Talk:Illegal drug trade

Retarded government statistic

The article contains the following sentence: "The price per gram of heroin is typically 8 to 10 times that of cocaine on US streets.", along with a link to the prohibition enforcement thugs' website- the source of this ridiculous claim. You won't find a single knowledgeable person who would ever agree with this absurdity. In the real world, a gram of powder heroin costs about triple the price of a gram of coke, and tar heroin costs a bit less than double. Rearden Metal 01:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC) -So so true $10 is the a bag and the % which is heroin is questionable a gram of 50% heroin maybe $300 In Roc. NY but that only means that person did not negotiate good or has a bad hook up.Now Remington street is a good source how do I cite them as a source put a link to thier address or corner and ask for baybay?--70.211.229.230 (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Nate

Another one: "In the United Kingdom, temazepam is the most widely-abused legal, prescription drug. About one in five people abuse temazepam in the country." - one in five? That's ludicrous. I suppose this must mean that one in five users are abusers? Richardkemp (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement might mean "one in five" who are prescribed the medication, but in any case all statistics should be well cited and not so ambiguous. If you have any sources, you are welcome to edit the article. +A.0u 21:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Drug cartels need their own article

It doesn't make any sense that drug cartels should be forced into this article. Not only is the subject of drug cartels comprehensive enough for its own article, it's take too much space here. It's almost difficult to browse this article without noticing the chunk of text that goes to drug cartels. If you're going to have an article on manufacturing cars, aren't you going to have something about Ford in a seperate article? I'll move the text in drug cartels into its own article if no one objects. Stiles 07:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The part about the CIA being a drug cartel is completely non-factual and misleading. It should be deleted unless it is mentioned that it is just a conspiracy theory.

---

I agree, Stiles, move Drug Cartels into their own category----------

CRACK RULEZ!!!!!

---

That conspiracy theory about the CIA is completely unfounded and ridiculous. It doesn't deserve a place in this article even as a theory if there are no citations other than some peoples stoner friends.

Suggestions for revision

This article has great potential for becoming a featured article, but a lot has to be done first. Let's make it something great.

I believe we should do the following:

• Shorten the intro paragraph. It should be a paragraph or less. Most of the time, it's one line.
• Move large sections to their own articles. This one is obvious enough.
• The titled should be changed to "drug trade," and the fact that the trade is illegal should be mentioned in the article. Why have a mention of it being illegal be in the title. When you say to someone "I am part of the drug trade," it's understandable that it is an illegal drug trade. You wouldn't say something like "I am part of an illegal bigamy marriage," would you? We know it's illegal. I am changing the title unless someone objects.
• It needs references. I am not so sure that everything is referenced.

The following sections need the following work

• Each a link to their articles should sufice.

• The External links heading should be changed to "References."

• The intro is extremely clumsy and awkward. It seems that someone or a number of people simply put together a number of lines. There is no flow of thought, and the lines move from one thing to another. First of all, there should be nothing indepth in the intro. As I have said before, it should be a brief introduction to the article. I am thinking of rewording the intro, and moving what is now there to a heading titled "Introduction."

I'll wait a few days till I hear from others. After a few days, I am going to embark on a cleanup process to make this a great article. I'll make drastic changes, but I am asking for help! )

Current progress

I have done some serious and drastic formatting to improve this article. I believe I am going in the right the direction, and anyone who remembers the previous state of the article knows that I have done much needed work

Stiles 07:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Concering previous commnet

It really varies from area to area. It would probably be best not to use personal experience for the article, though, if you havn't already, you might want to add something about larger amounts being purchased as 'typical'.

Irongaard 05:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

1.1.2Street selling

I dont know who wrote this but it seems highly misinformed. i dont know what prices are charged in the US but a "street seller" who was selling directly to cannabis smokers for profit would be highly unlikely in my experience to be purchasing such a small amount as 1 ounce. A 9bar would be more realistic

-Ok your cool using the slang 9bar but no one knows what it means thats not from your high school . Wait the dealer selling an ounce no they sell dime bags you have no idea what your buying the first time most likely your in the bad side of town where murders happen and where hookers are hooking so you only haggle a little no way it is ever weighed unless your out of your car.--70.211.229.230 (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Nate

Move to Drug legalities?

I am thinking the article should be moved to Drug legalities or Legal issues of drugs, and perhaps into a category which would include also Legal issues of cannabis. The article's roots seem to lie in.

I believe that the previous is a well thought out suggestion, but I think this article should be left the way it is: it is not biased. This artcle is very informative.

Overlap with War on Drugs

This is not intended to be a duplicate of the War on Drugs article, although there will be some overlap. This should be a huge and encyclopedic article when finished: there is lots of (admittedly not NPOV) U.S. DOJ material that can be used as source material. We need all points of view represented here. The Anome 10:59 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

It is confusing that addictiveness and illegality are almost used as synonyms. - Patrick 11:24 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

It's also confusing that LSD sellers are characterized as motivated by philanthropy rather than profit. I've never known any drug dealers who weren't in it for the money...

Back in the day when I delt marijuana, money was our last concern. Of course we had to make some sort of a profit to stay in business, but that often included just taking absurdly small mounts of what we sold, and collecting those bits until we we'd gathered enough to sell as another bag. Of course that was small-time dealing, but our primary goal wasn't to make money, it was to spread as much marijuana around as possible. The eventual goal was that if enough people began smoking weed, the government would be forced to legalize it. The motives were more about activism and freedom than 'profit'. --Corvun 07:47, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Somehow profit was not a motive and it is now politically motivated? Bulls$it. Drug trade is not a charity - people get killed over this. You could have at least spiced it up as "medical" in nature. Your moral convictions could use some improvement.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

In response to the anon, from LSD: "Not much money is made from retail-level sales of LSD, so the drug is typically not associated with the violent organized criminal organizations involved in cocaine and opiate smuggling." It's a cheap drug so there's no real money in it. The article explains how LSD is, in many respects, an exception to the rules (i.e. the generalization of "drugs" and "drug dealers") and is actually a very good read for anyone interested in this sort of thing. - Defunkt 20:30, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Defunkt, retail-level sales of LSD are not especially profitable. Many LSD "dealers" have a local near-monopoly, and could set just about any price they please without a appreciable reduction of demand, but choose not to.

More Bulls$it. This is addiction (e.g. denial) talking from Anon. --74.107.74.39 (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed (About retail pricing and 'monopoly' position) Then, additionally, any dealer with 1/2 a conscience is not going to find LSD 'flying off the shelves'. No seller I've ever known would ever have dreamt of passing it on without making it clear that there's more to it than a 'quick buzz' and that the proper stuff *will* put you into another world (whether spiritual or imaginary is immaterial). As I say, proper vendors will make it clear that getting into acid tripping is a long term decision, even if you only take it a few times. I've never known a vendor with any other attitude than the cross between defender against oppression and guru-prophet. 'In it to make a buck' doesn't get a look in.

More talking to the monkey, Anon.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Other thing that deserves a mention WRT LSD is a differentiation between 'real' LSD and 'Party Acid' - the tabs that are sold as party acid may be hallucinogenic and they may be fun, but they don't take you on anything like the same journey. (Corrections welcome, based only on my experiences and those of my friends) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.248.197 (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Chemically, what's the diff? --74.107.74.39 (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"Retail drug dealing and users"

Rather than a concrete example of known prices in a certain area, with the associated long explanation that does not really belong in this section or article, I think that this should be a fairly accurate, but not specific, example that demonstrates the potential for profit and the sales model. Such is much more appropriate to this general article on the "illegal drug trade", for it should not delineate very specific cases for certain drugs and certain regions that are inaccurate for other drugs and, most importantly, other regions, and so incomplete. It also obviates the long explanation that does not belong here, that contains some false or unfounded statements, and that is somewhat original research. - Centrx 22:47, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Prices higher and lower in Washington?

In the paragraph towards the bottom of the current article:

Also note that in certain areas these "bud" prices may be much higher, as the Northwestern USA, specifically the state of Washington... [...] Washington State is the primary importer of [lots of different cannabis]. Due to a constant influx of such massive quantities and types of cannabis, prices in this area are resultantly lower

SHIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTit. Not all drugs are (anywhere near) the same, and neither is their trade. Opium sales may or may not fund terrorist activities; cocaine sales may or may not fund organized crime; and cannabis sales generally aren't going to fund anything but a stoner's trip to the 7-11 when he/she gets the munchies.

So, I'm left to restate my position: this article should be transformed into a categorical listing of pages that give more specific information. As it stands its generalizations, though necessary, are also necessarily inaccurate as often as they are correct. --Corvun 00:17, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

All good points. You seem to have a much better grasp of this topic than I do; I agree that much of the existing content seems to be composed of broad generalizations, though if such specifics as you mention above (the motivating factors for trade of various substances) are to be included, it would of course be best to back them up with examples of why/how greed, poverty etc. motivate their traffic. Some discussion of what these various driving forces actually mean in this context would be helpful as well; certainly, greediness plays a role in the street-price markup that occurs, but the demand of users is what provides the market.

In discussing the relative cost of substances in different regions, some clarifying remarks should also be made about the quality/potency/purity of the substance. Ultimately, I think I agree that this article should be more of a category than an article, and should rely on the specific drug articles to elaborate on the finer points of their legality and trade. -- Wapcaplet 00:48, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think pricing for something in a marketplace economy, such as that of illegal drugs, is too broad of a subject for a single paragraph. How can one reference that? I feel a lot of "my experience dealing and buying illegal substances as undercover wiki-editor posing as a 18 year old stoner" might be insufficient as a reference in an encyclopedia. To write on that accurately, you'd need comparisons over place, time, and social standing. The economy drug market (any illegal black market) could be its whole own article. It's not properly cited in this document. I'm not here often, so I didn't want to edit it at my own discretion.68.199.196.184 06:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

How to create a encyclopedia quality article from this

I think that this is too high profile of an article not to be organized and developed. As mentioned above, many parts of this article are kind of silly the way that they are now. Clearly, prices by area should not be listed, and neither should speculation on motivating factors in dealing. Despite the overall low quality of this article, other sections of wikipedia's drug section are being developed somewhat coherantly, so I would hope that this one would follow suit. Any suggestions for development would be welcomed.

The problem was with the POV of the original article, that made a large number of claims regarding the "drug trade" and lumped all drugs together, assuming the same motivating factors behind all of them, made no distinction between the trade dynamics of the different types of drugs, etc., and all-in-all seemed more like an afterschool special than an educated article on illegal drug trade.

The way the article was before, was highly laughable. Some of us have been working to improve it by giving more accurate information, which is what spurred the current category and sub-category format of the page.

Prices by area were only listed because in the past there was a section on street-selling that "illustrated" how money could be made with marijuana. The prices given were ridiculously high, and although it is possible that marijuana sells for that much in some places, it would not sell for nearly so much in others. The same is true of any drug. I'd actually like to see the same information presented for another area such as New York or Europe to compare & contrast and illustrate the effects supply/demand relationship.

I think the current problem is that the project is far too huge for so few people to have a part in it. IMHO, there should be a navigation table for illegal drug trade linking to the different drugs to allow more thorough articles concerning the industries (or lack thereof) surrounding these plants/substances.

As far as the motivating factors are concerned: A number of people involved formerly or at present in the "illegal drug trade" are only too willing to share their motivations with others, particularly those who sell drugs like marijuana and shrooms, who are more interested in philanthropic goals or mere recreation than they are on "hooking" our "children" and leading them into a "life of crime". Although we should not speculate as to what the motivating factors are for everyone, we can and do know what the motivations are for several of these trades.

Also, it needs to be stated here that this is not strictly an article for Wikipedia's drug section. Although the "illegal drug trade" is by definition legally illegitimate, it is still a business. Each drug calls for different hierarchies and professions, different skills, etc. It's a true trade -- several very different trades, in fact, which is why this subject requires separate headers (and preferably separate articles) for each drug -- and this much should not be understated. Of secondary interest, this "illegitimate" business is one in which there are arguably yet on the whole far fewer shady practices than in "legitimate" business; this is probably because while legal businesses only have to worry about the law, in which there are abundant loopholes and often laws designed specifically to bennefit corporations and wealthy persons, the drug trade relies instead on an unspoken "honor code" in which there can be no loopholes (a notable exception is where organized crime is concerned, which functions more like the "legitimate" businesses in that they often use dishonest tactics and/or coercion to extort money from people).

To sum up, this subject is just far too expansive and diverse to be able to given any sort of accurate information without giving each individual (drug) trade specific attention. Others have suggested moving the drug-specific information to the pages that are concerned with those particular drugs, but in that case I think this page would have to be deleted. The only true statement you could make about the illegal drug trade that would be true of all or even most drugs, is that it's illegal, and it involves products classified by government officials as "drugs". Even the "trade" part is incorrect, in that there is simply no single "drug trade" in existencem but several different trades and professions. --Corvun 18:36, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, I now understand that the original article was clearly biased/POV, and that revisions since then have been primarily regarding creating a NPOV. However, there has been wreckless overcompensation in this process, and as Corvun stated, A number of people involved formerly or at present in the "illegal drug trade" are only too willing to share their motivations with others, particularly those who sell drugs like marijuana and shrooms, who are more interested in philanthropic goals or mere recreation than they are on "hooking" our "children" and leading them into a "life of crime". This indignance is not reason enough to insert more POV in the form of drug dealing motivations. To say that we know the motivations that drive drug dealers is inherantly POV, and there is no real way to get around that. The only conceivable way for this problem to be circumnavigated would be to insert a line such as "It has been suggested that..." or "Some argue that...". Still, this indirect method harbors our own biases and intentions, and we should be careful to provide explicit evidence for our claims, even if they are phrased in the neutral passive voice.

The above is just a technicality in comparison to the primary issue which of course is the general notion of what to do with the page. Obviously, there is not reason to delete the page entirely, as it is an easily wikied to link (I doubt anyone here would endorse deletion.) I suggest that everyone that reads this and wishes to speculate regarding the structure of the article visit the following links for an idea of the neccesary scope of this article:

• Drugs
• Drug abuse
• Drug addiction
• Recreational drug use
• Hallucinogenic drug
• Prohibition (drugs)

(The last of these is the most important to visit because it has significant overlap with this article and it provides a valid historical account of drug laws and practices.) What makes this article unique, as far as I can tell, is the "trade" part of "illegal drug trade". Prohibition (drugs) covers legal aspects but does not cover economic aspects of the illegal drug trade. Changes in this page should reflect the content of these other pages, especially Prohibition (drugs).

I am sure that there are great sources out there that pertain to the economic factors regarding the illegal drug trade, and thus our primary goal should be researching right now. Flying Hamster 17:31, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That last change was pretty funny, given the content of the article. Flying Hamster 07:20, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Philanthropic motives

I've read the rest of this talk page, and I'm not sure if this deserves it's own subheading, but here goes:

Upon reading this article, the one thing that immediately jumped out at me as not NPOV was the "philanthropic motives" clause and its variants that is sprinkled throughout the article. For clarity's sake, I live in Vancouver, BC (home of the famous BC Bud) and am familiar, though not involved with the illegal trade in cannabis. I have never met any dealer who was not obviously in it solely for the money, and it's not hard to imagine why — even here, with our supposed "rock-bottom" prices, the profit margin is huge.

Upon checking this talk page, the only evidence I have seen for the "philanthropic motives" portions of the article is the anecdotal evidence of User:Corvun who allegedly is a former dealer. Now, I'm not saying that Corven is lying, and I'm not trying to say that my anecdotal evidence carries any more weight than his, but I am saying that a Wikipedia article is supposed to be based on known facts or secondary sources, not primary research1. This article, in its current form, violates that by portraying the "philanthropic motives" as the most common motive for distributing cannabis and softer drugs without providing any evidence.

So here is what I propose, if there is evidence that "philanthropic motives" are the most prevalent motives, let's find it and put it into the article. But if no evidence is to be found, we should change the article to acknowledge that profit may be a common, if not the prevalent motive for dealing soft drugs. Please note: the philanthropic motives argument should NOT be removed entirely, because even if we can find no formal evidence for it (but I'm sure we will), I have no trouble believing that a few dealers do undertake their profession with those in mind. -Lommer | ^talk 00:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

..Another voice here to say much of this "anecdotal" information is utterly erroneous, particularly this statement: "Similarly, drugs like LSD with very low profit margins are sold more for philanthropic reasons than for profit." There's so much speculation and reaching presented as fact here that I would suggest a complete rewrite.

Hard Drugs

Why is LSD under Hard Drugs? It is, health-wise, not a hard drug by any means. Please explain. Lockeownzj00 15:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

It's genuinely psychoactive and, really, we cant let people have anything like that. Can we? Laurel Bush 16:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC).

psychoactive is a term that refers to every single drug. I still see no justification for it being a hard drug. Lockeownzj00 14:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, compared to pot, it is. I can't take acid and go to work. You "trip" on acid. If you take enough, not only could it put you in a hospital, but you could be changed psychologically. It's borderline, and oh so fun, but I would put it under hard drugs. Calvindude 13:54, 3 Oct 2005

Just because the effects of LSD are *different* does not make it a harder drug. LSD has even less potential for habitual use than marijuana. You can end up in the hospital taking tylenol, and any drug or major event can cause psychological changes. Consider this a vote that LSD does not fit under the "hard drugs" category. The Wikipedia article [hard and soft drugs] makes the argument that hallucinogens like LSD fit somewhere in between. Perhaps this is a good compromise? Spinfire 12:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Strains

There is a lot of misinformation about marijuana strains. I started to clean up the article. Some of the strains mentioned are not strains at all, but rather growing or curing techniques, or locations. Thai Sticks, BC Bud, Maui Wowie, Hydro, and Chem bud are all names that have nothing to do with the strain. Marijuana going by anyone of those names could be any strain.

Why is this all in one?

I don't understand why we can't have a separate article for each of the major illegal drugs - cocaine, heroin, marijuana, ecstasy (drug), crack cocaine, LSD and any others I might have missed. I don't understand why they all have to be listed here in one list. The article is ridiculously long. Researchers who want to learn about marijuana only have to wade through all of this information which would be irrelevant to them. Moving to separate articles would also greatly help with clean up. 203.122.225.241 21:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, my bad, they ARE separate articles. So in that case, why not just link to them rather than having this enormous rhetoric? Is it really necessary? 203.122.225.241 21:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Cannabis trade shipping.

I hesitate to just delete this entire section because someone obviously spent some time on it, but it is full of blatant misinformation, as well as exagerations. Also the title strikes me as inapropriate, instead of shipping I think it should be called transport. Shipping implies using a commercial shipping services such as FedEx or DHL. Also the article makes it seem as if most of Canada's marijuana makes it way down this non existent superhighway. In reality, states along America's west coast that have decriminlized marijuana usually grow pot locally and the amount that is imported from Canada is far smaller then in states without decriminalization laws.

Upon further review this whole article is full of misinformation. I really think it should be deleted entirely and started over from scratch.

hot damn this article is huge

I'm of the opinion that all the specific drug examples should be moved into their repsective articles. I'd love to give this article the research and overhaul it deserves but I'm burned out from just reading it all. Dunno how helpful this will be, but I added some cleanup templates.

The bit about the Netherlands seems to get way off topic for an article on illegal drug trade.

I also removed links that seemed out of place.

Anyway I want to be clear that I think this is an important article, and there's a lot of good information in it, but it's gonna take some work to get it to see its potential...

Cannabis section

About grop-ops destroying living spaces and illegal immigrants living there: this should probably either have a source or two (or be deleted?).

Aeroponics involving fish: hadn't heard of that, a source would be nice.

Removed examples of high-quality cannabis outdoor strains; saying they exist should be enough in this context.

"some poorer quality cannabis is imported from Mexico." Point of view? ;D

The link at the end of the trafficking section is out of date. "See also ... trafficking and distribution of cannabis." The link points to a section of an article which no longer exists, or has not yet been created. Judging by that the link points to Cannabis instead of Cannabis (drug), I'd guess the link was mistakenly written. --68.162.128.90 16:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There ist no "Skunk" farming in South Africa.

-There "IS no..." -"However, marijuana is now legal in Massachusetts, Vermont, and California. Therefore, it is not illegal to be in possession of marijuana in these states." Marijuana is decriminalized and available through prescription. It is NOT legalized (Yet! Let's cross our fingers!) and it is illegal to be in possession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TooMuchInfo123 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Mushroom section

Seems really un-encyclopedic, but I can't add much except my doubt that those growing kits can produce a full pound of dried mushrooms.

I guess it should also mention that chocolates with psilocybin in them are heard of, but I don't know anything about them. ---Revision: Growing kits do produce a large amount of mushrooms, dried or wet, and can contain high amounts of psilocybin. As for your question concerning "chocolates", that is merely a method of grounding up mushrooms and mixing them with any chocolate or brownie mix, and just like any thing else thats not regulated, some may not have any psilocybin, and some may. The "trade" of mushrooms isn't exactly a commerical business, considering what it takes to manufacture them, any high school student can achieve the production of potent mushrooms. Spores can be obtained a number of ways, as well as the kits, however shipping/growing them in certain states within the United States is illegal, however there are a few states that allow spores to be sent there.

LSD section

Removed:

The tabs of LSD are used by placing them in the mouth and letting the active ingredients come off the paper and be absorbed by the membranes of the mouth and tongue. Other moist areas of the body can be used, with people sometimes placing them on the eyes or even genitals.

There is almost no chance of fatal overdose from LSD, as the minimum effective dose of only a few micrograms is far below that of the estimated lethal dose of approximately 10mg (which is too large an amount to fit on a single common blotter square). However, some people may have psychotic episodes, including self-harm or suicidal actions, in addition to the expected, desired psychedelic experience. The mood and the environment of the user can greatly affect the experience, and people who are worried or fearful can have paranoid delusions.

Other risks to users include substitutions (the most dangerous being PCP) or being cheated by tabs with no active LSD.

Doesn't seem to have anything to do with LSD trade. (And the bit about putting tabs on one's eyes or genitals seems pretty far-fetched...)

• well, not tabs in the eye, but I've heard of people using an eyedropper with liquid forms of LSD. Un-cite-able I'm afraid. ---J.Smith 07:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

LSD can be dissolved in any number of liquids which might have varying effects on your eyes. Few LSD users would go for the drop of unknown solvent in the eye when they could drop it under the tongue or on a sugar cube.

I changed the end of the topic, from (law enforcment focusing mor e on methampetamine, to cannabis, reason being, the DEA devotes nearly 10$ billion of its funds to the policing of Cannabis and Cannabis by-products, also Bush's responce to a question regarding his policy on meth abush "Marajuana is a dangerous gateway drug, that can lead to meth abuse, so by combating marajuana abuse we will see a decress in meth abuse." Though meth is a much more hard drug, The current American government is more focused on the war on pot.

Cocaine section

I wanted to remove everything in the "Cocaine production" section since it seems awfully like a dubious recipe and the actualy cocaine article seems instructive enough, but I couldn't find "Wikipedia is not a how-to" here.

Seems a little strange that there's so much more on powder cocaine than crack, but this doesn't seem like the place for individual drugs anyway.

Heroin/opium section

Source for global opium production being 50% of world production? Or for the DEA study?

Meth section

North Korea supports meth manufacture?

—alxndr ^(t) 05:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not necessary to include the bit about "gay clubs" -- being gay has nothing to do with being a tweaker or having diseases.

--Well have you considered that there is a disproportionate amount of homosexual users of methamphetamine, when contrasted with usage in the general population? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.249.246 (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriousness

It is far from globally-acknowledged that the 'illegal drug trade' is 'a serious problem'. This article can be made neutral by avoiding such weasel words.

The article says "Because many people who are dependent on certain illegal drugs don't generally have the money needed to fund an extensive addiction, the high cost of illegal drugs is one of the major causes of crime." How about a citation here? The insinuation that illegal drug trade is the CAUSE of other unrelated crimes is one of the big false assertions of the US "War on Drugs". A good counter example would be to compare crime rates in the US (where prohibition is strong) to crime rates in areas where more liberal attitudes prevail (Amsterdam?).

This article is horrible.

Counter example? The prices are high due to the illegality. Harley peters 00:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And only because there is no legal competition to drive down prices

Alcohol,italics part

That section of the article is heavily opinonated. Please remove it, I came here for facts not some guy's agenda. (Anonymous)

CIA Cocaine Smuggling Connection

I think this section either needs some serious boosting in terms of legitimate sources or should be removed. I'm not sure we can consider Mad Cow Morning News as legitimate sources to support this statement:

"...it has been revealed on numerous occasions that the US government's unofficial policy towards the drug trade is one of secret exploitation. The CIA is usually shown to be the agency that carries out the US government's drug smuggling operations."

Particularly when the follow up to the article claims: "A MadCowMorningNews investigation into the ownership of the DC9 airliner caught carrying 5.5 tons of cocaine in Mexico last month has uncovered explosive new details about some of the many lingering mysteries still surrounding the 9.11 attack."

Then there is this gem from the other source "vheadline.com": "The US-registered plane was en route from Caracas (Venezuela) which, according to French intelligence, is a known hub for cocaine shipments from Colombia to Saudi Arabia."

Uh, Caracas is a jumping off point for cocaine shipments to about everywhere including North America, Europe, etc.

I mean honestly, are we TRYING to be a joke?

---

I have a link for that, Kerry report to the US senate in December 1988 [1], see page 41 "indeed senior US policy makers were not immune to the idea that drug money was a perfect solution to the Contra's funding problem" Check for Oliver North's bio and Barry Seal's case too. Flo 23:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made some edits to the section's wording for neutrality and style, keeping the events already included. Juancarlos2004 22:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

lol

this page exactly describes me -Smoke Weed

Clarification on wording

Can't make sense of this statement or what it means. Anyone want to take a shot at it before I pull it out.

For this (and other reasons, namely the inability for governments to control, regulate and tax distribution, and also concerncing the unnecessarily suffering, often addicted, consumers of drugs affected of prohibitionist laws),

Drug cartel succession box

Would it be accurate to use succession boxes for drug cartels? Example: Medellín Cartel -> Cali Cartel -> Norte del Valle Cartel. 24.126.199.129 03:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

removed

Im a lawyer in Russia and i can approve that in our country illegal alcohol distribution is NOT the same crime than drug distribution, and may no cause the same penalties. 213.171.51.10 (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed

"For this (and other reasons, namely the inability for governments to control, regulate and tax distribution, and also concerncing the unnecessarily suffering, often addicted, consumers of drugs affected of prohibitionist laws)"

This doesn't make any sense. No suggestions for replacing it, but also doesn't seem sensible to keep. Jackhamm 01:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

drug question

so curious. what is a white tablets with the letters FZ3 on it?

An accident waiting to happen. Wikipedia's not the place to look for that sort of info is it? MrFire 04:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation

There was a movie about drug traffic, and the main actor (N. Cage?), in front of the judge, said something like: "Come on, you are incriminating me for moving dry plants trough an imaginary line?". Despite it was like a joke, I think it could be nice to citate it. There are deep meanings...

Hmm. I think you would need a secondary source, ie somebody in a reliable source commenting on Cage's staement, for it to be included. Borders arent actually imaginary lines they are very real, and the dried cannabis plant, when smoked, is definitely a drug, SqueakBox 20:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It was Johnny Depp in the movie Blow. 206.194.127.112 (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

UK Drug Policy Commission

The UK Drug Policy Commission recently published a report called "An Analysis of UK Drug Policy" which has an introduction which may be useful for this article. It provides a broad sweep of changing UK policy since World War I with references. Andeggs 07:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong US bias

This article focuses too much on the USA. Of course we all know that drugs are only illegal because of the USA's dominance of international bodies but this article should still focus on the REST OF THE WORLD. Sentences like "most cannabis is smuggled in from Mexico or farther south" are obviously written on the assumption that the USA is the only country in the world. Xanucia 17:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

New Marijuana?

New Marijuana, supposedly with a higher THC content is a myth. The tests cited are known for their unscientific method. They use samples of opportunity, taken by police. In the 70's, it was more common to pick up low THC content weed because people smoked mostly stems, due to costs, and dealers "cutting" their weed with them. Now it's more common to smoke the leaves and buds, which have a much higher THC content. So of course weed has a higher THC content now.

There should be a note, saying something to the effect of the study being flawed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.85.213 (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Heroin: Superhero like powers?

Heroin does not give people superhero like powers. I read this article, injected heroin, jumped off a building and did not fly. I would have taken out the sentence myself but my building jumping may count as original research. -WhiteFeet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.103.200 (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup of heroin and methamphetamine

The last part of those two articles have nothing to do with drug trading, they are just random collections of trivia about the drugs. Would someone please remove them? Kalleguld (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Alcohol and Tobacco

May I suggest removing the categories "Alcohol" and "Tobacco" from this article, or creating the corresponding articles "Tobacco trafficking" and "Alcohol trafficking"? By including these two -mostly legal- categories, Wikipedia is downplaying the harmful effects of the remaining drugs and adding to the narco discourse equating red wine to cocaine.

I think in terms of harmful effect tobacco and alcohol should be in there. There are many parts of the world were alcohol is not legal, or not socially acceptable. However at the end of the day both are drugs, and this article is about the drug trade.--SasiSasi (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Data from The Lancet.Nutt D, King LA, Saulsbury W, Blakemore C (2007). "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse". Lancet. 369 (9566): 1047–53. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4. PMID 17382831.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I'm not entirely sure that this is relevant but I know of another Ilicit smuggling operation in effect now(a close friend of mine does this and I'm a customer).Since military Personell acquire tobacco products for far lower prices, he gets another friend of ours to mail him cartons of ciggarettes which he then sells for a price cheaper than store bought ciggarettes while still maintaining a decent profit. Also this is a good tip for everyone to try. It works damn well-Lemmonn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.52.208 (talk) 05:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Drug "Smuggling", not "Trade"

This article is all about getting the drugs from their origin to the country where they will be bought. It doesn't reference drug sale on an individual level. It skips over all that, and makes it sound like the smugglers are like some sort of messed up ice cream men, driving around in crack trucks with music playing, and addicts just lining up to buy drugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlashHawk4 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

the "In the media" section needs to be trimmed

K, that section needs to be cleaned up to include only the films and TV series that deal specifically with the drug TRADE or drug smuggling or dealing or whatever, not just about drug using or drug culture. Films like Trainspotting, or Boyz N the Hood or Pulp Fiction aren't really about drug dealing or smuggling and need to be removed, otherwise this list will continue to grow into List of drug films. OlEnglish (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed 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.

The result of the proposal was Moved to Illegal drug trade Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The article refers only to drugs traded illegally. It has nothing about the trade of drugs in general. I'm not sure what is meant by "ethnocentric" in the move summary; this is simply what the article is about, as it is specific information peculiar to the illegal trade of drugs. It is the illegality that is peculiar, and if the article is not sufficiently global, then the article can be changed, but the article is not about the legal trade of drugs that are illegal in certain places. —Centrx→talk • 15:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The content of this page should be somewhere like Illegal drugs trade, because as well as illegal trade described in the article there is a huge legal (licensed) global drugs industry. I am not sure that Drug trade should be even a redirect to the page's current content. Maybe it should be a disambiguation page. Laurel Bush (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC).

• Support or use illicit drug trade 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I would be OK with Drug trade moving to Illicit drug trade. Laurel Bush (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC).

I support a move to either "illegal drug trade" or to "illicit drug trade". Both would better represent the current content of the article than "drug trade". ChemNerd (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

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.

source of "800,000 kids 12 - 17 sell drugs"

I looked in the reference, NSDUH for the source of this number. I could not find it. I would love to cite this if someone could recommend where in the NSDUH this number exists. Brianripjeans (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Brianripjeans Brian Johnson M.D. Director of Addiction Psychiatry SUNY Upstate Medical University

Poor article

This is a really poor article. Far too US and 1st world centered, full of original research & struggling with NPOV my main criticism is that the readewr is left with little actual knowledge of the drugs trade. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. A specific concern I have is that the "trade of specific drugs" section deals almost exclusively with the US drug trade, has almost no actual specific information on trafficking of each drug, contains very few references, and appears to be mostly based on rumour. I think this section deserves a thorough re-write. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Trade of specific drugs: Opium

I am moving this sub-section to here since it essentially explains itself why it shouldn't included with other major drugs worth listing in the "specific drugs" section. A brief mention in the heroin/morphine section would be preferrable. I've marked this in yellow to make it clear what it is. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have also added a paragraph from the heroin section dealing with effects of recreational use: not relevant to the section, or to the article. This information is covered in the Heroin article. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(Illegal drug trade -> Opium)

Main article: Opium

International illicit trade in opium is relatively rare. Major smuggling organizations prefer to refine opium into heroin before shipping to the consumer countries, a given quantity of heroin being worth much more than an equivalent amount of opium.[Citation?] As such, heroin is more profitable, its much greater permeability across the blood-brain barrier than morphine or codeine, the primary the psychoactive opiates in opium, accounts for the drug's greater subjective high and its higher potential for the development of dependence with repeated use. It is rapidly metabolized to morphine on uptake, as is codeine, the other constituent of opium.

From Illegal drug trade -> Heroin

When used recreationally, heroin may produce intense euphoria, which often diminishes with increasing tolerance and habitual use. This increased 'rush' of heroin compared to morphine is due to the formers reletively higher lipid solubility which allows for rapid diffusion across the blood-brain barrier. Heroin is hepatically converted to morphine and is thus sometimes used clinically as an alternative to morphine for servere or protracted pain and is considered safe, effective and reportedly has better side effect profiles than morphine when used for these purposes under medical supervision. In vivo, morphine binds to mu receptors in the CNS and spinal nerve-root ganglia, responsible for its psychtropic and analgesic effects. Heroin and morphine can be taken or administered in a number of ways, including snorting and injection. It may also be smoked by inhaling the vapors produced when heated from below, usually on aluminum foil (known as "chasing the dragon").

Sale of prescription drugs

I found this page whilst attempting to search the internet for information about the black market/ illegal trade in drugs that would be legal on prescription. Currently there is nothing in this article on this subject. I have heard that this is quite a big issue in the USA due to the cost of prescription medication. If there is a seperate wiki page on this subject, then it should still be mentioned and linked to in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.151.231 (talk) 09:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Cocaine and Hypnotics

Why there is no section for cocaine illegal trade?? when its the second illegal substance more used in the world. And also, who stadistic says that temazepam is the most high demanded hypnotic? ive heard it was flunitrazepam (Rophynol). --Realxsalo (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)