Talk:Harry J. Anslinger
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Revised
I did some major revising of the article. I did my best to make it seem a little more neutral, and put how Mr. Anslinger acted in historical context. Of course, he was still a very stubborn man, and effectively profited off a base-less fear in marijuana. Regardless, I think now it is important to add information that does not have to do with his anti-marijuana/political attitudes. --Howrealisreal 17:52, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- That's a major improvement. Nicely done. -- Xerxes 22:48, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
The neutrality of this article seems highly suspect. I mean, he sounds like a bad guy to me, but all the sources are just diatribes by pro-marijuana groups. -- Xerxes 21:54, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)
- Any facts, dates or quotes you take issue with? That neutrality label has been so debased at Wikipedia, many more fastidious users won't touch it. Perhaps you'd like to add some more positive data. Wetman 00:56, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
A cleanup notice has been applied by User:Poccil.
There is also Harry Anslinger. Howrealisreal 03:33, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
From what I've read, the guy is an awful was of a human being would make a great poster child for retroactive abortion. But my (hyperbolic) feelings aside, the article is simply not acceptable. I'll see what I can do with it over break, but no promises. User:Knotanutt
I hate to break the wikipedia vow of neutrality, but if you read his own memoir, it's hard not to see him as a pretty sleazy figure. He paints himself as a character from Dragnet, but it only take a cursory glance between the lines to see how he supplied drugs and easy sentences to the powerful while coming down hard on the disadvantaged.
_____
Opinion within the federal law enforcement community views Anslinger as simply a power-hungry bureaucrat who used the marijuana issue as a means to attain personal power and influence.
Just wanted to point out that www.drugwarlibrary.org seems to be nonexistant any more, because there were two articles there that I relied on, http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/LIBRARY/studies/vlr/vlrtoc.htm and http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm which now result in default 'error' pages full of ads for other companies/products, claiming 'This page is parked free, courtesy of GoDaddy.com'. Those two links are closely related to the book written by Profs. Whitebread and Bonnie entitled 'The Marijuana Conviction,' which is thankfully now available on half.com here: http://product.half.ebay.com/_W0QQprZ994447QQcpidZ1442757 which was written after extensive research into the DEA's own library. I highly recommend anyone who wants to be knowledgable on the matter to read it; I got my copy from the half.com link posted above and it cost me under $14, including s/h. I also really need to learn how to edit text wiki-style so i can enhance my posts. User: davesilvan
[edit] Mr. Anslinger's place in history
Mr. Anslinger has been a source of curiosity to me. Largely because everything we think we know about him comes from pro-Marijuana advocates, including great recorded footage of Anslinger in the 1990 documentary-esque "Grass". Yet for as powerful a post he held for as long as he did—second only to Hoover at the FBI—reference and government sources barely recognized him. Even the Bush II's DEA website makes only a tiny mention of him; Clinton's DEA had a page dedicated to him, with only his picture and years of tenure, not even his birth and death dates. Just the picture.--RickAguirre 17:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Removed the following sentence from the intro:
- "This is understandable, as those currently fighting the War on Drugs would logically not want to associate themselves with a man who has been so widely discredited."
-
- In fact, Mr. Ansligner has not been "widely discredited" ; moreover, he hasn't received much governmental credit for his role, which is different from being discredited. Further, the statement "would logically not want to associate themselves" is a supposition that suggests POV. This article can further stand to be modified against a few weasel terms; I just haven't gotten around to it yet. --RickAguirre 04:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Aslinger has been widely discredited, by way of actual medical research, which prove he was absolutely wrong in his assertions that marijuana 'made people crazy' and 'turned them into homicidal maniacs.' Besides, he'd already changed his story after those original claims were rebuked, where he said it would make the user so docile that he would not even lift a weapon to defend his own country in times of war.' User: davesilvan
[edit] DuPont/petrochem influence on Anslinger anti-hemp campaign
I see this assertion repeated here without source or support. While that Anslinger was a demagogue of the worst sort, this claim appears unsubstantiated and, frankly, wrong. Nylon wasn't invented until 1935; by this article as it stands, Anslinger was already ramping up his anti-marajuana campaign before that year. Rayon had been in existence for roughly a decade, but (a) wasn't a major competitor for hemp fiber in its early form (b) is a wood-pulp product, not a pure petro product like nylon. Silverlake Bodhisattva
[edit] Note in response to the Anslinger-Hearst-Dupont theory
(I moved this the bottom to conform to custom.)
Silverlake, who commented on this topic at the bottom of this page is correct. The popular theory of the AHD conspiracy to outlaw marijuana has more than a few weak points. How do I know? I also happen to have the largest online collection of documents relating to that, including the most in-depth single piece of research done to date.
You will have to find it on your own though, because the editors here certainly wouldn't let me post it. It would be "spamming", according to them. The Wikipedia article is weak, at best, but it will probably never be corrected.
[edit] Note in response to previous posters
For those previous posters who noted that druglibrary.org was down for a while let me assure you that it is back up and in operation. Thank you for your concern and thank you for making the effort to keep those documents in public view.
Now we have another issue, of course. Regular readers of druglibrary.org know that is has the largest online collection of documents by and about Harry Anslinger (among other things). The reason that collection is there is because I OCRed and/or handtyped most of them from rare originals way back before Wikipedia was even a fond idea.
So -- those of you who know the Schaffer Library and are familiar with it -- you would probably think that it would be entirely appropriate to post a link to the largest collection of personal Anslinger documents in the Wikipedia article on Anslinger. Now doesn't that seem logical? I thought so, so I tried to post the link.
The link was immediately deleted by an editor who claimed that, because the link comes from my site, it is "spamming". Never mind that it links to the most complete collection of relevant documents.
Never mind that the same documents have been linked from other pages on Wikipedia for many years. On one page, my link is OK, on another it is "spam" and I have to post it here in the discussion. Never mind even that my site is already mentioned as a valuable resource on this very discussion page. Go figure.
Perhaps even more interesting was the edit on the book "The Traffic in Narcotics". I put in a link to the full text of Anslinger's own book "The Traffic in Narcotics". That was also deleted. At the same time, they retained the link to an article "The Traffic in Narcotics" that originally came from that book. What was the difference? The article comes from the "neutral" UNODC site while mine comes from a "personal" site. Mine is therefore "spam".
OK, so let's get this settled once and for all. On this page, I posted two links. They were:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/people/anslinger/traffic/default.htm -- This is the full text of the book "The Traffic in Narcotics" -written by Harry Anslinger
http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/people/anslinger/index.htm - This is a link to the largest online collection of documents by and about Anslinger.
Just for the record, let me note that 1) I put all those documents on the net so, if they are linked from any other site, then that site copied them from mine. 2) All the documents are presented in their full text without my editorial comments. You know, just like you would find in any ordinary library. 3) I don't even agree with some of the documents. My opinion of Anslinger is that he was something of a nut case but I have just presented his writings as I found them so others can read them and make their own opinions. You know, I wanted to be "neutral" in that regard.
Now I would have thought that a collection of Anslinger's personal documents was a perfectly appropriate link for the article on Harry Anslinger. I got told that sort of thing was not allowed, and I have to go through this process and ask permission from the general consensus of readers before posting such "spam". OK, so here it is.
What is the public consensus on putting a link to a collection of Anslinger's own documents on the Harry Anslinger page? How do you vote? Is it:
1) "spamming"
2) absolutely essential to the article
And, just for the record, I have numerous other documents that are simply the best references in the world on the subject. For some examples, look up the Wikipedia articles on the US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, the La Guardia Committee Report, the Marihuana Tax Act, etc. I posted all of the original documents on the web and Wikipedia has linked to me since the articles were created.
Just for the record, let's note one obvious error in Wikipedia right now. The Wikipedia article is titled "1937 Marijuana Tax Act". This is the wrong spelling. The US Government has traditionally spelled it "Marihuana" - with an "h". I would try to correct it but I have been told that I am not qualified to do so.
Therefore, can we also have a quick vote on whether Cliff Schaffer -- the largest publisher of the major drug policy research in history -- is qualified to edit Wikipedia articles? How say you all?
Thanks.
[edit] "Intense abhorrence"
Anslinger must be unpopular with some Wiki-editor.
- First, tell us what you don't know: While little is known about his private life or personal views,
- Then, the editor avoids the word hate but says so in other words in the passive voice: there are examples in Anslinger's writings and behavior that justify today's intense abhorrence of his character.
If the reader wants to abhor his character, intensely, or moderately, we can let the reader read the article further. patsw 00:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion of Gossip
I deleted what can only be gossip, as it is not sourced. The deleted section was a quote attributed to Anslinger about "darkies".
[edit] Absolutely non-neutral POV article
I deleted the following line a few weeks ago because it is not sourced, but is clearly gossip:
During a conference for the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Anslinger was heard saying:
"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."
Since it's not sourced, and there's no evidence he ever said it than it doesn't deserve to be in an encyclopedia. So I'm deleting this piece of slanted, biased slander once again.
I also deleted a number of quotes attributed to Anslinger because once again none were sourced. There's no evidence that he ever said them. Okaythere 22:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
