Talk:Convention on Psychotropic Substances
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Convention on Psychotropic Substances article.|
|Convention on Psychotropic Substances is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 2, 2005.|
|Current status: Former featured article|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on February 21, 2007, February 21, 2008, February 21, 2011, and February 21, 2015.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Treatybox
- 2 Legality?
- 3 Medical and recreational use
- 4 Automated conversion of an existing article to this footnote system
- 5 Cathinone
- 6 Entry into force
- 7 Counterculture pic needed
- 8 Pic options
- 9 Controversy
- 10 Marijuana
- 11 Nixon picture
- 12 endnotes
- 13 Updated to use Cite.php
- 14 Th' any person, not me.
- 15 NPOV
- 16 Looks Just Like The US CSA
- 17 WHY
- 18 WTF?
- 19 Sections on schedules
- 20 NPOV / wording
- 21 Which countries Signed?
- 22 Rewrite or remove
- 23 Ketamine
- 24 tons of UN citations 404d
- 25 Psychedelic plants and fungi
- 26 THC Schedule
- 27 Participating nations
If anyone creates a treatybox, some relevant info is:
Can these policies be justified in any sort of moral or reasonable legal context (other than "we banned them because we think they're bad")? If not shouldn't there be a criticism section. The banning of LSD, for instance, is pretty much bullshit, as pure LSD doesn't have many bad effects, certainly less than alcohol. 220.127.116.11 23:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
who the fuck, a boardroom of men decide the fate of nations? thats not democratic. with this techonology we dont need representatives , unreal. these rich cocksuckers banned DMT and LSD because it slowed down economic growth? they want us to be slaves to system.
I want to know, who represented United States in this convention, whats the names of these people.
Medical and recreational use
In both the convention and the article I imagine medical use means licensed medicinal use. Some question the idea that recreational use can not be also medicinal or therapeutic. Laurel Bush 09:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC).
- I wouldn't mind getting ahold of the Commentary to the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, which might shed some light on the legislative intent there. SonicSynergy 22:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Have you seen ? Good stuff. Sheds a lot of light on the legislative intent. It is much similar to a commentary. ShockTrooper 12:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- See also http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/bulletin/bulletin_1970-01-01_3_page002.html . Pravoka 05:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- Have you seen ? Good stuff. Sheds a lot of light on the legislative intent. It is much similar to a commentary. ShockTrooper 12:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Automated conversion of an existing article to this footnote system
- This was cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:Footnotes.
If someone wants to do a lot of people a big wiki-favor, please create a macro for automated conversion of an existing article to this footnote system. For instance, Convention on Psychotropic Substances needs to be converted to footnotes, but that would be rather time-consuming to do manually. There are probably hundreds or thousands of articles in need of such conversion. Please take a look and see what you think. Thanks! Remember me 14:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) I kinda botched the footnotes system. Please see the history if you want to revert. I am trying to get these to look right. Please help! Remember me 16:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- OK, it's fixed now. Remember me 22:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Entry into force
It should be noted that the treaty did not enter into force with respect to the United States until July 15, 1980. http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/usc/ttl21/ch13/subchI/ptA/sec801a.html CSA 12:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Counterculture pic needed
If anyone sees any suitable 1960s pics.. go ahead and post those to the History section.. 18.104.22.168 19:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Like what? Philadelphia, LA 21:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- →Raul654 - I think he means something like this:
- Like, you know, the hippies, man, and they, like, talked like this, dude. With, like, way to many commas in a sentence, dude. Peace out. 22.214.171.124 14:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with some of this page's expressed statements; it is not neutral.
- This doesn't really help editors to fix it unless you explain just what isn't neutral about it—could you please elaborate? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 2 July 2005 01:21 (UTC)
- There is no section for criticism of the convention, just what the convention itself entails (and it is not a neutral or impartial convention). It is not absolute or objective, or based on facts at all really, so there probably should be an entire section devoted to scientific criticism of it. Hell, there's a mention of the representative of the Holy See spouting off about how other cultures shouldn't be allowed to use some things traditionally because it would make hippies able to band together and believe their use is "permissible" based on Christian morals. Pretty sure a scientist's criticism of this is more legitimate than that, but there is none here.126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason my marijanua is not listed? Does it fall in the same category as peyote?--whicky1978 July 2, 2005 05:18 (UTC)
- It is listed, but under the active ingredient, THC (tetrahydrocannabinol).--Hal 2 July 2005 05:49 (UTC)
- There is now also a section on "Organic Plants" that tries to delineate signatories obligations for the control of such plants. With references to other treaties that may be pertinent.
Is it really necessary to have a picture of Nixon during his election campaign with this article? Seems to be trying to invoke negative sentiment on the issue by relating it to an unpopular public figure. If there was a picture of Nixon at this specific convention, that would be more justifiable. I myself dislike Nixon, but we should try to keep these articles focused on the issue at hand, rathern then sneak in subliminal messages of any of our own beliefs.--Acefox 2 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)
I agree, it contributes nothing to this article. I've removed it for now. Benwing 2 July 2005 23:44 (UTC)
Updated to use Cite.php
I've changed all the references to Cite.php per Wikipedia:Footnotes. There were a large number of footnotes that were never used in the text but that were at the end of the article. I've put these in a bulleted list at the end of the references section. Someone familiar with the article/subject should probably go through and determine whether the links are appropriate in the references section. —Seqsea (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Th' any person, not me.
Should we really say "from the American and European rave scenes to the backwaters of East Asia"? It sounds as if we're equating 'backwaters' with 'east asia', and it's metaphorical in its expressing the underground, perhaps, of east asia. It exists below a picture of perhaps meth, or another friend to the backwaters of east asia. I'd change it if I were a dignified human, but I lack the diligence of th' any person. I'm not logg'd in but I'm tyler nash.
During the 1960s, a wave of drug use spread across Western developed nations, to the point where it appeared to alarmed policymakers to be reaching epidemic proportions.
I think that's too much, isn't it? ---Nicor 19:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This could be better if some relevant quotes (Congressional testimony?) were dug up. The fact that it was *considered* to be "epidemic proportions" could then be substatiated, at least in the mind of whoever was quoted. Whether that was actually true.. Up to the reader of the article.
A reference to current policymakers ideas on methamphetamine could be addded. Scientific American has had a few columns (seondary or tertiary source though) documenting this spread, or debunking it as a myth (if I remember correctly). But certainly arrests/labs-found for different years/areas could be found. Although here you have potential bias because of stepped-up enforcement.
But perhaps that all belongs in the articles on the relevant drugs.
(Jim Witte, not registered yet)
- During the 1960s, drug use increased greatly around the world, especially in Western nations.
This seems like it might be a tricky thing to measure, especially the 'around the world' part. Are all drugs included in this? If people consume less of one drug and more of another, how do we tell if 'drug use' went up or down overall? Pound for pound comparisons? What about all the drug use that goes unmeasured? Also, if drug use 'increased greatly' during a certain period, does this mean there was an increase in per capita consumption, or is an increase at the rate of population growth good enough to qualify?--Eloil 08:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks Just Like The US CSA
The scheduled drug list under this convention looks just like the list from the US's CSA. And the US CSA isn't based on scientific facts at all, since soft drugs such as cannabis, psilocybin, and LSD are schedule 1. Did US politicians bribe the UN or is the UN as dumb as US officials? Obviously psychedelics are illegal because they make people question authority and government, since their health risks are minimal but health benefits are high. Zachorious 12:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Why would anyone begin a flamewar with him? One might object to his tone, but he's made a perfectly valid point and raised perfectly valid questions.
Globally, tobacco abuse is directly responsible for 5.4 million deaths per year; it is highly addictive; it has NO legitimate medical use whatsoever. It is, in fact, a perfect match with the Schedule I criteria of the Controlled Substance Act. Yet it is essentially left uncontrolled by the Convention of Psychotropic Substances. As our article tells us, "Traditionally, the UN has been reluctant to control nicotine and other drugs traditionally legal in Europe and North America, citing tolerance of a wide range of lifestyles." Yeah, right. The American tobacco industry continues to addict generation after generation at home, and is currently working hard to expand foreign markets where they're freer to kill young people without all that pesky litigation. That's a tradition worthy of toleration.
Now, compare the annual tobacco death toll with that of cannabis. It's a rather embarrassing comparison, if you happen to be a marijuana prohibition advocate. In all of the US in 2001, a total of 3 deaths were directly attributable to cannabis use; if you throw in those indirectly attributed to cannabis, the death count rises to a staggering 138. Here's the reference, if you want it: 
If there's a death toll related to psychedelics, I've never been able to find it. All you can generally find are oft repeated anecdotes, many of which have been making the rounds since the 1960s. I strongly suspect the death toll approaches that of cannabis--probably working upward toward it from the number zero.
So, yes, international control of cannabis and psychedelics isn't about protecting the health and safety of the public. Control of cannabis and psychedelics is about control itself. A responsible, otherwise law-abiding citizen apparently has no fundamental right to determine the state of his or her own consciousness. That is apparently something reserved for our various governmental authorities to do. Cannabis and psychedelics tend to make people question the reality they inhabit. That makes authoritarian personality types--which tend toward dysfunctionality by their very nature--extremely nervous.
I would hope these comments might be respectfully considered. I actually sympathize with Zachorious's tone. It's very frustrating when you're trying to reason with people who have already had their minds made up for them. I suspect he has bumped heads with a few such people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Gosh trying to find out why these drugs are illegal is proving difficult. "government authorities opposed this for numerous reasons, arguing that along with negative health effects, drug use led to lowered moral standards" Ok, so what are the "negative health effects"? Where are the statistics for hospital admissions, the death rate etc? What are the "moral standards"? Where is the schedule of moral standards? Is the "problem of the abuse of the psychotropic substances" that people enjoy getting high? Is that it? What is "the problem"? Where is "abuse" defined?
"It covers such a grab-bag of natural and manufactured items that at every stage of its consideration its proponents felt obliged to stress anew that it would not affect alcohol or tobacco abuse." So it's all completely arbitrary then? There need not be a negative effect of a drug for it to be prohibited? "there was insufficient evidence to indicate that the substance has therapeutic usefulness" seems to be the cryteria. So harmless or not, any drug other than tobacco and alcohol are banned for no clearly defined reason? Shouldn't we be linking to articles about fascism and totalitarianism, if that's what this really is? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
In the infobox at the top of the article, it's talking about how Schedule I drugs are allowed. But in the list, it says the complete opposite; that Schedule I drugs are the only ones that are competely illegal. It looks ike someone copied the schedule list form the US version. 220.127.116.11 13:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Sections on schedules
I think this article could use a section devoted to each schedule and the drugs in it a la Controlled Substances Act, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act etc. Where is the full list of scheduled drugs available?--Eloil 01:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
NPOV / wording
From the history paragraph:
"Circa 1969, with use of stimulants spiraling out of control.."
Spiraling out of control? This needs to have some serious backing. And even if relevant sources state the same I would rather use more sober wording.
caffeine is a stimulant, what the hell, and its addictive and it has health implications. why is caffeine legal, why is aspartame legal, why is soda legal? what the fuck...... the great evil in this world was responsible for this convention on psychotropic substances. humanity will evolve if the ban on psychedelics is removed. someone/something owns our congress, because truth, justice, freedom, compassion seem be of less value than control. And that makes me very very ANGRY>><!
Which countries Signed?
Rewrite or remove
"the quiet Canadian defiance of treaty obligations seemed to be another hairline crack in the foundation of global drug control." This sounds like it was written in a novel, in addition to not being very neutral making Canada seem like something destroying the very foundation of global drug control(read: it says exactly that). Someone please edit this to make it sound more professional (less dramatic) or just remove it. In general I've noticed a lot of over dramatic writing in the article. Toxic Ninja (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
"Despite its well-known presence in the rave scene, ketamine, or Special K, remains uncontrolled internationally due to its importance as an anesthetic in veterinary medicine."
Should this be changed to just "in medicine"? Ketamine is used regularly in human medicine too, and there are substances being classified under the UNCPS that are used in vetinary medicine, and it didn't seem to affect the desicion to place them under control. See Benzylpiperazine. --Daflore (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
tons of UN citations 404d
- I fixed most of the broken links. Still broken:
- "Monthly Status of Treaty Adherence". United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2005-01-01. http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaty_adherence.html. Retrieved 2006-04-15.
- "World drug threat, the UN reports". United Nations International Drug Control Programme. 1997. http://www.ias.org.uk/publications/theglobe/97issue3/globe9703_p11.html. Retrieved 2006-04-15.
- Bazant, Wayne (2002-02-04). "Amphetamine Type Stimulants Threaten East Asia". United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. http://www.unodc.un.or.th/factsheet/ATSissuesplans310102.htm. Retrieved 2006-04-15.
Psychedelic plants and fungi
The mentioned plant species Mimosa hostilis is not the plant that is logical for the text of this particular section. According to the narrative, the plant Psychotria viridis seems more appropriate. Both Mimosa and Psychotria contain DMT. Perhaps someone would like to make this correction (?).18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
It says that it's a Schedule IV drug now but under the WHO's evaluation the stub suggests that it is still a Schedule I drug. "...while leaving other tetrahydrocannabinols and their stereochemical variants in Schedule I." I gather this change was fairly recent and am not clear on the details so am not fixing it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)