Talk:Drug

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 NO WAY, THIS CANNOT BE SERIOUS 2 The bold, bold move 3 Alternatives to drug of abuse 4 Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links 5 Surely we need an article here 6 Performance enhancement 7 Classification system needs supporting reference 8 A drug is a molecule? 9 Definitions of 'drug' 10 Super-POV in "Recreational Drugs" 11 List of Drugs - Necessary?

[edit] NO WAY, THIS CANNOT BE SERIOUS

I just stumbled across this gem in this GREAT article:

I will highlight spelling mistakes in bold and italicize factual errors that aren't even close to fact.

Party drugs include cannibis, ectasy, LSD, and magic mushrooms. Cannibis is grown and is usually smoked but it is sometimes eaten. It causes an increase in a persons metabolism, decreases growth and causes the user to become relaxed and their responses are slower than normal.Ecstacy is mostly used in nightclubs and comes in the form of a pill. It increases the user's heart rate which causes them to become highly energetic and they feel a sense of euphoria. Excessive use causes hallucinations and could cause the user's spinal fluid to crystalize. LSD is in the form of a sticker which users stick on different parts of body. It is a hallucinagenic drug

I'm actually just going to straight up delete this crap, this is embarrassing for wikipedia as a whole.

→ Gosh this is really ridiculous. Look at the introduction. The writer does not consider caffeine, ethanol and nicotine as drugs. That whole crap has to be rewriten.

This is a new article right? Who the f* had the brilliant idea to write it?! --El Chemaniaco 02:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this is absolutely ridiculous. The definition of drugs provided in the opening paragraph is misleading, contradictory and, in certain spots, obviously incorrect. Caffeine and alcohol are considered drugs by any definition, and the notion that "cocaine and opium can be considered foods due to caloric content' is dubious and certainly not something to be included in the introduction to say the least. I'm going to make some corrections, though a more detailed overhaul is definitely necessary. --The Way 05:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and completely rewrote the introduction into what I believe is a simple and straight forward introduction to the topic. Any thoughts? --The Way 05:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I didn't like it too much. I feel that it does not go as deep as an introduction requires while sticks to some unnecessary points (the last paragraph, for example, could be shortened if not removed). Also, I wonder if there are these two categories? I believe definition 2 is more acurate, and other differences are more like objectives of the use and not scientific divisions.--El Chemaniaco 18:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit: here we have an example of a good introduction, in Psychoactive drug:

"A psychoactive drug or psychotropic substance is a chemical substance that acts primarily upon the central nervous system where it alters brain function, resulting in temporary changes in perception, mood, consciousness and behavior.

"These drugs may be used recreationally to purposefully alter one's consciousness (such as coffee, alcohol or cannabis), as entheogens for spiritual purposes (such as the mescaline containing peyote cactus or psilocybin containing mushrooms), and also as medication (such as the use of narcotics in controlling pain, stimulants to treat narcolepsy and attention disorders, as well as anti-depressants and anti-psychotics for treating neurological and psychiatric illnesses).

"Many of these substances (especially the stimulants and depressants) can be habit-forming, causing chemical dependency and may lead to substance abuse. Conversely, others (namely the psychedelics) can help to treat and even cure such addictions."

Actually I wonder why is this article necessary? Couldn't we redirict it to Psychoactive drug?--El Chemaniaco 18:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Really this should only reference the two articles, medication and psychoactive drug, noting that most psychoactive drugs are alsomedications in their own right -- the [[medication] page's central nervous system subsection refers to the psychoactive drug article. --Thoric 18:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually its more like all medications are psychoactives drugs, and most of these are medications, since drug is just a short form of psychoactive drug. But I do agree with you. If nobody is against this we can delete the article. Both Psychoactive drug and Medication are very good and complete. --El Chemaniaco 01:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The bold, bold move

JFW enters stage, wearing firefighter's costume and holding fire extinguisher: Ladies and gentlemen, I have finally turned this page into the disambiguation page it was supposed to be. The previous contents were an indiscriminate mix, mainly about illegal/recreational drugs with some medicinal preparations mixed in.

As I was unable to get a clear answer on the talk page, I've been bold and moved the old page to the highly POV-titled drug of abuse, where it should get the treatment it deserves, such as a merge with the more NPOV-titled recreational drug use.

I'm wearing this suit because I'm expecting flames. My answer to all of them is:

• There are drugs and drugs. Some are used (OTC or on prescription) to treat symptoms or illnesses. Some are taken for recreational purposes. Some substances happen to be in both classes (e.g. diamorphine, cocaine). But to suggest that someone doing heroin is doing this for a medical purpose is bizarre.

I can't believe you made such a statement, when heroin is still administered in some hospitals, and legally prescribed pharmaceuticals such as Fentanyl are indistinguisable from heroin (btw 'China White' heroin is the same chemical as Fentanyl) --Thoric 05:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• The old page did not make this distinction, and all the editing in the world could not justify its independent existence.
• Please edit drug of abuse, or merge it adequately, if you feel there are still issues, but undoing the move will automatically meet with an RFC from my side.

There are plenty issues. First of all, you ignore requests for you to elaborate on your disambiguation ideas. Second, you rename the (NPOV named) "Drug" page to the (POV named) "Drugs of abuse" page, which goes against the NPOV policy. Lastly, you threaten to give a hard time to anyone who reverses your uncalled for changes. --Thoric 06:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I think JFW is right with his bold move; the article has evolved so that it is less about drugs generally, it has developed more into an article specifically about drugs of abuse. Nor am I convinced there is a severe POV problem with the name, but, as has been stated, merging with recreational drug use would seem to solve any remaining POV and content problems. Drug should be a disambiguation page, it makes more sense that way. PeteThePill 21:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

JFW blows some CO₂ onto the audience and leaves. JFW | T@lk 03:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are for seperate topics with the same name. Drugs are drugs, that us why there was an article on them. There are many drug related articles and they are linked to largely in the drug article. The United States article covers many topics briefly as the drug article did. Do you think it should be changed into a disambiguation page as well with history, economics, etc.? I fully support the reversal of the changes Jfdwolff has made. Jfdwolff has broght this up on the talk page but no-one has supported it.--Clawed 04:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Links to disambiguation pages are nothing new. There is a seperate project page for that, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. These links are used to mean either pharmacological drugs or substances used recreatively but very rarely both at the same time. I've actually started using [[medication|drug]] when writing about a medical drug.

The page that I moved from here to drug of abuse was absolutely not about pharmaceutical drugs, save a few lines. All the rest was about recreational substances. Nobody made an effort to harmonise this or to make the article more unbiased, and I doubt this would have been possible. This is why I acted unilaterally, and I'm quite pleased with the result.

Oh, the United States article is about the federation of states in North America. That's one subject, one entity, from various perspectives. It is a poor comparison. JFW | T@lk 09:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we do need an article called Drug of abuse. Or maybe not, there is already Drug abuse. And I am, for one, far from happy with the way the current Drug of abuse article has been created, at the cost of the style, content and intented purpose of two pre-existing articles. Laurel Bush 09:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC).

Which two articles?! No style or content has been lost. I suggested above that a merge of drug of abuse would be a sensible option; I agree that drug abuse would be a good candidate. JFW | T@lk 10:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I am saying that Drug abuse is not really a moved article: it is a new article masquerading as a moved article. Drug and Drug (disambiguation) should be restored to their condition prior to the 'move'. Laurel Bush 13:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC).

I hope you understand what I've done. I've moved the old drug page, including its history, to drug of abuse. Then I moved drug (disambiguation) to drug. I have not touched drug abuse, and I will not. No information has been lost. Nothing needs to be restored. The only change I've made is removing references to medicinal drugs from the article that is now called drug of abuse. If you'd like to access this, which is redundant with medication at any rate, there is always the history. JFW | T@lk 13:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I know exactly what you have done. And the "only change" you have made changes fundamentally the parameters of the article, as defined in the opening paragraph, and makes the rest of the article quite nonsensical. Laurel Bush 13:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC).

You are free to restore the content to that article and move it about or perform a frank merge. It did not appear nonsensical to me at all, but I may not be best person to judge that. I am not, however, happy moving that page back here. We've passed that stage now. In fact it has not received much editorial attention at all for a little while, and could do with a cleanup anyhow. JFW | T@lk 13:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

All drugs and medications can be abused. There is no justification for singling out certain substances as "drugs of abuse". The DEA spreads plenty of propaganda, we don't need to encourage that here. If this needs to be a disambiguation page, then the original drug page should at least be named something like Common drugs. Drugs of abuse is extremely POV. --Thoric 05:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't believe they can all be abused, even if that is true then most drugs rarely are. There clearly IS great justification for assuming that some drugs are more prone to abuse. "Commonly abused drugs" would be a more sensible title than "common drugs", which doesn't fit the content of the article in any way at all. Overall the way forward seems to be a merge with Recreational drug use as there is already a great deal of overlap. PeteThePill 21:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Do either of you have any idea what you are talking about? Most drug abuse goes unseen. The hard-core drug abuse that is seen by law enforcement and rehab clinics (and crack houses, back alleys, etc) primarily involves illegal drugs because they are illegal. There are still many alcoholics, and gutter-bum-winos, but they are treated differently because alcohol is a legal drug. Commonly prescribed medications, OTS and OTC medications are far more abused than illegal drugs, but little is seen or heard about that, because they are legal. We are a pill-popping society, and everyone is happy as long as you are popping legal and approved drugs. Cocaine, cannabis, heroin, street meth, MDMA, LSD and the rest of the illegal street drugs continue to be illegal for one primary reason -- the pharmaceutical industry doesn't make one red cent from them because they aren't patentable. The only reason alcohol is legal is because the majority of the population likes to drink, and alcohol prohibition was too hard to enforce 80 years ago. As a free entity open encyclopedia, Wikipedia should not have to be bound by the constraints of DEA enforced propaganda. Do some real field research, and stop echoing the rhetoric of the brainwashed. --Thoric 15:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes; I do know what I'm talking about; I'm a pharmacist, and work directly with recreational drug users of all varieties. The article we are discussing lists a very small number of commonly abused drugs. I could easily list hundreds of rarely abused drugs; should I add them to the article? I think NO as they would be irrelevant to the nature of the article, which is undeniably about drugs used recreationally. PeteThePill 15:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not talking about rarely abused drugs, I'm talking about drugs that you sell in your pharmacy, off the shelf, over the counter, and prescribed to patients. Obviously you pay little attention to sales of off the shelf products... non-narcotic analgesics, antihistamines, cough suppressants, antinauseants, etc. Plenty of people use these drug far more often than they really need them. I know a lot of women who pop several aspirins daily for "pains and headaches", a behavior no different from women who pop stronger medications on a regular basis. Are they really less habituated to these pain killers? We certainly know that NSAIDs cause far more serious physical problems for the body than opiates do, but we can't have people getting hooked on narcotics, can we? Better to get addicted to NSAIDs, and rot out your digestive tract. Prescription medicine is a whole different ball of wax. We freely prescribe stimulants to children which are little different from the illegal psychomotor stimulants, but in the name of medicine, it's all just fine and dandy. Big business are lining their pockets well. Add some prozac to the mix, and everyone is happy. I see you're paid well to keep on preaching the propaganda forced down your throat by the pharmaceutical conglomerates. I'm sure you can always take a few pills to help you sleep at night. --Thoric 17:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

You underestimate me (and I suspect pharmacists generally); I'm well aware of the misuse potential of OTC medicines, by rarely abused drugs I refer to drugs like (random examples!) balsalazide and doxazosin and sotalol and imipenem and bleomycin and literally thousands of others. Analgesics and cough suppressants etc. are already referred to in the article. The article is what we are discussing, and it is greatly biased towards both legal and illegal recreational drugs, with little mention of less "interesting" drugs. That's fine, but "drug" was not an appropriate title. I'm just talking about the article; I think you are also underestimating how much I agree with much you say! (e.g. relative risks of NSAIDs and opiates) PeteThePill 19:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Ahh :) Sorry for the rant then... as usual most arguments involve some misunderstanding and miscommunication. My primary disagreement is with the POV labeling common drugs as "Drugs of abuse". Maybe the article can merged into other articles, or maybe renamed as "Commonly used drugs", but the word abuse(d) implies a certain point of view. --Thoric 20:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I stated early on that I considered "drug of abuse" a POV title and that alternatives (and merges) could be contemplated. "Recreational" is actually also a point of view. JFW | T@lk 04:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"Recreation drug use" is not really POV, where "Recreational drugs" is -- just as "Drug abuse" is not really POV, where "Drugs of abuse" is POV. This is why I suggested either "Common drugs" or "Commonly used drugs" as a NPOV alternative. --Thoric 17:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alternatives to drug of abuse

Is Recreational drug a good alternative title to Drug of abuse? I would also like to bring attention to the articles Hard drug, Soft drug, and Club drug. They also have POV problems in their titles, especially the first two. -Acjelen 20:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Note: Recreational drug is currently a redirect to Recreational drug use. -Acjelen 20:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

All those pages should be merged into recreational drug use or drug of abuse. The distinction between "hard" and "soft drugs" is political. JFW | T@lk 04:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, interestingly enough, the distinction between "hard" and "soft drugs" is scientific, not political. It's mostly based upon the research of relative addictiveness of substances. (See Relative Addictiveness of Various Substances). Technically "soft drugs" should only include Cannabis, MDMA, Psilocybin, LSD and Mescaline (as well as other very similar substances). --Thoric 17:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Classification under the UK Misuse of Drugs Act has nothing to do with 'hardness' and 'softness'? If there is a 'scientific' definition of a 'hard-soft' spectrum it seems to be not much used or respected by politicians. Laurel Bush 10:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC).

Since when have the drug laws been based upon science? If you look at the history of the US drug prohibition, it has been completely based upon targetting minority groups. A prime example of sensationalism vs science are the laws against cannabis. It doesn't take half a brain to realize that alcohol is a far more harmful drug than cannabis, but American drug czars will have you believe that marijuana is evil incarnate and much worse than crack cocaine (maybe because the Bush family is more partial to cocaine than cannabis?) --Thoric 21:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links

While trying to sort out this mess, I'm finding there is no article about illegal drugs, or the related laws that people end up in jail for breaking. When someone is a drug dealer, or in jail on drug charges, where should those links point? Tedernst 16:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Surely we need an article here

I think it is appropriate to have an article here, at Drug. I can see above that it was made a disambiguation page to move the drug abuse stuff away, that fine. But what we need is an article here giving a definition and providing a naviagtional structure to the other drug related articles. Britannica have an aritcle, and there's no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't.--Commander Keane 21:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone did read the old Drug article as being primarily about drug abuse. That was not my opinion at the time. And I agree: an article at Drug would be appropriate. Laurel Bush 10:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC).

All we have at the moment are two major articles on the same subject divided by the legality (medication) and illegality (recreational drug use) of the drugs in question. Considering the number of legal jurisdictions in the world, this is not the best situation to be in. A drug is a drug is a drug, regardless of legality. The OED defines 'drug' as "an original, simple, medicinal substance, organic or inorganic, whether used by itself in its natural condition or prepared by art, or as an ingredient in a medicine or medicament" (OED) (where medicinal can be defined as therapeutic). Of course, as well as this umbrella article should be those other two. --Oldak Quill 15:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The divide is not so much over legality as it is over purpose; medicine vs recreation. The other meanings of drug belong on a disambiguation page. Bensaccount 16:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Performance enhancement

Not seeing anything in the article about the use of drugs to enhance performance. Is this medical, recreational, or what? Laurel Bush 10:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC).

It's sort of mentioned in the recreational section, when it states that recreational use is different than utilitarian use, so I suppose we could have another section entitled, "Utilitarian drug use", but the lines are blurry. I'd say that in some cases, utilitarian use falls between medicinal and recreational, but it seems that when used in a utilitarian fashion, drugs can jump from performance enhancing straight to habitual addiction without any recreational component. Likewise this can sometimes happen with legitimate medicinal use, albiet rare...

    Abuse       Imagine this rough diagram as a circle with a cross of
M  /  |  \ R    two lines showing the how drug use can go between different
e /___|___\e    classifications... medicinal, recreational, utilitarian and
d \   |   /c    abuse (addicted).
   \  |  /
 Utilitarian   --Thoric 19:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classification system needs supporting reference

The system of classification into two broad classes, without mention of performance enhancement, needs some reference to identify origin. It is only one way one classifying so-called drugs, and does not itself define what a drug is or is not. Laurel Bush 14:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC).

I agree that it can be done better (I'm the one who set it up this way). This was just an attempt to make the introduction accurate and readable, as the previous introduction was simply awful as well as contradictory and misleading. The 'two broad categories' were essentially derived from the two different defintions for the word 'drug' that are provided in the dictionary and also appear later on in the article. If you can think of a better way of presenting the information, by all means do so! --The Way 17:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me the article might work better as a simple redirect to List of drugs. Laurel Bush 09:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC).

[edit] A drug is a molecule?

A drug is a molecule? Under the UK's Misuse of Drugs Act, entire plants are classified as drugs. Laurel Bush 11:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

Isn't that just silly? —Memotype::T 14:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Is what just silly? The Misuse of Drugs Act? If so, I would tend to agree. Nontheless, the article seems to be using, at present, in its leader, a very specialist definition of drug. Laurel Bush 16:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC).

Well, both the act itself, and the labeling of entire plants as drugs are silly, although I intended the meaning to be towards the latter. I would say that the UK act has a misconception of the meaning of the word drug in this case. Politicians can not be trusted to define scientific terms properly, so if you were suggesting that Drug discuss entire plants which have been classified as "drugs" for political reasons, then I would have to strongly disagree with you. —Memotype::T 16:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I am suggesting that "Drug" should be, effectively, about all uses of the term drug, or should be simply a redirect to "List of drugs". And I am not aware of any truely scientific definition of the term (while ready to accept that licensed drug producers, and suppliers, like to believe that there is some such defintion). Laurel Bush 18:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Definitions of 'drug'

Are antibiotics drugs? Does any contain a chemical which binds with a receptor in a cell membrane or an enzyme? Laurel Bush 11:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Super-POV in "Recreational Drugs"

I find this quote COMPLETELY POV, and definitely needs some citations.

For example, the term is often used by regulatory agencies to refer to any drug which is unpatentable/unmarketable and a) might compete with existing widely established commercial markets (such as amphetamines, which would compete with the caffeine industry), b) might interfere with the multi-billion dollar medical industry (such as cannabis which has been shown to effectively treat cancer & AIDS victims, and several medical conditions) or c) has been shown to cause disillusionment in the general population (much like the knee-jerk regulation of LSD and psilocybin mushrooms in the 60s).

I agree, but really, this is opinion and not wiki-worthy. Jolb 19:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobody seems to care, so I'm removing this and quoting the Recreational Drug Use article.

[edit] List of Drugs - Necessary?

I'm not sure why the text under "List of Drugs" is even necessary on this page. There is already a List of drugs page with a comprehensive list. Besides, the formatting and POV of the section need a major reworking. (Some specialist 10:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

I agree. This section should be deleted and the internal link to the "List of drugs" should be moved to the "See also" section. I will do so if there are no objections. VirtualDelight 17:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey yo yo check dis out. sick man innit wicked yeah. King logo says hi.