Talk:War on drugs/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This edit request to War on drugs has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I'd like to add substantive changes to the 21st Century portion of the History section. I will paste my proposed edits below (along with corresponding sources).

ADD: In the early 21st Century, the War on Drugs began being referred to as: “The New Jim Crow.” ^[1] This mentality was further popularized by lawyer and civil rights advocate Michelle Alexander, who wrote “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness” in 2010. ^[2]

At the turn of the century, incarceration rates in the United States disproportionately consisted of African-American men, according to an article from the [Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)]. In 2001: “The number of black men in prison (792,000) [had] already equaled the number of men enslaved in 1820. With the current momentum of the drug war fueling an ever expanding prison-industrial complex, if current trends continue, only 15 years remain before the United States incarcerates as many African-American men as were forced into chattel bondage at slavery's peak, in 1860.” ^[1]

ADJUST THIS PARAGRAPH: add description to beginning of paragraph and omit last sentence due to irrelevance An international group, comprised of former Heads of State and Government, called the Global Commission on Drug Policy released a report on June 2, 2011, stating that "The global war on drugs has failed."[61] The commission was made up of 22 self-appointed members including a number of prominent international politicians and writers. Former U.S. Surgeon General Regina Benjamin also released the first ever National Prevention Strategy.[62]

ADD: According to historian Elizabeth Hinton, President Reagan was a strong proponent of criminalizing drug users during his presidency in the 1980s. She writes: “Reagan led Congress in criminalizing drug users, especially African American drug users, by concentrating and stiffening penalties for the possession of the crystalline rock form of cocaine, known as “crack,” rather than the crystallized methamphetamine that White House officials recognized was as much of a problem among low-income white Americans.” ^[3]

Though Reagan was a Republican, support for his crime legislation was bipartisan. According to Hinton, Democrats supported his legislation as they had since the Johnson administration. ^[3]

During his time in office, President Obama implemented a “tough but smart” approach to the War on Drugs. While he claimed that his methodology differed from those of previous presidents, in reality, his practices were very similar. He promoted a universal drug issue, but his binary “tough but smart” solution maintained the mentality of criminalizing drug offenders. ^[4]

Obama opposed terminology such as “War on Drugs,” but did not take significant steps toward legalization or decriminalization. Rather, drug reform of the Obama era revolved around seeking treatment. ^[4]

After the paragraph ending with "supporting people to live a life free of addiction."[65]" ADD:

A 2013 ACLU report declared the anti-marijuana crusade a “war on people of color.” The report found: “African Americans 3.73 times more likely than whites to be apprehended despite nearly identical usage rates, and marijuana violations accounting for more than half of drug arrests nationwide during the previous decade.” ^[4]

In a manner of speaking, Obama’s “tough but smart” binary approach to the War on Drugs stunted its own progress. On one hand, nonwhite drug offenders received less excessive criminal sanctions, but on the other, by examining criminals as strictly violent or nonviolent, mass incarceration persisted. ^[4]

After the short paragraph "In March 2016 the International Narcotics Control Board stated that the International Drug Control treaties do not mandate a "war on drugs".[66]" ADD:

According to 2020 articles from the ACLU and the New York Times, Republicans and Democrats agree that the time has come to end the War on Drugs. While on the presidential campaign trail, Joe Biden claimed that he would take the necessary steps to alleviate the war on drugs and end the opioid crisis. ^[5]

On Dec. 4, 2020, the House of Representatives passed a major marijuana reform bill, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act (H.R. 3884; S. 2227), which decriminalizes marijuana by removing it from the list of scheduled substances. Additionally, according to the ACLU, it “expunges past convictions and arrests, and taxes marijuana to reinvest in communities targeted by the war on drugs.” ^[5] The MORE Act decriminalizes marijuana, and removes it from the list of substances under the Controlled Substances Act. The MORE Act was received in the Senate in December 2020. ^[6]

Over time, states in the US have approached the matter of drug liberalization at various paces. For example, as of December 2020, Oregon became the first US state to decriminalize all drugs, in an effort backed by the ACLU. The state government’s response has shifted from a criminal approach to a public health approach. ^[5]

Based on ideology from modern political scientists and economic theorists, some contend the War on Drugs has persisted as a way to facilitate the deregulation of free economic markets through its methods of mass incarceration. ^[7] MEL830 (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@MEL830:  Partly done. I clarified the sentence about the National Prevention Plan and did a few copyedits and added some wikilinks to related articles. Details on Reagan's administration were added in neighbouring sections. The phrasing of certain sections would need to be tweaked however I did some preliminary changes. It is rather ACLU-heavy, so some WP:NPOV edits may be needed. TGHL ↗ 🍁 04:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is making it look like the War on Drugs was some big plot against black America. But anyone familiar with the history of this knows that black leaders (at least) have strongly supported the drug war from day one. (Here is a good piece on this: [1]. ) Doesn't matter if we are talking Jesse Jackson, Charlie Rangle, Shirley Chisholm (who voted for Nixon's drug legislation), or whoever....opposition to this was sporadic in the black community until decades later.

That's ridiculous to say because some black politicians, and perhaps political writers, supported prohibition, that it wasn't controversial in the black community. This is show by USE of the substance in the community, rather than empty words by people with political agendas. In context, the lack of "opposition" can be explained as black politicians wanting to use the leverage of anti-drug support to gain support for black rights, including voting rights, from white politicians who are interested in keeping the status quo. -Anon

We aren't talking some black politicians.....we are talking just about all of them. I can't think of any prominent black politician that (for about the first 20 years of the drug war) said they were against the war. In fact, in many instances, they were pushing for it and stronger penalities. (Along with a lot of prominent activists.) Here is a good piece from a RS that details it: [2] There is no getting away from this despite whatever turn has been made over the last 20.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I also have to question this statement: "The War on Drugs has been a highly contentious issue since its inception." Almost all the info cited is very much in the last decade or so. This is PRESENTISM (big time). It wasn't until about the last decade or so that public support even for weed legalization got above one-third: [3].

Note, illegal drug dealers of all races, and even those on the periphery of the trade(small time) would ALSO be against legalization. Decriminalization puts them out of business. Also showing communities don't want, specifically, cannabis legalized, is entirely tangential to the "War on Drugs", which is very much about enforcement, not legalization. -Anon

All this may need some work.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

No Rjal12ww33. Just because some black leaders supported this, doesn't mean it wasn't part of a racist policy. Fact is that these black leaders weren't in charge of policy, and Christian conservatives of all races also tend to be anti-cannabis. The facts are that almost exclusively "white" politicians made these laws and overwhelmingly white law enforcement officers used claims of "smelling weed" as an excuse to raid and seize and search black communities and Hispanic communities. Note Congress used the Mexican slang term "Marijuana" in drafting legislation, because white communities were familiar with the terms "cannabis" and "hemp", as generally non-psychoactive, but still medicinal products. The different name was used to get support of racists(perhaps racism of some blacks against Hispanics as well, consider that!). To deny that language wasn't aimed as racist policy is ridiculous. The idea that racist policies against Mexicans and other Hispanics wasn't also aimed at the black community is also difficult to accept.

I respect your idea that cannabis is harmful and perhaps sometimes addicting. But just because you and any black leaders who you want to namedrop stood against cannabis use, doesn't mean the INTENT of white-controlled government wasn't specifically racist. -Anon

This isn't about what I believe (and I actually favor complete drug legalization (all of them) since you are asking)....this is about what RS shows and how to improve the article in terms of accuracy.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Why are they listed as a belligerent against the U.S? It's not like they're fighting the efforts of the war on drugs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.10.101 (talk) 12:56, September 20, 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Several news outlets have called a de facto drugs victory, among them the New York Times, Esquire, Forbes, and Vice. If drugs have functionally won the war despite a lack of surrender from the US, I believe this should be referenced in the infobox. CJ-Moki (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aaa033.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: MayoStephanie.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Row sal.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This was somewhat inspired by the thread started by CJ-Moki but I believe we should remove the "military conflict" infobox. It's entirely possible the War on Drugs will end with an American "loss". In that scenario, who are we going to say won? The drug traffickers? Or the abstract concept of recreational usage of drugs? Or has the collection of inanimate objects that we characterize as "drugs" won this war? Can an inanimate object win a war? I doubt Wikipedia editors will accept any of these options and so we might as well remove the infobox now if it isn't possible for one side to really win. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with removal. It is as silly as having a box like that on the "War on Terror"...will that ever said to have been won? ---Avatar317^(talk) 04:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to War on drugs has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

For this paragraph: Although Nixon declared "drug abuse" to be public enemy number one in 1971,[45] the policies that his administration implemented as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 were a continuation of drug prohibition policies in the U.S., which started in 1914.[43][46]

Citations 43 and 46 do not support the statement that come before it. I read and reviewed both of them. Defaydesigns (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Ive read them myself, and i can confirm neither of themm ention them as being "a continuation of drug prohibition policies in the U.S., which started in 1914". Ive gone ahead and moved the citations earlier in the text, as they could still have value, and added a {{citation needed}} to the ending statement. Aidan9382 _(talk) 18:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

1. I think this article should add some information about why drugs were being absued globally and within U.S. If this is a war on drugs, then we need to explore the true reason and logic behind drug abuse issue. The article covers practical actions against drugs and the consequence of these actions. It did not answer one fundamental question: Why people are using drugs? Is there any interest group is intentionally misleading people to abuse drugs because of the tremendous profits of this industry? Are people abusing drugs because they are trying to escape from the reality which they were suffering but did not have the ability to change. For example, the article mentions wars and actions in Vietnam. The soliders were using heroins during and after the war. There should be more information about why it becomes a problem. What is the relationship between drug abuse and veterans'psychic trauma? Some veterans did not receive appropriate social support and insurance after the war. Could that be a reson why soldiers abused drugs? What is the relationship between the lack of social resources and drug abuse. We should add a new section and explore the logic behind drug abuse. Otherwise all the actions mentioned in the article are suppression rather than the solution.

2. Some information can be updated. In the section of "Alternatives", the article talks about promoting regulations rathe than punishments might be an effective way to solve the problem. Most of the data and information come from 2004. It is 2022 now and both U.S. and Canada have already carried out legal drug injection point for drug addicts as regulation. For example, in November 2021, New York city has opened the first injection site. We can update more infomatino about his part. What are the pros and cons of injection site? Is it against ethics? Is the death rate of drug addicts and drug-related criminal activities going up or down? How should the society balance between regulation and punishment? These are all meaingfull questions.

3. One of the most important global even recently is COVID-19. I think the article can explore drug abuse problem during the pandemic years. Also, the part of "Efficacy" should be updated. The latest information inlcuded in the article is from 2014. And one picture about the death of overdose up until 2019. How about the recent three years. Is the death rate going up or down? What are the new-type drugs in recent years? What is the relationship between COVID-19 and drug abuse rate? One a drug addict receive COVID vaccines, what will happen?--Zebang Chen (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)ZebangChenucsd(Talk)10:47,25 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebang Chen (talk • contribs)

  I think this article should add some information about why drugs were being absued globally and within U.S. If this is a war on drugs, then we need to explore the true reason and logic behind drug abuse issue. The article covers practical actions against drugs and the consequence of these actions. It did not answer one fundamental question: Why people are using drugs? Is there any interest group is intentionally misleading people to abuse drugs because of the tremendous profits of this industry? Are people abusing drugs because they are trying to escape from the reality which they were suffering but did not have the ability to change. For example, the article mentions wars and actions in Vietnam. The soliders were using heroins during and after the war. There should be more information about why it becomes a problem. What is the relationship between drug abuse and veterans'psychic trauma? Some veterans did not receive appropriate social support and insurance after the war. Could that be a reson why soldiers abused drugs? What is the relationship between the lack of social resources and drug abuse. We should add a new section and explore the logic behind drug abuse. Otherwise all the actions mentioned in the article are suppression rather than the solution.
  Some information can be updated. In the section of "Alternatives", the article talks about promoting regulations rathe than punishments might be an effective way to solve the problem. Most of the data and information come from 2004. It is 2022 now and both U.S. and Canada have already carried out legal drug injection point for drug addicts as regulation. For example, in November 2021, New York city has opened the first injection site. We can update more infomatino about his part. What are the pros and cons of injection site? Is it against ethics? Is the death rate of drug addicts and drug-related criminal activities going up or down? How should the society balance between regulation and punishment? These are all meaingfull questions.
  One of the most important global even recently is COVID-19. I think the article can explore drug abuse problem during the pandemic years. Also, the part of "Efficacy" should be updated. The latest information inlcuded in the article is from 2014. And one picture about the death of overdose up until 2019. How about the recent three years. Is the death rate going up or down? What are the new-type drugs in recent years? What is the relationship between COVID-19 and drug abuse rate? One a drug addict receive COVID vaccines, what will happen?--Zebang Chen (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)ZebangChenucsd(Talk)10:47,25 April 2022 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebang Chen (talk • contribs)  

1. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Under the history section the author writes “In fiction, Conan Doyle portrayed the hero, Sherlock Holmes, as a cocaine addict”. Although the author was providing context and background information on how drugs came about in the U.S. I thought this fact was unnecessary and irrelevant to the history of drug use in the 19th century. It doesn’t fit well into what this section is attempting to address and the informative style of this article. The article would be better without this sentence. For the most part, all the sections seem to align well this the topic. There is a lot to cover within this topic so I appreciate how everything was sub-sectioned. I do think some of the history and other topics overlap and repeat each other, especially the parts covering racial disparities and incarceration.

2. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? In the History section: 20th century, the author includes a quote from John Ehrlichman speaking about how the war on drugs was never about the drugs but about finding an easy alternative to justify the mass incarceration of hippies and black folks. This quote is useful in that it gives the readers a different perspective on the war on drugs, but fails to offer any additional context or analysis of the quote. In addition, the quote is from an article written by Vox Media an opinion and news website. The original article title “Nixon Official: Real Reason for the Drug War Was to Criminalize Black People and Hippies” was a very biased article making assumptions about what government officials were thinking and taking their words out of context. This article and website are not reliable or credible sources to be used in an informative piece about the War on Drugs. Even though the author didn’t directly say anything about the quote, I felt like the quote was directing me towards a certain side of the controversial issue. After reading the article in total I feel like there are some slight biases. I agree that the War on Drugs was never a public health concern but rather a racially motivated movement. However, with that being said I don’t think it's appropriate to reflect those ideas into an informative piece. I don’t think the piece is heavily biased but examples like the quote above insinuate that the author might be taking a side.

3.Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? The article itself already has comments saying certain citations are missing and they haven’t been updated yet so a fair share of the information is uncalled for. One sentence that stuck out to me was in the 21st-century subsection where the author writes “According to 2020 articles from the ACLU and The New York Times, Republicans and Democrats agreed that the time has come to end the war on drugs”. What articles are they talking about? Who agreed to what? This sentence is super vague and unclear. It gives the reader no actual source to pull from to ensure that what we are being told is true. Fatimamac12 (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Fatima Maciel

4. Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? The last sentence of the "permanent underclass creation" subsection of the "socioeconomic effects" implies that the sole reasons one might pursue an income in the drug trade lie in one's circumstances as lacking any education or job opportunity. This sentence assumes itself as a fact, although the reference may not be entirely appropriate in the way it was used in the editors argument. The source cited discusses this as a common circumstance, but not the only circumstance. While plagiarism is not an issue to be held in this particular portion of the article, the misconstruing of the words of the cited author could very possibly be a point of concern when evaluating the article's validity. Andymaurer (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)andymaurer (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

5. Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? It can be reasonably contended that some of the sources cited in the article do, in fact, demonstrate some sort of bias. For example, Blumenson, Eric; Eva S. Nilsen (May 16, 2002). "How to construct an underclass, or how the War on Drugs became a war on education" (PDF). Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 22, 2010. Retrieved August 7, 2011., citation 152, discusses some of the negative implications that the war on drugs has created for Americans, but doesn't address many potential opposing arguments to their theses. This signals a certain extent of bias against the general execution of the war on drugs, despite providing reliable supplemental evidence to back their claims. Andymaurer (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)andymaurer (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Some comments: minorly, while I didn't review the article history, this article was likely not written by one author, so the content is the agglomeration and editing of what has been added/deleted to the article over time...so just state: "the article says...."

Neutrality is more complicated than most people think when it comes to Wikipedia: it is NOT representing both sides of some issue equally, but rather, per WP:NPOV: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity."

Vox is considered a Reliable Source per WP:RSP (if you find its entry in the table.)

I agree the Sherlock Holmes quote is rather irrelevant to an overall history of drug usage/legality and could be removed. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Bibliography: Example: Robin S. Engel, Michael R. Smith, Francis T. Cullen (22 November 2012). "Race, Place, and Drug Enforcement: Reconsidering the Impact of Citizen Complaints and Crime Rates on Drug Arrests". Criminology & Public Policy. MinialuceRuiz (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a peer reviewed academic journal, it speaks to both the topics of our course and associates to the War on Drugs. MinialuceRuiz (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Example: Lawless, R. (2004). [Review of The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, Afghanistan, Southeast Asia, Central America, Colombia, 2nd revised ed., by A. W. McCoy]. Journal of Third World Studies, 21(2), 282–284.[1] MinialuceRuiz (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC) This is a peer reviewed security studies journal, published by the University Press of Florida, so it should be reliable. The topics discussed also closely correlate to some of the discussion points in the War on drugs article. MinialuceRuiz (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Example: By James M. Markham (Dec. 23, 1972). Narcotics Corruption Appears Easy and Common. New York Times.[2] MinialuceRuiz (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC) source is from reliable publication and independent of the subject at hand. MinialuceRuiz (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MinialuceRuiz, Zebang Chen (article contribs). — Assignment last updated by Jun3038 (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if this is on purpose but in the "Public Support & Opposition" "China" section, it says "detentin" instead of detention. I would edit this myself after checking further but i'm on a new account from a school IP that I had to make and I don't have enough contributions or days on yet. Hrdwh (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

This war is gonna be so funny to look back on, millions dead, billions spent. All because William Randolph Hearst wanted to save his paper mill businesses. 2001:8003:E804:C700:5166:2684:2AA7:C910 (talk) 06:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The topic of the page is the war on drugs aiming at reducing illegal drug trade in the United States. The 2 sections Canada and China address these countries´ own drug control efforts, which is an entirely different matter. So IMO they should be deleted or moved to different respective pages. Wuerzele (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The American people and medical rights activists should be added to the belligerents as a third separate element. 142.110.36.186 (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The article currently states:

The term was popularized by the media shortly after a press conference given on June 18, 1971, by President Richard Nixon—the day after publication of a special message from President Nixon to the Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control—during which he declared drug abuse "public enemy number one". That message to the Congress included text about devoting more federal resources to the "prevention of new addicts, and the rehabilitation of those who are addicted" but that part did not receive the same public attention as the term "war on drugs".^[1][2][3] Two years prior to this, Nixon had formally declared a "war on drugs" that would be directed toward eradication, interdiction, and incarceration.^{[4][page needed]}

Regarding the part in bold, the quotes suggests that Nixon used the term "war on drugs" in 1969. If this refers to his message to Congress in July 1969, he did not actually use that term. It would be more accurate to change this to:

Two years prior, Nixon went before Congress and laid out ten specific steps to address the drug problem in the United States.

-Location (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 August 2023 and 8 September 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Patel.preenz (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Patel.preenz (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Brianda (Wiki Ed):, editorialization, original research and opinion injection with this editor is absurd and they're not receptive to their talk page comments. Are students not given any instructions about proper editing??? Graywalls (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo:, did you see the contents that's being added by Patel.preenz is written from a PRESS RELEASE from ACLU? We don't use sources like press release, and "some like the ACLU posit" is perfectly appropriate in this context even though omission is a better alternative. Graywalls (talk) 11:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The actual source seems to be an ACLU research report. GMG^talk 11:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

A press release is something that is put together by the group publishing it in order to emphasize what _THEY_ want to emphasize media attention onto. It's ACLU blowing their own horn to selectively present their finding so it conforms to what they believe in. Graywalls (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

== 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)

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)"?

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

This edit request to War on drugs has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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

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. [4] [5] 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)

@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)

"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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Tsavage: The version you have put is fine with me. Sagflaps (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Yes Sagflaps (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

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)