Parts of this article are completely fictitious. I'm revamping it. Serotrance 20:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that law is the subject matter of the article, I would be of the opinion that citations to the actual case law are a clear exception to the policy concerning primary sources. This is because quoting the actual law is a stronger proposition that quoting a secondary source (which may or may not be correct information at the current time, and probably will be incorrect information within about 5 years of the writing of the secondary source) in a field that is extremely date sensitive. This is because cases are clearly "dated", and as such, after a time, will prompt the ordinary reader to conduct a bit more research to get current information. The reasonable alternative would be to require a hat message on all law articles that alerts readers to the "date" issue of sorts. 108.235.248.227 (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge this article into Prohibition of drugs. I think that the content in the Drug possession article can very easily be explained in the context of Drug law, and that article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Prohibition of drugs will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 03:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is taking place at Talk:Prohibition of drugs#Merger proposal, NOT here. GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]