File talk:Killerdrug.jpg

Today, File talk:Killerdrug.jpg is a topic of great relevance in society. Since its emergence, it has captured the attention of people of all ages and interests. Whether due to its impact on popular culture, its influence in the scientific field or its importance in everyday life, File talk:Killerdrug.jpg has become a topic that does not go unnoticed. Over the years, it has generated debates, research and advances that have transformed the way we understand the world around us. In this article, we will explore different aspects related to File talk:Killerdrug.jpg, its evolution over time, its importance today, and its possible influence in the future.

Is this image legit? Looks like some text upon some photoshop-generated noise imho. Also, the website 'drugpolicycentral.com/bot/' doesn't look like a valid source for a government-issued document... (no offense). Just wondering... - The Oiman (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I can definitely see where you're coming from, although I certainly would NOT put it past the US government to produce this type of bullshit propaganda... ~Pip2andahalf 09:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
If you guys look in the file history, it seems that the picture in question once did look rather real, someone photoshopped out everything above a darkness threshold and threw it on a noise background.... I am requesting a revert. ~九尾の氷狐~ (Sumimasen! Dochira samaka?) 12:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Should this be deleted? I don't think it's legit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.54.67 (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

When did "I don't think it's legit." become reason to take it down? It's an example of propaganda, so weather it is legit or not shouldn't matter because this type of propaganda was created, the authenticity of this can only be demonstrated by the person or organization that created it and taking it down without reason is just as wrong as leaving it up when it doesn't contribute to the article, but this does. Nicholascobalt (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If US politicians grew up getting indoctrinated with this sort of bullshit, it's no wonder that marijuana is a Schedule I drug over there. Ridiculous. 84.202.252.37 (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Better version with history in archive

There is a better version of this image along with a brief description and metadata in the Wisconsin Historical Society's archives: http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/Content.aspx?dsNav=N:4294963828-4294955414&dsRecordDetails=R:IM56411 2601:602:0:5CFC:BDC2:4EBE:F44D:75B1 (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It's been eight years since the user above pointed this out, I'll copy/paste the additional information section from the above Historic Society page: '"25-IX-71" appearing on the front refers to its date of acquisition by J. Wesley Miller: September 25, 1971. Notation "at Dana Beal gathering," further suggests that the content of this poster is not in earnest.'. Dana Beal being a marijuana legalization activist. In other words, as a previous poster said, "it's not legit". It paints Wiki in a negative light that for 17 years this satirical card handed out at a pro-pot activist rally has been referenced on multiple wiki pages as authentically government-issued. Dare I look at the page for 'A Modest Proposal'? --67.158.6.244 (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
It also says the Inter-State Narcotic Association is "an incorporated not for profit", so it's inaccurate for this image to be cited as coming from the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, as the Project Cannabis Portal main page currently does. Even if we were to assume despite evidence to the contrary that it is not satire, there's no reason to assume that the ISNA and the FBN are the same thing. It seems obvious they are not. I'll check this page again in 17 years to see if someone has found a "reputable source" saying the same thing as me so that they can correct these errors without getting rolled back... --67.158.6.244 (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia