 | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Drug Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Drug Policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | |  C | This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |
The article starts by defining therapeutic goods as drugs and therapeutic devices. The rest of the article is all about drugs, and nothing about devices. I could correct that for the UK but invite others with more time to do something more systematic.
- I definitely agree with you on this... — Skittleys (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- To further my own comment... yes, I think Regulation of therapeutic goods and Drug prohibition law should be merged, preferably with the latter being incorporated into the former.
- Looking at the merging rules, these pages should be merged because they are essentially covering the same topic, they are the same subject and have the same scope, and there is significant overlap already in the two articles. I don't see any reason they should be stand-alone articles. The only problems I see are: (1) they've both got quite a bit of content, so it will require quite a bit of work, and a dedicated editor (and I'm not nominating myself for that!); and (2) what the article title should be — I vote for "Regulation of therapeutic goods" because it (a) sounds more neutral, and (b) encompasses devices as well as drugs.
- Since I think they should be merged, and do not want to do it myself, I'm proposing the merger. The discussion will remain here.
- — Skittleys (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hi - I think these articles shouldn't be merged. Regulation of therapeutic goods refers mostly to medicine and their control, where as Drug prohibition law refers to the prohibition of narcotics. Whilst in some countries regulation may occur under the same Acts, they're still quite distinct. I'm going to remove this from Proposed Mergers. Jnthn0898 (talk) 10:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
