Talk:War on drugs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:War on Drugs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


51 Billion is unsourced[edit]

The source link goes to an advocacy site that just states the cost as 51 billion without showing any source for the number. http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-war-statistics

united kingdom[edit]

The united kingdom is a very nice place to spend your vacation. But united kingdom has strict policies. The use and abuse of illegal drugs in the UK widespread a growing problem. The effects of such use manifest themselves in undescriable imoacts on individuals,families,communites and the country as a whole.So basically whats going on is that smoking in united kingdom is not a very good thing to do one thing you do is that never ever ever ever is that smoking in united kingdom is that you'll die for doing anything thats not even right though so never do anything thats not even right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.242.61 (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Rate of interception[edit]

Only 5 to 10% of the illegally produced drugs are actually intercepted. Despite this, the war on drugs has costed the USA in the last 40 years a total of 1 trillion US dollars.[1]

Perhaps include in text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.178.137 (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Kijk magazine, 7, 2012

1912 International Opium Convention[edit]

Just a quick link to the article in the BBC magazine entitled 100 yrs of the war on drugs. EdwardLane (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Only a British magazine can forget the Opium war in this type of historical overview , the shameless war for continued profits to British Companies on opium from India to China. Dala11a (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
They didn't forget, just some journalist in search of an exquisite story. Did you even read the article, or only the header line? Just asking... ;) --178.197.225.69 (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Lincoln protege???[edit]

In the middle of this article it says...

> Lincoln protégé and former Vice-President George H. W. Bush was next to occupy the oval office...

I don't think George H. W. Bush was a protege of Lincoln. I'm not sure that's even possible. I think someone who wrote this meant Reagan? Maybe someone who knows more about wiki can fix this? 76.118.214.18 (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

>>Ironically, GHW Bush was not a Reagan protege. The two disliked each other privately. They ran against each other in the 1980 primary. GHW Bush famously, and accurately, called Reagan's economic policies "voodoo economics." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.117.214 (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Heroin trafficking operations of the CIA, U.S. Navy and Sicilian Mafia[edit]

Under this heading, it is asserted that "[d]uring World War II, the United States Navy ... released the mobster Lucky Luciano from prison ... ." It's hard to believe that the Navy held Lucky Luciano in custody at the time. The circumstances of Lucky Luciano's confinement, and the means by which the Navy purportedly obtained his release, would be a welcome addition here. Rickythesk8r (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at this [1], the snippet of page 145. It seems to say that he was in prison. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Szasz, the Nazis and drugs[edit]

A user has deleted the comment that the Nazi commanders in practice were big drug pushers while officially advocated for a healthy lifestyle. This is not nonsense, it's true. However, what has no place in an encyclopedia are false parallels that different laws in the U.S. can be compared with history's greatest genocide. So I put it back the text of the Nazis. Alternatively, the whole comparison with Nazism and the Holocaust be removed. So I put back the text about the Nazis.Dala11a (talk) 06:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The question, as I see it, is whether Thomas Szasz is a sufficiently reputable source to be considered within the range of opinion relevant to an encyclopedia. Szasz has published over twenty books. A quick search on Penn State's library database turns up over six thousand hits. He was very respected in his field. I'm putting the quotation back in for now. I'm not sure if this is too much to ask on Wikipedia, but can we please discuss this on the talk page before removing it again? The question isn't whether we agree with him, it's whether a sufficiently wide range of views on the subject can be represented. If you read the quote carefully, you'll see that he doesn't say our persecution of drug users is comparable to that of the Jews. The comparison claims only that both societies designate a certain portion of the population as a "problem," and then imprison and persecute them. From Szasz's perspective, where he saw how those rejected by society for being "insane" are treated (the pscyhopharmacological straitjacket is, Szasz thinks, a form of torture), we might see his tendency to make such analogies as evidence that the treatment of dissenters in our society is not so humane as we imagine from outside. talk1/12/13

Others state that the comparison with the Nazis is completely preposterous and absurd. Several top Nazis were themselves drug abusers, for instance Hitler and Herman Goering. It is well known that Hitler, at least the latter part of World War II, was addicted to drugs that he took the form of injections. Herman Goering was a period in the 1920's locked up in a psychiatric clinic in Sweden for his drug addiction.Dala11a (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Is Thomas Szasz an expert on the Drug policy of the Third Rich? I do not believe that.I found a study by Jonathan Lewy, with a lot of references:Jonathan Lewy:The Drug Policy of the Third Reich
      • Consumption of any drug was legal in nazi Germany, but possession without prescription was forbidden.
      • Drug use was never considered a crime in The Third Reich
      • None of the drug laws in Germany was influenced by racial hygiene doctrines of the regime, nor were addicts particularly affected by the Nazi pursuit of social or racial purity.
      • Nazi Germany was probably the first country to regulate methamphetamine, but they never banned it.Dala11a (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. One question, though. Szasz is claiming that the designation of the drug using minority as a "problem" minority is analogous to the designation of other minorities in history as "problem" minorities. The only claim is that the vocabulary used to describe a "problem" minority is similar. He doesn't seem to be making any claims about the drug policy of the Third Reich. So I have trouble seeing why this issue keeps coming up. To make an analogy between A and B in one respect does not imply they are similar in other respects. The issue of drug policy in the Third Reich is interesting, but I'd like to better understand why the Szasz quote raises this issue for you in the first place. talk 1/19/13

The Third Reich had simultaneously 2 very different drug policies, one for jews and other minorities and one for other citizens. The first lead to mass murder of jews etc. The others had a very liberal drug law, any drug legal in medical prescription, but most reader do not know that. Any comparison with the Third Reich must include some kind of link to the real Drug laws of Nazi Germany. Dala11a (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
This is way off. The jews were killed for being jews, not drug abusers. --178.197.236.72 (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Globaliza tag[edit]

Ok Nixon invented the term but that is no reason to have a US centred article. Articles like this and this make it clear it is not a US centred war, the terminology is used worldwide. So i have tagged the article and will keep working at globalizing its emphasis. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

TBH I think the only solution is to move this article to the US War on Drugs and start again with an international article on the war on drugs which could have a section on the USA but this article is not recoverable as an international article and besides its a valuable article that I dont want to destroy but it isnt the article on the war on drugs. I can make a formal RM but would first like to hear what others think as if there is no opposition I can do it myself (I would perhaps create a temporary article in my user space to avoid disruption). Please let me know what you think. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I see no harm in a move to a US centric article. An RM probably isn't needed. If no one opposes in a while then go ahead and be bold.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It is biased to attribute US legislation to the Presidents rather than to Congress where it originates. Specifically, the article states that "...Reagan was able to pass legislation through Congress..." as if the Democratic-controlled Congress had no say in the matter. In fact, all legislation originates in Congress. This is a fallacy that permeates American society and does a great disservice to our political discourse. It leads to terms such as "Bush Tax Cuts" and "Obamacare." While Obama did support that eponymous legislation, the tax cuts signed into law by Bush were substantially different that the ones he asked for. We would better serve the site visitors to not support this mischaracterization of the political process.Ronlewishouston (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy[edit]

The report was criticized by organizations that oppose a general legalization of drugs.

That's a euphemism for "the report was criticized by organizations who benefit from the prohibition of drugs, specifically, the Drug Enforcement Administration, law enforcement groups, the prison industry, and criminal justice groups, including attorneys." And, there needs to be a voice from citizen groups who are tired of this never ending war on civil liberties. Several authors point to the war on drugs in the 1960s as an excuse to arrest political dissidents. Going farther back, it was used as an excuse to harass minorities. Viriditas (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Bias[edit]

While informative, this article shows significant bias. Notably, history and other relevant information regarding the current state of the drug war constitutes a fraction of the page size and often seems poorly researched or otherwise under-represented

Further, sections 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10 appear to be thinly veiled forms of political criticism. These should be condensed into a generalized criticism section or ported over to pages of their own — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.162.23 (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The theories about a connection between hemp and a) nylon b)Pulp and paper industry lack sources from experts on those materials. The theories are only built on speculations from persons that "belived" in hemp, Ok, there are a number of persons, but there are no links to documents to any important person in the pulp- and paper industry or textile industry or in DuPont that had the same "belive" in the 1930s. The list of "belivers" is long but where are the primary sources that show that there was a link? And where are the quotations from relevant persons in the 1930s? There are are numerous texts about the the history of paper that do not have anything about hemp (the same for nylon). There are many and strong sources that show a fast progress of the technology for production of nylon and pulp from wood in the 1930s. Hemp become almost completely out-competed as raw material. The development become the same in countries that did not put fees or taxes on hemp; hemp could not compete with pulp from forests or nylon except in some very small applications. So delete the conspiracy theories about hemp and nylon, hemp and pulp industry or hemp and Hearst's ownership of forests.Dala11a (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Notably, the "Plan Colombia" section contains no mention of the fact that Colombia had ceased to be the leading producer of cocaine by 2012, even though this is important enough to be mentioned on the Colombia page itself. The section seems more concerned with the civil war and human rights issues than with the efforts to combat the drug trade. -J. Conti 108.20.137.173 (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Links[edit]

>> The marijuana economy(Lihaas (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)).

6 = 4?[edit]

In the section on 'Legality' there is a claim that legality is challenged on six main grounds. This claim is followed by a list with just four entries. 70.171.44.124 (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)BGriffin

Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 and Len Bias[edit]

It seems totally unreasonable that the act was "driven" by Bias's death. Is there a source for this? It should probably be removed. Exercisephys (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The death of Len Bias resulted in considerable anti-drug publicity and it was this publicity that played a role in legislation calling for harsh mandatory sentences for cocaine possession (and particularly for "crack cocaine" possession - despite the fact that Len Bias had not been using crack). Indeed, such harsh laws (not just the ADAA) were often called Len Bias Laws. Maybe if the article said "driven in part by publicity surrounding the death of Len Bias" it would be more accurate. But it is not 'totally unreasonable' as written. The law itself was unreasonable and was surely influenced by factors other than an accidental overdose by NCAA basketball star. - Qdiderot (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

"Collateral damage" section needed[edit]

Since there is no "criticism" section I suggest to create a "collateral damage" section to implement information how the rights of US citizens are endangered. Together with examples like this here: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/05/baby-in-coma-after-police-grenade-dropped-in-crib-during-drug-raid/

Sorry, but there are countries where such an action would be illegal anyway, where the police can't just attack people in their homes. Looks like the Iraqi war is finally coming to the USA. And that is a war in which noone will win and all will loose.

Now I hope that the victims get a good lawyer and will sue the police, the county, the state and the US president himself. --178.197.225.69 (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Excessive Quotation marks in the "Common Drugs" section[edit]

Why are there quotation marks on nearly everything in that section of the article? Its really amateur looking from a style viewpoint and it needs to be cleaned up. I'd edit it and clean it up myself, but the article is semi-protected and I'm not registering just to do so, no thanks. Someone else who can edit this page should probably do so as soon as practicable, because it looks ridiculous as it stands in one part looking as if Mexico and the United States don't really exist. 2602:306:C4B9:8D90:14CA:D4CC:629F:F064 (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Another style suggestion: remove second person POV. It makes passages read like they were written by a high school student.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2015[edit]

Common drugs section

All links in this section are in quotes.

Basic grammar and neutrality are all out of whack. :

"If the possession of it is not as great as "cocaine" or "heroin"."

Citations are needed:

In addition, the Criminal Defense Lawyer article explains that "crystal meth" is specifically made up of "chemicals".


Really, this section makes a joke out of an important societal issues and requires a full rewrite. Edupop (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Edupop: Edit requests have to be specific (i.e. "Please change X to Y"). Please reopen this request with the specific changes you want to be made. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 23:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

wikiproject legalize drugs![edit]

which is all this clearly biased article really is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.216.50 (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please remove spam from article[edit]

This article has link spam pointing back to an exact match domain "CriminalDefenseLawyer.com" and also "CriminalAttorney.com". Those are references 80-83 at time of writing.

They also put themselves in the body of the article in a sentence beginning:

"The Criminal Defense Lawyer article claims that..."

I'd remove it myself but this article is locked. 131.191.57.0 (talk)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on War on Drugs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on War on Drugs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Dan Baum Harper's article[edit]

This article might provide some valuable new insights why the war on drugs was created: [2]. Bonomont (talk) 06:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

John Ehrlichman Quote[edit]

I notice that an alleged quote from John Ehrlichman which emerged recently (to the effect that Nixon's cracking down on drugs was explicitly racially-motivated) has been added to this article. Nearly every news article I've seen which talked about this admission, however, indicated that the quote's authenticity has been questioned and remains uncertain. While the quote is certainly relevant here, I think the article should state that Ehrlichman "allegedly" said it, unless I've missed something which has strongly backed up its authenticity. After all, when even the Huffington Post waffles about how sure we can be about something nasty a Republican leader said, Wikipedia probably ought to be cautious as well.

I agree, using "alleged" is nothing but fair. In addition, Ehrlichman might have hold a grudge against Nixon after being in prison for Watergate and may have deliberately tried to make him look bad. Bonomont (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

2 Topics Here[edit]

The article seems to quickly merge 2 topics: the facts/history on the War on Drugs, and the current political movement against the War on Drugs. The history of the War on Drugs is spread throughout the article, and seemingly so are current judgements on those histories. At the same time, a 3rd topic could be explored, and that is defining the motivation behind those who are against the War on Drugs, which varies from the desire for drugs, to protection of users, to political posturing by those seeking office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1307:8030:1DCB:8337:7037:E9E8 (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on War on Drugs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Do we need the Global Commission on Drug Policy in the lead?[edit]

I know the name makes it sound important and impartial, but it's actually a very selective group of people gathered together to oppose the War on Drugs, and it doesn't seem like a terribly important or influential group either. Seems like it should be in the main body instead, along with the many other organisations that have something to say on this topic. 2.102.184.54 (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2017[edit]

  • Change "When the convict possessed" to "If a convict possesses"
  • Remove the comma after "and" in the first line
  • Remove "having" from "Having possession is when..."
  • Remove quotes on "prison", add "a" before "$2,500", and replace the period after "fine" with a comma. It should be "two years in prison, a $2,500 fine, or both."
  • Remove quotes from "prison" again in the following line.
  • Replace "In some states in the US" with "In some U.S. states,"
  • Remove the word "of" after "million" in "Over 80 million of Americans have tried this type of drug."
  • Provide citation.
  • Remove quotes from "prison" in second to last line.
  • Replace "how much of the "marijuana"" with "how much marijuana"

529djm09 (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. When you say "Provide citation," where's the citation coming from? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Sources are not needed for basic copyediting. WP:MOS is the "source" for how to write encyclopedically.
  • Rewrote the entire sentence to use encyclopedic instead of blog-style wording, per MOS:TONE. This also resolved the clarification request the sentence was tagged with.
  • Comma deletion request declined. See MOS:SERIAL.
  • Weird "scare quotes" removed from "prison" in all places. Looked like some kind of PoV vandalism that went undetected for a while.
  • The edits desired around "$2,500" were correct and have been done.
  • "U.S. states" edit has been done: per MOS:U.S. (the rest of the article uses U.S., not US); because a comma is required after that clause; and because the longer wording was awkward.
  • Removed the grammatically incorrect "of". Also replaced awkward wording elsewhere in that sentence, and fixed title of work immediately after it.
  • Don't know what cite 529djm09 wants, where.
  • Did the "how much marijuana" fix, since the original was ungrammatical and again abusing "scare quotes".
 — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  18:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 24 September 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. The support !votes showed convincing policy rationale to move this to the new title. The opposes make great points but I do not see enough rationale to go against the consensus here. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane talk 18:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)



War on DrugsWar on drugsMOS:CAPS. Not an actual war, and not consistently capitalized in reliable sources, even those direclty quoted in the lead section.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  18:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support: Not just war, it is not even an operation/task/mission. It is a loose term (umbrella?) for multiple operations, projects, and laws/acts against drugs. As it is a "loose term" and not a proper name for a particular operation, it should be de-capitalised per WP:NCCAPS, and WP:MOSPN. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Per nom.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination and per well-summarized evaluation by Usernamekiran. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. My initial thought was "support", however, I realized that we have similarly titles articles elsewhere (e.g. War on Terror, War on Cancer, War on Women, War on Poverty, War on Gangs). Perhaps those are more consistently capitalized, though. (I did find War on coal, too.) -Location (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I wasn't going to get involved in this good faith nom until I came upon a relevant guideline from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names. When referring to capitalizing something, and to editors disagreeing, it says "Wikipedia does not seek to judge such rival claims, but as a general rule uses the name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English." Given that information, which either trumps or is at least equal to the often cited 100% consistency guideline, the name most familiar to readers of English is War on Drugs. That capitalization has been fed to Americans by their media for decades, and for better or worse it seems to be the common name: the name that it is known by in English. And a good point in Location's comment above, wouldn't this RM then change the names of all of those other semi-wars as well? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
    That's not responsive to this RM, which is not seeking to change the title away from what the name most commonly is (see WP:COMMONSTYLE for why to not misinterpret COMMONNAME as a style policy). The capitals have not been consistently "fed to" anyone, as any review of sources shows: It is not consistently capitalized, and the no. 1 rule of MOS:CAPS and NCCAPS is use lower case if the sources don't consistently capitalize. The parties primarily "feeding" this style are governmental and a certain section of the press; it's a propagandistic "use capitals for emphasis" style; see first post-lead section at MOS:CAPS: "Do not use capitalization for emphasis".  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, the press and government are the ones using upper-case as emphasis and propaganda, and they have been at it for decades. That's why it's the "most familiar name to readers of English". I hope everyone agreeing with the change realizes that throughout the entire article the lower-case 'war on drugs' would replace the upper-case form. What about the other partial-wars mentioned above, the War on Poverty for example (which is the unofficial but most familiar name of Lyndon Johnson's program and legislation-hook)? Will they be de-emphasized by this RM? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
    But it's just a subset of the press doing that (the subset that mimics governmentese). What you personally have been reading and what effect its had on your perception is a WP:IKNOWIT thing. An actual examination of what the press, in the aggregate, is doing shows lots of lower-case "war on drugs", plus usage of the phrase as a common noun phrase (e.g. in the plural or with an indefinite article). I cover this below, with Google News search. Any other "war on foo" will have to be examined case-by-case. I see that the term "war on poverty" is labeled an "unofficial" terms, so it would also probably be lower-cased. If Trump tomorrow declares a War on Brown Women and actually names it that as an official Trump Administration policy or program, then that would be capitalized. (The fact that his policies informally create one doesn't result in anything we'd put capital letters on).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  07:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have no strong opinion on this relatively minor name change, but I would note here that, IMO, some of the problems in this article are a result of the confusing division between War on Drugs and Federal drug policy of the United States, an article that, bizarrely, is not even listed in the see also section. At some point a more rational description of the subject should be considered. Rgr09 (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per User:Usernamekiran (sic) and User:Randy Kryn. The fact that is not a "real war" but more of a promotional umbrella term encompassing all such efforts shows it is a proper name and not a descriptive. One is highly unlikely to hear generically of "wars on drugs" and it is usually used with the article the. The name may not be universally capitalized but it is "consistently capitalized in reliable sources". —  AjaxSmack  23:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
    Except that it's not; That's the entire point of the RM. See: [3] The very first page of search results in news shows not only lower-case usage but explicit use as a common-noun phrase ("How to win a war on drugs"); this is the very "generically" usage you claim isn't going to be found, yet we find it in the very top news results in just a few seconds of not even looking very hard. PS: One of the most common and long-standing lines of academic thinking on proper names is that if it takes "the" then this is a sure sign it is not a proper name, but some form of descriptive construction, usually an appellative. Your argument sharply disagrees with the consensus philosophy viewpoint on proper names; and from what I've been reading lately [4], the same appellative view is increasingly supported by linguists, though most of them are focused on syntax and morphology (structure) not semantics (meaning).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  07:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
    User:SMcCandlish, Thanks for the link to this source. Google Books won't let me read it all but I am procuring a copy now and look forward to reading it. From what I can read now, I would say that War on Drugs is like "The Old Vicarage", a semantically-bleached proper name. The Google News links you give are also elucidating. The lowercase version war on drugs tends to be used for examples outside of the U.S. (e.g. "Duterte's war on drugs") and such usage represents a genericization of the term. However, that's not how this article uses it. The intro specifically limits it to "an American term usually applied to the United States government's campaign of...", i.e. not generic category of drug policy nor quite a monoreferential but a semantically-lightened proper name like the War on Terror and other such war metaphors. And in news sources referring to this more narrow meaning, War on Drugs with caps and even scare quotes is more common. The "war on drugs" referred to in ""How to win a war on drugs" is not the topic of this article.  AjaxSmack  16:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
    Then our article needs to be updated, since the usage has clearly broadened. Given the amount of influence US policy wields outside US borders, and how long the US has been pushing other countries about drug policy in particular, this was inevitable.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  00:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    This article is about the American program and effort known as the War on Drugs, not a worldwide drug policy or effort. A worldwide page would include this article as a link. And can someone alert the related project pages about this RM, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Um ... User:Randy Kryn, User:Usernamekiran, and User talk:AjaxSmack: what evidence is your assertion based on? Simple ngram search. In my view that settles the matter. Tony (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi. In addition to the well-reasoned points made above by AjaxSmack, just Google it. Even in lower case. You have to get into the third page to come up with first lower-case, and I think there are three of them on the third page. Then it goes on for other links to War on Drugs. Just by that alone it shows that the upper-cased is probably the overwhelmingly familiar name. That's the things nickname, at least in my mental-map. The War on Drugs. Of course there are many examples where it's lower-cased, but that doesn't mean that the reader in English will be more familiar with it that way. N-grams usually (or only?) count appearances in books, which is only one measure of a name's familiarity. At the corner newsstand it's the War on Drugs, and seems to me to be the common styling of the name. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
This is about total numbers, not who has paid SEO specialists to get them high-position search rankings.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  01:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Nothing to do with paid google rankings, the capitalization for the American War on Drugs is overwhelming used throughout search engine pages (I've looked at 160 rankings on Google just now). The major lower-case listings are for Philippine-related pages, which have nothing to do with this one. From your comments a bit above it seems you may have been unaware that this article is for the American term and events, any possibility of pulling this RM because of that? Taking just the American term into consideration, the page seems to be accurately named. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2017[edit]

In the "History" section under sub-section "20th Century" in the beginning of the 3rd paragraph the word "Marijuana" is misspelled as "Marihuana" SeanFrancis (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: See Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 Cannolis (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on War on drugs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Propose move to Drug policy of the United States[edit]

I propose moving the present article to Drug policy of the United States. Rationale:

  1. Some sections of it, such as Commonly used illegal drugs, War in Vietnam, and Allegations of U.S. government involvement in drug trafficking have no obvious relationship to the War on Drugs as such.
  2. More importantly, I would argue that the term "War on Drugs" is a biased title now used by critics of US drug policy. I realize it was used by proponents at one point, but it has always been an ill-defined term used for political purposes, not a specific policy. There are now a range of detractors of the "War on Drugs" advocating for a wide variety of policies. Is there any US federal drug policy since 1970 which wouldn't fit in this article?
  3. Federal drug policy of the United States is of poor quality and I also propose that it be merged into this article.

I wouldn't be opposed to someone writing a new War on Drugs article, but would prefer that to be focused on the rhetoric and politics of the War on Drugs, rather than on policies, in order to differentiate it from this article. the 20th century section of this article is pretty sparse, but could become the beginning of that. On the other hand, I consider it perfectly appropriate that War on Drugs redirect to Drug policy of the United States. Daask (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Um, al capone anybody?[edit]

Um, can someone please mention on the main page the war on drugs never works, look at al-capone, please... Who said if you don't learn from historys mistakes you're doomed to repeat them....

Criticism section[edit]

A section on criticism from Milton Friedman to Gary Johnson should be added to balance the article.Miacek (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The war on drugs was announced on JUNE 17, 1971.[edit]

Search on newspapers.com or any old newspaper archive. The WOD was announced on the 17th NOT the 18th. Also, many other credible sources claim it was the 17th. Please change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Learyfan (talkcontribs) 14:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)