Talk:Drug injection

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Raymondtotah, Jlan07, Branistheiceking, Srmyers1022. Peer reviewers: Yp90.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Substance List

The page lists frequently (illicitly) injected drugs. From experience, MDMA (the term ecstacy should be avoided) is rarely injected. The listing of heroin, amphetamine and methamphetamine is good but cocaine should certainly be added. I would list heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, amphetamine and various others less frequently. Benzodiazepines are not injected nearly as frequently as cocaine and heroin and most of these drugs/formulations available in the US are not even water soluble. This should be changed.

Ketamine is also one of the more common IM/IV recreational drugs. It gives a much bigger psychedelic kick than insufflation. Shamanchill (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

MDMA is rarely injected. But doing so does produce the expected euphoria, almost simultaneous with a particular, sharp pain in the injection site, which will tell any experienced user, "Ow, I shouldn't have done that, Hmmmm, ahhh, oh well . . . pum-chuk-pum-chuk-pum-chuk (sound of rave going on in ears or in head)." Substances that aren't "meant" to be injected are those that have non-soluble additives or impurities, that will likely cause abscess. But in an article that supposes to preserve neutrality, it seems difficult to me, to assert, "shooting drugs is bad and dangerous", which most people will readily acknowledge -- even an experienced user will know that life-threatening dangers are involved -- and then go on to say, "But you Really shouldn't shoot MDMA." Although, here in the talk pages, I'm telling you, "You Really shouldn't shoot MDMA."

<{: )}>

Hep C, and HIV in intravenous use

Added the clarification about HIV and hepatitis C being prevalent with intravenous use due to equipment sharing. I don't condone the direct injection of any illicit substance, but, being an encyclopedia, it should contain the facts, and not half-facts.

Harm Reduction Error

In Harm Reduction

It's also quite uncommon for a sterilizing agent to be used.[citation needed]

A friend of my other friends friend has always washed shared needles with isopropyl alcohol or hydrogen peroxide before future uses, or so a friend of my aquantiances friend said the other day. This needs to be taken off there is no citation, it is needed and never come up with. Delete this part I say. Discuss. Dirtysmoke (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ethical issue

Is it ethical for the article to be written as almost a guide to using drugs: e.g. "While squatting, gently insert the syringe (without the needle) until it is just inside the anus then ease the plunger down. A bit of Vaseline or lubricant will help if there is any pain. The sphincter muscles should be strong enough to hold the mix inside while it is absorbed. It can pay to do a trial run with water first." It sounds like it's from a 'ways to do drugs' guidebook. I think that it is too much unnecessary information but if it was really necessary, it shouldn't be written in an instructional way. I'm not against educated adults doing drugs (it's their own lives) but I do worry about those under 18 reading it and trying it out themselves - causing themselves a great deal harm if done incorrectly. Not to mention the fact that it is not advisable for anyone to be doing drugs in the first place anyway. (Monsumo 16:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

Yes. - Xvall

Wait, what? You think that a minor is going to decide to inject drugs just because he found straightforward instructions on Wikipedia? Were YOU that dumb as a teenager? 'Cause I sure wasn't. If a teenager injects drugs as a result of this article, that only means he did it a few days before he would have decided to anyway.

Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, but nor is it kid proof or family safe.

--63.25.231.225 00:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

My beef with this article is the detailed information on how to extract the drugs to inject. That doesn't even BELONG here. 71.8.77.160 (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

While I respect your opinions on underage drug use/drug use in general (whether I agree with them or not, it doesn't matter), the ethical implications of this concept aren't really the problem here. WP is supposed to serve as an objective information source...that means that whether you are of the opinion that providing information on how to perform an injection encourages drug use or not, WP has a responsibility to provide information on the topic and to keep that information safe from your opinion or mine. Personally (being both a 20 something and a healthcare professional), I'm of the opinion that hiding things from people accomplishes 2 things: 1)Piques interest in the topic by making it taboo, and 2)prevents access to information that could greatly reduce the danger someone puts themselves in by making a certain choice. Since I interact with drug users both in a professional setting and a social one (several of my close friends use a variety of substances on a recreational basis, some of which are used intravenously), I see firsthand the damage that lack of or misinformation can do. The fact of the matter is, no one is ever going to stop people from using drugs. Period. I don't want to hear any whining about how we shouldn't have such a defeatist attutide, etc etc. Like Lewis Black (I think it was him) said, "If you took away all the drugs, ALL THE DRUGS, in the world...people would spin around on their front lawns until they fell down and saw God." I believe we as a society, and I know I as professional, have an ethical obligation to provide information that will allow people to be safe in their choices. I don't encourage drug use...I don't have much of a problem with it either, but I do think it can be an irresponsible thing to do, depending on the person. I know people who are accomplished doctors and other professions who used drugs in a responsible manner, just like prescription drugs are used (in reality, there's really no difference, its semantics), and I know people who are totally the opposite. The thing we have to do is provide a way to be responsibly irresponsible =D. My recommendation for the article is that the areas written in a "tutorial" tone be rewritten to a more formal and scientific tone, which describes a situation in a 3rd person manner (eg "After a tourniquet is appropriately tied in place, the injection area is swabbed with alcohol or iodine, and the needle inserted parallel to the vein at shallow angle so as not to penetrate both walls of the blood vessel." etc). I think this fulfills both the encyclopedia's requirement to provide information and its obligation to do so in a completely non-biased way. Or I could just be talking out my ass, who knows, its like 5 am and way too late for this! Peace Ohnoitsthefuzz (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both sides here. The content has every right to be here, however the tone of the article is a little too instructional. we should rewrite it in the style Ohnoitsthefuzz recommended. rakkar (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We have an article that describes how to build nuclear bomb. However, if you don't have the resources to find or buy Uranium or Cocaine, it's harmless. NineNineTwoThreeSix (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This article has very poor grammatical and encyclopedic skills. Regardless of the topic (which could be controversial to some but is definitely an important topic that requires an effective, academic tone) some standard of quality need be applied here. Such a representation of this subject is completely unacceptable. "...an item 1½ may be added" is not proper at all. three periods to start a paragraph is rubbish. Subjects such as 'needle fixation' and the extensive listing of components of 'speedball' are hardly relevant to an encyclopedic article on this topic. For an article considered 'high importance,' my personal opinion is that many sections of this article require complete rewriting. Spaysing (talk) 05:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge and Rewrite

There's a banner stating that this article hs been proposed for a merge with the Intravenous Drug Use entry - I think that a rewrite could negate this, in that skin popping and intramuscular injection should be addressed here and aren't yet. It the scope of this article is going to be just IV drug injection, then I agree that it should be merged, but it could operate as a higher-level document. I also think that the instructional tone of this needs to be changed, and am willing to help out on that aspect. Is everyone cool with my broadening of the subject and cleaning up language and citations? I can do sections and propose them here, or just edit the main article. Regards Shamanchill (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't have 2 articles with redundant content though. Maybe we should merge the intravenous drug use article into this one, rather than vice versa (although that one's better written at the moment). But yeah, you have a good point. --Galaxiaad (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Somehow unclean

"In many societies there is a social stigma attached to IV drug use, in addition to the more general stigma around illegal drug use and addiction. Many people feel that it is somehow "unclean" to take drugs in such a manner, even though they may be perfectly comfortable taking them by another route. This may be because of its perceived prevalence in inner cities and with lower-income people."

The above passage seems to be written by one of those bores who make the whole legalization of drugs conversations so tiresome. The reason those people might find it "unclean" might be the undoubted increased short term risk. Although there are undoubtedly risks with all drug taking routes, you can't for example get endocarditis or an aneurism from other routes, to pick 2 examples. This cod-sociology may be true but it doesn't take away from the fact that people are right to think that IV drug use is a) dangerous and b) "unclean". So to put it down to some sort of drug taking snobbery is disingenuous at best. Also it's not like pipes, cigarette smoking or indeed strong alcoholic drinks aren't associated with inner cities and with lower-income people. Hope this helps.81.103.235.20 (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see discussion here, since that's where the banner points. --Scray (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• The merge was done August 11, 2009. However, the Talk pages were not merged. Anyone reading this page could also read Talk:Intravenous_drug_use_(recreational). - Steve3849 ^talk 07:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Cooking

I edited the procedure section about cooking (heating), mainly removing details that I believe are untrue. If someone wants to add back details, they should find sources. The section said that amphetamines "should not" be heated, but I have spoken to several meth addicts and they all heat meth if it is hard to dissolve. This is original research so I did not include it, I just removed the statement which I believed to be untrue. In general, IV drug users will heat any drug if it is necessary to dissolve it. Amphetamine and methamphetamine are perfectly stable when heated, as evidenced by the fact that meth can be smoked.
Fluoborate (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

X-Ray image violates neutrality?

THe x-ray image of a needle broken off in a drug user's arm is of questionable relevance at best. Having been involved with the drug using community for nearly a decade in a harm reduction context, I have not once heard of a needle breaking off in someone's arm. With the needles we distribute to users in my city, I'm not even sure how it would be possible unless someone intended it to be there. With older needle designs it is a little more understandable, as the needle bores often were not made with as pliable a material and possibly weren't secured to the syringe as reliably. Additionally, older designs were often intended to be reused and repeated use could of course cause wear on the bore; with modern designs, I could see this happening, however only with very long-term repeated use that most IV drug users simply don't engage in. At least not in areas with adequate access to harm reduction programs.

I can only think that the image is there for shock value, or with a misguided attempt to dissuade potential or current users. Why not use an image of someone actually using drugs intravenously, which is a little more on-the-nose? Or perhaps move the image to the "risks" or "disadvantages" section? It is not the common experience for drug users to have a needle break off in their arm (honestly, after interacting with thousands of clients, I've not heard of this happening once and have only heard of it through movies and biographical accounts of early IV drugs users many decades in the past). The image gives the impression that it is more common than it actually is, and a greater risk than it actually is; I strongly suspect it is placed there to further negative and inaccurate stereotypes of drug use and/or drug users. 23.233.58.250 (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Drug injection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://harmreduction.org/pubs/pamphlets/AIVLsafer_injecting.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.alcoholandwork.adf.org.au/article_print.asp?ContentID=filtering_licit_and_illicit_dr
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071207163530/http://www.unodc.org:80/india/ to http://www.unodc.org/india

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

New section devoted to proper needle disposal

Would like to add information for safe disposal of used needles including needle exchange programs and safe inject sites. (Srmyers1022 (talk) Highlight new technologies in needle disposal techniques such as the needle exchange vending machines in Las Vegas. (Raymondtotah (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC))

1. I think the edits this group made to their article meets their goals of adding information about safe disposal and exchange programs. The harm reduction section is easy to follow and includes good examples of the implementation of harm reduction programs both in the US (Nevada) and out of the US (France). I will be answering question 2 which is about verifying whether the cited sources are freely accessible. All citations for the "Harm Reduction" section of the wiki article were accessible. One thing is citations [8], [11], and [13] are the same source and same with [7] and [12]. Is it possible to consolidate this by using the same reference number when a source is cited again? Aside from that, I think this group did a great job and utilized easily accessible government pages well. Aasetiawan (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2017

2. The overall quality of the harm reduction section was improved by updated information regarding specific needle exchange/disposal programs. Changes that were made corresponded to the goals that were originally stated. These edits provide unbiased information and reflect a neutral point of view.Yp90 (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

3. I think this group did a really thorough job in describing harm reduction and safe disposal, including not only the technical details on what each entails but also providing historical context and real-life examples for each topic. I will be assessing whether or not the edits are formatted in a way that is consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. I think this group did a good job in terms of adhering to the Wikipedia manual of style, and keeping their sections organized and easy to follow. There are a few minor spelling errors such as "as well [ass] increase their chances of getting a serious infection" and "The idea behind [hard] reduction approaches..." Other than that, I think this group did a great job using lay language and making these topics easy to understand for the general public. Annieyan (talk) 06:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

4. The edits made to the Harm Reduction section and the addition of the Risks section are of high quality and improve the breadth and depth of information on drug injection - great work! I have also reviewed the source materials and found no evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation. All content added was stated in the author's own voice. Mcfang (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)