Talk:Arguments for and against drug prohibition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Archive for 2 September 2006 and before Archive for 1 September 2006 through 24 September 2006

Contents 1 Increased popularity of inhalants and more accessible drugs 2 Splitting and general reorganizing 3 Unjust drug laws and enforcement 4 Validity of Debating Drug Policy 5 Phosgene/Phosphine 6 Constitutional Issues 7 Citations? 8 Non-NPOV article 9 Reorganization of arguments against prohibition 10 Unequal proportions 11 this part didn't make any sense to me 12 Legal Alternatives Section 13 Forbidding drugs can romanticize them

[edit] Increased popularity of inhalants and more accessible drugs

I edited the first sentence because it was a run-on, as well as added some commas to make it more readable. This section needs to add some examples, such as what a "safer drug" might be that would replace use of inhalants. This section could use some work. The post-script added by whomever wrote that section is right and wrong; it is messy yes, but it's also not very informative.

[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)

[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)

[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)

[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.

[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)