Last modified on June 5, 2008, at 11:21

Talk:War on Drugs

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dnotice (Talk | contribs) at 11:21, June 5, 2008. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Return to "War on Drugs" page.

DNotice, the war on drugs today has nothing to do with Prohibition of alcohol back in the 1920's; the article should be about the war on drugs only. Further, when you are comparring both, it sounds too much like a drug supporter doing a proxy comparison of both in order to legalize drugs. Karajou 12:36, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

It's a valid comparator: the nanny state/big government (whatever you want to call it) is saying to people "We won't let you do that, even in the privacy in your own home, as we don't agree with it." By the way, what do you mean when you use the term "drug supporter"? Dnotice 12:44, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
"Durg supporter" is anyone who supports and encourages the recreational use of illegal drugs; and no, what you included is not a valid comparator. Karajou 14:25, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Why do you say it's not valid? Dnotice 15:13, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Any chance of a response? I had the courtesy of asking you for reasons and have waited over 16 hours for a reply... Dnotice 07:45, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Over 21 hours without a response... Can we get 24? Dnotice 12:26, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Over 22 hours... Dnotice 13:28, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
My view has been explained; you are to provide a valid reason for comparing the two, and you will stop your silly statements on this page. Karajou 13:37, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
No, it hasn't. You've not said why it's an invalid comparator, only that you consider it is invalid. I've given my reasons. What are yours? In an event, my statements on this page aren't "silly". It was quite reasonable of me to request reasons for my edits being removed. However, due to a complete lack of response from you, I had no option but to leave further messages in order to try and obtain an answer. Dnotice 13:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Two things: First, you will prove the validity of your case here, which means you will leave a detailed comparison between today's war on drugs and 1920's alcohol prohibition; the burden of proof rests on you and you alone to make your case. Second, you don't make demands of me or anyone else here. I know of your little blog [1] which smacks of someone who is against what Conservapedia is about, and you will not bring those beliefs here in the least. Karajou 00:26, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
As grateful as I'm for the free publicity of my blog (I'm guessing that it's a members-only benefit), the whole "We don't want you type around here" attitude isn't really a productive way to resolve matters, nor is it beneficial to the aim of creating an encyclopaedia. I'm trying to resolve matters in a civilised way, so I fail to see how my quite reasonable request for a reason for your reversion can be classed as a "demand". Please can you show how it falls under this description? In any event, how can I make edits when you've locked the article? Dnotice 11:43, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

"It's a valid comparator: the nanny state/big government (whatever you want to call it) is saying to people "We won't let you do that, even in the privacy in your own home, as we don't agree with it."": This is one reason why it's non a valid comparator. Prohibition was not something that the government imposed on the populace. It was voted in by the people—in a referendum to amend the constitution. Philip J. Rayment 06:58, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

I can't tell if your comment is meant to be in support of alcohol prohibition or not... Dnotice 07:21, 5 June 2008 (EDT)