Talk:Drug abuse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk archive


Contents

[edit] Major Edit on Druggies

Okay, everyone seems to be complaining a lot about the "Druggies" article. I figured "screw it all, I am writing this my way". Does they defy typical Wikipedian behaviour? Perhaps...Do I care? No, I don't. I wrote it all from research gathered from various high schools and teen areas. Feel free to change it. Keep in mind that the previous article that stood that was vastly unfair and biased. This page is linked to the teenage sub-culture of druggies, from the high school subcultures page. That is what this page should be about. I have NEVER run across a druggie with long hair who is incredibly slow. Instead of talking about how to change it, just do it, for God's sake! By the way, I assume you all know that I am opposed to merging it (considering I took the merge tag off the Druggies page.--Rgenung 16:17 EST, 15 November 2005

[edit] citations

OK, one more time. You have cited one medical dictionary. That's fine, but, as you know, different medical authorities have different definitions. Different legal regimes have different definitions. The fact that you have worked out how to google for medical articles and dictionaries must be fascinating for you, but finding one source that fits your pov and then deleting everything else is not acceptable. Please, stop. Discuss radical changes to the article on the talk page, and try to reach consensus instead of pushing your pov without discussion. Guttlekraw 15:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your comments are bizarre. My definition comes from a book, not from google, and this is not about my POV nor deleting anything, but citing sources and merging content. Nothing has been "deleted", but exists in various states of disarray on both talk pages. Is there a reason you cannot help contribute to this article, and instead continue to revert to unsourced, pre-merge versions? --Viriditas | Talk 21:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The point is that there are many different definitions in play. An easy example for you to understand is this: US law considers ANY use of hash to be drug abuse. UK medical definitions do not. Therefore, the application of the term 'drug abuse' to drug use is a matter of opinion. Where we do it, we need to cite in whose opinion the drug use is abuse. Guttlekraw 03:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't seem to be the one having trouble understanding, as you seem to fail to note the cited statements you keep changing. --Viriditas | Talk 04:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
You are wasting everyone's time by not reading. The point is that you cite one source, and claim that it is the only one worth presenting. Guttlekraw 19:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Your edit history demonstrates that you are a troll, so I will ignore your comment which is clearly erroneous, as this has been discussed many times. --Viriditas | Talk 02:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] changes

Included a definition as used by NIDA at one of their websites [1].

emphasised the sociological nature of the term "drug abuse" to distinguish it from the more medical "substance abuse"

My hope is that this definition is fairly neutral.

Some copy editing and correction of factual errors.

Placed sociology of drug abuse at beging of article rather than end in accordance with emphasis on "drug abuse" as a sociological term. Also, I believe flow of article is improved if scope of problem is introduced before solutions.

There were too many notes. I cut several of them which related to common knowledge, kept a few that related to specific facts.

Both this article and substance abuse could use a lot of work. Perhaps a request for peer review? Osmodiar 07:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

NIDA is not a neutral source, and as such has been explicitly avoided by all parties. The definition of drug abuse has many contexts, and this article is addressing the medical definition, as displayed in the outline, however the sociological and legal definitions need to be expanded. This article has already been mistakenly placed on peer review by Guttlekraw and promptly removed. Peer review is not for content disputes, but for improving articles that are approaching the status of a featured article. --Viriditas | Talk 02:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Do you have any support for this claim regarding NIDA? Perhaps you are confusing them with ONDCP. -- Osmodiar 03:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
There are many problems with NIDA, a few of which are discussed on that page. Most notably, the retracted NIDA-funded, Ricaurte-McCann Ecstasy study [2][3] and UCSF AIDS researcher Donald Abrams' previous difficulty in getting NIDA support for a proposed study on marijuana smoking by patients with HIV-related wasting syndrome [4] have illustrated some of the issues with NIDA. Thoric and I have made mention of some of these problems, [5] [6] and we are in agreement that NIDA is politically biased. Some critics claim that NIDA only supports research that promotes the administration's point of view, fails to fund projects that could undermine or disprove its research, opposed medical marijuana research, and used images drawn from advanced medical technology to create misleading anti-drug campaigns. [7] Peter Cohen, a professor at the Centre for Drug Research at the University of Amsterdam has also pointed out problems with NIDA, as has UCLA public policy professor Mark Kleiman and City University of New York pharmacologist John Morgan, both of whom describe the previous NIDA director (Alan Leshner) as the "propaganda minister in the war on drugs". [8] [9] Kleiman also described NIDA's educational campaign as "astonishingly dishonest". [10] Sociologist Craig Reinarmanm, who studies drug policy at UCSC claims that NIDA's agenda has been profoundly shaped by a drug-war ethos. Charles Grob, who studies hallucinogens at UCLA describes NIDA as "science in the service of politics". Alan Marlatt, a psychologist at the University of Washington, who formerly served on NIDA's National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse, states, "I got the message that it will fund things showing harm, but when it comes to benefits there's no chance." William Miller, who studies addictive behaviours at the University of New Mexico claims that in order to gain funding, one must emphasize the damaging effects of drugs. At a NIDA presentation in 2003, brain scan expert Stephen Kish observed that NIDA repeatedly overstated the certainty of their data, and that NIDA had been misleading the public and Congress in regards to the issue of ecstasy-related brain damage. [11] In regards to NIDA's position on LSD, critic Neal M. Goldsmith states: "Overall, the data sets upon which the government's "war on drugs" is built come off here as woefully inadequate - subject to political agendas and thus miscontructed and misdirected from the start." [12] Nick Sandberg claims that pharmaceutical industry influence led NIDA to halt studies on ibogaine, a drug that has the potential to treat addiction, but I have not been able to verify Sandberg's claim. Most damaging of all, a July 2004 Scientific Integrity in Policymaking report issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists documented alleged incidents of political litmus tests for NIDA appointees. While being considered for a position on NIDA's advisory council, Dr. Claire Sterk was questioned by a White House staffer about whether she supported "faith-based" drug treatment program, or voted for President Bush. In 2002, Dr. William R. Miller of the University of New Mexico, professor of psychology and psychiatry, and pioneer of a leading substance abuse treatment, was questioned by a NIDA advisory panel about whether his views were congruent with those held by President Bush and whether he had voted for Bush in 2000. Rather than focusing on Miller's scientific qualifications, a White House liaison to the Department of Health and Human Services grilled Miller about his views on abortion, capital punishment, and other topics. [13] --Viriditas | Talk 12:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, that is nice that you and Thoric feel the NIDA is politicaly motivated, but you still have not provided any evidence of this. The statement at [14] and [15] which reads: "Also note that NIDA does not list alcohol as a substance of abuse" is patently false. NIDA most certainly does list alcohol as a drug of abuse, as well as nictotine, androgens, and all the usual suspects. Your other links all seem to point out the faulty 2002 Ricaurte MDMA study. You seem to be basing your view of NIDA based on the mistake of one resercher who received NIDA funding. Your threshold for evidence when it supports your viewpoint seems rather low. I assume you do not have much of a science background. -- Osmodiar 08:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
(Note: Osmodiar's reply was made in response to a different version of my commments found here: [16] Due to an edit conflict, my updated changes were saved after his response.) I have posted more than one example, and my science background as well as my viewpoint is irrelevant. Please stick to the discussion at hand. --Viriditas | Talk 08:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
You also just did extensive editing of your comment above what I wrote after I replied. The point remains: your view of the NIDA as biased is not well supported. I am also curious why you consider Mosby's to be the authoratative definition of the term? It seems a rather arbitrary choice. -- Osmodiar 08:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Due to an edit conflict resulting from your reply, I was unable to save my comments in time (For accuracy, I have now noted the original revision you were replying to below your comments. Feel free to change your comments if necessary). The extensive editing was actually made before you replied, but saved after your comments. Again, this is not about my "view". I have never said that I consider Mosby's as an authoritative source, but it does describe the literal, neutral definiton of drug abuse. NIDA's definiton seems to vary greatly, often times as a substitute for substance abuse. Perhaps you could post a link to the definition you offered? Ok, just saw the link to your definition, above. We certainly should include multiple definitions if possible, but NIDA's definition seems to change depending on which page you view. The definition, "the use of illegal drugs or the inappropriate use of legal drugs...the repeated use of drugs to produce pleasure, to alleviate stress, or to alter or avoid reality (or all three)" differs from the definiton offered here, which is basically the definition of substance abuse, and the definition offered here, where in relation to the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10), NIDA defines drug abuse as: 1. the use of prescribed or over-the-counter drugs in excess of the directions, and 2. any nonmedical use of drugs (It should be noted that the assessment in question explicitly excludes alcoholic beverages). The latter definition is synonymous with Mosby's and Medline, both of which I have previously referenced. --Viriditas | Talk 10:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Please stop reverting without reading or caring what anyone else writes Veriditas. There are many different definitions based on differentlegal and medical authorities. Everyone except you seems to recognise this. Stop it, you are not funny, and not being constructive. If you have some real reason why you only want one definition listed, please give it, otherwise, stop pushing your own POV at the expense of the rest of the world. Guttlekraw 13:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, I'm going to ask you to stop trolling. I am the one who asked for multiple defintions to be included (Talk:Drug_abuse#Proposed_outline) and you are the one who continues to revert without consulting the talk page. Accusing me of your own actions is trollish. --Viriditas | Talk 14:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
NIDA keeps a clear focus specifically on drugs of abuse, and while they may list alcohol in a couple places, it is markedly absent from most of their documents, Science-Based Facts on Drug Abuse and Addiction for example, as well as this chart Drugs of Abuse (the chart, not the right sidebar). --Thoric 14:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote removal

I've added the footnotes back in. Osmodiar, you might be interested in Template talk:Inote. --Viriditas | Talk 10:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Veriditas, missing the point as ususal

Veriditas, your comment in the edit history that Mosby's is published by a global company is, as usual, completely irrelevant. The point, again, is that in the US drug abuse is typically defined by reference whether the drug is legal or medically indicated, whereas in Europe, typically, it is defined as use of a drug in such a way that the user cannot function normally. These are important differences, and you completely fail to address this, instead wanting to present the notion that there is only one definition, that everyone agrees to. Guttlekraw 14:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to once again ask you to stop trolling. My comment was in direct response to your contention that Mosby was a US based definition. What you seem to be having trouble understanding is that the Mosby definition is a neutral medical defintion that is not controversial, whereas NIDA is controversial. This has been covered in talk, and again, you keep ignoring issues that have already been covered by bringing them up again and again. Your allegations are false as usual, as my outline specifically calls for multiple definitions where they are appropriate. The medical definition of drug abuse, as offered by Mosby is the primary, neutral definition. --Viriditas | Talk 14:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I see citations for the version Viriditas is using; I see no citation for the claim that "in Europe, typically, it is defined as use of a drug in such a way that the user cannot function normally". I'm going to return this article to the properly cited version until some authoritative citations can be found which indicate that the definition is significantly different in Europe. Jayjg (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I can cite that, for sure, it's very easy. It was cited in the past, and Veriditas removed them. Is the citation the issue though? There are tonnes of cited definitions of drug abuse - the problem is that V wants only one to appear. Guttlekraw 09:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Citation is indeed the issue, and is why your other paragraph was removed as "original research". An insistence on citations tends to stop people from inserting their own opinions. Jayjg (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calm down

Can both of you please chill out and discuss this on the talk page? Veriditas, I don't have an axe to grind here, but it does seem that there are more than more nuance to this - could there be a compromise in here somewhere? There's nothing sacred about Mosby, it's just a US medical text. Take her easy, Intrigue 15:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nursing diagnoses

Can we please change this ghastly neologism to symptoms? JFW | T@lk 01:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

  • The term crept back in. "Nursing diagnosis" is a not a concept used by the medical community outside of the nursing profession. Probobly not appropriate for a general article. Osmodiar 12:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Nursing diagnosis classification is not a new phenomenon. The work begun at the First National Conference on the Classification of Nursing Diagnosis, held in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1973, eventually led to the founding of the organization now called NANDA International [formerly, the North American Nursing Diagnosis Association] NANDA's Classification of Nursing Diagnoses was the first nursing terminology recognized by the American Nurses Association (ANA) and the first included in the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS). NANDA defines nursing diagnosis as a "clinical judgment about individual, family or community responses to actual or potential health problems/life processes". The term "nursing diagnosis" is included in the regulatory or statutory language of the Nurse Practice Act in forty-one of the fifty States and the District of Columbia and in the 2002 Model Nurse Practice Act of the National Council of State Boards of Nursing. The establishment of a nursing diagnosis constitutes one of the standards of nursing practice as enunciated by the ANA and has been a part of the ANA's definition of nursing since 1982...medical diagnosis refers to a disease; a nursing diagnosis refers to a human response to an actual or potential health problem or life processes. Although nursing diagnoses are complementary to medical diagnoses, nursing diagnoses are not dependent upon medical diagnoses...[17] --Viriditas | Talk 21:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Viriditas asked me to take a look at this article (particularly wrt nursing diagnoses), I've decided not to edit the article since it's a fairly charged issue so I'll just offer my opinion here and anyone who wants to incorporate that into the article can do so. Nursing diagnoses are the only thing in the section titled "signs and symptoms", but nursing diagnoses aren't really the same thing as signs and symptoms. If there is a section in the article for "nursing care for drug abuse" as a second level heading like "medical treatment" under "Approaches to managing drug abuse" then that would be an appropriate place for them. However; the whole nursing section should not be too much larger than the "medical" or "therapy" sections. If you were to just include a few diagnoses as an example, I would suggest that anxiety (item 1), noncompliance (item 9), and disturbed thought processes (item 4) are probably the most relevant. If there's not a subsection on nursing care, then I don't see that the nursing diagnoses are all that relevant and could be removed. Matt 02:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Right. My point is that "nursing diagnosis" is a concept used only by nurses. If this was a nursing article, then it would be appropriate. On the other hand, "signs" and "symptoms" are concepts well understood by all healthcare providers, includeing nurses. Also, "nursing diagnosis" is an amalgamation of medical and social issues. Its inclusion here can only serve to confuse. And finaly, the section does not fit in the suggested outline. Osmodiar 03:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Let's try one more time

OK, I kept the Moby definition, added the NIDA one, and added a note about historical definitions. Let me know what you think, and please, can we talk about this, instead of revert warring? Guttlekraw 09:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop your biggotted reverting

Ver. Please stop. Your rampant POV pushing is beyond what I can tollerate. Removing a statement that is a fact from another article, that I don't think you disagree with, and which is relevant, without discussion, is vandalism. Please stop it. Guttlekraw3 06:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Is this "statement that is a fact from another article" cited there? Wikipedia cannot use one Wikipedia article as a citation for another in this way, we need to have the original primary sources. Jayjg (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you disagree that opium use was not considered drug abuse in the 18th century? You don't really think that every uncontested fact in every article needs to be directly sourced, that would be ridiculous. The opium article gives a detailed history of the drug, and references it. It is simply a bad faith attempt to remove things that don't fit your POV to remove this. Guttlekraw3 10:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

This does look bizarre Jayjg - it is not original research, it is well documented. Intrigue 05:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
The statement in question does not concern drug abuse but drug prohibition, and Guttlekraw's content lacked verifiability and amounted to original research. As such, it has not been included in the article. --Viriditas | Talk 05:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm more and more convinced that you are a lunatic. Are you really saying that there is no relationship between societal views of what drug abuse is and the laws they enact to govern drug use? Guttlekraw3 06:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
You've been repeatedly asked to stop engaging in personal attacks, and that is official policy. You've also been reminded that original research is not permitted. --Viriditas | Talk 07:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] At last, some sense

Well done, you have finally done some research and recognized that the word has many definitions - this version is a lot better than the previous ones. Guttlekraw3 11:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

My proposed outline, dated Apr 21, 2005 (almost a month ago) specifically requested multiple definitions, which implicitly require citations - citations you refused to provide. The version you are looking at was scheduled for April 22, not May 26, but instead you spent the last month waging a revert war instead of helping contribute to a fair and balanced article that can be independently verified. --Viriditas | Talk 12:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Then why did you keep reverting my suggestions? No, don't even let's go there. I'm happy that we agree to this step forward. Let's put the past ridiculousness behind us and work on improving the article. Guttlekraw3 10:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I've explained this many times. Suggestions are for talk pages, not for articles. Unsubstantiated article additions cannot be verified, and without citing sources for such content, your changes may be removed. --Viriditas | Talk 22:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

As I said to Jayjg above V, you should not go around removing establish uncontentious facts because they are not cited. It's rude and unnecessary. Intrigue 05:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. The content in question was neither established nor uncontentious and even if it was undisputed, Wikipedia:Cite_sources is clear. See also Wikipedia:Check_your_facts and the process involving the removal of content in the section, "Checking verifiability" on Wikipedia:Verifiability. Guttlekraw had been asked to cite sources for a month, and refused to do so. Wikipedia does not permit original research. --Viriditas | Talk 05:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Are you saying that the fact that opium was legal in the US until the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act in 1914 is disputed, or not verifiable? Guttlekraw3 06:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Drug prohibition and drug abuse are two different topics, and this has been explained to you many times. --Viriditas | Talk 06:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, they are different, but closely related. What societies choose to prohibit is a reflection of what they consider to be abuse. Guttlekraw3 07:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
In any case, that is your opinion and Wikipedia is not a place for original research. --Viriditas | Talk 07:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
No, it's not just my opinion. You cannot simply choose what to include or not based on your own predudices. If I went through this article and took out every unreferenced statement there would be nothing left. Do you want me to do that? Guttlekraw3 07:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Putting your childish threats aside, I have spent more than the last month referencing every statement in the article, so I can't see what you would remove, and if you did, you wouldn't be following the policies I've linked below. We've had this discussion many, many times, so I can only assume that you are trolling again or that you are having problems understanding official policy. Please review Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research. Take some time to understand them. --Viriditas | Talk 07:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Once again, you dodge the point, refuse to answer questions and hide behind bluster about policy and personal attacks. Grow up. Guttlekraw3 07:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I haven't dodged anything. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. I suggest you spend your time wisely, studying policy and contributing to articles in an appropriate fashion. --Viriditas | Talk 07:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Once again, you dodge the point, refuse to answer questions and hide behind bluster about policy. Grow up. Guttlekraw3 07:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Looking up this thread, the point seems to be made. Unless you are able to cite sources for your personal, pet theories, there is nothing to discuss as Wikipedia does not host original research. Please take the time to study official policy at the links I've provided above and use this discussion page for improving the article. Please keep all personal attacks off this page. Thank you. --Viriditas | Talk 08:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Once again, you dodge the point, refuse to answer questions and hide behind bluster about policy. Grow up. Guttlekraw3 08:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question re edit summary

Viriditas wrote "Reverted edits by Guttlekraw3 to last version by Viriditas. You've been repeatedly asked for more than a month not to alter cited source content. Your other changes are not supported."

Don't worry - no cited content was altered. Which 'other changes are not supported'? Not supported by what? Try to focus on content. Thanks. Guttlekraw 12:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree that there was no need for V. to revert most of your changes. In particular, the changes to the introduction and harm reduction sections did not substantialy change the meaning of the article. However, a couple of your changes seemed problematic. The article is about drug abuse. In this context it is appropriate to use the specific term "drug abuse" rather than the more general terms you replaced it with in a couple of locations. -- Osmodiar 13:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. Guttlekraw/Guttlekraw3/Intrigue/All your basses are belong to us/etc (all the same user waging edit wars, personal attacks, and sock puppetry on multiple articles at this time) is not editing in good faith. He redesigned the introduction to allow for his term "use" in place of abuse, but Wikipedia is not a usage guide. He also deleted the reference to the definition being used in the past by WHO, which is explained at the link provided. Lastly, he replaced the word "drug abuse" with "drug use" (something he has been doing for two months on multiple articles) with a misleading edit summary of " no cited content was altered" when in fact, he changed fn2, the cited Mosby definition, from "drug abuse" to "any drug use" when the cited definition doesn't say that; he changed fn4, from a letter published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, to read "illegal use of drugs" instead of "drug abuse" as the article states; he changed fn6 to read "drugs" instead of "drug abuse" as cited in Mental Health Practice. And he changed the meaning of fn7. This has been going on for two months, and is making it very difficult to work on the article. I collaborate on many articles, and I've never experienced anyone inserting their POV like this before. --Viriditas | Talk 02:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you're talking about chaning 'drug abuse can harm etc' to 'any drug use etc'. I think it's important to show that drugs can be harmful, regardless of whether the use is called abuse - can you suggest a better way to rephrase that, keeping it more on-topic? Guttlekraw 13:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Please do not change cited sources because you think it's important to promote your pet theories. If you have cites, great, let us use them, but until then, please refrain from changing the meaning of cited sources. --Viriditas | Talk 02:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Looking at this more closely, the problem is that the article strays quite a long way away from 'drug abuse' as it defines it, and talks about the US govt's war on drugs, the cost to society of drugs (no figures on hospital usage etc disagregate 'drug use' from 'drug abuse' etc etc). I think the broader term is better, or leave it out and put it in an article about drug use in general. Guttlekraw 13:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
A big problem is that no one really agrees on the definition of "drug abuse" and that problem is not limited to wikipedia. In fact, it is even mentioned in one of this articles references. [18] The definition found at that link actually does a reasonable job of outlining some of the problems with the term. This article does seem to lack focus. -- Osmodiar 14:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
The article gives a wide enough definition that it does not stray away from it. As for "drug use", what do you mean? Use of illegal drugs? Abuse of legal drugs? Legal use of legal drugs? That's an immense topic. Jayjg (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, we should be careful of statements like 'negative health effects of drug abuse' when in fact, all drug use carries the risk of negative health effects. We should not use the narrower term when we mean the broader, or vice versa. Guttlekraw 15:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jayjg's revert

User:Jaygj replaced my "Beyond the sociological issues, almost any drug use can lead to either addiction, chemical dependency, or adverse health effects, such as lung cancer or emphysema from cigarette smoking. " with:

"Beyond the sociological issues, abuse of almost any drug can lead to either addiction, chemical dependency, or adverse health effects, such as lung cancer or emphysema from cigarette smoking."

This version seems to imply that it is only 'abuse' that can lead to adiction or adverse health effects. That is plainly not true. Medical use of strong pain killers have the same risk. Is there any sense in which this version is better? Guttlekraw 15:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I've restored the appropriate term, "drugs of abuse", which you removed. --Viriditas |

Well done! You have collaboratively reached a factually correct version - doesn't that feel better than reverting? Guttlekraw 05:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harm reduction

  1. (cur) (last) 14:20, 31 May 2005 Jayjg (actually, the focus is on drug abuse; they (harm reduction workers Guttlekraw) aren't worried about the societal cost of diabetics taking insulin. Also, drug use generally does not lead to addiction, only abuse.)
  2. Talk 02:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)(→Harm reduction - no, they focus on drug abuse, as defined by this article.)
Harm reduction focuses on reducing the harm of drug use, in general, it is often applied to drug abuse, because drug abuse is a substantial part of drug use, but the methodology is indiscriminate. For example, it is applied in the medical application of drugs, and to non-abusive use of legal drugs. Harm reduction is absolutely applied to the use of insulin, and to alcohol, cigarettes and over-the-counter painkillers. Guttlekraw 05:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As this article is about "drug abuse" shouldn't the discussion of harm reduction here be limited in scope to its application to drug abuse. All the rest seems appropriate for the main harm reduction article. -- Osmodiar 05:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, that would be like having a discussion of car braking systems as they apply to freeway driving. Obviously you could, but it would be kind of hard. Car brakes are designed to reduce the speed of the vehicle in any environment, including freeways. In the same way, harm reduction methodologies apply to any drug use. Of course, discussion of them here should focus on their application to drug abuse, but to claim that harm reduction is a methodology designed to reduce the harm of drug abuse is like saying car brakes are designed to reduce the speed of cars on freeways. It's true in some pretty narrow sense, but misleading as well. I don't see why it is controversial to mention that harm reduction is a methodology that applies to all drug use, and is applied in reducing the harm of drug abuse. Guttlekraw 06:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Viriditas, how about discussing your POV on the talk page, instead of continually reverting anyone who you disagree with?

I am talking about the opening paragraph, your stealth reverting is not helpful. Guttlekraw 09:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't a revert but a rewrite with the addition of content that you deleted in an actual revert. This page is not about substance abuse. --Viriditas | Talk 11:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Subheadings on the definition

I have split out the definitions, to try to get some clarity on the usage - I hope that you will take a considered look at this, I think it is a substantial improvement. Guttlekraw 10:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This seems like a good approach, however:
  • An introductory sentence explaing the rational for the three subsections would be usefull.
  • Although the NIDA definition does touch on legal aspect, readers may get the impression that NIDA is primarily concerned with legal aspects, when it is, at least theoretically, primarily concerned with medical and scientific aspects.
  • Even though there is a link to the WHO definition, some of the wording seems to be lifted intact from that page, which may be problematic.
Can you take a look at this, or point out the specifics, and I'll change it? Guttlekraw 11:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
--Osmodiar 11:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Guttlekraw 11:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why is this page now about substance abuse? Further, you have mixed and matched many unrelated concepts, giving false impressions in many cases. --Viriditas | Talk 11:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, in most medical references, the category 'substance abuse' is where 'drug abuse' is talked about. In DSM for instance, substance abuse means alcohol or drug abuse. The concept is a step removed, and they do not distinguish between the two. Perhaps the two pages need to be integrated? The problem is that the current Substance abuse page talks only about the current definition, whereas they have been historically intermixed and overlapping. Guttlekraw 11:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Most medical references" say no such thing. As I originally suspected, you intentionally confused the topic by adding information about substance abuse in order to promote a redirect -- a discussion that was covered almost two months ago on this discussion page. It now makes perfect sense why you have spent the last two months engaging in revert wars instead of expanding this article. I've heard about editing in bad faith, but this takes the cake. I'm going to revert your changes, move the appropriate content to substance abuse if need be, and continue to develop this article. --Viriditas | Talk 11:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas, I do hope that you can rise above this, I am trying to engage constructively on this, I wish that you would not start a revert war over it. Guttlekraw 11:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Considering the fact that the edit history shows that you reverted my latest editions to the article, I find your crocodile tears less than convincing. This article is not about substance abuse. --Viriditas | Talk 11:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realise I had reverted your changes, I like your adition to the first paragraph. I am afraid that I think that substance abuse and drug abuse are very closely related topics, indeed it is hard to find any medical, legal or other authority that does not use them in very closely related ways. I agree, the two terms are distinct, but there is going to be substantial over lap in any article about either one. The history of the term drug abuse has it coming under different headings according to different people - currently it rests under 'substance abuse', but that has not always been true. Guttlekraw 11:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Drug abuse is a general term, while substance abuse is a specific term. Again, what you claim is not the case, as I'm looking at many different sources that use the terms differently. In addition to the great many unsubstantiated statements you have added to the article (which you are currently using as a sandbox) you have written: "The 1969 edition of the World Health Organization's ICD manual defined drug abuse as "persistent or sporadic excessive drug use inconsistent with or unrelated to acceptable medical practice", modern editions have not used the term (partly because of it's ambiguity 2, preffering to reffer to the cluster of symptoms previously called 'drug abuse' as 'substance abuse'." The ref you provided does not state that what you claim. You have also changed the Mosby cite (which is now ref-less) to reflect your own POV. Please consult the NPOV policy. --Viriditas | Talk 13:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you unpack that rant? The refs I provided are correct. Guttlekraw 13:03, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is the second time you have claimed to provide refs that I provided. I provided the refs, and you distorted them by claiming they said things that they don't. --13:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - you are simply wrong. The WHO lexicon says ""Because of its ambiguity, the term is not used in ICD-I0 (except in the case of non-dependence-producing substances- see below);" it is reffering to "abuse (drug, alcohol, chemical, substance, or psychoactive substance)". Guttlekraw 13:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

Guttlekraw3, you have violted the 3RR more than three times in the last 24 hours in the form of simple and complex reverts, especially with your recent replacement of the substance abuse information that I moved to substance abuse. --Viriditas | Talk 13:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What?! I have not reverted anything! I am currently working on some major revisions of the article. I suggest we discuss issues on the talk page - there has been no reversion at all! Guttlekraw 13:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your Jerome H. Jaffe stuff

This is interesting, in the context of policy, but, although the guy is an MD, he made this statement in his capacity as Drug Policy Director in the Nixon Administration. It has never been used as a medical or diagnostic definition, often as a political one. Guttlekraw 13:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In 1975, psychiatrist Jerome H. Jaffe defined drug abuse as "the use, usually by self-administration, of any drug in a manner that deviates from the approved medical or social patterns within a given culture". According to Jaffe, the term "conveys the notion of social disapproval, and it is not necessarily descriptive of any particular pattern of drug use or its potential adverse consequences" -- so is this the origin of using the term abuse to refer to an activity which has social disapproval? Should picking your nose be called "nose abuse"? I can just imagine the propaganda now depicting people picking holes in their noses ;) --Thoric 14:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violations by Guttlekraw3

There are more than this, but these are the ones I could salvage, with complex reverts interspersed with full reverts. In all five instances, Guttlekraw reverted content to previous versions, in some cases sneaking them in after other edits.

  1. 13:19, 1 Jun 2005
  2. 13:07, 1 Jun 2005
  3. 12:32, 1 Jun 2005
  4. 10:00, 1 Jun 2005
  5. 12:27, 31 May 2005

--Viriditas | Talk 13:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please focus, these are not reverts, they are edits, some of them after you have also edited. Please try to stick to the facts. Instead of playing games and claiming I am reverting, tell me WHAT it is you disagree with. In most cases, when we look at the evidence, you're simply wrong. Guttlekraw 13:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You reverted my changes at least five separate times, by re-adding material that had been removed. That's a violation of the 3RR. It doesn't matter that you tried to game the system with complex reverts by including reverts inside of edits. --Viriditas | Talk 14:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look, your definition of 'revert' seems to be 'change anything about the version Viriditas preffers'. Sorry, but editing means making changes, especially if you are trying to introduce factual errors. Guttlekraw 04:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two medical sections side by side for discussion

[edit] Guttlekraw's suggestion

[edit] Medical definitions

The 1969 edition of the World Health Organization's ICD manual defined drug abuse as "persistent or sporadic excessive drug use inconsistent with or unrelated to acceptable medical practice", modern editions have not used the term (at least in the case of ICD, because of it's ambiguity 2), preffering to reffer to the cluster of symptoms previously called 'drug abuse' as 'substance abuse'.

In the early 1950s, the first edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders reffered to both alcohol and drug abuse as part of Sociopathic Personality Disturbances, which were through to be symptoms of deeper psychological disorders or moral weakness 14. By the third edition, in the 1980s, drug abuse was grouped as part of 'substance abuse'

Although the two most used diagnostic tools in the world (the DSM and the ICD) no longer recognise 'drug abuse' as a current medical diagnosis, the Handbook on Drug and Alcohol Abuse, defines drug abuse as "nonmedical use of drugs, both drugs that have and those that do not have generally accepted medical value".

Because of ambiguity in the meanings, the World Health Organization presently prefers to use the terms harmful use and hazardous use in place of drug abuse to distinguish between the health effects of drug abuse rather than the social consequences.

[edit] Viriditas' suggestion

[edit] Medical definitions

According to the Handbook on Drug and Alcohol Abuse, drug abuse refers to the "nonmedical use of drugs, both drugs that have and those that do not have generally accepted medical value".

In 1969, the World Health Organization defined drug abuse as "persistent or sporadic excessive drug use inconsistent with or unrelated to acceptable medical practice."

In 1975, psychiatrist Jerome H. Jaffe expanded the definition, as "the use, usually by self-administration, of any drug in a manner that deviates from the approved medical or social patterns within a given culture". According to Jaffe, the term "conveys the notion of social disapproval, and it is not necessarily descriptive of any particular pattern of drug use or its potential adverse consequences".

Frankly, I preffer the first, because it begins by dealing with what the two most commonly used diagnostic tools in the world have to say on the subject (that they used the term in the 50s and 60s and now use it as a sub-category of substance abuse). It then goes on to list another text that does still use it, and what the World Health Organization has to say on the subject, that they preffer other terms. I moved Jerome H. Jaffe into 'political and criminal justice', because the deifnition he provides was not a clinical one, it was given when he was working for the Nixon administration, and was never used medically, only politically. Viriditas' version does not mention the fact that the WHO stopped using the term, or why, which seems a major ommission. What do you think? Guttlekraw 05:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the Handbook on Drug and Alcohol Abuse, frankly, I think it's being generous to even mention it. Compared to the DSM and the ICD, it is hardly a heavy hitter. It didn't even have a stub article until I just wrote one. Guttlekraw 06:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WHO has changed its definitions multiple times, but the newer definitions never completely supplanted the older ones, in practice. I ran across three slightly different definitions from 1957, 1964, and 1965, along with a lengthy disclaimer that seems rather pertinent, so I added citations of these to the article. But if you search for excerpts of the citations I provided, Google turns up quite a few references all the way up to the present day, so apparently these definitions are still being promulgated and, I would assume, they are probably considered current by members of the medical and legal professions. The definitions are intertwined with definitions of addiction and dependence, the citations for which I tried to limit to just the relevant details. However, it could stand to be further paraphrased in the interest of brevity. I just wanted to get the raw material in there for now. I also added some early definitions of use and abuse from both the AMA and American Psychiatric Association — organizations which, like the WHO, are considered by their members and their publications' target audiences alike to be authoritative. Also, my apologies for not using preferred footnote format; I was under the impression I'd have to renumber the notes in other sections, but I guess not. If the citations can stay, I'll clean up the references in due time. Thanks. — mjb 10:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Previous editors have inserted a great deal of inaccurate, original research into the article, much of which cannot be verified. Please remove anything you feel is inaccurate and leave a message on the talk page. --Viriditas | Talk 10:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I've reorganized the entire Definitions section again. The WHO is as much a political body as it is a medical authority, so I feel it is misleading to leave it in the 'Medical definitions' subsection. However, the WHO is the producer of the ICD, the commonly used diagnostic reference, so it's not fair to put the WHO material strictly under 'Political definitions'. There's politics in the AMA and APA definitions, as well, so I'm not sure these subcategories are really ideal. However, I've left them in for now. I haven't removed anything except for a couple of redundant statements. Given the reorg and new material, the side-by-side suggestion above is moot, at this point. — mjb 21:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reference check

Checking references, Mosby's does not use, suggest or refer to "disapproval" as that was added by the editor. Further, the quote given by Leon Wurmser actually says the complete opposite of what the editor claims it says when read in context of the original paper. Both have been removed. --Viriditas | Talk 10:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed outline

  1. Introduction
    1. Medical, legal, and sociological definitions
      1. Problems with defintions
      2. Issues with abuse potential for listing as schedule I or II (i.e., cannabis does not seem to meet this requirement) (Related article: Cannabis rescheduling in the United States)
      3. Crime or disease?
  2. History of nonmedical drug consumption (Main article: History of drug use)
  3. Basic science, clinical, social issues
    1. Moderation vs. abuse
    2. Addiction (Main article: Drug addiction)
    3. Crime (Related article: Prohibition (drugs))
  4. Commonly abused drugs
    1. Alcohol (Related article: Alcohol abuse)
      1. General risks (diseases)
      2. Neuroscience
      3. Adverse effects on organ systems, from prenatal to adult (Related article: Alcoholic beverage)
      4. Benefits (Related article: Alcohol consumption and health)
    2. Cannabis
      1. General risks (diseases)
      2. Neuroscience
      3. Adverse effects on organ systems, from prenatal to adult
      4. Benefits (Related article: Medical marijuana)
    3. Opiates
      1. General risks (diseases)
      2. Neuroscience
      3. Adverse effects on organ systems, from prenatal to adult
      4. Benefits
    4. Cocaine and other stimulants
      1. General risks (diseases)
      2. Neuroscience
      3. Adverse effects on organ systems, from prenatal to adult
      4. Benefits
    5. Inhalants
      1. General risks (diseases)
      2. Neuroscience
      3. Adverse effects on organ systems, from prenatal to adult
      4. Benefits
    6. Other drugs
      1. Anabolic steroids
      2. Secondary stimulants
        1. Nicotine
        2. Caffeine
  5. Management and treatment (Main article: Substance abuse)
    1. Pharmacotherapies
    2. Other therapies
      1. Harm reduction
      2. Acupuncture
      3. Entheogens
  6. References

Restored the outline from the archive. --Viriditas | Talk 11:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response to outline

I note repeated use above of benefits. Abuse can bring benefits? Laurel Bush 09:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC).

Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to the benefits and risks of the drug itself. An assessment of the benefits can shed light on the risks of harmful use (abuse) and misuse. --Viriditas | Talk 12:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I would alphabetize the commonly adused drugs listing or at least switch opiates and cocaine. Also, if you're going to include a references line, I suggest you include an external links line too.

Darrien 09:49, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed new opening sentences

Proposed new opening sentences/paragraphs:

There are now widespread, well-established, medical, social, educational and criminal justice programmes designed to prevent or remedy drug abuse. Clear definition of what is or is not drug abuse remains, however, quite elusive.
Legislation creates lists of drugs which are considered to have abuse potential, and criminalises unlicensed production, supply and possession. It does not establish, however, any clear definition of abuse, and some drugs which a generally considered to have abuse potential (such as alcohol and tobacco) are often exlcuded from this kind of legislation. Laurel Bush 11:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC).
Laurel, go ahead and make whatever changes you think are needed. If you have to remove content, try to make a note and leave the content here on talk or in your edit summary so that others can review it. The page needs a lot of work, so please, have at it! --Viriditas | Talk 11:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Viriditas. I am thinking the existing opening sentence is easily read as meaning (1) 'recreational use' is always abuse or (2) some drugs, eg alcohol and tobacco, are somehow not real drugs. Also, it avoids the fact that there is considerable scope for debate about what is or is not drug use, and whether drug abuse is genuinely a useful concept. I do not feel that sentence is very objective: it is an assertion which avoids the reality of unresolved issues, tending to create or support a false sense of certainty.Laurel Bush 15:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC).

Laurel, I'm not sure which "opening sentence" you are referring to, here. Can you specify? --Viriditas | Talk 06:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Er ... Yes ... Perhaps I have misread that sentence, but I am very uneasy with its use of therapeutic. Also I am uneasy with the way that dangerous synthetic drugs can slip past the FDA, and other drug/medicines licensing agencies, while more natural medicines (not least those cannabis-based) tend to be excluded from legal therapeutic use. Laurel Bush 10:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC).

I don't see any problem with the use of "therapeutic", especially since it is referenced and is used as a current definition. Regarding the issue you raise in regard to "legal therapeutic use", I believe you are referring to "accepted clinical use", not drug abuse itself. I have reverted the following content added to the lead:Drug abuse is taboo use of any substance which a society recognises or classes as a drug. Abuse may attract severe penalties (including death) and forced engagement with programmes designed to limit or eradicate the abuse.. For example, even Mosby's recognizes that "taboo" use of cannabis for therapeutic purposes is not abuse, however there may be controversy over other drugs such as LSD which some claim can be used for therapeutic purposes but is not recognized as such by the medical community. --Viriditas | Talk 06:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


'Therapeutic use' is problematic without the 'legal' qualifier, see medical marijuana for example, no therapeutic standard is agreed on.

[edit] Article certainly progressing nicely

This article has certainly come a long way and gone through many revisions... though based on the proposed outline above, there is still quite a bit missing ;)

Here is the original stub of the article, just to show the evolution... (and also to make sure that the original message doesn't get lost in the shuffle):


Drug abuse is the irresponsible use of psychoactive drugs, most often referring to those who have developed a dependence on drug use due to drug addiction.
There is some controversy to the inclusiveness of the definition. Anti-drug advocates classify recreational drug use as drug abuse, but this tends to be a social stigmatism based on legal status. Scientifically there is little difference when comparing recreational use of alcohol to that recreational use of marijuana. Both can be used responsibly and likewise, both can be abused.
Hard drugs (such as cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin and alcohol) are the most likely to be abused due to their addictive nature, and can be difficult to use responsibly. They lend themselves easily as tools for escapism purposes -- that is to allow people to hide from their problems.
Due to the legal status of most drugs, drug abuse tends to go unnoticed (and hence untreated) until it is quite far gone, and the road to recovery has become a long, hard battle. Fortunately, since the two most harmful and abused drugs are still legal in most countries (alcohol and tobacco), workable models for responsible use, and addiction recovery can be designed and built.
--Thoric 20:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Article categories

Is there a category for articles where the discussion page is longer than the article itself and much of which appears to be two or several people arguing about each other's corrections (when the Innocent Bystanders who merely want information cannot see what all the fuss is about)?

[edit] Sniffing?

Is there an article that talks about the effect, methods and substances used in sniffing? As in sniffing glue or carburetor fluid.

Yes, the term for the substances is Inhalants, and the slang term for sniffing is Huffing (redirects to Inhalant). --Thoric 15:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay someone needs to fix the picture alignment

[edit] Pharmacotherapy

I updated the information on ReVia, since naltrexone is no longer marketed that way. I also removed the "Unfortunately" from the next line to bring in a NPOV. Many addiction medicine experts don't prescribe naltrexone because they don't think it works (despite the indication). Until someone proves that the drug is actually useful (and researchers haven't quite done that yet), we should simply say it's not being prescribed very much without making a value judgment.

Also added a brief section on abstinence-based treatment, which gives better outcomes for treatment of certain addictions (harm reduction also leads to better outcomes for some of the other addictions). Drgitlow 04:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Substance abuse vs drug abuse

I can see what the article substance abuse should do (I guess) but doesn't really say much at all that isn't said on the Drug Abuse page - in which case why not merge that one (substance abuse) into this one, and then have links to specific medical issues (eg pharmacotherapy or whatever, or pages on the drugs themselves with subheadings.

Just a suggestion - i looked briefly thorugh the talk pages to see whether this had come up before. cheersCas Liber 01:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/r/u/Talk%7EDrug_abuse_41ab.html"