Jump to content

Talk:Federal drug policy of the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SalomeCzapiewski (talk | contribs) at 22:43, 2 February 2022 (→Abrupt and odd introduction: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

POV

I don't have to say this often, but this article is very slanted. To put it bluntly, it looks like it was written by a bunch of potheads.

  • Why does the introduction talk about "War on Drugs" rather than a general introduction to US drug policy and comparison to other countries?
  • What is the part about "making room for drug inmates" doing in the introduction?
  • "Drug use has increased in all categories since prohibition" is the first sentence in the Effects section.
  • Both the figures have a clear slant.
  • "Regardless of public opinion, marijuana could be the single most targeted drug in the drug war."
  • The NRC study appears to be cherry-picked to support the editors opinions.

--Apoc2400 (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started to rework this article -- I've removed some of the unsourced statements you mentioned above, and have moved most of the content into more appropriate articles. This article needs a heavy re-write. It should actually cover drug policy -- laws, official statements, sentencing laws, etc. Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It still feels very slanted, it shouldn't be an opinion piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rukh (talk • contribs) 15:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the section was called "Effects." Is it effects of drug policy or overview of dug policy? I think it's an overview, at least right now. Policydude (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At http://www.indymedia.org/en/2011/05/948461.shtml is an article claiming that "The reversal of the onus of proof in drug-possession cases is incompatible with the rule of law and is therefore automatically and irredeemably unconstitutional in all jurisdictions." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.158.2 (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raising POV and calling people potheads in the same breath is ridiculous, and does nothing to advance the page.Ninahexan (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppy

This article is so sloppy I couldn't even find where the article supports the title.

Fixed the Grammar errors

  • I cleaned up the atrocious grammar in this little mess, and even threw in a few links and facts; however, the info in this article in my opinion, would be more appropriate as a "Chapter" in an article named: "Federal drug policy of the United States". The article doesn't tell you anything about the Federal drug policy of the USA; it's just ramblings, and random facts that are at least now readable and make some grammatical sense, but still Ramblings just the same. I helped it out a bit, but I'm not the man to write the article. I don't have enough knowledge resource on the subject to pull it off. Pocketthis (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When this article went south

In further review, it would seem to me that the article had merit at one time; not withstanding it's obvious Grammar horrors. However, they could have been fixed. Instead some editor removed over 22,000 characters from this article without any Bot or member stepping in to revert it. Here is a C&P of the edits in question:

(cur | prev) 08:39, 6 February 2010‎ Jrtayloriv (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,596 bytes) (-1,192)‎ . . (moving to War on Drugs -- these are not "policies" -- they are statistics on the War on Drugs) (undo) (cur | prev) 08:36, 6 February 2010‎ Jrtayloriv (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,788 bytes) (-370)‎ . . (remove stupid comment about how only mexicans and jazz musicians used marijuana) (undo) (cur | prev) 08:27, 6 February 2010‎ Jrtayloriv (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,158 bytes) (-896)‎ . . (remove unsourced statements) (undo) (cur | prev) 08:07, 6 February 2010‎ AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,054 bytes) (+144)‎ . . (Rescuing orphaned refs ("dupoint" from rev 342256064)) (undo) (cur | prev) 07:56, 6 February 2010‎ Jrtayloriv (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,910 bytes) (-12,357)‎ . . (moved timeline to History of United States drug prohibition) (undo) (cur | prev) 07:48, 6 February 2010‎ Jrtayloriv (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,267 bytes) (-1,850)‎ . . (already covered in War on Drugs, and fall within the time period of that article's scope ... doing cleanup here, before rewriting article to cover current policy in the U.S.) (undo) (cur | prev) 07:41, 6 February 2010‎ Jrtayloriv (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,117 bytes) (-2,256)‎ . . (this is already covered in "War on Drugs" and is related exclusively to programs that are part of that -- removing) (undo) (cur | prev) 07:13, 6 February 2010‎ Jrtayloriv (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,373 bytes) (-1,034)‎ . . (removing irrelevant commentary on War on Drugs ... if everyone is so adamant that these two terms are different (see talk), then why is most of the lead on "war on drugs") (undo) (cur | prev) 07:07, 6 February 2010‎ Jrtayloriv (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,407 bytes) (-859)‎ . . (remove uncited paragraph -- this article needs MAJOR revamp ...) (undo) (cur | prev) 07:03, 6 February 2010‎ Jrtayloriv (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,266 bytes) (-596)‎ . . (remove uncited comments) (undo)

The removed items were the body and soul of the article. I'm not saying it was vandalism per-say, but it sure didn't show much respect for the time the author spent putting this together and referencing everything. His only sin........He had no clue as to proper grammar and wording; and I think he may have gotten a bit emotional with his POV a bit too often. However, it was savable. Pocketthis (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Bias

This article suffers from severe anti-federal and anti-drug bias. IT needs a lot more references! Boilingorangejuice (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Policy beginning to relax in new Millennium

Very biased toward pro-drug legalization. Should be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.16.17 (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph on Contra-cocaine charges removed

I have removed the following paragraph from the article

Secretly, many senior officials of the Reagan administration illegally trained and armed the Nicaraguan Contras, who were funded by the shipment of large quantities of cocaine into the United States using U.S. government aircraft and U.S. military facilities.[1][2] Funding for the Contras was also obtained through the illegal sale of weaponry to Iran.[3][4] When this practice was discovered and condemned in the media, it was referred to as the Iran–Contra affair.

The sources for these claims are the George Washington University National Security Archive, Cockburn and St. Clair's book Whiteout, and New York Times excerpts from the indepent counsel's Iran-Contra Report. The Iran-Contra report mentions nothing about Contra drug smuggling and is irrelevant to the article. Whiteout's chapters on Contra smuggling are largely a repetition of Gary Webb's "Dark Alliance" series with some errors and inaccuracies. The NS Archive materials do deal with some smuggling claims, but are not adequate for actual smuggling and quantities of cocaine, say nothing about the use of US government aircraft or U.S. military facilities, and do not reflect the results of the federal investigations undertaken after Webb's "Dark Alliance" was published (the Archive materials were were compiled in 1996-7, before these investigations had issued their reports). In addition to the inadequacies of the sources, the relevance of these claims to the issues of federal drug policy in the United States is low. Hence the deletion. Rgr09 (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The Contras, Cocaine, and Covert Operations / Documentation of Official U.S. Knowledge of Drug Trafficking and the Contras". The National Security Archive, The George Washington University. Retrieved July 22, 2006. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |curl= (help)
  2. ^ Cockburn, Alexander; Jeffrey St. Clair (1998). Whiteout, the CIA, Drugs and the Press. New York: Verso. ISBN 1-85984-258-5.
  3. ^ "The Contras, Cocaine, and U.S. Covert Operations". Retrieved January 24, 2016.
  4. ^ "Excerpts From the Iran-Contra Report: A Secret Foreign Policy". The New York Times.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Federal drug policy of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abrupt and odd introduction

Hey there everyone.

Does anyone else think that the very first paragraphs of this article are... strange? Out of place? Kind of unrelated to the topic at hand, even? It's certainly disjointed, if nothing else. The whole article is all over the goddamned place, but if we're gonna start somewhere, the introduction really ought to be made cohesive.

Also, how the hell is the Controlled Substances Act never once mentioned??

I'm just gonna go ahead and put a { { multiple issues } } in there. Goodness gracious!

SalomeCzapiewski (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Federal_drug_policy_of_the_United_States&oldid=1069559985"