Talk:Arguments for and against drug prohibition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

	This article is part of WikiProject Drug Policy, an attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage of drug policy. Feel free to participate by editing this article or by visiting the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Archives

Before Sept. 2, 2006 Sept. 1, 2006 - Sept. 24, 2006

[edit] Beware of criticising weasel words

Beware of overly criticising weasel words in articles that are arguments. That something "may be" true is an argument for consideration of it. It does not need a citation to say that it is true. --Keithbowden (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting and general reorganizing

I think that the article has gotten big enough to deserve a split, and also the arguments against does not have a rebuttal section so if anyone has a rebuttal they should add it, I think the split should be for prohibition & against prohibition.

I agree. Lonjers 21:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. --mms (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unjust drug laws and enforcement

I think some drug laws could be used to argue against prohibition. For example, civil asset forfeiture is a very controversial practice that charges people's possessions rather than the people themselves. Here is a good discussion: Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform act of 2006

Although I can't find the sources right now, I know that money from this forfeitures was (and may still be) funneled directly back to states. Under federal law, it should go to the federal government. In addition, I remember a debate about U.S. police having money funneled directly back to them from forfeitures. That's basically a self-funding police force, and I belive it is unconstitutional. Again, I don't have sources right now, but maybe I can dig this stuff up if no one else knows what I'm talking about.

In addition, enforcement in the U.S. certainly targets minorities disproportionately. I'm not sure if it's still the case, but crack used to carry much heavier jail sentences than cocaine, even though the health effects are similar. And although drug use patterns are similar among African Americans and caucasians, I'm fairly sure far more African Americans are imprisoned or arrested.Josh 18:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Validity of Debating Drug Policy

When discussing the feasibility of either legalizing or criminalizing drugs it is important to note that it is likely that any policy will fail due to the fact that frequency of use varies so highly amongst users. Even those users that use only one drug--marijuana, for example-- will exhibit a wide range of drug dependency. Those who smoke marijuana daily will respond to legalization policies differently than those who partake in the drug on a less-frequent basis. On the other hand, if marijuana remains illegal and is regulated by fines or jail time, those who smoke daily will certainly suffer a heavier burden for their habits than those who do not. The discussion over drug policy needs to focus not only on the types of drugs and whether or not they will be legal, but also the types of users and the frequency of use. Lumping people into two categories (drugs users, those who abstain from drugs) is not an optimal way to approach this debate. --Krt869 11:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Trueish, but can you find a citation for this theory? HighInBC 13:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a citation for this theory at the present time. The way I arrived at this conclusion was by thinking about this hypothetical example (using the United States and marijuana as variables):

Let’s say that the U.S. government decides that marijuana shall remain illegal but users who are caught smoking/possessing the drug will be subject only to a hefty fine with no possibility of jail time. Let’s also assume that the monetary ‘punishment’ for using drugs is channeled back into the local communities from which the money is taken and not dispersed at a national level. In theory, those people who choose to use marijuana will be caught on occasion and will be forced to pay back to their community for their decision to break the law. But the frequency with which certain individuals may be caught varies enormously amongst users of marijuana. Those people who smoke regularly will be caught more often, will be subjected to fines more often, and will watch their own personal welfare decrease substantially because of their habits. Those people who smoke less frequently will be caught less frequently, will pay less monetary damage, and will be able to hold on to their personal wealth. Over time the community will begin to see a marginalization of those people who are both addicted to marijuana and are also poverty-stricken because of their habit, while those who smoke recreationally will still be able to live comfortably.

The problem with this model is that on a moral level the recreational smokers are not ‘better’ than those who are addicted, but society will view them as such because they will likely be wealthier than those who are addicted to marijuana. The message being sent by the law is therefore unclear: is it morally just to be wealthy and abstain from marijuana (or use it infrequently), is it a violation of individual autonomy to fine people for their personal habits, or is it acceptable to allow the personal habits of some members of society to reduce them to levels of poverty?

Also, if the monetary damage is kept at a local level, is it adequate to establish rehabilitation facilities for those people who are addicted to marijuana if, in theory, they are the ones that have already paid for the facilities before they become patients? Should that money be put into other public works that would better other citizens, perhaps those that use marijuana less frequently but do not abstain altogether (which would further the gap between addicts and non-addicts)?

I guess the basic point that I’m trying to make is this: if the government were to attempt to approach punishment for smoking marijuana in a less-criminal way (be it through fines or community service but not through jails), a distinction needs to be made between the punishment for those who become addicted and the punishment for those who do not. It may seem unfair in principle to say that infrequent users should have to pay a larger fine than those who are addicted, but to avoid creating a cultural stigma and isolating addicts from society, it would be very difficult to enforce a flat fine without looking at the user as an individual and assessing his/her personal habits.

I doubt that made sense but see if you can work with it… —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krt869 (talk • contribs) October 4, 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but none of this can be used unless it was previously published by a reliable source. On wikipedia we do not allow original research. These policies are for good reason, you theory relies on many assumptions and lacks any sort of scientific method. I would like to point out that no evidence of the addictive nature of cannabis has ever been shown. HighInBC 15:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Nor did anyone has ever died from an overdose in more than a 100 yeasrs..--Procrastinating@^talk2me 11:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Marijuana is not physically addictive.

It is not true that people who smoke daily will get caught more often. Some people are more responsible with their habits and are not likely to get caught, period. Others are more reckless and though they don't smoke as often, are more likely to get caught because they are not careful. Just because you smoke everyday doesn't mean that you're any more likely to get caught. You seem to have a bias, and attempt to hide this by presenting your argument in terms of "addicts" vs. occasional smokers. There is nothing at all wrong with imposing the same fee for getting caught on all persons who are caught, no matter how often. It is the individual's fault for getting caught that often - what would you propose, giving them a higher rate for each infraction as they do for other infractions? In that case they'd be contributing MORE money...so are you saying that an individual who gets caught more often should pay LESS each time, like customers of certain businesses do for being a repeat customer?? Your argument doesn't make sense, maybe you didn't represent it accurately. Or maybe it's just crap.

[edit] Phosgene/Phosphine

This was from a paragraph describing methamphetamine production:

“

The synthesis is also dangerous, sometimes involving flammable organic solvents, as well as phosphorus triiodide, which can release phosgene gas if the reaction conditions are not watched closely.”

Phosgene gas (COCl₂) contains no phosphorus. A more likely candidate is phosphine (PH₃), which is also very toxic. --24.18.201.157 15:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I have removed that sentence until a citation can be found to confirm the accuracy of it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutional Issues

While you have provided several citations for this section, it seems that all of them are links to the US constitution, the declaration of independence and dictionary definitions.

It seems that you have made the common mistake of assembling different sources into an original position. This is not allowed and is described at Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position.

Unless a previously published reliable source has interpreted these sources in such a way then the position put forth is not cited. In this case a reliable source would be the governing bodies in charge of interpreting the US constitution. I am going to remove this as the citations do not support the statement The abject failure of the war on drugs is self evident proof that these rights are denied only at great expense and injustice., and without that idea the whole section is off topic.

Do not take this as a slight against you, or my prefering a particular position. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations?

This article seems to be missing a lot of citations. Parts of it also look like original research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.14.185.224 (talk • contribs) 11:22, November 11, 2006 (UTC)

Please feal free to find citations, or mark specific factoids as needing a citation by putting the {{fact}} tag after it. Thanks for the help. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

on the topic of citations, I noticed that there is a citation needed marker after the statement saying there are no conclusive studies to prove the gateway theory. I do not see why this is necessary. There are studies that have come up inconclusive at best, and those can be sited, but how is someone suppose to site the lack of a study? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.162.154 (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be easy enough to find a study something along the lines of "Testing the Gateway Drug Hypothesis", and its conclusion being, "We have not found any evidence to support."--Loodog (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The article currently states that gateway drugs exist by "some studies", but even the one study in the citation questions whether they exist. Schnarr (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-NPOV article

I am confused by the introductory statement, "This is an inherently non-NPOV article." First of all, that is a self-reference, which does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Second, this topic can easily be covered by NPOV, so the statement doesn't make sense. Lastly, non-NPOV articles aren't allowed. —Viriditas | Talk 08:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Chondrite 08:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. remote this nonsense.

Also, this sentence is false. :) --Procrastinating@^talk2me 13:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, we should take this out, then all the inherently non-NPOV content. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

dido Lonjers 05:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The arguments for prohibition need to be rewritten by much stronger support. Extensive research has been done for legalization, but not for prohibition. Thepushkins 04:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization of arguments against prohibition

This whole section can be improved greatly. First, I think the arguments need to be named and organized more carefully. Here's my proposition:

1. Economic costs and ineffectiveness
   1. General ineffectiveness
   2. Forbidden fruit effect
   3. Direct costs
   4. Indirect costs
2. Black market effects
   1. General violence
   2. Funding of terrorists and other harmful groups
   3. Higher prices and user crime
   4. Poor user health and drug quality
3. Infringement of rights
4. Inconsistency and racism
5. Medical use and research
6. Moral and religious
7. Societal

Thoughts? I'll eventually work on implementing it, if nobody objects.

I think I've covered everything that's in the current article, save "Possible compromises" and "Legal dilemmas". If "Possible compromises" belongs anywhere, it should be under "Arguments for prohibition". And I'm not sure about "Legal dilemmas". FAL 06:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you renaming or reordering? the pro or con section? Please put a list of before and after. This order if it to take place MUST NOT subtract anything. thank you.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 10:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm mainly interested in improving "Arguments against prohibition". I think the sections should be both reordered and renamed. I'm not sure if all of the current content would fit into the scheme I posted, but I can add it. I'm not going to rewrite anything yet, but I think much of the section should eventually be rewritten, once it's organized better.

Who do you say that nothing can be subtracted? For example, I think the inclusion of "Possible comprises" is arguable.

What do you mean by "please put a list of before and after."? FAL 21:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unequal proportions

The material of this article that is dedicating to elaborating on legalization appears to be much longer than that which is dedicated to prohibition. That makes it appear biased.

There just does not seem to be enough material in favor of drug prohibition to even out the sections. Lonjers 20:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

While this is speculation on my part, I imagine this is because there are fewer arguments to support prohibition than there are to support legalization, at least if you stick to arguments that directly address the issue. That said, different people can and will assign different weight to each argument, but as WP is an encyclopedia, it should leave doing so up to the readers.

Do not mistake quantity for quality, nor make the mistake of assuming that a greater volume of arguments for a position than against is equivalent to a stronger argument for than against. Personally, I'd say the argument for legalization is stronger, but the article should be concerned with coverage, not strength, and there is a lot more pro-legalization to cover. Zuiram 06:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There's also the somewhat subjective hierarchies of the arguments which makes them seems more in quantity on the Table of Content. But this too is a fairly poor non content related argument, I for actually reading the thing and deciding for your self.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 10:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It could be that prohibitionists don't have good arguments.

On the other, hand, there is a section for rebuttals to the arguments against, but not to the arguments for, prohibition.--Robbie251 12:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I got that the wrong way round.--Robbie251 12:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The arguments for prohibition seem to be written by the same people who wrote the pro-legalization arguments. It seems pretty clear to me that the legalization argument is much stronger than the prohibition- not because legalization is a stronger argument, but simply because it is poorly covered and written. As an encyclopedia, and as an article claiming to show both sides, the prohibition needs serious work, preferably from those who strongly believe in it. This is because no matter how open-minded youre, it is up to the people who truly believe in it to write it with their strongest position. Thepushkins 04:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] this part didn't make any sense to me

“

Yearly drug trafficking earnings average to about 60 billion dollars and range as high as 100 billion dollars a year in the United States alone (Duke and Gross 33). Marijuana is the largest cash crop in ten states as well as in the U.S. as a whole[4] "Revenues from drug trafficking in Miami, FL., are greater than those from tourism, exports, health care and all other legitimate businesses combined" (Wink 108). The U.S. illegal drug market is one-eighth of the total world market, making it the largest illegal drug market in the world (Rodriguez). Worldwide, the trade in illegal recreational drugs is estimated to be worth as much as US$ 1000,000,000 per year, approximately the same value as the legitimate trade in pharmaceutical drugs used in medicine”

okay and thats all well and good but does it say 1000,000,000 per year? does that mean one billion per year? cause that wouldnt make any sense given the above statement that yearly drug trafficking is worth 60 billion per year... cause thats a big differance in money... So which is it? someone please look into this I havent edited anything before and that just jumped out at me as being WIERD... so uh correction please... also if you do correct it delete this... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sniper17mc (talk • contribs) 07:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Legal Alternatives Section

I have no idea why the legal alternatives section got added but I can not see how it makes a logical argument. It is also unsighted. Unless someone puts up an argument for it in the next couple of days I think it should just be gotten rid of. Any comments. Lonjers 03:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I welcome the removal of this as off topic and original research. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

legal highs are legal only for a short period of time..until they become illegal..BECAUSE they get you high. The author completely failed to see the main point drugs are ilegal in the first place.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 22:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

thank's for the removal Lonjers. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 14:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forbidding drugs can romanticize them

Maybe a source should be added about the decline in heroin use in Switzerland since it has been decriminalized -- addicts in that nation are now treated like people with any other medical problem, and thus patterns of new use have declined. Peoplesunionpro 18:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be a good source that would improve the article, do you know of any? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing issues

This article has several different methods of sourcing. Some items are sourced with a link, and others with proper intext footnote refs that show up at the bottom, others use intext citations rather than footnotes. This article needs to be fixed to be uniform in how it presents references. Also, there are vast areas of this article that have none at all. --Lendorien 19:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pro Arguments: Health

How can health-Issues that derive from the illegal status ("co-morbid diseases such as HIV [...] and Hepatitis C")be a pro-argument? It sounds as if one goal of the prohibition were to spread deseases between drug-users. -81.173.224.226 18:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if (as is my experience) the vast majority of drug related health issues are caused by IMPURITIES then I guess legalising and regulating them would alleviate this situation tremendously.

It DOES seem to me as if one goal of prohibition is to make users health worse. Keithbowden (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Information regarding marijuana

Much information regarding marijuana is incorrect. Marijuana is becoming a very legal substance, especially in Ontario, Canada in which marijuana was recently decriminalized. There was also no mention of how in the Netherlands, there is absolutely no argument about their legalization of Marijuana and how it benefits their economy and tourism. Please make sure your facts are straight about Marijuana, becuase it is a highly controversial topic.

AFAIK, marijuana was not "recently decriminalized." If you're referring to that judge's decision in the local Ontario courts, it isn't yet binding, it can merely be used in considering the matter by other judges. Anyone who wants more information can check the forums at Cannabis Culture, which has a rather lengthy (25 pages or so?) analysis of the trial, the findings, and what they exactly mean for the law. Zelse81 02:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Also your "facts" about Marijuana in the Netherlands are incorrect. Dutch police are actively prosecuting large scale production of cannabis while sale in coffee shops is officially illegal but not prosecuted. And I think that total legalization remains a controversial topic in the Netherlands. See also the article Drugs_in_the_netherlands (specifically the end of the Hard_drugs/soft_drugs section) 145.97.201.67 13:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Very true. But seeing that you can walk into just about any "coffee shop" in Amsterdam and walk out with a bag of sweet chiba, it isn't exactly 100% illegal. The point is that the Netherlands typically only bothers to prosecute Marijuana offenses when connected with other crimes or when rediculously large amounts turn up. Just as long as you stay "safe and sane" in Amsterdam, you don't have to worry about the reefer madness.

[edit] Beer and Wine

The following statement, found under Economics and psychosocial arguments is a bit of a fallacy.

“

Low-potency products (beer/wine) in particular have evolved to extend sought-after effects to provide :sustainable revenues for retail outlets.”

Such a statement gives the impression that beer and wine were invented by retail outlets.

The earliest evidence suggesting wine production comes from archaeological sites in Georgia and Iran, dating from 6000 to 5000 BC. Beer is one of the oldest beverages, possibly dating back to the 5th millennium BC, and recorded in the written history of Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. Beer and wine predate retail outlets.

I suggest changing the present statement to:

“

Retail outlets evolved support for low-potency products (beer/wine) in particular to provide sustainable revenues.”

Eyejuice 05:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue should be how the American "partnership for a drug-free America" is primarily funded by Tobacco and Alcohol companies. After all, it would be a shame if booze companies had to compete with people growing reefer in their backyards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.229.213 (talk) 06:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup - TO DO

Add items as needed. Following is a list of issues this article has that desperately need attention:

1. Article is wildly inconsistant with it's use of sources. At least three seperate sourcing techniques are used. All sources need to be converted to Inline citations.
2. References and External links section needs to be broken out into seperate sections. External links should be a seperate section in line with the standard use in most wikipedia articles. Likewise, the resources need to be changed into inline citations (footnotes) to specify to where they refer.
3. Article needs to be checked for pov issues.
4. Some consideration and discussion should possibly be made to reorganize the sections. The current format of the article is overwealming and not entirely useful for the casual reader.

--Lendorien 15:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Just looking at the length and quantity of arguments in each direction, I'd say this article has acquired that wonderful wikipedia bias. Could we at least try to balance this away from the young left intellectual stance so characteristic of wikipedia?--Loodog (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theory: Stupid druglaws create disobeyers

People tend to disobey other laws as drug laws after feeling the inconsistency of the drug laws and after disobeying druglaws themselves. Growing up facing stupid druglaws makes it hard to see the rightfullness of other laws. Druglaws hamper the development of conscience. "If this law is so stupid then the others will also be stupid". Ok my English is not perfect. I hope someone can work out this argument (there is even scientific data supporting it) and edit the main article according.

Eindhoven 27-12-2007 88.159.65.60 (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. To everyone: Please find a reliable source for this theory. --mms (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For/Against?

I thought this article was supposed to have arguments For AND Against Legalizing drugs...? I see several pages on arguments for, a brief paragraph against, and a few pages on "compromises." So why is this article entitled, 'Arguments For/Against drug legalization'? It's too blatantly imbalanced to be appropriate as a source, since an article like this implies that there are no arguments against. It should at least be entitled, 'Arguments For Drug Legalization', and the sparse material opposed to the arguments deleted for the sake of the most fundamental integrity of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.166.7.200 (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Due to my conviction I can't contribute to the arguments pro prohibition much. If you can, go ahead. The article does list arguments for any relevant position to this question. --mms (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Blatantly pro-drug legalization POV. It reads like some high school druggie's english paper.--Loodog (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel accosted. As I said above, I can't follow the arguments pro prohibition. If any of you can, please elaborate the section. --mms (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On confusion and bias

I have included a new introduction which tries to show how many factors there are which confuse rational debate. I have tried to comment from both points of view, for instance mentioning conspiracy theories (although someone thoughtlessly removed my examples).

The fact that not enough people are contributing arguments for prohibition is NOT sufficient evidence to claim that this article is biased. It may simply mean that there AREN'T many arguments in favour. If you have an argument then INCLUDE IT. If you don't then shut up! :-)) Keithbowden (talk) 11:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To be removed

I would like to remove the following sections as unsourced WP:OR:

1. Cultural genocide
2. The creation of drug cartels
3. The last paragraph of effect on producer countries
4. Same policy for distinct drugs
5. The second paragraph of crime/terrorism
6. Legal dilemmas
7. Use of more dangerous but more easily accessible drugs
8. Drug prohibition as a solution to problems of society
9. The last two paragraphs of Economics and psychosocial arguments
10. Illegal drugs as a pragmatic counterweight to global trade imbalances
11. Economic

If anyone wants to keep them, we need sources. --Loodog (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I consent that the article needs more sources. But the questioned sections present mostly or even only theories also stated in the real world. I haven't read all the article yet. If you want to remove all unsourced statements, please copy them to a repository and link to it in this thread. But please wait a few days before taking any action. --mms (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur. sourced claims should be made, to some factual elements of these arguments, yet the arguments themselves are very well known in many forms of media, and do not constitute OR. Can you please specify the relevant elements which you find non-credible?--Procrastinating@^talk2me 12:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Loodog marked the statements he thinks could be original research. --mms (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The onus is on the provider of the argument to show sources which demonstrate it's not OR, not the other way around.--Loodog (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been a month. I've removed the sections that didn't get sources and kept those people have provided sources for. Of course, if you find sources for the removed sections, feel free to add them back.--Loodog (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added references for two remaining weasel words tags and, in conjunction with the above, I've removed the {{weasel}} and {{POV|date=December 2007}} tags. --SallyScot (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Racism and unequal enforcement of drug laws

Otolemur crassicaudatus removed this section:

“

Some consider the war on drugs, at least in the United States, to be a "war on some drugs" … and some drug users. Current drug laws are enforced in such a way as to penalize non-whites more harshly and more often than whites, and to penalize the poor of all races more harshly and more often than the middle and upper classes.^{[who?][citation needed]} The belief that "hard drugs" such as crack cocaine warrant stronger sentences^[1] than "soft drugs" such as marijuana or even powder cocaine represents a double standard not supported by scientific evidence. Defendants convicted of selling crack cocaine receive equal sentences to those convicted of selling 100 times the same amount of powder cocaine.”

No, it is not original research. I could name you sources in German but you want them in English. If you look at the sentences for the different drugs and compare it to the use in the different life standards and cultures which for their part depend on wealth and birth, you can easily come to this conclusions yourselves. I will look up for sources in English and ask you to do the same. Considering the condition of the article I don't understand why this sections needs to be excluded since it's sourced. --mms (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources in German are absolutely not an issue, having said that I don't think this POV pushing paragraph has any place in the article anyway. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should this theory not be included in the article? Xenophobia is a main motivation for drug laws. Why else should a group in power choose to rule which drugs other people are allowed to use? --mms (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Gentle in manner, strong in matter –Claudio Aquaviva

In your opinion, in my opinion this is unnotable and opinionated rubbish, and I refer specifically to the racism theories, we don't want people whop spew racist rubbish to have much place in this encyclopedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox, please follow the policy WP:Wikipedia is a girls' boarding school. --mms (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of this quote from Drug abuse#Historical positions of the American Psychiatric Association?

“ … as a general rule, we reserve the term drug abuse to apply to the illegal, nonmedical use of a limited number of substances, most of them drugs, which have properties of altering the mental state in ways that are considered by social norms and defined by statute to be inappropriate, undesirable, harmful, threatening, or, at minimum, culture-alien.”

Glasscote, R.M., Sussex, J.N., Jaffe, J.H., Ball, J., Brill, L. (1972). The Treatment of Drug Abuse: Programs, Problems, Prospects. Washington, D.C.: Joint Information Service of the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association for Mental Health.

Also the decision which drug should be illegal is biased:

“ The ubiquity of drug use is so striking that it must represent a basic human appetite. Yet many Americans seem to feel that the contemporary drug scene is something new, something qualitatively different from what has gone before. This attitude is peculiar because all that is really happening is a change in drug preference. There is no evidence that a greater percentage of Americans are taking drugs, only that younger Americans are coming to prefer illegal drugs like marijuana and hallucinogens to alcohol. Therefore, people who insist that everyone is suddenly taking drugs must not see alcohol in the category of drugs. Evidence that this is precisely the case is abundant, and it proves another example of how emotional biases lead us to formulate unhelpful conceptions. Drug taking is bad. We drink alcohol. Therefore alcohol is not a drug. It is, instead, a ‘pick-me-up,’ a ‘thirst quencher,’ a ‘social lubricant,’ ‘an indispensable accompaniment to fine food,’ and a variety of other euphemisms. Or, if it is a drug, at least it is not one of those bad drugs that the hippies use.”

Andrew Weil: The Natural Mind—An Investigation of Drugs and the Higher Consciousness, Houghton Mifflin, 1985, chapter 2 “Why People Take Drugs”, pp. 17–18, ISBN 0-395-91156-7

Are those two sources already convincing you or do I need to find more? --mms (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I reverted the exclusion an added references to the Human Rights Watch's 2000 report on Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs, to a testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity and to a paper about the crack/powder cocaine issue by the Sentencing Project. --mms (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency Section

The "Consistency" section does not seem consistent with the title of the article: Arguments for and against drug prohibition. All of the points raised in the section, while true statements, are more issues with how the United States handles drug prohibition than an argument for or against drug prohibition. Taking issue with how different drugs are treated in the legal system is taking issue with how drugs are prohibited, not that they are prohibited. Perhaps this information would be better suited to an article on racism. --Om617 (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Both the laws and the enforcement of the laws are racist. Why shouldn't we mention these facts in this article? Have you read the sources? The "war on some drugs" issue is a real world argument against the current policies. --mms (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that drug laws and their enforcement are racist (which they are) does not belong in this section; it belongs in some section regarding either racism or law enforcement. Other laws are racist in ways similar to drug laws: there is no explicitly racist language, but the realities of the communities to which they apply causes them to be racist. Brothel laws would be an example. In addition, laws, biased or not, are enforced with racial bias is present across the entire legal system in the United States. Should murder be decriminalized because it is being enforced in a racist manner? Racism in drug laws is an excellent example of racism in law enforcement, and it is a real world argument against current policies, but just because it is an example of unfair treatment in the War on Drugs does not mean that it is a valid criticism of the concept of drug prohibition, but instead merely a criticism of the way the United States is implementing drug prohibition. As this is not an article on law enforcement or racism in general, most of the section belongs elsewhere. Om617 (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prohibition works!?

In the article there is a section called "Prohibition works" with the following text: "Prohibition of drugs works if it is part of broad-action program that includes many different types of action from information in schools to drug free treatment groups for prisoners. - "a strong emphasis on prevention, drug laws have been progressively tightened, and extensive treatment and rehabilitation opportunities are available to users. The police take drug crime seriously." (Antonio Maria Costa, head of UNODC, 2007)"

The sources for this is 1) The Swedish action plan on narcotic drugs 2006–2010 [1] 2) A UNODC-report entitled Sweden's successful drug policy [2] and 3) a newspaper article in the Independent where Antonio Maria Costa makes his point on the benefits of repressive drug policy [3].

Non of the sources above state that prohibition "works well" in Sweden. The two last however, state that the Swedish repressive drug policy is successful (a conclusion that have been criticized) although thats another thing to me (prohibition is a part of a repressive policy, and to call the whole policy successful is not to call the prohibition part successful; only the thing that Sweden do have illict drug abuse is enough for me to come to that conclusion) I have deleted the section once, but the original author User:Dala11a reinserted it again with the comment that it is a "well known argument". I disagree, living in the same country as he (Sweden) I have never heard it before. Steinberger (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've further qualified the references, which hopefully helps. --SallyScot (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the way that you have redone it, however one source on the original "prohibition works" thing, the action plan. What does it contribute? And another thing, when I wrote the counter critic I would like to show why UNODC picked Sweden as an successful example. But now, well the really common counter critic against the notion that Sweden's policy is successful (used domestically by at least two scholars, whom I know of, Leif Lenke and Ted Goldberg); that experimental drug use were declining already before the policy took the aim of "a drug-free society" and the anti-drug struggle commenced in the 80s, from then in fact the numbers of problem drug users have increased (and even faster) as is experimental drug use also up, it is much higher today then in 1980 for example. Is it meaningful to include that now? (that would be with Swedish sources) There are outside critic as well on the UNODC-report, as Peter Cohen's Looking at the UN, smelling a rat. Steinberger (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The Swedish action plan on narcotic drugs says "Access to drugs must be reduced: [...] In order to reduce the supply it is important for the law-enforcement agencies, including the National Police Board, the Swedish Customs Service and the Swedish Prosecution Authority, to continue to look into how they can even more effectively combat both organised and small-scale drug crime." - so I think that should count as a supporting reference there.

I have added to the counterargument section to include more from Henrik Tham questioning the notion that Sweden's policy is successful. I have also added reference to Peter Cohen's work - Looking at the UN, smelling a rat. --SallyScot (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I must point out that the scheduling to a restrictive drug legislation did not happened in 1980. Henrik Tham claims in the quotation that the big change was in 1980 but that is wrong. According to Michael Bogdan: Reflections on some international and Swedish legal rules relating to drug offences, Professor of Law, University of Lund, 1977 so came the great turn-around with The Narcotic Drugs Punishments Act of 1968. In 1969, fearing that low punishments would attract international drug traffickers, the government increased punishments for crimes involving the most severe degree, and the corresponding laws on smuggling were increased to a maximum penalty of 6 years. In 1970 cultivation of hemp was banned on the grounds that it was a drug. In 1972 the the Narcotic Drugs Punishments Act was strengthened again, increasing the maximum prison sentence to 10 years for more severe crimes. It is still 10 years. The error with year 1980 is repeated in many texts about Swedish drug policy. If you read the diagram in European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction: National report Sweden, 2006 page 12 you understand why.Dala11a (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The law in 1968 was designed not to effect the then lenient stance against consumers while strengthening the penal measures against distribution, however the policy changed. Many of this policy changes that took place after the new government in 1976 and from 1980 and the police raid against users that year, its impossible to talk about a lenient policy against drug users. The policy was that of zero tolerance. It is that change Tham refers to, and not the law and its maximum penalties in itself. And the worst thing is that dala11a know all this. Steinberger (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have included a note referenced in the article text from the the two 'Prohibition works' sections (i.e. the argument and the counterargument sections) which says...

Sweden has moved to more restrictive drug legislation over a number of years. Significant changes were made during years 1968-1972, but also prior to and following this period. - See Drug policy of Sweden.

It seems to me that if Antonio Maria Costa, executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, said (in 2007) "For three decades, Sweden has had consistent and coherent drug-control policies" then it is understandable why Henrik Tham might also have focused on "The shift in Swedish drug policy since around 1980". The fact that a notable source (Antonio Maria Costa) has focused on Sweden's more recent policy, quoting it in the context of an argument that 'Prohibition works', is more significant than a separate debate arguing about the exact truth of the details of the dates of change for Swedish drug policy in the context of this article. The arguments for and against drug prohibition don't need to be capable of being proved as being ultimately true. Right or wrong, they just need to have been put forward by some notable source. --SallyScot (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)