| Revision as of 03:25, 11 January 2006 editSamAdams (talk | contribs)11 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:27, 11 January 2006 edit undoSamAdams (talk | contribs)11 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| Question: Since the Federal government has pursued cases regarding *medical* uses of prohibited drugs, even when used by residents of a state that has expressly legalized said medical use (see ]), should we not therefore strike out the "non-medical" qualifier in this opening paragraph? I hesitate to do so personally until someone is given the chance to explain why that distinction is made here. Perhaps it could be further clarified in some way. I am concerned that it may cause some readers to mistakenly believe that the Federal government does not pursue cases concerning the non-economic, non-recreational, consumption of drugs for purely medical purposes. This is the impression that I got from reading it, and it certainly is not true. | Question: Since the Federal government has pursued cases regarding *medical* uses of prohibited drugs, even when used by residents of a state that has expressly legalized said medical use (see ]), should we not therefore strike out the "non-medical" qualifier in this opening paragraph? I hesitate to do so personally until someone is given the chance to explain why that distinction is made here. Perhaps it could be further clarified in some way. I am concerned that it may cause some readers to mistakenly believe that the Federal government does not pursue cases concerning the non-economic, non-recreational, consumption of drugs for purely medical purposes. This is the impression that I got from reading it, and it certainly is not true. | ||
| A more accurate and neutral description of this Federal policy, it seems to me, would be to eliminate this phrase. Again, I await a reply before editing it myself. | |||
| --] | --] | ||
Revision as of 03:27, 11 January 2006
This page was just a redirect to Talk:Prohibition (drugs). That was confusing. -GTBacchus 01:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Unsourced paragraph
This paragraph pretty much reads like original research; it uses material from sources like , but then draws independent conclusions. It's also fairly POV:
- One important way of analyzing a policy of drug prohibition is to test whether the decrease in the social costs of drug abuse outweighs the cost of prohibition itself. US Government Agencies do not always make helpful contributions to this analysis. For example, the ONDCP estimated that the cost of drug abuse in 2000 was over $160 billion (1.6% of GDP); but they included losses in productivity due to incarceration, crime, drug-related illness, and other reasons accounting for over two-thirds of that amount. Were the drugs in question to be legalized and taxed, many of those costs would disappear, and a legal trade in these substances would develop, as happened at the end of the Prohibition era. Costs to society would depend largely on any change in the popularity of these drugs, the proportion of abusers, and whether there would be a change in the criminal behavior of drug users. The ONDCP analysis also failed to take into account the effect of the reduced revenue that would accrue to organized crime in a regulated, de-criminalized drug economy.
-GTBacchus 01:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The first sentence of this article reads: "The War on Drugs is an initiative undertaken in the United States to carry out an "all-out offensive" (as President Nixon described it) against the non-medical use of certain prohibited drugs."
Question: Since the Federal government has pursued cases regarding *medical* uses of prohibited drugs, even when used by residents of a state that has expressly legalized said medical use (see Gonzalez v. Raich), should we not therefore strike out the "non-medical" qualifier in this opening paragraph? I hesitate to do so personally until someone is given the chance to explain why that distinction is made here. Perhaps it could be further clarified in some way. I am concerned that it may cause some readers to mistakenly believe that the Federal government does not pursue cases concerning the non-economic, non-recreational, consumption of drugs for purely medical purposes. This is the impression that I got from reading it, and it certainly is not true.
A more accurate and neutral description of this Federal policy, it seems to me, would be to eliminate this phrase. Again, I await a reply before editing it myself.
--SamAdams