Talk:Recreational drug use

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Biased? 2 New Concerns 3 Aspirin example 4 Major revision 5 Tobacco and Caffeine 5.1 Drugs aren't "recreational"; some drug use is. 6 "Recreational" drugs? 7 Drastic changes 8 Prohibition of Recreational Drugs 9 Pre-Prohibition 10 how much does heroin costs? 11 Claims of "success rates" by drug enforcement authorities 12 Merge Proposition 12.1 Strongly opposed 12.2 Modest counter-proposal 13 One term, many meanings 14 Bifurcation of issues (merges and scope) 15 Correct context for prior legalization of substances 16 "Hard and soft drugs" 17 References 18 POV in "Legal Aspects" 19 Legal aspects 20 This article needs a better name 21 NPOV problems 22 Is the list really necessary? 23 2,5-DIMETHOXY-4-IODOAMPHETAMINE (DOI) 24 What is Recreational?

[edit] Biased?

This article seems completely biased as it only displays why these drugs should be legailized. It seems that it is comparing these recreational drugs to legal drugs. DOnt use articles to state your opinion, thats what the discussion page is for. ---

This is really one of the worst examples of POV I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The section about Rush Limbaughs hypocrisy was really amusing though:)

Even though I agree with the author on many points, I agree that the article is extremely biased and needs more citations. I can probably help rewrite it in a bit, but for now, I'm just going to flag it. Josh 14:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Concerns

Why do stimulants have their own sub-heading in section 3?

While the concept of "recreational" drugs is amusing, the fact that countries or cities such as Singapore would execute(murder)a human being's mind and body for possessing (approx. 1/2 an ounce of heroin) reinforces the absolute cruelty extant in so called "civilized" governments continuing even in the new millenium.

Obviously illegal drugs create a nexus for criminal profiteers to earn a living by corrupting society in the worst possible way as long as they are so illegal. But on the other hand governments are working hand in hand with them adding even more fear and oppression into the equation. If human's risk taking behavior spans the extremes of a bell curve there will always be those who will utilize drugs as any tool, no matter how problematic, as it simply exists. This should come as no great moral surprise, and to execute those outliers(humans) from the mean of sanctioned acceptable behavior is guaranteed if that is the prevailing law.

A very practical fact to consider is drugs, more often than not, directly attack the production machines(corporations/governments) of society that employ capital and labor to produce "things" that lead some to possess worldly power. Producing "Things" do and can profit a few, while earning a living for many, and advancing society's welfare in many good ways, or in many bad ways depending on who is running the society as they use overt socialization, value inducement, advertising, and law to get "control" over the population starting in preschool. That is the moral core on who controls the conciousness and direction of society and is the impetus for the endless war on drugs.

It really comes down to who is control, the individual or the state, even given the fact that many individuals make bad decisions that can cost society and profits and power to the dominant ones. The fact that the state can deem a person's mind and body unfit to the point of killing it or imprisoning it if its found in willful noncompliance, simply of what they may eat is a chilling but real fact that flies in the face of true human freedom. People should be much more scared of this than the many problems associated with "recreational" drugs. When a society is constantly telling you to be terrified of this thing and that thing to the point that the media is constantly saturating your mind everywhere you interact with items of fear 24-7 is a society to be very afraid of.

We have 2 million people in prisons in the United States, many on associated drug charges, many with undiagnosed mental illnesses and horrible family backgrounds rife with child abuse and lack of sane role models. This is publically justified by endless nightly television clips of relentless military uniform clad police rounding up ever more criminals with omnipresent helicoptors flying overhead.

The drugs give the cleanup crews an excuse to sweep the undesirables and unproductive off the streets and warehouse them at taxpayers ever rising expense. And the media works in collusion and great profit with them to scare the pants off of the civilian population. This is not the act of a free civilized society. The war on drugs is a state directed war on its own people and provides the most convenient of yokes to scare everybody into line.

It is a mistake to think this extra war on "recreational drugs" is just not fair, or an over-reaction on the part of conservative church going folks, or just backwards thinking on the part of government. It is one of the government's best funded, most foward leaning programs going on these days and is neatly complemented by the evolving war on terror with its new domestic security, surveillance, legal, and justice tools cementing an even more overbearing governmental presence in American's lives.

Finally, this is not to give approval to drugs or the people who use or abuse them and the damage they can do to their families and communities. But once again, it is morally abusive of any government to so deeply damage citizens by actively seeking yet more people to throw in prison and even more permanently ruin thier minds, thier bodies, their souls and most definitely their future good job prospects and thrown away potential. A society's morality needs to be judged by how it handles its most problematic members and militarizing its response to joe sixpack to add yet a new layer of criminalized citizens is a throwback to just another iterization of one more lost police state.

Many of these "recreational" drugs are also commonly used for self-exploration and spirituality. I think it is unfair to portray them as being used by only irresponsible "junkies" who fall under this stereotype of people looking for a fix and willing to do anything to get it. I use drugs for enlightenment and self-knowledge. DryGrain 19:05, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You're right that it is incorrect to portray drugs used recreationally as only being used by irresponsible abusers, as the authorities typically do. You however appear to be conflating recreational use, i.e. entertainment, with use of drugs to drown out the world. Alcohol being popular for such purposes. Using drugs, or anything else, for entertainment, for personal exploration or just to drown out the world are all valid.

As the article says, The use of drugs for spiritual development and exploration is not usually included under the definition of recreational drug use.... Perhaps there is another article somewhere about spiritual drug use? If not, maybe you should start one.. Kwertii 23:39, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps entheogen is what you are looking for. Tuf-Kat 04:25, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, that works too. Sorry. DryGrain 17:41, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Enhancing drugs are also used for recreational purposes. It's very difficult to separate these two uses, but there are important differences between recreational use of enhancing drugs and use of purely enhancing drugs. The most popular enhancing-and-recreational drug is caffeine, but it's used for enhancement much more often than for recreation.

---

What about quat, or chat, the African chewing stuff? Mark Richards 00:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

This article is written so that it is somewhat bogus nevertheless. No drug could be defined as, simply, "a recreational drug". It may be of use for recreational purposes, or it may be used popularly for recreational purposes, but that is a different matter that need distinction. - Centrx 06:02, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

That's why the article is recreational drug use rather than recreational drugs, I think. The adjective "recreational" applies to the compound noun "drug use" rather than just "drug"; that is, we're talking about "recreational drug use", not "recreational drug use". Surely some usage is recreational and some non-recreational. I think the subject definitely deserves an article. Matt gies 17:51, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely. I was just saying that the wording in the text of the article is a little off. I'll get around to fixing it soon if no one else does. - Centrx 20:36, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Aspirin example

Centrx, please note that aspirin not being a recreational drug is only a society's consensus, not a logical conclusion from some definition. The point of this "stupid" example is precisely to show that the definition of "recreational drug" is tricky. Aspirin acts on the nervous system and is taken to make one feel better; so why is it that no society (at least none that I know of) considers it a recreational drug?

If that example seems too stupid, try replacing "aspirin" by "Prozac"...

All the best,
Jorge Stolfi 21:40, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

In the future, please do not insult me by presuming my argument and asserting that I have not thought about it ("it is "of course" only if one does not think about it"). My objection to its classification here as a "recreational drug" is not due to societal consensus. It is due to a logical conclusion from the way in which the drug works.

Aspirin cannot be a recreational drug because administration does not produce a direct effect on mood or behavior (see footnote). It is not a psychoactive drug. It is no more a recreational drug than vitamin A or athlete's foot cream. Its pain relief is due to a local analgesic effect on nerve endings. It inhibits the production of localized hormones that sensitive nerve endings to pain, modulation of the hypothalamic thermostat, inflammation, and blood clotting, which is why it is used as an analgesic, antipyretic, anti-inflammatory, and to prevent heart attacks, respectively.

It does not act directly on the central nervous system or bind to any neurotransmitter receptors in the brain, like opiates, caffeine, ethanol, stimulants, cannabis, etc. The pain relief of morphine, for instance, is mostly due to effects on the opiate respectors distributed widely throughout the brain. All of these are psychoactives, with significant effects on the binding or transmission of neurotransmitters in the brain; they affect mood and behavior. Taking aspirin when one does not have some physical pain will not improve his mood: it does not "make one feel better" if there is not specific physical pain. In terms of a machine, it is the difference between modifying signals from peripherals like a keyboard (aspirin) and modifying the operation of the central processing unit (psychoactives).

As for Prozac, it is wholly unlike aspirin. It inhibits the reuptake of seratonin in the brain (called selective seratonin reuptake inhibitor). In other words, it changes the quantity of a certain neurotransmitter in the brain, effecting mood. I've been told by medical professionals that it does not affect persons who do not have a so-called "chemical imbalance" in the brain, that is a deficiency in seratonin, but I suspect that this may be from propaganda by pharmaceutical companies. Nevertheless, I doubt Prozac should be classified as a possible recreational drug, because its effects on mood are not significant until a relatively long period of time (a week or two) of regular consumption. However, I think this is a matter of interpretation, but nevertheless this class is unlike any of the other recreational drugs.

footnote: An INdirect effect on mood, would of course be the appreciation of not being in physical pain anymore. But this is appreciation is no more an effect of the drug than an amusement park or whatnot. The drug will not improve well-feeling if there is no physical pain.

Prozac and other anti-depressants do produce an immediate effect. This is dose-related. When used medicinally the user is typically started on a fairly low dose. The anti-depressant effect can take 7 days or more to manifest. However taking a sufficient, single acute dose does alter your mental state.

- Centrx 23:54, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Centrx, peace and love... I never intended my comment to sound as an insult, to you or whomever; blame it on this medium. However, as your long explanation above shows (and as you seem to agree), the distinction between "drug" and "medicine" (which the previous version of the was trying to make with the caffeine example) is far from obvious.

I agree that the new version is better, because it makes it clear that the article is about "recreational use of drugs" not "use of recreational drugs". And I agree with you that the article legal section now is rather problematic.

All the best,
Jorge Stolfi 04:57, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I know this is way past the original thread date, but I'd like to beg to differ none the less. I'd like to make the point that for anyone who is in a "perfect state"... i.e. not depressed, not in any pain, not tired, not anxious, not particularly bored or excited, few drugs are going to appeal. Aspirin may not do much for someone without any pain physical, but then again, opiates won't do much for people who aren't in any physical or emotional pain other than make them feel drowsy. Amphetamines and cocaine won't do much for people who aren't depressed or tired. (Talking standard medical dosages here, btw). The average person isn't going to get too excited over these drugs... (the hallucinogens are a different story). Anyways, my point is that a lot of people have aches and pains (headaches included)... and hence for them aspirin does make them feel better. BTW... aspirin does cross the blood-brain barrier... so perhaps it is having some effects we aren't fully aware of. --Thoric 17:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sugar would be considered a recreational drug, unless you consider hunger a disease. Akeldamma

[edit] Major revision

I started editing, but it seems that the problems with this article seem more pervasive. There is no way to determine if the known use of these drugs in history necessarily means that they were used recreationally. Knowing human nature, we assume they were, but the information on history doesn't contain anything particularly concrete or, and this is important, unique to recreational drug use. More thorough histories are found in the respective articles about the drugs and, for that, I don't see why it wouldn't be better to simply link to the articles about the drugs, and say some things about their popularity as recreational drugs. I doubt it took any time after medical or spiritual discovery to determine that any recreationally interesting drug was indeed so.

As one can see, otherwise I removed a lot of redundant stuff because I made it more succinct and the meaning of "recreational drug use" is readily apparent without much explanation. In many ways, recreational drug use seems to be an artificial distinction, when it actually is a spectrum of use without defining characteristics that is sufficiently described by its subordinate terms. It almost seems like making a distinction between "recreational foods" and "nutrition foods", and then having an article discriminating between the nutrition of food and tastiness and deserts.

Its appropriate to discuss the theoretical foundation/philosophy and the motivation for discouraging or illegalizing recreational drug use but, as for the legal section there is nothing in law that actually pertains to it. Recreational drug use is not illegal in most places, use (just possession and sale in many places, but not use) of drugs that have been made illegal because of widespread recreational use is. In practice, there is no distinction between medical, spiritual, and recreational use for many drugs. There are certain drugs that are not forbidden by law. There are certain drugs that are forbidden entirely by certain governments (cannabis in U.S. federal). There are certain drugs that are forbidden except for small-scale medical use (such as cough syrup, although there is no way to enforce medical use). There are certain drugs that are forbidden except when prescribed and supervised by a physician. And there are certain drugs that are forbidden except when it is in common use by a major religion. Medical use (the distinction between recreational use and non) that is not supervised is still forbidden, which means that the distinction in law is not from the distinction between recreational and non. Spiritual use (the distinction between recreational use and non) that is not a facet of a major religion (and not minor religions or personal use) is still forbidden, which means that the distinction in law is not from the distinction between recreational and non.

So, I think that, maybe, the only reason for which this article can exist is to house philosophy of recreational drug use or abstainment from it. Comments?

- Centrx 01:08, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point, but my opinion is that this article should spend most of its time describing what "recreational drug use" is and how it differs (morally, spiritually, etc.) from other kinds of drug use. Obviously, legal issues are an important part of this. Certainly, this article is not about the drugs themselves, though they are related and must be described and listed (briefly), since there are articles on cannabis, peyote and alcohol which can discuss all the social, legal and spiritual connotations of the specific drugs. So, I think I agree with your final statement ('only reason for which this article can exist is to house philosophy of recreational drug use or abstainment from it), but I'm not sure what agreeing to it entails. What do you want to change to the article? (I actually haven't read it in quite a while, so I have no opinion on the content) - TUF-KAT

There is nothing unique that warrants an article about recreational drug use aside from the philosophical aspects of it. The legal issues are somewhat important historically, but I think the current text of that section isn't appropriate for this page. By historically, I mean that they are important in terms of the motivation behind passing laws against drugs that are commonly used recreationally, but there is nothing in law that pertains to recreational drug use. In most places, the possession and not even the plain use of certain drugs, and only certain, named drugs, are illegal. Even a law against use in general would be a far cry from one specifically proscribing recreational use. Most certainly, nothing can be said about the class of recreational drug use in general, because there are many drugs used recreationally that are legal and others that are illegal, and scheduled with no rhyme or reason. These drugs are illegal whether they are used recreationally or not; the recreationality of it, which the standing of the article, does not pertain to the law at all. So, anything that could be said about the legal status of certain drugs should instead be done in the article about those drugs, or about drug law in general, but not in an article about recreational drug use. In actual law, I don't think there's anything that pertains to recreational use. - Centrx 05:44, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Tobacco and Caffeine

Should tobacco and caffeine be mentioned on this page? I say yes, I assume User:68.10.240.80 says no. These drugs were historically used for recreational purporses, and they continue to be used during people's daily lives. I don't agree that to be recreational drug use, your consciousness must be altered - anyway, both of these drugs can alter one's mood and thought patterns. Rhobite 03:33, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

I was 68.10.240.80, now crxssi (thank you for prompting me Rhobite). Almost everything a human consumes is "psychoactive", but that doesn't necessarily make it a "recreational drug" in the sense of cocaine, heroin, LSD, etc. People think of a "recreational drug" as a substance that is mind/reality altering/bending... a "trip" if you will. Neither nicotine (tobaaco) nor caffeine have the typical attributes that would place it in such a category. They don't alter cognition, motor skills, language, judgement, nor perception of reality. My example is sugar. Sugar is a chemical which people consume. Like most other chemicals it has physiologocal and "psychoactive" effects. People seek it out, use it regularly, it even has negative effects (tooth decay, blood sugar swings, empty calories, etc). But it would not be in the spirit of the article to include it as a "recreational drug". -crxssi

Is nicotine a drug? If so, what kind of a drug is it if it's not recreational? Same question for caffeine. Rhobite 04:01, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Don't think of these as a class of drugs, for what is "recreational drug use" is entirely determined by the circumstances of the use and is not a property of drugs. These are both useful stimulants and are commonly used for staying awake. - Centrx 05:36, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nicotine is certainly a drug, and it is definitely a recreational one. Same goes for caffeine. Caffeine and nicotine do alter congition (heightened alterness). Essentially, they're both stimulants. Why else do people take NoDoze? crxssi, I think they should be reinstated everywhere you've taken them out. --Lukobe 05:04, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed; I would categorise nicotine as a recreational drug as it is a drug that is taken for its own sake, if you are going to classify anything as a recreational drug. I think overall however it is a silly classification. porge 07:21, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Almost everything a human consumes is "psychoactive"

First of all, by this sort of reasoning, you could further argue that everything a human does is psychoactive. It all has an effect on the mind. This is clearly not what is meant by the word. I suggest you pick up a book on biology and learn the difference between, say, sugar and caffeine, and look at the above comment I made about aspirin for another example. Also, nicotine and caffeine certainly both alter cognition and motor skills, and the others too but maybe not significantly. You may not notice it if you have developed a tolerance, but as I rarely consume them, a single cigarette or a single coffee significantly changes my cognition, motor skills, and perception of reality. You may also be thinking of low doses, as these are very powerful drugs when taken at higher doses. I did not reinsert "caffeine" because it is most commonly used non-recreationally as a stimulant, or is incidentally consumed as part of a beverage, but that is a matter of degree not the quality of it being used for recreational purposes. - Centrx 05:36, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Of note, (dosage dependent) caffeine, nicotine, cocaine and amphetamine all have similar stimulant effects at low doses. That said, it would be difficult to classify cocaine and methamphetamine as recreational drugs without including caffeine and nicotine. --Thoric 20:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, this may be a lost cause, but I'd like to say I agree with crxssi. I think the term "recreational use of drugs" is more a cultural one than a scientific one. In that light, people seldom (in contemporary mainstream America, at least) get together for the sole purpose of smoking tobacco. Although coffee is consumed more frequently as a social event, the social aspect seems fairly independent of the drugs effects (i.e., it's nearly as common for customers to drink decaf in these settings). By contrast, the use of marijuana, opiates, cocaine, psychodelics, etc. has a huge cultural significance, as defining subcultures, for example, and this significance comes directly from the psychoactive effects of the respective drug.

I would argue that there is a natural cultural (at least, as I said, in America, and probably many other countries) category that includes the use of the aforementioned drugs, and that "recreational use of drugs" aptly titles that category. MotherFunctor 06:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drugs aren't "recreational"; some drug use is.

The category of "recreational drug" is ill-defined. Worse, it is often used as a slur to belittle other people's choices. For instance, categorizing marijuana as a "recreational drug" allows the arguer to dismiss medicinal claims for it. Likewise with peyote and religious claims. The stigma of "recreational drug" implies that users who say they are alleviating AIDS symptoms or communing with ancestor spirits are doing no such thing: they are doing nothing but getting high.

Saying "recreational drug" can thus be a way of claiming to know more about a person's experience with that drug than he himself does; that is, to arrogate oneself above him.

It is not clear to me that any drug has within itself the property of being recreational. That is, the adjective "recreational" does not apply meaningfully to "drug", in the sense that adjectives such as "stimulant" or "plant-derived" do. Rather, some people sometimes choose to use certain substances recreationally; that is, for pleasure. There are no recreational drugs: there are rather instances of recreational drug-use.

Thus, what of the claim for tobacco? Clearly, many tobacco users do use it recreationally; that is, for pleasure. Many others, however, use it addictively; that is, to stave off pain of withdrawal. Some use it socially; that is, to meet with others in the context of drug use (think "smoke break"). Some people I know only smoke when they have to study, using tobacco for stimulant effect much as others use caffeine. Likewise, some people use caffeine because they like the buzz; some because it helps them focus; some because they are addicted, and if they stop, they get a raging headache.

I recommend against the use of the expression "recreational drug" to describe tobacco or any other substance. --FOo 05:28, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But as long as it is being used to describe other substances, surely it should also be applied to nicotine and caffeine. Lukobe 05:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The term "recreational drug" should be removed everywhere, whereas "recreational drug use" is acceptable although possibly unclear in its precision, that is (recreational) (drug use) not (recreational drug) (use), and should be avoided where possible. - Centrx 05:43, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely. This article should only be here to very simply define the term and indicate legal and philosophical aspects and history (which actually may not be appropriate as it is inseparable with the regular history of the drugs, and I don't see anything new in the history currently in the article). - Centrx 05:43, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There's good info in this article, where do you think that should go? I also don't have a problem with the term "recreational drug." It's just an easier way of saying "drug that is commonly used recreationally." Rhobite 14:30, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

There is currently a total of about three sentences that are properly in an article about "recreational drug use", that is the remainder do not pertain to recreational drugs, but are rather very generally about all drugs or all psychoactive drugs. Many of the statements currently in the article are false and misleading, attributing some speciality to the information pertaining to recreational drugs when in fact it does not and is relevant instead to the histories of specific drugs and the legal aspects of psychoactive drug use in general. There are some glimmers of relevance aside from the introduction, in the religion sentence of the History and in the fact that these drugs are prohibited because of their recreational use (although this is not explicitly stated accurately in the article). The remainder of those two sections should be integrated into the appropriate articles, and the list is the same set of drugs as a list of "psychoactive drugs" would be. - Centrx 22:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is some good info in the article, but I would agree with several other posters that the whole entry seems odd, and perhaps unnecessary. As for the question posed before, Just because a chemical builds a dependence, that doesn't make it a "recreational drug". Lukobe: your example of "nodoze" with caffeine flies directly in the face of the article, which clearly says that recreational drugs have no medical or ascribed purposes (fisrt paragraph). Rhobite asks "are nicotine and caffeine a drug?", the answer is yes. But a "recreational drug"? Again, most people are going to consider that category of drug mind-altering. Niether fits that bill. Lukobe asserts that they (tobacco/caffeine) do alter cognition.... I disagree, it does not *in the context of the other drugs listed*. I must say, though, I am impressed with the quality of this discussion; although I am disappointed that Centex would just add nicotine back when it doesn't appear that a clear consensus exists, yet; and note that caffeine was NOT added back.

I will assert again, that most people will identify a "recreational drug" as one that most certainly produces an "altered state", regardless of whether it possibly causes "addition" or not. Noone has addressed this assertion yet. Nicotine and caffeine do not produce such results. If you had 30 minutes to interview people (you already knew) each of which was using one of the chemicals listed, you would not be able to determine which were using caffeine or nicotine... they simply do not alter personality, decision making, etc. While it would be quite easy to tell those who consumed (reasonable quantities) of alcohol, cocaine, LSD, Ecstasy, PCP, etc. - crxssi

Your interview would fail, unless these were novice users. An experienced user, even with a drug like LSD, can quite easily come across as not intoxicated if they so choose. Nicotine and caffeine most definitely produce an altered state. And since you say reasonable quantities what would these be for each drug, including caffeine and nicotine?

In other words, the set of "recreational drugs" this article talks about is the same set as the set of "psychoactive drugs". About my adding of nicotine, I had not noticed that there was any addition to Talk and the modification seemed to be baseless, and subsequently seen in the vein of a comparison of sugar to caffeine and the assertion that neither caffiene nor nicotine alter consciousness.

If I had 30 minutes to interview someone I already knew, I probably wouldn't be able to tell if they were on Adderall rather than Ritalin, or methamphetamines rather than cocaine, or on any drug rather than simply not. I know for a fact that people often behave indistinguishably, especially in the small amounts. That does not mean that these are not drugs. Caffeine and nicotine do alter consciousness, they do change the way you do things, especially in higher doses. Just because you might not be able to tell if a regular coffee drinker has had a couple of cups of coffee or the similar for nicotine does not mean that higher doses would not have a significant effect (and I have personally seen considerable such use), or that a person who has not developed a tolerance of these drugs will not experience a change in thought processes. This has happened to me demonstrably with the euphoria of smoking a single regular cigarette and if I had smoked an additional one or two I would have been unable to drive. I know for a fact that you cannot necessarily determine that someone has consumed a reasonable quantity of alcohol (that is, 3-4 drinks which is as reasonable as a couple cups of coffee). This is especially true with drugs that a person has not tried before. If a person has not had a drug before, or any drug at all, they are unlikely to notice change in others depending on the drug and dose. - Centrx 22:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Recreational drug use" (which is what the article is called, not "recreational drugs") is simply when people use a drug recreationally. That is, people use it for the sake of using it, rather than e.g. to treat some sort of medical condition. Marijuana is a recreationally used drug because people smoke it for its own sake, to experience its effects. This does not imply that it can't also be used for medical purposes - if someone smokes pot for relief of chemotherapy nausea, then they're not using it recreationally. An even better example is morphine, used by doctors in hospitals all over the world to alleviate severe pain. Nobody would argue that this constitutes recreational drug use. But this doesn't imply that people can't or don't also use morphine for recreational purposes. I think you guys are overanalyzing this... Kwertii 01:39, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, largely these analyses are in response to persons to hold the opposite view, or hold an imprecise view that is not consistent with your statement. Also, another major issue here is whether this article--on the use of drugs recreationally--belongs here at all. With its current content, it is simply not appropriate as a separate subject or as an article in an encyclopedia. - Centrx 02:48, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Recreational drug use is very popular worldwide, and recreational drug use has been practiced at least as long as recorded history, and likely much longer. Therefore, I believe that, as a significant social phenomenon which has affected and continues to affect many, many people the world over, it deserves treatment in its own article. Why wouldn't we want to have an article on a topic that has such far-reaching relevance to so many people over such a long period of time? Kwertii 00:43, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but as it stands the articles has nothing that is specific to recreational drugs. I've noted above that this article might should include relevant information on the philosophical and possibly legal foundational aspects of the use of drugs recreationally, but as it stands the article does no such thing. The history section is a history of drugs in general, blankly adapted to say that drugs were used recreationally throughout their history of human use. It could just as well say that "Psychoactive drugs have been used recreationally throughout there historical human use" and then point to an article on "The History of Drugs". That is the sum of information unique to recreational drug use there. Similarly, the section on legal aspects is simply a section on the legal aspects of drug use in general. The third section discusses certain drugs which do not really qualify into use recreationally in any traditional or sound sense. If these drugs qualify as recreational drugs, so does nearly every drug, and not the more confined category of psychoactive drugs. - Centrx 16:17, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Caffeine is most clearly a recreational drug, although some users insist that there is a "practical" purpose to their use. This idea of practicality is a rationalization that is actually completely natural among substance abusers.

There are two ways you can view drugs: immediately destabilizing (short-run), and addicting (long-run, or less immediate). Let's look at the case of caffeine versus LSD: Short run - caffeine may not be nearly as destabilizing as LSD, but... Long run - caffeine addiction is EVERYWHERE, and i have yet to meet an LSD addict. and on that note, I am about to consume some fine LSD... (only joking of course)

This is because hallucinogens are simply not physically addictive. Their very nature means they are also almost never psychologically addictive - at least not any more so than any other form of entertainment, e.g. books, movies, etc. One difference is that the nature of the tolerance hallucinogens produce makes daily use impossible.

I think both cannabis and coffee are often used as drugs to work with as well as recreationally. One does wonder why people take nasty stimulants like speed and cocaine when coffee does the job so much better, SqueakBox 02:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It depends on the requirements. The US airforce gives speed ("go pills") to their pilots to keep them alert during long mission runs. Coffee just doesn't cut it. According to Dr. Weil, a coca based chewing gum (which would contain small amounts of cocaine) would be a superior stimulant and healthier alternative to coffee. --Thoric 16:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Weil is correct. Cocaine, from chewing the leaves or something like gum, is probably healthier and also cocaine is not physically addictive. Caffeine and cocaine/amphetamines produce quite similar stimulation at low doses - they all improve alertness, memory and concentration/focus. A primary difference is that cocaine/amphetamines, at higher doses, will completely overcome fatigue where caffeine, while possibily interefering with sleep, will not actually keep you awake. Also, used in mild doses, cocaine and amphetamines are basically benign. Interestingly low doses of THC help with concentration and focus in mundane, repetitive or generally boring activities, e.g. working on a production line.

[edit] "Recreational" drugs?

Shouldn't we mention Viagra and similar potions as recreational drugs? These things are interesting primarily because they were the first recreational drugs that were brought out by the pharmaceutical industry, which then had to promote the idea that they "treated" a "medical condition." In fact, the "medical condition" they treat is fairly obviously a social construction. At least at the beginning, the advertising campaign was largely aimed at promoting the idea that there was in fact a disease of "erectile dysfuction." Having sold that, the ads seem more lifestyle oriented, and seem to be selling the mood enhancing properties and recreational potential of sex. Smerdis of Tlön 19:48, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. While sildenafil certainly has medical uses (it was invented for the treatment of angina) it is certainly promoted for its recreational and social uses. --FOo 20:45, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What is currently called recreational drug use necessitates some recreation of the drug in itself. Is Viagra an aphrodisiac that affects the mind or does it instead increase blood flow the penis, etc.? Recreational drug use cannot be expanded to simply mean that some drug facilitates some recreation. That is, Viagra cannot be for recreational drug use if it simply facilitates sex, the actual recreation. Another example, if you play chess while on a drug that makes you "smarter", it is the chess, facilitated and improved by the drug, that is the recreation, not the taking of the drug itself. The other drugs for recreational use have a recreational quality in themselves. Will a person have a good time with Viagra while chilling out on a couch, going for a walk, or talking to someone? That is, not having sex? - Centrx 18:38, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not to discount that this article is an unapplied mess and the category of "recreational drugs" is absurd. - Centrx 18:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's the use that is recreational, not the drugs. -- The Anome 00:48, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please, before adding this section, respond to the points above soundly. These are not drugs that are used recreationally in themselves. It is a grand expansion of "recreational drug use" to include any drug that is not medically necessary. - Centrx 16:20, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

At least in the USA, the drugs that are considered part of the "drug problem," and that law enforcement goes after "dealers" of, include such things as anabolic steroids. These things are not taken because their effects are recreation in themselves; they too are taken to enhance other activities such as bodybuilding, athletics, or for sexual effects. Yet, they are considered "controlled substances" and the machinery of the law is brought in against them. The chief difference between other recreational drugs and such things as Viagra, from where I see it, is that Viagra has corporate backing and money. These things prevent it from becoming a legislative moral panic, though it's easy to imagine how such a panic could be made. Smerdis of Tlön 19:33, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A controlled substance is not the same thing as a drug that's used recreationally, and the direction of the law against a drug does not mean that the drug is used recretaionally. Anabolic steroids should not be included in this class either. - Centrx 00:20, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. Laetrile is another example of a controlled substance which is not used recreationally: it is deemed a quack medical treatment under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and is illegal to sell. While the moral panic surrounding recreational use of drugs is one reason that certain drugs are targeted for legal interdict, it is not the only reason. --FOo 03:56, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jonathan Ott has suggested the term ludibund or "ludible use of drugs" to replace "recreational drug use". While not widespread, I think it could help to reduce the bias and stigmatism that has been placed upon "recreational". I suggest we consider adopting this term to avoid confusion. --Thoric 18:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First, ludible and ludibund are extremely rare and obsolescent words in general use, let alone for this drug use, and so should not be used in an encyclopedia that describes rather than generates. Second, these words mean playful rather than recreational. The former is frolicsome, sportive, and merry whereas the latter is the more general, accurate term about amusement and pleasure. Simply, one can use a drug recreationally without using it ludibly. So, this terminology ought not be introduced into the encyclopedia, for it is inappropriate to the purpose of an encyclopedia by the first reason, and inaccurate to the practice by the second reason. - Centrx 07:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The issue is that the term "recreational drug use" carries a burden of social stigmatism. When a word or a term loses its original meaning due to strong or popular opinion and "misconstruation" of facts usually due to religious and/or political agenda (think communism or anarchism), then sometimes a new replacement word is required. The point is not to nitpick over the subtle nuances of playful versus recreational. Jonathan Ott also pioneered the use of the word entheogenic rather than psychedelic when referring to spiritual use of drugs. As an expert in the field, he put some thought and consideration into his choice of words. --Thoric 23:12, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Drastic changes

I reverted the drastic changes done by Centrx. Such things should be discussed here before being vandalized in this manner. If you had a problem with the changes done by 62.251.119.6, 64.168.29.153, 65.26.120.140, or 82.124.50.171, you should have simply reverted them... instead you through out the baby with the bathwater so to speak. Anyways, point out the parts of the article of which you have contest, and I will back it up with references. Better yet, first see if a previous revision was more to your liking. --Thoric 16:38, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First of all, to equate changes by someone of myriad productive contributions and nary an edit made in bad faith, with barbarous despoilment of something worthy, akin to inserting "penis" remarks or indiscriminately removing swaths of text long in good-standing is slanderous and unproductive, and more impugns your wisdom than mine own.

It is unclear what you mean by your statement that a 'reversion' of those edits would have been more productive than the change I did actually make. On the contrary, reverting would have been to 'throw out the baby with the bathwater', whereas my change did in fact keep what good I thought there was and did not throw it out with the bad. It would seem, instead, that your suggestion of finding a previous revision more to my liking would indeed be to throw out the good with the bad, and it does appear that your own reversion is the one that is indiscriminate, for it reverts several minor formatic changes as well.

Those edits seem to be original research, and are not appropriate for an encyclopedia.

The first section of text, in the introduction, is eminently misplaced and is a vapid and ill-presented statement of appropriate divisions on a spectrum and of the very definition of the word abuse. This is not appropriate, though possibly in itself and without wholesale modification, for an encyclopedia article. It also simply incorrect to state singly that "Christians and Muslims" consider any intoxicant consumption to be abuse.

For the second section that states that cannabis and alcohol have been used by "virtually" every culture in recorded history does indeed require some substantiation with sources.

The third part of changes is a simply change from the less formal "19th" and "20th" to the more formal full spellings.

For the fourth part, why is the poorly written, long-winded, and imprecise text regarding law enforcement more appropriate than the succinct version that I inserted? Here is a clear case where it is better that I did not do a simple reversion, but kept what seemed good.

For the fifth part regarding illegality throughout history, this is a vapid statement because it is bound to be true because of the sheer fact that history is so long and the number of jurisdictions so many that it would be strange for it not to be true that all of the presently illegal drugs have been legal at some time, in some place, and vice-versa. This is likely true of myriad laws and the reason is there have been various and sundry societies in history that it would be odd for it not to be true.

As for the references, those must also be substantiated, with some indication of their value; considering the other changes of those edits, the value of their references are also questionable. Also, references, even if valuable, should not be put in the main article if they are very particular to a certain subtopic unless there are other, more general references that balance it out. So, whatever the value of these references, currently they belong only in the discussion page for future use.

The links are at best unprofessional and hackneyed, and at worst are full of factual errors, are inappropriate to this article, and inappropriate to the encyclopedia.

So, please provide some reason why these ill-conceived and poorly implemented changes ought to remain in an encyclopedia of fact. - Centrx 03:21, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with most of Centrx's points, although removal may not be the best policy. We should mention that many people believe that use and abuse are not the same thing. This wasn't done well in the paragraph you removed, but we shouldn't just delete it. re: cannabis in every culture, Cannabis has been used in many cultures, but certainly not "virtually every culture." re: "millions of illicit drug users in the USA" section, I agree it was poorly written but again the solution wasn't removal. There's a point to be made there. re: all of the current illegal drugs being legal at some time, this sentence is useless and I agree with removing it. I strongly disagree with centrx's changes to the links. "See also" is the standard name, and the wikilinks drug paraphernalia and psychedelic are relevant. The references seem a little sketchy, they need to be verified. I'm not sure if an NPOV notice is justified at this time.

On a behavior note, Thoric it would be helpful if you didn't accuse people of vandalism when they are obviously not committing it. You and I may not disagree with all of Centrx's changes, but that doesn't give you a right to call them vandalism. Centrx, I hope this doesn't sound rude but "vapid" is a word best used sparingly. Rhobite 03:56, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Removal of several paragraphs without discussion is vandalism in my point of view, and I'm sure others agree. To label my reversion of said cullings as some sort of penis-waving in the same breath as boasting about one's accomplishments seems to me a little ironic, but this is besides the point. All the currently legal recreational drugs (alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea, chocolate, etc) were outlawed at various times fairly recently (within the past 300 years in different countries around the world), and within the past 100 years, all of the currently illegal drugs (cocaine, opium, heroin, marijuana, LSD, MDMA, etc) have lost their legal status. This is a very important fact to the recreational drug use argument, because it shows that the public opinion of an acceptable drug (tolerated) and an unacceptable drug has been in a constant state of change. If you take a look at the previous version by me (Thoric) you'll see that it is missing a lot of the items Centrx had contest with -- yet in Centrx's revision he completely removed paragraphs that were since modified by others. I would have reverted the article to my previous version, but I didn't want to toss out anything useful that was since added without closer inspection. I think my original paragraph -- "A distinction must be made from (recreational) drug use and drug abuse, although there is much controversy on where the dividing line lies on the spectrum from a drug user (someone who maintains control over his or her use of drugs) to a drug abuser (someone who has become addicted to, or dependent on the use of drugs)." -- was well enough written... sure it could be improved, but nothing is wrong with it. I guess my argument is that rather than revert inappropriate changes, Centrx took it upon himself to simply remove the sentences and/or paragraphs completely. --Thoric 06:03, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, and I assure you that most people here would agree. Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism if you still have doubts. What Centrx did was not "indisputable bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia". Moving on.. you have a good point that all of those drugs are recently illegal, at least in the U.S. I think that needs to go in the article. You are correct that it's a very important point. I'm not so sure if you're right about the currently legal drugs - when and where have tea and coffee been illegal recently? About the use/abuse thing, yes I agree that centrx shouldn't simply remove those sentences, but I also think that addressing the reader is generally bad. Wikipedia should never say "the reader must note" or "hey this is important", etc. Rhobite 06:23, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I guess it fell under the category of a "bold edit" which "may feel like vandalism". Maybe it was more than 300 years ago that coffee was made illegal (1543 in Istanbul), in 1700 King Charles II tried to ban coffee houses, but the ban only lasted 11 days. Various leaders have made unsuccessful efforts to ban coffee over the past few hundred years. I'll have to look up references to tea and chocolate, I'm in a bit of a Christmas rush atm, but I know similar actions exist for those two... and it's well known that tea has been under strict (and high) tax controls in the past. --Thoric 17:28, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Prohibition of Recreational Drugs

Tea and chocolate have been subject to strong controls, high taxes, and (at least near) prohibition:

• In 1673 an MP in England requested the prohibition of Spanish chocolate, brandy, rum, tea and coffee as sales of home grown beer and ale were suffering. The request was refused, but it sowed the seed for taxation on cocoa etc in 18th C. (Source: Chocolate production and use. Cook/Meursing (1982), p125)

• In 1675, Charles II forbade by proclamation the sale of tea, coffee, chocolate and sherbet from private houses. Designed to suppress sedition and intrigue, this act was so unpopular that it never became statute law. Six days later he repeated the proclamation. Act XII of 1676 imposed duty on the sale of such beverages and required licenses of coffee house keepers: but this also proved impossible to enforce. Taxes on tea nonetheless remained punitive until 1784 when it was reduced by the Commutation Act to counter smuggling into the UK. (By the middle of the 18th Century, the tax on tea had reached 119%).

• Chocolate was banned by the Jesuits in the River Plate area in 1677, together with similar substances, indicating that it must have been a temptation to some. (Source: W.G. Clarence-Smith, Cocoa and chocolate, 1765-1914. Routledge, 2000 p12)

• In England in 1770 the use of cocoa bean shells to make a sort of tea was illegalised and officers were allowed to seize and destroy the husks. (Source: Chocolate production and use. Cook/Meursing (1982), p131)

• Good stuff. I stand by "many," however. Many can include most... Since it appears that a consensus on a precise list of Recreational Drugs seems to be unobtainable, it is impossible to determine what from that unknown list constitutes "most." --AStanhope 23:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-Prohibition

Crack is cocaine, which was legal until the 1920s, and meth is methamphetamine, which was legal until the early 1970s. Something is basically legal until a law exists to make it illegal. Broad sweeping drug laws only appeared recently with the Analogue Act of 1986. --Thoric 23:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ha! I just referred you to the Analogue Act. Great minds think alike. "All" is a dirty word. Let's stick with "most." --AStanhope 00:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Analogues that were invented after 1986 were illegal from the moment they were synthesized. These drugs were never legal, therefore we cannot say that "all" substances that are now illegal once weren't. --AStanhope 01:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They weren't illegal before 1986 is what I mean ;) --Thoric 13:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] how much does heroin costs?

[edit] Claims of "success rates" by drug enforcement authorities

The following sentence was added to this article:

Additionally, supposed 'successes' in the War on Drugs can be illusory - law enforcement authorities will never be sure of the exact quantity of illegal dugs in existence - so putative success rates can be distortions.

It's an interesting bit of speculation -- that the authorities are exaggerating their rate of success in the so-called "war on drugs" -- but it doesn't seem to be backed by facts.

I'm hesitant to revert it, though, without a little discussion. Perhaps the sentence, which seems out of place as it is, can be whipped into a full-fledged paragraph that fairly addresses the issue of how success in the War on Drugs can be measured.
--GraemeMcRae^talk 14:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

It would be almost impossible to quantify the 'successes' or 'failures' of the War on Drugs, as you said, due to the exaggerations and misleading comments made by authorities. However, harm reduction clinics in the Netherlands and Canada have data showing how a clinic atmosphere can dramatically slow the spread of IV transmitted disease, prevent overdoses, and help users enter programs for dependence. I think that it would be helpful to show this, rather than search for dubious-at-best figures published by the DEA and other authorities.

This seems to be a decent source of citations for good statistics: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm --Silverweed 05:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Success, as in demonstrating that you have genuinely blocked a significant part of the supply of any drug, is hard to demonstrate unless you actually know what total quantity is being smuggled. Any sources of such information must necessarily not be law enforcement agencies, not known for their honesty on this topic. Failure of the war on drugs is more obvious - after more than three decades, a steadily escalating prison population and expenditure on enforcement drugs remain readily available to anyone that wants them. We are only a couple of years away from the UN's target date for a major reduction in the supply of illegal drugs and once again they will be a laughing stock, having failed dismally. Actually anti-drug law enforcement, especially bloated agencies like the DEA, face a dilemma - they oppose legalisation both because many in those agencies believe their own propaganda and legalisation would put them out of a job; on the other hand they also wouldn't want to actually wipe out the drug trade for the same reason. No more getting to kick in doors, abuse suspects and generally behave like a thug.

[edit] Merge Proposition

I've proposed that Hard and soft drugs be merged into this article as they both cover the same topic. Please read the talk.

How come no discussion there? I agree with merge, but article needs more cleaning up first. See talk over there. --Thoric 17:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Merge it with other article but remember to make a redirect page. Zachorious 09:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

---

[edit] Strongly opposed

I oppose, strongly, the proposed merger of Recreational drug use and Hard and soft drugs.

The original texts of Hard and soft drugs (the separate Hard drugs and Soft drugs) were well-focused and had converged nicely. The considated article precisely fills its need. Club drug and Psychoactive drug should remain similarly separate.

The Club drug article should be redirected and merged into this article. --Thoric 15:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The term Recreational drug use was coined in the 70s (maybe the sixties) to contrast with drug use sanctioned by medicine and the state. The various phenomena of spiritual use, home remedies, and indigenous use were not within its compass. The prior state of unregulated pharmacology was forgotten: prescriptions were not always legal permits, but only a means for a physician to communicate to an apothacary via a (possibly illiterate) layman. Things like coffee, tobacco, sugar, chocolate and tea were perceived (incorrectly) only as staples rather than as drugs.

Regardless of whether these "staples" were not generally considered to be drugs, is little different today than 150 years ago. Most people fail to regard them as drugs when they go to Starbucks, or even when smoking a cigarette. The only difference between now and then, is that cocaine and opium weren't given much more thought than alcohol, whereas now they are a "great evil". --Thoric 15:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

In part due to the Orwellian double-speak of the drug war and the pharmaceutical markets, popular discourse remains impoverished with respect to describing the actual spectrum of drug use. Usage is often over-simplified into pharmaceutical (correct and responsible), alternative (herbs, homeopathy, Chinese- none REALLY effective), or recreational (abuse). With the best of intentions, the various editors of this article have struggled to encompass everything non-medical and non-legal into the idea of recreational. This is a mistake.

No, entheogens have their own article. This article exists to stand up for the existence of recreational drug use, and its long standing 10,000+ year history. --Thoric 15:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Modest counter-proposal

I would counter-propose that the scope of this article be reduced to show the (limited) historical relevance of the term recreational drug use as used in the West, rather than assuming (as in the History section) it is of universal relevance- or does anyone think that non-Western, non-modern peoples see recreation as we do?

The article should contrain itself, briefly, to the following,

• a mention of the birth of the term in its social context (1970s US)
• the birth of the War on drugs
• the use of the term recreational drug use in public discourse
• defections in the War on Drugs

It should drop,

• theories and rationale of prohibition
• the present history section (it is well-written, but the concept should not applied broadly to the rest of history) [let's not rush into this last point]

-SM 08:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] One term, many meanings

This article is not meant to be limited to definition of a 1970s North American term. This article is meant to describe the recreational use of drugs, something which has been in recorded history for over 10,000 years, and of which there is evidence of reaching back into prehistoric times.

Recreational drug use covers the scope of all drugs that are not used for a medical, experimental or spiritual purpose. Pretty much every drug can be used for a medical, experimental or spiritual purpose, and likewise, pretty much every drug (and also many non-drug substances) can be used for recreational purposes.

It is possible this article should be renamed to avoid confusion with a term which has been tainted with different meanings. Jonathan Ott has suggested lubible drug use, would you prefer that?

As for the merger, the terms "hard drug" and "soft drug" only really apply to recreational use. Medications do not generally come with a warning that "this is a hard drug, use with caution". Also, the original pages, and even the combined "hard and soft drugs" page is rather thin. Hence why I said that the page should be improved before it is merged. --Thoric 15:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Ummm...

• Recreational drug use covers the scope of all drugs that are not used for a medical, experimental or spiritual purpose.

eeps! This should have read "Recreational drug use covers the scope of all drug use that is not for a medical, experimental or spiritual purpose." Teach me for replying before I'm fully awake ;) --Thoric 23:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

still a problem, no? -SM 00:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• As for the merger, the terms "hard drug" and "soft drug" only really apply to recreational use..

...don't you see a problem here? Think carefully....

The term recreational drug is every bit as tainted- and irrelevant- as street drug. Its only significance is its role in policy discourse, which role is itself tainted. It is a term for non-users. Investing broad anthropological significance into it runs a strong risk of error, like describing migrations as commuting. Even if you wanted to invest a term of broader utility, making it a catch-all ("...the scope of all drugs that are not...") should be the first sign that this is going wrong, like non-elephantine biology. The only hope of making it useful is careful constraint.

I would not say that recreational drug is anything like street drug. When people hear, "recreational drug", they immediately think of marijuana, and for the majority of the population, marijuana is no big deal. When people hear, "street drug", they immediately think of crackheads and junkies doing drugs down a dark alleyway, and that is far nastier than toking on a joint. BTW, "recreational drug use" is in the vocabulary of the casual user.--Thoric 23:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[sigh!] only because he reads it in Newsweek, or hears it in DrugEd class. No one uses it except in regards to The Dominant Paradigm, which here requires subversion, or at least containment. BTW, Marijuana is regularly referred to as a street drug in both academic discourse and in the press. -SM 00:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, This article is meant to describe the recreational use of drugs, something which has been in recorded history for over 10,000 years, and of which there is evidence [...] reaching back into prehistoric times. Not an unreasonable thesis, per se, but better to say, "If recreational drug use is casual use done at leisure without expert or authoritative sanction, then this would be the dominant mode of drug use throughout human experience.", add a few examples, and leave it at that.

Reading, Medications do not generally come with a warning that "this is a hard drug, use with caution"., consider how many prescribed drugs would be hard ones.

Shhhh! ;) You'll scare people off their meds ;)--Thoric 23:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

=) -SM 00:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The Hard and soft drugs page should be just the size that it is, highlighting the distinction made, its uses, and nothing more. I don't want to say it is beyond improvement, but please don't "improve" it by blurring its boundaries. The thing about both these articles is that they should be about the terms more so than the drugs. The drugs all have articles.

If you follow this merging line of logic, then all entries will merge into Drug.

No, the logic is that the "hard and soft drugs" entry is small enough to be a subsection of "recreational drug use" (as is "club drugs"), and neither of the two warrant their own article as they cannot grow to be more than a stub without being greatly redundant with this article. --Thoric 23:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Small, focused articles are good, and made possible by hyperlinks! Folding Hard and soft drugs and Club drugs is a serious mistake, purely for editorial reasons. Why do you think they need to grow?! -SM 00:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

-SM 19:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bifurcation of issues (merges and scope)

I'd like to split the issues of,

• merging Recreational drug use, Hard and soft drugs and Club drug, to which I am very strongly opposed
• constraining scope of Recreational drug use, which is a lower priority, and would benefit from further discussion

To that end, I'd like to remove the merge proposal templates from these articles where present (comment here if opposed), and continue scope discussions on Recreational drug use (by starting a new section).

-SM 00:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I will remove the merge templates in Recreational drug use, Hard and soft drugs in 24 hours, barring objection. -SM 17:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

So removed -SM 23:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Correct context for prior legalization of substances

Many currently legal recreational drugs (examples: alcohol, tobacco and caffeine) have been subject to prohibition throughout history, and likewise most of the currently illegal recreational drugs have been legal as recently as the early twentieth century.

This sounds sort of like an argument that would be used by a proponent of drug legalization to point out how silly the current set of drug restrictions is (by implying it's no different from past restrictions that are no longer recognized, or that illegalization of once-legal drugs is somehow hypocritical). Many drugs that are now illegal were legal in the early 1900s only because the FDA hadn't yet been established, and often the drugs or their uses and side effects were relatively new or little-known phenomena. Noting the historical legality and illegality of various drugs can provide useful context, as the sentence in question does in a flawed way, but there is other context that it misses. For instance, when and where was caffeine prohibited? Under what circumstances, and by whom? I'm not sure that it even was. --Mr. Billion 21:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it serves moreso to show that recreational use, as such, has been the norm throughout history, not a new phenomenon appearing in the sixties- regardless of momentary prohibitions- and is not fundementally dissimilar to many common practices today, like drinking coffee. -SM 01:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Just google "coffee prohibition" -- Coffee prohibition for one example, and also chocolate Was chocolate ever illegal?. This sentence has come up for discussion before, and its current form was the result of that discussion.

For your information, the current drug laws are silly, and cause more harm than good. Of the currently legal recreational drugs, nicotine is the most addictive substance known to man and is responsible for 18.1% of all deaths in the United States, and alcohol is responsible for 3.5% of all deaths in the United States.

Illegal drug use is only responsible for 0.7% of deaths, many of which are alcohol related, related to adulterants, or due to unsafe drug combinations, and almost all are limited to cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine overdose.

Deaths related to marijuana use are virtually zero worldwide. MDMA related deaths are difficult to verify that MDMA was the only (or even actual) drug involved, and even still are extremely rare. Deaths related to use of psychedelic drugs such as LSD, magic mushrooms and peyote are restricted to rare cases (most of which are urban legends) of people hurting themselves while under the influence of the drug, and not from the drug itself.

For the record, poor diet and physical inactivity are responsible for 16.6% of deaths. Technically being lazy and eating McDonalds all the time is far more harmful than drinking and doing drugs (excluding cigarettes). [1] --Thoric 17:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

While I'm not going to argue whether current drug policies are good or bad your argument seems somewhat flaw. Most surveys have suggested that not surprising the level tobacco and alcohol use is significantly higher then that of the illegal recreational drugs. As such, simply comparing the number of deaths attributed to illegal drug use cf to deaths as a result of alcohol and nicotine seems rather flawed. Far better to compare the death rates per user. But even per user is rather flawed. Commonly people will use illegal drugs far less often then legal things like alcohol and nicotine for various reasons such as cost, availability, associated criminal risks etc which are related to their legality. Then of course there deaths doesn't seem to be the only issues to consider. Drunk driving has many social and physical costs. Similarly the more powerful and addictive drugs often lead to a number of problems such as crime which have a social and physical costs (of course this doesn't necessarily mean prohibition is a good idea but it does mean we shouldn't just consider deaths as the end all) and of course this applies to alcohol especially to some extent. In practice I suspect marijuana use per se would be less harmful then alcohol and tobacco. However this doesn't necessarily mean we should legalise marijuana (I'm not saying we should or we shouldn't) since tobacco and alcohol prohibition simply may not work because of social reasons but this doesn't necessarily mean marijuana prohibition is not working or that removing it will have a net beficial effect (again I'm not taking a side her simply pointing out it's very complicated issuse). As for the issue of poor diet and physical inactivity you're probably right. However again this is a completely different issue one which has proven extremely difficult to tackle. The point here is that there are many issues facing any society. Just because there may be currently more major problems then 'illegal' drug use doesn't necessarily mean prohibition should be removed or that money being spend is being misspent. We need to consider what will actually happen when and if we remove prohibition or reducing funding and what will we do with the money (i.e. what will actually happen and what will we do instead). Nil Einne 10:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You sound a little behind in this subject. Many groups (like the Transform Drug Policy Foundation (TDPF) [2]) have already considered these points at some length. Transform is well worth a read and also becuase they are getting a lot of political suport because of the rational approach. These issues are also (as far as I can see) been addressed on other Wiki articles. To continue with 'Prohibition' reminds me of a Wikiquote - Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.[3] ~ (attrib. to Albert Einstein). --Aspro 11:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Hard and soft drugs"

The neutrality of the "Hard and soft drugs" is debatable. Wikipedia is not the place to try and divide drugs into hard and soft, this is a far to black and white approach for the kind of information resourse this is supposed to be.

I propose that the article "Hard and soft drugs" be left separate and the recreational drugs article developed further User:84.92.184.146

Good idea. For instance, I've heard some people describe LSD as a "hard drug" because its effects are more profound than those of marijuana or 'shrooms, while others describe it as a "soft drug" because it does not have the physiological effects of heroin or cocaine. --FOo 05:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Which would immediately tell me I am talking to someone who has never actually taken psilocybe mushrooms.

The neutrality of the Dutch Drug Policy labeling is debatable only because it lumps in soft synthetic and semi-synthetic drugs in with hard drugs due to the uncertainty of their composition. For example that you think you're getting MDMA, but instead getting a mix of methamphetamine and heroin (both hard drugs). As for the scientific view of hard versus soft drugs, the distinction in clear due to the large jump in relative addictiveness between the softest hard drug (PCP - 57:100) and the hardest soft drug (marijuana - 21:100) [4]. --Thoric 16:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous User:84.92.184.146, I have two requests, one) that you sign your posts, and two) that you review the neutrality policy. The article Hard and soft drugs is a neutral description of the history and usage of the distinction, including its key role, also accurately described, in the Drug policy of the Netherlands, and considers variants and their rationales. It does not opine as to the correctness of it. -SM 2005-12-05 13:51:04

BTW, I contributed greatly to the original Hard drug and Soft drug articles, so I am certainly familiar with them. The problem is that the terms "hard drug" and "soft drug" exist outside the Dutch Drug Policy, and this is what should be made clear. Maybe the articles shouldn't be merged, but instead this article can contain a section containing brief summary, with a Main article: Hard and soft drugs prefix. --Thoric 18:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the articles should be merged. Serious addiction to hard drugs, especially herion, is not a recreational activity, and I would argue the same for hard core meth (that I have only read about) and crack addicts. While I am not keen on the term recreational for describing marijuana use, as it implies that it is taken in one's leisure time whereas my perception (and I am know I am not alone) is that it's more like coffee, ie a good drug to use while working, and whereas alcohol is considered a recreational drug coffee is not. But while I can live with cannabis described as a recreational drug I oppose casting hard, highly addictive drugs like crack and heroin as recreational drugs, SqueakBox 19:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Addiction, use and abuse are all different things. You can be a heroin addict without being an abuser and you can be a user without being addicted.

Marijuana is more commonly used recreationally than for working. Tobacco is more commonly used while working as is coffee, but both tobacco and coffee are used recreationally, just not to the same degree as alcohol or other drugs. Different people use different drugs for different purposes. Some people consider going to the gym fun and recreational, while others consider sitting on the couch watching TV to be recreational and consider going to the gym to be torture. Comparing a crackhead or junkie to a weekend chipper is like comparing the gutter wino to having a glass of wine with dinner. This is not a black or white area. --Thoric 20:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

What you see here in how people are struggling in this discussion (recreational crackheads?!) is only why recreational drug use was a bogus term in broad application to begin with. Contrasting recreational with working similarly is false, no such contrast was implied in the original usage (no notion of a working drug was intended, we just invented it here. Even though, say, speed and factory shifts is a fair discussion somewhere, it is not germane to the usage history of recreational drug use). Since it has historical currency, it should have an article, but limited to its historical context, per my argument above. -SM 22:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

All people have to do is read the first sentence of the second paragraph, which states A distinction must be made between (recreational) drug use and drug abuse, although there is much controversy on where the dividing line lies on the spectrum from a drug user to a drug abuser. It's all right there. It's very easy to understand if you have more than half a brain.

Just consider (as I have mentioned ad nauseum) the hard core alcoholic or the gutter wino as compared to people enjoying a glass of wine with dinner. There is a clear distinction. When we talk about recreational drug use, we are not including the junkie, crackhead or even pothead stoners. The majority of drug users are not abusers. I'm not saying that drug abusers do not exist any more than I am saying that alcoholics do not exist. What we are saying here is that recreational drug users do indeed exist, and not only do they exist, they are not limited to smoking marijuana. --Thoric 23:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh I certainly agree recreational drug taking does exist and is not limited to marijuana, and equally to characterise all marijuana users as recreational is wrong. Just using a drug occassionally is what marks the recreational user. I would describe my brother as a recreational tobacco user as he just smokes very occasionally, invariably in a social setting, and that with this definition the person who uses marijuana as a work stimulant 10 times a day isn't a recreational user (they may be an abuser but quite possibly not that either, the only way to tell being the circumstances of the individual, are they fulfilling their potential? etc) while the person who has a bag of heroin or a rock of crack on a Saturday night and then not till the next one is a recreational drug user, IMO, SqueakBox 00:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Also we definitely cannot say with certainty that more marijuana is used recreationally than while working, we don not even begin to have statistics on a worldwide level, and such stats would be highly unreliable because people will not open up honestly about their participation in (non-victim) crimes, SqueakBox 00:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can say that I know quite a number of marijuana users, and most of them do not use it during work hours. Most of them use it after work. This can depend on your line of work as well as your relationship with marijuana. Those who have developed a cannabis depedence will use it all day, every day. They are not recreational users, and they are also not the majority of users, just as the majority of people who drink alcohol are not alcoholics. Fortunately being a functional cannabiholic is much easier than being a functional alcoholic ;) --Thoric 00:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Obviously in a lot of jobs it just is not possible to use marijuana. And it is smoked in so many different places and cultural settings thant it is not possible to generalise though I do think the whole concept of recreational drug use grew up in the modern west, for example in traditional Jamaican culture it was used by cane cutters to give them the energy to do such a hard job. This is entirely credible. Yet the whole cultural setting of marijuana in the modern west is that it is associated with laziness and amotivational syndrome rather than with hard work and focus, with young people rather than the middle aged, and with being a recreational rather than a working drug (while coffee and tobacco are seen as working drugs) and as a drug used by leftist, radical types rather than by conservative, right-wing types, all of which seems to me to be about the cultural setting (including illegality) of marijuana rather than to do with its inherent nature, SqueakBox 01:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Continuing what I said above, recreational drug use was a late-sixties sociological observation trying to grapple with a new phenomenon. Benignly, it denotes use arising from lifestyle (another sociological coping term, circa 1939) rather than specific necessity, tacitly avoiding the idea of abuse, so as to explore the phenomenon less judgementally.

The reason it was a new phenomenon is that it had been ghettoized (Anslinger and his like could claim only the degenerate underclasses did it), but had undeniably broken into the mainstream (my God, the neighbors are doing it!). However, this also served to expand the drug war paradigm, which needed a new term to identify (semi-mainstream hipsters are doing it), isolate (frivolously flauting the law for fun), and stigmatize (losers, victims and new degenerates). Jailing them is good, because they are few, undeserving, and bad.

To keep the new degenerates' numbers small, the process repeats, by coining the term experimental drug use (circa mid-seventies), used to identify (troubled youth are doing it), isolate (peer pressure should be resisted), and stigmatize (losers, victims and new degenerates). The very bud to be nipped.

Of course there is a locus of activity which could be described as recreational use, which could be further elaborated by engaging in sociological investigation, i.e., original research (usually editors tossing around stereotypes). That is beside the point. This term has a semantic history, to which this article should be constrained. Further reification and expansion of the term is pointless. -SM 02:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW you can use --~~~~ (or click the signature button) to sign your posts. Regardless of so called "term coining", it is not the intent of the authors to confine this article to the stigmatized negative label meanings. If the term recreational drug use is going to be bound such, then we need a new term. Ludibund drug use or ludible drug use has been suggested. Do we have any better terms? If not, then I suggest we rename the article, and make Recreational drug use redirect there. --Thoric 05:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Actually, I do use ~~~~ (when I remember to sign at all).

I think you misunderstood the intent of my more semantic arguments, especially my last. I was more thrashing out a line of argument- and responding more so to the often inane hair-splitting- and in the process it clarified some ideas I had in the back of my head.

The semantic analysis is important and should be addressed, and it should be the hook on which the article is hung (why do people think "recreational drug use"?). However, I've reread the article a few times, and am more persuaded of the virtue of describing current practice. I liked the History section when I read it before, and am more comfortable keeping it. The Legal section and the abuse paragraph I'd like to radically rearrange, see below.

Also, long list of single items should be replaced by a list of lists, drug ordered by prevalence in categories (people will play with it, but it not important, so long as we avoid the horrible "effects of cannabis" débâcle- SqueakBox, you were right).

• recreational category- drug, drugA, drug, drugB
• recreational category- drugB, drug, drugA
• recreational category- drug, drugA, drug, drug

Now, consider as an eventual outline,

• Origin
  • A concise definition of recreational drug use, "use arising from lifestyle rather than specific necessity"
  • How the need for such a term arose, which, reluctantly stripped of my colorful POV rhetoric, could be rendered as, "a sociological term was needed to describe practices once thought hidden, isolated and taboo that had become undeniably mainstream, and to explore the phenomenon and its ramifications non-judgementally by tacitly avoiding ideas of abuse, criminality, or immorality."
  • Some examples of such phenomena at the time
• History
  • Some examples of how similar practices have always been with us,
  • and passed in and out of prohibition
• The Drug War
  • How the term became a target of the Drug War
  • Use/Abuse blurring
  • Briefly, the use of the term experimental drug use, and how it describes behaviours that are recreational use in embryo, and how this too became a target of the (mostly youth-focused) drug war. No digressions into Huxley, Leary, McKenna, etc- save it for Experimental drug use, wherein you intro with the coinage, then start with Shamanism and go forward (woohoo!).
• Practices today (keep it real here, and brief)
  • Illegal most everywhere, but tolerance and enforcement varies, so recreational drug use happens a lot
  • Modes of recreational drug use (clubbing, TV, stereo, vidoegames, movies, raves, concerts, walking in the park or beach, sex, conversation, cafés, people watching, meditation, parties, long train/plane rides)
  • Types of recreational drugs (whats good for what)
  • Drug-friendly tourism
  • List of common recreational drugs

Someplace should go,

• Origin and uses of the term ludible

...it's out there, and has a history motivating it, but I haven't found it yet, so uncertain how to play it.

The difference is that all of these points can be dealt with more clearly, concisely, and NPOV with this arrangement.

My four tildes: -SM 08:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

I have added Ronald Sigels book to the reference section as I consider and it a classic by a serious academic. (See also, comments about it in the British Medical Juornal from people actualy working in the field and Newscientist, issue 2473, 13 November 2004, page 32; et al. Or better still read the book.)

On the same subject: appearing on the Aventis Science Prize shortlist 2005 is:

Edwards, Griffith (November, 1 2005). Matters of Substance : Drugs--and Why Everyone's a User (Hardcover). Thomas Dunne Books: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0-312-33883-X. 

This too has been well recived by many. (See issue 2498 of New Scientist magazine, 07 May 2005, page 48; et. al.)

However, this is not a publication that I have got around to reading so don't feel I should be putting it in the reference if I can't vouch for it personally. Has any one here read it? --Aspro 13:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV in "Legal Aspects"

This section seems strongly pro-drug-legalization to me. I don't see any arguments explaining why anti-drug laws are justified. This section should probably be expanded or edited to include those arguments. --217.132.154.228 14:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have the same concerns too. It's totaly POV. 193.108.134.14 20:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --24.222.233.130 17:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As a registered user, I'd like to concur. For example: "Perhaps the greatest irony of the drug war is that it is essentially prohibiting victimless crimes; in this sense, its actual intent largely remains a mystery. By contrast, alcohol increases aggressive behavior in human beings and heavy use regularly results in drunk-driving accidents, in which people are often killed, and domestic abuse amongst family members of alcoholics; most other drugs seem to affect the body in an opposite manner." is definitely POV and should be changed. In case you were wondering, no, I'm not anti-drug or pro-prohibition. Wikipedia needs to be neutral, even though I largely agree with the passage. MrVoluntarist 03:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As a registered user as well who believes it unnecessary that a user be registered for his/her opinion to have value, I agree. It is very POV; MrVoluntarist's example being a perfect example.

It's really POV, if anyone has the time to re-write it, please do.--ᎠᏢ462090 21:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the following course of action -- first cite some sources of the statements and opinions within this article, then balance them out with cited statements supporting the legal status quo. As long as both sides are represented, the reader should be able to realize for themselves the difference between "The government says drugs are evil... try them and go crazy, go to jail and rot in hell", and "drugs aren't so bad if you aren't an idiot and know what you're doing, so as long as you aren't hurting anyone, the government should leave you alone and respect your civil liberties". --Thoric 22:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The above concerns: have been addressed at some length in other articles, where it is has been agreed by common consent -over several years- to be the proper place to address them (see the section 'See also'). It is done like this on Wikipedia because it has been found to be the better way. Don't ask me why, it is just something you will have to discover for yourselves.

( Have also taken the liberty to reformatted above contributions to reflect the Wikipedia guidelines.)--Aspro 22:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's totally down to personal perspective I agree. "Cocaine user kills his 'possessed' baby" was a headline I remember seeing on a news article, which I find personally to be a typical example of stereotyping the majority with the actions of a minority.Trig 15:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if nobody minds, I have some time on my hands. I'll do some work on this section over the weekend coming up. I love editing NPOVs!Minidoxigirli 10:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The edits didn't really make a dent in it. I've gone ahead and taken the section out of the article for discussion here. Many of the claims need citation: for example, the claim that marijuana is useful for medicinal purposes and the claim that there is no credible science indicating that it has ill effects. In any event, those type of claims probably belong in an article on drug prohibition, not here.

The sweeping generalizations (U.S. policy vs. Europe) and the NPOV tone (kids have been lied to) have no place in a Wikipedia entry. I think this section should eventually go back into the article, but it ought to focus on facts. For example, some substantive differences between European and U.S. laws would be very helpful. Last I knew, marijuana was illegal in the Netherlands but there was no enforcement; it is de facto legal in that country. There was an interesting article in Science comparing prohibition, legalization, and the de facto legal policy in the Netherlands, and that might be interesting in a drug prohibition article. But since there are already articles related to drug prohibition, I think this should focus on laws in various countries related to soft drugs.Josh 22:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal aspects

In many cases, the possession and use of common recreational drugs violates the law; however alcohol, tobacco, and various over-the-counter and prescription medications with a high potential for abuse (such as OxyContin, benzodiazepines, and cough suppressants containing the hallucinogenic drug dextromethorphan) are not only legal, regulated and taxed by the government in regards to their distribution, but actively encouraged in some respects.

There are people who consider harsh restrictions placed on drug use are misguided, in that they prohibit what some consider to be victimless crimes. Compared to many illegal drugs alcohol has a high potential for increasing aggressive behavior, causing car accidents, and causing overdose deaths (commonly called alcohol poisoning).

Anti-drug attitude is less prevalent in parts of western Europe—see Drug policy of the Netherlands—and more recently in Canada, where enforcement of extant legal penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana and other so-called "soft drugs" such as hallucinogenic mushrooms are increasingly ignored or given a low priority by law enforcement officials.

This attitude stands in marked contrast to the official policy of the United States government, which declared a "War on Drugs" under President Richard Nixon in 1972 which later intensified under Ronald Reagan, but saw its greatest increases (in budget, and in the number of arrests and prosecutions) under President Bill Clinton. The United States is considered far more stringent about enforcing penalties for "soft drug" use. The Drug Enforcement Administration, or DEA, is primarily responsible for illegal drug interdiction at the federal level. Despite the application of billions of dollars to eliminate the use of illegal drugs, recreational drug use remains common in the United States, and according to some studies ^{[citation needed]} is actually more common than in Europe where the laws are more relaxed (although, as stated, prescription drugs are abused in much greater numbers, and given almost no concern by the DEA whatsoever^{[citation needed]}). Millions of illicit drug users exist in the United States who have never faced prosecution^{[citation needed]}. Many American police officers don't bother enforcing possession laws on those holding small quantities of "soft drugs"^{[citation needed]}.

In Asia penalties vary from country to country, but can be even stricter than in the West. For example, under Singapore law, drug trafficking in over 15 g of heroin carries a mandatory death penalty.

Anti-drug activists explain that taboos on recreational drugs add an aura of mystique to their use, and encourage experimentation (i.e., the "forbidden fruit" phenomenon).

It is argued that the dangers of illicit drugs are exaggerated (especially in regards to marijuana, with most of its purported negative effects being routinely dismissed as junk science) causing some users to believe that only experimentation can give the user a sense of knowledge of the true dangers of a drug's side effects and addictive properties.

A possible side effect of this is that, anti-drug education programs exaggerate the negative effects of illicit substances, many young people may be encouraged to experiment with much more dangerous substances (such as methamphetamines) after convincing themselves they've been lied to when discovering that soft drugs may be less harmful than expected.

Some societies have moved to abandon attempts to prohibit recreational drugs, and instead have turned to a policy of harm reduction by informing users of ways to reduce common risks associated with popular drugs. Harm reduction is the official policy of the Netherlands, Brazil, and some areas of Canada such as Vancouver, which have stopped actively prosecuting end users of recreational drugs.

Instead, law enforcement efforts focus on capturing illegal dealers of "hard drugs", such as heroin and cocaine, passing out clean needles to intravenous (IV) drug users, and providing medical assistance for addicted users who wish to stop taking drugs.

Many currently legal recreational drugs (examples: alcohol, tobacco and caffeine) have been subject to prohibition throughout history, and likewise most of the currently illegal recreational drugs have been legal as recently as the early twentieth century ^{[citation needed]} such as with heroin, cocaine and marijuana, or even later for some newer synthetic chemicals such as LSD.

Scientific research with illicit substances has been difficult. some of them have documented medicinal properties (medical cannabis, for example, is quite popular in this field and effective in treating many disorders, and psychedelics such as LSD and MDMA may be highly effective in psychedelic psychotherapy treatments).

[edit] This article needs a better name

It is supposed to be about the common usage -sometimes called the forth drive from which knowledge about drugs and all other uses have grown. At the moment it confuses people who stumble upon it without considering the semantic context or whether their views belong on a different article. Hardly touched upon, are the many neurological hypothesis for its existence.
It is the descriptions of what 'patterns' behavior forms 'recreational use' that is important and what sort of social / economic factors can modify it.
Would it be worth making a decision to ask people to omit pointing out where laws, customs etc., attempt to influence it? These are so elastic and country dependent it an invitation for someone from another region to consider it POV. Not only that, but these lengthy augments better belong on the other articles that have been created to address them.
At the moment the title encourages POV from both sides an dissuades editors that have some in-depth knowledge of the subject from wanting to get embroiled in augments again. Its causing the article slow drift back into nonsense again.--Aspro 14:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV problems

This article has the potential for being a good article, but it has some serious NPOV problems. The section called "Legal aspects" is particularly biased. The following problems should be noted:

• 1) Use of perjorative language:
  • Example a) "In many cases, the possession and use of common recreational drugs violates the law; this is often considered an exercise in hypocrisy" (emphasis added by me). Stating that a policy exists is encyclopedic knowledge; calling that policy hypocritical is NOT.
  • Example b) "Many consider legal restrictions placed on drug use to be misguided." Again, expresses a value. Not really encyclopedic. Simply adding the phases "Many consider" without citation does not make it verifiable. Also, misguided is like hypocracy: a perjorative term.
• 2) Tone implies bias:
  • Example a) "Some theorize that the taboos on recreational drugs add an aura of mystique to their use, and encourage experimentation (i.e., the "forbidden fruit" phenomenon)."
  • Example b) "An unfortunate side effect of this is that, considering that anti-drug education programs exaggerate the negative effects of illicit substances, many young people may be encouraged to experiment with much more dangerous substances (such as methamphetamines) after convincing themselves they've been lied to when discovering that soft drugs may be less harmful than expected."
  • Example c) "This attitude is less prevalent in parts of western Europe—see Drug policy of the Netherlands—and more recently in Canada, where enforcement of extant legal penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana and other so-called "soft drugs" such as hallucinogenic mushrooms are increasingly ignored or given a low priority by law enforcement officials. This attitude stands in marked contrast to the official policy of the United States government, which declared a "War on Drugs" under President Richard Nixon in 1972."
  • These above examples all take the side that legal restrictions on drug use are ineffective or harmful. The entire section takes that side. This is not NEUTRAL in its point of view.
• 3) Makes assertions without citing sources:
  • Example a)"recreational drug use remains common in the United States, and according to some studies is actually more common than in Europe where the laws are more relaxed" -- Which studies?
  • Example b)"Many American police officers don't bother enforcing possession laws on those holding small quantities of "soft drugs"." Really? Who says so?
    • I'm guessing that particular claim will be impossible to find a cite for, despite the fact that anecdotal evidence is abundant -- as such I think it should just be deleted. Evand 06:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I disagree. Being anedoctal reports abundant, it is reasonable to maintain the phrase without citing sources, or even expliciting sources are anedoctal. --El Chemaniaco 17:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Example c)"Scientific research with illicit substances has also been made difficult due to the restrictions placed upon them, although some of them have documented medicinal properties (medical cannabis, for example, is quite popular in this field and effective in treating many disorders, and psychedelics such as LSD and MDMA may be highly effective in psychedelic psychotherapy treatments)." Again, cite studies to show so.
    • Alexander Shulgin talks about this a fair bit (see PIHKAL and TIHKAL); those books also (iirc, I don't have copies handy) cite studies about exactly this. That would be a good place to start for this section. Evand 06:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Example d)"Compared to many illegal drugs alcohol has a high potential for increasing aggressive behavior, causing car accidents, and causing overdose deaths (commonly called alcohol poisoning)." Really? Who has done the study?

The American Medical Association. Please see Actual causes of Death in the United States, 2000 -- Tobacco: 435,000, Alcohol: 85,000, Illicit drugs: 17,000 --Thoric 23:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This section needs the following to make it NPOV:

• 1) List the U.S. laws (current and historical) on drug enforcement and CITE WHERE YOU CAN FIND THEM.
  • Perhaps -- I think a quick summary is more in order; this page shouldn't be a detailed discussion on the legality of drug use (imho). As such, I think a reference to a more detailed (and authoritative, obviously) summary would be more appropriate than a set of links to laws. Evand 06:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• 2) List studies (equal number pro and con) that show the effectiveness on drug enforcement. CITE THE STUDIES SPECIFICALLY. Don't say "some studies say". Say "A 1990 study by Tom Smith said that drugs are bad." and CITE IT. Then say "A 2001 study by Jane Doe said that drugs are good" and CITE IT.
  • Well, there's no requirement for equal number each way -- every point should have a study referenced to back it up (or at least a quote from someone involved in the creation of the policy). Also, if one side or the other has more high-quality studies supporting it, it wouldn't exactly be NPOV to overrepresent the minority viewpoint. I have no clue what the actual state of things on this subject is, I'm just saying that the fact it's a contentious subject doesn't mean both sides get equal say -- they should get say in rough proportion to how well supported they are. Evand 06:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• 3) Do the same as above for other countries (not every one, just specific examples of "styles" of drug enforcement laws found in other countries) and CITE IT. In fact, favoring an American POV is not exactly neutral either (though this article would hardly be unique in that problem)
  • Again, I think referencing a more complete summary (as opposed to lots of detailed sources) would be more appropriate. Evand 06:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• In general, I think it would make sense to have the section basically have three parts: current policies in various places, arguments in favor of them, and arguments against them (in that order). Interspersing policy / rationale / rebuttal will tend to make the article have a non-NPOV style almost no matter how the individual pieces are written. It will probably also be much clearer to an uneducated reader, if each of those sections is presented as a unified piece rather than jumbled in with the other two. Evand 06:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Medical aspects" needs work too, but it has less NPOV problems.

This is beginning to sound more encouraging and professional. Can each pick a bit that grabs them the most and do a proper job on it? I'll get round to describing the neurological bases of this phenomena (as far as it can be explained) as soon as I find the time. Also, this power point presentation ( Thames Valley University) just got updated yesterday, so have put the link here for any one who finds it interesting. Cross-cultural psychology: Research methods and substance misuse.--Aspro 16:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it the place for this article to debate drug laws, or simply to explain what "recreational drug use" is? In seeing that this article is entitled, "recreational drug use", it makes sense for the POV to be slanted as if this were a legitimate activity, regardless of current legal status. It is not Wikipedia's place to put judgement on entries. --Thoric 23:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is the list really necessary?

The list of drugs that some people take recreationaly seems like a bad idea for an encyclopedia entry. It's just not relevant, could be seen as a how-to guide for a person seeking inebriation ( can't get x? try y! ), is very much open to debate ( my friend uses espresso coffee as a drug to "get amped" ), and worst of all from an encyclopedic point of view, the list is constantly changing as new analogue molecules ( esp for mdma ) are invented. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SeattleChronic (talk • contribs) 21:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

• Totally agree, you echo my thoughts exactly. Maybe we should invite another comment or two with the intention of a getting a consensus agreement to deleting it. Would be wise to leave a comment on this talk page stating 'why' so that someone else doesn't start one again. I like compiling lists too but this is not the best place.--Aspro 23:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly wouldnt revert a deletion of this list, SqueakBox 23:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm glad to see that I'm not mistaken here. Also, my apologies for forgetting to sign my last post, explaining my rationale. Chalk that one up to short term memory loss.  ;-p In any case I'll bow out of the discussion and let others voice their opinions on the matter - but felt it necessary to mention that not signing this proposal was a mistake, not some kind of attempt to troll anonymously, just because I see a lot of that in some articles. SeattleChronic 00:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

When its agreed we have a consensus, I am proposing to short circuit the inclination in other editors to start a list again by replacing the list with the paragraph below. Does it need citations to accompany it, or can it be considered self-evident market economics?
The drugs used recreationally are too many and varied to list here. Also, new ones are coming into use all the time. Their popularity waxing and waning based on novelty, cost, general availability, publicly perceived health risk and to a very limited extent the legal class unto which it belongs. Therefore, for more information about the individual drugs, their pharmacological classification and method of action the reader is referred to: Psychotropic drugs.--Aspro 17:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph looks good, but Psychotropic redirects to Psychoactive drug so might want to link directly. Tocharianne

• I also agree with removing the list which is currently overbalancing the article. Would be it be useful to move it to an article called List of drugs for recreational use or is the category just too amorphous? Tocharianne 19:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the paragraph above is written very well and explains perfectly the reasoning here. But more to the point, I wonder if anyone can tell us just exactly how often these things change? In the US at least, "analogue" chemicals are also banned by default; when they make meth illegal, that also covers as-yet uninvented "derivatives" of methamphetamine. So I doubt chemists are inventing new drugs as often, although new trends start and fade out still. A year ago "head shops" used to sell this type of sage that gives strong hallucinations when smoked, because it was obscure enough not to have been banned yet - I'm not sure its current status. So it might be possible to "keep up" with the topography here. But that brings up another question: just what purpose does a list like this serve? Also, does anybody know the exact definitions of psychotropic and psychoactive? My impression is that the first one more or less only refers to psychedelics, while the second might include caffeine, as it stimulates the mind? SeattleChronic 21:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Questions so easy to ask; but so testing to answer --- I like it!

My Liddell & Scotts Greek Lexicon (7th ed) defines τροπικ (or τροπος) as solace or turning (towards), so psychoactive is (was) in my veiw just a dumbing down of the same thing. Now that you have asked the question though -- I am woundering about it. Active = action; surly LSD (psychodelic) is very acitve? PS. Trying to make sense of prohibition will give you a headache, they ban analogues becuase thats the emotional response. Their arguments are Non_sequitur_(logic). The greatest health benefit in the last ten years is to leave nicotine a licensed drug but attack the tabbacco industries generated delusions from every angle.--Aspro 23:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2,5-DIMETHOXY-4-IODOAMPHETAMINE (DOI)

It was recently reported on the BBC that a number of clubbers were taken ill after reportedly taking a drug called DOI (or DO9)[5]. This would appear to be the first major report indicating recreational use in the UK of this drug. I have added the information to the 2,5-DIMETHOXY-4-IODOAMPHETAMINE and would suggest that it could be added to this page.80.76.203.84 17:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is Recreational?

I dont even think the word "recreational" is defined correctly accordingly. It is assumed the the drugs are mainly legalized in one way or another. It isnt even touched upon that thoroughly. I dont think we should really be questioning neutrality, but the accuracy.

Fautority 17:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC) fauthority

rec·re·a·tion /ˌrɛkriˈeɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rek-ree-ey-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. refreshment by means of some pastime, agreeable exercise, or the like. 2. a pastime, diversion, exercise, or other resource affording relaxation and enjoyment. (from dictionary.com!) ― 梁燁文 ★彡 ^{Refill/lol 01:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)}