This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the War on drugs article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 6 months

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cannabis High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cannabis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cannabis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CannabisWikipedia:WikiProject CannabisTemplate:WikiProject CannabisCannabis articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Central America This article is within the scope of WikiProject Central America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Central America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Central AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Central AmericaCentral America articles Crime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Drug Policy (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Drug Policy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Drug PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Drug PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Drug PolicyDrug Policy articles Human rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance). Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs articles United States: Government / History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Low-importance).

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

== 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]

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)[reply]

This edit request 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)[reply]

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

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]

@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]