. It may simply mean that there AREN'T many arguments in favour. If you have an argument then INCLUDE IT. If you don't then shut up! :-)) Keithbowden (talk) 11:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

To be removed
I would like to remove the following sections as unsourced WP:OR: If anyone wants to keep them, we need sources. --Loodog (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Cultural genocide
 * 2) The creation of drug cartels
 * 3) The last paragraph of effect on producer countries
 * 4) Same policy for distinct drugs
 * 5) The second paragraph of crime/terrorism
 * 6) Legal dilemmas
 * 7) Use of more dangerous but more easily accessible drugs
 * 8) Drug prohibition as a solution to problems of society
 * 9) The last two paragraphs of Economics and psychosocial arguments
 * 10) Illegal drugs as a pragmatic counterweight to global trade imbalances
 * 11) Economic


 * I consent that the article needs more sources. But the questioned sections present mostly or even only theories also stated in the real world. I haven't read all the article yet. If you want to remove all unsourced statements, please copy them to a repository and link to it in this thread. But please wait a few days before taking any action. --mms (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. sourced claims should be made, to some factual elements of these arguments, yet the arguments themselves are very well known in many forms of media, and do not constitute OR. Can you please specify the relevant elements which you find non-credible?-- Procrastinating@ talk2me 12:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Loodog marked the statements he thinks could be original research. --mms (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The onus is on the provider of the argument to show sources which demonstrate it's not OR, not the other way around.--Loodog (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been a month. I've removed the sections that didn't get sources and kept those people have provided sources for.  Of course, if you find sources for the removed sections, feel free to add them back.--Loodog (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added references for two remaining weasel words tags and, in conjunction with the above, I've removed the and  tags. --SallyScot (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Racism and unequal enforcement of drug laws
Otolemur crassicaudatus removed this section:

No, it is not original research. I could name you sources in German but you want them in English. If you look at the sentences for the different drugs and compare it to the use in the different life standards and cultures which for their part depend on wealth and birth, you can easily come to this conclusions yourselves. I will look up for sources in English and ask you to do the same. Considering the condition of the article I don't understand why this sections needs to be excluded since it's sourced. --mms (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sources in German are absolutely not an issue, having said that I don't think this POV pushing paragraph has any place in the article anyway. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Why should this theory not be included in the article? Xenophobia is a main motivation for drug laws. Why else should a group in power choose to rule which drugs other people are allowed to use? --mms (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In your opinion, in my opinion this is unnotable and opinionated rubbish, and I refer specifically to the racism theories, we don't want people whop spew racist rubbish to have much place in this encyclopedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * SqueakBox, please follow the policy WP:Wikipedia is a girls' boarding school. --mms (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you think of this quote from Drug abuse?


 * Also the decision which drug should be illegal is biased:


 * Are those two sources already convincing you or do I need to find more? --mms (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Now I reverted the exclusion an added references to the Human Rights Watch's 2000 report on Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs, to a testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity and to a paper about the crack/powder cocaine issue by the Sentencing Project. --mms (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Consistency Section
The "Consistency" section does not seem consistent with the title of the article: Arguments for and against drug prohibition. All of the points raised in the section, while true statements, are more issues with how the United States handles drug prohibition than an argument for or against drug prohibition. Taking issue with how different drugs are treated in the legal system is taking issue with how drugs are prohibited, not that they are prohibited. Perhaps this information would be better suited to an article on racism. --Om617 (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Both the laws and the enforcement of the laws are racist. Why shouldn't we mention these facts in this article? Have you read the sources? The "war on some drugs" issue is a real world argument against the current policies. --mms (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that drug laws and their enforcement are racist (which they are) does not belong in this section; it belongs in some section regarding either racism or law enforcement. Other laws are racist in ways similar to drug laws: there is no explicitly racist language, but the realities of the communities to which they apply causes them to be racist. Brothel laws would be an example. In addition, laws, biased or not, are enforced with racial bias is present across the entire legal system in the United States. Should murder be decriminalized because it is being enforced in a racist manner? Racism in drug laws is an excellent example of racism in law enforcement, and it is a real world argument against current policies, but just because it is an example of unfair treatment in the War on Drugs does not mean that it is a valid criticism of the concept of drug prohibition, but instead merely a criticism of the way the United States is implementing drug prohibition. As this is not an article on law enforcement or racism in general, most of the section belongs elsewhere. Om617 (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Prohibition works!?
In the article there is a section called "Prohibition works" with the following text: "Prohibition of drugs works if it is part of broad-action program that includes many different types of action from information in schools to drug free treatment groups for prisoners. - "a strong emphasis on prevention, drug laws have been progressively tightened, and extensive treatment and rehabilitation opportunities are available to users. The police take drug crime seriously." (Antonio Maria Costa, head of UNODC, 2007)"

The sources for this is 1) The Swedish action plan on narcotic drugs 2006–2010 2) A UNODC-report entitled Sweden's successful drug policy  and 3) a newspaper article in the Independent where Antonio Maria Costa makes his point on the benefits of repressive drug policy.

Non of the sources above state that prohibition "works well" in Sweden. The two last however, state that the Swedish repressive drug policy is successful (a conclusion that have been criticized) although thats another thing to me (prohibition is a part of a repressive policy, and to call the whole policy successful is not to call the prohibition part successful; only the thing that Sweden do have illict drug abuse is enough for me to come to that conclusion) I have deleted the section once, but the original author User:Dala11a reinserted it again with the comment that it is a "well known argument". I disagree, living in the same country as he (Sweden) I have never heard it before. Steinberger (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've further qualified the references, which hopefully helps. --SallyScot (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the way that you have redone it, however one source on the original "prohibition works" thing, the action plan. What does it contribute? And another thing, when I wrote the counter critic I would like to show why UNODC picked Sweden as an successful example. But now, well the really common counter critic against the notion that Sweden's policy is successful (used domestically by at least two scholars, whom I know of, Leif Lenke and Ted Goldberg); that experimental drug use were declining already before the policy took the aim of "a drug-free society" and the anti-drug struggle commenced in the 80s, from then in fact the numbers of problem drug users have increased (and even faster) as is experimental drug use also up, it is much higher today then in 1980 for example. Is it meaningful to include that now? (that would be with Swedish sources) There are outside critic as well on the UNODC-report, as Peter Cohen's Looking at the UN, smelling a rat. Steinberger (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Swedish action plan on narcotic drugs says "Access to drugs must be reduced: [...] In order to reduce the supply it is important for the law-enforcement agencies, including the National Police Board, the Swedish Customs Service and the Swedish Prosecution Authority, to continue to look into how they can even more effectively combat both organised and small-scale drug crime." - so I think that should count as a supporting reference there.


 * I have added to the counterargument section to include more from Henrik Tham questioning the notion that Sweden's policy is successful. I have also added reference to Peter Cohen's work - Looking at the UN, smelling a rat. --SallyScot (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I must point out that the scheduling to a restrictive drug legislation did not happened in 1980. Henrik Tham claims in the quotation that the big change was in 1980 but that is wrong. According to Michael Bogdan: Reflections on some international and Swedish legal rules relating to drug offences,  Professor of Law, University of Lund, 1977  so came the great turn-around with The Narcotic Drugs Punishments Act of 1968. In 1969, fearing that low punishments would attract international drug traffickers, the government increased punishments for crimes involving the most severe degree, and the corresponding laws on smuggling were increased to a maximum penalty of 6 years.  In 1970 cultivation of hemp was banned on the grounds that it was a drug. In 1972 the the Narcotic Drugs Punishments Act was strengthened again, increasing the maximum prison sentence to 10 years for more severe crimes. It is still 10 years. The error with year 1980 is repeated in many texts about Swedish drug policy.  If you read the diagram in European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction: National report Sweden, 2006  page 12 you understand why.Dala11a (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The law in 1968 was designed not to effect the then lenient stance against consumers while strengthening the penal measures against distribution, however the policy changed. Many of this policy changes that took place after the new government in 1976 and from 1980 and the police raid against users that year, its impossible to talk about a lenient policy against drug users. The policy was that of zero tolerance. It is that change Tham refers to, and not the law and its maximum penalties in itself. And the worst thing is that dala11a know all this. Steinberger (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have included a note referenced in the article text from the the two 'Prohibition works' sections (i.e. the argument and the counterargument sections) which says...


 * Sweden has moved to more restrictive drug legislation over a number of years. Significant changes were made during years 1968-1972, but also prior to and following this period. - See Drug policy of Sweden.


 * It seems to me that if Antonio Maria Costa, executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, said (in 2007) "For three decades, Sweden has had consistent and coherent drug-control policies" then it is understandable why Henrik Tham might also have focused on "The shift in Swedish drug policy since around 1980". The fact that a notable source (Antonio Maria Costa) has focused on Sweden's more recent policy, quoting it in the context of an argument that 'Prohibition works', is more significant than a separate debate arguing about the exact truth of the details of the dates of change for Swedish drug policy in the context of this article. The arguments for and against drug prohibition don't need to be capable of being proved as being ultimately true. Right or wrong, they just need to have been put forward by some notable source. --SallyScot (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Henrik Tham compares with year 1980, but no major change in drug policy happened in 1980. The major change was in year 1968-1970, for sources see Drug policy of Sweden. Dala11a (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh? He is a professor and has been studying this since the 70s, and his not the only scientist (Börje Olsson, Leif Lenke ect) recognizing a change in policy in the late 70s! If you have made Drug policy of Sweden to imply something else, its untrue! What happened in 1980 you ask? Well the right-wing government gave the police the order to attack street level drug criminals, including users. This was something new and quite noticeable as the arrests rose by thousands. This was also a noticeable change from prioritizing the top-levels in the distribution chain to prioritizing the users themselves. Whats wrong with you? Steinberger (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also professors makes mistakes. Compare with a later text from Henrik Tham and the change in number of narcotics police, his Figure 1. "Reinforcement of the control elements of drug policy has been evident since the late 1960s. In table 1 shows important changes in legislation since the new drug law came into force in 1968. Criminal law is expanding throughout the period. Also the application of the law tightened gradually. The number of narcotics police is increasing ( Figure 1) the number sentenced to prison for drug offences is increasing (Figure 2) and the proportion of drug users among inmates in prison increases (Figure 3)" (Henrik Tham, 2003)page, 5-6Dala11a (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, then he makes it again: "The years around 1980 is a watershed in the drug policy. The aim from this point is "a drug free society and the addict - not the earlier manufacturer or distributor - is put in focus of the policy." (the same pages in the same document as dala11a presented above, my translation from Swedish) Steinberger (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What was a biggest turn for the courts and the police. a)Increase the maximum penalty for drug crimes from 1 year to 10 years in 1968-72 or b)a change of the wording from 1980, never a part of any law text.  The answer is of course a). Dala11a (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For drug severer cases of drug dealing or smuggling yes. But that new law in 1968 and the increasing penalties for gross offences was the significant change of the policy as a whole is your own conclusion. The one Costa, Tham and others refer to is the later one and it seems more relevant to me to do that. Steinberger (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a first class source for what you call "my own conlusion", professor Michel Bogodan from the University of Lund, published on UNODC webb page.Michael Bogdan: Reflections on some international and Swedish legal rules relating to drug offences, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Lund, 1977. There is no doubt that the big turn in the drug laws towards a restrictive drug policy started with the new drug law of 1968. Nils Bejerot wrote about the big police offensive in Stockholm 1969-70, also supported by Figure 1 in Henrik Thams text on page 6. Dala11a (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Bogdan wrote his paper in 1977! That his synthesis is right even after 1980 is your conclusion. Steinberger (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And that is your argument for deleting: "Here, it should be pointed out that the big turn in the drug laws, The Narcotic Drugs Penalty Code, began in 1968. The maximum penalty for drug crimes increased from 1 year to 10 years in prison between 1968 and 1972. See Drug policy of Sweden."  Exactly what is false in this text? Is it the year 1968, is it the increase from 1 year to 10 years? And exactly what words is a synthesis? Dala11a (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

o


 * Nothing other then being totally irrelevant as both Tham and Costa speak of the same thing - the change towards a restrictive policy with actions against all groups of drug crimes and especially the increased interest in arresting drug users in the years around 1980. What is relevant with what you wrote? The way it was presented it was denouncing Tham on false ground, implying that he did not know of the law from 1968 and the changes later made to it. As well as putting emphasis on a alleged and significant shift before the one Tham and Costa refers to. Steinberger (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no indication that they are aimed at the same things or the same year. Costa compare with other countries in the period 1977 to 2007 and praises Sweden for a largely successful drug policies compare with other countries.


 * Henrik Thams report is that he believes that higher penalties for minor drug offences from 1980 onwards have not had the intended effect. He then compares with the laws in Sweden had in the late 1970s and what impact they had on drug use.


 * The conclusion that the Swedish police seem to have made from Thams criticism is not, however, that it is wrong to look for the prosecution of drug users. National Police Board seem to consider that the police were not sufficiently competent in finding drug users who did not use syringes. Officers in the external service in 2000s has received more training in how to recognize a drug user and they have the last few years had better equipment to do drug tests, for example in connection with the traffic controls. Drug use seems to have declined in recent years.Dala11a (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is indication that Costa and Tham speak of the same thing. Steinberger (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Order of the main sections
This article is entitled Arguments for and against drug prohibition. I suggest that the order of the two main sections be swapped to reflect the order suggested by the article title. First, arguments for prohibition, then arguments against prohibition would be a more natural running order for the sections. It would better reflect the way that "for" and "against" arguments are usually put. --SallyScot (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable. Steinberger (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. I've also moved some subsections so they're in the same order for comparison where possible, i.e. where same subject subsections exist in both main sections. --SallyScot (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Counterarguments section
I'm having doubts about the counterarguments section at the end of the article. I originally introduced this section to cater for situations where a specific claim may be made by someone on one side of the argument but may be specifically disputed by someone on the other. My second thoughts about this now are that the bulk of the main section arguments are generally counter to some view held by the other side anyway; in practice its not going to be that easy to maintain a clear distinction between argument and counterargument. And there are going to be counterarguments to counterarguments. - The process is circular. Having changed the order of the main sections to better reflect the article title (see talk post above), and having moved the subsections so they're in the same order for easier comparison where possible (where same subject subsections exist in both main sections), I think this is an opportunity to now drop the counterarguments section. The counterarguments can be moved into the main argument sections depending on the positions that they support, and edited where necessary to make it clearer which specific points they are countering (e.g. by adding text along the lines - in response to W's specific point about X, Y has said Z, etc). --SallyScot (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * All counterargument as of now are against the "for" side, so, just to get it right, do you suggest that the counterarguments should be discussed in context on the "for" section or that the "counterargument" should be dealt with on the "against" side? Steinberger (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. All the counterarguments were against the "for" side, so I've put them in the Arguments against prohibition main section, with some slight wording changes. For example in the Prohibition does not work subsection I prefaced Henrik Tham's counterargument by saying "In response to claims that prohibition can work, as claimed by Antonio Maria Costa, etc".

The two main sections should not contain within themselves statements from the opposing camp as this is such an emotive subject with strongly held views on each side it will just lead to more edit wars. --SallyScot (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

AMA
I have noticed that Dala11a have come up with some kind of "counterargument". Well, I don't think it is. It barely puts some nuances on AMA's position. However, I took the time to read some of the source Dala11a used and found this quote by Dr. Woodward that I think he relies on when stating that AMA instead proposed that cannabis should be included in the Harrison Narcotic Act.


 * "I think I may safely say, although I am speaking without direct authority from the house of delegates or the board of trustees---I think I may safely say that the American Medical Association would enter no objection at all to the inclusion of Cannabis indica. or the various types of Cannabis, in the Harrison Narcotic Act."

So, AMA opposed the Marihuana Tax Act and while stating this official position to the committee Woodward believes that AMA rather support some kind of regulation trough the Harrison Narcotic Act. That is, AMA did infact not propose that cannabis should be included in the Harrison act. Steinberger (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Mexico death stats
Under the Crime, Terrorism and social order section, the article currently reads, 'over 2000 people in Mexico alone have been murdered in drug trafficking related violence in 2006'. As it is 2009, this needs to be either 'since 2006' or it needs to be 'in 2006, over 2000 people were murdered in drug trafficking related violence in Mexico. The 'alone' can follow either '2006' or 'Mexico'. As I do not know whether it was in 2006 or since 2006, I will leave the edit for someone who does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvmuk (talk • contribs) 16:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

WOW
So yeah, this article is totally NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4EV1 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Difficult to know what your problem is with such an non-constructive comment but the elimination of article content cannot be justified under NPOV policy on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics. --SallyScot (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the recent study on the success of decriminalization of drugs in Portugal should be included, Although I have been unable to find a link to the actual study done. 22:28, 29 January 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.37.227 (talk)

Reinstatement of Public Opinion as strongest driver against legalisation
SallyScot has taken it upon herself to re-order the flow of the argument for those who oppose legalisation, while being a chief contributor, according to her history, to agendas generally opposed by those supporting prohibition.

It is totally inappropriate for a person to dictate to their opposition the priority of their arguments in a debate, which is precisely how this page of for and against is framed.

The Australian stats removed by SallyScot are indeed supported by the cited authoritative study, which are the Australian statistics which go to the UN on a yearly basis. These therefore cannot be removed without vandalism being the motive. And there is nothing irrelevant about the link between opposition to legalization and disapproval of drugs. They are intimately linked. --- Minphie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minphie (talk • contribs) 11:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Withdraw comment in previous Talk notation re SallyScot
I am withdrawing the statement in the previous Talk notation re Public Opinion where I stated that it was inappropriate for a person supporting the opposing point of view to attempt to dictate the order of argument by their opponent. Unfortunately I was inadvertently looking at the contribution history of another contributor, and SallyScot does not have the history I attributed. So SallyScot, an unreserved apology here.

Despite that, there is still every reason to keep Public Opinion as the opening argument for prohibition. It is simply the most influential driver for legislators when that public opinion is based on sound facts and reasoning, as per the tributary arguments of health etc. A legislator who attempts to legalize something which the public, upon sound argument and reasoning opposes, does so at his or her peril. The public expects legislators to reflect sound opinion, or lose their role as a legislator at the next election.

Importantly there is nothing in the rules of a debate which dictates that one follow the order of headings taken by the other side. Rather a debate will start with what is most influential. And indeed the strongest legislative influence in a democracy (where legalizing and prohibiting is a chief task of legislators) is the weight of sound, reasoned public opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minphie (talk • contribs) 12:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Order of the argument subsections
I've been looking at the US Drug Enforcement Administration's document "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization". In light of this, and on further consideration of remarks above, I've changed the 'Arguments for' running order to broadly match the DEA's. Minphie talks about public opinion "based on sound facts and reasoning", so I think it ought to be agreed, the reasoning comes first. The DEA list their summary "top ten facts". - Using this as the driver we get the following order. 1. Prohibition works (facts 1 and 2), including

- 1.1 Legalisation would not work (facts 6 and 9)

2. Health (facts 3, 4 and 6), including

- 2.2 Medical Uses of Illicit Drugs (fact 4)

- 2.3 Addiction (facts 6 and 9)

3. Economics (fact 5)

4. Crime (facts 7 and 10)

5. Consistency (fact 8)

Then there's a few existing sections, which the DEA don't make so much of an issue, such as morality, and freedom (from drugs) so I've left those as they were.

6. Freedom (from the consequences of drugs)

7. Moral and ethical reasons

8. Public Opinion

The 'Arguments against' section of drug policy reformists, consisting of much counterargument to the 'for drug law enforcement' arguments, has been switched accordingly.

--SallyScot (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of historical order of this article
This article is titled "Arguments for and against prohibition" rather than "Arguments for and against drug legalization" and therefore should retain its historical ordering, established for years, in keeping with its title. The change of the ordering of the two sides in this debate back on 31 January has no rationale defensible rationale against either history of the article or the 'for' and 'against' ordering of normal debates. Minphie (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I switched the section order to 'For' followed by 'Against' in November 2008. I don't know how long it had been the other way around before that, so I don't know about the historical argument so much, but I agree, for reasons I've given above with regard to that switch. It's more logical to put the arguments 'for' first. This reflects the existing reality; the drug laws are generally in place. Arguments against are made as a consequence of this situation. Look at it this way, there are no laws against breathing air or drinking water, and, as an argument isn't made for such legislation, there no consequent need to counter-argue against. There's a dependency. Arguments against are more counterpoint in nature and thus it makes more sense for them to follow. --SallyScot (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Interleaving the arguments
Thinking about this further, no matter which come first, I don't think the approach of keeping all the 'for' and 'against' arguments in two big blocks will be as good as interleaving them. Whichever set comes first as it stands, there will always be the criticism that one argument is holding sway and is thus being given preference. For better neutrality overall I propose interleaving the arguments within existing subsections while still making it clear which arguments are on which side.

--SallyScot (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * With points and counterpoints in proximity there is no need to scroll through the article to have the full picture. I think it is sounds like a good idea. But could you make an example section and paste it here below so I fully understand how you think on how to lay it out? You know, the devil is in the details and maybe we'll have to try out a couple of ideas on how to make this to find a good formula on to layout this article. Steinberger (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

--

I've decided to be bold and and make a first attempt at interleaving the arguments with this edit. This means under Health we've got for example Health arguments for drug law enforcement followed by Heath arguments for drug law reform. The subheadings may not be very snappy, but I think the headings need to be fairly explicit to avoid ambiguity, and overall I think it's a better approach than simply the two big blocks of arguments on either side.

--SallyScot (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

--

I think the interleaving of the arguments has worked better than previous 'for' and 'against' arguments in two big blocks. I've revised some the subheadings since the initial edit though. As pointed out in the post below, arguments for drug law reform aren't necessarily arguments for complete legalisation and the repeal of all drug laws. To make this clearer I've reworded some of the arguments for drug law enforcement headings to indicate that they are particularly supportive of prohibitive drug laws.

--SallyScot (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Drug policy reform
I think this article needs some further work to better emphasise and include opposition to prohibitive drug policy with more general arguments for drug policy reform.

Note that the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has published its own message - Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization. - To which The Drug Reform Coordination Network (DRCNet) has responded. In particular, in response to the DEA's statement that it is "unequivocally opposed to the legalization of illicit drugs", DRCNet point out - "As the DEA states later [...] there is no clear definition of 'legalization' but, whatever it is, they are against it. What it really means is that they are against any attempt at reform. Actually, 'legalization' is not the issue [...] The issue is really whether we need serious reform of the current policy, no matter what that reform may be called. It would be more accurate to state that the DEA is unequivocally opposed to any reform at all."

There are many organisations which emphasise drug policy reform as their major consideration. For example, Transform Drug Policy Foundation, Release, The Drug Policy Alliance, DrugSense Drug Policy Reform, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, European Coalition for Just and Effective Drug Policies (ENCOD), Common Sense For Drug Policy, Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, NORML

Perhaps the tendency to polarise and characterise the argument on one side as mostly a hardcore fringe who simply want to do away with any controls, and legalise all drugs regardless, best suits those who would rather stick with the status-quo. But serious arguments are really more nuanced than that, which is reflected in serious organisations again and again emphasising the notion of reform over anything else.

--SallyScot (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Remove Opium Production Chart
This chart was removed without complaint from the Opium page. It shouldn't be here either. This chart was made by a wiki-editor, it was not taken directly from any published source (data points come from different sources). It is original research. Below, I cut-and-paste my comments from the Opium discussion page:

This chart is misleading and should be replaced. 1) The peak value of 41000 metric tons in 1906/1907 is disputed. This estimate includes 35,000 metic tons (584,400 piculs) for Chinese production, but the Qing Court estimated only 8,800 metric tons (146,000 piculs) in this same year. See also below for response from the British Medical Journal. 2) The chart apparently mixes figures for Chinese production and import with figures for total global production. 3) Opium varies widely in morphine content. 4) Non-opiate pain relievers and anti-biotics were not widely available until the 20th century, and opium was used medically in China and elsewhere for pain, diarrhea and fever. 5) Has only four data points between 1850 and 1950, misleadingly implying a sharp peak in production. 6) Missing labels on the Y-axis.

Rewriting history, A response to the 2008 World Drug Report, Transnational Institute, June 2008:


 * "A lot of opium was used for medicinal purposes, which are treated now by other medications. In order to compare production and consumption figures a century apart one should take into account that a lot of the use in the past is now replaced with other regular medicines and remedies to treat these diseases, such as antibiotics as well as synthetic opioids and other lighter painkillers, the so-called antipyretic analgesics including paracetamol, aspirin and ibuprofen."


 * "Another question is how reliable the 1906/07 production figures are. They were based on a report of the Chinese delegation to the International Opium Commission (IOC) in Shanghai in 1909. These estimates were already challenged at the IOC itself. “The statistics in this report are of very little value,” according to an article in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), of January 8, 1910, about the report of the Chinese delegation. “They were challenged by the British delegates, with the result that the Chinese delegation has represented to the Government the necessity of obtaining more reliable data. The figures dealing with the growth of the poppy and the consumption of opium are, as a rule, nothing more than rough estimates or mere expressions of opinion.”"


 * "The production rapidly declined to 22,200 metric tons in 1908, and to 4,000 metric tons in 1911, when the eradication campaigns due to the anti-opium edict issued by the Qing government in 1906 – mandating the cessation of poppy cultivation over a ten-year period and requiring licenses for smokers – began to have an impact. However, other sources quote a production of 16,300 metric tons in 1904, well below the peak in 1906/07 and the 1908 figures."


 * "On the other hand the figures of 2007 seem to be too low. According to the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) there is now an unmet demand in opiates. Ironically, the current drug control regulations hamper access to controlled opiate medications for therapeutic use. Many patients are unable to access morphine, methadone or an equivalent opioid. Global medical morphine consumption would rise five times if countries would make morphine available at the level of the calculated need, according to a recent WHO estimate."Likiva (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Lack of access to controlled medications
I added this new section under medical arguments. Lack of access to opiates and other controlled medications is a very serious problem under current international drug policy. For more facts on this issue, see WHO Access to Analgesics and to Other Controlled Medications.Likiva (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Diplomacy arguments
I may add these diplomacy arguments (needs much editing and re-wording), or maybe someone else would follow up on this? The main sources are Drug diplomacy in the twentieth century: an international history, William B. McAllister, Routledge, 2000 and The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control, David F. Musto, Oxford, 1999 (3rd ed). These books are very helpful for understanding why some diplomats would support drug control.

Arguments for:

1) Reaching out to the US: Diplomats at the League of Nations and later at the United Nations saw that the US was interested in drug control and so used the issue to get the US involved in international diplomacy.

2) International cooperation: Drug control is framed as an international problem, requiring international cooperation. Even countries with conflicts can meet to discuss drug trafficking (for example, across a shared border).

3) Model for other prohibitions: Diplomats have seen drug control as a model case for arms control. The idea was to successfully implement drug control and then extend to arms control (and also human trafficking). Giving up on drug prohibition is thus equivalent to giving up on arms control and human trafficking.

Arguments against:

1) Naive: Early drug control diplomats argued that restrictive laws would inevitably eliminate non-medical use, this was naive and overly optimistic.

2) "Moral entrepreneurs": Diplomats have thought that easy success in drug control would lead to government appointments (example, Hamilton Wright, a main architect of opium control circa 1910, eventually fired from the US State Dept for coming to work drunk).

3) Bureaucracy: Once in place, drug control creates a self-sustaining bureaucracy, which shapes national laws and international treaties to maintain "special drug divisions".Likiva (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The Netherlands
I am surprised that the entire article mentioned the Netherlands once (although it is mentioned in references etc) when at pretty much the beginning of the article it mentions a poll done in Australia that would suggest that more people would use marijuana if it were made legal. This is a hypothetical situation where as in the Netherlands marijuana use is actually lower than the European average. So we have a hypothetical situation that says more marijuana use compared to an actual situation that says this is not so. The Netherlands IS the only benchmark we can use in this situation, i believe it deserves more attention. Unfortunately, as you can tell i am no good at Wikipedia edit/discussion, i don't even know how to put in a reference, so i'll just link it here - http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL5730185 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.194.62 (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've made an edit to address this. --SallyScot (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Subjective experience of drug users
Is there any reason that this article fails to mention one of the strongest arguments against prohibition - that the subjective euphoric and positive experience of the drug user might make it worth it. In fact, this seems to be the absolute crux of the argument for legalisation. This article, like a lot of literature, seems to presume, a priori, that the subjective phenomenological effects of psychoactive drugs should be completely disregarded when assessing the benefits and detriments that drugs may have on a society. People don't just take drugs because they're addicted to them or because they need them for medical reasons - people take them because they make them feel good. I'm no philosophy major, but I would assume this argument is premised on utilitarian principles.

Admittedly, this argument seems to be connected with the civil liberties arguments in the article. However, it is distinguishable - the civil liberties argument says: "People should be allowed to take drugs if they want to". The proposed argument says: "People should take drugs if it makes them feel good and therefore the law should be changed to facilitate this".

Does anyone know of any literature that could be cited in relation to this argument? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.27.242 (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Addition of Arguments and Re-structuring of Prohibition Side of Article
I had analysed the page as it has stood some weeks back where arguments for drug law reform, which ran to 5800 words, (quite a lot more has been added to this side since - Gateway drugs) had more word content than the arguments for prohibition (3800 words). This has been a long-standing problem with the Prohibition Arguments page as evidenced by this Talk page from years past. I have added content to the arguments for prohibition, while summarizing other sections and removing poor arguments that would not get prohibitionist support generally.

Most of the arguments that I have reinstated are solid, well-evidenced arguments that I accessed in a document from a collaboration of various members of the International Taskforce on Strategic Drug Policy, a coalition of Drug Prevention organizations worldwide, which has now kindly been placed by Drug Free Australia, a contributor, on its website for reference. Some of the strongest well-evidenced and cited arguments unfortunately disappeared from the site in SallyScot’s restructuring, with original research or POV being cited as reason for deletions. However these now readily accessible Taskforce arguments should be there if both sides of the argument are to be represented properly and with equal weight of text.

Below are specific rationales for changes.

Arguments that drug laws are effective
 * 1) Because the section on efficacy becomes too long with added arguments I have had to remove some of the quotes in favour of summarizing them while retaining a citation for them
 * 2) I removed the description ‘Some advocates of drug prohibition claim that it works’ (which was a SallyScot change of a Dala11 contribution some years back) because I don’t know of any advocates who would agree with the indeterminacy of the ‘if’ in this remark

Health arguments for drug law enforcement
 * 1) I have removed some redundancies where arguments here largely replicate others made elsewhere

Addiction
 * 1) Removed redundant DEA quote which is largely covered elsewhere.

Public opinion for drug law enforcement
 * 1) I have changed the wording in the second paragraph from ‘Generally’ back to ‘Currently’ simply because I don’t know of any large population survey worldwide where legalisation has had majority support.Minphie (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Attribution
Rationale given for removing some of the quotes on efficacy in favour of summarizing them, namely that the Health arguments for drug law enforcement section is otherwise too long, should not be grounds for deviating from Wikipedia's policies. Section ought not to be written thus:


 * Proposals that countries must capitulate to the ‘overwhelming flood of illicit drug use’ by deserting prevention and rehabilitation for more enlightened policies of harm reduction and legalization is shown to be without support when the example of Sweden is considered.

This does not attribute the viewpoint. It therefore encourages attribution to the editor, in contravention of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. On such matters WP:V states that views should be clearly attributed in the text, e.g.: "John Smith argues that X".

I've re-edited on this basis.

There may well be other sections, on both sides of the argument, that would benefit from further attribution, in which case I'd encourage anyone to make such improvement.

--SallyScot (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

--

Following this edit - the issue of attribution is not simply resolved by the addition of the qualification "regarded by proponents of prohibition" in this case:


 * Proposals that countries must capitulate to the 'overwhelming flood of illicit drug use' by deserting prevention and rehabilitation for more enlightened policies of harm reduction and legalization is regarded by proponents of prohibition to be without support, pointing rather to the example of Sweden.

This now frames the argument itself in non-neutral and emotive manner. It encourages attribution of way the argument has been put to the editor rather than to a particular viewpoint. It suggests the argument "that countries must capitulate to the 'overwhelming flood of illicit drug use' by deserting prevention and rehabilitation" as a fairly neutral way of putting it, which it isn't.

I've restored the original quote attributed to Antonio Maria Costa. I suggest it's left that way.

In cases where there's controversy I think it's a fairly reasonable and more straightforward approach to simply include who said what in the form of notable and attributed quotes.

--SallyScot (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)