Wikivoyage talk:Drug policy

Drug policy
As Illegal activities policy leaves some gaps when it comes to destinations known for their liberal, or poorly enforced, drug laws. Therefore, you should contribute to Drug policy. Netherlands, Black Rock City, Nimbin and La Paz can be used as case studies. /Yvwv (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we need another policy? If there's a gap in the illegal activities policy, propose a change to that policy. K7L (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not think we need this article. My immediate reaction on seeing it is to want to tag in for merging into illegal activities policy. Pashley (talk)


 * As I just wrote, an illegal activities policy cannot, by definition, cover activities which are legal. /Yvwv (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Drawing a line
Poorly enforced laws are still laws. Anything that contravenes them is still illegal. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the line drawn by this policy doesn't need to be drawn. If they are illegal at the destination, we don't cover them except as to protect the traveller.  If they are legal, then we can write about them like any other attraction.  There is no other distinction that makes sense.  Otherwise, Saudi travellers should expect to see no coverage of New York bars.  --Inas (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nicely summed up. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Standalone policy?
For a standalone page this is a bit short and it has not been changed much since its first creation (and apparently never been implemented in any real sense). Might it be a better idea to merge this into the main policy on illegal activities? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I created this page just around the Exodus, when Wikivoyage was very different from today, and it was difficult to know where it was going. By today's standards, I can agree that it is very brief. /Yvwv (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I would support a merge into Illegal activities policy. There was a concern brought up previously that a merge doesn't make sense because drugs are not always illegal, but the illegal activities policy also covers activities that are only illegal in some cases, so I don't think naming should be a concern, and there is value in having things in one place. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 19:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Brevity is desirable in a policy, provided that it adequately covers the subject. If someone wants to know what the policy on drugs is, that is what they will search for. What advantage does anyone gain by merging, as a redirect will in any case be necessary? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that brevity is good, but what advantage is there in splitting a single paragraph out to its own policy page rather than pointing to essentially the same guidance that already exists at WV:Illegal activities policy? The site is less usable when information is spread thin and users need to look in multiple places to find guidance that isn't always kept in sync.  Regarding a user search, a search for "drug policy" would key off of the redirect created once this article is merged, so the user would still end up in the right place. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 06:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Fair comment, I have no objection to a merge with redirect to the appropriate section. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Seems to bee no need for this article anymore. /Yvwv (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect. K7L (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 15:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)