Talk:Drug liberalization/Archive 1

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


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)
Shrimp consumption promotes imperaliasm? Well, shit. I thought they were a good alternative to eating more sentient meat. I guess I'll have to wait for the sustainability movement to come to shrimp farming. Or for vat meat. Geez. —63.249.110.34 (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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

— recounted by Terence McKenna

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)
  • Due to lack of any further discussion over the last ten months I will now remove the 'merge' tag from both articles concerned.--Aspro (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

Links removed

I removed these links which appeared rather randomly in the middle of the article. If worthwhile, they should be external links.

Transform Drug Policy Foundation

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

Voluntary Committee of Lawyers

Richard W.M. Jones (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Tag

A tag has appeared without any explanation as to what part of the article it is referring to. “This article or section reads like a news release, or is otherwise written in an overly promotional tone.” I don't see what it's getting at; nor why we should be thought off as being psychic, so if after a month there is no movement I will just delete it likewise without comment. --Aspro (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Portugal

I am suprised that the experiences of Portugal, which decriminalised all drugs in 2001 are not covered here. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the info's been put in. Here's another link, a BBC story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8106689.stm User:AniRaptor2001 22:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Article vs. legalization

I just found this article vs. legalization. It concerns USA but the health care costs may be be representative of a possible trend in other nations: [1] BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Eres un pen...dejo la palabra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.225.8.49 (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Czech

Info about Czech is presented a way that many might misunderstand this. Here is more info:

Czech Drug Laws: Interpreting the new rules on drug possessio http://www.expats.cz/prague/article/czech-culture/czech-drug-laws/

New Czech Drug Law Fuels Cannabis Confusion http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2010/04/new_czech_drug_law_fuels_cannabis_confusion.php

Changes in the Czech drug-related legislation (2010) http://www.drogy-info.cz/index.php/english/changes_in_the_czech_drug_related_legislation_2010

The new law allows to fine people much easily and even for small amount of soft drugs possession can result fine over 500 euros. Not as liberal as it sounds by current "new law that took effect on January 1, 2010, and allows a person to possess up to 15 grams of marijuana or 1.5 grams of heroin without facing criminal charges. These amounts are higher (often many times) than in any other European country, making the Czech Republic the most liberal country in the world when it comes to drug liberalization"

Before the new law situation was much more liberal according to locals who i have spoken.

Waffa 15:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waffa (talk • contribs)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Drug liberalization → Drug decriminalization – Cannot move myself as the proposed move currently redirects here. The term "decriminalization" is the common, accepted usage among law enforcement, politicians and drug policy advocates, and indeed the article itself reflects this. "Liberalization" is certainly much more rarely used and should therefore be the redirect. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 20:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. A more informative and focused term, widely used and understood. NoeticaTea? 01:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose unless the article is to be only about drug decriminalization. If it is to be about other forms of drug liberalization, such as legalization, it should remain where it is. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I see your point, but that's a really weird thing about coverage of drug policy on Wikipedia - legalisation, or "control and regulation", as it's more commonly known should be an article in it's own right, and both should be covered by drug policy reform, which it wasn't until I edited it this afternoon. This article should be about the removal of criminal penalties for drug possession, which is what decriminalisation/liberalisation is - why on earth it's become some hybrid of the two that should actually be in drug policy reform, I have no idea. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 03:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, if the focus of this article is going to be decriminalization then the move is fine. I was simply pointing out that the current title should be kept if it covers both. If the material on delegalization is covered elsewhere like you suggest and this article is amended (the intro anyway) then strike my objection. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
My intention, assuming that there are no other editors wanting to get involved, is to move all of the information on legalisation from this article into an article on legalisation, tidy this one, and then link them both to drug policy reform, which should be the wider topic. There's a very confusing mess of articles on drug law reform on Wikipedia, and this is an initial step towards proper categorisation. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 13:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Decriminalisation is but one facet of liberalisation. This article seems to be about a wider topic, so moving isn't a good idea. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Please see conversation above. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 13:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Right, I made that rename proposal, and I have been involved in drug law reform for three years, let me show how I think this article categorisation should go:


Primary topic
Drugs
Secondary topics of Drugs
Drug policy reform History of prohibition Drug laws around the world
Secondary topics of Drug policy reform
Drug decriminalisation Drug legalisation Harm reduction
Related topics to drug decriminalisation
Timeline of drug policy reform List of countries with the death penalty for drug use and dealing Effects of drug decriminalisation

Drug liberalisation is an article that should exist - as drug decriminalisation. I don't know who wrote the original article, but it seems clear to me that the content of the article should be transferred to either drug policy reform, or into the newly created drug decriminalisation and drug legalisation, the non-existence of which is an absolute travesty for an encyclopaedia with over two million articles.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Drug liberalization not increasing drug additiction

In the article at Economics - Prices and consumption, it is noted that it is likely that a decrease in cost would increase drug consumption. However, it says nothing about drug addiction. For example, the Universiteit van Tilburg, US Institute of Medicine and Rand Drug Policy Research Center have concluded in reports that legalising drugs would not increase drug addiction.[1] Perhaps that the reports do mention (I haven't read thme) that consumption would go up, but I assume most people would only stick to soft drugs (ie cannabis, ...) and probably also consume in a controlled way (portion control).

Rate of interception

Only 5 to 10% of the illegally produced drugs are actually intercepted. Despite this, the war on drugs has costed the USA in the last 40 years a total of 1 trillion US dollars.[2]

Perhaps include in text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.178.137 (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Impact on anti-tobacco laws

One aspect that might be worth discussing here or in a related article is the fact that while some jurisdictions are moving towards liberalizing/decriminalizing drug laws, other jurisdictions are moving the opposite direction with regards to tobacco smoking (bans on use in public, pushes for cigarettes to be declared controlled substances, controls on use of cigarettes near minors, making it illegal to sell cigarettes in any store with a pharamacy, etc). Anecdotally I have heard that the legalization of cannabis and the allowance of its use in public places (or even "membership-based" places) could result in tobacco smoking-control bylaws unravelling or at least being challenged in court, and that the potential prohibition that some advocate regarding tobacco (and to a lesser extent liquor) could basically create a status quo scenario regarding the "war on drugs" (in other words the Mexican drug gangs would simply switch to dealing with tobacco). I've also heard people use the massive death tolls from tobacco and alcohol use as justification for anti-legalization stances for other drugs. And not long ago I was reading media in Canada about how traffic and criminal laws regarding driving under the influence might need to be revised to deal with people driving under the influence of cannabis (since breathalyzers are only for alcohol). All this is anecdotal - which is why I'm not adding any of this to the article. But I do think it's worth touching on - the potential impact of legalization on other ongoing harm reduction/elimination strategies - if there are sources available to back up some of the the hearsay. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

See the point your getting at. The best options I have come across, is that as laid out in After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation. It is based on good research. What some think the Mexican drug gangs would do next etc., , is simply fear mongering by those who just pontificate, as that is easier, than taking the time to study the whole picture. So, with respect, I can't see any reason to include your suggestions that we should include their crystal -ball gazing. Wikipedia:CRYSTALBALL#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball--Aspro (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

updated global drug income

Gave more up to date and specific numbers for global drug income, also added more sources.

Lmoriarty1091 (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Drug liberalization. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Kijk magazine, 7, 2012
  2. ^ Kijk magazine, 7, 2012
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Drug_liberalization/Archive_1&oldid=1079215554"