Talk:Office of National Drug Control Policy

Progress

• Can the ONDCP really take the full credit for lower drug use? What about other factors? -james_anatidae 14:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. The "progress" section sounds like something from an ONDCP pamphlet.Trevormartin227 01:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

if by lowering, you mean, going from an F to a D-... yeah. We still rank as one of the 2 highest use drug countries in the world, so I'm not sure what "lowered" means... there's a lot of points within the F range before getting to a D-... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Informer0 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed

Heavy on the "controversies" not much in terms of what the office actually does, how its arranged, oversight, etc. Article is heavly biased toward anti-public health POV Elmang

it isn't biased, if the office is controversial the controversy should be represented here. if you have contradictory data to balance it, do add it, but as long as you are not providing any don't flag it as POV. Let The Sunshine In 20:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

moreover the controversy paragraph is quite short. if you want to censor it, wikipedia is not the place. Let The Sunshine In 20:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Since NPR and other major news outlets did actually cover these controversies, as I recall (search npr.org for archives) I disagree with this dispute. However, I do think this page should be watched for who edits what. It's likely prone to a debate against two sides, both of which I frankly think are a bit too evangelical for my tastes: the pot lobby and the ONDCP itself (both of which have rather extreme agendas for this page). The quality of the sources are something I think should be the focus— not the neutrality itself, since many of these statements are not contradictory to more mainstream coverage of the same controversies. Neutrality affirmed.

IMO there should be much more "in terms of what the office actually does, how its arranged, oversight, etc." I decline to predict whether this will create more controversy or disputes concerning POV but it is important information. Moss&Fern (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

removed from article and placed in discussion page

White House IP address edits this page

Revision as of 4 October 2005 by 63.161.169.66 accused the Marijuana Policy Project of being "an organization committed to legalizing drugs."

Is there an explanation for why this is appropriate in the text of the article? If so, please provide it before re-adding it to the article. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 00:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference to "September 2012" in Funding paragraph

Is this a typographical error? Just seems really odd. Supallcomm (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"the number of young people using drugs in the U.S. declined by 23 percent between 2001 and 2006"

Under Effectiveness of ONDCP, Other, it is stated that "According to the University of Michigan's annual Monitoring the Future report, the number of young people using drugs in the U.S. declined by 23 percent between 2001 and 2006 [19]"

When I reference the source, the percent decline between 2001 and 2006 was 5.9 percent. I would like a third party to verify and fix.

SnowhuouV (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Office of National Drug Control Policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140418195210/http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/botticelli-bio to http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/botticelli-bio

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)