Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin

Thailand[edit]

== Golden Triangle (Southeast Asia) to King Roman Casino ==[1]

The United Nations (VIENNA) announced that “South East Asian and Chinese Ministers Step up Joint Efforts To Fight Drug Production, Trafficking, Abuse Cambodia, China, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand, Viet Nam Endorse UN Initiatives “[2]

The Golden Triangle was one of the world's two largest opium producing areas in 1995. 11 July 1997 Rangsitpol held the meeting of six East Asian countries in Bangkok, to endorse a number of new measures. He aimed at strengthening cooperation to combat drug abuse and trafficking in the subregion. The six countries are Cambodia, China, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Viet Nam and Thailand.

They participated in the areas of law enforcement, demand reduction and eradication of illicit crops under a 1993 agreement with the Vienna-based UN International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP).

After two-day meeting,consultation of senior officials of the six Governments and the UNDCP, launched several new drug control projects, which results in including an arrangement to improve the exchange of intelligence on trafficking syndicates and the programmes to train police, the customs, the prosecutorial and the judicial staff.Moreover Myanmar, China and the UNDCP agreed on a project combining drug control and help to provide basic needs for poor people in the Wa region of Myanmar's Eastern Shan State, near the Chinese border.


The proposed of the Wa project was to strengthen communities and to provide them with alternative means of livelihood so that they can abandon cultivation of opium poppy. According to the UNDCP, the region formed by adjacent border areas of Lao PDR, Myanmar and Thailand was one of the world's two largest opium plantations . Cambodia, China and Viet Nam were transit countries for the heroin production of the opium and sent exclusively to North America.

Chemicals used to process heroin from opium, or for production of amphetamine-type stimulants, are also trafficked across national frontiers.

The National Frontier was the route for the drug’s trafficking to deliver Chemical used to process heroin from opium and the ingredient to produce type stimulants amphetamine.

The Ministers also agreed to step up efforts to prevent the demand for illicit drugs.

Sukavich Rangsitpol, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education of Thailand, was the chairman of the ministerial meeting. The others were Mathly Rim Skadavy, Special Advisor to the Minister of Interior of Cambodia; Bai Jingfu, Vice-Commissioner of the National Narcotics Control Commissioner and Vice-Minister of Public Security of China; Soubanh Srithirath, Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs and Chairman of the Commission for Drug Control of the Lao PDR; Lt. General Maung Thint, Minister for Border Areas, National Races and Development Affairs of Myanmar; and Hoang Duc Nghi, Chairman of the National Drug Control Programme and Minister of the Committee for Ethnic Minorities and Mountainous Areas of Viet Nam.

Because of his education reform for all Thai children,he have journeyed tens of thousands of kilometers, visited thousands of schools and talked to tens of thousands of students teachers and school administrators.

While he was in the northern Thailand he learned that the UNDCP, the subregion has been experiencing a recent upsurge in abuse of heroin and synthetic stimulants. After he help Them updated their drug control action plan to better reflect the current abuse, production and trafficking patterns in the region as well as recent developments in national and regional drug control policies mandated by the earlier plan.The earlier plan was adopted at a ministerial meeting held in Beijing in 1995. The UNDCP ‘s 11 projects in the areas of demand reduction, crop reduction and law enforcement. Was cooperating by the six countries since 1995.

https://web.archive.org/web/20040601155140/http://nick.assumption.edu/WebVAX/Nation/Bernstein16Dec96.html

The delegation also suggested that investments in infrastructure and hotels would be better choice in the globalization world .

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/14/drugs-investigators-close-asian-el-chapo-centre-vast-meth-ring/

There had been reported that the Golden Triangle (Southeast Asia) ‘s poppy cultivation decreased more than 80 percent from 1998 . In conclusion it was considered one of his achievement.

https://www.unodc.org/roseap/uploads/archive/documents/2009/03/cnd/MOU_Poster_small.pdf


https://www.academia.edu/43054905/EDUCATION_FOR_LIFE_THAILANDS_MOST_IMPORTANT_CHALLENGE_His_Excellency_SUKAVICH_RANGSITPOL_Deputy_Prime_Minister_and_Minister_of_Education_Royal_Thai_Government_to_the_FOREIGN_CORRESPONDENTS_CLUB_OF_THAILAND 49.228.64.97 (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC) 49.228.66.71 (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stylization of title[edit]

Is it "war on drugs", in sentence case,[3][4][5][6][7][8] or is it "War on Drugs", in title case?[9][10][11][12][13][14]

I lean towards the latter but am unsure.

Regardless, shouldn't the disambiguation page be "War on drugs (disambiguation)"?

Links to contradicting sources

References

  1. ^ https://th.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g19845050-d19843970-Reviews-Kings_Romans_Casino-Van_Pak_Len_Bokeo_Province.html
  2. ^ https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/press/releases/press_release_1997-07-11_1.html
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs
  4. ^ https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/06/un-experts-call-end-global-war-drugs
  5. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9302017/
  6. ^ https://opd.ohio.gov/static/Law%20Library/Training/OPD%20Training%20Materials/2021%20Virtual%20Legal%20Summit/September/Lassiter-Impossible%20Criminals.pdf
  7. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/24/war-on-drugs-40-years
  8. ^ https://www.vox.com/2016/5/8/18089368/war-on-drugs-marijuana-cocaine-heroin-meth
  9. ^ https://www.britannica.com/topic/war-on-drugs
  10. ^ https://legis.wisconsin.gov/eupdates/asm48/marijuana%20timeline_4.30.15_ac.pdf
  11. ^ https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/933/text
  12. ^ https://www.sf.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/community%20voices%20report%2011%2017%2014.pdf
  13. ^ https://www.governor.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt336/files/documents/20200819-gilles-bissonnette-new-jim-crow-exerpt.pdf
  14. ^ https://civilrights.org/blog/americas-war-on-drugs-50-years-later/


— Urro[talk][edits] ⋮ 16:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2024[edit]

Change 2 years, 7 months, 1 week and 2 days to 2 years, 7 months, 1 week and 4 days. JoeRobinetteBiden (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is calculated by Template:Age. M.Bitton (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Noriega[edit]

The section on Noriega makes the claim that he was not indicted (in the 70's) because the CIA intervened. That is sourced to Cockburn & Clair's 'Whiteout...'. Whatever anyone thinks of them, the publisher (Verso) is a fairly left-wing publisher that is not on our RS list and when it has come up on the RS notice board, it hasn't always been endorsed as impartial. [1] [2] I would think (if kept) it would need proper attribution. Furthermore there are contrary POVs: In, for example, a October 11, 1988 article that appeared in The Village Voice (not exactly a right-wing rag) entitled 'Bush and the Secret Noriega Report', it says this: "There was so much evidence in fact, that in the early '70's DEA officials made their first attempt to indict Noriega on drug charges. But the indictment was never brought because the assistant U.S. attorney in Miami believed Noriega would never be extradited from Panama, according to the former DEA official." So I think this needs some work. I may do it myself in the coming days....but I wanted to post here first before I did to see if anyone had better sources or if there were any objections.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing Failure[edit]

@Tsavage: Yes, something can be a failure and ongoing at the same time. It's not a contradiction. While it's implied that a failure means an end to a policy, the journal source I cited in my edit does a great job explaining in great detail why the drug war still continues despite being a failure. To summarize, the main reasons are: special interests, the longevity of the policy, impacts are mostly on marginalized communities, and the goal having public acceptance. Sagflaps (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"impacts are mostly on marginalized communities, and the goal having public acceptance." That the negative impacts would primarily affect the marginalized was intentional. But does the policy still enjoy popular support? Dimadick (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to that source, the goal of dealing with drug abuse does enjoy popular support, even if the war on drugs in general doesn't. Sagflaps (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sagflaps: The way I considered it, common sense and neutrality seem to favor a simple "Status: ongoing", as "ongoing failure" is confusing. What is ongoing failure intended to convey to the infobox reader? That there is an ongoing failure of the war on drugs to beat drugs? There's no confusion with ongoing: right now, a well-funded DEA is fighting Mexican cartels in the "most devastating drug crisis in our nation’s history." The body of the article, probably the "Efficacy" section, seems better suited than the infobox for a summary of the various arguments that claim the war on drugs has been an overall policy failure. Tsavage (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it violates NPOV when considering that if reliable sources say it is failing, then it is failing. Yes, the idea of an ongoing failure is probably confusing to readers, but it accurately represents the state of the drug war. Sagflaps (talk) 07:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "ongoing failure" is confusing. It replaces a neutral, easily verified condition like "ongoing", with an opinion stated as a fact. The citations list journalists and an academic. What about the US government's position, does it say that the war is a failure but we're continuing anyway, or does it have a different view? Does the DEA fighting fentanyl and cartels in Mexico consider it a failure? Reliable sources saying that something doesn't automatically make it objectively so -- at what point are we moving from reporting on sources, to creating our own consensus conclusion based on sources? It's not as if the article is without coverage of the numerous failure arguments, "Status: ongoing failure" seems about hammering home that view. It doesn't make "Status: ongoing" more accurate, only confuses it. Tsavage (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tsavage: I'm still unsure how NPOV is being violated here. I've tried to find RS that take a more optimistic view of the war on drugs, and I am coming up empty. They are either rather old, or not reliable. I've listened to Anne Milgram give interviews as well as looked through some of the DEA's media, and it seems the DEA generally does not take an official position on the war on drugs except in the sense that they are charged with enforcing the law. Sagflaps (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was considering infobox clarity. "Ongoing failure" is confusing, raises questions rather than conveying straightforward info. "If it's a failure, why is it ongoing?", "Who says it's a failure?", "What exactly is an 'ongoing failure'?"
It seems what you're focusing on is a consensus issue: what sourcing is sufficient for Wikipedia to declare that the war on drugs is a failure? A single reliable source with the opinion of one person (journalist, policy expert, economist, social scientist, whatever) doesn't seem enough. Ten sources, each arguing in their own terms about how they consider the war on drugs to be a failure still doesn't seem enough to declare a consensus, to say, without in-text attribution, that it's a failure. Maybe a study that establishes criteria for failure, reviews the available sources that analyze those criteria, and concludes that there's an expert consensus on failure, would be sufficient for us to write, "The war on drugs is a failure.[1]" Otherwise, it seems to be an OR issue.
The problem is, "success" and "failure" are not clearly defined for the war on drugs. Different articles and studies address different intersecting aspects -- racial injustice, cost/benefit, human rights, and so forth -- in different ways. Combining them to support one summary statement seems like original research. Other editors may disagree with that; you apparently do. So what's the way forward? :) Tsavage (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I added multiple sources is mostly for the sake of being thorough, and not for SYNTHing. Sagflaps (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources I cited literally explains the policy reasons for why the war is ongoing despite being a failure. So, I can't see how this is combining sources to reach my preferred conclusion. Sagflaps (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're talking about two related but different things. I find that infobox "Status: ongoing failure" is confusing and loaded, compared to "Status: ongoing". (We could discuss the meaning of "Status", which like everything else here, is open to interpretation.)
You're talking about declaring that the war on drugs is a policy failure. I agree, it sure seems that way! And that's already made pretty clear in the article, in the intro and kinda throughout, particularly in the "Domestic impact" and "Efficacy" sections. If you want to state that more forcefully or clearly in the article, do so. I think you'd still need to qualify it: "The consensus of experts in the field is that the war on drugs is a policy failure," with a source for that, not a single-author study. That study may be perfectly correct, but it is still just one opinion, one analysis. Tsavage (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't want to give undue weight to a specific opinion. This is reasonable, but I am unsure where the conflicting stances are on the matter. You haven't give me anything besides your own analysis of the DEA. If you have conflicting reliable sources to show, then I will agree with you. Sagflaps (talk) 01:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something like: "Status: ongoing, widely viewed as a policy failure". That's a lot more readable and neutral (sounding) than "ongoing failure". It also seems to be accurate. But not sure about sourcing for "widely viewed" (the consensus idea). As an ongoing government program, officially, it can't be viewed as a policy failure. The Office of National Drug Control Policy no doubt has a different take. So failure is one view.
I don't think finding conflicting sources is the issue. It's an ongoing policy, amply funded policy. Calling it a failure is disputing the official position. Tsavage (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tsavage: The version you have put is fine with me. Sagflaps (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I'm not supporting that, particularly. I think it's accurate information, but it still sounds like maybe taking sides (impression of non-neutrality), and there's the sourcing. I'd keep the infobox simple and see what hopefully develops in article itself that could be directly excerpted into Status. Right now, it would be more like, "Status: ongoing, viewed by the UN, etc, etc as a policy failure." If you make the "widely viewed" or similar change, I won't challenge it, because it's...accurate. Tsavage (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day, we summarize what the reliable sources say. If there is a conflict, then that's where NPOV and NOR come into play Sagflaps (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source has to be reliable for the intended use. There's no blanket "reliable". For example is the study you cited peer-reviewed? Has it been cited often? Etc. That's my understanding of RS. Tsavage (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Sagflaps (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably something like this would be best covered by saying the result was "disputed" and link to a section discussing it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis in Schedule I despite decades of evidence recommending otherwise[edit]

@My very best wishes: Can you explain in more detail why you've removed "despite decades of evidence contradicting that assessment" [3]? I'm not clear what your edit comment refers to: "Oh no, there is no proof it is safe for your health. Quite the opposite. And indeed, it is a federally prohibited drug," You also previously removed similar info a few days ago: "despite a consistent stream of evidence indicating otherwise"[4].

The statement is summarizing findings by US federal agencies, government-commissioned studies, and the American Medical Association, that are mentioned in the article. The "special case" refers to the federal government consistently ignoring recommendations from its own trusted sources. It doesn't say anything about whether cannabis is actually safe, it's only a reference to...studies. I think calling it a "special case" is a simple neutral summary. I guess that could be argued against, but I'm not clear on what error you see.

Thanks! - Tsavage (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the following issues in your edit:
  1. In the diff [5] you included the following: "classified in the highest tier of federally prohibited drugs, despite decades of evidence contradicting that assessment". What decades of what evidence? Sources? Please provide them here. Such claim is hardly consistent with sourced info provided on page Effects of cannabis.
  2. The discussion about tiers hardly belong to the lead. It is enough to say it was (and currently is) prohibited by the US federal government (if I am not mistaken).
  3. No, this is not just "30 states". The situation is more complicated as described on our page Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction. My very best wishes (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the cannabis are not the "deadliest drugs". No one disputes this. Same can be said about MDMA and some other drugs included to Schedule I. My very best wishes (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"the federal government consistently ignoring recommendations from its own trusted sources". You mean right now? What "sources" are you talking about? These must be MEDRS sources. My very best wishes (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes Thanks for the reply. To your points:
1) "What decades of what evidence?" The statement "despite decades of evidence contradicting that assessment" or, in the previous version that you also removed, "despite a consistent stream of evidence indicating otherwise", is a summary of information in the article:
  • 1930s: [Anslinger] announced that youth become "slaves" to cannabis, "continuing addiction until they deteriorate mentally, become insane, turn to violent crime and murder.”
  • 1937: The American Medical Association (AMA) had opposed the tax on grounds that it unduly affected the medical use of cannabis. The AMA's legislative counsel testified that the claims about cannabis addiction, violence and overdoses were not supported.
  • 1944: the LaGuardia Committee report, the first US in-depth study of cannabis use, systematically contradicted government claims, finding that cannabis is not physically addictive, not a gateway drug, and its use does not lead to crime.
  • 1972: Shafer Commission ... report, "Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding" (1972), ... recommended decriminalization for personal possession and use of small amounts of cannabis, and prohibition of supply only. The conclusion was not acted on by Nixon and Congress.
  • 2024 documents were released from the Department of Health and Human Services stating that cannabis has "a currently accepted medical use” in the US and a “potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in Schedules I and II."
2) "The discussion about tiers hardly belong to the lead." That's a matter of editorial opinion. I think it's important to make the distinction, because it is an extraordinary detail in the history of the war on drugs, that cannabis is grouped with heroin and above methamphetamine and cocaine, and considered to have no medical use.
3) "No, this is not just "30 states". The situation is more complicated" I included that because you mentioned the states. In your two edits, you wrote "gradually allowed for medical use in many states" and "recently decriminalized in many states". In my view, that the majority of states have decriminalized for small quantities is another indication of the extraordinary federal position. Not sure what you mean by "more complicated", I wrote "over 30 states" as neutral way of summarizing, there are certainly other ways that can be worded.
4) "the federal government consistently ignoring recommendations from its own trusted sources". "You mean right now? What "sources" are you talking about? These must be MEDRS sources." I'm referring to the sources listed in 1) above. Wikipedia requires MEDRS sources to make medical statements, and no medical statements are being made here. How does MEDRS applies to the US government research and decision-making?
I'm still not clear on the problem you see. Do you not find the history of US federal cannabis regulation notable, for how it began, and how it was maintained as a most dangerous drug, despite all of the recommendation against that classification? -Tsavage (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was classified in the highest tier of federally prohibited drugs, but which MEDRS say it was done "despite decades of evidence contradicting that assessment" (links to specific RS)? Yes, I can see that a scientific review recommended to change it to schedule III, in 2024 [6], but even that was suggested for purely practical reasons, such as "eliminating certain tax burdens for state-legal businesses and easing research restrictions", not because these drugs were deemed safe. Note, that placing something to schedule I is decided by DEA based on a variety of factors; this is more or less subjective; and it may be based on some science, but an act of administration, not science. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes It appears as if we're talking about different things. Or maybe it's a matter of word choice. You seem to be reading my edit as saying that "evidence" shows that cannabis is somehow "safe" for human use. This is not the case. I'm saying that, in the history of US drug control and the "war on drugs", cannabis is a special case because it has been classified as a Schedule I most dangerous drug, with the highest abuse potential and no medical use, against repeated recommendations from sources considered reliable by Congress and presidential administrations, such as research reports they commission, and testimony from professional associations like the AMA.
Is it the word "evidence" that you have a problem with? In this context, it's not just medical evidence, it's also socioeconomic stuff (costs to taxpayers, impact on subgroups, impact on crime). These are all part of the evidence. For example: "along with digging into the medical literature on marijuana use, the [Nixon-appointed Shafer] Commission sponsored a large survey that deeply investigated public experiences with, and attitudes towards, illegal drugs. ... a sample of 2,611 adults who were asked about their beliefs regarding marijuana, their views on marijuana legislation, their impressions of marijuana users, and their personal experience with the drug. ... the survey [also] contained questions about respondents’ cigarette use and alcohol consumption, as well as their familiarity and experience with drugs such as heroin, LSD, cocaine, methamphetamines, and prescription and non-prescription pain medications. ... The Commission extensively utilized data from this survey, along with information from the medical literature on marijuana,"[7]
Maybe "decades of findings and recommendations contradicting that assessment"? --Tsavage (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mind including "...despite decades of evidence contradicting that [Schedule I] assessment" [references], but you must have references that say it. So far I do not see anything. Your last link is about public opinion, and even the latest conclusion from 2024 is merely a recommendation, not that they found "evidence contradicting". Yes, you can include something like "but there is currently a recommendation by ... to make it Schedule III" because that can be sourced, but this is far cry from saying "despite decades of evidence contradicting that [Schedule I] assessment" My very best wishes (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes How's this:
"Cannabis is a special case, treated since it came under federal legislation in the 1930s as a drug of the highest potential for abuse and of no medical value, and over the same period of decades, the subject of mainstream studies and findings that indicated otherwise."
The "mainstream studies and findings over the same period of decades" is supported by American Medical Association testimony (1930s), LaGuardia Committee report (1944), Shafer Commission report (1972), documents from the Department of Health and Human Services (2024), all relevantly described in the article.
The troublesome word "evidence" word is gone. -- Tsavage (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes Expanded and rewritten to remove possibility of NOR/SYNTH in calling it a "special case":
"Cannabis has been treated since it came under federal legislation in the 1930s as a drug of the highest potential for abuse and of no medical value; over the same period, mainstream studies and findings have indicated otherwise. In recent decades, it has been decriminalized in a majority of states, creating a policy gap with federal law."
-- Tsavage (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that placing to Schedule I is not based solely to the damage to health, but on how widely the drug was used in society, or serving as a "bridge" to using more dangerous drugs. And again, you did not provide links to any sources saying "decades of evidence contradicting that [Schedule I] assessment". Speaking on your suggested text, I think that "mainstream studies and findings [since 1930] have indicated otherwise" [that it has no potential for abuse and has medical value] is incorrect. Yes, of course it has a potential for abuse. Why do you think even that latest 2024 study suggests moving it to schedule III, rather than excluding from the list of controlled substances? As about medical value, this is also something debatable per studies. It can be very harmful, depending on the dosage, etc. That part of the text should be removed or rephrased. My very best wishes (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rest in your text: it should be "one of drugs", not "a drug", and it should be "high", not the "the highest" per Controlled_Substances_Act#Schedule_I. My very best wishes (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes Thanks for the comments. I appreciate striving for completely clear and transparent language, still, it seems you are misreading the meaning of some of words and phrases in my proposed text:
  • I think that "mainstream studies and findings [since 1930] have indicated otherwise" [that it has no potential for abuse and has medical value] is incorrect. "Indicated otherwise" does not mean "no potential for abuse and has medical value", "otherwise" only indicates disagreement, in this case, with the classification itself. Otherwise could mean, "recommended otherwise" as, for example, the Shafer Commission finding recommended decriminalization, which doesn't imply that it has no potential for abuse or a medical use, just that it shouldn't be included with heroin and cocaine. As you have noted, US drug scheduling is administrative and not entirely science-based. Alcohol meets Schedule I criteria, was once entirely prohibited, then made legal with a single presidential signature. "Otherwise" here means "in disagreement with the official classification": cannabis doesn't need to have no potential for abuse or a medical use for it to be entirely descheduled, just legislation. That's my understanding. In any case, I will make that plainer.
  • should be "one of drugs", not "a drug" "One of [the] drugs" has the same meaning as "a drug of", as in "a dog of unusual size" means "of all dogs, this one is of unusual size" or "one of the set of unusually large dogs." I will make that plainer.
  • it should be "high", not the "the highest" The full context is "a drug of the highest potential for abuse and of no medical value", which means "a drug in the set of drugs with the highest potential for abuse and no medical value" -- "a drug" means "one of the drugs". I will make that plainer.
As for citations, I was working towards the style of intro that is entirely derived from the body of the article and does not use citations. However, since citations are already used, I will include them. -- Tsavage (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes Here is a new version that addresses your comments:
"Cannabis, since it came under federal prohibition in the 1930s, has been officially viewed as having a high potential for abuse and no medical value, legally classified at the same level as heroin;[1] over that period, mainstream studies and findings have recommended against that classification.[a] Beginning in the 1990s, it has been decriminalized in a majority of states, creating a policy gap with federal law.[2]"
[1] and [2] are regular citations. [a] is a footnote, roughly a more concise version of this, with individual citations:
  • 1930s: [Anslinger] announced that youth become "slaves" to cannabis, "continuing addiction until they deteriorate mentally, become insane, turn to violent crime and murder.”
  • 1937: The American Medical Association (AMA) had opposed the tax on grounds that it unduly affected the medical use of cannabis. The AMA's legislative counsel testified that the claims about cannabis addiction, violence and overdoses were not supported.
  • 1944: the LaGuardia Committee report, the first US in-depth study of cannabis use, systematically contradicted government claims, finding that cannabis is not physically addictive, not a gateway drug, and its use does not lead to crime.
  • 1972: Shafer Commission ... report, "Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding" (1972), ... recommended decriminalization for personal possession and use of small amounts of cannabis, and prohibition of supply only. The conclusion was not acted on by Nixon and Congress.
  • 2024 documents were released from the Department of Health and Human Services stating that cannabis has "a currently accepted medical use” in the US and a “potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in Schedules I and II."
-- Tsavage (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The individual bullets may be true (if sourced) and can be cited on the page. However, only the last one (2024) recommends changing the schedule 1 to 3 (in part just because they were legalized in a number of states, so it is no longer practical to keep them in schedule I). All others say something different, not that "mainstream [scientific] studies" prove anything about the schedule 1. Yes, the cannabis were legalized for medical use in many states, but it is already included in the summary on the page. Why exactly they were legalized is a big and highly complicated question. My very best wishes (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes You still seem to be missing the point of what I'm trying to summarize, that cannabis is a special case. Also, your current edit is inaccurate and misleading:
" Cannabis came under federal legislation in the 1930s as one of drugs with a high potential for abuse and of no medical value."
The 1937 Act did not make any judgement about abuse potential or medical value, it was a (highly restrictive) taxation measure. The high potential for abuse and no medical value that you've linked to are from the 1970 law.
I've revised my...version to eliminate that confusion:
"In the case of cannabis, federal legislators chose the most punitive approach, ignoring testimony from the American Medical Association that opposed the first federal cannabis restrictions in the 1930s, and in the 1970s, including cannabis in the new, highly restrictive Schedule I category, ignoring the recommendation for decriminalization from the committee appointed to research the matter. Beginning in the 1990s, cannabis has been decriminalized in a majority of states, creating a policy gap with federal law."
Your version doesn't provide background on how cannabis came to be so seemingly misplaced in federal drug law. This is an important aspect of the war on drugs, cannabis has been responsible for millions of convictions, much of that for simple possession. The lead of an article on the history of the war on drugs should address that. -- Tsavage (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"...came under federal legislation in the 1930s..." was your suggested version, so I just took it. Now self-reverted since you objected. Your suggested text (federal legislators chose the most punitive approach, ignoring testimony from the American Medical Association that opposed the first federal cannabis restrictions in the 1930s, and in the 1970s, including cannabis in the new, highly restrictive Schedule I category, ignoring the recommendation for decriminalization from the committee appointed to research the matter) reads very much "POV", as an accusation of the federal legislators. "punitive" - who was punished? "ignoring". Why do you think they just ignored the testimony/recommendations, rather than taking them into account, along with other factors, to came to a certain conclusion? My very best wishes (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes Again, you seem to be arguing editorial points based most on language usage, how things are worded, and not the substance. Here's what you originally changed:
"Cannabis presents a special case, having been consistently classified as a most dangerous drug with no legitimate use, despite a consistent stream of evidence indicating otherwise."
I agree, it could be better worded, nonetheless, in my view, the content is NPOV, not SYNTH, and fully supported by material from the article.
  • "special case" is a summary, referring to the fact that all the mainstream investigation indicated that cannabis wasn't a super-dangerous drug, compared to, say, heroin, and wasn't actually as portrayed in the 1930s news and Anslinger's statements like cannabis users "become insane, turn to violent crime and murder". This is not the case with other drugs.
  • "consistently classified as a most dangerous drug with no legitimate use" This refers to the overall approach, since the first fed legislation in the 1930s, when expert medical testimony was ignored in favor of anecdotal evidence, resulting in a taxation system that was literally next to impossible to navigate, and allowed significant prison sentences for simple possession. Schedule I in 1970 replaced the taxation approach with direct criminality. Cannabis was treated as extremely dangerous and completely not useful, ie: medically.
  • "despite" This refers to federal legislators clearly ignoring expert input in favor of making their decision for reasons not objectively clear. Politics, and the wanting to look tough on crime to voters? Pressure from special interests? It is not clear, scholars have differing views. But there is no objective basis, like expert testimony from the AMA in 1937, or the results of a major medical and human social impact study and review by an appointed commission in 1970. These were ignored, thus the "despite": "in spite of", "even though this information was available". "
  • "a consistent stream of evidence indicating otherwise" Refers to the general perception of cannabis as dangerous and not useful as reflected in the legislation. It's not specifically about medical uses. It's about the various findings that would question the basis for those laws.
I agree, the word choices could be better, for example "consistent stream" might seem to be adding editorial emphasis. So, I've been refining the presentation, based strictly on the sources I've read.
The latest version:
"In the case of cannabis, federal legislators chose the most a punitive approach, ignoring testimony from the American Medical Association that opposed the first federal cannabis restrictions in the 1930s, and in the 1970s, including cannabis in the new, highly restrictive Schedule I category, ignoring the recommendation for decriminalization from the committee appointed to research the matter. Beginning in the 1990s, cannabis has been decriminalized in a majority of states, creating a policy gap with federal law."
--Tsavage (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes With full respect, as I've said before in this discussion, a good deal of the disagreement seems to come from your not fully getting the intended meaning of the actual words. For example, "a drug of [whatever class]" vs "one of the drugs..." So maybe you're thinking I'm trying to present something that is not the case.
I'm using freely available online sources. I don't have subject matter expertise, or journal access. But I'm being as diligent as possible, basing my editing on the best sources I can find.
For example, saying that legislators ignored AMA expert advice in 1937 isn't speculation, it's based on reading sources:
At the hearing before the House Ways and Means Committee in 1937:
Mr. Dingell. We know that it is a habit that is spreading, particularly among youngsters. We learn that from the pages of the newspapers. The number of victims is increasing each year.
Dr. Woodward (AMA counsel, a lawyer and physician). There is no evidence of that.
Mr. McCormack. It is used, we were told, by 200,000,000 people throughout the world. All I know is what I have read about it.
Woodward suggest expert testimony on various aspects of cannabis from agencies including the Bureau of Prisons, the Children's Bureau, the Office of Education, and the Public Health Service. This was not done.
Dr. Woodward: The Bureau of Public Health Service has also a division of pharmacology. If you desire evidence as to the pharmacology of Cannabis, that obviously is the place where you can get direct and primary evidence, rather than the indirect hearsay evidence.
There was no debate of the 1937 act, only the hearings, where newspaper reports and anecdotal testimony prevailed. This is all in secondary sources, like [8].
In 1970, the Schedule I classification was temporary; Nixon created a commission to form a recommendation, then did not act on that recommendation, which was for decriminalization, kind of the opposite of the punitive Schedule I approach.
"Ignored" in my latest version may be seen as POV, although accurate. I think the facts justify that word. "Disregard" might read better, it's a more diplomatic word for "ignore". --Tsavage (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"...came under federal legislation in the 1930s..." was your suggested version, so I just took it.
Yes, suggested in Talk page discussion. When you commit an edit, they become your words... --Tsavage (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"punitive" - who was punished? - Punitive refers to the consequences of breaking the laws: fines, imprisonment, asset seizure, etc are punitive measures. By enacting the 1937 law, and not decriminalizing in 1970, per expert recommendation, a punitive approach was adopted
"ignoring". Why do you think they just ignored the testimony/recommendations, rather than taking them into account, along with other factors, to came to a certain conclusion?
It's not for me to speculate about why. The sources indicate that the measures weren't acted on. If you have sources that indicate what you're suggesting, that these recommendations were balanced by other considerations, then you should amend the article with them. Otherwise, it's your unsupported speculation.
The record as I've found it notes that the AMA and the Shafer Commission were ignored, disregarded, not acted upon. Sources speculate that it was, in 1937, a matter of going with the prevailing views and not having a particularly high interest, and perhaps special interest lobbying, and in 1970, because the commission didn't arrive at the support for Schedule I classification that Nixon hoped to find, so, for political reasons.
You can include this material if you like, I mostly didn't because it seemed too detailed for this article, and would perhaps create a less neutral tone without even more detailed coverage. I edited down what was much longer coverage of how the 1937 Act was perhaps orchestrated by big business interests, the dozen or so citations are still there. That seems undue weight for speculation. --Tsavage (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what exactly you want. You can just include on the page your version, whatever this might be - per comments above. Then, I will check it, maybe correct, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes And I'm not sure what exactly you want, which is why I'm trying to discuss it in Talk, rather than start some sort of edit war on the article page.
This began when you removed information [9], I rewrote, and you removed the rewritten version [10].
It's better to discuss objections here, than to do it in back-and-forth edits in the main page space, which can become edit warring.
Here's my current version. Do you have objections, if so, please detail and I will attempt to address them:
"In the case of cannabis, federal legislators chose a punitive approach, disregarding discounting testimony from the American Medical Association that opposed the first federal cannabis restrictions in the 1930s, and in the 1970s, including cannabis in the new, highly restrictive Schedule I category, against the recommendation for decriminalization from the commission appointed to research the matter. Beginning in the 1990s, cannabis has been decriminalized in a majority of states, creating a policy gap with federal law."
I don't think there is POV or SYNTH problem, it's a series of facts, not joined in a suggestive manner: punitive measure adopted + recommendation against punitive measure from qualified source. --Tsavage (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, let's discuss it. We just do not need a lot of content in the lead about the cannabis. Just mention that they were legalized in a number of states, and this is it. Do we have a big section on this page entitled "Cannabis"? No. The lead should describe the subject of the page (the "War on drugs") in general. Debating any specific variety of drug (there are so many of them!) in the lead is out of question. There are also other issues with the lead (it needs a lot of improvements), but they should be fixed or discussed separately. My very best wishes (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @My very best wishes After all of this discussion, it comes down to your preference, your opinion. And you've still included cannabis in the lead.
    The war on drugs is not a monolithic thing. In my opinion, cannabis is a facet that merits mention in the intro. It is in an extraordinary position, compared to other restricted drugs. Cannabis has been the source of the most arrests and incarceration. The majority of the US public currently believes alcohol is a worse drug, yet cannabis considered the same as heroin and worse than fentanyl. The majority of states have broken with federal law. The summary of an encyclopedia article on drug prohibition should mention this distinct issue.
    There's no absolute rule of what is encyclopedic. On Wikipedia, it's consensus. If you don't agree with content that is properly written and sourced, start a larger discussion. Hold an RfC. Please don't just repeatedly delete on the basis of your not liking it. --Tsavage (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Tsavage that a HUGE amount of the drug war was waged against cannabis, and a large proportion of the effects of it were on cannabis users and supply chainers, and this is well documented in many sources.
    Resultingly, the lead should have a much larger statement than the one currently there, and I favor this modified version (my changes) from above in the discussion:
    "Cannabis, when it came under federal prohibition in the 1930s, has been [Controlled_Substances_Act#Schedule_I| classified]] by the DEA as having a high potential for abuse and no medical value, with a stricter prohibition than heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine.[1] Since then, multiple mainstream studies and findings have recommended against such a severe classification.[a] Beginning in the 1990s, it has been decriminalized in 38 states, and legalized in 24, creating a policy gap with federal law.[2]"
    Because MANY sources have often talked about marijuana (and yes others, like MDMA, etc., but those have seen FAR less total consumption than cannabis) being poorly CLASSIFIED in the Scheduling, regardless of whether it is considered "safe" or not.
    Lastly, this article is BIG, and the lead is not too large. ---Avatar317(talk) 06:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the lead should be expanded. But then it should follow the sections of the page to properly summarize content. After 1st para of the lead (this is a definition, good!), it should mention the history: this is 2nd para, but it can be extended. Next para should describe "Foreign operations" and "Domestic impacts" (two next big sections of the page), etc. If this page was organized differently, i.e. with sections like "Heroin", "Cannabis", etc., then the lead would have to follow such logic. But it is not organized "by the drug". Once again, we do not have section "Cannabis" in the page, and there are other important examples like fentanyl, heroin, etc. Yes, one can mention cannabis in the lead as an example of a drug that has been recently legalized in a number of states.My very best wishes (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes You feel that the intro should exactly mirror the main titled sections of the articles:

the lead ... should follow the sections of the page to properly summarize content. After 1st para of the lead ... it should mention the history: this is 2nd para, but it can be extended ... Next para should describe "Foreign operations" and "Domestic impacts" (two next big sections of the page), etc. If this page was organized differently, i.e. with sections like "Heroin", "Cannabis", etc., then the lead would have to follow such logic.

This is one approach, but it is not an automatic rule, and I don't think it is the best approach for this article's subject matter.

War on drugs as covered here appears to be primarily a history of events and a social history. Beyond a "History" section, there isn't a set of standard, generic sections, as, for example, with a drug, where there would be standards like "Uses", "Chemistry", "Pharmacology", etc.

The current sections seem pretty solid, but they are arbitrary, and could quite easily change, simply by reorganizing content. For example, "Foreign operations" could be split into its own article, and brief references here merged into "History". Or it could become part of a "Global impact" section that includes UN treaties, and distinct "wars on drugs" in other countries (eg: the recent Philippines anti-drug campaign that is criticized by the US and the UN). There is also significant overlap between sections, eg: a law mentioned in "History" and in "Domestic impact", which makes summarizing strictly by section more complicated..

As it is, the lead seems pretty effective. It covers the main themes/sections of the article in a more integrated, contextual way than in order of sections. For example:

  • "Foreign operations" is covered in the first sentence: "The war on drugs is the policy of a global campaign,[5] led by the United States federal government, of drug prohibition, military aid, and military intervention, with the aim of reducing the illegal drug trade in the United States." It frames the WoD as a US initiative that takes place internationally. This is further supported in the lead by mention of the UN treaties, in Nixon's statements about the international nature, and in the mention of a "global" failure. (This overall framing might be argued, but that's an entirely separate discussion.)
  • "Domestic impact" is addressed with "In the years since, presidential administrations have generally maintained or expanded Nixon's original initiatives, with the emphasis on law enforcement and interdiction over public health and treatment" and "The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world."
  • "Efficacy" is addressed with "In June 2011, the Global Commission on Drug Policy released a critical report, declaring: "The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world." There is also a a more current "In 2023, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights denounced the failure of punitive drug policies and the global War on Drugs" in the article that could be included or substituted.

Your proposal of a literal, in-order summary of sections would also likely result in a long, unwieldy lead.

Reading the current lead section gives a high-level overview, then checking the Table of Contents allows for getting more detail. I think it serves the first time reader quite well. And the article is being actively improved. --Tsavage (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: this page is helpful, and you and others are welcome to improve it. As about the lead, that was my suggestion per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Yes, the lead may or may not directly follow the structure of the page. Still, you can check Wikipedia:How_to_create_and_manage_a_good_lead_section#Content_and_structure (Rule of thumb, bold text): "If a subject is worth a whole section, then it deserves short mention in the lead according to its real due weight." My very best wishes (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes I'm familiar with WP:LEAD. I think our lead here follows those best practice guidelines. As I noted above, the main sections ARE covered at a high level. There's a lot of material in the article, taking a lower-level, literal section-by-section approach would almost surely spiral out of control (and that's not what WP:LEAD suggests). For example, if we specifically mention domestic impact, then incarceration has to be mentoned -- which is now covered by "emphasis on law enforcement and interdiction " -- and then how much detail? That the US has the highest per capita prison population, much of it due to drug crime; the racial disparities; the 100:1 crack sentencing, etc? They are are all major points once "incarceration" is specifically mentioned. And so on for the other sections.
Of course, that's one opinion. It's all about consensus! :) --Tsavage (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18== Discussion: Text of cannabis summary in article lead ==

@Avatar317 @My very best wishes I started a new thread as specifically for discussion of cannabis in the lead.

The most recent proposed version is:

"Cannabis, when it came under federal prohibition in the 1930s, has been [Controlled_Substances_Act#Schedule_I| classified]] by the DEA as having a high potential for abuse and no medical value, with a stricter prohibition than heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine.[1] Since then, multiple mainstream studies and findings have recommended against such a severe classification.[a] Beginning in the 1990s, it has been decriminalized in 38 states, and legalized in 24, creating a policy gap with federal law.[2]"

I'm fine with that, except:

  • Schedule I classification happened in 1970, not in the 1930s, and before the DEA was formed.
  • It wasn't prohibited in the 1930s, only made extremely hard to acquire legally.
  • It's the same level of prohibition as heroin (Schedule I), and stricter than cocaine and methamphetamine (Schedule II).

I suggest. I left out cocaine and methamphetamine to make it more readable, and I think comparison with heroin makes the point of the widely perceived disparity.

v.1 Cannabis came under federal restriction in the 1930s, and since 1970 has been [Controlled_Substances_Act#Schedule_I|classified]] as having a high potential for abuse and no medical value, with the same level of prohibition as heroin. Multiple mainstream studies and findings since the 1930s have recommended against such a severe classification. Beginning in the 1990s, cannabis has been decriminalized in 38 states, and legalized in 24, creating a policy gap with federal law."

With decriminalization, I'm OK with listing the numbers, but lean toward a briefer "majority of states", which seems more of a neutral, higher level overview.

v.2 Cannabis came under federal restriction in the 1930s, and since 1970 has been [Controlled_Substances_Act#Schedule_I|classified]] as having a high potential for abuse and no medical value, with the same level of prohibition as heroin. Multiple mainstream studies and findings since the 1930s have recommended against such a severe classification. Beginning in the 1990s, cannabis has been decriminalized or legalized in the majority of states, creating a policy gap with federal law."

--Tsavage (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I agree with all your 3 bullet points. But I doubt that debating if specific drug belongs to specific Schedule belongs to the lead (this is something too narrow). Moreover, your text contradicts itself and your bullet points. It says that cannabis were classified as Schedule I only in 1970, but it also says that "Multiple mainstream studies and findings since the 1930s have recommended against such a severe [Schedule I] classification." Now, would it be fair to say that "Multiple mainstream studies and findings have recommended against such a severe classification"? Yes, the latest 2024 study does just that. Others - I am not so sure. Did they also arrive to conclusion to switch to Schedule III? Citation? Just remove 2nd phrase from any version, and it will be OK. My very best wishes (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @My very best wishes The word "recommended" can be confusing. The intended meaning: a study from the 1930s can be consulted in a 1970s decision.
    edit: Multiple mainstream studies and findings since the 1930s have recommended indicated against such a severe classification.
    The point is that, since the beginning of restriction, mainstream studies and findings have said that cannabis is nowhere near as bad as the government was portraying it through legislation. This is a high-level point: cannabis has been made punishable, and that has resulted in the highest impact on drug incarceration, millions arrested and imprisoned.
    The mainstream studies and findings contraindicate putting severe restriction on cannabis are set out in the article text. I've already listed them:
    • AMA testimony to Congress (1937) - basically "no evidence, don't base on newspaper articles"
    • LaGuardia study (1944) - first US in-depth cannabis study
    • Shafer Commission (1970) - recommended decriminalization (their report influenced several states to decriminalize in the 1970s)
    • Department of Health and Human Services documents (2024)
    The text is not trying to say or imply that there are reports that render the Schedule I classification wrong. It's saying two things: a severe classification + multiple mainstream reports saying "don't classify (so severely)".
    From a useful how- to essay WP:CREATELEAD: "On very comprehensive and well-written articles, because of our NPOV policy, our own definitions end up being the best on the internet because they define the subject from all significant angles." This isn't a definition, but it's the same idea. We're assembling material from different sources. It's not OR to say: "here's how this was decided" and "here's information that pertains to that decision", as long as we're not giving anything undue weight. The AMA testimony to Congress, Nixon-appointed Shafer Commission, etc aren't obscure, they're credible, mainstream information.
    Of course, everything can be argued, and often is... --Tsavage (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, this belongs to the lead of page Legalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States rather than to the lead of this page. Yes, it does appear that report by Shafer Commission and the recent HHS report recommended (this is exact word) to change the "Schedule", which can be noted in proper places of proper pages. Two others (AMA testimony to Congress, 1937 and LaGuardia Committee) did make a number of good points, such as it is not so much physically addictive or "is not the determining factor in the commission of major crimes.", but say nothing about the "re-scheduling". Note that the "potential for abuse" (Schedule I) and physical addiction are not the same. As of note, cannabis do produce a strong psychological dependence or just dependence [11]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes You still seem to be missing the intended point:
Since the beginning of cannabis restriction, mainstream studies and findings have said that cannabis is nowhere near as bad as the government has portrayed it through legislation.
I don't understand your purpose with your analysis of the sources, focusing on words like "recommended". It's about the overall disparity between mainstream findings and federal legislation.
That's a summary of what reliable sources say. Regardless of other reasons, layers, nuances, backstories that may exist and add detail, the baseline fact that the legislation repeatedly chose not to reflect expert findings on cannabis seems clear. --Tsavage (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The increased consumption of pot in the USA due to the "decriminalization" is a very bad news [12]. My very best wishes (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This post of yours makes it clear to me that that your intention here is NOT to improve this article, but to suppress the inclusion of certain information you don't like. Please stop wasting our time with WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments.
Your previous post shows the same approach: comments about the "potential for abuse" have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with our summarizing what Reliable Sources say, and frankly, WE DON'T CARE whether YOU think the LaGuardia Committee made good points, if they are Reliable Sources than we can use them. ---Avatar317(talk) 05:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking on sourcng, the LaGuardia Committee report is a primary source and hardly a MEDRS source, although it can be used on the page. That Scientific American article (cited on the page) [13] might be OK (see WP:MEDPOP), but it is written as advocacy and distorts things. It says that The committee found marijuana not physically addictive, not a gateway drug and that it did not lead to crime. That contradicts the report itself ("Marijuana is not the determining factor in the commission of major crimes", this is far cry from "did not lead to crime") and the official CDC guidelines which says it is addictive [14], the latter is a MEDRS source. Hence, no, not really great sources. My very best wishes (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes The CNN article you've linked to, "Here’s what marijuana researchers have to say about 420 or ‘weed day’", seems like an overview of mainly negative effect research, possibly useful for articles concerning the effects of cannabis. I don't think it meets MEDRS as a reliable source for effect statements (WP:MEDPOP). I read it, and followed about half the links: it seems to reference mostly or all single studies, often as mentioned in other CNN articles. It could be considered a scare piece ("Some scientists ... have become increasingly concerned"), or simply a casual overview. The main takeaways for me (as a non-physician) were:
  • At least a dozen different potential medical problems are listed, from vomiting, breathing difficulties and mood disorders, to stroke and heart failure, but there's no overall useful practical context. We have hard stats for tobacco and alcohol: how much consumption is how likely to lead to what outcome. On the other hand, pharmaceutical ads include disclaimers with long lists of possible side effects, including death, for drugs that are being recommended for purchase.
  • The closing section, "Little neutral research on pot": There’s a reason for the lack of research. Studies since the 1950s have typically been green-lit for funding only if they were exploring the negative side of marijuana use, experts told CNN. ... “Particularly during and after the Nixon administration, researchers could only get money if they focused on the negative consequences,” Boyd said. “Each new generation of researcher followed in their mentor’s footsteps and focused on the negative health consequences.” ... Another hurdle was getting legal access to marijuana to study it.
I don't think this one article supports your finding that "increased consumption of pot ... is a very bad news". Your comment also appears to be expressing your own opinion that cannabis is bad, which is irrelevant here. --Tsavage (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is just a popular article citing multiple scientific papers. But it does not claim anything new or unusual. See Long-term effects of cannabis. One of most definitive proofs that pot may be harmful is the Cannabis use disorder, as of course noted by the CDC (link above). And of course any vaping is harmful. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tried to make a proper/compromise version [15] based on discussion above. Yes, this is probably too specific for the lead, but at least this is correct info. I do not mind to removing it though. My very best wishes (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes You substantially changed the summary twice, with poor reasoning that has already been discussed in detail. This is very close to WP:EDITWAR: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war."
Your latest edits claim an error in the summary, with your argument: "Studies could not recommend this "since 1930s" because the Controlled Substances Act was established only in 1970; see talk. Not clear what studies. There were only two specific recommendations since 1970s".
The content you keep removing, in its last form: "Multiple mainstream studies and findings since the 1930s have recommended against such a severe classification."
You don't seem to understand the English usage. The sentence refers to "such a severe classification", which is not strictly the Schedule I category, but the general classification of cannabis as a drug as dangerous as heroin. The point of view is current -- 2024 -- and looking back at major studies and findings that have indicated that cannabis should not be considered as dangerous as heroin.
You also don't seem to fully understand the usage of the word "recommend" -- if I'm making a decision today, and I consult reference material, I can say, "that material recommends doing this" or "doesn't recommend", it doesn't mean that the material had to be written to apply to my specific situation.
If you look at the current federal cannabis classification, and you look at major relevant reports, like the 1937 AMA testimony (which as the main expert testimony considered for the Marihuana Tax Act), the 1944 LaGuardia report (commissioned in 1939, the first in-depth American cannabis usage investigation), the 1972 Shafer Commission (a major in-depth investigation), and the current HHS documents, it is neutral and accurate to say that there is a history of research and testimony that recommends against the course that was actually taken. That is what the sentence you removed means. --Tsavage (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are 3 problems with this phrase:
  1. The "war on drugs" as an expression and the subject of this page appears only in 1971 (as the lead says). Everything before that can be mentioned as Background, but strictly speaking, is not the subject of this page.
  2. It appears there were only 2 such studies after 1970: the Shafer Commission and the recent report by DHHS, and they came with partly different recommendations. Describing them as "Multiple mainstream studies and findings" is misleading.
  3. The lead makes a link to the Controlled Substances Act (introduced in 1970) in the previous phrase (...it came under federal restriction in the 1930s, and since 1970 has been classified as having a high potential for abuse...), and this is a correct link to make. But after that, next phrase was saying: Multiple mainstream studies and findings since the 1930s have recommended against such a severe classification. It tells: "such [Controlled Substances Act] classification", not "restrictions". This needs to be removed or rephrased.My very best wishes (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to include this, we need to specifically mention both studies and keep the chronology of the events, i.e. DHHS study came after the legalization and argued that the policy should be changed to make it consistent with the practice of decriminalized pot. That is what I did in my edit [16] you reverted. Note that Shafer Commission called for the decriminalization of marijuana possession while the report by Department of Health and Human Services recommended to re-classify cannabis as belonging to drug Schedule III. These are very different claims made for different reasons and in different times, hence and I do not see how they can be pulled together in the same phrase. My very best wishes (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes You continue to argue your view, while not directly acknowledging the point at issue: it is neutral and accurate to say that there is a history of research and testimony that recommends against the legislative course that was actually taken. It's a broad comparison of the available research and social track record (eg: fatalities, incarceration) of recreationally used drugs like opiates, cocaine, amphetamines, alcohol to cannabis, in terms of US federal legislation. It has nothing to do with whether cannabis is "safe" to use, it's about disparity, proportionality in regulation. (Obviously, considering the documented harms associated with alcohol raises a basic question about all current recreational drug regulation, like, "why this and not that?")
In WP:GOODFAITH, my response to your latest arguments:
1) The "war on drugs" as an expression and the subject of this page appears only in 1971 (as the lead says). Everything before that can be mentioned as Background, but strictly speaking, is not the subject of this page.
No, there's no 1971 before-and-after bright line for the "war on drugs". Yes, "war on drugs" is an expression that's been in common use in English and other languages for decades now, and it's a metaphorical war that doesn't have an explicit starting date such as recognized in a document. This article is about the meaning and history of a phrase, a characterization, not a fixed event.
A Nixon announcement on June 17, 1971 is given in numerous sources as the war ono drugs launch date; in fact, the phrase didn't appear until later; variations on the exact phrase were used in the media from the day after, but it's unclear when and where the exact term "war on drugs" was first used, and it's a media coinage. In addition, Nixon's anti-drug measures, with a larger budget for public health and treatment than for law enforcement, weren't overall what "war on drugs" has come to represent: punitive, militaristic, DEA raids, battling cartels, bales of seized drugs on the nightly news (that came more from Reagan's initiatives: promoting fear of crack, extremely harsh sentencing, workplace drug testing, and so forth). The Controlled Substances Act with drug Schedules was signed in 1970. There are sources that say the "war on drugs" began with Anslinger in the 1930s, and alternatively with Reagan in the 1980s. Our article has a New York Times headline from 1935: "Roosevelt Asks Narcotic War Aid".
In describing or explaining what the "war on drugs" means from a contemporary perspective, I don't think there's a bright line at 1971. The article puts emphasis on Nixon's 1971 speech because that is a dominant narrative, and it goes on to explain what that actually means. The story in fuller context is about the ongoing, largely punitive, supply-side oriented global drug control effort, which has been significantly shaped by the US, domestically and with its international influence as an economic and military superpower -- that's what has come to be known as the "war on drugs". At least, that's the framing of this article, which seems to align with the sources.
2) It appears there were only 2 such studies after 1970: the Shafer Commission and the recent report by DHHS, and they came with partly different recommendations. Describing them as "Multiple mainstream studies and findings" is misleading
See 1) above. Also, look up English usage for "recommend" so you're not reading it so literally (and there are other words that can used, this has all been discussed at length above -- it's not constructive to delete sourced content because you disagree with a word choice, you propose a word change). Again, as already stated: looking at the federal legal situation of cannabis from today, 2024, and there is a history of expert cannabis information that contradicts that contradicts the current cannabis situation, highly restricted, criminalized, considered equal to heroin.
Also, there are more "mainstream studies and findings" that do not find cannabis on par with heroin than included in the article. For example: the highly respected 1972 Licit and Illicit Drugs: The Consumers Union Report on Narcotics, Stimulants, Depressants, Inhalants, Hallucinogens, and Marijuana–including Caffeine, Nicotine and Alcohol which recommends decriminalization/legalization; in 1988, after two years of public hearing on cannabis rescheduling, with witnesses and thousands of pages of documentation. "DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young ruled that cannabis did not meet the legal criteria of a Schedule I prohibited drug and should be reclassified. He declared that cannabis in its natural form is "one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. ... Then-DEA Administrator John Lawn overruled Young's determination." And there's more, but these are too much detail for this article, perhaps mentioned in a footnote for the summary we're discussing.
3) The lead makes a link to the Controlled Substances Act (introduced in 1970) in the previous phrase (...it came under federal restriction in the 1930s, and since 1970 has been classified as having a high potential for abuse...), and this is a correct link to make. But after that, next phrase was saying: Multiple mainstream studies and findings since the 1930s have recommended against such a severe classification. It tells: "such [Controlled Substances Act] classification", not "restrictions". This needs to be removed or rephrased
This is stretching GOODFAITH. This has already discussed above, and you haven't replied to that, only repeated your objection. From 21:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC): 'You don't seem to understand the English usage. The sentence refers to "such a severe classification", which is not strictly the Schedule I category, but the general classification of cannabis as a drug as dangerous as heroin. The point of view is current -- 2024 -- and looking back at major studies and findings that have indicated that cannabis should not be considered as dangerous as heroin.'
If Law XYZ requires a death penalty, and I say, "that crime shouldn't be punishable by death. Look at all these studies that indicate that the crime shouldn't have such a severe penalty," I'm referring to the penalty of death itself, not specifically Law XYZ. Schedule I says cannabis should be punished the same as heroin. If I say, "No, cannabis shouldn't be punished the same as heroin. Look at all of these studies that indicate that cannabis shouldn't be treated the same as heroin," I'm not referring specifically to Schedule I, just the classification itself, that it's being treated the same as heroin.
Please revert your last edit. --Tsavage (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why revert? The phrase I removed is not directly supported by any source. Is it a correct summary of the content on the page? I think not and explained why above. Now, speaking on the scope of the subject/page, one should consult with strong tertiary sources, such as EB [17]. It says: "War on Drugs, the effort in the United States since the 1970s to combat illegal drug use by greatly increasing penalties, enforcement, and incarceration for drug offenders. The War on Drugs began in June 1971 when U.S. Pres. Richard Nixon declared ... The War on Drugs was a relatively small component of federal law-enforcement efforts until the presidency of Ronald Reagan ...". Hence, no, this is "the effort in the United States since the 1970s", rather than "a metaphorical war" as you say or anything else. My very best wishes (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes The phrase I removed is not directly supported by any source. Is it a correct summary of the content on the page?
Yes, it is. This has been discussed at length above.
You're referring to Encyclopedia Britannica to support your same argument. The EB article is brief, compared to this article. And EB is not constrained by NOR, it's free to come to original conclusions when summarizing. The article you cite is good for providing balance, giving due weight to the idea that the war on drugs was launched by Nixon in June 1971. However:
  • it chooses to say that the WoD began with Nixon's announcement: it doesn't explain that the actual term was coined by the media and came to mean what it does over the course of years and decades, and that Nixon's actual administrative efforts were no more than a continuation of drug control from previous presidencies.
  • It identifies the WoD as the whole of the federal response to illicit drugs from 1971, but does not discuss what came before: the US did not suddenly and out of the blue start regulating drugs. For instance, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, prior to the "official" start of the WodD, established the drug Schedules that are central to the WoD to this day.
  • It notes that WoD was a relatively small component of federal law-enforcement efforts until Reagan -- not false, but misleading, as the EB article in the first sentence defines the WoD as "greatly increasing penalties, enforcement, and incarceration for drug offenders." What it's implying is that Nixon originated a phrase (he didn't, the media did) that now stands for increased punitive measures, but that his administration didn't actually significantly increase those measures, Reagan did (which is noted in context in the WP article).
  • Saying the WoD was a "relatively small component of federal law-enforcement" is also misleading, thought not outright inaccurate. EB is reinforcing its summary, that WoD was enforcement-focused by separating the enforcement policies from the much more significant and greatly increased treatment part of Nixon's initiative.
This is EB's shorthanded way of saying that the War on Drugs is a term that refers to the militarized approach to drug control that has become dominant, AND attributing that phrase to Nixon. It takes some liberties with interpretation to do that.
To be accurate, a more accurate short version would be: Nixon singled out drugs as a priority social problem for the US, and initiated a major drug policy revamp that significantly increased treatment, education and other public health measures, and further empowered and focused law enforcement efforts. The media took Nixon's "public enemy number one" rhetoric, intended to call attention to the whole drug problem and his proposed demand- and supply-side solutions, and characterized it as a "war", like Johnson's "war on poverty" from the previous administration. Where "war on poverty" doesn't easily call up military imagery, "war on drugs" does, and thus became kind of a self-fulfilling characterization, with the punitive approach already supported by the media characterization.
That's my rough understanding, based on sources in this article. The meaning of war on drugs as a way to describe the increasingly intense global drug interdiction efforts, in a way came about organically. This is what the sources seem to indicate, when you go even slightly deeper than the EB article.
Of course WoD is metaphorical. It's not a conventional war, with a formal declaration, legislative war measures, designate combatants. For instance: "The declaration of a war on drugs or crime is thus more of a political strategy than it is a set of policy prescriptions." The Rise Of The War Metaphor In Public Policy Tsavage (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. We actually have a big page, Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. Summarizing it in a single phrase? "It has been proposed repeatedly since 1972". That would be OK. My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes "Proposed repeatedly" seems only to add unnecessary detail. We already have that it has been legalized to some degree in 38 states -- that's quite the accomplished repudiation of the federal position. You keep trying to deny the point that all of the mainstream expert investigations into cannabis, starting with testimony at the first federal restriction in 1937, have not found it to be a drug that should be treated in the category of most dangerous drugs, the same as heroin.
Why include that in the summary? This has already been answered above, by more than one editor. Enforcement of cannabis laws, nationally and internationally, have had a huge negative impact on millions of lives That this happened, while subject matter experts -- scientists/physicians, policy researchers -- recommended against it, is a major point in the war on drugs history. --Tsavage (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I disagree only with wording of one phrase. I think this should be framed differently (as described above), but not going edit war about it as another contributor [18] who claimed a "consensus" in their edit summary, while he included this content just a few days ago [19] without any consensus.
Speaking on other issues, I used the EB entry only to take the definition of the subject of this page, i.e. ""War on Drugs [is] the effort in the United States since the 1970s to combat illegal drug use by greatly increasing penalties ...". You apparently disagree with it, but did not provide any alternative definition given by other RS, only your own understanding of this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes You say: 'I disagree only with wording of one phrase. I think this should be framed differently (as described above)".
The different framing is what you've been essentially repeating through this quite long discussion, that centers around the Schedule I classification of cannabis.
You haven't actually addressed the summary view, that says that the mainstream findings directly relevant to the legal status of cannabis have indicated against the strict measures that have been imposed. There is a big difference between:
  • your focus on a single legal point and date, Schedule I classification in 1970, and
  • a history since 1937 of legislators going against the findings of subject matter experts, in favor of anecdotal evidence and media reports (1937 Tax Act: AMA, the only expert testimony vs other hearings testimony, particularly Anslinger and FBN members, and no expert testimony supporting the measure), and administrative veto (Schedule I: Schafer Commission vs Nixon and Congress).
Based on the sources, do you disagree that such a history exists? That's I think at the heart of this difference of opinion.
(Also look at the 1951 Boggs Act, that criminalized cannabis by including it under the 1922 Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act, and established harsh mandatory minimum sentences. Our article currently doesn't mention that there was apparently no significant scientific/medical evidence for cannabis inclusion presented at the hearings. The Act seems to be more politically oriented, catering to public fears of the newly emerging "teenager" class being corrupted by drugs. Anslinger supported the Boggs Act, and testified: "The danger is this: Over 50 percent of these young addicts started on marihuana smoking. They started there and graduated to heroin; they took the needle when the thrill of marihuana was gone (Boggs Act Hearings, 1951: 206)." This gateway drug theory, already previously disputed by research, was apparently the driver of the cannabis amendment, without hard evidence that cannabis was actually a gateway drug. For example, the 1944 LaGuardia report findings (included: "The use of marijuana does not lead to morphine or heroin or cocaine addiction and no effort is made to create a market for these narcotics by stimulating the practice of marijuana smoking.") --Tsavage (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes Regarding Encyclopedia Britannica, you say: 'I used the EB entry only to take the definition of the subject of this page, i.e. "War on Drugs [is] the effort in the United States since the 1970s to combat illegal drug use by greatly increasing penalties ...". You apparently disagree with it'
I didn't disagree with the EB definition, I disagreed with your position that it meant that the war on drugs is an "effort in the United States since the 1970s". You're citing that to support your idea that we shouldn't be considering studies from the 1930s that say cannabis isn't a "bad as heroin" drug. I then gave my reasoning for the disagreement, in the form of my assessment of the EB article as an RS for this article. Sources aren't automatically reliable, editors have to determine the reliability for each use. You can argue with my assessment, which basically says, EB is factually accurate but doesn't draw a hard line in June 1971, that its own determination (as I've said, I've encountered at least one source that says the war on drugs began with Reagan, or also, with Anslinger).
You say I provide "only your own understanding of this subject."
I did, AFTER my assessment of EB. I concluded: "That's my rough understanding, based on sources in this article. The meaning of war on drugs as a way to describe the increasingly intense global drug interdiction efforts, in a way came about organically. This is what the sources seem to indicate, when you go even slightly deeper than the EB article." It's to help discussion move forward, like sharing my notes. Nothing to do with OR. We obviously have to develop an understanding as we research, we're not assembling a shopping list of disconnected items, we're trying to provide a cohesive summarized account built from reliable sources. --Tsavage (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The existing classification of drugs to different "schedules" has little to do with science or with the actual harm to health of an individual. For example Schedule I includes not only cannabinoids, but MDMA and other such examples that are much less dangerous for human health than heroin. Everyone knows it for 30 years already. The is a purely administrative classification by DEA and FDA, it is arbitrary, and it is more about law than science. Arguing that it is disproved by "mainstream [scientific] studies and findings", as your preferred version does, is wrong because it was never based (and not supposed to be based) on science which is only one of many factors they consider. Other considerations could be how many people use the drug and any other social factors. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes Your new-ish argument (you hinted at this earlier), that multiple studies can't "disprove" DEA scheduling because the DEA doesn't base scheduling solely on science, again stretches WP:GOOFAITH by ignoring earlier discussion. The cannabis summary doesn't address HOW the DEA makes decisions, or even Schedule I or the DEA specifically.
The current wording is: "Multiple mainstream studies and findings since the 1930s have recommended against such a severe classification." The meaning of this and variations in the wording has been discussed here over and over :
FACT: Legislators have pursued a course of punitive prohibition (1937 Tax Act, 1951 Boggs Act, 1970 Controlled Substances Act with Schedule I).
FACT: Multiple studies have indicated that such punitive prohibition is unwarranted.
The summary has nothing to do with (a) specifically Schedule I classification, it refers to the total approach of considering cannabis a most dangerous drug; (b) with how the DEA classifies drugs (which is a moot point considering (a)). The DEA did not even exist when the 1937 Tax Act effectively prohibited cannabis, with harsh penalties (fines, imprisonment) even for small quantity possession, or when the 1951 Boggs Act criminalized cannabis, or in 1970 when the Nixon administration placed cannabis in the newly created Schedule I along with heroin. And the DEA acts under congressional authority, so it is congressional legislators who are the ultimate decisionmakers, not the DEA.
You say: "The existing classification of drugs to different "schedules" has little to do with science or with the actual harm to health of an individual."
I wouldn't say it has "little to do with science or actual harm", but I agree that science isn't the sole criterion used in classification. From what I understand, the DEA has final authority, unless Congress and the president change the laws, and the DEA has several criteria on which to base its judgments. For example, it could find that changing scheduling could violate US obligations under UN treaties. For the Aug 29, 2023 HHS "groundbreaking" recommendation to the DEA to move cannabis from Schedule I to III "HHS had to make three specific findings: 1) cannabis has a lower potential for abuse than the drugs or other substances in Schedules I and II; 2) cannabis has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the U.S.; and 3) abuse of cannabis may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence,"[20] which it did in a 252-page analysis sent to the DEA.[21] This is as strong an authoritative finding as there is; it can be ignored by the DEA, but doing so would likely have significant legislative and public consequences.
You say, therefore, because it's up to the DEA, and the DEA decision-making isn't based solely on science: "Arguing that it is disproved by "mainstream [scientific] studies and findings", as your preferred version does, is wrong because it was never based (and not supposed to be based) on science which is only one of many factors they consider."
That's not the argument. To repeat from above, the cannabis summary doesn't address HOW the DEA makes decisions, or even Schedule I or the DEA specifically. You've now introduced the word "disproved", when there is no argument about disproving anything. It's about conflicting opinions.
You say: "science which is only one of many factors [the DEA and FDA] consider. Other considerations could be how many people use the drug and any other social factors."
Not sure how this is directly relevant to your argument, as the Controlled Substances Act spells out the three Schedule I criteria: high potential for abuse, no medical use, no safety protocols. If you're arguing that the DEA could decide based on whatever it likes, without oversight, that kind of seems to be the case. Though referring to, say, UN treaty obligations seems a stronger argument if the DEA is going to ignore strong HHS scientific recommendations. In any case, the "multiple studies" have address "other social factors". Scientific research does include sociological and psychological and other areas o human behavior.
You say: "Schedule I includes not only cannabinoids, but MDMA and other such examples that are much less dangerous for human health than heroin"
Yes, but that is not relevant to the cannabis summary. The impact of punitive cannabis regulation is vastly greater, and so of much greater due weight value in the article, than ecstasy (MDMA) or peyote or any other Schedule I drug, however they compare in practice to cannabis. Also, "heroin" as a specific opiate is a due weight example of Schedule I drugs in this context because it has a long history of (at least, perceived) highly debilitating abuse, and no direct medical use since the late 1800s or thereabouts (fentanyl, a much stronger opiate, is in Schedule II because it does have a medical use).
You seem to be repeating unconnected arguments to try to support that you don't like stating that mainstream studies have indicated since 1930 that cannabis shouldn't be treated in the way legislators have treated it. --Tsavage (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course I wanted to include these studies and recommendations, but in a more specific manner, as should be clear from my edit [22]. You frame your objections above as if I wanted to refute the findings by HHS. To the contrary, I specifically mentioned their findings in my edit (not included in your version of the lead). But whatever. I left a message at your talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes If we narrow this whole discussion down to a comparison of the current version -- "Multiple mainstream studies and findings since the 1930s have recommended against such a severe classification." -- and the version you mention [23], "multiple mainstream studies" seems more comprehensive and in keeping with the high-level summary of the rest of the lead section (for instance, we don't name the UN treaties in the first para). Compared to where things were at your first edit ([24], this seems to me like a big improvement. --Tsavage (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:War_on_drugs

Leave a Reply