Talk:Drug liberalization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Drug liberalization article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	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.

1 Recreational Drugs?
2 Merge from Drug policy reform
3 Fair use rationale for Image:Legalise Cannabis Alliance 2.gif
4 Links removed

[edit] Recreational Drugs?

What an euphemism! Cocaine as a "recreational" drug? C'mon!!! Cocaine users and abusers donate bullets destined to the chest of peasants is South America... where is the fun in this? The list of tasteless "recreation" just keeps growing with other illegal drugs.

I changed most occurrences of "recreational drug" by the more accurate "illegal drug" JBGM (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I also think "illegal drug" is a more encyclopaedic term than "recreational drug". But I think you mix up the meaning of these terms. An illegal drug is illegal from its production until its consumption, a recreational drug is recreational only after it is applied. --mms (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make is that it is politically incorrect to call illicit drugs "recreational," irrespective of whether the consumer only wants to have fun. As an analogy, imagine that an article about the history of African-Americans used derogatory terms when referring to that ethnic group. Would that be acceptable? Hell, no. It is not acceptable to call illicit drugs "recreational." We should then open the category "recreational homicides" to refer to deeds of psychopaths.--JBGM (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not intended to educate people—not in a moral sense. See our policy WP:SOAP. The term "recreational drug" is used in the real world and therefore we should write about it. For comparison there is a quite lengthy article about the term Nigger. Again: I back your changes but we should not ban the term throughout Wikipedia. While I think I understand your point I do not share it. One can use illegal drugs for recreation but not every use of illegal drugs is for recreation. The same applies to legal drugs and "still legal" drugs. There a negative side effects to other people (who do not take the illegal drugs), that's true. But I don't judge the drugs guilty for these non-toxic effects. From my perspective these people are victims of the War on Drugs and of capitalism. But neither you nor me are allowed to proclaim our opinions in the articles. We have to look out for reliable sources which reflect our opinions and then we even have to ponder not to give them undue weight. --mms (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about recreational drug use, but about liberalization of illegal drugs. It is hardly a matter of opinion or personal belief the fact that trade of illegal drugs cause thousands of violent deaths in third world countries. Therefore, the correct and encyclopedic term is "illegal drug", not recreational drug.--JBGM (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I state I'm able to contribute with an advanced level of English. To my understanding "recreational" doesn't include a moral statement or say anything about indirect effects. It means firstly an activity is not part of your work and secondly you do it for relaxation or fun. Driving with an SUV to the beach and party is contributing to the uneven distribution of wealth and therefore contributing to wars and unjustice. When you eat shrimps you steal the lebensraum of indigenous peoples. By eating any industrial food you finance corporations like Monsanto who exploit especially the third world and please the whole world with genetically modified plants. Your fee is paid by organized crime and you spend your money to organized crime groups (protection money, money laundering). So should we deny that there are recreational visits to restaurants? Please read my comment above again. --mms (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Words do not have moral value. The use we make of them does; in the end, it is morality and values what determines the course of a society. For instance, we would not use a derogatory term for the the title of any main article in Wikipedia. You might not be aware of it, but the use of the noun "recreational drug" is offensive in many circles. So you can see how shocking this article is, let us imagine that we created the article "Recreational Murder." There are many, many well-documented cases of people who kill for fun. --JBGM (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

“ LSD is a psychedelic substance which occasionally causes psychotic behaviour in people who have not taken it.”

recounted by Terence McKenna

[edit] Merge from Drug policy reform

Both articles seem to overlap. This seems like the most sensible place to combine their content. Opinions? --Daniel11 (talk) 06:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep as it is. Although both articles over lap they arise out of sufficiently different posits (or starting points) to need separate articles. 'Liberalization' always suggests a freeing up and removal of restrictions where as 'policy reform' (in this case) is to make changes to policies, so that both the harmfully effects of full liberalization can be avoided -and the harmful effects of the current policy can be mitigated or abolished.

The different philosophy between the two approaches is more than subtle.

Hogarth's depiction of Gin Lane may help illustrate the difference in thought. Back then, gin could be made and sold freely without any assurance that is was free from toxic adulterants. Here the reform was to both change (over and above existing 'Licensed premises' laws) and bring in new law to make gin safer and to state that is was not suitable for children. This was law over laissez-faire attitude prevalent up to then. Maybe both articles would benefit from this being explicitly explained early on.--Aspro (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Legalise Cannabis Alliance 2.gif

Image:Legalise Cannabis Alliance 2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)