h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This entry, which I found by typing "cocaine" into the search box, has the indubitable merit of being one of the few that actually mention illegal drugs. I keep browsing the guide, looking for the entry that will tell me how to assemble my own free-basing kit (so I can end up like Richard Pryor) or what tools I need to create my very own income-producing crystal meth factory.

Now I'm not interested in these things because I actually want to do them, but more because there doesn't seem to be any mention of them anywhere in the guide. According to h2g2.com, it seems that, for a good proportion of researchers, a cup of strong tea is the most powerful intoxicant known to man.

What happened to the feel-good, do-anything spirit of DNA's original galactic h2g2? The one with the entry on the Pangalactic Gargle Blaster, which was (if I remember correctly) prohibited in most jurisdictions? Do we need to bring in outside consultants to tell us how to lose our minds? Or did the powers-that-be choose this earthbound (literally and figuratively) all-ages style deliberately, as a panacea to ease the fears of parents who might otherwise feel queasy about letting their offspring browse through our virtual halls of learning? What is the point of a reference work that stops short of discussing really messed-up things to do for fear (perhaps) that someone will actually perform them?

I am all for confronting this puzzling omission head-on, and I hope that someone more courageous than I will post the definitive entry on "Psilocybin Mushrooms," or "LSD--A good trip," or "Detox Centres in Scotland." Until then, I think that this entry, perhaps cleaned up and formatted, would help acquaint our community with one (large) country's reaction to the steady availability of illegal stimulants and narcotics.

It is a fairly good article, though very biased (It is difficult not to yell, when you know the truth It is a good introduction, but a bit on the people and personalities behind the Marijuana Tax, and the thinking behind the WoD would have provided more depth, and a (possibly) more balanced Article. As for the other stuff I am writing an article on cannabis (see the beginning of it at http://www.h2g2.com/A246377 ) and may eventually get around to 'shrooms (the cannabis one is taking up all my time at the mo' ) Until later..
BCNU - Crescent

I agree that it's biased; just seems to me however that it's worth adding to the Guide.

I agree with both of you, Crescent and jqr (jqr, we can't seem to stay away from each other). This is a good entry--and the topics it discusses should be in the Guide--but this entry in particular needs a good deal of work.

Let me start with a contradiction that points out how the entry might be revised for a cleaner and less biased approach to the topic. Vector, our good author, attributes the phrase "War on Drugs" to Nixon, but then proceeds to apply the label to anti-drug, or specifically anti-marijuana, programs in the 1930s and their effects on Mexicans and other underrepresented groups. Now, as far as I understand it, the phrase "War on Drugs" as it is commonly used refers to the programs begun in the early 1980s under Reagan, in response first to pot and, later, crack. Vector is right about its effects on incarceration rates of blacks in the United States (the numbers involved in that issue are chilling), but it seems a little sloppy to me to connect it quickly to the programs in the 1930s and to Prohibition. Granted, they are all government-run anti-substance campaigns with ill effects on the marginalized groups of the time, but to make the easy equation implies that these programs arose from the exact same set of circumstances, which just can't be true.

To present the information in a clearer way, I'd recommend that an entry called "War on Drugs" discuss only the campaign in the 1980s: whose idea it was, what it consisted of (i.e. steeper sentences for drug offenses, more people in jail, but also that public education blitz with television commercials, after-school specials, posters, billboards, etc.), and what its effects have turned out to be. A much longer entry entitled, say, "Anti-Substance Campaigns in American History," could talk about Prohibition and anti-marijuana legislation, as well as legislation against psychotropic substances like LSD (let's not forget that it was legal for quite a while). Each campaign could be discussed in its proper context, and one could also talk about the United States' insistence on considering drug use a crime rather than a sickness (like alcoholism), and equating it, illogically, with the far more criminogenic activities of buying and selling drugs, particularly crack in the 80s. This might make for a more unbiased read, while simultaneously making the point that a lot of people have ended up in jail who don't really deserve it. Information on all this isn't hard to find--books aplenty abound about the history of drug use, drug selling, and the government's response to it.

Whew. Now my head hurts.

Wow, Dr. Funk, your fingers must be sore. The idea of restricting a "War on Drugs" entry to the 1980s makes a lot of sense; it would be smaller and more manageable (and who can forget Nancy & Just Say No?). Now how do we get in touch with Vector with all these suggestions?

The cannabis article I mentioned has an area on prohibition, and it focuses mainly on the 20th Century. It goes through Reefer Madness, Reefer Madness II and the WoD. It looks at the US picture, as there is more info for that, and the US drug policy is often pushed onto other countries. As for getting in touch with Vector - if he left no email on his homespace, and has been inactive for a while, getting in contact with him is going to be hard.....
BCNU - Crescent

Good idea, that, about the email on the homespace. Maybe we can try to raise vector through esp or something.

I agree with the concensus here that, as it stands, the article is too argumentative and opinionated for Guide content. Unfortunately, it looks like vector hasn't been around since May, and may not reappear anytime soon. However, as we seem to have a group of interested parties in this forum here... how about one of you write replacement article on the subject, keeping the balance in mind?

OK, what the hell. I'll do it. War on Drugs, here I come.

By the way, Colonel Gargle Blaster Sellers, Inc., how is it that your entries have moved from being written to being recommended to being included in the edited guide so gosh-dern quicklike? Most folks' seem to langush in the "recommended" state for some time (as mine has) and then languish further in the "pending" state. What's your secret?

I can assure you that I have no secret. While I have had a couple of articles pulled and edited within a couple of weeks, in both instances they were happy coincidences (for instance, when I wrote about American Football, a sub-ed began to assimilate articles on football in all its various forms just a week after I finished it). I have articles that languish just as much as any others, and a few that are probably record breakers. My article on the Titanic will probably be the very last article to clear out of the old queue, because it is so long and has so many facts to be verified. My article on Christianity took months to be rejected. If it looks like I've been successful, it's only because I've been here for over a year, and so have had plenty of time to wait.

Of course, all of my old articles went through the old system, and so things are going to be different with the new Peer Review scheme. We don't yet know how long the wait will be, because we haven't yet worked out all the particulars of how it is to work.

Now that I think about it, though, there is a good way to cut down on that transition time... "Edit Thyself." The less work a sub has to do, the quicker it'll cross their desk and line up for the homepage debut.

Col.

Thanks for the info--I'm still unsure about the details of how this place works. See you later.

Dr.

Dr. Funk,

I'd be happy to provide any assistance you'd like on the War on Drugs article. I have almost a library on the subject, and have been active in that area for awhile.

The only reason I haven't worked on one myself yet, was because it was so huge in my mind, I wasn't sure where to start.

So let me know what I can do to help -- assign me a section, or let me know when you have a draft that I can look at, or...

Redbeard

R. Beard--

If you know more about this than I do--which I'm sure you do--but the project is too big in your head to get down, then maybe we're ideal collaborators.

I plan to limit the scope of the entry to the 1980s, dipping occasionally into the late 70s only to talk about rising prison rates. I think it best to avoid a gigantic, encyclopedic entry, but rather provide the overarching story to give people a general understanding; then, if they're hungry for more info, we can have a list of references at the end. Also, even though the ad campaigns for the War on Drugs attacked all drugs, including alcohol (e.g. Professor Other-Way, from the "One Dumb Move" rap commercial), it's probably a good idea to focus on the drug that, from what I've read at least, has emerged as the most influential of the 80s: crack--using the explosion of the crack market and the public policy response to it as the model for the War on Drugs's general policies. The crack thing has the advantage that the epidemic is sort of over--crack use has fallen dramatically since the mid-80s--so we can talk a little bit about what the results of the campaign have been. It's simplifying the whole mess, of course, but we have to cut a lot of corners if the entry's to be coherent.

Anyway, that's what strikes me as the best way to proceed. One of these days, I'll post on my page the barest of outlines for the entry and alert you when I do so. If the outline looks feasible to you, I'll start writing--or we can certainly split writing duties--and we'll hash the thing out until it's sleek and informative. Sound good?

Dr.

Could I suggest that you get together and write a group of entries, maybe with other collaborators, and write a group of entries as a project for the University of Life. I'm sure it would be perfect for the sociology/ anthropology/ psychology department(s).

http://www.h2g2.com/C573 is where the UOL is at.

- Adam

Sounds like a good idea. Certainly it's worth a group of entries.

Agreed. Hashing out the above outline, I realized (again) what a messy, gangly issue it is. Redbeard, you seem to know more about this than I do--do you want to initiate the project and tell me what to do? I'm happy to write lots of bits and pieces.

But how many entries do you think we'll need? The topic can be fragmented several ways. One way that seems to make sense to me would be to do an entry by drug: "Cocaine in America," "Alcohol in America," "Marijuana in America," etc.--which would give the reader a good longitudinal grasp of the material, albeit at the expense of a clear overall picture. Then maybe a specific entry on government programs that targeted all drugs (like the War on Drugs). The prison stuff, however, will then get buried at the bottom of a War on Drugs entry. Is that okay?

Let me know what you think.

Let me give it some thought as far as an outline of articles. Everything is so interrelated, but I think we can find a good approach to cover the topics.

Editorial Note: This Conversation has been moved to the new 'Flea Market' Forum.

This is where we move any Peer Review, Writing Workshop or Alternative Writing Workshop Conversations where the original author has *not* posted to h2g2 for three months. This prevents the active Review Forums from clogging up with dormant entries, but in the Flea Market they can be picked up by others and polished off.