Talk:Drug/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Natural drugs and processing?

Before I go and edit this myself, I wanted to know what others thought about this line in this articles introduction:

"Many natural substances such as beers, wines, and some mushrooms, blur the line between food and drugs, as when ingested they affect the functioning of both mind and body."

As much as us alcoholics (and I use the term loosely :P) would like beer and wine to be naturally occurring in the environment as this quote suggests, wouldn't it be better to strike "beer" and "wine" from this completely since that both require some form of processing in order to achieve their final form from raw materials? DeltaFalcon talk 14:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever eaten fruit which is going off? It ferments through the action of naturally occurring yeasts on the surface of the fruit. Watch the film "Beautiful People" some time, as there is a great scene illustrating this.82.6.1.85 (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Lance T.

This should be a disambiguation page

JFW enters stage, wearing firefighter's costume and holding fire extinguisher: Ladies and gentlemen, I have finally turned this page into the disambiguation page it was supposed to be. The previous contents were an indiscriminate mix, mainly about illegal/recreational drugs with some medicinal preparations mixed in. this is history rel,ated sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.251.158 (talk) 10:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

  • There are drugs and drugs. Some are used (OTC or on prescription) to treat symptoms or illnesses. Some are taken for recreational purposes. Some substances happen to be in both classes (e.g. diamorphine, cocaine). But to suggest that someone doing heroin is doing this for a medical purpose is bizarre.
  • The old page did not make this distinction, and all the editing in the world could not justify its independent existence.
  • Please edit drug of abuse, or merge it adequately, if you feel there are still issues, but undoing the move will automatically meet with an RFC from my side.
I can't believe you made such a statement, when heroin is still administered in some hospitals, and legally prescribed pharmaceuticals such as Fentanyl are indistinguisable from heroin.(unregistered user removed comments about sex)First of all, you ignore requests for you to elaborate on your disambiguation ideas. Second, you rename the (NPOV named) "Drug" page to the (POV named) "Drugs of abuse" page, which goes against the NPOV policy. Lastly, you threaten to give a hard time to anyone who reverses your uncalled for changes. --Thoric 06:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I think JFW is right with his bold move; the article has evolved so that it is less about drugs generally, it has developed more into an article specifically about drugs of abuse. Nor am I convinced there is a severe POV problem with the name, but, as has been stated, merging with recreational drug use would seem to solve any remaining POV and content problems. Drug should be a disambiguation page, it makes more sense that way. PeteThePill 21:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages are for seperate topics with the same name. Drugs are drugs, that us why there was an article on them. There are many drug related articles and they are linked to largely in the drug article. The United States article covers many topics briefly as the drug article did. Do you think it should be changed into a disambiguation page as well with history, economics, etc.? I fully support the reversal of the changes Jfdwolff has made. Jfdwolff has broght this up on the talk page but no-one has supported it.--Clawed 04:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All drugs and medications can be abused. There is no justification for singling out certain substances as "drugs of abuse". The DEA spreads plenty of propaganda, we don't need to encourage that here. If this needs to be a disambiguation page, then the original drug page should at least be named something like Common drugs. Drugs of abuse is extremely POV. --Thoric 05:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm... I don't believe they can all be abused, even if that is true then most drugs rarely are. There clearly IS great justification for assuming that some drugs are more prone to abuse. "Commonly abused drugs" would be a more sensible title than "common drugs", which doesn't fit the content of the article in any way at all. Overall the way forward seems to be a merge with Recreational drug use as there is already a great deal of overlap. PeteThePill 21:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Do either of you have any idea what you are talking about? Most drug abuse goes unseen. The hard-core drug abuse that is seen by law enforcement and rehab clinics (and crack houses, back alleys, etc) primarily involves illegal drugs because they are illegal. There are still many alcoholics, and gutter-bum-winos, but they are treated differently because alcohol is a legal drug. Commonly prescribed medications, OTS and OTC medications are far more abused than illegal drugs, but little is seen or heard about that, because they are legal. We are a pill-popping society, and everyone is happy as long as you are popping legal and approved drugs. Cocaine, cannabis, heroin, street meth, MDMA, LSD and the rest of the illegal street drugs continue to be illegal for one primary reason -- the pharmaceutical industry doesn't make one red cent from them because they aren't patentable. The only reason alcohol is legal is because the majority of the population likes to drink, and alcohol prohibition was too hard to enforce 80 years ago. As a free entity open encyclopedia, Wikipedia should not have to be bound by the constraints of DEA enforced propaganda. Do some real field research, and stop echoing the rhetoric of the brainwashed. --Thoric 15:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes; I do know what I'm talking about; I'm a pharmacist, and work directly with recreational drug users of all varieties. The article we are discussing lists a very small number of commonly abused drugs. I could easily list hundreds of rarely abused drugs; should I add them to the article? I think NO as they would be irrelevant to the nature of the article, which is undeniably about drugs used recreationally. PeteThePill 15:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not talking about rarely abused drugs, I'm talking about drugs that you sell in your pharmacy, off the shelf, over the counter, and prescribed to patients. Obviously you pay little attention to sales of off the shelf products... non-narcotic analgesics, antihistamines, cough suppressants, antinauseants, etc. Plenty of people use these drug far more often than they really need them. I know a lot of women who pop several aspirins daily for "pains and headaches", a behavior no different from women who pop stronger medications on a regular basis. Are they really less habituated to these pain killers? We certainly know that NSAIDs cause far more serious physical problems for the body than opiates do, but we can't have people getting hooked on narcotics, can we? Better to get addicted to NSAIDs, and rot out your digestive tract. Prescription medicine is a whole different ball of wax. We freely prescribe stimulants to children which are little different from the illegal psychomotor stimulants, but in the name of medicine, it's all just fine and dandy. Big business are lining their pockets well. Add some prozac to the mix, and everyone is happy. I see you're paid well to keep on preaching the propaganda forced down your throat by the pharmaceutical conglomerates. I'm sure you can always take a few pills to help you sleep at night. --Thoric 17:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
You underestimate me (and I suspect pharmacists generally); I'm well aware of the misuse potential of OTC medicines, by rarely abused drugs I refer to drugs like (random examples!) balsalazide and doxazosin and sotalol and imipenem and bleomycin and literally thousands of others. Analgesics and cough suppressants etc. are already referred to in the article. The article is what we are discussing, and it is greatly biased towards both legal and illegal recreational drugs, with little mention of less "interesting" drugs. That's fine, but "drug" was not an appropriate title. I'm just talking about the article; I think you are also underestimating how much I agree with much you say! (e.g. relative risks of NSAIDs and opiates) PeteThePill 19:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Ahh :) Sorry for the rant then... as usual most arguments involve some misunderstanding and miscommunication. My primary disagreement is with the POV labeling common drugs as "Drugs of abuse". Maybe the article can merged into other articles, or maybe renamed as "Commonly used drugs", but the word abuse(d) implies a certain point of view. --Thoric 20:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I stated early on that I considered "drug of abuse" a POV title and that alternatives (and merges) could be contemplated. "Recreational" is actually also a point of view. JFW | T@lk 04:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
"Recreation drug use" is not really POV, where "Recreational drugs" is -- just as "Drug abuse" is not really POV, where "Drugs of abuse" is POV. This is why I suggested either "Common drugs" or "Commonly used drugs" as a NPOV alternative. --Thoric 17:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a basic problem with the page is a prejudice against internal links to disambiguation pages
demanding precision and certainty which is not currently possible
Perhaps on other pages there should be drug inviting readers to make their own decisions about the content of a disambiguation page
or perhaps disambiguation pages should be renamed
as pages about terms which may represent unresolved anomalies
Laurel Bush (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Alternatives to drug of abuse

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

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

All those pages should be merged into recreational drug use or drug of abuse. The distinction between "hard" and "soft drugs" is political. JFW | T@lk 04:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, interestingly enough, the distinction between "hard" and "soft drugs" is scientific, not political. It's mostly based upon the research of relative addictiveness of substances. (See Relative Addictiveness of Various Substances). Technically "soft drugs" should only include Cannabis, MDMA, Psilocybin, LSD and Mescaline (as well as other very similar substances). --Thoric 17:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Classification under the UK Misuse of Drugs Act has nothing to do with 'hardness' and 'softness'? If there is a 'scientific' definition of a 'hard-soft' spectrum it seems to be not much used or respected by politicians. Laurel Bush 10:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC).

We need more on illegal drugs because of the links to the article

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

Surely we need an article here

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

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

All we have at the moment are two major articles on the same subject divided by the legality (medication) and illegality (recreational drug use) of the drugs in question. Considering the number of legal jurisdictions in the world, this is not the best situation to be in. A drug is a drug is a drug, regardless of legality. The OED defines 'drug' as "an original, simple, medicinal substance, organic or inorganic, whether used by itself in its natural condition or prepared by art, or as an ingredient in a medicine or medicament" (OED) (where medicinal can be defined as therapeutic). Of course, as well as this umbrella article should be those other two. --Oldak Quill 15:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The divide is not so much over legality as it is over purpose; medicine vs recreation. The other meanings of drug belong on a disambiguation page. Bensaccount 16:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Recreational drug use is the wrong term

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

It's sort of mentioned in the recreational section, when it states that recreational use is different than utilitarian use, so I suppose we could have another section entitled, "Utilitarian drug use", but the lines are blurry. I'd say that in some cases, utilitarian use falls between medicinal and recreational, but it seems that when used in a utilitarian fashion, drugs can jump from performance enhancing straight to habitual addiction without any recreational component. Likewise this can sometimes happen with legitimate medicinal use, albiet rare...
    Abuse       Imagine this rough diagram as a circle with a cross of
M  /  |  \ R    two lines showing the how drug use can go between different
e /___|___\e    classifications... medicinal, recreational, utilitarian and
d \   |   /c    abuse (addicted).
   \  |  /
 Utilitarian   --Thoric 19:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
That's the problem with the term "recreational drug (use)". Many people take LSD for enlightenment, not "recreation". Many people take drugs just to feel numb, not to have fun. There should be a better term for what we call "recreational drug (use)", and I've given it some thought, but can't come up with one. But perhaps a better generic description is "a drug intended to induce an abnormal state of consciousness". That way, drugs for colds and what not are not included (unless they have other uses). Neither is Prozac, since it's intended to induce what is considered a normal state of consciousness (I specifically made sure to use the word "abnormal" rather than "altered") --MQDuck 20:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I have to say I find the use of "abnormal" in your comment a problem amphetamines for instance mimic a state produced by adrenalin the presentation itself is within the normal ranges of human consciousness and emotion (As is the case with all drugs, no drug can make your state of consciousness outside of that which is defined by the normal limits of the human physiology) perhaps artificial would be more appropriate as it describes it better being that it is a state which is normal biochemically but is inconsistent with what is natural for the environment and/or circumstances at the time. Thus while it may be natural to feel hyper stimulated and euphoric after a ride on a roller coaster or even after emerging from a motor vehicle accident unscathed (Which is a similar feeling I found) it is artificial if the same state exists because one is under the influence of cocaine, thus the state being artificial (not natural) rather than abnormal (not normal) the latter describes the state as not normal where the latter seams to refer better to the cause being beyond the natural. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MttJocy (talkcontribs) 02:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Classification system needs supporting reference

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

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

A drug is a molecule?

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

Isn't that just silly? —Memotype::T 14:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Is what just silly? The Misuse of Drugs Act? If so, I would tend to agree. Nontheless, the article seems to be using, at present, in its leader, a very specialist definition of drug. Laurel Bush 16:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC).
Well, both the act itself, and the labeling of entire plants as drugs are silly, although I intended the meaning to be towards the latter. I would say that the UK act has a misconception of the meaning of the word drug in this case. Politicians can not be trusted to define scientific terms properly, so if you were suggesting that Drug discuss entire plants which have been classified as "drugs" for political reasons, then I would have to strongly disagree with you. —Memotype::T 16:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I am suggesting that "Drug" should be, effectively, about all uses of the term drug, or should be simply a redirect to "List of drugs". And I am not aware of any truely scientific definition of the term (while ready to accept that licensed drug producers, and suppliers, like to believe that there is some such defintion). Laurel Bush 18:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC).
Scientifically, biologically speaking, yes. A drug is the chemical that acts on the body. Technically, marijuana contains a drug, but is not one itself. However, we (unfortunately, IMO) need to include all uses of the word. --MQDuck 20:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me the article might work better as a simple redirect to List of drugs. Laurel Bush 09:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC).

Definitions of 'drug'

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

Super-POV in "Recreational Drugs"

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

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

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

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

List of Drugs - Necessary?

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

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

We need a section for illegal drugs

I think we need a section for illegal drugs on this page since most of the visitors coming to this page are looking for information on drugs and most of them in my humble opinion are looking for information on medication and illegal drugs which is missing from this article. So i request someone to add some useful information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaree (talkcontribs) 09:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Replaced opening paragraph

I replaced the opening paragraph, which contained no references for a long time, with fully sourced material. (Dictionaries in this case, since it's a basic overview.) I left some unsourced material later in the opening section. I know some people won't like the new text, prefer the old text, and have strong opinions on changes. It's not great writing, and there's clearly room for improvement. Newly added information should cite reliable sources, which would qualify under WP:RS guidelines. The old introductory paragraph that was replaced is as follows:

A drug is any chemical or biological substance, synthetic or non-synthetic, that when taken into the organism's body, will in some way alter the functions of that organism. This broad definition can be taken to include such substances as food. However more strict applications of the word prevail in everyday life. In these cases the word "drug" is usually used to refer specifically to medicine, vitamins, entheogenic sacraments, consciousness expanding or recreational drugs. Many natural substances such as beers, wines, and some mushrooms, blur the line between food and drugs, as when ingested they affect the functioning of both mind and body.

I retained the last sentence later in the section, in the hope that it can be sourced. -Agyle 02:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

History of Drug Use

Drugs have been used for at least as long as recorded history. There are cultures that have survived to this day that consider certain psychedelics to help a shaman gain wisdom and/or insight. Someone should add at least something on the history of drugs and humanity. I would, except I just told you just about everything I know on the subject. ;) --MQDuck 20:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis

I added a link to cannabis since recreational drug states it is one of the four most popular worldwide drugs, thus merits inclusion in the article. Would have preferred to use a better picture but couldn't find any. Would appreciate discussion. Jevon (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.63.25.178 (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Natural Substances???

The last sentence of the first section says that beer and wine are natural substances. I'm not sure if this is the best term to use. Perhaps "food substances" or just "food" would be more appropriate. I cannot find a beer or wine bush anywhere (and I've been looking!)64.62.104.66 (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, mushrooms yes they are natural substances but beer and wine? No, neither are natural substances they are artificially produced beverages (Using organic processes yes, but not something produced by nature without interference) In fact if anything beer and wine are both intentionally produced by human activity to generate the psychoactive drug ethanol in a form desirable for human consumption. If nobody objects I will remove beer and wine as examples but I will attempt to replace them with other natural substances which blur the boundaries. Perhaps such as cocoa ie the source for chocolate? [1] and why is coffee not in the list, or tea for that matter, both contain caffeine which is a psychoactive drug and would be closer than beer and wine to a natural substance producing drug like effects (coffee is actually natural and will grow wild for a start) and just like beer or wine is consumed more often for it's effect. (Apologies for the double edit, forgot to sign) MttJocy (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Medication

I used the UK Medicines and Health Regulatory Agency (MHRA) glossary as a source for the unsourced claim regarding P medicines the link does back up the facts however it is just part of a glossay and a better link would probably be nice (It is however the first item on the page which is a bit of a bonus). MttJocy (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


US bias

The article states that there is no single, precise definition, of drug, as there are different meanings in medicine, government regulations, and colloquial usage, but appears, eg in supporting references, to disregard the fact that what applies in the United States may not apply elsewhere. Laurel Bush (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added a link to Drug control law, but maybe, therefore, the subsequent reference has ceased to be strictly appropriate
Laurel Bush (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Drug-related articles generally a mess

Wikipedia's drug-related articles are generally a mess
Perhaps this is because current thinking about drugs is generally a mess
Perhaps there is no coherent objective way of thinking and writing on the subject
We have laws seemingly dedicated to the notion that drugs are evil, and the use of force (sometimes lethal) to suppress their production and supply
Somehow, at the same time, we have a vast legal drugs industry, for ever chasing the holy grail of immortality
Laurel Bush (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I offer the following as potentially useful definitions:

  • Controlled drug: drug within the scope of laws which are named, effectively, as drug control laws, for example, in the United Kingdom, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Drugs Act 2005
  • Pharmaceutical drug: product of a body, pharmaceutical company or drug company, which is licensed to produce and supply controlled drugs as medicines
  • Legal drug:
    • pharmaceutical drug, provided it is not held contrary to drug control laws; or
    • drug falling outside the scope of drug control laws and not otherwise illegal, for example, in the United Kingdom, alcohol or tobacco,
  • Illegal drug:
    • drug held contrary to drug control laws; or
    • drug falling outside the scope of drug control laws and defined as illegal in some other way, for example, in the United Kingdom, alcohol sold to someone under the age of 18

Laurel Bush (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Routes of Administration

I can't log in from my work computer and the page is locked so I can't make the edit myself, but could someone include in the top section under methods of administration a line about transdermal administration? Drugs such as fentanyl are often administered via a transdermal patch, and I think that's an important route to include. Thoughts? 206.194.127.112 (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Idiots and Drugs

--Gothsrus (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)If you really want to improve the article then you should also point out how people often use drugs as an escuse to escape the real world. There are problems in the world, and how they will never get resolved if you hide behind the false euphoria of narcotics. In doing so you are missing out on alot of beautiful things. You might say that it is better to forget than to remember, but I say that it is better to remember and move past the difficulties in life. Don't Just point out the advantages point out hte disadvantages. --Gothsrus (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Danish language translation

{{editsemiprotected}} This pages danish version is not included in the babel. As i primary edit the danish version of wikipedia, i don't have autoconfirmed status, and is not able to change it. The danish pages name is "Rusmiddel".

Done Inserted [[da:Rusmiddel]]. Celestra (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

History of drugs

I think it would be relevant for this article to briefly cover the history of human drug use. Certain drugs -- most notably alcohol, opium, and cannabis -- have a recorded history of use going back thousands of years, both for medical and social/recreational purposes: the use of alcoholic beverages goes back to the Stone Age in China; Herodotus records the use of cannabis among the Scythians. In the Americas, drugs such as tobacco, ayahuasca, and coca were used by pre-Columbian peoples and their use documented by early European missionaries.

Certain non-recreational drugs have their own histories going back thousands of years: aspirin, in the form of willow bark extract, was known to the ancient Greeks. The use of abortifacient herbs has a similarly long history.

In more recent times, recreational and social drugs have frequently played a curiously powerful role in international relations. Both tobacco and alcohol (especially rum) played an influential role in the colonization and development of the Americas by Europeans, while opium and tea influenced European relations with India and China. More recently, the cocaine trade remains an overwhelmingly prominent issue in international relations within the Americas, and the opium (heroin) trade in a number of regions, most prominently Afghanistan. The coffee trade, meanwhile, has been front and center in the development of fair trade.

Thoughts? --FOo (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Not too long ago I added a brief history of drugs to the pharmaceutical drug article. I recently read Drug Discovery: a History by Walter Sneader, which covers drug history decently, but its introduction seems to come down very hard on early drug use by the Greeks and such and I'm looking to confirm his conclusions before adding it to the article. See Sneader's website for some good resources. After the introduction the book is generally pretty specific and technical, making it a bit difficult to summarize. II | (t - c) 21:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.110.217.81 (talk) 10:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

controversial image?

The following picture which has been placed on several articles has attracted several negative comments regarding its accuracy:

Rational scale to assess the harm of drugs (mean physical harm and mean dependence).svg

Comments? Shawnc (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What's the source; definition of axis, and data used ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Governmental controls

In Canada the government has moved to remove the influence of drug companies on the medical system. The influence that the pharmaceutical companies, the for-profits, are having on every aspect of medicine ... is so blatant now you'd have to be deaf, blind and dumb not to see it, said Journal of the American Medical Association editor Dr. Catherine DeAngelis.[13]

Is this a joke? What is this even doing here? --Ultra Megatron (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The existing reference didn't lead anywhere, but I've replaced it with references to 2 articles that have the above quote from Dr. Catherine DeAngelis. I do agree with the globalize tag, though. Clearly this section would benefit from some breadth. Shanata (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

niccolo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.118.195.195 (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

nnn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.118.195.195 (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Section should not be in this article. Could delete or move to pharmaceutical industry. - Rod57 (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Grammatical change

{{editsemiprotected}} Under section Nootropics, second sentence ends with "and many others things." It should say "and many other things." Computergeeksjw (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Intelligentsium 23:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

that is not cool drugs are bat do no do them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.5.86 (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC) dont take drugs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.31.22.47 (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

November 5, 2012 - In the fourth paragraph of the introduction, the sentence "Drugs may also have no nitrogen atoms in it and many may have chlorine atoms in it, such as chloral hydrate." is grammatically incorrect.. it should either be changed to "A drug..." or the "it"s should be changed to "them"s. I don't have the privileges to make this change, but somebody else should. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeHoLi (talkcontribs) 01:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Buccal

Under the heading "Medication" (in the text in the first section), the routes of administration of drugs are discussed. It looks as if the list could be expanded, to include buccal and topical administration. More on that later... I've got to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottyglenncornog (talkcontribs) 15:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like since then a whole tab for routes of administration has been added.. but in any case, I don't know why you wouldn't just use "oral route" instead of "buccal route," I wasn't aware there was any difference between the two excepting more people know what oral means than buccal.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeHoLi (talkcontribs) 01:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Definition of "Drug"

Hi all. I had a couple of questions about how drugs are defined in the introduction:

How is "normal bodily function" specifically defined, and by whom? If a person with diabetes ingests some insulin to avert death, would he or she be altering his or her "normal bodily function?" In other words, does "normal bodily function" refer to (1) a person's chemical composition at the present instant or (2) a third-party's opinion of what constitutes "normal?"

1) If "normal bodily function" refers to a person's status at the present instant, anything and everything ingested (including air) is a drug. It all interacts with a person's physiology.

2) If "normal bodily function" refers to a third-party opinion, who gets to decide which bodily states are normal and what is the basis for their authority?

Also a suggestion: The examples of "recreational drugs" in the introduction should include the most widely-used recreational drugs on the planet: caffeine, alcohol, tobacco, and chocolate[2].

Chompy12345 (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

One person’s drug may be another’s food, and vice versa
Deciding which is what seems to be very POV
Laurel Bush (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me what is or is not a drug is more a matter of opinion, often institutionalised, than of intrinsic properties or actual effects of substances
and the article intro needs a more sociological or anthropological perspective
I would like to see something like this:

A drug is a substance taken or put into a body, human or other animal, for chemical or biochemical effect which is not considered that of a food and may be medicinal, intoxicating, or performance enhancing
What is considered a drug rather than a food varies from culture to culture, and distinctions between drugs and foods and between kinds of drug are enshrined in laws which vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and aim to restrict or prevent drug use
Even within a jurisdiction, however, the status of a substance may be uncertain or contested with respect to both whether it is a drug and how it should be classified if it is

Laurel Bush (talk) 10:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Or perhaps:

A drug is a substance which may have medicinal, intoxicating, or performance enhancing effects when taken or put into a human body or the body of another animal and is not considered a food or exclusively a food

and continuing as previously
getting medicinal, intoxicating, and performance enhancing towards the start of the sentence
and including a link to Matter which seems less presumptive than Chemistry, Biochemistry, or Chemical substance
A substance may be seen as a drug by its effects and without any real knowledge of its chemistry or biochemistry
and where such knowledge exists it can be very sketchy or speculative
This is true of new so-called legal highs
for example
which come to market without clear or reliable declarations of contents
and still seems very true of natural cannabis
whose effects may be the combined effects of over 400 active constituents
Laurel Bush (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I note the reference in support of the current first sentence is to a report related to drug dependence
not drugs more generally
Laurel Bush (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone verify the copyright status of this image?

This image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drug_Archive.jpg

If the status can not be verified, it should be deleted. 75.57.205.80 (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Produced in the human brain

There is speculation that DMT is produced in the pineal gland but there is no evidence for this. Wikifruta (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Apparently there is, but I reckon it should at least have some sort of citation, if one can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifruta (talkcontribs) 02:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this really necessary?

Is this really necessary? It's in the first few lines: The molecules of drugs are complex, and most of them consist of many hydrogen and carbon atoms, a few oxygen atoms, and one or a few nitrogen atoms. Drugs may also have no nitrogen atoms in it and many may have chlorine atoms in it, such as chloral hydrate.

It seems like a very juvenile way to put it. Especially considering virtually all molecules found within the body have a similar composition. It would be better to put something like "Most drugs are organic compounds" 174.53.145.205 (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "juvenile" is a good word to describe that paragraph. I don't think it is a useful description of the chemical nature of drugs. It's not even entirely correct as written. I have now removed it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested edits

Some suggested improvements to the lead. Coffee, beer, and wine are not drugs, they are beverages that (ordinarily) contain caffeine and ethanol - these are the drugs. Decaffeinated coffee isn't any more of a drug than purified water, and pasta sauce made with red wine no longer contains "drug" by most definitions.

The lead also talks about pharmacological drugs being "prescribed" which is often true for the US, but there are lots of things purchased over the counter that are unquestionably drugs (e.g. acetaminophen/paracetamol). It's probably better to just say "used."

The last bit of the first sentence is vague legalese and I'd suggest instead "A drug is a substance which is used for medicinal, intoxicating, performance enhancing or other effects that is put in the body of a human or animal. Some foods have these effects and the line between food and drug is sometimes vague. For example, the caffeine in coffee acts as a stimulant and the vitamin C in oranges prevents scurvy."

The caption for the cigarette photo states that it is the "pharmaceutical form" of tobacco, but this is certainly not true, as the term "pharmaceutical" refers to a medicinal substance intended for use in medical diagnosis, cure, treatment, or prevention of disease. Cigarettes produce more disease, illness, and cancer than perhaps any other drug in widespread usage, so using the term "pharmaceutical" to describe cigarettes, let alone tobacco, is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.3.196 (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Just some thoughts. 150.148.14.8 (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)