Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal intoxicants


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep, as there is a clear consensus that any neutrality and/or accuracy problems with this article are amenable to editorial resolution. John254 00:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Legal intoxicants

 * – (View '''AfD) (View log)

This article will always be either biased, or inaccurate because of the variation among jurisdictions as to what constitutes an illegal drug. Aware of the problem of disparity, an editor has almost amusingly tried to repair it with the tendentious claim in the introduction that the UN's Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs is to be used as the universal definition of legality for intoxicants. The article excludes the possibility that all intoxicating substances could be ruled illegal on the basis of effect rather than identity, as is the case in some conservative Islamic states, rendering "legal intoxicants" an oxymoron. There's also the trouble of the Federal Analog Act and others like it that by virtue of their ambiguous glob on the category of chemical species confuse the issue to the point where it's impossible to declare any substance entirely immune from legal attack. This is not a theoretical fault, because there have already been prosecutions for 2C-I which is listed on the page. There's also the issue that the indigenous cultures that use the plant based hallucinogens on this list would object to their characterization as intoxicants which can be read narrowly as substances producing a kind of drunkenness. Characterizing these materials of religious import as such adds a taste of cultural bias to the ripening stew. This article has been tagged by another editor as missing citations since June. deranged bulbasaur 18:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC) snowball keep- nominator has been talking erm... not been convincing.:) If there are holes in the article as it stands (which is yet to be proven) fix them.  It's not an impossible article.   Merkinsmum  00:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As the definition is from the what the UN considers legal there should be no isue re differing jurisdictions, not sure what Dernged finds amusing in that, and indeed its the first afd reasoning i have seent hat manages to include an attack against another editor, and for actually trying to make the article better. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as a valid encyclopedic subject. It may need cleanup, more citations, neutrality checking, but that doesn't require deletion.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 22:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Care to actually address any of my concerns? I wrote quite extensively about why this isn't an appropriate encyclopedic topic, but I can't argue my case against a mere assertion. deranged bulbasaur  22:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have always had concerns about the article; it has potentital to deviate from the individual articles as material (both useful and not so much) is added here rather than to the individual articles. Perhaps it would be better as a List of legal intoxicants, or, more accurately, List of intoxicants and psychoactives not included in the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. As long as the article exists, I'll watch it for vandalism, linkspam, and such, but if it went away, I wouldn't be perturbed.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The nominator's concerns about bias are noted, but this is absolutely not an indication of any violated policy of Wikipedia. The first sentence, "Legal intoxicants are intoxicating drugs which are not prohibited by the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and which people who are seeking intoxication by legal methods use," is certainly beyond controversy, and an encyclopedic discussion of it, if backed by enough reliable sources supporting different views, is the essence of  how an article grows and improves.  Problems with content do not constitute a reason to delete topics, they indicate that these articles require more care than something about a socially or emotionally neutral one.  ◄   Zahakiel   ►  23:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between saying that the article's present content is biased, which thing I have not said, though I think it true, and saying that it's impossible to give neutral coverage to this topic because a bias inheres in it. Everything you said about content problems not being a reason for deletion is completely true and completely irrelevant. Your assertion that the statement "Legal intoxicants are intoxicating drugs which are not prohibited by the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs" is without controversy astounds me to the point that I don't know how to respond. deranged bulbasaur  23:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... no. Let's take a look-see at that statement, "Everything you said about content problems not being a reason for deletion is completely true and completely irrelevant."  Well, we are talking about content problems (you haven't objected to anything else except content, and it looks like you're also talking about potential content, which you don't think can be presented in an unbiased manner) and this is a deletion discussion, so no, it's not irrelevant that "content problems are not a reason for deletion."  I'm going to stand by that statement, which seems pretty obvious to me.  The line I quoted from the article is beyond controversy because it describes intoxicants that are legal.  Since the article is actually about legal intoxicants, it's almost a truism.  ◄   Zahakiel   ►  02:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's cute how you say I've been talking bullshit without actually saying it. I am the only one here who has actually made an argument. You certainly haven't made one. It must be opposite day and I didn't even know. deranged bulbasaur  00:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems that I am forced to argue against potential articles rather than this actual one, so I will dutifully argue against List of intoxicants and psychoactives not included in the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Now, the convention includes no provision against analogs, so all the tryptamines and phenethylamines excepting the few enumerated chemicals in the convention would need to be added as "legal" under the convention even though they are effectively illegal in practically every signatory country. Already we see that should such an article actually stick to its topic, it would soon progress to an indiscriminate and unwieldy list, which could easily be anticipated by the fact that it's defined in terms of a negative. When listing things that are not among a specific finite set, the number of entities fitting the criteria can usually grow almost unbounded. The utility of such a list, given that it would not coincide with the actual law of any extant country, is small. There we hit on an even deeper problem, because UN "law" is not actually law, but a sort of meta-law that countries agree to implement. It does not directly prohibit anything, so the entire topic is without a solid basis. In implementing this convention, countries have exercised considerable latitude in interpretation. Should the list conform to the Dutch interpretation of the convention that does not prohibit fresh psilocybe mushrooms, or the interpretation of most other countries that it does? Should it conform to the U.S. Congressional interpretation that allows Native American peyote use? What about the recent Supreme Court interpretation that allows religious ayahuasca use? If something is allowed only for religious use, is it legal or illegal? deranged bulbasaur  00:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I would say the big problem with the article is the title. We have an article on the differing legislative approaches to pornography that different countries have, and there is no reason we shouldn't have an equivalent article on psychoactive chemicals. This articles title presupposes that there are always legal intoxicants, and that there are always illegal intoxicants. Neither is true, universally; but that should not prevent an article being created on the different cultural approaches towards intoxicants, and their legality. The article should merely be appropriately named, which this isn't of course. I would note though, that though some cultures define the illegality by purpose rather than chemical content (such as islamic cultures which quite frequently have nothing against a cup of refreshing coffee) and some purport to do so (but still fail to allow purely ritual use of hallucinogens for instance, like the United States), there are very few cultures that don't define their relationship towards intoxicating chemicals in *some* way. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't see where "bias" comes in. Its not biased to define "legal drugs" in a particular way. Bias is about opinion - and this article can certainly be non-biased in that way. As for the issue of the definition of legal drug, just say that if the drug is legal in anywhere notable, then its legal, and say where its legal - problem solved. Fresheneesz (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is biased to define "legal drugs" in a way that does not congrue with the actual meaning of the words "legal drugs." Taking the topic as legal drugs and then defining legal drugs in terms of a specific document that is just a template for some drugs that should be in theory prohibited among some countries effectively incorporates a fallacy of arbitrary redefinition into the substrate of the article. As for your problem solving proposition, while I commend you for actually offering a solution, your article would be an indiscriminate list for the same reasons I listed in my above comment. It would be populated with an inordinate number of drugs whose legal status is effectively indeterminate for the reasons I gave in my nomination (analog act &c.) There's no way to resolve this emulsion to give drugs that are truly and certainly "legal" in a great many jurisdictions. deranged bulbasaur  02:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The article was originally called Legal drugs.  The current title of Legal intoxicants is not an improvement because it is too narrow.  Much of this article's material is covered by Prohibition (drugs) and Recreational drug use.  What's really needed is an overall approach such as a project.  Colonel Warden (talk) 01:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Aspirin is legal drug, as is acetaminophen, phenylephrine, and omeprazole. It was in part for such obviosities as this that the name was changed. Until there is some clarity in what the article is about (even if we all agree that it should be Things you can get high on without going to jail in some countries), it will always be a source of controversy.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * delete everything in excess becomes intoxicating.. even water.. and it's perfectly legal.. this is a never ending story.. eating raw poultry too.. -- Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 02:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think you mean anything in excess can become dangerous, or poisonous. I don't know anyone who would become "intoxicated" in the standard use of that word, by too much water or raw poultry, but it could certainly kill them under the right (wrong) conditions.  If you very loosely define an intoxicant as any substance that can alter brain function then an anvil dropped on a person's head or a dose of cyanide is an intoxicant also :)  There's a discriminate enough definition that I think an article about those not regulated by law can be sustained.  ◄   Zahakiel   ►  02:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep valid and genuine encyclopedic subject. Article needs improvement and editing.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Care to actually give reasons for that in light of what has already been said? I've given several reasons that this is not the case, and they've all gone unopposed so far. Penny for your thoughts? deranged bulbasaur  15:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Article needs improvement and exrensive re-editing for POV checking and more reference should be given, not deletion.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but change to 'Legal intoxicants by country' or something similar to make it clear that no drug is legal in all countries, and that which is legal in one is not necessarily legal in another. This is a clear example of an article which desperately needs more of a worldwide view. (Perhaps the name should be changed to something like 'List of commonly legal intoxicants'.) Terraxos (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.