Talk:War on drugs/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

CBS Poll

Special:Contributions/dala11a keeps inserting a cbs poll of a very small sample (1142, out of 300,000,000) to assert the claim that americans want to keep marijuana illegal. since this is such a very small sample, i wonder if this should be removed per WP:UNDUE. please let me know if i am the only one who thinks so. (edited) badmachine (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Many surveys and polls only include a small sampling of the population. It's not the number of people polled that matters; it's the accuracy of the polling sample. Read some of the articles here on Wikipedia about sampling practices. 173.49.135.190 (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Bias in this article

This article reads like a "call to action" pamphlet handed out at Nimbin. I understand that this is a very political topic but this article is far from providing a neutral point of view.

The article is full of unattributed references (e.g. "Compared to processing trees to make paper, hemp requires fewer environmentally damaging chemicals.", "It is unknown at this time how President Barack Obama plans to work with the American people on this issue, however Obama has stated that while he is an advocate for medical marijuana use, he does not believe in the legalization of recreational use of marijuana.", and so on). Infact there are so many, it's difficult to scroll through the article and not see at least one on a page.

I would also say that the section "Arguments for the war on drugs" contains a lot of divisive language. e.g. Note: when arguing in favor of the Drug war, the term "drug" implies a harmful substance, although that assumption is subjective and often controversial. (actually, on rereading, what this paragraph is actually trying to say baffles me.)

Can I suggest that the "Arguments for the war on drugs" is placed before the criticism section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.152.249.18 (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the bias reeks! It seems the whole thing is tainted right from the get. War on Drugs is the prohibition campaign? Only in part. Using a traditional definition of warfare we might say "the war on drugs is the continuation of dangerous narcotic policies by other means", but that is also evasive, but at least honest. I might say "The United States of America's War on Drugs is the official attempt to remove dangerous narcotics from public access by any means" which I think would need that "by any means" because it certainly includes lethal means (often called deadly force). War on Drugs includes civil actions and military actions and criminal actions -- and prevention and retaliation, and is financial, and is lethal for all sides involved. It is not enough to say "prohibition campaign". The War on Drugs is a battle fought by the United States of America and specifically allied forces against those who allow production, distribution, and usage of restricted narcotics. Alas, I have no interest in the subject. -- EsotericRogue Talk 10:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

At a minimum, this article should have a heading warning regarding its lack of neutraility. CLearly the majority of contributions to this piece have been written by parties favoring repeal of drug prohibition laws and regulations. Additionally, the sourcing from Livingstone is completely biased and not inappropriate as a reference source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.172.14.99 (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This article reads like it was written by a leftist agenda. There are numerous unproved and controversial claims that groups on the right of the political spectrum are involved more heavily in drug dealing than those on the left. --Falconclaw5000 (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of this article is well-sourced. If you have a problem with it, please discuss specific changes you would like to make backed up by reliable sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, agendas can't write. 84.227.27.182 (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is obviously an extremely biased and reads like it was written by some crazy right wingers who want to keep all drugs illegal so that they can achieve their mission of making the world an even worse place to live in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.131.112.31 (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Role of G. Gordon Liddy

With congressional elections looming and Nixon's "law-and-order administration" having "done little to reduce crime," "G. Gordon Liddy suggested drugs." "Liddy arranged for the administration's inner circle, a group which included John Ehrlichman, Charles Colson, and Egil Krough, to view an old Nazi propaganda film called Triumph of the Will. The film demonstrated how a handful of determined men could manufacture a crisis, then use it to manipulate an entire nation. (In Liddy's mind, at least, that's what the war on drugs entailed.)" By his own account, Liddy admired the film and also had taken his children to see it.

Note the dates. His role was described before his autobiography. No refutation in all these years suffices. -MBHiii (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't take two completely separate sources and then mash them together like this. That's a classic, crying example of WP:SYN. Liddy never claimed that the war on drugs is a fascist-esque conspiracy. Yet you are putting those words into his mouth.

It is the expressed opinion of Gary Cartwright that Liddy created this conspriacy. Yet you are falsely claiming that Liddy admitted that in his biography. He did not. Incidentally, No refutation in all these years suffices makes no sense. I could write a biography of you, MBHiii, claiming that you are a drug dealer and a pedophile and then publish it. The fact that you would not be aware of my book/article/paper and do not challenge it does not somehow make it "true". That's a logical non-sequitor.

All we have in support of the conspiracy theory, which is an extra-ordinary claim to begin with, is the opinion of a book author. That's it. That doesn't fly based on WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT concerns. The Squicks (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

They're not separate. Both show his fascination with the Nazi film - the later one from his own mouth, so the earlier is not a synthesis of what he's written. It's hardly an obscure opinion. Cartwright is an honored, oft-cited, bilingual, historical journalist from Texas. He'd dare not write such a thing if it weren't true and he couldn't back it up, in court. -MBHiii (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course they're separate. An enjoyment of a Nazi film (which would put JGL in the exact same category as Roger Ebert) does not have anything to do with creating a gigantic evil conspiracy about drugs. You have taken two things and combined them into one thing. That's against WP policy. Suppose that you once typed that you enjoy listening to say, psychedelic rock music. By your logic, it would then be acceptable for me to put into a page:

With no job and no easy options in his future, MBHiii felt that he had little choice. He recommended that his friends listen to the song 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds', which he then said is a clear inspiration to them to begin drug dealing.<ref>Steven, Rodgers. Wikipedia at large. (2009). Basic Books.</ref> By his own admission even, MBHiii is a strong fan of the song 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds'.<ref>Wikipedia commentary by MBHiii.</ref>

As you own Google link shows, that Cartwright is less notable than someone with the same name who writes about food and another with the same name who writes about sexually transmitted diseases. But, in any rate, a person's opinion about someone else must- and I mean must- be cited to them specifically and not stated as fact. Victor Davis Hanson is one of the most respected historians of the Western Coast. That does not mean that his opinions about President Obama can be cited as fact on the page 'Barack Obama'. The Squicks (talk) 04:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I deleted those topics from the "oft-cited" search link above, in hopes of preventing confusion. He's still the dominant "G Cartwright" by far, and, a noted source on illegal drugs and drug wars, official or otherwise. To paraphrase another WP editor: WE'RE not allowed to synthesize. Cartwright is allowed to, and we can report on his synthesis, but his factual claims are just that, not established fact until more corroboration than Liddy's general tastes or values. That's why Cartwright's synthesis is in quotes. -MBHiii (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What would be acceptable is something like this=

Texas historical writer Gary Cartwright has alleged that G. Gordon Liddy and other Nixon aides such as John Ehrlichman, Charles Colson, and Egil Krough created the "war on drugs" as a manufactured crisis, based on hs interpretation of the Nazi propaganda film Triumph of the Will, in order to gather support in the 1970s congressional elections.

The claims must be cited as claims, not as fact. And no synthesis can be made. The Squicks (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Mbhiii appears to be using a sockpuppet again to avoid 3RR here. 173.122.89.163 (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Mbhiii's addition is one guy making an allegation. It doesn't belong here without some support since the taget of discussion is a living person. 70.8.184.242 (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a clear violation of WP:BLP and even moreso a violation of WP:WEIGHT, citing the aforementioned established points. The point of this discussion is moot and there is no consensus to add. Happyme22 (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The article..

why does "war on drugs" leads to a article like this? for anybody who isnt ON DRUGS, it is obvious article named "war on drugs" should be reserved for a article about MILITARY OPERATIONS (the "war") against South and Central American drug runners and farmers, run by USA in conjunction with contractors and local armed forces. 91.156.204.243 (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the criticism section should atleast be made into a seperate article. Could anyone who knows how to wiki properly put up the "its been suggested this section be made into a new article" template thingy at the criticism section please? Thanks. 86.131.215.157 (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed -- per WP:Pro and con lists, and other guidelines, I've gone ahead and integrated most of it into the article, and moved the rest to Arguments for and against drug prohibition Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat related, War on Drugs does not seem to be a metaphor. Suggesting that "the war on drugs is like the war on poverty" is flippant. I'll try to power-up myself to edit it, but I am adverse to the war on wiki. (That's a metaphor). -- EsotericRogue Talk 13:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I did remove "war on drugs is a metaphor" wishful thinking. It should be easy to understand that if war was a metaphor, it should not have an "innocent victims" section, nor any dead guilty victims, either. No corpses, no war. War on Drugs has corpses. -- EsotericRogue Talk 09:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I mostly agree -- I think it should focus more on foreign policy (in order to maintain a more global perspective), but I don't think that it should only be for foreign military operations. The term is also commonly used to describe the police-prison-surveillance apparatus in place domestically as well, and we should cover that here too. But I definitely think we need to expand on covert military actions abroad here. Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The War On Drugs is a metaphor. Just look up the definition. The term was coined in imitation of the metaphorical War On Poverty though that bit of propagandistic dissembling is not really the significant issue. The article has been turned almost entirely into an article on some of the foreign policy aspects of the War On Drugs since the 1980s (pretty specifically foreign military and paramilitary aspects). I think such an article would be excellent as its own article with appropriate links to the article on the War On Drugs but to substitute it for the actual subject of the article is dead wrong. The fact the War On Drugs has increasingly extended globally and militaristically does not void the meaning the term has had for over 40 years or nullify the domestic expansion, pervasiveness and impact of the policy, which is an inadequate word. I strongly suggest the bulk of what is now in this article be moved to an article of its own and and an article on the title subject be restored. I also suggest after creating the new article in this manner links be created to other appropriate articles with information about specific effects this has had on the people, politics and so on of affected countries to more effictively maintain a more global perspective as stated above. The term War On Drugs originally and still primarily refers to the domestic drug abuse industrial complex and emergent US state religion. Yes, I realize the state religion reference is a minority viewpoint (or at least describing it specifically as a state religion rather than a state ideology is a minority viewpoint). Nonetheless, there has been no radical change in the general understanding of what the War On Drugs refers to which supports the changes made to the article and I think it was inappropriate to make such a major change without starting a discussion first.

I don't think the article didn't need major improvement but the improvement it needs is improvement of the title subject not substitution of an article on an aspect of the overall subject. Moss&Fern (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Moss & Fern -- I think we are misunderstanding each other. I by no means think that the article should focus exclusively on foreign policy or military operations. As I said above, I am in fact opposed to such a change, and think that the domestic policy is equally as important as foreign policy. I think the term "War on Drugs" refers to both the foreign and domestic operations -- if you look at most sources, that's what they'll say.

I understand that most of my changes recently have been based around foreign policy -- I just started working on the article, and got to the foreign policy first, and am now in the process of gathering sources for the domestic side, which I will expand and improve every bit as much as I have done for the foreign policy side (which I still think needs a lot of work, especially in the lead for that section). I especially think that the "costs to taxpayers", "race and the war on drugs", and "socio-economic effects" sections should be improved, along with expanding on the "domestic policy" section so that it doesn't exclusively focus on incarceration and arrest rates.

I also agree that a longer more detailed article on foreign policy on the war on drugs would be very desirable, and would love to work on it with you. I don't, on the other hand, believe that many of my changes need to be reverted. I think that what remains is to expand on them in other articles and work on improving the areas I missed (especially the domestic policy section). I'm currently writing up some data on racial statistics for incarceration and arrests in the U.S., as well as some of the surveillance/law enforcement techniques/technologies that have been put in place in the U.S. Again -- I have no desire to "replace" the article with only foreign policy. I merely noticed that foreign policy was (and still is) dramatically undercovered here. I recommend that instead of removing/moving content that we add extensively to all areas of the article AND create new articles that expand upon these things even more. Thoughts? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv -- I hope this has just been a misunderstanding as it sounds. It seemed you were eliminating most of the domestic policy and effects from this article. "I recommend that instead of removing/moving content that we add extensively to all areas of the article AND create new articles that expand upon these things even more." is a fine idea as far as I'm concerned if I understand your intention correctly, though I don't want to mislead about how much I'll be contributing. Yes, War on Drugs refers to both domestic and foreign policy and operations and is far more complex than I indicated. Without downplaying the significance of the Turkish crop substitution program and other economic meddling in other countries' affairs, I don't recall much of a more aggressive nature in "drug" related foreign policy before the mid-70s.

This is difficult to source because of the rapid change in the agencies, laws and such during the transition from Federal Bureau of Narcotics to Drug Enforcement Administration as primary public faces of the federal drug agencies and policies, the difficulty of accessing documents from the 60s and 70s and some of the peculiarities of Wikipedia policies. The public rhetoric doesn't help either though I think some discussion of it belongs in the War on Drugs article as background to understanding just as discussion of the (American public perspective) of the Viet Nam War requires discussion of the Viet Nam "conflict" and earlier. Anyway, IMO the defining characteristics of the War on Drugs are the expansion of federal drug law from concern with opiates, coca/cocaine and cannabis only to potentially all drugs with the executive branch able to add drugs/substances by regulation; the reliance on UN treaties, as well as the shift to Commerce Clause basis for new laws, to support that expansion of federal power in the courts; and the shift of focus from relatively small segments of the population to the entire population (with particular focus on the old segments and some new ones).

The shift began during the Kennedy administration, entered law during the Johnson administration as DACA of 1965 which became effective in 1966 and added penalties for personal use and possession or the DACA added drugs in 1968. Plus in 1968 Michael Sonnenreich and John Dean began drafting what would eventually become the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 during the Nixon Administration and that left almost nothing outside federal jurisdiction. Until very recently I wasn't aware of how big a role the Kennedy administration played or even the scope of the Johnson administration--not to imply Congress, state politics, party politics and other things weren't major factors.

This is more the area related to the War on Drugs article I'm interested in researching and editing. I have the 1972 and 1973 reports of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, the 4 appendices to the 1973 report and a fair number of government reports, white papers and publications from the 70s and 80s that may have documentation for matters you're interested in but don't have documents for. Perhaps some documents from the 90s, don't know if anything I have from earlier or later would be of interest and unavailable to you. A lot of this is government reports which might help with NPOV issues. I realize I have a strong bias and generally try to fill in missing significant information where different points of view are already well represented or the info doesn't create NPOV issues for other reasons. I also make an effort to fill in some missing information that's against my POV but significant so I'm keeping a balance. I suspect if I looked at the history of this article I'd find I haven't contributed much to it because I take too much of a side.

I also think a defining characteristic is that unlike previous drug legislation it has evolved into some sort of religion though I don't intend to address that directly. True or false, it either falls into the fringe theory category or there are an enormous number of people who believe that but won't say so which is effectively the same. I'd place my bet on fringe theory.

I hope to do a couple articles that also relate to this article but will presumably be primarily categorized as articles on New Religious Movements. I don't think it will be difficult to source that major goals of WoD included suppressing dissent and unorthodoxy of many types.

Oh, the "useless" info you blanked about TV is actually quite important but needs to be rewritten so the importance is clear to the reader. It's about the ONDCP getting caught violating laws against spending funding on covert domestic propaganda and broadcast media getting caught violating FCC regulations that cover their role in this. I'm not that familiar with the FCC part of it but should be able to cover the ONDCP covert domestic propaganda pretty easily because I already have done the research and editing for some other articles where it was important.

I think some annual budget figures from 1969 to present would be very informative. In the 1973 report of the Schafer Commission there are some figures for the huge increase in federal spending during that period (and it was a huge increase at the time). To track state and federal spending over the last 40 years or so in dollars and total budget percentages would be something. Might even be done already as part of something else. I suppose such annual detail is excessive for encyclopedic article but a summary would be appropriate.

The effect on practice of medicine, access to medicine and the general population's perception of virtually any "drug" has been extremely significant. Not sure how to document it. The same for how it has shaped American society. I believe there's been much of a global ripple effect in those areas. I expect there's been a lot of effect on the US from other countries participation in the War on Drugs though I don't even know what the equivalent phrase would be in any other countries. Not just effect on the US, of course. IIRC, the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Drugs was to a great extent due to "producer"/Third World country resentment of the Single Convention's burden on them with no corresponding burden on the industrial nations that were manufacturing and exporting synthetic psychoactive drugs. The Convention fit well with US government goals and laws but caused major and often unwelcome changes in the laws of many other countries. 1971 is the year I see here on Wikipedia but I was just looking at a UN copy of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs as amended by the 1972 Convention on Psychotropic Drugs so there's a discrepancy to be explored.

If the data's available for arrest/incarceration statistics, I think economic class would be significant as would regional variations.

Historically, I think you'll find that the drug cartels that are so taken for granted today are largely a product of the War on Drugs which has made basically inexpensive commodities very expensive and profitable to deal in. And the economic waste of spending large amounts of money on the "crime tariff" is a huge drain on countries and individuals. I can't remember when I last heard contemporary reference to the Mafia as the main importer of herion to the US or when I first heard the term drug cartel but suspect both were during the Reagan Administration (which I recall as reviving the term, War on Drugs).

The quality control nightmare of the urine testing industry, the blindness to the quality control problems and the social acceptance of drug testing for employment and other things are significant results of the WoD.

I do think phrase War on Drugs is essentially synonymous with American War on Drugs though and the article needs to reflect that. Earlier I wrote, "The fact the War On Drugs has increasingly extended globally and militaristically does not void the meaning the term has had for over 40 years or nullify the domestic expansion, pervasiveness and impact of the policy, which is an inadequate word. . . . The term War On Drugs originally and still primarily refers to the domestic drug abuse industrial complex and emergent US state religion. Yes, I realize the state religion reference is a minority viewpoint (or at least describing it specifically as a state religion rather than a state ideology is a minority viewpoint). Nonetheless, there has been no radical change in the general understanding of what the War On Drugs refers to . . .". I still stand by that statement absent evidence that it is incorrect. If there is disagreement about what it refers to there should be some way to determine that. Moss&Fern (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Moss & Fern -- Thanks for taking the time to explain your concerns. I think you made some excellent points.

• I agree that drug testing for employment, and the problems associated with it, are important for this topic, and think that this would be an excellent thing to add to the "socio-economic effects" section.
• I do think phrase War on Drugs is essentially synonymous with American War on Drugs -- I agree with this statement. Although, at this point, I don't see anything that contradicts this statement in the article. The very large majority, if not all, of the article focuses on the United States.
• Your comments about the War on Drugs creating, or at least encouraging, criminal drug trafficking syndicates are ESPECIALLY important, and after improving the domestic policy section a bit, I was going to work on some of this. Much of the U.S. anti-drug agitprop is based around "violent drug gangs", and I'd love to see something about the large body of research that has been done showing that legalization and rehabilitation programs would decrease the prevalance of violent criminal syndicates. I'll definitely be including some of these, if someone else doesn't get around to it first.
• As far as the "useless" info about TV being deleted, I wholeheartedly agree that a section on pro-Drug-War propaganda needs to be written (probably linking to an entire article on the subject, which is quite an extensive research area.). I did not blank that section because I thought that any section on propaganda would be useless, but merely because that section was poorly written, poorly sourced, and not really covering the most important aspects of the issue. Again, I plan to add extensive information on this as well.

Anyhow, it seems that we're on the same page now. As far as other things I've got in the works, I wanted to include a brief section about the early history of the drug war (Anslinger, Hoover, etc.) and link to a full article on that subject as well. I'll get around to that in a bit. Any suggestions here?

Thanks again for all of your excellent suggestions. Looking forward to working with you more on this. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Created new history section

I've created a skeleton for a "history of drug prohibition in the U.S." section, as well as linking to a new article I've created where we can expand on it. Basically, in this article, I think we should primarily focus on the "drug war" -- i.e. activities after Nixon's 1969 declaration of a "war on drugs". But at the same time, I feel that it is important to mention that these are a continuation of policies that go back to at least 1914, during the Anslinger days. I plan to expand on this section much more in the near future. Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Racial disparities

This section seems to be biased. It is important to note, among other things, that the Congressional Black Caucus lobbied for the sentencing disparity to stem the tide of destruction that crack was causing in the Black community. Bill Clinton, the first "Black" president was reticent to amend the law when he was in the White House. It is said that Democrats have a reputation for being soft on crime, and he did not want to be labelled thus. BTW is the sentencing disparity for possession" I thought it was for distribution. (I requested a quote.) We should keep the tag until these issues are addressed. Lionelt (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The sentencing disparity is for possession. And I don't believe your statements are accurate, but, if they are, it should be noted — but probably not in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears I was wrong. Only crack cocaine has a minimum sentence for possession (21 USC 844). The disparity is for distribution. But someone does need to verify what is in the references. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Bolivia

The section on coca leaves and traditional use and cultivation in Bolivia makes a few inaccurate statements. "and particularly Bolivia, where the president, Evo Morales, a former coca growers' union leader, has promised to legalize the traditional cultivation and use of coca." Coca cultivation in Bolivia is not illegal under Bolivian or international law. Bolivia is allowed a certain number of acres for coca cultivation. They do exceed this number of course every year, and Evo Morales wants to raise the allowed acreage, and most likely eventually wants to remove the restrictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.24.93.43 (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

National Drug Control Budget

The article reads: The Fiscal Year 2011 National Drug Control Budget proposed by the Obama Administration will, for example, devote significant new resources to the prevention and treatment of drug abuse.

I don't think this is particularly accurate. The budget has not changed been drastically for the past few years: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/11budget/exec_summary.pdf

Can this section be edited for better accuracy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loneronin89 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. They said a bunch about how they would be "changing" their policy, and rebranding it, but like most things coming out of the administration it was nice-sounding talk with no basis in reality. I say it should go. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Racial disparities section - Out of Date

This section is based on data that is 11 or more years out of date. Even though the title is "Historical," I think the section should be removed until more current sources can be found. The main article, Race and the War on Drugs, also suffers from the same issue. See the parallel duiscussion here Talk:Race and the War on Drugs. Lionel (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The section should clearly not be removed, as it is backed by reliable sources, and is a very notable and relevant topic. It should be improved and updated, however. There is a large body of recent scholarship discussing racial disparities in the war on drugs, as you can see from the sources in Race and the War on Drugs. I would recommend going through some of the literature cited there and using it to improve the article.-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Racial disparities section - POV

This is from Crack cocaine:

There has been some controversy over the disproportionate sentences mandated by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for crack cocaine (versus powder cocaine) since 1987. Whereas it is a 5-year minimum sentence for trafficking 500g of powdered cocaine, the same sentence can be imposed for mere possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine, a 100:1 ratio. There is no mandatory minimum sentence for mere possession of powder cocaine - Sabet, Kevin A. Making it Happen: The Case for Compromise in the Federal Cocaine Law Debate

This section implies that the sentencing is for possession and not trafficking. This is POV. Lionel (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A good idea would have been to be bold, and to have corrected it. I tried to, but then you reverted me. I've re-fixed it now though. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

First off, as you can see from the section you just quoted, the same sentence can be imposed for mere possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine, a 100:1 ratio., so I don't know why you keep insisting that it is only for trafficking crack. What you did was improperly interpret a primary source (which you shouldn't be doing anyway). Saying that the penalty applies to trafficking crack, does not mean that it does not also apply to possession. Reliable secondary sources, such as the one you've cited above and the others in Race and the War on Drugs, say that the penalties also apply for possession. I'll ask you to please neutrally report what reliable secondary sources have to say. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There are reliable secondary sources which use the word "trafficking." To be honest I suspected your sources of being biased and suppressing the word "trafficking." In any event this may be an issue of semantics? Lionel (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, that the penalties are applied to trafficking does not preclude them from also being applied to possession. Several reliable sources say that possession (of crack and not of powder) is penalized this way, including the Washington Post. Thus, I have changed it to "possession or trafficking of crack cocaine" in the article text. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hemp as raw material for paper in the 1930's

The development of the legal harvesting of hemp since 1998 show that paper from hemp is not a large commercial product. [1]. No sources from the 1930's show that the situation was different in the 1930. There are examples of technological improvements in harvesting of hemp but there are many more examples of technological improvements in production of pulp from wood and means for transports of pulp-wood to the pulp industry. There is a memo written about 1916 that support paper form hemp that i of course an obsolete statement if we are talking about the situation 20 years later. Who use a computer magazine from 1990 when he wants to find the best PC with Windows 7? Dala11a (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea of what sources from the 1930s or 1916 you talk about. They are not used in the article. The statements that you removed was instead explicitly supported by a reliable source from 2004 so I reverted. Steinberger (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed -- unless Dala11a can demonstrate, with reliable secondary sources that this is false, it should remain in the article as is, since it is backed by reliable sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

In Sweden was it legal to harvest hemp until 1970. Sweden was also in the same period a major producer of paper and equipment for pulp- and paper industry. But no significant industry in Sweden used hemp as a raw material for paper 1930-1970. The Swedish state gave subsidiaries to harvesting of hemp in the 50's and 60'n. Result: None. Hemp continued to bee a very marginal crop. The pulp industry continued to use pulp wood. Hemp could not compete with pulp wood. Anything else was just pink hopes. The same thing happened in Canada from 1998. Dala11a (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You fail to acknowledge that we speak of a conspiracy in the 1930s - and that wood pulp dominates today does not mean that the development leading up to that was inevitable. For example, the kraft process for making paper was not perfected until the 1940s so one can imagine how it weighed between the two raw materials and the methods of making paper in the 1930s. In all, it seems very plausible that industrialists with interest in one of the two was sure to emphasize everything bad with the competitor under such circumstances. Steinberger (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

But more importantly, Dala11a failed to provide reliable sources that contradict the sources in the article, and instead provided original research. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If I must show that the ghost i a ghost (a future with very big hemp paper production) I can quote Hempline(1994) "There is currently no significant production of 100 % true hemp paper." Hemp pulp is produced in plants producing 5000 ton per year, a typical wood pulp site never produce less than 250 000 ton per year etc... [2]. Production of hemp paper in large quantities compared with the quantities demanded by Hearst newspapers in the 1930's have never existed in any country. It it those hos state that the ghost is not a ghost that need sources if we follow Wikipedias basic principles.Dala11a (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that's just original research (gleaned from a non-reliable source, no less). Do you have reliable sources that claim that the sources in the article text are incorrect, or somehow contradict them? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Present production numbers on hemp versus pulp paper does not in any way prove that the development towards that was inevitable. For decades hemp production was actively discouraged and investors thus put their money at developing the methods of making paper from wood. If there wherie no political campaigns against hemp and if the development of the methods for making hemp paper received as much investments as paper from wood pulp, the production numbers might have been different. We don't know. It is impossible to say. However, we can conclude that technical improvements in the 1930s made high quality hemp paper cheaper to produce while the more low quality paper from wood pulp received a stark quality improvement. And we can conclude that there was political juggling towards hemp. Steinberger (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Not in Europe and Asia. There was no political campaigns against hemp in Europe and Asia in the 30's, 40's or 50's. There was no legal restrictions for paper from hemp in Europe and Asia. Production of Hemp pulp was tested many times both before and after the 1930's and the investors learned that they made money on pulp from wood but not on pulp from hemp. That is what happened. And why is Hempline a non-reliable source for numbers about the very small production of hemp pulp? You can find the same numbers in other sources. Dala11a (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that's just original research. Do you have reliable sources that claim that the sources in the article text are incorrect, or somehow contradict them? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What sources shall contradict? There are no citations at all from Hearst himself or the Hearst press that state that Hemp felt that hemp was a threat to Hearsts economic interest as owner of big forest. Here is another source to what raw materials is actually used for pulp in countries where it is legal to harvest hemp. Hemp is very, very unusual raw material. Pulp produced from fibers other than wood such as sugar cane bagasse, wheat straw, kenaf, cotton rags and hemp is totally 1,2 % in Europe where it is legal to harvest hemp. [3]Dala11a (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Your sources should directly contradict Magdaleno Manzanárez and Laurence French findings. They are scholars and their book is published by a renowned publishing house. And moreover, stop making irrelevant arguments. There is no obvious connection between today and then - and thus it does not matter how the proportions looks like today between different raw materials for pulp production. That is not the issue. Steinberger (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

What findings? Magdaleno Manzanárez's book do not include any citations at all from Hearst himself or the Hearst press that state that Hemp felt that hemp was a threat to Hearst's economic interest as owner of big forest. Magdaleno Manzanárez's is not an expert on the pulp and paper industry and therefore irrelevant as an exert on the future for hemp as source for paper. An irrelevant source as you call it. Dala11a (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, an academic expert on the pulp and paper industry would be the ideal source, and it would be great if you could find such a source. But using a historian from a reputable publishing house easily meets the criteria in WP:RS. Your personal opinions and original research do not meet these criteria. And now matter how many statistics you throw at us here, until you provide reliable sources claiming that these historians are wrong, the content is going to stay, whether you like it or not. Please provide any reliable sources you know that contradicts what is in the article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a doctor thesis[4] from 1984 about the evolution of the pulp and paper industry 1860-1960 by Hannes Toivanen. His doctor thesis also includes material about Hearst in the 1930's and the evolution of the pulp industry in Sweden and other European countries 1860-1960. In Toivonens 351 pages long version of the evolution in pulp and paper industry is hemp pulp so marginal that hemp is not mentioned at all, not for any country. Not even in a footnote. And Hearst financial problems på 1930's has nothing to do with hemp in Toivonens version of the history. Dala11a (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you've managed to find a particular Doctor's thesis that doesn't mention it demonstrates nothing. It could be that Toivonens was simply unaware of it. It could be that he didn't think it was true, but important. Or it could be that he thinks it is completely untrue, and could explain it if we asked him. We'll never know, since he doesn't mention it. However, we do have a reliable source saying that hemp was an important part of the history of the pulp industry. We do know exactly what they think. So until you find a reliable that contradicts this, nothing is going to change. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Toivonen does not mention "wood" in his thesis. Does that mean that he though wood to be marginal? (Groundwood is another thing, a general word for raw material for pulp production.) Steinberger (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And anyhow, I've added two more scholarly refs that support the "Hearst/Mellon/Anslinger thesis". -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Steinberger: Toivonen use frequent the words forest, forest industry, jute, straw and recycled paper but not hemp. Dala11a (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, irrelevant. We've got 3 scholarly sources making the assertion. You've got 0 claiming that it's false. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Not correct, the only doctor thesis give an alternative storyDala11a (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you just say that Toivonen never mention hemp (and the conspiracies around it)? Steinberger (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That is what is my point., Hemp fiber production in the 1930's was so microscopic that Toivonen did not think that hemp was worth mentioning.

Production of fibers from hemp in the early 1930s would have been approximately 500 tonnes per year. [5] . DR. ROBINSON at the Bureau of PLANT INDUSTRY Department of Agriculture described the development:

"The culture of hemp in the United States, I might say has decreased because of the cheap competitive fibres which are produced by cheap labor The culture of hemp in the United States, I might say has decreased because of the cheap competitive fibres which are produced by cheap labor in foreign countries, and it is because of this cheapness that they are substituted for hemp in many cases, and not because of the fact that they have characteristics that are better than hemp for cordage or textile purposes. in foreign countries, and it is because of this cheapness that they are substituted for hemp in many cases, and not because of the fact that they have characteristics that are better than hemp for cordage or textile purposes. ” [6]

The total paper production in the United States tonnes in 1930 was about 10.2 million tonnes and then increased steadily to 14.4 million tonnes in 1940. [7]. Market share of hemp in 1935 can therefore be estimated to about 0.005%. Not even an increase in fiber from hemp by 100 times would have had any significant impact on the value of Hearst forests.Dala11a (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Dala11a -- You really need to read WP:OR (especially WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY). I know I've repeated this several times, and maybe you thought I was just saying it to be difficult, or something. But I really meant it as a suggestion that would help you understand why your edits are being rejected -- you need to understand how you are violating WP:OR. Until you understand what is written there, we are all going to continue repeating ourselves, and none of your lengthy arguments are going to make a bit of difference. You have not provided a single reliable source that contradicts the claims made by several high-quality scholarly sources. You can keep providing original research, ad nauseum, but it's not going to achieve anything other than wasting everyone's time here. Again: read and understand WP:OR, and then come back with information that is verifiable in reliable secondary sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You should also spread the Gospel over in Hemp#Paper. They are also clearly denying the the truth about Heasrt and hemp, although I did notice that you included a difficult to read blurb about it in Legal history of cannabis in the United States. I have removed it there, also for WP:OR and WP:Syn--Cybermud (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Read this report: "Due to high processing costs, hemp has never been used for commercial (or high-volume) paper production....The higher fixed costs of the hemp mill suggest that hemp pulp is best suited for specialty paper production (such as teabag and cigarette papers), which are limited to less than 5 percent of the demand for other major grades of paper. Returning to the original assumption, if industrial hemp is profitable, world production will be thriving and trade will be vigorous, what direction has the world hemp gone? Notably, world hemp production has been on the decline, falling from over 300,000 metric tons in the early 1960s to one fifth that level today (Figure 1). In 1998, world hemp fiber production was about 66,500 metric tons, with China producing more than 38 percent of total world supply. China and other significant producers such as Russia, South Korea, Ukraine, and Romania all subsidize hemp production to some extent.." and so on(Valerie L. Vantreese: Industrial Hemp: What Can We Learn from the World Market?, Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of Kentucky. From Foresight, Vol. 5, No. 4 published 1998).[8] So why should anybody owning forests fear production of hemp as a raw material for production of news print?Dala11a (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see my response to you above, regarding original research. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You and Steinberger have claimed that I have no sources for my doubts about hemp as raw material high volume paper production. When I give a another very good source for my doubts (I have more sources) you reply by claiming me for original research. Please respond to the report from Valerie L. Vantreese. Dala11a (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Dala11a -- Please listen carefully. I don't have a problem with you personally. I don't want to argue with you. I'd like to work with you on this article. But before we can work together, I really need you to read WP:OR and understand the concept of original research. You need to find reliable, secondary sources that discuss Hearst and the hemp industry. What you are doing right now is a clear case of original research and synthesis. Please take a few minutes to read these policies. If you can't see how they relate to what you are doing, please let me know, and I'll clear it up for you. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we shall respect the basic principles for Wikipedia. You ignore that the fundamental part in Jack Herers theory about the hidden agenda behind the Marijuana Tax Act (1937) is his "finding" that "hemp would soon replace about 70% of all wood pulp paper, including computer printout paper, corrugated boxes and paper bags". That "finding" was just junk, at least if we are talking about the last 80 years. Above I have given a number of sources above that show that large mass production of newsprint from hemp never happened. All who have tried failed. Then it is a fact that a large number of authors that are not experts on the pulp and paper industry don't understood that Jack Herer's "finding" was junk and included his theory about a hidden agenda behind the Marijuana Tax Act (1937) in their books. I have included parts of Anslingers summary from 1961.[9] Dala11a (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see my response above. You clearly didn't read WP:OR. It doesn't matter what you think is junk. The assertion is backed by three scholarly sources. Please read WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. --- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No only me think that the Jack Heres "fining" is junk. The pulp industry did not believe on mass production of newsprint from hemp as I have showed above. It never happened. What is the fact is that a number of scholars, not the pulp industry, beveled on Jack Herer's "finding". That happened many years after 1937 and is therefore not relevant here. Dala11a (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

:Please see my response above. You clearly didn't read WP:OR. It doesn't matter what you think is not relevant or didn't happen. The assertion is backed by three scholarly sources. Please read WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY, and come back with reliable sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

None the so called "scholary sorces" are experts in production of pulp. Name just one example of large scale mass production of cheep newsprint in any country in the last 80 years! Dala11a (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's been made clear to you what types of sources you need to use, and to not include original research into articles. Please stop being disruptive. If you continue with this, I'm going to have to initiate some form of formal dispute resolution. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Something that is commonly known in the pulp and paper industry is not original research. Compare this quote from a major company in Idaho: "Another issue associated with hemp is its low yield per acre. Advocates claim that the plant produces more fiber per acre than trees. But this is misleading, because the entire hemp plant cannot be economically prepared for paper production. While the wood products industry uses nearly 100% of the fiber from harvested trees, only 25% of the dried hemp stem — the bark, called bast — contains the long, strong fibers desirable for paper production. The remaining 75% of the hemp plant is the core, called hurd." ... [10].— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dala11a (talk • contribs)

That's nice. Please read WP:OR. I look forward to talking to you once you've done so. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hemp has never been used for commercial high-volume paper production due to its relatively high processing cost. This and the lack of mention of hemp in the major biographies about Hearst argues that the stated association of Hearst with hemp as replacement for wood pulp is WP:UNDUE emphasis.Dala11a (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you fail to provide sources again? Or did I miss them somehow? Please see WP:OR. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

- "Hemp has never been used for commercial high-volume paper production due to its relatively high processing cost." (Valerie L. Vantreese, 1998) [11]. Dala11a (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, that's not a reliable source. Second, assuming it were, is there a place where it mentions Hearst or the Marijuana Tax Act? If not, please see WP:OR, as you've been told numerous times before. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a mind reader. If you want someone to understand why you do not believe that Valerie L. Vantreese is a reliable source, you must explain why. And you do not indicate any sources that contradict the passage I quoted above, for example, a source that mentions names or locations for plants that have or had large-scale commercial production of paper from hemp.Dala11a (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as the reliability of the source, I'd recommend that you read WP:RS in its entirety, so that you will understand what types of sources you should be using in general (the fact that you don't know which part I'm talking about shows that you probably haven't read it). Specifically, though, the problem is that it is a self-published source, and has not been subjected to peer review or editorial control. As far as providing quotes to contradict your original research from a self-published source, I don't have to. On the other hand, there are numerous high-quality academic sources that make a claim, for which you have provided no reliable sources that contradict it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is another report published by Michael Karus Coordinator of the “European Industrial Hemp Association (EIHA)“, a large network of companies in the EU that process hemp[12]: The production of pulp from hemp in the European Union was about 17500 ton in 2003, 70-80% was "Specialty pulp for cigarette papers and technical applications"..."Thin and tearproof cigarette papers are the most important field of application for specialty pulps made from flax and hemp fibres. Small amounts of these pulps are also used for applications such as technical filters. Without essential technical enhancements and/or the development of new fields of application, one cannot expect large growth rates in this segment".[13] No cheep pulp from hemp, completely in line with Valerie L. Vantreese report. Dala11a (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Everything you've been told before applies here again. Please see WP:OR. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Valtreses report was published in Foresight, Vol. 5, No. 4 in 1998 published by Kentucky Long-Term Policy Research Center [14]. Michael Karus published an article with the same conclusions, see the summary, in Journal of Industrial Hemp [[15]] published by Taylor and Francis a major publishing house for peer-reviewed journals. That is not self-published sources. Dala11a (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Great. But it's still original research, and says absolutely nothing about Hearst and the Marijuana Tax Act, so is irrelevant as far as this article is concerned. Feel free to add it to Hemp, if you want, though. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Was nylon outcompeted by hemp in 1937?

User:Jrtayloriv state that I do illegal synthesis or original research when I add a short text that state that 'Other sources state that "Nylon was a best seller from start"(in 1939)'. The text in War on Drugs state that "...Du Pont families new synthetic fiber, nylon, which was also being outcompeted by hemp." A number of sources give a different story[[16]]. (That source is used in article Nylon.) The first pilot plant for nylon was constructed in 1938. The first plant for mass production of was started in December 1939. A number of reliable sources show that nylon was not outcompeted by any fiber in 1935-1937, nylon was just not finished for sale until 1939. My proposal was to add this very neutral text:

Other sources state that "Nylon was a best seller from the outset"(in 1939).[17].

I think that a neutral third user must look on Jrtayloriv claims on my text. Dala11a (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

It says at WP:3O, "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page," and there does not seem to have been any discussion yet in this section. However I see the two editors involved have been in previous discussion above up to about a month and a half ago, presumably about the same or a related issue. If that presumption is correct, then after reading the comments above and considering the issue further I will give my opinion about it. In the meantime, Users Jrtayloriv and Dala11a are welcome to comment further on the issue specifically mentioned in this section.—WikiDao ☯ 01:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC) First of all, it sounds like you, Dala11a, were not hearing the repeated recommendation above by Jrtayloriv that you read and carefully consider WP:SYNTH; I hope you have had the opportunity to do so since then. So, the present request for a third opinion seems to have to do with this reversion by Jrtayloriv which, removed the struck-out text from: Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury and the wealthiest man in America, had invested heavily in the Du Pont families new synthetic fiber, nylon, which was also being outcompeted by hemp.[14] Other sources state that "Nylon was a best seller from the outset"(in 1939).[18] where [18] was "Carothers, Modern Polymer Science, and the Development of Nylon, American Chemical Society". I checked that source, and it does indeed say: "Nylon was a best seller from the outset. Prior to the start-up of Seaford, DuPont had put 4,000 pairs of stockings on sale in Wilmington. They sold out in three hours. Seven months later, the company put 4,000,000 pairs on sale nationally. These sold out in four days. The name "nylon," intended to be a generic designation of a class of polymers, became another word for stockings." Which is interesting, but I think Jrtayloriv may be saying that it would be WP:SYNTH to interpret that passage as saying that nylon was not being "outcompeted" by hemp in other markets besides that of stockings (such as eg. rope). That passage seems really to only be talking about stockings. But it doesn't really matter, because I also looked at [14], the source cited for the preceding sentence, which just says: "For nylon to succeed it had to replace the traditional resource, hemp." Which is not at all the same as "which was also being outcompeted by hemp", so there isn't really any need to contradict that claim with other sources – "outcompeted" just isn't in the source cited in the first place! So I recommend changing that sentence to something like: "Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury and the wealthiest man in America, had invested heavily in the DuPont's new synthetic fiber, nylon, and considered its success to depend on its replacement of the traditional resource, hemp." Whatever "traditional resource" may mean in this context. This point could in fact use some clarification – perhaps other sources go further into it...? In any case, that's my "opinion" on this matter. Does that address or resolve your concern here, Dala11a? WikiDao ☯ 03:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added even more sources (I think we're at ten now) supporting the claim, and given the number of scholarly works we have that make this claim, if Dala11a is so concerned with rebutting it, then perhaps he could find a single reliable source that does so directly, rather than making synthetic (and illogical) arguments based on original research. I don't care what he finds in his research of historical economic data for hemp or nylon. I don't care how ridiculous or clearly false he thinks these claims are. If he wants to say they are false in this article, he is going to have to do so by finding at least one (he hasn't even managed to find one) source that claims that this theory is false. The only historical economic data he should be including in this article is that cited as evidence in whatever sources he manages to find. Otherwise, I'll kindly ask him to state explicitly here that he will no longer attempt to insert anything related to this topic until he does have sources, so I can stop wasting my time fixing his inappropriate edits to the article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Jrtayloriv – don't you think citing eight or nine sources for that one small point is sortc of overkill...?! Maybe best to keep things simple and just stick with the google books source that was there when I discussed it above. WikiDao ☯ 00:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

When DuPont sent out their first press release October 28, 1938 DuPont stated on page 2 that they intended to produce “toothbrush bristles” and fine “hosiery with extreme sheerness”. Non of these products was 'replacement of the traditional resource, hemp'.. The press release compared nylon with silk and ryon. [18] . The first two products from nylon was not competing with products from hemp. In DuPonts version have hemp simply no part of the story. Hemp we not a competitor if we talk about “toothbrush bristles” and fine “hosiery with extreme sheerness”. Obviously exist two very different versions of the history that are in clear conflict. DuPonts version is a primary source so it is unbalanced to ignore it. DuPont had to consider also other materials than hemp. The press release from 1938 mention explicit on page 2-3: Silk, ryon, cotton, wool and acetate. A more balanced text, is therefore: ".. replacement of silk, ryon, cotton, wool, acetate and the traditional resource, hemp." Dala11a (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've reverted that, Dala11a, per WP:SYNTH. We had a source saying that Mellon considered nylon's success to depend on its replacing hemp. PERIOD. Taking that DUPont press release and inferring from it that Mellon also considered nylon's success to depend on its replacing several other fibers, too, just is not supported by that source. You are making that interpretation yourself, it is not clearly stated in the source, and that is WP:SYNTH. WikiDao ☯ 00:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Jrtayloriv – don't you think citing eight or nine sources for that one small point is sortc of overkill...?! -- Absolutely. I was sort of being snarky to make a point, namely that this is not "fringe" theory, and is fairly widely accepted as eminently reasonable, if not correct. But once this conflict has died down, I'd be glad to trim it down to 4 or 5 of the most informative and respectable sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, most of the sources I've added are for the entire paragraph -- some of them talk about Hearst, and some talk about both Hearst and DuPont. We should probably go through and place the citations following the specific statements they are citing, rather than at the end of the paragraph. I'm at work right now, but I'll take care of that when I get home, if you don't first. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is book that that state DuPont focused on competing with silk (not hemp) from summer 1936. Not a word abut hemp i page 40-55:

"By the summer of 1936 Du Pont was ready to move nylon into a bigger scale of development. The company's Rayon Department reported that it considered the new fiber "a high quality yarn superior to natural silk" that would have a large market at two dollars a pound, roughly the price of silk. Preliminary estimates showed that nylon yarn could be produced for eighty cents a pound in a plant making eight million pounds a year. Even a very small plant could make money. On the basis of these optimistic forecasts, the research managers decided to expand the company's nylon-manufacturing capacity from two to one hundred pounds a day in order to improve the process and provide material for extensive testing. Nylon had entered its second phase of development" (The Nylon Drama," by David A. Hounshell and John Kenly Smith Jr., Invention and Technology (Fall, 1988): 40-55. [19])

Not a word about hemp in these 15 pagesDala11a (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That's irrelevant, and is a classic example of synthesis. However, what is relevant is the ten scholarly sources I've provided which do make the claim explicitly. I'm not sure why you're so obsessed with this particular topic, but it should be clear to you by now that anything other than information directly backed by a reliable source is simply not going to remain in the article. I'd suggest you give it up if you can't find sources (and perhaps even consider that you are mistaken). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

By your logic, if someone tell a fairytale about that there are 1 million yellow people on Venus and he gets 100 supporters on the Internet an no one claims the statement about 1 million yellow people it is synthesis if I quote a real expert on Venus that do not claim the story about 1 million yellow people. I think you have missed somethingDala11a (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC).

Wrong. I'm not talking about "people on the internet". I'm talking about numerous high-quality academic sources. You haven't provided a single one. I've provided ten. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

???About what? That nyon was out-competed by hemp in 1937 or ??? What you have is more than 1 million people who read Jack Herer's books about hemp with his unrealistic claims[20], [21] regarding the potential of hemp. Some trusted these unrealistic claims, but few in countries where it has been legal to cultivate hemp. Before Herer was hemp almost been forgotten as a commercial crop in Western Europe, only about 15% of a hemp plant is fibers. The rest i root, leafs, tops and herds. Dala11a (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Dala11a (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'm not interested in your original research, or your unsubstantiated (and logically invalid) analysis of Herer's work. Please provide on-topic, reliable sources if you are interested in inserting content into the article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have of course good sources for that Jack Herer had unrealistic claims regarding the potential of hemp. I incuded two sources in my text above. Hemp was a very, very small crop in the 1930's in the U.S.. The total production of all grades of pulp in North America amounted to 11 million ton in 1937. Source:FAO.[22]. The cultivation of hemp produced probably less than 0.001 million ton hemp fiber in 1935. The hemp grown in the United States had declined from to 1,200 acres in 1933([23]). In 1933 was the proportions between all pulp and all hemp fiber something like 10 000 to 1. Hemp could therefore not have any significant impact on price for wood pulp and the price of Hearst timber holdings. An increase with 1000% or much more for hemp had not changed that hemp fiber was a very very small product compared with wood pulp. Compared with nylon was hemp fiber also very very small, counted in dollars. With a hemp price of 9$ [24] was the turnover for hemp in 1935 probably less than 0.01 million dollars. Compare that with DuPont's million dollar incomes from nylon in 1940[25].Dala11a (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That is original research, as has been explained to you. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You repeat the same mistake again. I have tried to give the history of hemp reasonable weight in accordance with nylon and wood pulp from the forest. This is OK according to Wikipedia's WP: UNDUE criterion. Things that are small should not be given an undue place in a text or, alternatively, be balanced with information showing that it was of marginal importance. See for example this text about how the production of paper developed in North America [26]. Not a word about hemp, WP: UNDUE for hemp. Also UNDUE in The history of nylon[27]. The lack of mention of hemp in 6 major biographies about Hearst life argues that any mention of hemp is WP:UNDUE emphasis in a balanced text about Hearst.Dala11a (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

ALL !! the text that Jrtayloriv deleted today can anyone find in a much longer version in the two reports that was included as a source. How can the be original research? Exactly what is not covered by the source? Dala11a (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The source you used was a primary source. They should be avoided. Steinberger (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

PS, Why have you never used this to support your claims against the conspiracy theory as it explicitly are saying that Herer, Wikipeida and the lot have it wrong? Steinberger (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

PS, Why have you never used (alternet) to refute Herer -- Because AlterNet cannot considered an RS when it is contradicting 10 scholarly sources, and thus is not usable in this article. However, there very likely might be some information in that article that could point one to reliable sources that are usable here, or good search terms that you could use to find good sources. But Alternet isn't going to cut it here, any more than a 1938 primary document from Anslinger is going to. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

1)Primary sources is not prohibited, the policy is "...A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source..." What is relevant with the text you deleted is that it is significant part of Anslingers version, you can believe him or not; it is simply his story.

2)I can add two sources about the history of nylon. The first is an article in New York Times from 1938 "..Raw silk distributors here have made representations to the Japanese Government suggesting that an official delegation be dispatched to the United States to study methods for combating the threat to the silk industry contained in the development of new synthetic yarns by E. I. du Pont de Nemours Malaya."[28] Another is Jeffrey L. Meikle: American plastic: a cultural history[29] Both sources see nylon as a competitor to silk in the 1930's, not as competitor to hemp.

3)Can you give any example of that any of your "10 scholarly sources" have showed any interest to the huge difference i size (much more than 1000 to 1) between the wood pulp industry and the almost non existing hemp pulp industry? Any normal person understand that a huge difference i size has implications for how likely it was that Hearst was able to feel threatened in any way.Dala11a (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

1) There is no reason to use primary sources from 1938 when we've got so many modern, scholarly, secondary sources talking about it.

2) I'm not sure what your articles from the New York Times have to do with the claims made by the reliable sources in this article. Do they mention the Marijuana Tax Act and Hearst in them? If not, they are off-topic and including them here and implying (falsely) that they contradict the claims in the article is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR

3) Can you give any example of that any of your "10 scholarly sources" have showed any interest to the huge difference i size (much more than 1000 to 1) between the wood pulp industry and the almost non existing hemp pulp industry? ... I don't need to. The claims made about the Marijuana Tax Act are directly supported by the sources cited. That's all that matters. Your sources do not talk at all about these claims. What you're doing is called original research. Surely if your argument was so reasonable, and the argument presented by the authors cited here was so absurd, you'd be able to find a single scholarly source rebutting Herer's and others' research. But you can't, and still feel strongly that you need to rebut it, so you are grasping at primary documents from the 1930s and trying to cobble together an argument for why they aren't true. I don't care about your unsourced arguments, though, and have already (along with others) pointed how they are illogical, anyway. Even if they were reasonable arguments though, they'd still be irrelevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned, because you don't have any sources. You've been told dozens of times now, by multiple people, that until you have sources that support your claims and are relevant to this article, you need to stop trying to include your "rebuttals" into the article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

If you only can read secondary sources I recommend Fiber Wars: The Extinction of Kentucky Hemp by David P. West, Ph.D.[30] Dala11a (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"Dr. Dave's Hemp Archive" isn't going to cut it, sorry. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

At http://www.indymedia.org/en/2011/05/948461.shtml is an article claiming that "The reversal of the onus of proof in drug-possession cases is incompatible with the rule of law and is therefore automatically and irredeemably unconstitutional in all jurisdictions." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.158.2 (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

War lost

I can't see any mention of the latest about WOD in the article... seems like a pretty notable development.

• Global commission attacks war on drugs
• War on drugs not working, says global commission
• War on drugs has failed, report finds
• War on Drugs declared lost

101.128.137.15 (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

$15 billion dollars in 2010 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $500 per second

• National Drug Control Strategy FY 2010 Budget Summary May 2009.87.178.117.149 (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we need fiscal values in the Lead, it is critical to the article COST, so we need more figures in the article, barely any exist. I have scanned the entire article for a quick overview of cost, and found nothing. How much does it cost? is critical. A graph by year would be excellent.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect information

"The term "War on Drugs" was first used by President Richard Nixon in 1986."

This is incorrect. Nixon declared drugs as "public enemy number one" in 1971. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.100.167 (talk) 02:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sentencing disparities

I am rather vexed by this section. While the analysis itself may well be correct, it is completely POV and probably does more harm than information. The following snip, for example : "This public declaration clearly defines the racial context within which the War on Drugs had its beginning in the Johnson administration. Richard Nixon became president in 1969, and did not shy away from the anti- drug precedent set by Johnson. Nixon began orchestrating drug raids nationwide to improve his “watchdog” reputation, and once again, racially discriminatory public opinion was a driving force behind the scenes."

"clearly defines the racial context"? "began orchestrating"?? Without any citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.182.150 (talk) 09:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Misnomer

The article should mention that the title is a misnomer because it is not a war.173.66.202.85 (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

united kingdom

The united kingdom is a very nice place to spend your vacation. But united kingdom has strict policies. The use and abuse of illegal drugs in the UK widespread a growing problem. The effects of such use manifest themselves in undescriable imoacts on individuals,families,communites and the country as a whole.So basically whats going on is that smoking in united kingdom is not a very good thing to do one thing you do is that never ever ever ever is that smoking in united kingdom is that you'll die for doing anything thats not even right though so never do anything thats not even right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.242.61 (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

1912 International Opium Convention

Just a quick link to the article in the BBC magazine entitled 100 yrs of the war on drugs. EdwardLane (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Only a British magazine can forget the Opium war in this type of historical overview , the shameless war for continued profits to British Companies on opium from India to China. Dala11a (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

They didn't forget, just some journalist in search of an exquisite story. Did you even read the article, or only the header line? Just asking... ;) --178.197.225.69 (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Rate of interception

Only 5 to 10% of the illegally produced drugs are actually intercepted. Despite this, the war on drugs has costed the USA in the last 40 years a total of 1 trillion US dollars.

Perhaps include in text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.178.137 (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

References

Lincoln protege???

In the middle of this article it says...

> Lincoln protégé and former Vice-President George H. W. Bush was next to occupy the oval office...

I don't think George H. W. Bush was a protege of Lincoln. I'm not sure that's even possible. I think someone who wrote this meant Reagan? Maybe someone who knows more about wiki can fix this? 76.118.214.18 (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

>>Ironically, GHW Bush was not a Reagan protege. The two disliked each other privately. They ran against each other in the 1980 primary. GHW Bush famously, and accurately, called Reagan's economic policies "voodoo economics." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.117.214 (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Heroin trafficking operations of the CIA, U.S. Navy and Sicilian Mafia

Under this heading, it is asserted that "[d]uring World War II, the United States Navy ... released the mobster Lucky Luciano from prison ... ." It's hard to believe that the Navy held Lucky Luciano in custody at the time. The circumstances of Lucky Luciano's confinement, and the means by which the Navy purportedly obtained his release, would be a welcome addition here. Rickythesk8r (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at this [31], the snippet of page 145. It seems to say that he was in prison. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Szasz, the Nazis and drugs

A user has deleted the comment that the Nazi commanders in practice were big drug pushers while officially advocated for a healthy lifestyle. This is not nonsense, it's true. However, what has no place in an encyclopedia are false parallels that different laws in the U.S. can be compared with history's greatest genocide. So I put it back the text of the Nazis. Alternatively, the whole comparison with Nazism and the Holocaust be removed. So I put back the text about the Nazis.Dala11a (talk) 06:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The question, as I see it, is whether Thomas Szasz is a sufficiently reputable source to be considered within the range of opinion relevant to an encyclopedia. Szasz has published over twenty books. A quick search on Penn State's library database turns up over six thousand hits. He was very respected in his field. I'm putting the quotation back in for now. I'm not sure if this is too much to ask on Wikipedia, but can we please discuss this on the talk page before removing it again? The question isn't whether we agree with him, it's whether a sufficiently wide range of views on the subject can be represented. If you read the quote carefully, you'll see that he doesn't say our persecution of drug users is comparable to that of the Jews. The comparison claims only that both societies designate a certain portion of the population as a "problem," and then imprison and persecute them. From Szasz's perspective, where he saw how those rejected by society for being "insane" are treated (the pscyhopharmacological straitjacket is, Szasz thinks, a form of torture), we might see his tendency to make such analogies as evidence that the treatment of dissenters in our society is not so humane as we imagine from outside. talk1/12/13

Others state that the comparison with the Nazis is completely preposterous and absurd. Several top Nazis were themselves drug abusers, for instance Hitler and Herman Goering. It is well known that Hitler, at least the latter part of World War II, was addicted to drugs that he took the form of injections. Herman Goering was a period in the 1920's locked up in a psychiatric clinic in Sweden for his drug addiction.Dala11a (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Is Thomas Szasz an expert on the Drug policy of the Third Rich? I do not believe that.I found a study by Jonathan Lewy, with a lot of references:Jonathan Lewy:The Drug Policy of the Third Reich

• • • Consumption of any drug was legal in nazi Germany, but possession without prescription was forbidden.
    • Drug use was never considered a crime in The Third Reich
    • None of the drug laws in Germany was influenced by racial hygiene doctrines of the regime, nor were addicts particularly affected by the Nazi pursuit of social or racial purity.
    • Nazi Germany was probably the first country to regulate methamphetamine, but they never banned it.Dala11a (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. One question, though. Szasz is claiming that the designation of the drug using minority as a "problem" minority is analogous to the designation of other minorities in history as "problem" minorities. The only claim is that the vocabulary used to describe a "problem" minority is similar. He doesn't seem to be making any claims about the drug policy of the Third Reich. So I have trouble seeing why this issue keeps coming up. To make an analogy between A and B in one respect does not imply they are similar in other respects. The issue of drug policy in the Third Reich is interesting, but I'd like to better understand why the Szasz quote raises this issue for you in the first place. talk 1/19/13

The Third Reich had simultaneously 2 very different drug policies, one for jews and other minorities and one for other citizens. The first lead to mass murder of jews etc. The others had a very liberal drug law, any drug legal in medical prescription, but most reader do not know that. Any comparison with the Third Reich must include some kind of link to the real Drug laws of Nazi Germany. Dala11a (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This is way off. The jews were killed for being jews, not drug abusers. --178.197.236.72 (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Globaliza tag

Ok Nixon invented the term but that is no reason to have a US centred article. Articles like this and this make it clear it is not a US centred war, the terminology is used worldwide. So i have tagged the article and will keep working at globalizing its emphasis. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

TBH I think the only solution is to move this article to the US War on Drugs and start again with an international article on the war on drugs which could have a section on the USA but this article is not recoverable as an international article and besides its a valuable article that I dont want to destroy but it isnt the article on the war on drugs. I can make a formal RM but would first like to hear what others think as if there is no opposition I can do it myself (I would perhaps create a temporary article in my user space to avoid disruption). Please let me know what you think. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I see no harm in a move to a US centric article. An RM probably isn't needed. If no one opposes in a while then go ahead and be bold.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It is biased to attribute US legislation to the Presidents rather than to Congress where it originates. Specifically, the article states that "...Reagan was able to pass legislation through Congress..." as if the Democratic-controlled Congress had no say in the matter. In fact, all legislation originates in Congress. This is a fallacy that permeates American society and does a great disservice to our political discourse. It leads to terms such as "Bush Tax Cuts" and "Obamacare." While Obama did support that eponymous legislation, the tax cuts signed into law by Bush were substantially different that the ones he asked for. We would better serve the site visitors to not support this mischaracterization of the political process.Ronlewishouston (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy

The report was criticized by organizations that oppose a general legalization of drugs.

That's a euphemism for "the report was criticized by organizations who benefit from the prohibition of drugs, specifically, the Drug Enforcement Administration, law enforcement groups, the prison industry, and criminal justice groups, including attorneys." And, there needs to be a voice from citizen groups who are tired of this never ending war on civil liberties. Several authors point to the war on drugs in the 1960s as an excuse to arrest political dissidents. Going farther back, it was used as an excuse to harass minorities. Viriditas (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Bias

While informative, this article shows significant bias. Notably, history and other relevant information regarding the current state of the drug war constitutes a fraction of the page size and often seems poorly researched or otherwise under-represented

Further, sections 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10 appear to be thinly veiled forms of political criticism. These should be condensed into a generalized criticism section or ported over to pages of their own — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.162.23 (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The theories about a connection between hemp and a) nylon b)Pulp and paper industry lack sources from experts on those materials. The theories are only built on speculations from persons that "belived" in hemp, Ok, there are a number of persons, but there are no links to documents to any important person in the pulp- and paper industry or textile industry or in DuPont that had the same "belive" in the 1930s. The list of "belivers" is long but where are the primary sources that show that there was a link? And where are the quotations from relevant persons in the 1930s? There are are numerous texts about the the history of paper that do not have anything about hemp (the same for nylon). There are many and strong sources that show a fast progress of the technology for production of nylon and pulp from wood in the 1930s. Hemp become almost completely out-competed as raw material. The development become the same in countries that did not put fees or taxes on hemp; hemp could not compete with pulp from forests or nylon except in some very small applications. So delete the conspiracy theories about hemp and nylon, hemp and pulp industry or hemp and Hearst's ownership of forests.Dala11a (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Notably, the "Plan Colombia" section contains no mention of the fact that Colombia had ceased to be the leading producer of cocaine by 2012, even though this is important enough to be mentioned on the Colombia page itself. The section seems more concerned with the civil war and human rights issues than with the efforts to combat the drug trade. -J. Conti 108.20.137.173 (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Links

>> The marijuana economy(Lihaas (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)).

6 = 4?

In the section on 'Legality' there is a claim that legality is challenged on six main grounds. This claim is followed by a list with just four entries. 70.171.44.124 (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)BGriffin

Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 and Len Bias

It seems totally unreasonable that the act was "driven" by Bias's death. Is there a source for this? It should probably be removed. Exercisephys (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The death of Len Bias resulted in considerable anti-drug publicity and it was this publicity that played a role in legislation calling for harsh mandatory sentences for cocaine possession (and particularly for "crack cocaine" possession - despite the fact that Len Bias had not been using crack). Indeed, such harsh laws (not just the ADAA) were often called Len Bias Laws. Maybe if the article said "driven in part by publicity surrounding the death of Len Bias" it would be more accurate. But it is not 'totally unreasonable' as written. The law itself was unreasonable and was surely influenced by factors other than an accidental overdose by NCAA basketball star. - Qdiderot (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

51 Billion is unsourced

The source link goes to an advocacy site that just states the cost as 51 billion without showing any source for the number. http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-war-statistics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.22.130.182 (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

"Collateral damage" section needed

Since there is no "criticism" section I suggest to create a "collateral damage" section to implement information how the rights of US citizens are endangered. Together with examples like this here: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/05/baby-in-coma-after-police-grenade-dropped-in-crib-during-drug-raid/

Sorry, but there are countries where such an action would be illegal anyway, where the police can't just attack people in their homes. Looks like the Iraqi war is finally coming to the USA. And that is a war in which noone will win and all will loose.

Now I hope that the victims get a good lawyer and will sue the police, the county, the state and the US president himself. --178.197.225.69 (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Excessive Quotation marks in the "Common Drugs" section

Why are there quotation marks on nearly everything in that section of the article? Its really amateur looking from a style viewpoint and it needs to be cleaned up. I'd edit it and clean it up myself, but the article is semi-protected and I'm not registering just to do so, no thanks. Someone else who can edit this page should probably do so as soon as practicable, because it looks ridiculous as it stands in one part looking as if Mexico and the United States don't really exist. 2602:306:C4B9:8D90:14CA:D4CC:629F:F064 (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Another style suggestion: remove second person POV. It makes passages read like they were written by a high school student.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2015

Common drugs section

All links in this section are in quotes.

Basic grammar and neutrality are all out of whack. :

"If the possession of it is not as great as "cocaine" or "heroin"."

Citations are needed:

In addition, the Criminal Defense Lawyer article explains that "crystal meth" is specifically made up of "chemicals".

Really, this section makes a joke out of an important societal issues and requires a full rewrite. Edupop (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Edupop: Edit requests have to be specific (i.e. "Please change X to Y"). Please reopen this request with the specific changes you want to be made. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 23:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

wikiproject legalize drugs!

which is all this clearly biased article really is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.216.50 (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please remove spam from article

This article has link spam pointing back to an exact match domain "CriminalDefenseLawyer.com" and also "CriminalAttorney.com". Those are references 80-83 at time of writing.

They also put themselves in the body of the article in a sentence beginning:

"The Criminal Defense Lawyer article claims that..."

I'd remove it myself but this article is locked. 131.191.57.0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on War on Drugs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070120111515/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/01/15/drug-strategy.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/01/15/drug-strategy.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100710025900/http://www.justice.gov:80/dea/marijuana_position.html to http://www.justice.gov/dea/marijuana_position.html#lobby
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090213091104/http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov:80/publications/policy/ndcs04/index.html to http://whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/ndcs04/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on War on Drugs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110902021349/http://www.healthcare.gov:80/center/councils/nphpphc/strategy/index.html to http://www.healthcare.gov/center/councils/nphpphc/strategy/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090531101341/http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/pr061405.html to http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/pr061405.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110306090521/http://durbin.senate.gov/showRelease.cfm?releaseId=326778 to http://durbin.senate.gov/showRelease.cfm?releaseId=326778
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120611103439/http://www.library.vanderbilt.edu:80/central/Brush/American-drug-use-vietnam.htm to http://www.library.vanderbilt.edu/central/Brush/American-drug-use-vietnam.htm#_ednref20
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140925061947/http://archive.wired.com:80/medtech/health/news/2003/02/57434 to http://archive.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/02/57434
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100211052209/http://www.zogby.com:80/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1568 to http://www.zogby.com/news/readnews.cfm?ID=1568
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071017021537/http://prohibitioncosts.org:80/endorsers.html to http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/endorsers.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080705105743/http://cato.org/current/drug-war/index.html to http://www.cato.org/current/drug-war/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120929045800/http://www.rakontur.com:80/cocainecowboys/ to http://rakontur.com/cocainecowboys

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Dan Baum Harper's article

This article might provide some valuable new insights why the war on drugs was created: [32]. Bonomont (talk) 06:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

John Ehrlichman Quote

I notice that an alleged quote from John Ehrlichman which emerged recently (to the effect that Nixon's cracking down on drugs was explicitly racially-motivated) has been added to this article. Nearly every news article I've seen which talked about this admission, however, indicated that the quote's authenticity has been questioned and remains uncertain. While the quote is certainly relevant here, I think the article should state that Ehrlichman "allegedly" said it, unless I've missed something which has strongly backed up its authenticity. After all, when even the Huffington Post waffles about how sure we can be about something nasty a Republican leader said, Wikipedia probably ought to be cautious as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfinator` (talk • contribs) 00:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, using "alleged" is nothing but fair. In addition, Ehrlichman might have hold a grudge against Nixon after being in prison for Watergate and may have deliberately tried to make him look bad. Bonomont (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

2 Topics Here

The article seems to quickly merge 2 topics: the facts/history on the War on Drugs, and the current political movement against the War on Drugs. The history of the War on Drugs is spread throughout the article, and seemingly so are current judgements on those histories. At the same time, a 3rd topic could be explored, and that is defining the motivation behind those who are against the War on Drugs, which varies from the desire for drugs, to protection of users, to political posturing by those seeking office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1307:8030:1DCB:8337:7037:E9E8 (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on War on Drugs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160109132325/http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/54324.html to http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/54324.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Do we need the Global Commission on Drug Policy in the lead?

I know the name makes it sound important and impartial, but it's actually a very selective group of people gathered together to oppose the War on Drugs, and it doesn't seem like a terribly important or influential group either. Seems like it should be in the main body instead, along with the many other organisations that have something to say on this topic. 2.102.184.54 (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2017

• Change "When the convict possessed" to "If a convict possesses"
• Remove the comma after "and" in the first line
• Remove "having" from "Having possession is when..."
• Remove quotes on "prison", add "a" before "$2,500", and replace the period after "fine" with a comma. It should be "two years in prison, a $2,500 fine, or both."
• Remove quotes from "prison" again in the following line.
• Replace "In some states in the US" with "In some U.S. states,"
• Remove the word "of" after "million" in "Over 80 million of Americans have tried this type of drug."
• Provide citation.
• Remove quotes from "prison" in second to last line.
• Replace "how much of the "marijuana"" with "how much marijuana"

529djm09 (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. When you say "Provide citation," where's the citation coming from? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources are not needed for basic copyediting. WP:MOS is the "source" for how to write encyclopedically.

• Rewrote the entire sentence to use encyclopedic instead of blog-style wording, per MOS:TONE. This also resolved the clarification request the sentence was tagged with.
• Comma deletion request declined. See MOS:SERIAL.
• Weird "scare quotes" removed from "prison" in all places. Looked like some kind of PoV vandalism that went undetected for a while.
• The edits desired around "$2,500" were correct and have been done.
• "U.S. states" edit has been done: per MOS:U.S. (the rest of the article uses U.S., not US); because a comma is required after that clause; and because the longer wording was awkward.
• Removed the grammatically incorrect "of". Also replaced awkward wording elsewhere in that sentence, and fixed title of work immediately after it.
• Don't know what cite 529djm09 wants, where.
• Did the "how much marijuana" fix, since the original was ungrammatical and again abusing "scare quotes".

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 24 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. The support !votes showed convincing policy rationale to move this to the new title. The opposes make great points but I do not see enough rationale to go against the consensus here. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane ^talk 18:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

---

War on Drugs → War on drugs – MOS:CAPS. Not an actual war, and not consistently capitalized in reliable sources, even those direclty quoted in the lead section.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support: Not just war, it is not even an operation/task/mission. It is a loose term (umbrella?) for multiple operations, projects, and laws/acts against drugs. As it is a "loose term" and not a proper name for a particular operation, it should be de-capitalised per WP:NCCAPS, and WP:MOSPN. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support move per nom.  ONR  (talk)  22:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nomination and per well-summarized evaluation by Usernamekiran. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. My initial thought was "support", however, I realized that we have similarly titles articles elsewhere (e.g. War on Terror, War on Cancer, War on Women, War on Poverty, War on Gangs). Perhaps those are more consistently capitalized, though. (I did find War on coal, too.) -Location (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, I wasn't going to get involved in this good faith nom until I came upon a relevant guideline from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names. When referring to capitalizing something, and to editors disagreeing, it says "Wikipedia does not seek to judge such rival claims, but as a general rule uses the name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English." Given that information, which either trumps or is at least equal to the often cited 100% consistency guideline, the name most familiar to readers of English is War on Drugs. That capitalization has been fed to Americans by their media for decades, and for better or worse it seems to be the common name: the name that it is known by in English. And a good point in Location's comment above, wouldn't this RM then change the names of all of those other semi-wars as well? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

  That's not responsive to this RM, which is not seeking to change the title away from what the name most commonly is (see WP:COMMONSTYLE for why to not misinterpret COMMONNAME as a style policy). The capitals have not been consistently "fed to" anyone, as any review of sources shows: It is not consistently capitalized, and the no. 1 rule of MOS:CAPS and NCCAPS is use lower case if the sources don't consistently capitalize. The parties primarily "feeding" this style are governmental and a certain section of the press; it's a propagandistic "use capitals for emphasis" style; see first post-lead section at MOS:CAPS: "Do not use capitalization for emphasis".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, the press and government are the ones using upper-case as emphasis and propaganda, and they have been at it for decades. That's why it's the "most familiar name to readers of English". I hope everyone agreeing with the change realizes that throughout the entire article the lower-case 'war on drugs' would replace the upper-case form. What about the other partial-wars mentioned above, the War on Poverty for example (which is the unofficial but most familiar name of Lyndon Johnson's program and legislation-hook)? Will they be de-emphasized by this RM? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  But it's just a subset of the press doing that (the subset that mimics governmentese). What you personally have been reading and what effect its had on your perception is a WP:IKNOWIT thing. An actual examination of what the press, in the aggregate, is doing shows lots of lower-case "war on drugs", plus usage of the phrase as a common noun phrase (e.g. in the plural or with an indefinite article). I cover this below, with Google News search. Any other "war on foo" will have to be examined case-by-case. I see that the term "war on poverty" is labeled an "unofficial" terms, so it would also probably be lower-cased. If Trump tomorrow declares a War on Brown Women and actually names it that as an official Trump Administration policy or program, then that would be capitalized. (The fact that his policies informally create one doesn't result in anything we'd put capital letters on).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I have no strong opinion on this relatively minor name change, but I would note here that, IMO, some of the problems in this article are a result of the confusing division between War on Drugs and Federal drug policy of the United States, an article that, bizarrely, is not even listed in the see also section. At some point a more rational description of the subject should be considered. Rgr09 (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:Usernamekiran (sic) and User:Randy Kryn. The fact that is not a "real war" but more of a promotional umbrella term encompassing all such efforts shows it is a proper name and not a descriptive. One is highly unlikely to hear generically of "wars on drugs" and it is usually used with the article the. The name may not be universally capitalized but it is "consistently capitalized in reliable sources". —  AjaxSmack  23:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

  Except that it's not; That's the entire point of the RM. See: [33] The very first page of search results in news shows not only lower-case usage but explicit use as a common-noun phrase ("How to win a war on drugs"); this is the very "generically" usage you claim isn't going to be found, yet we find it in the very top news results in just a few seconds of not even looking very hard. PS: One of the most common and long-standing lines of academic thinking on proper names is that if it takes "the" then this is a sure sign it is not a proper name, but some form of descriptive construction, usually an appellative. Your argument sharply disagrees with the consensus philosophy viewpoint on proper names; and from what I've been reading lately [34], the same appellative view is increasingly supported by linguists, though most of them are focused on syntax and morphology (structure) not semantics (meaning).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  User:SMcCandlish, Thanks for the link to this source. Google Books won't let me read it all but I am procuring a copy now and look forward to reading it. From what I can read now, I would say that War on Drugs is like "The Old Vicarage", a semantically-bleached proper name. The Google News links you give are also elucidating. The lowercase version war on drugs tends to be used for examples outside of the U.S. (e.g. "Duterte's war on drugs") and such usage represents a genericization of the term. However, that's not how this article uses it. The intro specifically limits it to "an American term usually applied to the United States government's campaign of...", i.e. not generic category of drug policy nor quite a monoreferential but a semantically-lightened proper name like the War on Terror and other such war metaphors. And in news sources referring to this more narrow meaning, War on Drugs with caps and even scare quotes is more common. The "war on drugs" referred to in ""How to win a war on drugs" is not the topic of this article. —  AjaxSmack  16:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  Then our article needs to be updated, since the usage has clearly broadened. Given the amount of influence US policy wields outside US borders, and how long the US has been pushing other countries about drug policy in particular, this was inevitable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  00:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  This article is about the American program and effort known as the War on Drugs, not a worldwide drug policy or effort. A worldwide page would include this article as a link. And can someone alert the related project pages about this RM, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Um ... User:Randy Kryn, User:Usernamekiran, and User talk:AjaxSmack: what evidence is your assertion based on? Simple ngram search. In my view that settles the matter. Tony (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. In addition to the well-reasoned points made above by AjaxSmack, just Google it. Even in lower case. You have to get into the third page to come up with first lower-case, and I think there are three of them on the third page. Then it goes on for other links to War on Drugs. Just by that alone it shows that the upper-cased is probably the overwhelmingly familiar name. That's the things nickname, at least in my mental-map. The War on Drugs. Of course there are many examples where it's lower-cased, but that doesn't mean that the reader in English will be more familiar with it that way. N-grams usually (or only?) count appearances in books, which is only one measure of a name's familiarity. At the corner newsstand it's the War on Drugs, and seems to me to be the common styling of the name. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

This is about total numbers, not who has paid SEO specialists to get them high-position search rankings.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Nothing to do with paid google rankings, the capitalization for the American War on Drugs is overwhelming used throughout search engine pages (I've looked at 160 rankings on Google just now). The major lower-case listings are for Philippine-related pages, which have nothing to do with this one. From your comments a bit above it seems you may have been unaware that this article is for the American term and events, any possibility of pulling this RM because of that? Taking just the American term into consideration, the page seems to be accurately named. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2017

In the "History" section under sub-section "20th Century" in the beginning of the 3rd paragraph the word "Marijuana" is misspelled as "Marihuana" SeanFrancis (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: See Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 Cannolis (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on War on drugs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726165232/http://ibhinc.org/pdfs/IBHCommentaryonGlobalCommissionReport71211.pdf to http://www.ibhinc.org/pdfs/IBHCommentaryonGlobalCommissionReport71211.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131229232307/http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html to http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Propose move to Drug policy of the United States

I propose moving the present article to Drug policy of the United States. Rationale:

1. Some sections of it, such as Commonly used illegal drugs, War in Vietnam, and Allegations of U.S. government involvement in drug trafficking have no obvious relationship to the War on Drugs as such.
2. More importantly, I would argue that the term "War on Drugs" is a biased title now used by critics of US drug policy. I realize it was used by proponents at one point, but it has always been an ill-defined term used for political purposes, not a specific policy. There are now a range of detractors of the "War on Drugs" advocating for a wide variety of policies. Is there any US federal drug policy since 1970 which wouldn't fit in this article?
3. Federal drug policy of the United States is of poor quality and I also propose that it be merged into this article.

I wouldn't be opposed to someone writing a new War on Drugs article, but would prefer that to be focused on the rhetoric and politics of the War on Drugs, rather than on policies, in order to differentiate it from this article. the 20th century section of this article is pretty sparse, but could become the beginning of that. On the other hand, I consider it perfectly appropriate that War on Drugs redirect to Drug policy of the United States. Daask (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Um, al capone anybody?

Um, can someone please mention on the main page the war on drugs never works, look at al-capone, please... Who said if you don't learn from historys mistakes you're doomed to repeat them.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brokenminded (talk • contribs) 17:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Criticism section

A section on criticism from Milton Friedman to Gary Johnson should be added to balance the article.Miacek (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The war on drugs was announced on JUNE 17, 1971.

Search on newspapers.com or any old newspaper archive. The WOD was announced on the 17th NOT the 18th. Also, many other credible sources claim it was the 17th. Please change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Learyfan (talk • contribs) 14:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The information in the first article is reliable and correct. According to the NPR the war on drugs was officially declared in 1971 (www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9252490). In my personal opinion The Prohibition Act of 1919 is not relevant to the article. Certain people do not consider alcohol a drug. When talking about the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 it says "In 1937, the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was passed." it is very redundant to say 1937 twice. The word 'marijuana' is also spelled incorrectly which makes the statement seem less credible. There are quite a few wording and misspelled words which makes it hard for a reader to believe the article. It feels as though the author was not fact checking their sources properly. There are multiple facts where they repeat the year an act was passed and it is not necessary to say it twice. Under the section United States domestic policy and the title Arrests and Incarceration, the African American drugs arrests were a bit overrepresented. Not only African Americans were targeted, so were Hispanic people. They were targeted more for drugs than Caucasian people. With two minorities being targeted a war formed with them against the War on Drugs. This caused more problems than fixed the problems. People had very small amounts of marijuana and were charged for felony amounts. The link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937 I would not consider reliable because in the title of the article the word is spelled incorrectly which would lead people to believe the person did not find other references or fact check themselves. "The Criminal Defense Lawyer article claims that..." there is no link to find that article in the reading so that would cause this statement to be seen as an opinion rather than a factual statement. "Elliot Borin's article "The U.S. Military Needs its Speed"—published in Wired on February 10, 2003" Wired is not a reliable source. They are a magazine company and they interview certain people and write that persons opinion rather than gathering a consensus of people's opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayoStephanie (talk • contribs) 20:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Semiprotected edit request

We should add this infobox:

War on Drugs
George H. W. Bush holding up a bag of crack cocaine he allegedly purchased outside the White House, in an attempt to demonstrate how bad the situation was.
Date June 18, 1971 - present Location United States of America Status Ongoing
Belligerents
United States of America	Drugs
Commanders and leaders
Richard Nixon  † Gerald Ford  † Jimmy Carter Ronald Reagan  † George H. W. Bush  † Bill Clinton George W. Bush Barack Obama Donald Trump	Various drug dealers
Units involved
Drug Enforcement Administration Federal Bureau of Investigation Central Intelligence Agency * Various local police departments	Drugs
Strength
Tens of thousands	Uncountable but definitely in the high millions
Casualties and losses
Unknown	Tens of thousands of nonviolent offenders incarcerated, overwhelmingly African American

- Xereeto (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:War on Cancer which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Plan Colombia Section to be edited

Colombia misspelled as Columbia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sync98 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

in the section 'history', subsection '19th century', paragraph starting 'Until 1912, products such as heroin', the second line says 'llaudanum' but it should say 'laudanum', i think. thanks ThatSpeedrunGuy (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 15 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 02:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

---

War on drugs → American Drug War – The article clearly deals with the United States, not the whole world. This should be renamed since there are also wars on drugs in Mexico, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Bangladesh, to name a few as listed in the War on Drugs disambiguation page. HiwilmsTalk 12:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, "war on drugs" is the clear WP:COMMONNAME in the US. If disambiguation is really necessary, War on drugs (United States) is the way to go. Based on sources and Google results, the US meaning appears to be the primary topic, but I'm cognizant of systematic bias and wouldn't mind moving the disambiguation page to the base title either. Whatever it is, American Drug War is definitely the wrong title for the page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. If evidence can be provided the other topics are commonly known as bare "war on drugs", I wouldn't mind disambiguation, but this is the clear WP:COMMONNAME. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMMONNAME. And since I believe the U.S. "war on drugs" is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "war on drugs" (as evidenced by the other items on the disambiguation list, such as the documentary film), I oppose adding the disambiguator. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose "Drug War" and "War on Drugs" mean different things; this page is not about a drug war. Note that the confusion between this page and Federal drug policy of the United States is still not resolved. Rgr09 (talk) 04:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Primary topic would probably be an article about the concept, or a list. Peter James (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

removed "globalize" and "POV title" tags

Hello fellow editors, I removed these two tags. I removed the "globalize" tag because this article is about the United States' war on drugs. I also removed "POV title" because of the closed requested move on the talk-page. Neither of these were clean-up tags that I felt applied to the page, nor were they justified as issues based on talk-page consensus. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Just delete it

"Citizens[specify] did not reach a consensus on dealing with the long-term effects of hard drug usage until towards the end of the 19th century.[citation needed] " vagur uncited stuff does not need to be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.56.208.175 (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Article series?

Hello, I've found navigating pages relating to drug use, illicit drug use, history of the war on drugs, history of recreational drug use, history of national policies towards drugs, economic impact of drug use etc to be very difficult. I believe these topics, as closely aligned as they are, are candidates for creating a series. I also believe this will improve the quality of the articles once they become more accessible. Please let me know what you think. Adamopoulos (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

American

please change ((American)) to ((United States|American)) 2601:541:4580:8500:BC31:F061:DABE:837D (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)