Talk:Prohibition (drugs)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Here is the original. Argue here.

Contents

Arguments for the War on Drugs, in whole or in part

  • A state cannot tolerate or be involved with the distribution of substances the use of which is considered immoral by relevant lots of the population.
    • A free society avoids the "Tyranny of the Majority". A state that attempts to criminalize victimless behaviors is authoritarian and not free.
  • Recreational use of certain drugs is unhealthy and dangerous for the user's body. Therefore, it cannot be produced or distributed with the help of the state, because the goal of the state is to protect citizens' health and not to expose them to risk.
    • Nearly any activity, from driving a car to cleaning the house, can be dangerous. The legalization of drugs can aid in the minimization of the dangers of drug use (see harm reduction). It is worth noting that the effects of marijuana on the mind (included "amotivational syndrome") and body are minimal to nonexistent, especially when compared with other, legal activities 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
    • It is not worthwhile for a law to forbid persons from willingly exposing their own bodies to harm by using drugs, any more than by overeating, bungee-jumping, getting tattoos, or volunteering to work in leprosaria. Obesity is a national epidemic, killing millions every year, but the government has no right to regulate how much citizens eat.
      • The use of some drugs (perhaps only alcohol and tobacco) may be significantly more dangerous than most of these activities.
  • Drugs are addictive 1. Hence, they rob the user of free will in the same sense that slavery does. A drug user can not make an informed and rational decision to continue using drugs because the use of the drug eliminates that user's ability to think logically.
    • Drug users exercised free will when they chose to use drugs; a person has the right to give up his or her own freedom.
    • No drug exists which eliminates free will. It is possible to quit using any drug.
    • Many banned drugs are not addictive, or are significantly less deleterious to free will than legal alcohol or tobacco. Severe physiological addiction has been demonstrated for tobacco (stronger than cocaine), but no strong physiological addiction has been shown for marijuana 1.
  • If currently illegal drugs were legalized, dealers would invent new, more dangerous and addictive drugs in order to maintain their profit flow.
    • Any drug with a market can be legalized for personal use and distributed through lawful channels. This may occur a few times, but dealers will quickly learn that they can only waste time and money inventing something that lawful businesses will sell at cheaper prices.
  • Drug use is dangerous to persons besides the user, in the rise of health care costs, violence associated with the use of drugs (1), neglect of children by drug-addicted parents, and other third party effects. Drugs should remain illegal to minimize these effects of drug use.
    • Drug legalization would reduce health care costs overall by reducing the probability of overdoses and accidental ingestion of an unintended drug through standardization of drug purity by state-sponsored production and/or regulation of sale. In addition, there is no evidence of prohibition significantly reducing the use of drugs 1, 2; so legalizing them would not raise health care costs significantly.
    • The violence associated with the use of drugs would be greatly decreased if the price was lower, as would certainly happen upon legalization. Most drug-related crime is caused by users attempting to find funding to buy drugs at artificially inflated prices (caused by prohibition raising the risk and cost of creation, transport and sale of drugs). 1
    • There is no clear and obvious third party harm. All examples of such are caused by related activities that can be illegal without blanket prohibition. For example, driving while intoxicated is illegal, while drinking alcohol without driving is not. The harm caused to children by their parents' excessive drug use is criminal insofar as it constitutes child abuse through neglect; drug-specific laws are unneeded. By this logic, alcohol, TV, video games, shopping, cleaning, sex, reading and writing, and virtually any hobby or occupation should be prohibited as some parents may neglect their children in order to focus on having sex, running a business, or building model trains.
  • If drugs were legalized, the companies that manufacture and market them would be sued, as Big Tobacco has been sued in the United States.
    • Big Tobacco was sued because the companies involved lied and misrepresented the facts in order to present their product as safe when they knew it was not. It does not have to be this way. Legalization of drugs does not mean that there will be national marketing campaigns encouraging heroin use, as some critics have claimed. Marketing illegal drugs can be totally prohibited, or regulated in varying degrees while not decreasing availability for those who desire to use the drugs.
  • The use of soft drugs, such as marijuana, leads to the use of hard drugs (the Gateway Theory).
    • No peer-reviewed scientific study has ever concluded this; many have concluded that the Gateway Theory is clearly untrue, and some have even concluded that marijuana use helps prevent the use of other drugs. 1, 2, 3, 4
  • Drug use negatively impacts the economy in the form of users missing work and doing shoddy work.
    • The War on Drugs has not been shown to reduce drug use 1, 2. Hence, legalization would have no effect on this.
    • If a worker does shoddy work, (s)he can be fired.
  • If currently illegal drugs are legalized, the Food and Drug Administration will have to be shut down, meaning that all health and safety restrictions on foods and drugs will be eliminated. Massive epidemics of diseases, overdoses and accidental drug interactions will occur. 1
    • This is a meaningless scare tactic with no basis in reality. Legalization does not mean a lack of regulation. Cigarettes come with warnings. Alcoholic beverages are clearly marked with the amount of alcohol. Currently, legal drugs contain a listing of all active and inactive ingredients. Illegal drugs could only be sold legally with ingredients lists, warnings, and purity levels clearly marked. There is no legal or moral reason the Food and Drug Administration would have to be shut down.
    • The FDA would indeed play an important role in the regulation of recreational substances. The government's sole role in protecting the citizenry is to educate and warn. The FDA would ensure purity, dose size, and provide for accurate labeling, indications, and warnings where appropriate.

Arguments against the War on Drugs, in whole or in part

  • If the goal of a state is to protect citizens' health and well-being, drugs should be legalized so that their purity can be monitored (see harm reduction). The health of citizens is not best served by prohibiting drugs; this only increases risk and harm, and reduces health and well-being.
  • Drug use is a victimless crime and hence, should be legal.
    • Drug use has no single individual victim besides the drug user himself, but places the burden of caring for and dealing with junkies on the rest of society. Essentially, the entire society is the victim of drug use in the same way that insider trading, another victimless crime, negatively affects every trader in the market.
      • Insider trading is not victimless as unwary investors are harmed, but personal recreational substances use, in and of itself, is victimless as no one is harmed.
    • The victim of drug use is the drug user himself, who needs to be removed from the opportunity of taking drugs. A person who has no contact with drugs likely has a better life than a person who is given the opportunity to use drugs.
      • Such an assumption is absolutely false. The vast majority of recreational substance users lead healthy well adjusted lives. In many cases moderate recreational substance use helps and enriches the lives of users.
    • Victimless crimes should be illegal if they are immoral. Drug use is immoral. Hence, drug use should be illegal.
      • That drug use is immoral can only be based off one set of moral beliefs. For example, it is discriminatory to claim that Judeo-Christian abstinence from intoxication is the correct set of moral beliefs, whereas Native American historic and religious use of peyote 1, 2 and psilocybin 1, is not the correct set of moral beliefs.
  • Drug use is a victimless crime and hence, is unenforceable: without a victim to report the occurrence of a crime, law enforcement personnel can not know of every individual instance of the performance of a crime; they are not able to convict the perpetrators of the crimes that they do not know occurred. Therefore, drug use should be legal so that the deleterious effects can be minimized (see harm reduction). 1
    • The fact that the laws can not be fully enforced does not negate the usefulness of such laws. Laws against murder, rape and other crimes will probably never reach a 100% conviction rate either. The War on Drugs has substantially reduced drug use 1, 2 and legalizing drugs would increase drug use 1.
      • Legalizing murder, rape or other crimes would not enable society to minimize the deleterious effects in other ways. This is not true with drug use (see harm reduction).
      • It is not true that the War on Drugs has substantially reduced drug use or availability 1, 2, 3.
    • It is possible to create a drug free society.
      • There are no examples of cultures that included the use of intoxicants and then successfully eliminated the use thereof. There is no indication of a drug free society being possible in the future.
  • The War on Drugs increases the profit margin in the sale of drugs 1, hence, legalization will decrease organized and disorganized crime 1.
  • The use of recreational drugs has no clear and obvious harmful effect on anyone besides the user (who chooses to accept those risks). The War on Drugs, on the other hand, places non-users' friends and loved ones in jail 1. Hence, the War on Drugs does have clear and obvious harmful effects on third parties.
    • Drug use has harmful effects on third party individuals 1, such as babies born addicted to drugs 1, or traffic accidents caused by intoxication 1, 2.
      • These are all caused by actions other than the ingestion of drugs, such as the use of drugs while pregnant or driving. One can, and usually does, use drugs when neither pregnant nor driving. It is worth noting that the use of cocaine has not been definitively linked to birth defects or mental retardation, but the use of nicotine has 1 as has the use of alcohol. Marijuana has also not been definitively linked to birth defects or mental retardation 1, nor to substantially increased risks of traffic accidents 1, 2.
  • Other countries which have experimented with varying degrees of legalization have had positive results 1.
    • No, they have not.1
      • Yes, they have. Nations with legalization have reduced crime and reduced addiction problems 1,2
      • In Amsterdam they have half the percentage of cannabis users, despite it's legal status 1
  • The War on Drugs is hypocritical because only certain drugs are targeted. Other drugs, such as alcohol, caffeine and tobacco are legal (in most parts of the world), yet cause many more problems than currently illegal drugs. Even aspirin is, in many ways, more dangerous than currently illegal drugs. (See here or here for death statistics and here or here for addiction statistics)
    • The legalization of one drug does not mean that all drugs should be legalized.
    • Alcohol 1, caffeine 1 and tobacco 1, 2 use have been accepted parts of social interaction for centuries, while currently illegal drugs have not.
      • This is is simply not true. Cannabis has been socially accepted in many places for millennia 1, 2, 3, 4. Hallucinogens, such as peyote 1, 2 and psilocybin 1, 2, have been part of religious ceremonies in the Americas and elsewhere for thousands of years. Coca leaves (from which cocaine is derived) are still chewed by South American natives with no apparent physiological or psychological addiction or other deleterious effects 1, 2. Opium has also been used for at least two thousand years 1. Cannabis, peyote, psilocybin and coca have probably been used longer than alcohol, as they can be easily harvested and immediately ingested; alcohol requires some knowledge of fermentation, time and patience. The only drugs which do not have a long history of use were only recently invented, such as amphetamines, LSD and Ecstacy. There are, however, natural drugs similar to these (such as LSA, MDA) which have been used for a long time.
    • Aspirin (and other currently legal drugs) can have positive effects, hence the dangers are warranted.
      • Drugs such as marijuana (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and counterpoint: 1, 2), LSD and other hallucinogens 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, heroin (counterpoint: 1) and Ecstacy 1 may also have positive effects if used under certain circumstances. That this is true is not currently known for certain, primarily because drug prohibition has hindered research on the subject 1.
  • The prohibition against drug use has boosted black market research on finding new, more powerful drugs that can be transported easier and more safely than existing ones. Because they are more powerful, a smaller amount can be profitable, as well as more dangerous and addictive than older drugs. Hence, drug prohibition has fueled the refinement of heroin (from much less addictive precursors) and the invention of crack cocaine (a cheaper, more addictive and more dangerous derivative of cocaine).
    • A large corporation could do this much more effectively if recreational drugs were legalized.
      • A governmental agency (instead of private business) could manufacture and sell drugs, with a strict prohibition against developing new ones.
      • If a corporation did so, it could be required to prove relative safety and clearly mark all packages with danger warnings. It is much easier to force a few corporations to responsibly develop and market drugs than a vast, underground system of individual drug dealers who have no reason not to maximize profits at all costs, as there is no legal method of developing recreational drugs.
  • The War on Drugs leads to police corruption, by injecting huge profits into the black market. This inevitably leads to bribery 1, 2.
    • We should hire more moral police officers.
      • The huge profits of the illegal drug market make this impossible. With so much money, drug traffickers and dealers will always be able to bribe some police officers. Often, the bribery extends beyond circumventing drug laws but also to related activities, including murder. The profits to be raised by a police officer selling drugs found in others' possessions (and confiscated without making an arrest or official report) and/or accepting bribes makes the position attractive to some people. In effect, the War on Drugs does and always will attract corrupt people to the ranks of law enforcement agencies.
  • Drug dealers will sell to anyone, including children. Merchants who legally sell alcohol and tobacco are not allowed to sell to children. Many high school students report that it is easier to obtain blanket illegal drugs than alcohol and tobacco. Hence, legalizing drugs will help keep more dangerous and addictive drugs from minors, for whom the deleterious effects are greater 1.
    • Legalizing drugs will send a message to children that drug use is acceptable.
      • This is no more true than saying that the legal status of weapons sends a message to children that murder is acceptable.
        • This comparison is faulty because murder is illegal regardless of the legal status of gun ownership. Gun ownership and murder are two separate legal issues, drug use is currently not.
      • Parents are currently expected to explain the dangers of using legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, as well as frequently abused legal drugs, such as Oxycontin, Valium, and morphine. If they can do so with these drugs, they can do so with marijuana, cocaine, or heroin.
  • The War on Drugs disproportionately affects the poor and members of racial and ethnic minorities (in the United States). 1, 2, 3
    • This does not change the reasoning behind the laws. Drug laws should be enforced more fairly.
      • This may not be possible. The War on Drugs was founded on racism in the United States. Opium (a heroin precursor) prohibition began to target Chinese immigrants. Cocaine prohibition began to target African-Americans. Marijuana prohibition began to target Mexican immigrants. LSD prohibition began to target black and white leftist activists.
  • The War on Drugs has led to a decrease in civil liberties. Previously illegal searches and seizures, confiscations, wiretaps, and other police actions have been legitimized out of a desire to use them against drug smugglers or dealers. 1, 2, 3, 4)
    • This is true, but is worth it for the benefit of the health and safety of non-drug-abusing members of society.
      • The curtailment of civil liberties does not make anyone healthier or more safe. Unfair police tactics currently used against drug dealers, traffickers, and users could be easily used against people of political, religious, or ethnic minorities.
  • The United States, where drug laws are strictly enforced, has high rates of drug use as well as an astronomical number of its own citizens in jail. 1, 2
    • This is because the War on Drugs is working. These people have committed crimes and harmed our polity with their actions, and thus belong in jail.
      • No, the war on drugs is not working. Despite the annual arrest of over 1.5 million Americans, and the highest per-capita prison population of any nation in the world, drug use has increased, black market crime has flourished, and completely innocent Americans have been killed by police action. 1,2,3
      • Any definition of a policy "working" which involves rendering such a large proportion of our citizenry into prisoners and ex-convicts (many of whom lose the right to vote) is incompatible with democracy.
  • The War on Drugs has led to morally questionable activities by the government (in the United States). For example, governmental agencies use taxpayer funds to build support for the War on Drugs. See here for an example of taxpayer funds supporting the creation of a website about a taxpayer-funded conference on how to drum up support for continued prohibition and to successfully argue against legalization proponents, many of whom involuntarily paid for the website and conference. This would not be accepted if the federal government were using public funds to pay for pro-life commercials or advertisements for Republican candidates, and should not be acceptable for any issue. For another example of dubious morality, see here for an explanation of public funding being secretly paid to TV corporations in exchange for the placement of anti-drug messages on certain television shows. Secretive propaganda is always morally wrong and duplicitous.
  • The current blanket prohibition of both hard and soft drugs (compare ultra-addictive and dangerous heroin to relatively benign marijuana) lumps both in the same category in the minds of impressionable children. Drug dealers stand to make greater profit off hard drugs, and so will attempt to convince users to switch from soft to hard drugs. Separating the markets through legalization will prevent this. See this to compare the numbers between the Netherlands (where the hard and soft drugs markets are separated) to the United States (where they are not).
  • Drug legalization will enable users to be certain that they are receiving the correct drug. Currently, drugs are often laced with adulterants for various reasons (to aid in trafficking, to increase the effects, etc). Often, these adulterants are the cause of the primary dangers of use of the drug (as, for example, with Ecstacy). In addition, drug users can not know the purity of such drugs as heroin or cocaine; often overdoses are a result of underestimating the purity. These dangers would be eliminated if drugs were legalized and packages purchased were clearly marked with the purity of the ingredients, as well as a complete list of which ingredients were present.
    • The dangers of drug use are well-known. If a user chooses to partake in a risky activity and dies, it is the user's fault.
      • Willful neglect of the safety of drug users does not convince legalization proponents that the neglective party have their best interests in mind.
  • The Drug War began for racist reasons, such as the mythical use of cocaine as an incitement to the rape of white women by black men, seduction of white women by Chinese opium-smokers and violent behavior by Mexicans.
    • This does not effect the morality of today's laws. Laws that were passed for morally suspect reasons may be well-intentioned for other reasons.
      • Racism is still present in the drug war. A disproportionate number of people convicted for drug trafficking are of a racial minority. Juries and police are more likely to let white drug traffickers off the hook than minority drug traffickers. Only legalization can stop racism in the judiciary.
  • Hemp has environmental uses such as in the production of paper, which would decrease the rate that trees are being cut down. Marijuana criminalization has lead the government to prohibit its use even for this. Drug legalization would prevent any government excuse to ban hemp in the production of paper. The drug war primarily helps the synthetic-fibre, wood pulp, petrochemical, and pharmochemical industries. 1
    • The drug war primarily helps victims of drug abuse, not corporations of any kind. There is no known use for hemp that can not be achieved without other policies, and the legal growing of hemp will make it more difficult for law enforcement to enforce the laws.

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.

The initial Federal anti-drug budget was around $150 million a year, by 2000 this had risen to $17.7 billion. The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse showed that the use of illicit drugs in the US in 1970 was 14% of the population aged over twelve (used in the last month). In 1998 the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration stated that 6.2% of the population used illicit drugs.

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

I was considering doing the same for a different reason from Ed. The burden of proof that an activity should be illegal rests on the proponents of prohibition, so their's should be the first presented. Tokerboy 20:06 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)

"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:

  • The proposed scheme would be terrificly dangerous because this would bring trafficants to engage into a chemical challenge (newer drugs are mostly made by synthesis) with the state, in order to create new clandestine products for new markets. Eventual new products could be even more lethal than current ones, so to gain consumers' interest. In alternative, trafficants could be forced to invest in other illegal activities, with all the power of their really huge capitals.

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'll try: those who sustain this position presume that if drugs were legalized, trafficants would invent new products still for the illegal market. Trafficants, basicly, once again would produce substances that would be illegal under the new rules. This because they could find an insterest only in a clandestine market (in which prices can be relevant and beyond any public control due to said clandestinity) and because legalization would presumably make it legal to use some substances, but not all (a general deregulation is impossibile, or we could see - let's say - arsenic sold freely).
In this case, trafficants would invent new illegal substances just as illegal goods, and the consumers' interest would be caught by the clandestine aspect, the famous thrill of making something of illegal (that translated into a well known drugs consumer's mentality could mean: they banned it because it's so good to me that the state doesn't want me to enjoy anything good in life, state is afraid of it, state is afraid of me, so I'll use it - and so on), not only by their eventual lethality (which would also be a foreseeable accessory consequence of such a kind of research by trafficants, but not a principal goal of theirs).
The point of illegality - that position would stress - would be then only moved from currently banned substances to hypothetical new ones. Details would change, but the essential scheme would remain the same as now it is.
Someone said that ecstacy was invented as a response to practical aspects of the war on drugs: as a chemical synthesis product, it could have been entirely produced everywhere without needing to physically move huge quantities of banned basic substances (i.e. heroin) with relevant risks of being discovered during the travel, now that polices have set up a good international control activity. So, this would show that trafficants would develop their activities toward new illegal products, they wouldn't stop in front of difficulties. The increased difficulty of importing heroin was overtook by producing "on site" new substances.
Should the state directly produce and sell ecstacy (it would sell it at perhaps 3% of its current average clandestine price), they would invent something else that could be sold at inflated prices, something of illegal of course. They wouldn't sell any more ecstacy, by which they would now gain very little.
The further point is that eventual new substances could be probably more dangerous than current ones because of illegal research would only consider profit goals, so cheap chemical elements would be used, with no attention for consequences on consumers.
About "investments", in case trafficants were really forced to "retire" - it is said - they would invest what they earned with their traffics in other criminal activities, so prostitution, as well as robbery or kidnapping "industries" (just to mention the first ones that come to mind) could be better organized, could be backed by a wealthier thus more dangerous apparatus. Former trafficans would not be now dealing with drugs, but other criminal fields could become more dangerous for the state.
I hope I was able to explain it a little. The argument is not so uncommon here, and its essential point is often taken into serious consideration.
About your revision, I would have kept (of course, with your kind help) some points about a generic description of "why" there is a war on drugs: this obviously implies to describe the position of some of the parties of this war, thus the neutrality of our description should be protected by a serious "scientific" approach. This because an article should always provide the reasons for a fact. After this, there is of course the space to more widely describe the different positions. I believe that, for the goal of this artcile, we are not pro drugs, we are not against them. We only describe what we can see and quote what the related theories say.
In this sense, the concept of the ethical state that like a figured father tells you what to do and what not, is one of the basic elements of the discussion, given that the personality of the state is deeply involved in such decisions, and this deals with phylosophy, religion, politics and first of all political science. States that believe to have an ethical scope, do have a certain position. States which have no ethical scope (like those states in which the government is - or is pretended to be - pure technical administration) have another one.
We should render this, in order to explain why it is possible that the government bothers with what could even seem, at first sight, private facts of free citizens (this is not a comment, :-). States with no ethical purposes, in fact, should take into account only the criminal troubles that drugs always bring with them, a real collective problem, and only in this vision they make laws on the matter. Which states do effectively have an ethical position? (this is a very hard question...)
Another point: we should compare how the different drugs are fought (if fought) in different systems. The medical description of the "drug" (in this sense), as a dangerous substance (depending on use), is necessary to understand that there is a difference in how tobacco (dangerous and causing dependence) is fought, from how heroin (dangerous and causing dependence is fought, even inside the same national territory. And there resists a distinction betwwen the war on drugs fought on the consumers' side and the war on drugs fought on the producers' side. Looking at different substances, these diversities are perhaps even more evident.
My note about wine and sommelliers was instead trying to draft another concept, but it was perhaps too confused: depending on the local culture, the same substances might be object of study, socially accepted interest and entertainment, while in other places they are completely banned. The relativity of prohibitions is therefore another argument to possibly enlarge.
Bilateral treaties are, IMHO, the most frequent form of international cooperation, given that a true international police is still going to be enrolled. This causes that usually the war is fought with regional of bilateral actions, at the most. I would re-include this.
I'm just sorry that you said that my additions needed to be NPOVed. I'm for certain a wine-lover (in a limited measure, though) and I really smoke a lot. But there ends my personal bias on the topic. This time, I hope that my English was very bad :-))) --Gianfranco
Sorry, I took so long to add all that; I actually did it once a few weeks ago, but then my browser crashed and I lost. It's taken me awhile to work up the will to do it again. Tokerboy 01:10 Dec 8, 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)

Be concise

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. --Jiang 04:57, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Anon user- you might try to use the {{msg:inuse}} tag if youre doing a major rewrite. -戴&#30505sv 05:22, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Removal

I removed

George Washington grew Hemp on his farm and used it. Should we have put our first president in prison?

which had apparently replaced this one, which is no better.

*Many people who have done great things have taken drugs in the past. Sigmund Freud used cocaine. George Washington grew Hemp on his farm and used it. Had we had anti-drug laws back then we could've put them in prison. America might still be British Colonies and psychology still be a poorly developed and poorly understood subject. Now, that we have anti-drug laws we may be adversely affecting the future. What if the partying college student who's caught with an illegal drug and sentenced to a mandatory minimum would've done something good (ex: cured cancer), but due to his lengthy sentence and denial of college scholarships he never gets to it (resulting in millions of people who would've survived due to the cure dying.)

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

A state cannot be involved with the distribution of substances the use of which is considered immoral by relevant lots of the population. A substance which is fought because it is unhealthy cannot be produced and distributed with the help of the state, because the goal of the state is to protect citizens' health and not to expose them to risk.
Drug legalization would reduce health care costs overall by reducing the probability of overdoses and accidental ingestion of an unintended drug through standardization of drug purity by state-sponsored production and sale. In addition, there is no evidence of prohibition significantly reducing the use of drugs 1, 2; so legalizing them would not raise health care costs significantly.

Why is state-sponsored production brought up; just because it is legalwould not mean it is paid for with taxes.

Made various minor changes to remove the implication that state control is the only option with legalization (the same arguments essentially apply to regulation of sale by corporations). Tuf-Kat 04:48, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
Drug use is dangerous to persons besides the user, in the rise of health care costs, violence associated with the use of drugs (1, 2), neglect of children by drug-addicted parents, and other third party effects. Drugs should remain illegal to minimize these effects of drug use.

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

Link one removed. Link two purports to prove that drug legalization would cause an increase in crime -- that is why it is cited. The arguments drug warriors use don't have to make sense in order to be included in the Wikipedia, because our place is not to decide what does or does not make sense, but rather to document what others believe is true. If you would rather augment it with a better link that attempts to make the same claim, go ahead. Tuf-Kat 04:39, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

JeffBobFrank 00:28, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

More removal

I removed this argument:

People will use drugs and burden society regardless of the law. It simply isn't working. The government should enforce strict advertisement laws on all drugs, including tobacco and alcohol and in school teaching drug management to prevent it from becoming addiction as not being as good as abstinence, but being better and safer than unmanaged drug use(which leads to addiction) then few people would use drugs or if they did it'd be occassional, since they wouldn't want to become addicted. This solution would cost society a lot less in total monetary expenses than the amount of money it takes to police drugs now.

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.

When people go to jail for drugs they are likely to be angry and begin using drugs when they get out and putting them in prison for life in order to prevent them from using drugs would make no sense either since life would obviously be worse than if they were free and using drugs.

I also removed:

We could say that the War on Drugs is working if the number of users is decreasing. We cannot say the War on Drugs is working because the jails are full of drug users. That's irrelevant.

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)


Talk Page

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)

Almost the whole section you removed was written entirely by me and was not an argument occurring in the article space. Arguments for/against this war were in the appropriate section, and did not draw any conclusions about whether or not drugs are a good thing. In any case, you apparently feel that you have a better plan to organize the information here and have started by removing the replies -- what is your plan? Tuf-Kat 17:58, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)
My suggestion is that we write rational, balanced paragraphs giving the pros and cons of the war on drugs. If it's impossible to agree a wording then write two sections, one giving pro reasons one anti, but both NPOV. In the last report write what each side thinks, and each admit that that is what the other side thinks, no matter how irrational or mistaken you think they are. I'm sorry if some of the lines I removed more lines than you would like, but many of them started with things like "No it isn't". DJ Clayworth 20:41, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I fail to see how a paragraph that says "supporters believe X" but "critics believe y" will be more simple or neutral than using indentation. Neither method changes the information given, but indenting it makes it clear at a glance who believes what.
Many of the arguments do begin with "no, it isn't". That will not substantially change in paragraph form, unless prefixed by some vague "critics claim that", which many Wikipedians will no doubt claim is not neutral and wishy-washy. The reason they begin with "No, it isn't" is because the arguments for and against the drug war concern both factuality and morality. People actually do argue whether legalizing drugs will increase or decrease violent crime, and they respond to their opponents' arguments by saying "No, it isn't".
The below is how I see paragraphs looking under your proposal -- confusing, contradictory and inherently biased (note: I didn't bother moving the external links into the paragraph -- it probably wouldn't change the neutrality or clarity, and they might wind up being removed anyway because external links are generally considered bad form in ordinary text). Tuf-Kat 04:56, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
Many critics of the drug war claim that it is hypocritical because only certain drugs, even relatively harmless ones like cannabis, are prohibited while dangerous alcohol and tobacco products are generally tolerated; critics often point to aspirin, legally and cheaply available to anyone across much of the globe, which is responsible for more deaths than prohibited cannabis. In contrast, supporters of the drug war point out that not all drugs need be legalized because some are, and that legal recreational drugs like alcohol, tobacco and caffeine have been used for millennia and are an accepted part of human culture, while their opponents claim that drugs like psilocybin mushrooms and peyote have been part of Native American cultures since our recorded knowledge of them; cannabis has been used for centuries; coca leaves, from which cocaine is derived, have been part of South American culture since recorded history; and opium has been in use for at least two thousand years. Indeed, critics of the drug war often claim, drugs like psilocybin and cannabis are easily used with little preparation beyond drying and have probably been used longer than alcohol, which requires knowledge of fermentation and significant time. The only prohibited drugs, critics of the drug war claim, that have not been part of human culture for centuries or millennia are recently invented drugs like LSD and MDMA, and even they have naturally-occurring counterparts in LSA and MDMA which may have been used in the past. Supporters of the drug war also point out that legal drugs like aspirin and alcohol have legitimate uses, though critics point out that many or most illegal drugs also have legitimate uses in medicine or spirituality, though prohibition has hindered research, making definitive conclusions impossible.
My whole point is that you can put the same information in a way that does not sound like two people yelling at each other. I'm not objecting to the content; nor am I objecting to the use of indentation. I'm objecting to the fact that this article read like an argument. People don't come to an encyclopedia for that; they come for the basic facts on an issue, seen from both sides. We don't have to convince them, remember; they can make their own minds up. What is there now is much better, by the way. DJ Clayworth 14:47, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
What is there now is an invitation for an edit war because it presents only one side to an argument. It is perhaps easier to read, but is less neutral and contains less information. Go ahead and make the changes that you want, though, maybe you will convince me. Tuf-Kat 05:12, Apr 8, 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)

Those issues are as separable as Siamese twins, circa 1950. In reality, they're all intertwined. The approach to arguments in this article isn't perfect, but the only facet I would change is that there needs to be a limit to the depth of argument nesting. In particular, have the first level for the argument, second level for counter-argument(s), then the third level for rebuttal(s). -- Stevietheman 05:10, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reverted Edit

In "Arguments in favor of the War on Drugs", I posted a counter-argument:

  • Drug dealers will sell to anyone, including children. Merchants who legally sell alcohol and tobacco are not allowed to sell to children. Many high school students report that it is easier to obtain blanket illegal drugs than alcohol and tobacco. Hence, legalizing drugs will help keep more dangerous and addictive drugs from minors, for whom the deleterious effects are greater 1.
    • Legalizing drugs will send a message to children that drug use is acceptable.
      • This is no more true than saying that the legal status of weapons sends a message to children that murder is acceptable.
        • This comparison is faulty because legalized gun ownership does not simultaneously legalize or condone murder.

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:

"The impressions laws give children can be ignored for a moment. The comparison, based on the statement "if it's legal it's okay," seems faulty to me because gun ownership is generally legal and murder is not. Legalizing drug use will, by definition, cause drug use to be tolerated by the government. Gun ownership being legal, however, does not make murder acceptable in the eyes of the law. Murder is not a victimless crime, drug use is."

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)

Please post revisions to the article itself (click view article, then "edit this page"). You edited the section on this page (at the top), which has been removed by DJ Clayworth. You can read our discussion above, where I argued against the removal. You could put this counter-argument in the article, except that all counter-arguments have been removed in a discussion that seems to have died. I may reinstate the counter-arguments (the section you edited above, at the top of this page), but I can't understand the point of yours.
  • Legalizing drug use will protect minors
    • But, legalizing drug use will appear to condone drug use
      • But, legal guns don't appear to condone murder
        • Your argument is placed here, but appears to simply repeat the argument above it. It's position would indicate it is an argument against "legal guns don't appear to condone murder", but it actually restates the same thing, as far as I can see.
Tuf-Kat 07:20, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
"Legal guns don't appear to condone murder" is an accurate statement. However, this is simply because gun ownership is legal and murder is not. The analogy is inaccurate because if drug use were legal, drug use would be acceptable in the government's eyes. Gun legalization doesn't make murder acceptable.
The child (or adult) in the argument is apparently one who will excercise all possible rights while refusing to break the law under any circumstances. If some currently-illegal drugs were legalized in the U.S., this hypothetical person would buy guns, use legal drugs, drive the speed limit, pay their taxes, etc, but they wouldn't murder anybody because the law would still say "murder is wrong."
Of course, the "model citizen" who so blindly complies with the government's suggested behavior has deeper problems than possible drug addiction. I'm simply pointing out what I think is a fatally weak point in the counter-argument "legal guns don't appear to condone murder."
Elembis 19:42, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I understand now. How about the phrasing The comparison between murder and drug abuse is faulty because murder remains illegal no matter the legal status of weapons used to commit it, whereas nobody argues for legalizing occasional, recreational drug use but prohibiting dangerous addictive drug abuse. It's a bit clunky, but is more clear, I think.
Of course, all the counter-arguments are still not in the article... Tuf-Kat 03:40, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)
Or perhaps "This comparison is faulty because murder is illegal regardless of the legal status of gun ownership. Gun ownership and murder are two separate legal issues, drug use is currently not." The comparison is obviously between murder and drug abuse, so that part can be left out.
I'd have edited the original article had these counter-arguments been there. Personally, I'm afraid including them would make the article far less neutral, and I think people should be able to draw their own conclusions past the first level of arguments.
Elembis 20:20, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)
I'm fine with the proposed wording. I wouldn't have removed it except i both didn't understand it and it was an edit to something that had been removed from the article and was under discussion -- that's generally considered bad principle because others can't make an informed decision about whether the removed bit should have been removed if the bit has been changed since the removal... Doesn't really apply in this case, since the content of the bit was not disputed, only the format, but since it also didn't make sense, I removed it. Tuf-Kat 06:01, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I've put it back in the list. I wasn't sufficiently aware of the debate about including/excluding the counter-arguments, I'll be more careful next time. Thanks for talking it out. Elembis 06:52, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)


Reinstatement

I have reinstated the counter-arguments in the article, for reasons mentioned above. Tuf-Kat 05:04, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think counter-arguments belong in the article. Encyclopedias should present information on controversial subjects without stating why one stance is better than the other, but the list currently reads something like "supporters have these misguided opinions, while critics use the following sound arguments." Let the readers decide which side is correct. Elembis 00:01, 2004 May 9 (UTC)
My feeling is that the reader can't come to an informed conclusion unless both arguments and counter-arguments are presented. This article doesn't claim that any stance is better than another -- it present opinions attributed to those who hold them. If you'd rather rewrite it in some other format, go ahead, but valid information on objections to arguments for and against the drug war should remain. Tuf-Kat 07:20, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

Information Campaigns, or Propaganda?

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.

JesseG 04:53, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Any chance of a link to a less ambiguous description of what's in the ads?

Jherico 22:33, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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?

JesseG 03:19, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)