This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Here is the original. Argue here.
Oops, the anonymous user that added the summary of arguments and responses was Tokerboy. I'm using a library computer and forgot to log in.
I'm going to try to find sources tonight or tomorrow. Should I find sources for the existence of these claims, or just for the justification for these claims. For example, do I need to prove that people in favor of the War on Drugs make a claim? Or only for the justification behind those claims? Tokerboy 00:42 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)
--- Deleted the below because I don't know what the point is, and I've seen a great many conflicting numbers on the percentage of drug users in various years. It all depends on how you count.
I moved up the "Arguments for" section -- not to give it an advantage, but simply because it's easier for the reader if an article about a movement or a position begins with support and follows that with criticism. Anyway, critics are getting the last word -- which is sort of an advantage. -- Ed Poor
"War on drugs" regards many countries, and not only the United States. The expression has in fact an exact correspondant - precisely equivalent - in many languages. Many of the arguments, as you can imagine, are used the same way across the continents for the same purposes. So, the common elements had to become part of a general article, as we usually do, and particulars moved to detailed sections or articles. Thank you for your comments -- Gianfranco
Hey, many thanks on your assistance with the War on Drugs. I just finished revising, cleaning up the English and making some other changes. Feel free to check it out. I had one question:
This was cited as an argument in favor of prohibition. If I read it correctly, it is saying that, if drugs were legalized, people who currently sell illegal drugs would invent new (presumably legal, since the War on Drugs has been cancelled in this hypothesis) drugs that excite the public's interest by killing large numbers of users using the (virtually nonexistent) profits they make from selling then-legal drugs at inflated prices, with the (also nonexistent) leftovers used to fund other illegal activities. I'm not at all saying it is impossible for someone to make such an argument, but I've never heard of it and it doesn't make much sense. If people really do argue this, please give me more details so I can reword it more clearly. Thanks a lot for your help, Tokerboy 06:13 Nov 5, 2002 (UTC)
I removed:
See also: perverse incentives
External links:
Because my stupid computer wouldn't let me add any more to the bottom of the article. Would somebody please put it back? Tokerboy 01:10 Dec 8, 2002 (UTC)
I removed the following:
A drug is a chemical which has an effect on the human body. Drugs which are deemed socially, religiously, medically or politically unfit for recreational use are frequently banned.
If you want to define drugs, do it at drug, not here. Readers are free to click on that article to find out what it means. -- Jia ng 04:57, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Anon user- you might try to use the {{msg:inuse}} tag if youre doing a major rewrite. - 戴眩sv 05:22, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I removed
which had apparently replaced this one, which is no better.
My reasoning is that the first gives no reason to oppose the drug war (just a silly rhetorical question), and attempts to construct a strawman argument by implying that supporters want Washington to have been arrested (no one argues that Washington should have been arrested... such an argument would have no merit, since hemp was not illegal). The second paragraph gives quite possibly the most absurd argument against the drug war I've ever heard (and for the record, I am staunchly opposed to the drug war)... Might as well exterminate butterflies to prevent hurricanes in Japan... Maybe the college student would have died in a car accident the day after he didn't get arrested... on the other hand, he could write the Great American Novel in prison... in addition, going to prison could force him to come to grips with his latent homosexuality, as well as find his one true love... or, were he not arrested, he might drop out of college and wind up panhandling for change at traffic lights, or decide he always really wanted to be a ballerina... he could get addicted to heroin in prison, or he could get addicted to heroin in medical school... He could even study medical books in prison and make some marvelous observation that leads to a fundamental reworking of human physiology, eventually enabling a cure for cancer... Who cares? Tuf-Kat 06:17, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
There are several problems with some of the arguments here
Why is state-sponsored production brought up; just because it is legalwould not mean it is paid for with taxes.
link 1 is broken, and link 2 cites a study that states 15.4% of inmates tested positive for illegal drugs, which really isnt significant if you consider that roughly 25% are in there for violating drug laws
JeffBobFrank 00:28, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I removed this argument:
Because it doesn't make any sense. The next one is slightly more coherent, but still needs a citation (what proof is there that they are "likely" to be angry and begin using drugs). The last part is entirely ignorant of the other's side's position -- obviously, many people think drug users' lives would be better drug-free no matter the circumstances of that life, and/or that their freedom is of secondary important to the safety of society, which they feel would be negatively impacted with drug users about.
I also removed:
I repeats, less neutrally, the previous argument (which claims that filling jails with citizens is proof enough of any law being incompatible with democracy) as well as a whole separate argument which has already been given about whether or not the War on Drugs is decreasing drug use.
And lastly, I re-removed George Washington grew Hemp on his farm and used it. Should we have put our first president in prison?. For the reasons, see above. Tuf-Kat 01:02, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
Please do not carry on arguments on the main page. That's what the talk page is for. Please put arguments for/against this war in the appropriate section and try to agree on some wording. Remember that all you have to do is record what people think about this, not decide whether or not drugs are a good thing. As a start I have arbitrarily removed all the 'replies' from the reasons for/against. DJ Clayworth 16:51, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've gotta agree with DJ Clayworth on this. In my first visit to the article just now, this was the first apparent problem to catch my eye, partly because there is no preface statement that counter-arguments will be presented under each argument, making it seem as though 'A free society avoids the "Tyranny of the Majority"...' is a component of the 'A state cannot tolerate or be involved with the distribution of substances...' argument, rather than the opposing perspective it actually is. This is the same problem that was occurring, and is still present, in AIDS reappraisal. I believe carefully-phrased prose paragraphs as DJ has suggested would be an improvement; it would mitigate the tendency towards " yes it is/no it isn't" that bullet points suffer from, and it might more easily permit attribution of particular perspectives to specific individuals or agencies, rather than the current weaselly "commonly-heard arguments" format. -- Wapcaplet 17:11, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
P.S. - Not exactly a model article, but Drug legalization has a much better approach to this, IMHO. It also seems like a more appropriate place for most of the arguments in this article, which currently seem largely focused on whether or not illegal drugs are harmful, should be legalized, etc. I think arguments presented here should be about the merits of a war on drugs, rather than issues associated with drug use, abuse, or legalization. -- Wapcaplet 17:21, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In "Arguments in favor of the War on Drugs", I posted a counter-argument:
It was later removed by Tuf-Kat, and I emailed him (at a yahoo address I found associated with his name) about it late on April 11, 2004. Now, two days later, I haven't received a response, so I still don't know why it was removed. The justification for my argument that I gave in the email follows:
Unless my argument is absurd, which is entirely possible (though I don't yet see why), I can't see a reason for its removal. On this page, I think more counter-arguments are better than the removal of existing "wrong" contentions.
I've since registered... maybe that was the problem in the first place.
Elembis 06:46, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
I have reinstated the counter-arguments in the article, for reasons mentioned above. Tuf-Kat 05:04, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
One of the methods used by the government, as stated in the main article of the drug war was "information campaigns to educate the public on the real or perceived dangers of recreational drug use."
It seems like most of these campaigns are some of the most arrogant and self serving loads of tripe that I have ever seen. One thing that really bugged me was that several of these commercials suggested that all unemployed people were in that state because they were high all the time. Being generous, I found that offensive. Doesn't matter what the actual intent was, but that's the message I got from those commercials. Another commercial was inches away from saying that all real Americans are supposed to spy on their neighbors.
Any chance of a link to a less ambiguous description of what's in the ads?
I seen that one commercial where the kid opens the box where he stores his weed and the weed is all missing. The only thing in the box is a "we need to talk" note from "mom."
Everytime I see that commercial, it reminds me of the one Star Trek episode, "Dear Quark, I used parts of your disruptor to fix the replicator. Will return them soon. Rom." The parents could have done something similar, "Dear Son, We borrowed your weed for our own party Friday night, we'll get you some more weed soon. Mom."
Also, did anyone see the new Escatasy campaign disguised as one of those commercials hawking perscription medication?
I merged War on Drugs and Drug legalization. This is an encyclopedia and I don't think a list of points/counterpoints about the legalization of drugs belongs on the entry about the War on Drugs. I moved the list in question to a subset of the talk page...it's linked above. I also archived the old talk page as the War on Drugs page is slightly different now (incorporates parts of the Drug legalization page). I hope everyone is happy with the changes I've made. I just tried to make this article more presentable and readable. - Defunkt 07:47, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No, not happy. Why don't we just merge War on Terror and Revolution as well. Well, perhaps not. The war on drugs is a completely separate concept from drug legalization, and redirecting people looking for information on the latter to an entry on the former is biased. While a continuous tit-for-tat argument might not be appropriate in either category (and indeed may just belong in a seperate article linked from both), removing such an argument is orthogonal to merging the two entries. Put it back. -- Jherico 00:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm not going to defend the presence of pro-legalization arugments on War on Drugs or try to say that the point counterpoint area belonged in either it or Drug Legalization. I call it biased because the very title War on Drugs has a political slant to it and implies information about a subset of the topic as a whole. How about this... A largely merged article titled Drug Laws with sub-sections on the war on drugs and its rise as a political concept in the 80s as well as anti-drug movements prior to it. A seperate article with a summary of the arguments and counter arguments linked from it, and some meta-text either in the article or in the discussion page advising against continuing to pontificate unless one has genuinely new information and not just another link to a study that supports a favored viewpoint. -- Jherico 07:32, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So what do you all think of the idea fleshed out above? I am proposing to
See above for reasoning concerning the split, and the naming of the new entries. Note, this is not just undoing the merge made above, it is making a cleaner distinction between the undisputed facts/history and the arguments/opinions, whereas previously both articles carried a bit of both. If there are no serious objections after a couple of days I'll go ahead. -- Rkundalini 23:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
going, going ... -- Rkundalini 05:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
gone! -- Rkundalini 02:37, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I like the third idea. It is important for people to know that this is a debatable issue. -- Stilanas 12:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
How has this worked out?
-- Eric Urban 7:05 PM 11/28/04(CST)
I don't think that Drug legalization should redirect to Prohibition (drugs). It should instead direct to the Arguments for and against drug prohibition (or something along those lines). -- Thoric 17:12, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A mention of some sort or attention to how some governments or jurisdictions direct their prohibitions at the supply side (importation, mining, cultivation, manufacture, marketing, distribution and sale or dealing) whereas others focus on the demand side (use, misuse or abuse by consumers) belongs somewhere in this article, especially with informative citations. Some see drug dealers as snakes, exploiters and molesters, sometimes even "greedy capitalists," whereas others acknowledge that "suckers," addicts or the ill are essentially the cause of the demand thus the motivation for drug servicing in the first place. Many like neither, but that is beside the point.
There is also the matter of prohibition of drug paraphernalia, which seems largely specific to the United States of America.
-- Lindberg 11:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindberg G Williams Jr ( talk • contribs)
The article in French is really better on this subject. It could be a great inspiration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.199.10.162 ( talk) 07:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey people, the article has a tag for deletion like a Damocles´sword over it. I propose to counter-attack by reviving the legendary struggle for merging Prohibition(alcohol to this article. Alcohol is just one of the drugs. Not acknowledging this is unencyclopedic, I think.
I'm looking at the penalties section, and the American section seems to be very inaccurate. In the U.S., the penalty for illegal drug possession and sale can vary from 1 year to a life sentence. Most non-violent first time offenders guilty of drug possession get a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years with no parole, or 10 years with no parole if he has a large quantity of drugs. This prison time is doubled (10 or 20 years) if has been imprisoned for drug possession before.
None of that is true, so I'm replacing it.
Hi folks. Just surfed in and took a look at this article. You guys have some good material here to work with, but I'm a bit concerned about how the facts are presented.
Let me just begin by noting that wrt my personal politics, I'm very much against drug prohibition and the war on drugs. I'm also aware that most people in on-line communities (I'll presume this includes Wikipedia) share my stance. So we have to guard against preaching to the choir, as it were, and it seems to me that much of this article does just that.
The truth is, the war on drugs (at least as it's carried out now) is probably bad for society and it makes sense that we should point that out, but despite us all agreeing on this fact, many folks don't and will be suspicious of our claims to the contrary. The best way we can convince them is by referencing this article. So here are some issues I had, reading the article -- things I think need to be referenced.
A major campaign against hashish-eating Sufis was conducted in Egypt in the 11th and 12th centuries resulting among other things in the burning of fields of cannabis, and the public torture of hashish users (Ref 1).
... Pope Clement VIII sanctioned its [coffee's] use, declaring that it was "so delicious that it would be a pity to let the infidels have exclusive use of it."
The inspiration was "many women and young girls, as well as young men of respectable family, were being induced to visit the Chinese opium-smoking dens, where they were ruined morally and otherwise."
This was followed by other laws throughout the country, and federal laws which barred Chinese people from trafficking in opium.
The laws were aimed at smoking opium, but not otherwise ingesting it. 1
Newspapers used terms like "Negro Cocaine Fiends" and "Cocainized Niggers" to drive up sales, causing a nationwide panic about the rape of white women by black men, high on cocaine.
Many police forces changed from a .32 caliber to a .38 caliber pistol because the smaller gun was supposedly unable to kill black men when they were high on cocaine.
The supporters of the Harrison Act did not support blanket prohibition of the drugs involved 1
Harry J. Anslinger (Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner) testified in hearings on the subject that the hemp plant needed to be banned because it had a violent "effect on the degenerate races". This specifically referred to Mexican immigrants who had entered the country, seeking jobs during the Great Depression.
A War on Drugs is usually run like a modern war with police and other law enforcement officers instead of military personnel. The apparatus prepared for the War is ordinarily organized to face guerrilla situations, armed attacks or counter-attacks and bombings. These tactics include espionage, as undercover agents (spies) are used to infiltrate drug use and trafficking circles.
For example, the United States recently brought charges against club owners for maintaining a place of business where a) Ecstasy is known to be frequently consumed; b) paraphernalia associated with the use of Ecstasy is sold and/or widely tolerated (such as glow sticks and pacifiers); and c) "chill-out rooms" are created, where Ecstasy users can cool down (Ecstasy raises the user's blood temperature). These are being challenged in court by organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Drug Policy Alliance.
Many countries allow the use of undercover law enforcement officers solely or primarily for the enforcement of laws against recreational use of certain drugs. Many of these officers are allowed to commit crimes if it is necessary to maintain the secrecy of the investigation, or in order to collect adequate evidence for a conviction.
The War on Drugs has stimulated the creation of international law enforcement agencies (such as Interpol), mostly in Western countries. This has occurred because a large volume of illicit drugs come from Third-World countries.
All of this comes from a very light reading. Basically, I advocate:
Ideally, the original authors are aware of where they lifted these quotes from and can provide the references without too much trouble. I'd make some of these changes myself but I'd rather see if this article is anyone's baby first, and get some feedback on my points.
I think we could turn this into a good article, but we need to NPOVify it and reference stuff that might be interpreted as POV because it goes against popular propaganda.
Cheers. 202.96.246.206 03:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Good stuff, should be a good basis for improving the article. My impression is that the article is no-one in particular's baby, i.e. I think there have been many contributors. Speaking for myself, I referenced my own additions (most of the early history section) as much as possible. The Pope Clemens one I didn't reference because I couldn't find a particular reference for it that was particularly more authoritative than any other one (all were web pages).. some more digging required there but I didn't have time.
Re the referencing style, lack of guidelines for this was always one of my biggest gripes but I see that wikipedia now has a [Wikipedia:Cite sources|policy for citations]. We should try to abide by it. Rkundalini 05:21, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I made some minor changes to the 2nd paragraph of the article, as before it sounded a little bit biased against prohibition. In my mind, it seemed to case prohibitionists as closed minded and fanatical. While this may be true of some prohibitionists, I felt that the wording could have been more neutral. I hope no one minds. -- 137.44.195.107
Hi I just added a couple of references. I hope this doesn't come across as endorsing Edward Hunting Williams NY times article "Negro Cocaine 'Fiends' Are a New Southern Menace" - but I thought it was pretty interesting that it exists. I also added my source - Lusane 1991 -- 198.45.26.20 28 June 2005 13:19 (UTC)
Hi, I haven't made this change but in the third paragraph of early drug use there is "In Northern Europe, the Protestants were also guilty of passing drug laws motivated by religious intolerance," I think guilty is kinda strong and subjective , I don't think we should pass judgement here , sure it was a stupid to pass laws based on religious intolerance but the article should stay objective and just say they did and that's all
--wikipedia@domn.net 31 July 14:39 (GMT-5)
This doesn't seem like a very neutral article. Cite some sources, otherwise it seems like this is just spouting off that drug prohibititon is solely for the purpose of keeping the colored man down and there is certainly more to it than that.
A major reason for the war on drugs is that many powerful individuals, political organizations, and businesses benefit from the illegality. See Leavitt or Miller or McCoy.
In 1536 Edward VI commended hopped beer as "notable, healthy and temperate", while the exclusive use of hops had been compulsory in France since 1268 (Ref 3).
I know that this comes directly from the web-page referenced ( http://www.greydragon.org/library/hops.html), but you'll find that Edward VI was not born until the following year.
I'm sure there is some fact in this—Edward probably did actually say it, but when?
" Structural violence" was listed under the "Methods of enforcement" section. This is a loaded term and thus not NPOV. If someone else sees a justification for doing so, I have no problem with adding material about how some things that some people call "structural violence" are used to discourage people from using certain drugs. The structural violence article does not contain any information about that sort of thing, so I'm not sure what, exactly, was intended. Any material should also clarify whether it is a government, a society, or other entity that is using such methods; the existing section is rather fuzzy on that issue. -- Beland 02:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
66.167.138.63 10:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC):This article needs a good editor to either turn it into a US-specific article (under a different title) or a generic article on the topic.
the third paragraph reads:
Nixon's modern-day "War on Drugs" began in 1971. In 1988 the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) was created to combat drug abuse, which he characterized as "America's public enemy number one." Nixon's new initiative was another milestone for the U.S. in the consideration of drug addiction as a public problem.
this paragraph seems somewhat disjointed (possibly more than one author). nixon did not create the office of national drug control policy. it was created in 1988 under the Anti Drug Abuse Act. as such, it also leaves "nixon's new intiative" hanging without any support. if the quote "public enemy number one" can be attested to nixon, a more appropriate sentence might read:
Nixon's modern-day "War on Drugs" began in 1971; he characterized drug use as "America's public enemy number one." and then add some statement such as, "he created an intiative known as X..."
as it stands, the conflation of the "war on drugs" with the creation of ONDCP is incorrect and misleading and cannot be attributed to nixon, as it reads now.
When reading this article, I found it almost entirely devoted to the "cons" of drug enforcement/ policy. I hardly believe that this article has given a balanced report, quite the contrary it seems to be against a lot of the policy and enforcement practices. The article has very little academic writing style, and places a heavy influence on attacking the institutions that have been anti-drug in previous years. Let us not forget that the era we live in is by far the most scientifically accurate; therefore, if any arguments should be made either for or against drug usage or policy, they should be made from an academic, scientific point of view. This leads me to my observation and suggested improvement for this article. There is no reference that I found to any of the detrimental effects of drugs (which is why drugs are banned in the United States, not because some culture group is trying to attack some other culture group). There should at least be a reference given to the DEA website, after all they have been sited in this article. Also, the DEA's website has a good article concerning the view that marijuana is a "harmless" drug. This link, http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/pdf/mj_rev.pdf, explains serious effects of cannabis such as increased vulnerability to develop schizophrenia, serious cancer risks, deterioration of mental processing (especially in minors), etc. I understand there are always two sides to an argument, but I feel like this article is not giving one of those sides a fair shake. Von Kramm ( talk) 20:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I also have with one particular sentence, to quote, "Motivations claimed by supporters of drug prohibition laws across various societies and eras have included religious observance, allegations of violence by racial minorities,{ http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/} and public health concerns." This sentence totally ignores what I believe to be one of the key arguments behind prohibition in the 19th and 20th century, namely, the decremental effect that they may have of people's judgment and self control. For example, one of the key drivers of the women's temperance movement in New Zealand in the late 19th century was the hope to reduce the violence experienced by women and families which may have resulted from drunkenness. I sentence above seems to imply that the reasons behind the prohibition movements are racist or hypocritical, and while this may have been the case, it is important to represent all concerns that people may have(whether the author considers them to be legitimate or not)may have in a fair and honest way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by INFO523Briar ( talk • contribs) 07:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
User:199.172.169.17: I removed the copy that you wrote, because you made no attempt to integrate it into the rest of the article. Please try again, but this time go through the article as it stands, and see what you have to add that is new and verifiable. Also, here at Wikipedia, we don't sign our contributions to articles. If you want some recognition for what you have written, register a user account, and others will be able to see what contributions you have made. -- Slashme 06:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
And the US very selective war on coca, and the alleged drug trafficking of the CIA? I was looking for somewhat objective sources on these controversial issues.
In its current state and numbers they are incalculable. Those used for references should be marked as such and kept into a "resources" section. The bulk can be removed.
Fred- Chess 05:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The "methods of enforcement" section is quite in favour of the American government's coca eradication program in Colombia and doesn't mention some of the problems it's caused, such as also killing other legal crops. Trystan Morris-Davies 23:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Quotes:
Completely unencyclopedic. -- Apoc2400 08:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
"It would be hypocritical to accept that the government pretends to maintain the well-being of its citizens by prohibiting drugs, for it is widely known that substances such as cigarettes and alcohol pose a much higher risk factor to the consumer, resulting in cancer, addiction, liver problems, as well as other predicaments." When I read this it struck me as being very biased, simply saying 'this is hypocritical'. Would anyone else agree?
Also, "Tolerating soft drugs also leads to a more cohesive society, where everyone is represented, even those who decide to use drugs as a recreational item, just like Heineken, a pseudo-symbol of national pride, is widely consumed and exported around the EU and the world." Very, very POV.-- 205.196.147.137 00:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
As of now, it still hasn't improved (or maybe it has been, but it's been reverted). I'm against prohibition, btw. 84.53.74.196 10:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
the article says, "in Northern Europe, the Protestants were also guilty of passing drug laws motivated by religious intolerance, according to Stephen Harrod Buhner (Ref 2). Buhner argues that the 1516 Reinheitsgebot, which stipulates that beer may only contain water, malt and hops was a "reflection of Protestant irritation about 'drugs' and the Catholic Church". Unlike the typically stimulating herbal blends widely used at the time (e.g. gruit), hops cause sedation and reduce libido. The exclusive use of hops had been compulsory in France since 1268 (Ref 3)."
On the last line it describes the German decriminalization of soft drugs as "hope". This is not a neutral viewpoint and should probably be edited.
Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/studies.htm -- the full text of most of the major government commission studies on drug prohibition from around the world for the last 100+ years.
Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs - http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm -- This contains an excellent history of how drug prohibition arose.
The short history of the drug laws by the professor who wrote the original history of the marijuana laws for President Nixon's US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse - http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm
Also see The Forbidden Fruit and the Tree of Knowledge - the legal history of the marijuana laws at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/vlr/vlrtoc.htm
The Drug Hang-Up by Rufus King -- http://www.druglibrary.org/special/king/dhu/dhumenu.htm Another excellent history of how prohibition arose.
These are some of the best works ever written on the subject. The article is incomplete without them.
Particularly the history section is excessively US biassed. I have added a globalise tag to that section.-- Golden Wattle talk 20:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
This article is close, but a controversial topic like this needs very careful inline citations to carry weight. I think someone knowledgable could clean this up easily and make it a B - if so, please renominate. A nomination alongside some related articles - to give context - would also help. Thanks, Walkerma 06:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
"Legalization of drugs" redirects here. I think it would be better to separate legalization of drugs into a separate article; redirecting legalization to drug prohibition is like redirecting black to white. They are opposites.-- Gloriamarie 09:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Legalization and prohbition are entirely different. That is why I added information on the propoganda. This propoganda used in the prohibition against drugs, particularly marijuana, leads to the illegalization of the drug and others. The cite I used leads one to an actual film used in the prohibition in 1936 termed Reefer Madness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HawksFan12 ( talk • contribs) 21:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The article on opium says: (references scrubbed)
This seems to indicate that there were probably earlier drug prohibitions than the Islamic ones mentioned in this article. Can anyone dig up any further detail and provide citation?
Also, the article as a whole is now in better shape than before, but it's still sorely lacking in references, and that is an urgent need for this and related articled ( Illegal drug trade, Drug liberalization, etc.). -- Daniel11 15:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)²
I'm sure this has been discussed to death, but this isn't an encyclopedic article. While I agree with the author's (or authors') thesis -- that drug laws were used for political gain by religious leaders in antiquity, and for political gain in xenophobic regions in the United States. Sentences such as "This was followed by the Harrison Act, passed in 1914, which required sellers of opiates and cocaine to get a license (which were usually only distributed to white people). " would be far more interesting if there was a study showing that this was the case -- to me, it just looks like parenthetical commentary. All claims here should be backed by an independent source; I for one wouldn't feel comfortable making any claims based on this article, save the few that are actually sourced.
In a broader, unrelated-to-POV sense, statements like "cocaine was banned in the 20th century" should probably be more specific...for example, the date of first federal law criminalizing cocaine in particular would be a satisfactory milestone at least for this reader.
Thanks for bothering to put together a great (while not encyclopedic) article.
71.97.134.4 ( talk) 05:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This article should be renamed to "Drug policy", since prohibition is only one aspect of fighting drug addiction, and it doesn't cover other equally important aspects, such as prevention, treatment, and information campaigns. Cambrasa ( talk) 14:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
is it not time to say war against our own people is a foolish thing ? how many children end up in cps because of this ? why isnt the war on drugs attacked as a social problem and addressed by real professionals in mind sciences? instead our government thinks its better to destroy lives everyday in the name of a drug war . is this not criminal behavior? who is it that wants the police to be looked upon as the enemy? that they would seek to divide the people against the cops? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.223.88 ( talk) 21:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
In the first section, we have the following line:
"Islamic countries mostly prohibit the use of alcohol. Many non-Islamic governments ..."
Why do they have to be non-Islamic governments? Can't they just be "other" governments? The whole tone of the paragraph is around Islam, especially with phrases such as "sin tax" which sounds quite religiously biased. 121.73.161.4 ( talk) 20:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
This text has now been edited. Some of the most populous countries with a Muslim majority, e.g. Egypt, Turkey and Indonesia allow alcohol sales, but impose taxes to limit consumption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.194.132.24 ( talk) 09:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia's drug-related articles are generally a mess
Perhaps this is because current thinking about drugs is generally a mess
Perhaps there is no coherent objective way of thinking and writing on the subject
We have laws seemingly dedicated to the notion that drugs are evil, and the use of force (sometimes lethal) to suppress their production and supply
Somehow, at the same time, we have a vast legal drugs industry, for ever chasing the holy grail of immortality
I offer the following as potentially useful definitions:
Laurel Bush ( talk) 16:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I have added information regarding a document signed in Rio de Janeiro that makes new proposals towards drug consumption, production and prohibition. If this piece of information is to be moved or substantially changed please let me know. Thanks.-- Camilo Sanchez ( talk) 17:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
It is my view, in words from a note at the top of this article, that the examples and perspective of the article do not represent a worldwide view of the subject
Drug control law seems to offer a more global perspective, but maybe that article should really be at
Drug prohibition law
Drug control law, however, is short on history
Seems to me that much of the content of
Prohibition (drug) could be used in a new
History of drug control law, and
Prohibition (drug) could eventually become a redirect to
Drug control law (but with the latter tweaked and at
Drug prohibition law)
Laurel Bush (
talk)
12:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I suggest the first paragraph of History be changed: "It should be noted that the War on Drugs is not a war by definition (i.e.: drugs are inanimate and therefore incapable of war)." may be the worst sentence ever.-- 86.157.12.97 ( talk) 15:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I will highlight what I believe to be POV cop bashing
In the United States, there is considerable legal debate about the impact these laws have had on Americans' civil rights. Critics claim that the War on Drugs has lowered the evidentiary burden required for a legal search of a suspect's dwelling or vehicle, or to intercept a suspect's communications. However, many of the searches that result in drug arrests are often "commission" to search a person or the person's property. People who consent to a search, knowing full well that they possess contraband, generally consent because they are ignorant of the fact that they have the right to decline permission to search. Under the laws of most U.S. states, police are not required to disclose to suspects that they have the right to decline a search. Even when a suspect does not give permission to search, police are often known to state in arrest affidavits and even provide sworn testimony that the suspect consented to the search, secure in the knowledge that a judge will normally weigh all questions of credibility in favour of law enforcement and against the accused.
Does anyone else agree that this needs to be changed to reflect a more NPOV? None of the above statements contain citations. I haven't removed those statements yet in order to get a 2nd opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coradon ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
At my college they had a Heads Vs. Feds debate. A debate concerning the legalization of Marijuana with a DEA (FED) against legalization and the owner or editer in cheif or something like that of High Times magazine. He said that there was a treaty or law signed by various nations around the word that banned majiuana everywhere. The law however wasn't really enforced (as to why Amsterdam as it legally, tehcnically under this law it is illegal) Does anyone know about this law?
In the Afghanistan section, the article states that country's 2003 total production of 3,600 tonnes of opium constituted three quarters of the world supply. On the back of an envelope, I calculate from this number that the total world supply for 2003 was 4,800 tonnes of opium. In the next sentence, though, the article states that Afghanistan's opium production reached 6,100 tonnes in 2006. Try as I might, I've found no evidence whatsoever to support an increase in world opium consumption from 4,800 tonnes to <6,100 tonnes in the three years 2003 - 2006. Could someone look at these sources please? 17:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by West Coast Gordo ( talk • contribs) 02:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that US, Australia, Indonesia, and The Netherlands have their own sections of drug prohibition.
Shouldn't Canada have it's own section, as views on drugs are vastly different than those of the United States.
The only reason that Cannabis is outlawed here is that the US government wanted it so, being the worlds superpower, and unfortunately our very influential neighbour. Many judges (see Wikipedia article: Legalization of Cannabis in Canada) and most police officers don't uphold our Cannabis laws.
Acid 1 ( talk) 21:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The bit about lifting the ban on trading opium after the Second Opium War is just plain wrong. It is particularly obviously wrong because the Second Opium war started after the Taiping Rebellion, when the rebels were in fact at the apex of their power. 95.144.195.159 ( talk) 01:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
"In a move interpreted as support for the efforts of the Spanish Inquisition against the Arabs, in a 1484 fiat Pope Innocent VIII banned the use of cannabis."
Unable to find a source for this assertion in any Bulls or otherwise issued for this pope or even near contemporary sources siting that this pope directly banned Cannabis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrusMAX ( talk • contribs) 03:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
i think that they shouldent ban some of the drugs in the us people will always have drugs and they will sell/buy drugs without a doubt no matter what the police or the law says about it. Californa has legillized Marijuana so why cant it be in all the other states? So I think that they should do it you just have to have enough people to stand up for it it would just make things easier if people want to ruin thier bodys go ahead its thier body! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.173.194 ( talk) 13:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Is this sentence from the article true? "The United States (1920–1933), Finland (1919–1932), Norway (1916–1927), Canada, Iceland (1915–1922) and the USSR (1914–1925) had alcohol prohibition." Especially since the USSR did not start until 1917 or -18. (Forget which, or maybe -19.) Borock ( talk) 02:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Proof: "лофофора пейот купить": http://yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%20%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%BE%D1%82%20%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C&lr=12 (key words on English: "lophophora peyote buy"). Without problems (hundreds of websites = not one website).
History of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Prohibition_of_drugs&action=history
You can replace in the article (search on Yandex.Ru instead Yage.Ru). If will be need (because the truth only: Rule of law is mixed with dirt on my motherland).
Kind regards. - 2.93.17.180 ( talk) 06:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC).
I removed false infomation from the section on 'Netherlands', but the false information was subsequently re-instated with no explanation. The text that begins "Each coffee shop will, from 2012," is both false and outdated, please do not reinstate this information without explaining why this false information belongs in the article -- 92.236.35.88 ( talk) 11:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Here is my take, for what it's worth. First we decide whether this article is supposed to describe drug prohibition worldwide or not. Second we decide whether we want to compare and contrast different regions and cultures. Third, the entire structure needs to change. There are other main articles where the details should be. It drives me crazy to to see Main Article then five thousand words. For this article I would suggest a the definition of drugs from a legal standpoint to come first. To make the article a general approach, we need to start with tea and go to fentanyl. All have, at various times been prohibited or taxed.
The article is 50K. When it is combined with all the main articles we're probably looking at a third of million characters. This article is not supposed to be a book. I'm sure we can figure a way to conserve people's hard work, while streamlining the flow of the article. Waddaya think? Rhadow ( talk) 02:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Prohibition of 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.projectcork.org/bibliographies/data/Bibliography_Historical.htmlWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
<ref name="undefined" more cited resources ( Mcrumbl ( talk) 18:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC))
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mcrumbl.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 15:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Here is the original. Argue here.
Oops, the anonymous user that added the summary of arguments and responses was Tokerboy. I'm using a library computer and forgot to log in.
I'm going to try to find sources tonight or tomorrow. Should I find sources for the existence of these claims, or just for the justification for these claims. For example, do I need to prove that people in favor of the War on Drugs make a claim? Or only for the justification behind those claims? Tokerboy 00:42 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)
--- Deleted the below because I don't know what the point is, and I've seen a great many conflicting numbers on the percentage of drug users in various years. It all depends on how you count.
I moved up the "Arguments for" section -- not to give it an advantage, but simply because it's easier for the reader if an article about a movement or a position begins with support and follows that with criticism. Anyway, critics are getting the last word -- which is sort of an advantage. -- Ed Poor
"War on drugs" regards many countries, and not only the United States. The expression has in fact an exact correspondant - precisely equivalent - in many languages. Many of the arguments, as you can imagine, are used the same way across the continents for the same purposes. So, the common elements had to become part of a general article, as we usually do, and particulars moved to detailed sections or articles. Thank you for your comments -- Gianfranco
Hey, many thanks on your assistance with the War on Drugs. I just finished revising, cleaning up the English and making some other changes. Feel free to check it out. I had one question:
This was cited as an argument in favor of prohibition. If I read it correctly, it is saying that, if drugs were legalized, people who currently sell illegal drugs would invent new (presumably legal, since the War on Drugs has been cancelled in this hypothesis) drugs that excite the public's interest by killing large numbers of users using the (virtually nonexistent) profits they make from selling then-legal drugs at inflated prices, with the (also nonexistent) leftovers used to fund other illegal activities. I'm not at all saying it is impossible for someone to make such an argument, but I've never heard of it and it doesn't make much sense. If people really do argue this, please give me more details so I can reword it more clearly. Thanks a lot for your help, Tokerboy 06:13 Nov 5, 2002 (UTC)
I removed:
See also: perverse incentives
External links:
Because my stupid computer wouldn't let me add any more to the bottom of the article. Would somebody please put it back? Tokerboy 01:10 Dec 8, 2002 (UTC)
I removed the following:
A drug is a chemical which has an effect on the human body. Drugs which are deemed socially, religiously, medically or politically unfit for recreational use are frequently banned.
If you want to define drugs, do it at drug, not here. Readers are free to click on that article to find out what it means. -- Jia ng 04:57, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Anon user- you might try to use the {{msg:inuse}} tag if youre doing a major rewrite. - 戴眩sv 05:22, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I removed
which had apparently replaced this one, which is no better.
My reasoning is that the first gives no reason to oppose the drug war (just a silly rhetorical question), and attempts to construct a strawman argument by implying that supporters want Washington to have been arrested (no one argues that Washington should have been arrested... such an argument would have no merit, since hemp was not illegal). The second paragraph gives quite possibly the most absurd argument against the drug war I've ever heard (and for the record, I am staunchly opposed to the drug war)... Might as well exterminate butterflies to prevent hurricanes in Japan... Maybe the college student would have died in a car accident the day after he didn't get arrested... on the other hand, he could write the Great American Novel in prison... in addition, going to prison could force him to come to grips with his latent homosexuality, as well as find his one true love... or, were he not arrested, he might drop out of college and wind up panhandling for change at traffic lights, or decide he always really wanted to be a ballerina... he could get addicted to heroin in prison, or he could get addicted to heroin in medical school... He could even study medical books in prison and make some marvelous observation that leads to a fundamental reworking of human physiology, eventually enabling a cure for cancer... Who cares? Tuf-Kat 06:17, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
There are several problems with some of the arguments here
Why is state-sponsored production brought up; just because it is legalwould not mean it is paid for with taxes.
link 1 is broken, and link 2 cites a study that states 15.4% of inmates tested positive for illegal drugs, which really isnt significant if you consider that roughly 25% are in there for violating drug laws
JeffBobFrank 00:28, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I removed this argument:
Because it doesn't make any sense. The next one is slightly more coherent, but still needs a citation (what proof is there that they are "likely" to be angry and begin using drugs). The last part is entirely ignorant of the other's side's position -- obviously, many people think drug users' lives would be better drug-free no matter the circumstances of that life, and/or that their freedom is of secondary important to the safety of society, which they feel would be negatively impacted with drug users about.
I also removed:
I repeats, less neutrally, the previous argument (which claims that filling jails with citizens is proof enough of any law being incompatible with democracy) as well as a whole separate argument which has already been given about whether or not the War on Drugs is decreasing drug use.
And lastly, I re-removed George Washington grew Hemp on his farm and used it. Should we have put our first president in prison?. For the reasons, see above. Tuf-Kat 01:02, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
Please do not carry on arguments on the main page. That's what the talk page is for. Please put arguments for/against this war in the appropriate section and try to agree on some wording. Remember that all you have to do is record what people think about this, not decide whether or not drugs are a good thing. As a start I have arbitrarily removed all the 'replies' from the reasons for/against. DJ Clayworth 16:51, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've gotta agree with DJ Clayworth on this. In my first visit to the article just now, this was the first apparent problem to catch my eye, partly because there is no preface statement that counter-arguments will be presented under each argument, making it seem as though 'A free society avoids the "Tyranny of the Majority"...' is a component of the 'A state cannot tolerate or be involved with the distribution of substances...' argument, rather than the opposing perspective it actually is. This is the same problem that was occurring, and is still present, in AIDS reappraisal. I believe carefully-phrased prose paragraphs as DJ has suggested would be an improvement; it would mitigate the tendency towards " yes it is/no it isn't" that bullet points suffer from, and it might more easily permit attribution of particular perspectives to specific individuals or agencies, rather than the current weaselly "commonly-heard arguments" format. -- Wapcaplet 17:11, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
P.S. - Not exactly a model article, but Drug legalization has a much better approach to this, IMHO. It also seems like a more appropriate place for most of the arguments in this article, which currently seem largely focused on whether or not illegal drugs are harmful, should be legalized, etc. I think arguments presented here should be about the merits of a war on drugs, rather than issues associated with drug use, abuse, or legalization. -- Wapcaplet 17:21, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In "Arguments in favor of the War on Drugs", I posted a counter-argument:
It was later removed by Tuf-Kat, and I emailed him (at a yahoo address I found associated with his name) about it late on April 11, 2004. Now, two days later, I haven't received a response, so I still don't know why it was removed. The justification for my argument that I gave in the email follows:
Unless my argument is absurd, which is entirely possible (though I don't yet see why), I can't see a reason for its removal. On this page, I think more counter-arguments are better than the removal of existing "wrong" contentions.
I've since registered... maybe that was the problem in the first place.
Elembis 06:46, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
I have reinstated the counter-arguments in the article, for reasons mentioned above. Tuf-Kat 05:04, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
One of the methods used by the government, as stated in the main article of the drug war was "information campaigns to educate the public on the real or perceived dangers of recreational drug use."
It seems like most of these campaigns are some of the most arrogant and self serving loads of tripe that I have ever seen. One thing that really bugged me was that several of these commercials suggested that all unemployed people were in that state because they were high all the time. Being generous, I found that offensive. Doesn't matter what the actual intent was, but that's the message I got from those commercials. Another commercial was inches away from saying that all real Americans are supposed to spy on their neighbors.
Any chance of a link to a less ambiguous description of what's in the ads?
I seen that one commercial where the kid opens the box where he stores his weed and the weed is all missing. The only thing in the box is a "we need to talk" note from "mom."
Everytime I see that commercial, it reminds me of the one Star Trek episode, "Dear Quark, I used parts of your disruptor to fix the replicator. Will return them soon. Rom." The parents could have done something similar, "Dear Son, We borrowed your weed for our own party Friday night, we'll get you some more weed soon. Mom."
Also, did anyone see the new Escatasy campaign disguised as one of those commercials hawking perscription medication?
I merged War on Drugs and Drug legalization. This is an encyclopedia and I don't think a list of points/counterpoints about the legalization of drugs belongs on the entry about the War on Drugs. I moved the list in question to a subset of the talk page...it's linked above. I also archived the old talk page as the War on Drugs page is slightly different now (incorporates parts of the Drug legalization page). I hope everyone is happy with the changes I've made. I just tried to make this article more presentable and readable. - Defunkt 07:47, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No, not happy. Why don't we just merge War on Terror and Revolution as well. Well, perhaps not. The war on drugs is a completely separate concept from drug legalization, and redirecting people looking for information on the latter to an entry on the former is biased. While a continuous tit-for-tat argument might not be appropriate in either category (and indeed may just belong in a seperate article linked from both), removing such an argument is orthogonal to merging the two entries. Put it back. -- Jherico 00:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm not going to defend the presence of pro-legalization arugments on War on Drugs or try to say that the point counterpoint area belonged in either it or Drug Legalization. I call it biased because the very title War on Drugs has a political slant to it and implies information about a subset of the topic as a whole. How about this... A largely merged article titled Drug Laws with sub-sections on the war on drugs and its rise as a political concept in the 80s as well as anti-drug movements prior to it. A seperate article with a summary of the arguments and counter arguments linked from it, and some meta-text either in the article or in the discussion page advising against continuing to pontificate unless one has genuinely new information and not just another link to a study that supports a favored viewpoint. -- Jherico 07:32, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So what do you all think of the idea fleshed out above? I am proposing to
See above for reasoning concerning the split, and the naming of the new entries. Note, this is not just undoing the merge made above, it is making a cleaner distinction between the undisputed facts/history and the arguments/opinions, whereas previously both articles carried a bit of both. If there are no serious objections after a couple of days I'll go ahead. -- Rkundalini 23:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
going, going ... -- Rkundalini 05:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
gone! -- Rkundalini 02:37, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I like the third idea. It is important for people to know that this is a debatable issue. -- Stilanas 12:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
How has this worked out?
-- Eric Urban 7:05 PM 11/28/04(CST)
I don't think that Drug legalization should redirect to Prohibition (drugs). It should instead direct to the Arguments for and against drug prohibition (or something along those lines). -- Thoric 17:12, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A mention of some sort or attention to how some governments or jurisdictions direct their prohibitions at the supply side (importation, mining, cultivation, manufacture, marketing, distribution and sale or dealing) whereas others focus on the demand side (use, misuse or abuse by consumers) belongs somewhere in this article, especially with informative citations. Some see drug dealers as snakes, exploiters and molesters, sometimes even "greedy capitalists," whereas others acknowledge that "suckers," addicts or the ill are essentially the cause of the demand thus the motivation for drug servicing in the first place. Many like neither, but that is beside the point.
There is also the matter of prohibition of drug paraphernalia, which seems largely specific to the United States of America.
-- Lindberg 11:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindberg G Williams Jr ( talk • contribs)
The article in French is really better on this subject. It could be a great inspiration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.199.10.162 ( talk) 07:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey people, the article has a tag for deletion like a Damocles´sword over it. I propose to counter-attack by reviving the legendary struggle for merging Prohibition(alcohol to this article. Alcohol is just one of the drugs. Not acknowledging this is unencyclopedic, I think.
I'm looking at the penalties section, and the American section seems to be very inaccurate. In the U.S., the penalty for illegal drug possession and sale can vary from 1 year to a life sentence. Most non-violent first time offenders guilty of drug possession get a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years with no parole, or 10 years with no parole if he has a large quantity of drugs. This prison time is doubled (10 or 20 years) if has been imprisoned for drug possession before.
None of that is true, so I'm replacing it.
Hi folks. Just surfed in and took a look at this article. You guys have some good material here to work with, but I'm a bit concerned about how the facts are presented.
Let me just begin by noting that wrt my personal politics, I'm very much against drug prohibition and the war on drugs. I'm also aware that most people in on-line communities (I'll presume this includes Wikipedia) share my stance. So we have to guard against preaching to the choir, as it were, and it seems to me that much of this article does just that.
The truth is, the war on drugs (at least as it's carried out now) is probably bad for society and it makes sense that we should point that out, but despite us all agreeing on this fact, many folks don't and will be suspicious of our claims to the contrary. The best way we can convince them is by referencing this article. So here are some issues I had, reading the article -- things I think need to be referenced.
A major campaign against hashish-eating Sufis was conducted in Egypt in the 11th and 12th centuries resulting among other things in the burning of fields of cannabis, and the public torture of hashish users (Ref 1).
... Pope Clement VIII sanctioned its [coffee's] use, declaring that it was "so delicious that it would be a pity to let the infidels have exclusive use of it."
The inspiration was "many women and young girls, as well as young men of respectable family, were being induced to visit the Chinese opium-smoking dens, where they were ruined morally and otherwise."
This was followed by other laws throughout the country, and federal laws which barred Chinese people from trafficking in opium.
The laws were aimed at smoking opium, but not otherwise ingesting it. 1
Newspapers used terms like "Negro Cocaine Fiends" and "Cocainized Niggers" to drive up sales, causing a nationwide panic about the rape of white women by black men, high on cocaine.
Many police forces changed from a .32 caliber to a .38 caliber pistol because the smaller gun was supposedly unable to kill black men when they were high on cocaine.
The supporters of the Harrison Act did not support blanket prohibition of the drugs involved 1
Harry J. Anslinger (Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner) testified in hearings on the subject that the hemp plant needed to be banned because it had a violent "effect on the degenerate races". This specifically referred to Mexican immigrants who had entered the country, seeking jobs during the Great Depression.
A War on Drugs is usually run like a modern war with police and other law enforcement officers instead of military personnel. The apparatus prepared for the War is ordinarily organized to face guerrilla situations, armed attacks or counter-attacks and bombings. These tactics include espionage, as undercover agents (spies) are used to infiltrate drug use and trafficking circles.
For example, the United States recently brought charges against club owners for maintaining a place of business where a) Ecstasy is known to be frequently consumed; b) paraphernalia associated with the use of Ecstasy is sold and/or widely tolerated (such as glow sticks and pacifiers); and c) "chill-out rooms" are created, where Ecstasy users can cool down (Ecstasy raises the user's blood temperature). These are being challenged in court by organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Drug Policy Alliance.
Many countries allow the use of undercover law enforcement officers solely or primarily for the enforcement of laws against recreational use of certain drugs. Many of these officers are allowed to commit crimes if it is necessary to maintain the secrecy of the investigation, or in order to collect adequate evidence for a conviction.
The War on Drugs has stimulated the creation of international law enforcement agencies (such as Interpol), mostly in Western countries. This has occurred because a large volume of illicit drugs come from Third-World countries.
All of this comes from a very light reading. Basically, I advocate:
Ideally, the original authors are aware of where they lifted these quotes from and can provide the references without too much trouble. I'd make some of these changes myself but I'd rather see if this article is anyone's baby first, and get some feedback on my points.
I think we could turn this into a good article, but we need to NPOVify it and reference stuff that might be interpreted as POV because it goes against popular propaganda.
Cheers. 202.96.246.206 03:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Good stuff, should be a good basis for improving the article. My impression is that the article is no-one in particular's baby, i.e. I think there have been many contributors. Speaking for myself, I referenced my own additions (most of the early history section) as much as possible. The Pope Clemens one I didn't reference because I couldn't find a particular reference for it that was particularly more authoritative than any other one (all were web pages).. some more digging required there but I didn't have time.
Re the referencing style, lack of guidelines for this was always one of my biggest gripes but I see that wikipedia now has a [Wikipedia:Cite sources|policy for citations]. We should try to abide by it. Rkundalini 05:21, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I made some minor changes to the 2nd paragraph of the article, as before it sounded a little bit biased against prohibition. In my mind, it seemed to case prohibitionists as closed minded and fanatical. While this may be true of some prohibitionists, I felt that the wording could have been more neutral. I hope no one minds. -- 137.44.195.107
Hi I just added a couple of references. I hope this doesn't come across as endorsing Edward Hunting Williams NY times article "Negro Cocaine 'Fiends' Are a New Southern Menace" - but I thought it was pretty interesting that it exists. I also added my source - Lusane 1991 -- 198.45.26.20 28 June 2005 13:19 (UTC)
Hi, I haven't made this change but in the third paragraph of early drug use there is "In Northern Europe, the Protestants were also guilty of passing drug laws motivated by religious intolerance," I think guilty is kinda strong and subjective , I don't think we should pass judgement here , sure it was a stupid to pass laws based on religious intolerance but the article should stay objective and just say they did and that's all
--wikipedia@domn.net 31 July 14:39 (GMT-5)
This doesn't seem like a very neutral article. Cite some sources, otherwise it seems like this is just spouting off that drug prohibititon is solely for the purpose of keeping the colored man down and there is certainly more to it than that.
A major reason for the war on drugs is that many powerful individuals, political organizations, and businesses benefit from the illegality. See Leavitt or Miller or McCoy.
In 1536 Edward VI commended hopped beer as "notable, healthy and temperate", while the exclusive use of hops had been compulsory in France since 1268 (Ref 3).
I know that this comes directly from the web-page referenced ( http://www.greydragon.org/library/hops.html), but you'll find that Edward VI was not born until the following year.
I'm sure there is some fact in this—Edward probably did actually say it, but when?
" Structural violence" was listed under the "Methods of enforcement" section. This is a loaded term and thus not NPOV. If someone else sees a justification for doing so, I have no problem with adding material about how some things that some people call "structural violence" are used to discourage people from using certain drugs. The structural violence article does not contain any information about that sort of thing, so I'm not sure what, exactly, was intended. Any material should also clarify whether it is a government, a society, or other entity that is using such methods; the existing section is rather fuzzy on that issue. -- Beland 02:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
66.167.138.63 10:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC):This article needs a good editor to either turn it into a US-specific article (under a different title) or a generic article on the topic.
the third paragraph reads:
Nixon's modern-day "War on Drugs" began in 1971. In 1988 the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) was created to combat drug abuse, which he characterized as "America's public enemy number one." Nixon's new initiative was another milestone for the U.S. in the consideration of drug addiction as a public problem.
this paragraph seems somewhat disjointed (possibly more than one author). nixon did not create the office of national drug control policy. it was created in 1988 under the Anti Drug Abuse Act. as such, it also leaves "nixon's new intiative" hanging without any support. if the quote "public enemy number one" can be attested to nixon, a more appropriate sentence might read:
Nixon's modern-day "War on Drugs" began in 1971; he characterized drug use as "America's public enemy number one." and then add some statement such as, "he created an intiative known as X..."
as it stands, the conflation of the "war on drugs" with the creation of ONDCP is incorrect and misleading and cannot be attributed to nixon, as it reads now.
When reading this article, I found it almost entirely devoted to the "cons" of drug enforcement/ policy. I hardly believe that this article has given a balanced report, quite the contrary it seems to be against a lot of the policy and enforcement practices. The article has very little academic writing style, and places a heavy influence on attacking the institutions that have been anti-drug in previous years. Let us not forget that the era we live in is by far the most scientifically accurate; therefore, if any arguments should be made either for or against drug usage or policy, they should be made from an academic, scientific point of view. This leads me to my observation and suggested improvement for this article. There is no reference that I found to any of the detrimental effects of drugs (which is why drugs are banned in the United States, not because some culture group is trying to attack some other culture group). There should at least be a reference given to the DEA website, after all they have been sited in this article. Also, the DEA's website has a good article concerning the view that marijuana is a "harmless" drug. This link, http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/pdf/mj_rev.pdf, explains serious effects of cannabis such as increased vulnerability to develop schizophrenia, serious cancer risks, deterioration of mental processing (especially in minors), etc. I understand there are always two sides to an argument, but I feel like this article is not giving one of those sides a fair shake. Von Kramm ( talk) 20:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I also have with one particular sentence, to quote, "Motivations claimed by supporters of drug prohibition laws across various societies and eras have included religious observance, allegations of violence by racial minorities,{ http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/} and public health concerns." This sentence totally ignores what I believe to be one of the key arguments behind prohibition in the 19th and 20th century, namely, the decremental effect that they may have of people's judgment and self control. For example, one of the key drivers of the women's temperance movement in New Zealand in the late 19th century was the hope to reduce the violence experienced by women and families which may have resulted from drunkenness. I sentence above seems to imply that the reasons behind the prohibition movements are racist or hypocritical, and while this may have been the case, it is important to represent all concerns that people may have(whether the author considers them to be legitimate or not)may have in a fair and honest way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by INFO523Briar ( talk • contribs) 07:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
User:199.172.169.17: I removed the copy that you wrote, because you made no attempt to integrate it into the rest of the article. Please try again, but this time go through the article as it stands, and see what you have to add that is new and verifiable. Also, here at Wikipedia, we don't sign our contributions to articles. If you want some recognition for what you have written, register a user account, and others will be able to see what contributions you have made. -- Slashme 06:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
And the US very selective war on coca, and the alleged drug trafficking of the CIA? I was looking for somewhat objective sources on these controversial issues.
In its current state and numbers they are incalculable. Those used for references should be marked as such and kept into a "resources" section. The bulk can be removed.
Fred- Chess 05:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The "methods of enforcement" section is quite in favour of the American government's coca eradication program in Colombia and doesn't mention some of the problems it's caused, such as also killing other legal crops. Trystan Morris-Davies 23:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Quotes:
Completely unencyclopedic. -- Apoc2400 08:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
"It would be hypocritical to accept that the government pretends to maintain the well-being of its citizens by prohibiting drugs, for it is widely known that substances such as cigarettes and alcohol pose a much higher risk factor to the consumer, resulting in cancer, addiction, liver problems, as well as other predicaments." When I read this it struck me as being very biased, simply saying 'this is hypocritical'. Would anyone else agree?
Also, "Tolerating soft drugs also leads to a more cohesive society, where everyone is represented, even those who decide to use drugs as a recreational item, just like Heineken, a pseudo-symbol of national pride, is widely consumed and exported around the EU and the world." Very, very POV.-- 205.196.147.137 00:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
As of now, it still hasn't improved (or maybe it has been, but it's been reverted). I'm against prohibition, btw. 84.53.74.196 10:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
the article says, "in Northern Europe, the Protestants were also guilty of passing drug laws motivated by religious intolerance, according to Stephen Harrod Buhner (Ref 2). Buhner argues that the 1516 Reinheitsgebot, which stipulates that beer may only contain water, malt and hops was a "reflection of Protestant irritation about 'drugs' and the Catholic Church". Unlike the typically stimulating herbal blends widely used at the time (e.g. gruit), hops cause sedation and reduce libido. The exclusive use of hops had been compulsory in France since 1268 (Ref 3)."
On the last line it describes the German decriminalization of soft drugs as "hope". This is not a neutral viewpoint and should probably be edited.
Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/studies.htm -- the full text of most of the major government commission studies on drug prohibition from around the world for the last 100+ years.
Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs - http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm -- This contains an excellent history of how drug prohibition arose.
The short history of the drug laws by the professor who wrote the original history of the marijuana laws for President Nixon's US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse - http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm
Also see The Forbidden Fruit and the Tree of Knowledge - the legal history of the marijuana laws at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/vlr/vlrtoc.htm
The Drug Hang-Up by Rufus King -- http://www.druglibrary.org/special/king/dhu/dhumenu.htm Another excellent history of how prohibition arose.
These are some of the best works ever written on the subject. The article is incomplete without them.
Particularly the history section is excessively US biassed. I have added a globalise tag to that section.-- Golden Wattle talk 20:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
This article is close, but a controversial topic like this needs very careful inline citations to carry weight. I think someone knowledgable could clean this up easily and make it a B - if so, please renominate. A nomination alongside some related articles - to give context - would also help. Thanks, Walkerma 06:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
"Legalization of drugs" redirects here. I think it would be better to separate legalization of drugs into a separate article; redirecting legalization to drug prohibition is like redirecting black to white. They are opposites.-- Gloriamarie 09:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Legalization and prohbition are entirely different. That is why I added information on the propoganda. This propoganda used in the prohibition against drugs, particularly marijuana, leads to the illegalization of the drug and others. The cite I used leads one to an actual film used in the prohibition in 1936 termed Reefer Madness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HawksFan12 ( talk • contribs) 21:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The article on opium says: (references scrubbed)
This seems to indicate that there were probably earlier drug prohibitions than the Islamic ones mentioned in this article. Can anyone dig up any further detail and provide citation?
Also, the article as a whole is now in better shape than before, but it's still sorely lacking in references, and that is an urgent need for this and related articled ( Illegal drug trade, Drug liberalization, etc.). -- Daniel11 15:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)²
I'm sure this has been discussed to death, but this isn't an encyclopedic article. While I agree with the author's (or authors') thesis -- that drug laws were used for political gain by religious leaders in antiquity, and for political gain in xenophobic regions in the United States. Sentences such as "This was followed by the Harrison Act, passed in 1914, which required sellers of opiates and cocaine to get a license (which were usually only distributed to white people). " would be far more interesting if there was a study showing that this was the case -- to me, it just looks like parenthetical commentary. All claims here should be backed by an independent source; I for one wouldn't feel comfortable making any claims based on this article, save the few that are actually sourced.
In a broader, unrelated-to-POV sense, statements like "cocaine was banned in the 20th century" should probably be more specific...for example, the date of first federal law criminalizing cocaine in particular would be a satisfactory milestone at least for this reader.
Thanks for bothering to put together a great (while not encyclopedic) article.
71.97.134.4 ( talk) 05:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This article should be renamed to "Drug policy", since prohibition is only one aspect of fighting drug addiction, and it doesn't cover other equally important aspects, such as prevention, treatment, and information campaigns. Cambrasa ( talk) 14:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
is it not time to say war against our own people is a foolish thing ? how many children end up in cps because of this ? why isnt the war on drugs attacked as a social problem and addressed by real professionals in mind sciences? instead our government thinks its better to destroy lives everyday in the name of a drug war . is this not criminal behavior? who is it that wants the police to be looked upon as the enemy? that they would seek to divide the people against the cops? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.223.88 ( talk) 21:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
In the first section, we have the following line:
"Islamic countries mostly prohibit the use of alcohol. Many non-Islamic governments ..."
Why do they have to be non-Islamic governments? Can't they just be "other" governments? The whole tone of the paragraph is around Islam, especially with phrases such as "sin tax" which sounds quite religiously biased. 121.73.161.4 ( talk) 20:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
This text has now been edited. Some of the most populous countries with a Muslim majority, e.g. Egypt, Turkey and Indonesia allow alcohol sales, but impose taxes to limit consumption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.194.132.24 ( talk) 09:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia's drug-related articles are generally a mess
Perhaps this is because current thinking about drugs is generally a mess
Perhaps there is no coherent objective way of thinking and writing on the subject
We have laws seemingly dedicated to the notion that drugs are evil, and the use of force (sometimes lethal) to suppress their production and supply
Somehow, at the same time, we have a vast legal drugs industry, for ever chasing the holy grail of immortality
I offer the following as potentially useful definitions:
Laurel Bush ( talk) 16:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I have added information regarding a document signed in Rio de Janeiro that makes new proposals towards drug consumption, production and prohibition. If this piece of information is to be moved or substantially changed please let me know. Thanks.-- Camilo Sanchez ( talk) 17:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
It is my view, in words from a note at the top of this article, that the examples and perspective of the article do not represent a worldwide view of the subject
Drug control law seems to offer a more global perspective, but maybe that article should really be at
Drug prohibition law
Drug control law, however, is short on history
Seems to me that much of the content of
Prohibition (drug) could be used in a new
History of drug control law, and
Prohibition (drug) could eventually become a redirect to
Drug control law (but with the latter tweaked and at
Drug prohibition law)
Laurel Bush (
talk)
12:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I suggest the first paragraph of History be changed: "It should be noted that the War on Drugs is not a war by definition (i.e.: drugs are inanimate and therefore incapable of war)." may be the worst sentence ever.-- 86.157.12.97 ( talk) 15:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I will highlight what I believe to be POV cop bashing
In the United States, there is considerable legal debate about the impact these laws have had on Americans' civil rights. Critics claim that the War on Drugs has lowered the evidentiary burden required for a legal search of a suspect's dwelling or vehicle, or to intercept a suspect's communications. However, many of the searches that result in drug arrests are often "commission" to search a person or the person's property. People who consent to a search, knowing full well that they possess contraband, generally consent because they are ignorant of the fact that they have the right to decline permission to search. Under the laws of most U.S. states, police are not required to disclose to suspects that they have the right to decline a search. Even when a suspect does not give permission to search, police are often known to state in arrest affidavits and even provide sworn testimony that the suspect consented to the search, secure in the knowledge that a judge will normally weigh all questions of credibility in favour of law enforcement and against the accused.
Does anyone else agree that this needs to be changed to reflect a more NPOV? None of the above statements contain citations. I haven't removed those statements yet in order to get a 2nd opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coradon ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
At my college they had a Heads Vs. Feds debate. A debate concerning the legalization of Marijuana with a DEA (FED) against legalization and the owner or editer in cheif or something like that of High Times magazine. He said that there was a treaty or law signed by various nations around the word that banned majiuana everywhere. The law however wasn't really enforced (as to why Amsterdam as it legally, tehcnically under this law it is illegal) Does anyone know about this law?
In the Afghanistan section, the article states that country's 2003 total production of 3,600 tonnes of opium constituted three quarters of the world supply. On the back of an envelope, I calculate from this number that the total world supply for 2003 was 4,800 tonnes of opium. In the next sentence, though, the article states that Afghanistan's opium production reached 6,100 tonnes in 2006. Try as I might, I've found no evidence whatsoever to support an increase in world opium consumption from 4,800 tonnes to <6,100 tonnes in the three years 2003 - 2006. Could someone look at these sources please? 17:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by West Coast Gordo ( talk • contribs) 02:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that US, Australia, Indonesia, and The Netherlands have their own sections of drug prohibition.
Shouldn't Canada have it's own section, as views on drugs are vastly different than those of the United States.
The only reason that Cannabis is outlawed here is that the US government wanted it so, being the worlds superpower, and unfortunately our very influential neighbour. Many judges (see Wikipedia article: Legalization of Cannabis in Canada) and most police officers don't uphold our Cannabis laws.
Acid 1 ( talk) 21:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The bit about lifting the ban on trading opium after the Second Opium War is just plain wrong. It is particularly obviously wrong because the Second Opium war started after the Taiping Rebellion, when the rebels were in fact at the apex of their power. 95.144.195.159 ( talk) 01:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
"In a move interpreted as support for the efforts of the Spanish Inquisition against the Arabs, in a 1484 fiat Pope Innocent VIII banned the use of cannabis."
Unable to find a source for this assertion in any Bulls or otherwise issued for this pope or even near contemporary sources siting that this pope directly banned Cannabis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrusMAX ( talk • contribs) 03:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
i think that they shouldent ban some of the drugs in the us people will always have drugs and they will sell/buy drugs without a doubt no matter what the police or the law says about it. Californa has legillized Marijuana so why cant it be in all the other states? So I think that they should do it you just have to have enough people to stand up for it it would just make things easier if people want to ruin thier bodys go ahead its thier body! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.173.194 ( talk) 13:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Is this sentence from the article true? "The United States (1920–1933), Finland (1919–1932), Norway (1916–1927), Canada, Iceland (1915–1922) and the USSR (1914–1925) had alcohol prohibition." Especially since the USSR did not start until 1917 or -18. (Forget which, or maybe -19.) Borock ( talk) 02:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Proof: "лофофора пейот купить": http://yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%20%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%BE%D1%82%20%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C&lr=12 (key words on English: "lophophora peyote buy"). Without problems (hundreds of websites = not one website).
History of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Prohibition_of_drugs&action=history
You can replace in the article (search on Yandex.Ru instead Yage.Ru). If will be need (because the truth only: Rule of law is mixed with dirt on my motherland).
Kind regards. - 2.93.17.180 ( talk) 06:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC).
I removed false infomation from the section on 'Netherlands', but the false information was subsequently re-instated with no explanation. The text that begins "Each coffee shop will, from 2012," is both false and outdated, please do not reinstate this information without explaining why this false information belongs in the article -- 92.236.35.88 ( talk) 11:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Here is my take, for what it's worth. First we decide whether this article is supposed to describe drug prohibition worldwide or not. Second we decide whether we want to compare and contrast different regions and cultures. Third, the entire structure needs to change. There are other main articles where the details should be. It drives me crazy to to see Main Article then five thousand words. For this article I would suggest a the definition of drugs from a legal standpoint to come first. To make the article a general approach, we need to start with tea and go to fentanyl. All have, at various times been prohibited or taxed.
The article is 50K. When it is combined with all the main articles we're probably looking at a third of million characters. This article is not supposed to be a book. I'm sure we can figure a way to conserve people's hard work, while streamlining the flow of the article. Waddaya think? Rhadow ( talk) 02:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Prohibition of 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.projectcork.org/bibliographies/data/Bibliography_Historical.htmlWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
<ref name="undefined" more cited resources ( Mcrumbl ( talk) 18:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC))
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mcrumbl.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 15:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)