Talk:War on Drugs

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

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)

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. GodotI 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. ;-) GodotI 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. sterile^talk 21:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"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)

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)

Einstein on Alcohol

Hi Guys

love the site, the thought, the effort, brains and humour, and esp the objectivity, but isn't the below from the War on Drugs page an "Appeal to Authority"? Should it remain on the page?

Phil South Africa

(Note - this is my first contribution, so not sure I did it right...)

”The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this. —Albert Einstein, 1922 ^{— Unsigned, by: 41.13.52.11 / talk / contribs}

No worries we all start somewhere. An appeal to authority is more the issue where the conclusion is right because the authority made that opinion, usually being wrong because they are not authoritative in this subject or are biased, not an authority making an insightful opinion that had been proven to be correct in the ~10 years of prohibition afterwards. It certainly provides context when you can show people decades earlier that understood this doesn't work, and that it was popularly understood, while we still try the same thing expecting different results. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)