Talk:War on drugs/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2021 — 21st Century portion of History section

I'd like to add substantive changes to the 21st Century portion of the History section. I will paste my proposed edits below (along with corresponding sources).

ADD: In the early 21st Century, the War on Drugs began being referred to as: “The New Jim Crow.” This mentality was further popularized by lawyer and civil rights advocate Michelle Alexander, who wrote “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness” in 2010.

At the turn of the century, incarceration rates in the United States disproportionately consisted of African-American men, according to an article from the [Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)]. In 2001: “The number of black men in prison (792,000) [had] already equaled the number of men enslaved in 1820. With the current momentum of the drug war fueling an ever expanding prison-industrial complex, if current trends continue, only 15 years remain before the United States incarcerates as many African-American men as were forced into chattel bondage at slavery's peak, in 1860.”

ADJUST THIS PARAGRAPH: add description to beginning of paragraph and omit last sentence due to irrelevance An international group, comprised of former Heads of State and Government, called the Global Commission on Drug Policy released a report on June 2, 2011, stating that "The global war on drugs has failed."[61] The commission was made up of 22 self-appointed members including a number of prominent international politicians and writers. Former U.S. Surgeon General Regina Benjamin also released the first ever National Prevention Strategy.[62]

ADD: According to historian Elizabeth Hinton, President Reagan was a strong proponent of criminalizing drug users during his presidency in the 1980s. She writes: “Reagan led Congress in criminalizing drug users, especially African American drug users, by concentrating and stiffening penalties for the possession of the crystalline rock form of cocaine, known as “crack,” rather than the crystallized methamphetamine that White House officials recognized was as much of a problem among low-income white Americans.”

Though Reagan was a Republican, support for his crime legislation was bipartisan. According to Hinton, Democrats supported his legislation as they had since the Johnson administration.

During his time in office, President Obama implemented a “tough but smart” approach to the War on Drugs. While he claimed that his methodology differed from those of previous presidents, in reality, his practices were very similar. He promoted a universal drug issue, but his binary “tough but smart” solution maintained the mentality of criminalizing drug offenders.

Obama opposed terminology such as “War on Drugs,” but did not take significant steps toward legalization or decriminalization. Rather, drug reform of the Obama era revolved around seeking treatment.

After the paragraph ending with "supporting people to live a life free of addiction."[65]" ADD:

A 2013 ACLU report declared the anti-marijuana crusade a “war on people of color.” The report found: “African Americans 3.73 times more likely than whites to be apprehended despite nearly identical usage rates, and marijuana violations accounting for more than half of drug arrests nationwide during the previous decade.”

In a manner of speaking, Obama’s “tough but smart” binary approach to the War on Drugs stunted its own progress. On one hand, nonwhite drug offenders received less excessive criminal sanctions, but on the other, by examining criminals as strictly violent or nonviolent, mass incarceration persisted.

After the short paragraph "In March 2016 the International Narcotics Control Board stated that the International Drug Control treaties do not mandate a "war on drugs".[66]" ADD:

According to 2020 articles from the ACLU and the New York Times, Republicans and Democrats agree that the time has come to end the War on Drugs. While on the presidential campaign trail, Joe Biden claimed that he would take the necessary steps to alleviate the war on drugs and end the opioid crisis.

On Dec. 4, 2020, the House of Representatives passed a major marijuana reform bill, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act (H.R. 3884; S. 2227), which decriminalizes marijuana by removing it from the list of scheduled substances. Additionally, according to the ACLU, it “expunges past convictions and arrests, and taxes marijuana to reinvest in communities targeted by the war on drugs.” The MORE Act decriminalizes marijuana, and removes it from the list of substances under the Controlled Substances Act. The MORE Act was received in the Senate in December 2020.

Over time, states in the US have approached the matter of drug liberalization at various paces. For example, as of December 2020, Oregon became the first US state to decriminalize all drugs, in an effort backed by the ACLU. The state government’s response has shifted from a criminal approach to a public health approach.

Based on ideology from modern political scientists and economic theorists, some contend the War on Drugs has persisted as a way to facilitate the deregulation of free economic markets through its methods of mass incarceration. MEL830 (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

References

@MEL830:  Partly done. I clarified the sentence about the National Prevention Plan and did a few copyedits and added some wikilinks to related articles. Details on Reagan's administration were added in neighbouring sections. The phrasing of certain sections would need to be tweaked however I did some preliminary changes. It is rather ACLU-heavy, so some WP:NPOV edits may be needed. TGHL ↗ 🍁 04:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Racial aspects and support

This article is making it look like the War on Drugs was some big plot against black America. But anyone familiar with the history of this knows that black leaders (at least) have strongly supported the drug war from day one. (Here is a good piece on this: [1]. ) Doesn't matter if we are talking Jesse Jackson, Charlie Rangle, Shirley Chisholm (who voted for Nixon's drug legislation), or whoever....opposition to this was sporadic in the black community until decades later.

That's ridiculous to say because some black politicians, and perhaps political writers, supported prohibition, that it wasn't controversial in the black community. This is show by USE of the substance in the community, rather than empty words by people with political agendas. In context, the lack of "opposition" can be explained as black politicians wanting to use the leverage of anti-drug support to gain support for black rights, including voting rights, from white politicians who are interested in keeping the status quo. -Anon

We aren't talking some black politicians.....we are talking just about all of them. I can't think of any prominent black politician that (for about the first 20 years of the drug war) said they were against the war. In fact, in many instances, they were pushing for it and stronger penalities. (Along with a lot of prominent activists.) Here is a good piece from a RS that details it: [2] There is no getting away from this despite whatever turn has been made over the last 20.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I also have to question this statement: "The War on Drugs has been a highly contentious issue since its inception." Almost all the info cited is very much in the last decade or so. This is PRESENTISM (big time). It wasn't until about the last decade or so that public support even for weed legalization got above one-third: [3].

Note, illegal drug dealers of all races, and even those on the periphery of the trade(small time) would ALSO be against legalization. Decriminalization puts them out of business. Also showing communities don't want, specifically, cannabis legalized, is entirely tangential to the "War on Drugs", which is very much about enforcement, not legalization. -Anon

All this may need some work.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

No Rjal12ww33. Just because some black leaders supported this, doesn't mean it wasn't part of a racist policy. Fact is that these black leaders weren't in charge of policy, and Christian conservatives of all races also tend to be anti-cannabis. The facts are that almost exclusively "white" politicians made these laws and overwhelmingly white law enforcement officers used claims of "smelling weed" as an excuse to raid and seize and search black communities and Hispanic communities. Note Congress used the Mexican slang term "Marijuana" in drafting legislation, because white communities were familiar with the terms "cannabis" and "hemp", as generally non-psychoactive, but still medicinal products. The different name was used to get support of racists(perhaps racism of some blacks against Hispanics as well, consider that!). To deny that language wasn't aimed as racist policy is ridiculous. The idea that racist policies against Mexicans and other Hispanics wasn't also aimed at the black community is also difficult to accept.

I respect your idea that cannabis is harmful and perhaps sometimes addicting. But just because you and any black leaders who you want to namedrop stood against cannabis use, doesn't mean the INTENT of white-controlled government wasn't specifically racist. -Anon

This isn't about what I believe (and I actually favor complete drug legalization (all of them) since you are asking)....this is about what RS shows and how to improve the article in terms of accuracy.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

IEA a belligerent?

Why are they listed as a belligerent against the U.S? It's not like they're fighting the efforts of the war on drugs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.10.101 (talk) 12:56, September 20, 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Drug victory

Several news outlets have called a de facto drugs victory, among them the New York Times, Esquire, Forbes, and Vice. If drugs have functionally won the war despite a lack of surrender from the US, I believe this should be referenced in the infobox. CJ-Moki (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aaa033.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: MayoStephanie.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Row sal.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Using the infobox military conflict

This was somewhat inspired by the thread started by CJ-Moki but I believe we should remove the "military conflict" infobox. It's entirely possible the War on Drugs will end with an American "loss". In that scenario, who are we going to say won? The drug traffickers? Or the abstract concept of recreational usage of drugs? Or has the collection of inanimate objects that we characterize as "drugs" won this war? Can an inanimate object win a war? I doubt Wikipedia editors will accept any of these options and so we might as well remove the infobox now if it isn't possible for one side to really win. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with removal. It is as silly as having a box like that on the "War on Terror"...will that ever said to have been won? ---Avatar317^(talk) 04:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2022

For this paragraph: Although Nixon declared "drug abuse" to be public enemy number one in 1971,[45] the policies that his administration implemented as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 were a continuation of drug prohibition policies in the U.S., which started in 1914.[43][46]

Citations 43 and 46 do not support the statement that come before it. I read and reviewed both of them. Defaydesigns (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Ive read them myself, and i can confirm neither of themm ention them as being "a continuation of drug prohibition policies in the U.S., which started in 1914". Ive gone ahead and moved the citations earlier in the text, as they could still have value, and added a {{citation needed}} to the ending statement. Aidan9382 _(talk) 18:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Some critiques about this article

1. I think this article should add some information about why drugs were being absued globally and within U.S. If this is a war on drugs, then we need to explore the true reason and logic behind drug abuse issue. The article covers practical actions against drugs and the consequence of these actions. It did not answer one fundamental question: Why people are using drugs? Is there any interest group is intentionally misleading people to abuse drugs because of the tremendous profits of this industry? Are people abusing drugs because they are trying to escape from the reality which they were suffering but did not have the ability to change. For example, the article mentions wars and actions in Vietnam. The soliders were using heroins during and after the war. There should be more information about why it becomes a problem. What is the relationship between drug abuse and veterans'psychic trauma? Some veterans did not receive appropriate social support and insurance after the war. Could that be a reson why soldiers abused drugs? What is the relationship between the lack of social resources and drug abuse. We should add a new section and explore the logic behind drug abuse. Otherwise all the actions mentioned in the article are suppression rather than the solution.

2. Some information can be updated. In the section of "Alternatives", the article talks about promoting regulations rathe than punishments might be an effective way to solve the problem. Most of the data and information come from 2004. It is 2022 now and both U.S. and Canada have already carried out legal drug injection point for drug addicts as regulation. For example, in November 2021, New York city has opened the first injection site. We can update more infomatino about his part. What are the pros and cons of injection site? Is it against ethics? Is the death rate of drug addicts and drug-related criminal activities going up or down? How should the society balance between regulation and punishment? These are all meaingfull questions.

3. One of the most important global even recently is COVID-19. I think the article can explore drug abuse problem during the pandemic years. Also, the part of "Efficacy" should be updated. The latest information inlcuded in the article is from 2014. And one picture about the death of overdose up until 2019. How about the recent three years. Is the death rate going up or down? What are the new-type drugs in recent years? What is the relationship between COVID-19 and drug abuse rate? One a drug addict receive COVID vaccines, what will happen?--Zebang Chen (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)ZebangChenucsd(Talk)10:47,25 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebang Chen (talk • contribs)

  I think this article should add some information about why drugs were being absued globally and within U.S. If this is a war on drugs, then we need to explore the true reason and logic behind drug abuse issue. The article covers practical actions against drugs and the consequence of these actions. It did not answer one fundamental question: Why people are using drugs? Is there any interest group is intentionally misleading people to abuse drugs because of the tremendous profits of this industry? Are people abusing drugs because they are trying to escape from the reality which they were suffering but did not have the ability to change. For example, the article mentions wars and actions in Vietnam. The soliders were using heroins during and after the war. There should be more information about why it becomes a problem. What is the relationship between drug abuse and veterans'psychic trauma? Some veterans did not receive appropriate social support and insurance after the war. Could that be a reson why soldiers abused drugs? What is the relationship between the lack of social resources and drug abuse. We should add a new section and explore the logic behind drug abuse. Otherwise all the actions mentioned in the article are suppression rather than the solution.
  Some information can be updated. In the section of "Alternatives", the article talks about promoting regulations rathe than punishments might be an effective way to solve the problem. Most of the data and information come from 2004. It is 2022 now and both U.S. and Canada have already carried out legal drug injection point for drug addicts as regulation. For example, in November 2021, New York city has opened the first injection site. We can update more infomatino about his part. What are the pros and cons of injection site? Is it against ethics? Is the death rate of drug addicts and drug-related criminal activities going up or down? How should the society balance between regulation and punishment? These are all meaingfull questions.
  One of the most important global even recently is COVID-19. I think the article can explore drug abuse problem during the pandemic years. Also, the part of "Efficacy" should be updated. The latest information inlcuded in the article is from 2014. And one picture about the death of overdose up until 2019. How about the recent three years. Is the death rate going up or down? What are the new-type drugs in recent years? What is the relationship between COVID-19 and drug abuse rate? One a drug addict receive COVID vaccines, what will happen?--Zebang Chen (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)ZebangChenucsd(Talk)10:47,25 April 2022 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebang Chen (talk • contribs)  

Relevance, Neutrality, and Citation

1. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Under the history section the author writes “In fiction, Conan Doyle portrayed the hero, Sherlock Holmes, as a cocaine addict”. Although the author was providing context and background information on how drugs came about in the U.S. I thought this fact was unnecessary and irrelevant to the history of drug use in the 19th century. It doesn’t fit well into what this section is attempting to address and the informative style of this article. The article would be better without this sentence. For the most part, all the sections seem to align well this the topic. There is a lot to cover within this topic so I appreciate how everything was sub-sectioned. I do think some of the history and other topics overlap and repeat each other, especially the parts covering racial disparities and incarceration.

2. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? In the History section: 20th century, the author includes a quote from John Ehrlichman speaking about how the war on drugs was never about the drugs but about finding an easy alternative to justify the mass incarceration of hippies and black folks. This quote is useful in that it gives the readers a different perspective on the war on drugs, but fails to offer any additional context or analysis of the quote. In addition, the quote is from an article written by Vox Media an opinion and news website. The original article title “Nixon Official: Real Reason for the Drug War Was to Criminalize Black People and Hippies” was a very biased article making assumptions about what government officials were thinking and taking their words out of context. This article and website are not reliable or credible sources to be used in an informative piece about the War on Drugs. Even though the author didn’t directly say anything about the quote, I felt like the quote was directing me towards a certain side of the controversial issue. After reading the article in total I feel like there are some slight biases. I agree that the War on Drugs was never a public health concern but rather a racially motivated movement. However, with that being said I don’t think it's appropriate to reflect those ideas into an informative piece. I don’t think the piece is heavily biased but examples like the quote above insinuate that the author might be taking a side.

3.Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? The article itself already has comments saying certain citations are missing and they haven’t been updated yet so a fair share of the information is uncalled for. One sentence that stuck out to me was in the 21st-century subsection where the author writes “According to 2020 articles from the ACLU and The New York Times, Republicans and Democrats agreed that the time has come to end the war on drugs”. What articles are they talking about? Who agreed to what? This sentence is super vague and unclear. It gives the reader no actual source to pull from to ensure that what we are being told is true. Fatimamac12 (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Fatima Maciel

4. Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? The last sentence of the "permanent underclass creation" subsection of the "socioeconomic effects" implies that the sole reasons one might pursue an income in the drug trade lie in one's circumstances as lacking any education or job opportunity. This sentence assumes itself as a fact, although the reference may not be entirely appropriate in the way it was used in the editors argument. The source cited discusses this as a common circumstance, but not the only circumstance. While plagiarism is not an issue to be held in this particular portion of the article, the misconstruing of the words of the cited author could very possibly be a point of concern when evaluating the article's validity. Andymaurer (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)andymaurer (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

5. Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? It can be reasonably contended that some of the sources cited in the article do, in fact, demonstrate some sort of bias. For example, Blumenson, Eric; Eva S. Nilsen (May 16, 2002). "How to construct an underclass, or how the War on Drugs became a war on education" (PDF). Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 22, 2010. Retrieved August 7, 2011., citation 152, discusses some of the negative implications that the war on drugs has created for Americans, but doesn't address many potential opposing arguments to their theses. This signals a certain extent of bias against the general execution of the war on drugs, despite providing reliable supplemental evidence to back their claims. Andymaurer (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)andymaurer (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Some comments: minorly, while I didn't review the article history, this article was likely not written by one author, so the content is the agglomeration and editing of what has been added/deleted to the article over time...so just state: "the article says...."

Neutrality is more complicated than most people think when it comes to Wikipedia: it is NOT representing both sides of some issue equally, but rather, per WP:NPOV: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity."

Vox is considered a Reliable Source per WP:RSP (if you find its entry in the table.)

I agree the Sherlock Holmes quote is rather irrelevant to an overall history of drug usage/legality and could be removed. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Bibliography: Example: Robin S. Engel, Michael R. Smith, Francis T. Cullen (22 November 2012). "Race, Place, and Drug Enforcement: Reconsidering the Impact of Citizen Complaints and Crime Rates on Drug Arrests". Criminology & Public Policy. MinialuceRuiz (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a peer reviewed academic journal, it speaks to both the topics of our course and associates to the War on Drugs. MinialuceRuiz (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Example: Lawless, R. (2004). [Review of The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, Afghanistan, Southeast Asia, Central America, Colombia, 2nd revised ed., by A. W. McCoy]. Journal of Third World Studies, 21(2), 282–284.[1] MinialuceRuiz (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC) This is a peer reviewed security studies journal, published by the University Press of Florida, so it should be reliable. The topics discussed also closely correlate to some of the discussion points in the War on drugs article. MinialuceRuiz (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Example: By James M. Markham (Dec. 23, 1972). Narcotics Corruption Appears Easy and Common. New York Times.[2] MinialuceRuiz (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC) source is from reliable publication and independent of the subject at hand. MinialuceRuiz (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MinialuceRuiz, Zebang Chen (article contribs). — Assignment last updated by Jun3038 (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

"Detentin" possibly mispelled?

Not sure if this is on purpose but in the "Public Support & Opposition" "China" section, it says "detentin" instead of detention. I would edit this myself after checking further but i'm on a new account from a school IP that I had to make and I don't have enough contributions or days on yet. Hrdwh (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

William Randolph Hearst is the progenitor, director and facilitator of this horrible war.

This war is gonna be so funny to look back on, millions dead, billions spent. All because William Randolph Hearst wanted to save his paper mill businesses. 2001:8003:E804:C700:5166:2684:2AA7:C910 (talk) 06:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

sections Canada and China are misplaced

The topic of the page is the war on drugs aiming at reducing illegal drug trade in the United States. The 2 sections Canada and China address these countries´ own drug control efforts, which is an entirely different matter. So IMO they should be deleted or moved to different respective pages. Wuerzele (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Belligerents

The American people and medical rights activists should be added to the belligerents as a third separate element. 142.110.36.186 (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Nixon's use of "war on drugs"

The article currently states:

The term was popularized by the media shortly after a press conference given on June 18, 1971, by President Richard Nixon—the day after publication of a special message from President Nixon to the Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control—during which he declared drug abuse "public enemy number one". That message to the Congress included text about devoting more federal resources to the "prevention of new addicts, and the rehabilitation of those who are addicted" but that part did not receive the same public attention as the term "war on drugs". Two years prior to this, Nixon had formally declared a "war on drugs" that would be directed toward eradication, interdiction, and incarceration.

Regarding the part in bold, the quotes suggests that Nixon used the term "war on drugs" in 1969. If this refers to his message to Congress in July 1969, he did not actually use that term. It would be more accurate to change this to:

Two years prior, Nixon went before Congress and laid out ten specific steps to address the drug problem in the United States.

-Location (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis - Summer Session23

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 August 2023 and 8 September 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Patel.preenz (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Patel.preenz (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Brianda (Wiki Ed):, editorialization, original research and opinion injection with this editor is absurd and they're not receptive to their talk page comments. Are students not given any instructions about proper editing??? Graywalls (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

ACLU press release

@GreenMeansGo:, did you see the contents that's being added by Patel.preenz is written from a PRESS RELEASE from ACLU? We don't use sources like press release, and "some like the ACLU posit" is perfectly appropriate in this context even though omission is a better alternative. Graywalls (talk) 11:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The actual source seems to be an ACLU research report. GMG^talk 11:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

A press release is something that is put together by the group publishing it in order to emphasize what _THEY_ want to emphasize media attention onto. It's ACLU blowing their own horn to selectively present their finding so it conforms to what they believe in. Graywalls (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)