Talk:Demand reduction

WOW!
I agree that this article needs a major revision. Let's start with the very subject of the article. "Demand Reduction" is a term invented by the DEA for their "Demand Reduction Coordinators". What is a Demand Reduction Coordinator? Well, the short explanation is that back in the early 1990s the DEA realized that they were getting whipped like a stupid mule whenever they went out to debate the subject. Therefore, they wrote a manual called "How to Hold Your Own in a Drug Legalization Debate" -- later renamed to "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization" because the previous title seemed to assume that the best they could do was "hold their own". Then they distributed this manual to and by the "Demand Reduction Coordinators". The sole function of the DRC is to go around and try to make a case for drug prohibition. They have nothing really to do with "demand reduction" and, in fact, the DEA doesn't even have any facilities that would allow them to realistically do that sort of thing.

Therefore, the sum of it is that the article is about government propaganda. Look around and you won't find the term "Demand Reduction" anywhere but in reference to government propaganda on drugs. The term is simply lipstick on a pig. It attempts to hide the fact that they are doing nothing but arguing for prohibition. They have no other real function.

Then there is this gem:

"Anti-drug "shock" campaigns have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing the demand for societally-detrimental products. For example, the State of Montana began its own anti-drug campaign entitled Not Even Once, calculated to be a very gruesome and attention-grabbing way of warning the public about the dangers of trying methamphetamines. Uncensored blood, pain, and despair are all part of the show. For example, one video ad stars a healthy-looking teenage girl taking a quick shower on the way to a friend's house, excited to try meth for the first time. In the shower, she sees bloody water on the drain, and turns around to discover a beaten, bloody and weathered appearance of her future self crying huddled in the corner of the shower, screaming desperately, "don't do it!". The governor of the state of Utah felt that the campaign was so effective that he suggested that the idea should be adapted in that state as well (reference)."

OH, puuuuuleeez. Did someone completely skip their homework and just call up the fanatics for info? On that particular campaign in particular, there is no evidence that it produced any benefit at all. For references, search http://www.mapinc.org They have a number of newspaper articles that point out what absolute BS that whole program was.

As for the idea that these "shock" campaigns "have demonstrated effectiveness" -- that one is completely off the planet. The GAO has recently issued a number of reports saying that the educational campaigns produced by the government don't have any positive effect at all. Remember the old "This is your brain on drugs" commercial? The government's own studies found that sort of thing laughable at best.

In addition, the statement is absolutely ludicrous if you know the history. Historically speaking, the biggest single cause of drug epidemics among US children is hysterical anti-drug campaigns, just like that one. In fact, it was just such a campaign that triggered the first speed epidemic back in the 1960s. See for example:

http://druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults.htm -- contains descriptions of the huge teen drinking epidemic during alcohol prohibition

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm -- Probably the best book ever written on the subject. See the chapters titled "How to Launch a Nationwide Drug Menace", "How Speed Was Popularized", "How LSD Was Popularized", and "How the Hazards of LSD Were Augmented." See also the conclusions of that report which states (as many other similar studies have stated) that "The warning functions as a lure (for young people)."

As for the person who asked "Any takers?" below -- yeah, I will take that challenge. In the history of the world there is perhaps only one society that did not use recreational drugs. Can you name it and explain why they are unique in all the world?

While you are thinking that one over, you can find the full text of most of the major government commission reports over the last 100 years at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer under Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy. If you know of any I missed, then let me know.

previous message
Ive written the following article, and im hoping that more ppl contribute, i believe this article can play a huge factor in wikipedias drug articles, im a big fan of the arguments for and against drug prohibition. Portillo


 * You're a fan of both sides of the argument? ;) --Thoric 16:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Well im a beginner here at wiki, so i need help.

We got some serious NPoV issues here...

NPOV
This article needs a major revision. It's totally on the side of lifting drug prohibition. For instance "It could be described as ludicrous to think that the illicit drug market and consumption will miraculously disapear". Any takers?

Wikipedia brown 03:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of relevant information
Edits in the name of NPOV seem to have switched the balance of this article completely. While the article was non-neutral previously against demand reduction tactics, the article now appears to be non-neutral in favor of demand reduction tactics. NPOV means a neutral point of view whereby both sides are presented. This means not removing points of view, but instead making sure that both sides are represented.

True, some demand reduction tactics have been successful, but many have been unsuccessful -- partcularly those which distort the truth and are obviously false information. D.A.R.E. has been proven to be ineffective to the point where it sometimes results in more adolescent drug use.

Please make sure that truthful relevant information is not removed from this (and other) articles. --Thoric 03:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Relevant to what?
What part of the article is in "favor" of them? What part argues that they are good or right? The title of the article is in fact Demand reduction, so I would expect to the article to focus on that and not something else. Being that I support the legalization of drugs and that I think that the war on drugs is a joke, I find it ironic that one could accuse me of writing a non-neutral article that favors a position opposite to that of which I hold. It's not that I don't agree with the statements I deleted - it's just that they're a bunch of unsalveagable opinion.

Previously, this article contained nothing but unverified statements of the author's perception. Truthful or not, they are not verifiable, and are uncited, and WP:OR and WP:VER say they don't belong. Additionally, they were irrelevant to Demand reduction. Have a look. The old article told us how harmless marijuana is compared to alcohol, tobacco - which belongs under marijuana and has nothing to do with demand reduction. The old article tells us what "many" are under the impression of, and what they assume (without references, of course).

Instead of saying I haven't focused on what I haven't focused on - let's say I haven't. Add to it! I don't know diddly squat about D.A.R.E, which may be a testament to my shelteredness, or may be an indicator that it was such a poor program to begin with. At least I have stayed on topic! Reswobslc 19:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, you removed the section on D.A.R.E. and the "Just Say No" campaigns. Two prime examples of demand reduction campaigns which seriously failed in their goals.  I'm saying that if you're going to show the successes of demand reduction (which are few), you're also going to have to show the failures (which are many).  As for DARE... take a read of the wikipedia article on DARE ;)  Also of note is how demand reduction in one area almost always directly results in an increase somewhere else.  (Reduction in smoking tobacco results in an increase in use of other drugs (primarily coffee, and other stimulants, some legal, some not).  --Thoric 21:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed them likewise because of WP:OR and WP:VER. They are statements of opinion with absolutely no reference or citation.  In fact I wouldn't even call them statements, because they qualify themselves with ridiculous phrases like "it can be argued" and "largely regarded" as though the author wants to leave them vague enough to not be false if the "arguable" or "largely regarded" ideas are completely bogus.  Demand reduction in one area resulting in an increase of other drugs elsewhere is notable... but not includable in the article if you can't substantiate it per WP:VER.  Further, I don't have to "show anything" other than to cite sources for what I've got to say.  I already stated I know nothing about D.A.R.E. (I grew up in Canada and we don't have that there) so perhaps you are in a position to fill in what I've left out. Reswobslc 23:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My point isn't whether or not the removed material was faulty, it was that it should not have been removed, but instead corrected, and any piece of information that requires a citation should be tagged as such well before it is removed, and only removed if a citation cannot be found. --Thoric 15:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you can source it, go ahead and re-add it, otherwise the burden of proof is on the author to source their materials, and not Wikipedia or anyone else, per WP:VER Reswobslc 05:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Standward wikipedia procedure is to tag questionable items with a cite tag before removing them. --Thoric 15:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, you have spewed your opinion, attempted to spin it as official, and failed to cite your source. Well, your statement is wrong, and here's where you can find out why. WP:VER.  A read-over of WP:CITE may help. Reswobslc 20:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, Thoric is correct, as your sources indicate. Both insertion of non-sourced claims and deletion of said claims without first tagging are violations of wikiquette.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the Wikiquette page doesn't talk about any of that, and just to make sure I didn't overlook it, I used the browser's page search function. The words "claims", "source", "citation", "cite", "tag", "tagging", etc. don't appear even once in Wikiquette.  But at this point, doesn't it seem like this is now a debate just for the sake of debating?  I mean, more text has been written regarding whether the text "shoulda" or "coulda" been deleted, and whether it's against the rules and against the status quo, than has actually been deleted in the first place.  Yet, no effort has been made to actually re-include the text along with even a hint of a source to make it stand.  No one has argued that the text doesn't belong.  It won't be me who writes about D.A.R.E., as I don't know the difference between it and a dog's thumb, so if it isn't anyone else in this thread either, then I guess it won't be included for quite a while then. Reswobslc 17:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Likewise, Wikipedia directly addresses use of phrases such as "it can be argued" and "it is largely regarded". See WP:AWW. Reswobslc 00:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that Arthur Rubin was pointing out the WP:CITE section. Which seems to imply that citations should be first sought out, and then if not found, requested, and then if not fulfilled the offending material removed.  For the record I didn't supply any of the removed information in this article, I was just saying that it likely should have been corrected rather than removed.  If I find some time I may replace it in corrected, cited form, but I don't know when that might be.  --Thoric 19:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:AWW is not official wikipedia policy, and not all wikipedians agree with it -- including me. Please see  WP_talk:AWW --Thoric 15:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * IF you can source your material you won't have to use weasel words in the first place. Reswobslc 05:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Demand reduction
The result of this AfD nomination was keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)   11:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Effectiveness
There is no evidence of effectiveness of any of these programs. If you want to claim otherwise, cite a source. A negative, such as the one I just inserted, doesn't need a source. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sweden's action plan as an example of priority to demand reduction
One user claims that demand reduction is in the end of a sentence about actions in the action plan. Well another way of looking is where are the money spent. 60 % of anti drug public expenditure is not spent on law enforcement. Anti-drug treatment for prisoners i mentioned many times in the action plan, not just keeping prisoners in jail. Drug free departments in jail. Other actions is local ant-drug coordinators working together in schools. It is not correct to just read one sentence. The action plan in full text is more than 100 pages long. If was just supply reduction it could have been much shorter. I Googled the Swedish words drogsamordnare + kommun ( = local Swedish anti-drug coordinator). I had 5100 hits. 21:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The present source mentions the word "demand" exactly once, so your claims are wp:syn. I really hope you don't believe that we are not competent to read a different document and decide the value of your edits.  Please post the ref.
 * And what exactly has the "local Swedish anti-drug coordinator" to do with anything? NJGW (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to your question. a local Swedish anti-drug coordinator is working with demand reduction. I add the reference to the Action plan i full text (only in Swedish, but it possible to get a translation with Google translate.)Dala11a (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed that link as it appears to be only about future alcohol policy, not current past drug policies. I understand alcohol is a drug, but adding a third ref to that little sentence is over kill.  Also, refs here should be in English unless they are vital and not available in English.  NJGW (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There is not a word of Sweden implementing the concept of "demand reduction" in the paper from the government nor the website of the example municipal. They state that they try to "restrict demand" (though punitive meassures) or "preventive measures and information initiatives" (in school). However, the concept of demand reduction is quite new and understood as taking on the causes of drug use in opposite to any old and ineffective informational campaign ect. This is from a Australian report:

I do think the Swedish society does mush to reduce the drug demands of its population, but that is trough general welfare-initiatives and being a welfare-state; something generally seen as separate to the drug issue in Sweden. Empowering the poor and marginalized seems to be the general understanding of demand reduction as I have understood it in the literature I have read. Steinberger (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)