Talk:War on Drugs

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Maybe we ought to just get rid of the Law template on this article... ħumanUser talk:Human 00:08, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

I do agree that there's one navigation template too many. However, I find the law template to still be relevant. A possible alternative would be to create an horizontal variation of one of the templates, which should look more aesthetically pleasing. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 00:28, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

User:Radioactive afikomen/Template:War Behold! It's... it's at attempt, at least. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 00:40, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

Naw, that's ugly. Look, the Law template and the War template only conflict/coincide on this one article. Let's fix the article, not the templates. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:05, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
Yah, I think it's ugly, too. I know it's just this one article — I was just inspired to see if I could flip a vertical navigation box horizontal. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 01:10, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
I lean towards dropping the "Law" template—the article doesn't say too much about the legal aspects of the issue anyways. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 01:10, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

Contents

[edit] the section edit links/buttons look screwed.

Anyone want to try fixing it? Thieh 23:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's because of the two templates floating to the right. It's a MW bug and I don't know why they haven't fixed it - a series of images on the right does the same thing, I see it on WP all the time. Just hover over them to see which section # they are to figure out which one to use if you run into it again. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Timber

Ok, William Randolph Hearst's own wikipedia page said he owned large amount of timber land, but it isn't cited. Does anyone have a source saying that he either did or didn't, or any practical means of comparing his interests in the timber industry to his interests in cheap paper?--Mustex (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The hemp conspiracy is listed in the Encyclopedia of American Conspiracy Theories, Straight Dope basically says the same thing as the other two sources. The claims about lumber seem to refer to wood that would have been used in construction, not paper. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, in that case I'll edit it to clarify that.--Mustex (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Alcohol - serious question

Anyone know why alcohol gets a pass and/or why pot is seen as so much more "dangerous and deadly" (god knows why) than ciggies or alcohol. I'd really like to write something here about it, cause its so damn hypocritical and directly challenges any single reason the US or local govt gives for why some one drug is illegal. "drugs are dangerous to people's health, they are addictive, and they are a harm to society" is the reason the US gave for not making pot legal, or accepting cites that do allow pot to be illegal. But every single study shows alcohol is far more addictive, damaging and socially destructive than pot. so the "reasons" ring very hollow. is it always (and i'm betting it is) just about money?? big taxes in alcohol. Pink mowse.pngGodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 19:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

And before you say it... no I'm not a pot head. chocolate and sugar are my addictions of choice. Though the one time i smoked, i DID inhale. it was fine. but not as good as a chocolate high.  ;-) Pink mowse.pngGodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 19:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The legality and perceptions of drugs (including alcohol) is a result of the time and culture in which they came into knowledge and their history there after. Actually, if you consider that the US had a constitutional amendment banning alcohol, one my reconsider your notion, but marijuana was very much demonized, particularly in the 1930s, with information like this around.. Cigarettes continue to be propped up by a huge industry. Pot, not so much. steriletalk 21:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] "it's true, we can stop any time we want to"

Is this supposed to be snark, or serious? The context makes it hard to determine.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship with racism. And rape culture

The article mentions "the banning of certain substances was in large part the result of racism". Wouldn't it be good if it also mentioned that the war on drugs still, even today, has racist effects, given that the majority of users are white but the majority of people who go to prison for drug use are white?

Along the same lines, shouldn't the article mention that by sending people to prison (where they are much more likely to get raped compared to outside prison) for drug use, the US federal government shows that it apparently views drug use, a mostly victimless crime, to be worse than rape, and is thus engaging in rape culture? Db7213 (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support