Talk:Recreational drug use/Archive 1

Sugar

Coming hot off of Halloween and observing my daughter get "high" on sugar, I have to ask: Why shouldnt we have sugar listed as a recreational drug? Yes, when used in moderation, it is a standard part of a diet -- but when concentrated into little candies, especially when taken in excess, it is being used as a recreational drug. I added it to the list once before, and somebody reverted it... I really think it should be part of the list of top used recreational drugs and stay there, because it is probably the most used recreational drug, which (especially when children are trained to (ab)use it), contributes to the obesity problem observed in western society today. Crackerjack (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Recreational Drugs?

What an euphemism! Cocaine as a "recreational" drug? C'mon!!!

Cocaine users and abusers donate bullets destined to the chest of peasants is South America... where is the fun in this? Shame on whoever wrote this article. I'll edit it till the end of time to give some perspective.

The list of tasteless "recreation" just keeps growing with other illegal drugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.164.45.101 (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that cocaine kills its daily users at a level 1/3rd of that of alcohol citation needed. You don't like the word because of politics. You might not like gay sex either, but that is recreation to some. ClintJCL (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

weeh.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.76.215.203 (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, .... I agree. This is useless. things like "Critics tend to be inexperienced with drugs, especially in the case of the 'escapist' argument." ... what's that for?? There's no reference to some actual survey or anything. I was thinking about printing this out and using it for an english class (english as a second language) since kids were asking me about drugs in america. This article isn't "encyclopedic" at all, it's an opinion piece. No matter how much I might agree or disagree with points made, this isn't usable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.110.19 (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

Tobacco and caffeine are recreational drugs. Just like alcohol, cannabis and any other drug out there. Humans consume tobacco and caffeine in their free time for their own pleasure, not to serve any spiritual or medicinal cause.
The only reason not to classify them both as "recreational drugs" is because most people who consume them are actualy (and ironically) don't want to have the stigma of drug users (even though they're consuming psychoactive and addictive drugs). --~Magnolia Fen (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

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.

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)

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)

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)

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 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). Millions of illicit drug users exist in the United States who have never faced prosecution. Many American police officers don't bother enforcing possession laws on those holding small quantities of "soft drugs".

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 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).

Josh 22:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)
        • I refute both claims. In many areas it is actually legal to maintain small quantities of such drugs, even if the the sale of such things is illegal. This could be cited as evidence of the law legitimizing officers overlooking small quanities of drugs. - Fearless Son (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2007 (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)

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)

Okay, most of this discussion was made in January, and the major consensus seems to have been to drop the list and replace it with a paragraph. It is now November and the list is still there. Why has it not been changed yet? - Fearless Son (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly due to recreational drug use. Go ahead and make the change.

Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 19:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I agree we need to define recreational right away, and that we stay on point with recreational use. It should be noted most natural drugs have use medicinally, spirtually or for recreation. Drugs like Mescaline, or LSD are hard to categorize as recreational drugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Pot Snob (talk • contribs) 01:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Statistics request

I came to this article looking for statistics on how many people use various drugs. I was listening to a program about meth abuse and was wondering how usage compared to other drugs. This information is highly useful when formulating public policy, so I strongly disagree with the the idea that the list of recreational drugs should be deleted. -- Beland 01:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move this page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Recreational drug use → Drug use — that disambiguation page is pretty useless, especially because (as the article states) "there is much controversy on where the dividing line lies on the spectrum from a drug user to a drug abuser" —Ewlyahoocom 18:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose - There is medical drug use and that shouldn't be confused with this. Reginmund 19:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  Sure there is, but who calls that "drug use"? Anyways, the proposed dablink (see below) would take care of that. Ewlyahoocom 20:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per Reinmund. There are other types of drug use, such as experimental, criminal (of other kinds), etc. 70.55.202.72 01:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

  Too bad we don't have a good overview page which could compare all those things in one place. And none of those things are on the page that's currently at Drug use. Ewlyahoocom 07:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per Reginmund. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

If this page gets moved, this hatnote should be inserted at the top: {{For|use of drugs to treat disease|Medication}} Ewlyahoocom 18:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What has happened to WP over the last six months? This appears to be just other example of change for changes sake. What rational (that hasn't already been discussed) is being put forward for this? Arguing more and more about pointless changes is taking up more time than worth while editing.--Aspro 18:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There's currently a few hundred "ambiguous" links to the Drug use disambiguation page, all either intending Recreational drug use or Drug abuse. Rather than duplicating this article at that location, I believe it would make more sense to move this article to that location and expand it slightly -- especially since, according to this article, "there is much controversy on where the dividing line lies on the spectrum from a drug user to a drug abuser"). Ewlyahoocom 20:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As you seem to support the proposed change Ewlyahoocom, can you please demystify just what the proposers point is, What is the benefit to be expected?--Aspro 21:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

("the proposer"? I am the proposer.) The benefit is clarity, and it would also eliminate the problem of the "ambiguous" links. Ewlyahoocom 02:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Clarity:
  

Were that the case, I'm sure it would have been done that way already. I don't happen to like this page much myself, for one-thing: I don't think the list of drugs serves any real purpose. Also, there is almost nothing in the text about the very convincing psychological explanations that have been put forward. However, a common problem is that many come to this topic unaware of the nuances to be considered. Many (and I think others will back me up on this) are grossly misinformed when they do arrive. If it was all on one page they would more than likely wade straight in and try and get it to agree with any diatribe they might have just read in the newspaper or seen on tv. A disambiguation page at least makes the point that there are separate divisions and encourages them to engage 'brain' before 'fingers'. Also, for those who might not have thought about it very deeply before, (and it is for the Reader after all) less confusing to consider each phenomena separately. It might not be the best way of doing it but its the best so far.

• "ambiguous" links (as you refer to them):
  

Your confusing the physical 'act' with the psychological 'intent'. Example: War fatalities, capital punishment and unintentional manslaughter would be best dealt with as separate articles because the 'intent is different in each and is treated separately in law. However, a disambiguation page 'Violent death' could have all three, because all three could involve physical trauma.

Therefore, 'drug use' simple serves as a neutral phrase of convenience, for the 'intent' which maybe be clear from the text of the article in which it is used. In any event: responsibility for clarity is -in the first instance- with the article, in which the phrase is used. --Aspro 17:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Uncited, POV

This article seems to be full of uncited, POV statements but the thing that strikes me is this: "Critics tend to be inexperienced with drugs, especially in the case of the 'escapist' argument. Those who are experienced and have quit tend to be more understanding, unless they've struggled with addiction." That just reeks of opinion. 71.236.96.225 (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This text has since been removed. -- Beland (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Opening sentences

Is the meaning casual drug use what is intended by the opening sentence, in the sense of drug use without motivation from any authority (medical, work-related, spiritual, or whatever)?
Laurel Bush (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not what is intended. However, casual drug use is such a broad term that it can encompass the more specific recreational drug use.

Maybe this example might make it clearer: Do you recall in the 1954 film Doctor in the House. Sir Lancelot Spratt, whilst demonstrating the art of butchery upon the living, bawls out to Benskin Mr. Anaesthetist, if the patient can stay awake during the operation, so can you!" Now: taking a few crafty sniffs of gas (intended for the patient) is also 'casual drug use' but since he was at work, it also falls into the sub-category of drug abuse, maybe even addiction. However, were Benskin to do the same in his leisure time, the 'parent category' would be Recreational drug use. Depending upon his leisure time usage, it may then be further sub categorised -as say drug/substance abuse.

To strain the point a little, and to demonstrate a shade of grey: In the 1950s and '60s Casual drug use was common within the fraternity of long distance truck drivers (especially on the out-back roads of Australia). They would keep a bottle of 'Benzedrine' handy -in case they found themselves nodding off. Doctors would willingly prescribe them (theses same drugs back then were considered 'good and useful'). However, this for casual use was indicated on the prescription as pro re nata. As this practice was not written up in any of the transport companies Policy Notes it falls (in some peoples minds) outside the class of drug use, that describes military personnel using drugs for the same purposes.

It sounds from your comment, that it may help these articles on drugs if these distinctions were made clearer. --Aspro (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheers
The truck driver example appears to me to be more ad hoc than casual, and on medical authority but without clear specific diagnosis at a time when medical professionals seemed freer to prescribe for what might now be called performance enhancement
I guess such professionals within armed forces still feel very free to prescribe for this reason
As for Mr Anaesthetist’s work practice, whether or not it is drug abuse, it looks like abuse of a tool of trade and of a work place, as would be a surgeon’s use of theatre instruments to cut his own finger nails or to trim the hair of a theatre nurse, but I guess the latter might not have been viewed as a serious offence at a time when surgeons were also barbers
A particular GP’s use of diamorphine to murder many of his patients was, to my mind, definitely drug abuse, as well as abuse of a tool of trade
Back to Mr Anaesthetist:
Seems to me he is guilty of recreational abuse of a tool of trade, a workplace, the trust of a colleague, and the trust of client
He might want to plead drug addiction, perhaps brought on by his working environment, in mitigation
A bit like a banker using a bank computer to gamble online, except that seems, these days, to be almost a banker's job description
I still seem to have recreational as equivalent to casual
However, consider the medically-qualified sports coach who, in some nameless jurisdiction, feels free to prescribe drugs for performance enhancement, and includes amongst his clients people whose sports interest is essentially recreational
There I can see potential for recreational drug use which is not casual, by my definition of the latter
Laurel Bush (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The opening sentences still look very muddled to me, perhaps representing opinion that the expression 'recreational drug use' is usually a misnomer for drug abuse
Also: why only psychoactive drugs?
This seems to exclude, for example, use of other drugs to enhance recreational sexual and sporting performance
I suggest the following:

Recreational drug use is drug use with the intention of creating or enhancing recreational experience
Such use is usually controversial, however, often being considered to be also drug abuse, and it is often illegal
Also, it may overlap with other uses, such as medicinal (including self medication), performance enhancement, and entheogenic (spiritual)
Therefore categorising a particular instance of drug use as recreational may be controversial
Drugs commonly considered capable of recreational use include alcohol and tobacco, and drugs within the scope of the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and Convention on Psychotropic Substances
That cafeine use may be considered recreational is often overlooked

Laurel Bush (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have decided to try making the change I have suggested
Laurel Bush (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
I seem to have lost my erstwhile capacity to use full stops
Maybe I should run a check on effects and side effects of drugs I am using
Caffeine might be top of my list
Laurel Bush (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Caffeine (and nicotine for that matter) tend to lean towards the utilitarian side of things, which are sort of like performance enhancing drugs, but without the negative connotations (i.e. a cup of coffee to help keep you alert). --Thoric (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

ethanol prohibtion

i was ammazed to see that "certain theocratic systems disallow the use of this substance" prohibit caffeine but whereas ethanol didn't get the same remark, ethanol is prohibited by Islam and some islamic states (such as Saudi arabia and Iran) prohibit its consumption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.250.226 (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Lists

Have moved some of the long lists of what drugs are included in what groups to their respective subpages.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Citation Verification

(Part of the WikiProject Medicine effort)

Background section

• The UN single convention on narcotic drugs was in the early 1960’s and never even used the term “recreational drug”. Thus, it is not sufficient to say that “Drugs commonly considered capable of recreational use include alcohol and tobacco, and drugs within the scope of the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and Convention on Psychotropic Substances”. The National Institute on Drug Abuse has nice tables of drugs of abuse (many of which are used recreationally).

http://www.drugabuse.gov/DrugPages/DrugsofAbuse.html

Definition

• The definition section is misleading because it is not about recreational drug use at all; It is solely about responsible drug use. This section could easily be rewritten to provide a clear explanation of what recreational drug use actually is.

• The citation needed at the end of the first paragraph could be An Introduction to Community Health By James F. McKenzie, Robert R. Pinger and Jerome E. Kotecki. Pg 345

http://books.google.com/books?id=WDZ-vrgN5GoC&pg=PA345&dq=what+is+drug+abuse&cd=10#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20drug%20abuse&f=false

• The current cite "Failed states and failed policies, How to stop the drug wars". The Economist. 2009-03-05. http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=13237193. Retrieved 2009-03-10 is only available to subscribers of the Economist. It could be replaced with one of the following sites, which explain medical consequences of drug abuse:

http://www.drugabuse.gov/infofacts/DrugAbuse.html or http://www.drugabuse.gov/consequences/

Drugs

The current cite Lingeman, Drugs from A-Z A Dictionary, Penguin ISBN 0 7139 0136 5 is old and outdated.

• The table from NIDA could work here (i.e., the suggested reference from the background section) if the list of drugs was modified. Otherwise, Buzzed: The Straight Facts About the Most Used and Abused Drugs from Alcohol to Ecstasy, Fully Revised and Updated Third Edition By Cynthia Kuhn, Scott Swartzwelder, and Wilkie Wilson is a good reference.

http://books.google.com/books?id=0SjhNDtBerYC&pg=PA140&dq=most+common+inhalant+user&cd=3#v=onepage&q=most%20common%20inhalant%20user&f=false

• The current cite MAOI action of Beta-Carbolines in Tobacco, http://www.biopsychiatry.com/maoi-smoke.htm mentions beta-carbolines and tobacco but it is essentially irrelevant to the sentence. In addition, it is a primary research study. I do not think this sentence requires a reference.

Depressants

• Current cite "MSDS Glossary". http://www.utexas.edu/safety/ehs/msds/glossary/?page=d. Retrieved 2009-01-01 is just a list of definitions from the University of Texas that happens to include depressant. The following site is a more specific reference: http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/Drug_Guide/Depressants
• “Depressants are widely used throughout the world as prescription medicines and as illicit substances” needs a citation. I suggest the following site: http://www.drugabuse.gov/drugpages/prescription.html
• “When these are used, effects may include anxiolysis, analgesia, sedation, somnolence, cognitive/memory impairment, dissociation, muscle relaxation, lowered blood pressure/heart rate, respiratory depression, anesthesia, and anticonvulsant effects” needs a citation. The website suggested above, http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/Drug_Guide/Depressants, will work here as well.

Antihistamines

• “Their recreational appeal exists mainly due to their anticholinergic properties, that induce hallucinations and possibly delirium resembling Datura stramonium poisioning if the drug is taken in higher than therapeutical dosages” needs a citation. There are not a lot of general references on antihistamine abuse or recreational use. I would suggest adding in some specific examples of antihistamine recreational use, such as Benadryl and Dramamine and reference those.

Tranquilizers

• Some of the drugs and/or drug classes listed under tranquilizers could also go under depressants. Many of the GABAergics are sedative/hypnotic drugs (i.e., depressants).
• Also, quetiapine does not really fit in this list because it is an antipsychotic, which could be a whole other class of recreational drugs. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18359967

Hallucinogens

• “Deliriants, such as diphenhydramine and atropine, may cause hallucinations in the proper sense.” I put citation needed at the end of this sentence, but really I think a general citation for the whole paragraph is appropriate. I have included two excellent references: Hallucinogens: The Dangers of Distorted Reality (Drug Abuse and Society) By Daniel Harmon http://books.google.com/books?id=hys1yyTgDUYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=hallucinogens&cd=4#v=onepage&q&f=false and a website from the DEA http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/abuse/8-hallu.htm
• “In some US states and on some reservations, certain hallucinogens such as peyote are classified as part of recognized religious ceremonies and are therefore considered legal if used in such ceremonies.” Needs a citation. The following website shows states that legally allow peyote for religious purposes: http://www.peyote.net/archive/law.htm
• “Starting in the mid-20th century, psychedelic drugs have been the object of extensive attention in the Western world. They have been and are being explored as potential therapeutic agents in treating depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, Obsessive-compulsive disorder, alcoholism and opioid addiction” needs a reference. There are lots of research articles out there but the following websites are a nice simple summary: http://health.howstuffworks.com/mental-illness-hallucinogens2.htm

http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2010/research-revived-on-using.html

• I moved phencyclidine from the list of dissociatives to the list of deliriants. Most, if not all, textbooks have PCP as the prototypical deliriant hallucinogen. I have included one example for reference. Pharmacology By Joanne I. Moore and H. Dix Christensen, p. 110-111.

http://books.google.com/books?id=UUcle96C5CMC&pg=PA111&dq=deliriant+hallucinogens&cd=3#v=onepage&q=deliriant%20hallucinogens&f=false

Stimulants

• “Stimulants are widely used throughout the world as prescription medicines and as illicit substances of recreational use or abuse” needs a reference. The following websites are excellent references: http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/abuse/5-stim.htm and http://www.justice.gov/dea/concern/stimulants.html
• Also, I think the examples of stimulants could be more specific. For example, ritalin, methamphetamine and cocaine are widely used stimulants.

“Common effects may include increased alertness, awareness, wakefulness, endurance, productivity, and motivation, arousal, locomotion, heart rate, and blood pressure, and a diminished desire for food and sleep” needs a citation.

• A website by NIDA would work perfectly here. http://teens.drugabuse.gov/facts/facts_stim1.php

Inhalants

• “While some "inhalant" drugs are used for medical purposes, as in the case of nitrous oxide, a dental anaesthetic, inhalants are used as recreational drugs for their intoxicating effect” needs a reference.
  • The following websites are nice: http://www.drugabuse.gov/DrugPages/Inhalants.html and http://teens.drugabuse.gov/facts/facts_inhale1.php

Current cite Epidemiology of Inhalant Abuse: An International Perspective, 148 needs to be modified. The reference actually states that “The most serious form of obsession with inhalant use probably occurs in countries other than the United States where young children live on the streets completely without family ties. These groups almost always use inhalants at very high levels (Leal et al. 1978). While the United States does not have a significant population of young, inhalant-abusing “street kids” such as those found in some other countries, there are children in the United States who are obsessed with inhalant use.”

• A better reference is Pharmacology and Treatment of Substance Abuse: Evidence and Outcome Based Perspectives (Counseling and Psychotherapy) By Lee Cohen, Frank L. Collins Jr., Alice Young, Dennis E. McChargue, Thad. R leffingwell, and Katrina L. Cook. p. 377 http://books.google.com/books?id=bsthAVJpvOcC&pg=PA377&dq=most+common+inhalant+user&cd=4#v=onepage&q=youth%20and%20inhalant&f=false or

http://inhalants.org/charac.htm Current cite http://www.gdcada.org/statistics/inhalants.htm is a broken link. Current cite http://www.gdcada.org/statistics/inhalants.htm in the image Smoking any tobacco product, %, Males is incorrect.

• The Map should reference the WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic. Here is the 2009 version http://www.who.int/tobacco/mpower/en/index.html

Current cite Global Status Report on Alcohol 2004 in the figure of total recorded alcohol per capita consumption (15+), in litres of pure alcohol is not the primary source.

• I think this graph was generated from data in this report (the actual figure is not in the report) but the data is originally from FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), World Drink Trends 2003. So that should probably be referenced.

Demographics, United States

• The sentence “Drug use has increased in all categories since prohibition” said citation needed. I think this sentence should be removed entirely because it is confusing and, if I am interpreting it correctly, untrue.
• Current cite Charles Whitebread: The History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States is outdated and not specific to the sentence it references. Here is a more current source. http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html
• Cite Inciardi, James A. (1992). The War on Drugs II. Mayfield Publishing Company. p. 42. ISBN 1-55934-016-9. could not be verified.
• Cite Controlling Cocaine: Supply Versus Demand Programs could not be verified but I do not think this sentence is pertinent. I am not sure what the relevance of cocaine increasing between 1972 and 1988 is because cocaine use is currently decreasing.
• The sentence “The usage patterns of the current two most prevalent drugs, methamphetamine and ecstasy, have shown similar gains” needed a citation. It was also false (methamphetamine and ecstasy are not the most prevalent drugs and their use is not increasing); thus, it was changed to “The usage pattern of methamphetamine is significantly dropping in teens, and the usage pattern of ecstasy is not currently rising.” The citation for methamphetamine use is http://www.nida.nih.gov/InfoFacts/methamphetamine.html and the reference for ecstasy use is http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/ecstasy.html

See Also

• I think that Substance Abuse should be added to the “see also” list. Many drugs used recreationally fall into the same list of common Drugs of abuse.

I hope these sources will be of assistance in the efforts to improve this wiki. Tarheeltoxin (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Straight Edge and PDFA

"Also, there are many anti-drug movements, specifically Straight Edge and The Partnership For A Drug Free America, calling for the continuation of its current illegality."

Is there a source for this? I don't see anything in the Straight Edge wikipedia article about it, nor did a brief web search turn up anything. Straight Edge, AFAICT, is about a personal choice independent of legality, e.g., it includes abstention from even legal drugs. PDFA's page says it's a group for helping parents to stop drug use in children, directly and through advertising media. Both these appear to be anti-drug groups but attempting to achieve this through personal, familial, or advertising methods, not law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.72.2 (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

ranking (how harmful are drugs?)

I'm missing a section that provides information about the dangers of the most important substances. What does science say about the harmfulness of drugs? Here is the latest ranking as published on November 1, 2010 in the medical journal "The Lancet".

1. Alcohol, overall harm score 72
2. Heroin, overall harm score 55
3. Crack, overall harm score 54
4. Crystal meth, overall harm score 33
5. Cocain, overall harm score 27
6. Tobacco, overall harm score 26
7. Speed/amphetamines, overall harm score 23
8. Cannabis, overall harm score 20
9. BHB, overall harm score 18
10. Valium (benzodiazepines), overall harm score 15
11. Ketamine, overall harm score 15
12. Mephedrone, overall harm score 13
13. Butane, overall harm score 10
14. Khat, overall harm score 9
15. Ecstasy, overall harm score 9
16. Anabolic steroids, overall harm score 9
17. LSD, overall harm score 7
18. Buprenorphine, overall harm score 6
19. Mushrooms, overall harm score 5

• The most harmful drugs to the individual are heroin, crack and crystal meth
• The most harmful drugs to others are alcohol, heroin and crack

Source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/206300.php We should add this to the article. What do you think? --spitzl (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ecstasy

MDMA is not directly mentioned in the whole article, and yet is a major concern for the DEA in the US. I'm thinking there should be at least a mention of it, maybe under Entactogens in the stimulants section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.140.92 (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Et tu, Elephant?

We seem to have considered just Homo sapiens at the expense of the rest of the animal kingdom. Perhaps the validity of the "fourth drive" would be better demonstrated if some animal studies can be included as well. It would further show that mankind are not unique. A brief preamble of some examples can be seen in this article: The animal world has its junkies too.The Pharmaceutical Journal 2010;285:723 --Aspro (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Potential harm of commonly used drugs based on a study by David Nutt, 2007 and 2010

Scientists have started to assess the potential harm of drugs. Here is a ranking according to the results of a recent study, published on November 1, 2010 in the medical journal "The Lancet".

1. Alcohol, overall harm score 72
2. Heroin, overall harm score 55
3. Crack, overall harm score 54
4. Crystal meth, overall harm score 33
5. Cocain, overall harm score 27
6. Tobacco, overall harm score 26
7. Speed/amphetamines, overall harm score 23
8. Cannabis, overall harm score 20
9. BHB, overall harm score 18
10. Valium (benzodiazepines), overall harm score 15
11. Ketamine, overall harm score 15
12. Mephedrone, overall harm score 13
13. Butane, overall harm score 10
14. Khat, overall harm score 9
15. Ecstasy, overall harm score 9
16. Anabolic steroids, overall harm score 9
17. LSD, overall harm score 7
18. Buprenorphine, overall harm score 6
19. Mushrooms, overall harm score 5

• The most harmful drugs to the individual are heroin, crack and crystal meth
• The most harmful drugs to others are alcohol, heroin and crack

Source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/206300.php

Visualizations of the results already exist in the German Wikipedia. Maybe the user behind these graphics is willing to provide them also in English. Currently the article is missing a section that deals with the potential harm of the most commonly used drugs. We should fix that. --spitzl (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Ireland?

Is the paragraph about ireland really necessary? Is the demographic section required at all? I suggest either removing this section, or re-writing/expanding it. 65.39.29.43 (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

stimulants

Why is the stimulants section missing caffeine, cocaine and amphetamines (especially dextroamphetamine/adderall, and methamphetamine/desoxyn)? Their among the most commonly used drugs! Not to mention some of the more potent stimulant examples... MunkyJuce69 (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget WP:BOLD. Feel free to add it. Pascal (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Rename

I propose we rename this to "Elicit Recreational Drugs" and get rid of things like caffeine. This is what most people think when they see this page, and caffeine. Just... caffeine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Is the cake really a lie? (talk • contribs) 22:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Erm... Caffeine is a drug. It is taken recreationally. Therefore it deserves inclusion. In fact, it is the most commonly used recreational drug. Also, it's spelt "illicit".Pascal (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"From Legal Source"

I noticed some of the pictures are captioned with "from legal source." "Legal?" Since when does wikipedia give a fuck about any country's laws about anything? I'm taking the captions out. --96.236.193.225 (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Cocktail 03.jpg

This image needs removed from the gallery asap. The images saturation has been increased ridiculously giving a false impression as to what alcohol looks like. This is not an article on art or adobe photoshop so altered images have no place here. 173.188.7.24 (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

NPV

This article reads like an ad for recreational drug use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.155.114 (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Why, because it doesn't have enough D.A.R.E. and scare tactics? C6541 (T↔C) 05:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Gallery

Expanded gallery to show images for each significant drug mentioned in article. GHB has no usable image, though. wait, i just found one.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Change article name to Intoxicative drug use?

Does the current article name represent a false distinction between medicine and recreation
created by an anti-intoxication movement which characterizes – demonises - intoxicative drug use as drug abuse?

Should we believe that medicines only exists because there are medical professionals who prescribe them
which seems to be the implication of modern use of the expression drug abuse?

Would the article be better placed under Intoxicative drug use?

Laurel Bush (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, as defined in the first sentence of the article, the concept of taking a drug for recreational purposes is a clearly intentional on the user's part even if the substance used is prescribed by a physician. To me, "intoxicative" is much more difficult to define, as substances which are ingested as medical necessity may also come with side effects which alter the mind or body, which are in no way desired on the user's part. Boogerpatrol (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Perhaps the self-medication article is what I should be looking at
It seems to have a lot of professional medical bias
Laurel Bush (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that all these terms are biased and subjective: recreational, responsible, intoxicative, toxic, medicinal, drug abuse. By creating this article, WP editors seem to be trying to draw boundaries between good and bad, healthy and unhealthy, helpful and unhelpful, spontaneous and ritualistic, and innocuous and anti-social. However, an encyclopedia should be as objective as possible, so why don't we combine this article with the negative opinions all together in an article "Psycho-active drug use"? Korky Day (talk)

Recreational and responsible drug use puzzle

I am puzzled by the way the Definition section refers to Responsible drug use as the main article

Does this mean that responsible and recreational use are the same thing and, therefore, we should have one article, not two, or that recreational drug use is necessarily responsible and, therefore, a subset of responsible drug use, or what?

Laurel Bush (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the section title
Laurel Bush (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

fix brackets at end of first paragragh

I understand why this article is locked, and I think it's a good idea to keep it so. The result should be a more objective and professional-looking entry, but in this case, there is a simple editing error which produces the opposite effect.

quoting:

Understood broadly, this is [recreation]].

That is how it actually reads. I'm pretty sure that what was meant was:

Understood broadly, this is recreation.

with the double brackets escaping out as an internal link. I hope someone regularly monitors this page and can make this easy, practically one-keystroke fix, which I would if the article weren't locked which it is and I'm not complaining about.

my sig:

<{: )}> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.67.211 (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

alcohol not consumed by whom?

Under Types: Common Drugs: second bullet, ethanol: religious proscription of alcohol is described as follows:

not consumed by members of some religions.

Use of the contrapositive is not as transparent as it might be. If alcohol is forbidden, are those who consume it no longer adherents to Islam, LDS, or some other christian sects? Naming the prohibiting religions is not my intention, nor is assessing the imperiled state of the soul of any particular adherent, which I think we can agree is beyond the scope of an objective reference work. But if you think about it, the statement "Alcohol is prohibited, and therefore not consumed by muslims" is as misleading as, "methamphetamine is not consumed in the United States, because it is illegal."

the logical conundrum (whether "not by all" or "not by some" is meant) could be solved by:

not consumed by some members of some religions.

But I find this to be awkward and unsatisfactory, as well as unelucidating. Here is my suggestion for an alternative, using the "many" to cover a multitude of indiscretions:

forbidden by some religions: therefore not consumed by many of their adherents, or consumed only clandestinely.

I cannot edit this article, as it is locked, which I still agree with, but I hope someone who checks here occasionally will see the merit of this edit and include it. Thank you.

my sig:

<{: )}> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.67.211 (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

dd

Under the heading, "Drugs which can be smoked," there are two subheadings. The first, "Plants" seems straightforward. This is the second subheading:

Substances (also not necessarily psychoactive plants soaked with them):

I hate to make a joke here, about what the person was smoking when they wrote this, because that might be seen as ad hominem, and if it was the result of multiple edits, it might be more accurate to say that it was Wikipedia itself (herself?) whose mind was temporarily addled.

At first I thought it meant, "These substances can be smoked, and some of them come from plants, some of which also can be smoked, and some can't." I thought, that's confusing, but it could be cleared up. Methamphetamine can be smoked, and the amphetamines are derived from the ephedra plant. I've never heard of anyone smoking ephedra, so maybe that was what "not necessarily" meant.

I have heard that dimethyltryptamine (DMT) has been mixed with spearmint tea leaves, and then smoked, and perhaps that is what the writer intended by "Substances (also not necessarily psychoactive plants soaked with them)." Almost anything can be considered a "substance" and many of these substances are combustible, so it is technically true that any drug can be added to anything that burns and the resulting smoke can be inhaled, but in many if not most cases the results would be much less than salubrious, and I think that this could be asserted, without affecting the "neutrality" of the article. For example, the San Francisco Oracle reported, tongue in cheek, that banana peels could be dried in an oven and then smoked, and this has been repeated seriously in many publications, but has no basis in truth and I hope does not belong in this article unless a new section is created called "ways people have tried unsuccessfully to get high," which I am not recommending.

I guess the structural problems with this article have been discussed, but if the talk pages have not been locked, then I haven't been able to find them. Without getting too deeply into the pros and cons, the article becomes a list, of various mind-altering drugs, their methods of administration, and something about their effects, and I want to go on record stating that I think this sort of list has value. It's a basic reference tool which others can build on in various ways. But by "structural problems" I mean this: First the drugs are listed as "most popular" and "other popular." What the basis for the division is, is not clear, but this is not a crucial flaw. Following the list of drugs by, I suppose, descending order of popularity -- or perhaps degree of unfamiliarity by the non-drug-using, English-speaking public -- is a list by method of administration. There is definitely some overlap here, e.g. all inhalants are inhaled, but I see inhalants listed in three places. Types of drug lists: (quoting)

inhalants – solvents, propellants and fumes of glues containing these, but also nitrous oxide (laughing gas), Poppers (alkyl nitrites), diethyl ether and others (see also the section about them)

Perhaps this could say, "see below." I suggest this change because the next section, "Routes of administration," says, "inhalation – all inhalants (listed above), as the name suggests". The problem here is that if you try the link, inhalation, which I have faithfully checked as the previous editor did not, you are led to the WP page on the act of respiration by living organisms, and not the WP page intoxicative inhalant which is a much more comprehensive article which also makes the distinction between the huffing of solvent-based fumes and nitrous oxide. Although Nitrous can completely "put you out," which is why it is used as an anaesthetic in surgery, there is no lethal dose. The huffing of aerosol, petroleum fuel or other solvent fumes is, however, as cited in the WP article, "more likely to result in life-threatening respiratory depression" than heroin, a point that I hope can be emphasized somewhere in a revision of this article.

Back to the heading, "Routes of administration," the first entry says, in part:

but almost every substance (with some exceptions) can be injected

I find this statement to be troubling. Marijuana cannot be injected. Opium cannot be injected. The mold from my grandmother's refrigerator could be scraped and dissolved in sterile water and cooked in a spoon and injected -- but it would probably kill me before it made me see the "wee people" and not after. I realize that, since most cultures, and most people in this culture, believe that self-injecting for recreation is an inherently dangerous activity -- and I'm not just talking about society-induced pressures of unsanitary conditions or adulterants, but also the actual danger inherent in getting high on pure drugs from spoon to arm for fun -- since people know that shooting is dangerous but some people do it anyway, it does not seem out of place to say, "some substances are not meant to be injected," and then perhaps list those that can -- or at least have been known to have been injected regularly by some people, some of whom have still lived past the age of 25. This article, although controversial, is a public service and saying, "almost every substance (with some exceptions) can be injected" is a disservice that I think can be easily avoided.

I hope to see some feedback on this and some of the other issues I've raised. Sorry I haven't logged in, but my IP is real and I don't mind being traced back, if such a thing is possible.

But apart from issues of public health and safety, my main beef is aesthetic. After listing types of drugs and then methods of administration, some of the information is sort of re-cross-referenced by listing

Drugs which can be smoked

And again, this classification into "plants" and the ever-objectionable

Substances (also not necessarily psychoactive plants soaked with them):

If anyone can tell me what this actually means, I will withdraw my objection.

I wish that material from the European Union's scientific re-evaluation of the relative lethality of substances could be included. It did not have the force of law, but was considered to be the basis for ongoing policy initiatives and perhaps contributed to the U.K. loosening the restrictions and penalties for marijuana use. From memory, it was the product of an international symposium in Switzerland in the early 1990's (because that was when I read it), and the results were similar, but not identical to, the U.K. graphic chart in the article.

Thanks for all the good work, and thanks for listening. Hello? Is anyone listening? <{: )} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.67.211 (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the article seems a bit 'off' to me...

I have a problem with most of this paragraph:

"Usage of recreational drugs has been associated with various types of individuals, including those who are depressed, curious, want to be risky, want to meditate, want an escape or coping, want to relax, bored, have low self-esteem, want to increase energy and decrease sluggishness, self-conscious, traumatized, socially anxious, have schizophrenia, lacking focus and concentration or wish to enhance their senses and sexual encounters."

It just seems like an odd list. Wouldn't it be better to group some of them together? Usage of drugs has been associated with those who have schizophrenia? Why so specific? You could list most if not all mental health problems, but I still don't understand it. It's basically saying more people with schizophrenia use drugs than those without, which as far as I'm aware isn't true, or at least not proven. I think depression, low self-esteem and self-consciousness would fall into this category too. To be honest I think the list should be deleted altogether and it say something like "People use drugs recreationally for a variety of reasons, which can vary depending on the substance used." Then the 'types of individuals' who use each substance can be summarized on their respective pages, rather than throwing them all in the same pot, so to speak. ElectricWizard 0 (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at the preview of the nearby source here, at page xvii, mentions enhanced pleasure and mitigating emotional & physical pain, and enhanced consciousness as primary motivators. If you reduce the long list of examples currently present in the lead these at least should probably stay as more generalized reasons. Boogerpatrol (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This kind of brings up another question regarding mental illness, drug use, and the tone of that paragraph: Should self-medication for mental ailments be implicitly painted with the same brush as recreational drug use? The goal of self-medication is to reduce suffering (from physical ailments, too), something that to me sounds decidedly non-recreational. At the very least, just a single link/mention of the concept wouldn't hurt. 174.55.184.14 (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a different concept. There's several other partially or completely disjoint categories of drug use besides medical/recreational. Ex: performance enhancing drug use (nootropics and ergogenics) or religious/cultural use. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 19:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Popular drugs section needs to be revised

This section seems to imply "recreational drugs" are synonymous with "illegal drugs". If nobody objects or has any other ideas, I would suggest to either revise the section to include all popular recreational drugs, legal or not, worldwide, or remove the section altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarriorLut (talk • contribs) 19:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read the section again. The top of the section states: "The following substances, all widely illegal unless stated otherwise, are ranked here in order of world-wide popularity". This is not implying anything. It seems clear enough. I don't understand what you mean. If the list is missing any notable substances, you should add them lower down, where it says "Some other well known substances:". (Preferably with sources). If they are legal, this should be mentioned (or else the statement at the top would be a lie.) zzz (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

There are more complete lists in "Further information". Unfortunately, these are unsourced and fairly disorganised. I intend to leave them for a while, and delete them if no one sorts them out. The "popular" list is just the most popular ones, and a few other important ones. It's not intended to be comprehensive: Further Info should have comprehensive lists (but, like I said, they need a lot of sorting out. Whoever did them didn't use references.)zzz (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Ps, lead pic is unconventional, but. She (appears to) justifies mass killing to "fight drugs", and shes in the top "drug job" in the US (after the president, maybe), and therefore arguably the world. I wish I could agree that a cup of coffee is just as relevant, but the article has very little to say about coffee. It's not a nice picture, obviously, but the DEA and Mexican drug war is a big deal, especially for this article, and it's not a nice war. Coffee has its own (large) article, (and so does caffeine).zzz (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This article has a lot of rich information that you, just staring a few days ago, chose to remove without prior consultation with the rest of the community. Please do not edit anymore without using the Talk page to discuss changes with those who are interested. WarriorLut (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I have added sections and not deleted any, so I hope that deals with your problem. 08:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

That is what you claim, but the edit history says otherwise. Note the scientific and historical content on the original article, compared to the content you are uploading which focuses mainly on legality and race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarriorLut (talk • contribs) 08:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I mentioned above, in my last reply, that I haven't deleted any sections of the old article. Possibly, you have got this article confused with a different one. Can you remember what the missing sections were about? When you find the correct page, they should be there either in the article itself, or in the "History". zzz (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please take a minute to review the original article from 3 weeks ago that is noticeably different from the content you are continually reverting back to. For starters, the original content's first paragraph stated "Recreational drug use is the use of a drug (legal, controlled, or illegal)," which was recently altered to "Recreational drug use is the use of a drug for entertainment." This is a dramatic difference in content and the latter is obviously a misguided blanket statement. The changes get more biased from that point on, besides the very little amount that was left untouched. Please do not remove my NPOV debate tag, as I am following the guidelines for ending this conflict. Thank you WarriorLut (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

"Recreational drug use is the use of a drug (legal, controlled, or illegal)," is a tautology. "Recreational drug use is the use of a drug for entertainment." - if you genuinely think this statement is "misguided", explain how.zzz (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Please update the article to represent drugs in all forms; medicinal, illegal and otherwise. The term Recreational Drug for the purposes of this article is beyond the scope of the general definition of the word recreation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarriorLut (talk • contribs) 09:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what you mean by "beyond the scope". How, exactly? And, is this a generally held view? I'm fairly certain that medicinal drugs have little or nothing to do with this article, by the way. Please explain why you think this is the case.zzz (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

And, thirdly, what relevance does the beyond-the-scope definition have for my misguided statement?zzz (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'll remove your tag, now that we're having this discussion to resolve your issues. And perhaps you might think about remove your abusive message which you placed at the top of this page earlier.zzz (talk) 09:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Nb. By "tautology", I mean tautology (rhetoric): - "a self-reinforcing pretense of significant truth". But tautology (grammar) - "the use of redundant words" - works also. Not tautology (logic), tho.zzz (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, whoever wrote the statement was not originally intending to use redundant words. It does happen quite frequently, I would guess because of not ultimately wanting to risk actually saying anything meaningful, in case it isn't found to be accurate or impartial in any respect. It is important to write what you mean, otherwise you end up writing pointless gibberish. There is no reason to complain about its loss.zzz (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Ps. It took me like 2 weeks (for some reason) to come up with "Recreational drug use is the use of a drug for entertainment." I think it's accurate. But obviously, I don't mind altering it if necessary. zzz (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

NB Any unreferenced statements in the lead are referenced in the rest of the article. I couldnt be bothered to move the sources around unnecessarily. But I can direct you to any source you require.zzz (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The introductory paragraphs of the article seem out of place

For instance, it has one paragraph of relevant information, then immediately goes on to talk predominantly about illegal drugs, particularly within the United States and Mexico, which would be better fit in the Prohibition section.

I would like to see more information on the actual topic of recreational drug use in it's many forms, legal and illegal, and possibly a brief introduction to the history of recreational drug use beyond the United States and the DEA.

Agreed. The entire intro needs attention. The millions of years of human usage statement is completely hyperbolic, and the presentation quickly descends into a distracting discussion of US-centric enforcement and social issues. The lede should summarize the key elements in the following sections. Perhaps we can get consensus by assmbling some appropriate replacement text here on the Talk page and then transfer it to the article in a single edit. It's difficult to keep track of changes when numerous small edits are being made in rapid succession, as has been happening recently. Thoughts? jxm (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Have you read the article? It mentions 200 million years. So "millions" is not hyperbolic.
• Added UK.
• If you want to criticize the speed of my edits, that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but it's not something you should waste this article's talk page with. zzz (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

That is an improvement. I never finished the "history" section, so it's not really possible to summarise it yet. I think everything is covered apart from that.zzz (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to human usage over millions of years. Thank you for the clarifying edit. jxm (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh. No problem. zzz (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Jxm on the point that this article would benefit from discussing the changes before they are made. Hundreds of tiny edits just minutes apart, as well as reverting content made by any other user is not beneficial to the article. WarriorLut (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

WarriorLut, you already stated your opinion in the unsigned message at the top of this section, and elsewhere. For the record: a fortnight ago, there was little or no article, just some unreferenced lists and vague opinions. The manner in which I corrected this is of no legitimate concern to anyone at this point. If I had deleted sections, that might have been an issue. But I didn't. I hope that is clear, now. zzz (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop making wild accusations. The only content I have reverted is, in the 1st para, an IP changed "shown" to "suggested", which I changed to "indicated" as per source, and "for millions of years" to "throughout their evolution" - which is an improvement (thanks to the ip for that). The article is now protected. In future, do not repeatedly blank sections of the article without discussion.zzz (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

With regard to "Hundreds of tiny edits just minutes apart", I would like to refute the allegation ([6]) that I am merely an evil robot from the future. This should be supported by reliable references, as should any possible concerns about wasting electrons. zzz (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Work on new intro section?

Since the article is now protected, we might as well start putting together a new lede here, as I suggested the other day. I'd recommend refining the second and third paragraphs to discuss general varietals, global usage, etc., rather than diving straight into the US/Mexico drug war stuff. Comments? jxm (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said the other day, I think the lead covers the article pretty well, except for the history section. If anyone can come up with a good way to summarise this, that would be helpful: the first para is a little bit short. The difficulty, as I said before, is that the section is unfinished. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to summarise it, in a sentence or so. Other than that, I think it's an excellent lead, it is interesting, it draws the reader in, and it is not too long (a common fault with WP articles). zzz (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I think these things need improvements

• expanding the "history" section, esp. "America" (ie, Mexico, etc, etc)
• expanding "evolution" (ideally with expert attention)
• "Further information" is the longest section in the article, and mentions no references whatsoever. This is the major priority which needs to be dealt with. It has been that way for I've no idea how long.

zzz (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Specifically, you suggest two additions to the lead:

• "global usage"

Something about the "Demographics" section could certainly be added, as you suggest. However, this is a short, undeveloped section of the article. I doubt anyone finds it remotely interesting, hence it is not in any one's interests to describe it in the lead. But it could, no doubt, be summarised and added to the first para.

• "global varietals"

The section ("Further information") in the article mentions no sources. If the reader wishes to know about the most popular drugs, he/she can skip to "popular drugs" section (which is fairly well referenced); however, it is not worth summarising (or attempting to summarise) a short list in the lead.

As I said, I think efforts would be best focused on other areas, such as the completely unsourced "Further information" section, and the lack of a history of American drug use. Any ideas and assistance for these tasks would be much appreciated.zzz (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Further expansion of article

I think the article needs some major improvements in these areas:

• expanding the "history" section, esp. "America" (ie, Mexico, etc, etc)
• expanding "evolution" (ideally with expert attention)
• "Further information" is the longest section in the article, and mentions no references whatsoever, for I've no idea how long.

Any help appreciated.zzz (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: What is recreational drug use?

Intro says "Recreational drug use is the use of a drug for entertainment." the word entertainment should be replaced with the words recreational purposes. Recreational drug use isn't simply for entertainment. People do drugs for various reasons including socialising; winding out of stress; self-medication, enchaning any other recreational acitivity; controlling unwanted emotions, behaviours or moods; avoiding hunger when food is not available or as a getaway from deficiency in some other fundamental human need. Drinking alcohol is recreational drug use and to say that people do it simply for entertainment isn't correct.--Custoo (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The definition is fine, I think. I would argue that socialising is entertainment; winding out of stress is slightly different, but other things you do for this purpose, eg watch a movie, drink a pint (a rec. drug of course) are classed as entertainment also. (Self-)Medication doesn't strictly belong on this article. Controlling moods = improving mood, for which entertainment is usually the answer. Repressing hunger is an unusual use of a drug, since food is often either cheaper or more readily available than recreational drugs; and it would then be classed as a medical use, strictly speaking, as opposed to recreation or entertainment. People generally drink for entertainment; alcohol can be an anaesthetic but that is medical, in fact all the non-entertainment uses are probably more or less medical, eg. inducing unconsciousness, a particularly common usage. It's close enough to all-encompassing, without resorting to repetition of the word "recreation", which is basically avoiding saying anything. zzz (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

BLP violation

The text at Recreational drug use #Popular drugs attributes a nickname for MDMA as 'known as "Wes Welkers"'. This is an unsourced and was added by an IP with this edit. Our policy WP:BLP states:

• "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"

@CambridgeBayWeather: This needs to be removed immediately by an admin or the protection amended so that responsible editors can keep Wikipedia free from these sort of violations.

In addition, there are claims made in the same section about cannabis. These are medical claims of effectiveness and per WP:MEDRS they need to be supported by quality secondary sources. Two of the sources, PMID 17140265 and PMID 16224541, are primary studies and should not be used in this case. Please remove them and any text not supported by secondary MEDRS sources. --RexxS (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I got that information and the sources from a Wikipedia article. I'm trying to find it now, but there's so many cannabis articles, I'm not finding it. zzz (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Somewhere in Cannabinoid, from wiki search. ("Studies show...") zzz (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

In this section. I missed out the "Studies show" qualifier. zzz (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you spot the notice at the top of Cannabinoid saying "This article needs more medical references for verification or relies too heavily on primary sources"? Exactly the same problem applies to that article as applies here: we don't use primary studies to support medical claims. Adding a qualifier like "studies show" isn't any help as the requirement remains to base our medical content on reliable secondary sources. The review article Campbell & Gowran (2007) is a good source and concludes "manipulation of the cannabinoid system offers the potential to upregulate neuroprotective mechanisms while dampening neuroinflammation. Whether these properties will be beneficial in the treatment of AD in the future is an exciting topic that undoubtedly warrants further investigation." Our text needs to reflect this cautious endorsement and the two primary sources thrown out.

Please excuse my slight amendment to your post: I substituted a permalink to Cannabinoid #Tetrahydrocannabinol as I'm just about about to take a knife to that section and our discussion won't make sense once that text is changed. --RexxS (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I must have read that article a while back, because I thought it was actually true. Oh, well. zzz (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC) I'll look out for medical references problems, in future. zzz (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Got the BLP but the other edits don't seem to have much discussion. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 03:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the BLP vio - it's the only item that needed to be done immediately. --RexxS (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Lead image

What is with DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart in the lead? Says nothing about recreational drug use. Previous image was better.

And what sort of heading is "further information"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No convinced lead has improved

Appears better here [7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The most popular recreation drugs are caffeine, alcohol and cigarettes. Not one is now mentioned in the lead. I thus propose reverting to how it was before when they were mentioned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• What is it that you would like to say about caffeine, alcohol and cigarettes in the lead? The lead summarises the article. There is very little in the article about caffeine, alcohol and cigarettes. Please suggest here what you would like added, and why. Any information you wish to add to the lead should reflect the material in the article, per WP:LEAD.
• The fact that you would like to mention caffeine, alcohol and cigarettes in the lead is clearly not a valid reason to delete the entire thing. Please discuss changes here.
• If you don't like the heading "Further information" you should suggest an alternative. There must be many alternative titles available. It is not helpful to simply state "And what sort of heading is further information?" What do you mean by that?
• The head of the Drug Enforcement Agency is quoted in the lead, so it is helpful, and entirely appropriate for her picture to be there. Why do you claim that the DEA has nothing to do with drug use?
• Please explain and discuss your POV, rather than simply stating it as a fact. You have offered no justification for any of your opinions. zzz (talk) 08:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The article should be reverted to the 17:27, 20 August 2014 revision in the link above. Putting a picture of a living person in the lead is severely misguided, and the soapboxing about drug prohibition needs to be moved to a personal blog. Sure, the war on drugs is stupid and has been lost, but Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Presumably there is an article about the effects of prohibition and that is the place for a brief summary of the situation. Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Please explain your statement "Putting a picture of a living person in the lead is severely misguided". And please explain your characterisation of the lead as "soapboxing". The lead summarises the article, as per WP:LEAD. If you think parts of the article have not been summarised, please specify which parts. Otherwise it is impossible to know what you want added. The lead is short, which is a good thing, and also it means that material can be added to better summarise the article if necessary. However, no suggestions for improvements to it have been made, yet. zzz (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, you may believe, as many do, that the "War on drugs" is misguided, but it is still continuing, with the US spending $50 billion per year on it, so it has not been lost - it is not over, yet. (And no end in sight) zzz (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You suggest removing the last month's well-sourced additions to the article, reducing the article back to some unreferenced lists. This is a suggestion that is against the spirit, and the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. zzz (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

In principle you are perfectly correct to want me to explain my comment. However, the reality is that Wikipedia has many contributors who need a lot of assistance, and it may not be possible to fully explain everything to everyone's satisfaction. In brief, while the intention of the photo in the lead was good, placing such an image in this article could be regarded as an attack on the person or the DEA, or perhaps as mocking them. The image is inappropriate anywhere in this article (which is on the use of recreational drugs, not US departments or their officials), but the lead is a particularly poor choice as such an image is supposed to illustrate the general topic (is the suggestion that the named person is a recreational drug user?). I used all my time on that, so I'll refer you to Google for "soapboxing" and restate that reversion is the suggested improvement, although after a reversion any good edits would need to be restored. Johnuniq (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You still haven't explained how anything in the article is "soapboxing". I am not asking for your "assistance". I merely require an explanation, which, in principle, as well as in practise, you would have to supply, rather than making blanket statements. Any personal animosity you have towards me from our recent interaction ([8]) is not relevant. Nor is it justified: I was simply making the point that it made no apparent sense for any editor to claim that I have only edited for a few days, when the information is clearly displayed. zzz (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Per "What is it that you would like to say about caffeine, alcohol and cigarettes in the lead?" While for starters they should be at least mentioned. And they were mentioned before you edits.

The lead has also been changed to focus on the US with a picture of the head of the DEA. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The lead doesn't mention any specific drugs at the moment; perhaps it should. Something along the lines of "The most popular recreational drugs are the legal ones, caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol". This seems like a good idea, although, as I said, there is little in the article about them; but something could be added, anyway.

The lead mentions the US and the UK. It does focus on the DEA, because they are the main agency in the world fighting against drugs. And also because that summarises the prohibition section. The lead also focuses on the Mexican drug war, because 120,000 deaths is an important issue right now, about drugs. If it was an article about something else that 120,000 people had died in a war about, That would also focus on the deaths, and the main causes of the deaths. 120,000 is a ridiculously large number, which can't be ignored as though it was less important than something else. Anything that needs to be added can be, since it is so short, eg. coffee, etc. It is not necessary to first remove what is already there (which is just summarising what's in the article - not perfectly, obviously)zzz (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Large quotes

In the recent edits 8 large quotes have also appeared. We should paraphrase our sources not quote large junks of them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have slowly been paraphrasing them, but until I complete the task, I thought they should remain.zzz (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Organization

Why was prevention moved under demographics? Why is risks under demographics? Why is responsible use under demographics? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't really put much thought into the order of the old sections at all. I don't know what order they should be in. zzz (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Revert to last stable version

• (For convenience, since this has now happened, the new Signedzzz version discussed below was this)

I propose we revert back to the last stable version here [9]

• Support as article better followed WP:MEDMOS and was a better overview of the subject at hand. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support The new version unduly directs readers away from the broad concept of recreational drug use to the relatively minor concerns of people in the United States. Wikipedia is an international website. This should be reverted to the last stable version then conversation can happen on the talk page before radical changes. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support This was the last version before the changes began - not great, especially for a page getting >500K views pa. The history should be covered, but not by massive quotes. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support The recent edits have changed the focus of the article by both inappropriately redefining the purpose of recreational drug use and focusing on efforts to stop people from using drugs. While I agree that a section on the history of restricting recreational drug use is needed, changing the lede to reflect only that section is WP:UNDUE and is turning this article into a WP:COATRACK for the war on drugs. Moreover, the picture in the lede and the quote it apparently supports have nothing to do with recreational drug use and are both WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. @Signedzzz: if you don't have sources for this subject then perhaps this isn't the best article for you to be writing. --Ca2james (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

(Comment) How exactly has the purpose of rec. drug use been redefined? How was it defined previously, and how has this changed? I have not deleted any of the old sections of the article. The 120000 deaths and the racist application of the laws weren't there before, but they surely have to be included, though perhaps not in the lead, in so much detail. I don't know. I would, as you can see. But that's just me. I find that stuff interesting. zzz (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

In the previous version we're considering rolling back to, the first sentence of the lede, which defines the subject, reads Recreational drug use is the use of a drug (legal, controlled, or illegal) with the intention of enhancing life (increasing euphoria, blocking unhappy memories, or creating pleasure). Some would also include creativity and religious growth among the effects of certain drugs (cannabis and the psychedelics); understood broadly, this is recreation.. You changed it to read Recreational drug use is the use of a drug for entertainment. The two definitions convey very different meanings. This is an article on recreational drug use, not recreational drug prohibition, and while drug laws should be mentioned in this article, a discussion of the racist application of those laws is WP:COATRACK for this article - whether it's in the lede or elsewhere. That information belongs in the broader article. --Ca2james (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The article previously had no focus. Nothing about history, evolution or prohibition at all. Just huge unreferenced lists, and a few paragraphs about responsible drug use and demographics, which are still there. As I have said, the lead can be expanded with any further information that is desired. The article is only half-finished, as is the lead. Inasmuch as it needs focusing, this should be done by adding material, both to the lead and the rest of the article. The picture should probably be replaced by a better one, I have already agreed with that. The lead as it stands could easily fit in one paragraph (the war on drugs/US/UK parts, that is) and a couple more paragraphs added, from what was there before, or whatever else. However, that is no reason to consider removing interesting, relevant material that summarises (part of) the article. I repeat, I had not finished it. And I am getting some books quite soon, I just haven't got them with me now. The quote is central to the war on drugs, US drugs policy, and the Mexican drug war. These are extremely important drug issues, that are covered in the article and hence should be summarised in the lead. No one has mentioned any reason here as to why it is WP:UNDUE. Are you saying that the lead must not mention the 120,000 deaths in the Mexican drug war? Please explain why you think that. I repeat, I have left the lead unfinished, as yet, and it can and should be expanded. No one has addressed the question of why it cannot be expanded. The idea that it is better to remove it all, when it is all material that properly summarises a major part of the article, is completely against WP policies, and a waste of time, since the material would have to be added again in order to summarise that section of the article. If the article should discuss the drug war, which it should, and does, then the lead should also summarise it. If I was arguing against adding other material, that would be wrong, but I am not. Merely stating that something is COATRACK or UNDUE does not make it so: there has to be a reason provided. This has not happened. And, unarguably, adding material would refocus it. Removing valid, sourced material is completely against WP policies, when it can instead be added to.zzz (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Why should the article follow MEDMOS? It's not a medical article. It's about a form of recreation.
• The article contains stuff about the 120,000 deaths in the drug war (fought over recreational drugs). It is certainly not mostly about this. The lead is, and should probably be expanded. However, I don't understand the urgency. If any editor wants to expand it, they should go ahead. Deleting all the new stuff doesn't help in any way. It should be improved.
• The quotes can be summarised. Any editor who wishes for them to be summarised should do this. Or I can if no one wants to.
• I still don't understand this sudden panic to remove everything I just spent a month writing. It is all well sourced, (and the stuff in the old sections is not). If it focuses too much on the drug war and the US, other stuff should be added. Would that allay the concerns? zzz (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Outside of the lead section, it's just the prohibition section that is largely US focused. That's only a small fraction of the article. zzz (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC) I was intending to continue working on the article, especially expanding the history section to cover Mexico etc, and dealing with the large quotes in Evolution.zzz (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Our policy for sourcing all articles (WP:RS) states:

• Being a "medical source" is not an intrinsic property of the source itself; a source becomes a medical source only when it is used to support a medical claim. It is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge.

That's why all of the medical claims made in this article need to have sources that meet WP:MEDRS. MEDMOS is an aid to ensuring articles that contain significant medical content - as this article does - adhere to structures and coverage suitable for the topic. The principle topic here is drugs, not recreation.

I support restoring the article to a state more compliant with our expectations for a medical related article. --RexxS (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I oppose: the medical effects of each drug are comprehensively covered in their respective articles. This article is called recreational drug use, not recreational drug effects. It is not a medical topic. The medical side of things is only tangentially relevant for this article. It is a side issue which need not in fact be covered except out of interest. Recreational drug use is a purely evolutionary, historical and sociological phenomenon, not a medical one. The medical details would be of no interest to the majority of readers. If this becomes a medical article, another article would have to be created with a similar name, just so that this one can become a short summary of various pre-existing high quality medical articles. The article you describe should be called "The medical effects of recreational drugs". The fact that a few weeks ago (when it was unofficially considered to be a MEDMOS article) it was a collection of disconnected sections (very poorly sourced) and enormous lists (completely unsourced), shows that there is no real need or interest for a medical article that summarises the other ones. The medical information I added was from WP articles. I missed out one "Studies show" qualifier, instead saying "It is..." (by mistake), about cannabis. I did not fully appreciate the difference (primary vs. secondary). I will double check the others. "Studies show", in common usage, means roughly "it is thought to be the case" - as opposed to "it has been suggested by one study". zzz (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to come up with more things to say in the lead. But I have been focusing more on expanding the article. zzz (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to conduct a hate campaign against the US, or the DEA. I am English, and had no clue about any of the drug war stufff, really, til I started writing the prohibition bit. And maybe I got carried away, especially after I found the quote calling the murder of 1100 kids a "success". That is the single most outrageous thing I've heard in a very long time.zzz (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Which is why it's in the lead, with the picture of who said it, the boss of the DEA, an especially notable rec. drug person in her own right anyway, on top of the unbelievable quote. It is unorthodox to have that pic, but in this case I could not find an alternative that was nearly as good (I did try). And, she can't sue, because she did say it, (although she may be annoyed if she sees it - not Wikipedia's problem, though) zzz (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support I appreciate Signedzzz's efforts with the lede however the current version has several problems. Most notably is the new lede picture which would be an appropriate placement in a subsection, but is not appropriate in the lede because the picture isn't representative of the entire article. This should not discourage Signedzzz from finding ways of incorporating these changes into the body. Any changes in the lede should take the form of condensing the major headings of the article in order if at all possible. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

quotes placed in the lede should be constitutive of the entire article, not quotes you find outrageous. Wikipedia is not a platform to shame public figures or engage in activism. If a quote is in the lede it should either summarize the entire article, or be a constitutive quote significant to the subject of the article which anyone who is familiar with the topic of the article will be familiar with. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I strongly believe the quote is constitutive of the entire rec. drug situation in the world today. It sums up the US position in a nutshell, vis-a-vis the war on drugs. I can't agree that it doesn't belong in the lead. The only reason to move it would be to spare her feelings (which she doesn't deserve). zzz (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

And the fact that it sounds incredible is a good thing for the lead, because it makes the reader want to read on. The lead should be as interesting as possible, as well as just summarising the article. The quote is definitely one of the most interesting single things in the article, as is the 120,000 deaths, and the racist application of drug laws, currently, in the US and the UK. zzz (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The lead is very short. Plenty of other stuff can be added - there is no reason to remove anything that is currently there, which is all very interesting, and summarises the contents of the article. It can be doubled or tripled in size with other stuff, and it still wouldn't be too long. If it seems overly narrow, it should be expanded. zzz (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The reason to do it is noted in all the supports above. You appear to be trying to shame a public figure by placing her picture and an outrageous quote in the lede of an article. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia, and frankly it messes up the article because the quote isn't historically relevant when it comes to recreational drug use, it isn't even historically relevant in the other topic of America's war on drugs. This isn't the War on Drugs article, it is the recreational drug use article. If it was the war on drugs article you would still have to justify why you chose a quote from the DEA (a minor public figure...major political figure but no one has really heard of her) in 2011 on an article (war on drugs) which was coined during an interview with President Nixon in 1971. Why would this be the quote you chose as opposed to every single other quote starting with 1971?Coffeepusher (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my message saying that maybe the pic has to go got lost. I was saying that I just couldn't find a good enough alternative. (In my opinion, it's the best pic, but I am not all that surprised if people disagree, since it is so unorthodox). I would just say, please at least consider keeping it. Thanks zzz (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

In answer, because the current situation is unique in history, with over 120,000 killed, incl. kids, & the DEA supporting it still. zzz (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I cant imagine anything else about rec. drugs being more interesting or significant than so many deaths in such a short time.zzz (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I believe the info belongs in the lead. But as I said, the lead could be expanded 2 or 3 times with other info, and still not be too long. zzz (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Essentially, the lead mainly summarises the prohibition section. The prohibition stuff could be contained in one paragraph, and other stuff put in a couple of other paragraphs (as soon as someone writes it). zzz (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I actually think that's a good idea. I find it incredibly challenging to write stuff in leads, so I'm not looking forward to doing that. I basically started with the most interesting bit (to me, and no doubt many others.) It would be much better with other stuff added, as I said. The bias towards the prohibition stuff is because that's what I wrote first, and then I left it (exhausted) zzz (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The new sections are the best referenced sections in the entire article. I cannot think of any reason to remove them. They should be expanded and improved. zzz (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

So you are making the argument, that in an article which explicitly spans a time-period of 3400-2800 years (depending on how you interpret the historical placement of the Homer quote) and covers the manufacture consumption medical information and regulation of tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, Marijuana, opium etc. across the entire planet, that this is the significant quote. Even when it comes to prohibition, does the American War on Drugs cover a topic which starts in 500 AD with coffee regulation? (also, the prohabition section needs some serious edits to correct worldview and recentism). Coffeepusher (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I am saying that the quote sums up the war on drugs/prohibition situation perfectly, so it's ideal for the lead. Other stuff about the other sections should be added, yes, but that's no reason to remove it. zzz (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Nb. the article now spans 200 million years. zzz (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC) The reason is that I don't think that 120,000 + deaths can be described as insignificant, by any possible estimation. zzz (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the prohibition section should also be expanded, along with the other sections. Again, I started with what I found most interesting. I'm not saying it is balanced yet. It isn't. It's not finished (not even close). zzz (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

But since it's all accurate and interesting (and better referenced than anything else in the article), balance should be restored by filling in the gaps. zzz (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Which I'm keen to be involved in, copyediting or whatever. zzz (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I just finished the Boko Haram article, which is very balanced (no one has suggested any necessary edits). That took about 2 months to get that way, and this is only just started really.zzz (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

And there's not so much usable stuff online, which is a problem. I have no books. zzz (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously the quotes in the evolution bit are long by WP standards. However, it's very compact writing which would only be degraded by hasty paraphrasing. zzz (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

here is the thing, right now we have close to a consensus on changing it back and each person has brought up several concerns. The fact that no one has struck their vote tells us that you haven't changed anyone's mind. You need to frame your responses in the context of wikipedia policy which addresses our concerns if you want the lead to stay the way it is. Making it apparent that you are using this article as a soapbox to publicly shame a official is not the correct tactic if you are trying to change our minds.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Coffeepusher, I apologise, I have not made myself clear. I am not arguing for keeping the lead as it is. I am arguing for adding to it rather than deleting it. If editors have major concerns, then what is there will have to be trimmed down, as well as compressed into one paragraph. I apologise for not being clear: I am not arguing for keeping the lead as it is. zzz (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Support. I think we should definitely revert this article to the last stable version once the block is lifted, although my main concern recently has been with the specific content of the lede paragraphs. A few days ago, when I proposed reworking them here, the reaction from zzz was that the lede was already quite fine as-is. However, as we've subsequently discovered, there are numerous good reasons for making substantial refinements there. It seems to me that starting from the last stable version will be the best approach. That still doesn't stop us from drawing upon some of the more recent changes as necessary. With regard to the specific issue about providing medical information, I see no reason why we can't adhere to WP:MEDRS where appropriate in this material, without needing to convert it entirely into a fully WP:MEDMOS-compliant article. Just a few thoughts.... jxm (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

My point a few days ago was that I cannot think how to summarise the history section, because it is incomplete. And I can't think of anything interesting to say about demographics. Therefore, without any suggestions, I can't see what to add. And, since the old sections are completely unsourced, time would be better spent on them or expansion of history, etc. I like the lead, and spent a vast amount of time on it, believe it or not. And I thought the other sections were doing nicely, and ready for expansion and tidying up. And I was feeling overly protective about the stuff I'd just written. I can't see how it can all be worse than the old unsourced sections. I can't believe many people would agree with you. I would not want to read about "responsible drug use", "demographics", or endless unsourced lists of substances with no information attached. I have absolutely no idea who would. Evolution, history and prohibition is precisely what I would want to read about. And I would have improved them all by now, if it wasnt protected. I have no idea why so many people want to get sourced information. If enough editors want the lead changed, it can be changed, since the info is in the sections. But it cannot be right to remove referenced sections, but leave unreferenced ones. Why not get rid of all the sections if mass deletion is so helpful? Am I missing something here? zzz (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

And we have not discovered anything. The lead can be expanded by anyone who wants to. No need for deletion. After you delete all the new sections I wrote, what do you propose to do next, when you have just the old, unreferenced sections? Create a new section, perhaps? What will it be about? Is there any plan here, apart from getting rid of anything I wrote? Is that the main objective, because it is so crap? All I have heard is that everything I've written has to go. I would just like an explanation, in terms of WP policies. Eg. "It's all absolute garbage", or whatever? zzz (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That was a waste of a month, then. I'll give up writing anything, then, since the quality is unacceptable. zzz (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No no, mass deletion is not at all what I was implying. As I said, we should draw upon the more recent changes as necessary. The well-referenced good-quality material should work fine already, and we can introduce appropriate WP:MEDRS items as needed. It's kinda hard to carefully track and review updates when we're trying to deal with dozens and dozens of rapid-fire changes every day. So I'd recommend starting with the prior stable version as was suggested, then adding the relevant newer material section by section. That strategy should make things much easier to manage. Thanx fr yr help with all this. jxm (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is starting to seem like the best approach. Cheers. zzz (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Given the clear consensus to restore the version from 17:27, 20 August 2014, I have restored that version. Zad68 03:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Signedzzz, I hope you will continue to work on the article, but the discussion above will give you a good idea what to avoid/ask about first. You can use your sandbox for working on sections also. Nobody is saying the old article was much good, and a history section that is not a string of quotes will I think be uncontroversial, though it perhaps is best not straight after the lead.Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes agree with John. This article does need work. Have a read of WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS and please continue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I want to express support to Signedzzz as well. I recognize a lot of problems with this article. Instead of making mass changes to all of it and deleting content which is already in place, consider modifying sections piecewise or creating new sections. Whenever possible, link to existing subarticles that already exist and do not write content here which replicates content in another article. When making proposals and asking for feedback, try to break proposals into single issues rather than asking for comment on a lot of changes at once. If anyone asks lots of questions at once, and the answer to any one of them is "no", then sometimes people giving feedback get confused and just say "no" to everything. For this reason, try to break proposals into small claims that people can address individually. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

POV distortion in new lead

• The first sentence pointedly emphasises that all drugs ("legal, controlled and illegal") will be considered equally.
  • The middle paragraph, the largest one, claims that "various dispositions" and "psychological disorders" are "associated" with drug use. No references are provided for this assertion. This para must be removed. I would suggest some research, for example, asking the patrons in a pub or bar which "psychological disorders" drove them there.
• "Some would also include creativity and religious growth..."
  • "Creativity" has been associated with far more drugs than are misleadingly specified.
  • "Religious growth": "Growth of religion is the spread of religion" (according to this encyclopedia and Google). The entire statement is therefore meaningless and/or false and should be removed.
• "users seek... an aphrodisiac effect": this doubtful, unreferenced claim should be removed
• from last para, "... controlled substances within the scope of the United Nations' Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and Convention on Psychotropic Substances": confirming my suspicion that "controlled" = illegal. First sentence of lead needs changing.
  • The treaties should simply be described as treaties. Providing the full name of both is WP:UNDUE; references would be needed to confirm that there are no other applicable UN treaties.
• "international and domestic law enforcement agencies are perpetually occupied with interdiction efforts against illegal drug usage, manufacture, and distribution."
  • Which countries are being referred to?
  • "... perpetually occupied" this claim that the "law enforcement agencies" of the (unspecified) countries are constantly chasing after drugs needs to be well-referenced (or removed).

These are some of the most glaring faults that should be immediately deleted. The level of accuracy and neutrality of the supposedly uncontroversial replacement lead section is far lower than what it replaced.zzz (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"Responsible use" section needs to go

In this section, at the top of the uncontroversial version of the article, the 2nd sentence states that

"Advocates of this philosophy point to the many well-known artists and intellectuals who have used drugs, experimentally or otherwise, with few detrimental effects on their lives"

• Who are the supposed "Advocates of this philosophy"?
• References are required for the description of "Responsible use" as a "philosophy".
• Why do these (unspecified) advocates "point to... well-known artists and intellectuals"? Do the "advocates" not know of any non-artistic or non-intellectual users of drugs who have escaped "with few detrimental effects on their lives"? Again, some research would be useful here, in any pub or licensed restaurant.

I did not delete this (or any other) section, preferring to move them instead. However, returned to its prominent position, this section's many serious faults, which I can't be bothered to continue summarising, demand forcefully that the section needs to be deleted, as I should perhaps have done (pointlessly, however). zzz (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"Demographics" (?)

The first sentence of this section states that "Marijuana is the most popular drug in Australia". Do I need to go on? This section should immediately be deleted until some minimal level of accuracy (or indeed interest) has been established. zzz (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"Movements"

The second (and final) para of this mysteriously titled little section is entirely centred around a single blog. Another section I should have (pointlessly) deleted.

As I have stated repeatedly, although no editor seems to have noticed, I did not delete any sections, preferring to move them to less prominent positions in the article where they might be overlooked. Since this is now one of very few prose sections, it should be required to conform to at least some of Wikipedia's guidelines, in my opinion.zzz (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"Prevention" needs to be expanded

Since this section is the only one that can reasonably be kept in the article, it should be expanded from its current length of one sentence. Such a short section should otherwise be deleted.zzz (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"Types" needs to be deleted as a matter of urgency

This section goes on for page after page without mentioning references. There has been ample opportunity for references to have been supplied, the most basic requirement for a Wikipedia article. It needs to be deleted immediately, especially considering its medical connotations.zzz (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Revert to last (referenced) version

After the deletions suggested above, required by Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, the article will be a very short stub. I would suggest therefore that the previous version ([10]) takes its place. This seems to me to be the most sensible course of action. Comments?zzz (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose both reverting the article back and deleting all those sections. Consensus was to go with this version, which everyone agrees needs a lot of work, and to use it as a starting point to improve the article. I disagree that deleting the bulk of the article is a necessity because they aren't copyvios or something that must otherwise be speedily deleted. A better, more collaborative, approach is to add cleanup tags and then work on each section. Ca2james (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reasons as stated above. The consensus was that the previous version had more problems then the one which is currently in place. I do not agree with the proposal that our only two options are to completely strip this article to a stub, OR reinstate the previous version. My own concerns came from the fact that the previous version violated WP:SOAP. Replacing the lede photograph with a picture of a public official to publicly shame her (your admission) for something she said was a WP:BLP violation and didn't consider WP:WEIGHT in relation to the article. That and the reasons stated above lead me to believe that the current version is less problematic than the previous version, and that there are other options than stripping it down to a stub.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have to disagree: I do not believe I ever said anything like that. The pic was to illustrate who made the statement next to it. If she was shamed, I said that that was not Wikipedia's problem.zzz (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Nb - I don't believe (personally) that she would have been shamed. She made the statement in an interview, and she meant it. If she reads Wikipedia (unlikely at best), I honestly expect that she would have been somewhat pleased, if anything! It was a mistake, though, in terms of balance, to put the statement, and her picture, in the lead. zzz (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Coffeepusher: The statement appears on her WP page (I believe). It is not there, either, to "shame" her, I don't expect. "Shaming" her was never my intention, I just wanted to try and sum up the DEA's attitude to the war. Thanks. zzz (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

From the section above, I can see that I said "The only reason to move it would be to spare her feelings" - not "The reason I put it there was to shame her". You are completely misquoting me. zzz (talk) 03:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

If everyone prefers the unreferenced sections (including the section giving unreferenced information about "Routes of administration", etc) then I am fine with that. I had forgotten just how bad (in my opinion) the old version of the article was, but if that's just me, then no problem. Cheers. zzz (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I will just use tags, rather than deleting anything, if you think that's what's best. zzz (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Frequent posts on the talk page will not help overcome the fact that consensus is against you. It's time to move on, and tags added to the article will probably be removed. If you have a proposal for one section of the article, make it, although the chances are that others might not respond because of the overly frenetic activity on this page. Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I have pointed out some of the problems I noticed, above, with particular attention to the lead. "Tags will probably be removed" seems a very strange statement. (Ca2james just recommended, above, the use of clean-up tags.) zzz (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq: you should read, and follow, Wikipedia's rules or guidelines concerning removal of tags, and WP:CIVILITY (in future). Thanks. zzz (talk) 01:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

And stop WP:HOUNDING me. ([11]) zzz (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

That's yesterday's news. Please stick to the topic at hand: the article. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

One more thing. In this wall of text (about reverting the wall of text in the article) one thing was not clear to me, but I may have missed it, and saw only Doc James's comment: that image you put in the lead, of the DEA boss, that's a BLP violation as far as I'm concerned. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

New sections

Please provide a reason why the new sections (ie, not the lead section) should not be in the article. In particular, explain why this WP policy from Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Resolving_content_disputes is not relevant:

"When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral"

I have been arguing this throughout the discussions on this page, unaware that my arguments were specifically supported by a very clear policy. Since the deletion of the sections was a clear violation of this policy, I am proposing to replace the sections (with the "name" of MDMA and the primary sources about cannabis removed). Feel free to improve them, as per the policy quoted above (as will I). I will also proceed to change the lead to summarise the article. zzz (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

When I took this expansion to DYK, the only objection raised was that it was "insufficiently expanded"; I was told to "make it a Good Article and resubmit". Obviously, I cannot do this with my additions removed from the article. Since no objections have been raised above, other than the supposed bias, in the view of a handful of editors, which can be corrected by adding material per WP:DR, as I have been arguing throughout the above discussion, and the length of the quotes in evolution, which can be corrected by summarising them, as I also argued above, there can be no doubt that I should put the sections back in the article, where they can be improved and expanded. It seems inconceivable that any editor could raise any relevant objection, since the policy quoted above is absolutely clear on this point. Users should familiarise themselves with WP policies before deleting large chunks of articles that don't happen to fit with their POV. If any user believes the policy quoted above to be wrong, they should propose alterations to the policy first, and have those changes approved, before applying their preferred version of the policy to this (or any other) article.zzz (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sections deleted for POV reasons

User Johnuniq deleted the sections giving this reason: "evolution section is undue suggestion that recreational drugs are good". If any user thinks this, they should take it up with the scientists who conducted the research. This should have been raised, and discussed, on this page. If the results of scientific research upset any user, they don't have to read about it - Wikipedia is not censored.zzz (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

you restored a problematic section and are using extensive quotes, which has been a major concern and one of the reasons we decided to go to a previous edition. Your edit inserts over 23000 bites of material, has 8 block quotes, and fails to follow the medical layout putting a controversial topic, human evolution alongside psychoactive substances, as the first section after the lede. These issues have been raised and discussed on this talk page, and you chose to ignore them.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Ha, Coffeepusher, isn't your very user name a POV violation? Drmies (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

you caught me, I'm working for big coffee to undermine this article.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• I inserted 23k material in small increments over the course of a month. You unjustifiably deleted 23k of sourced material.
• "Fails to show the medical layout" - that is something you could discuss (I am not sure what you mean)
• "Medical layout" is not a valid reason to delete well-sourced sections of an article
• human evolution being "controversial" has not "been raised" (as you claim). You are raising it now, for the first time. If it is controversial, you should include statements from scientists demonstrating this (with references)
• As I have said repeatedly, and I will now repeat again, the 3 (not 8) large quotes can be summarised by anyone who wants to.
• The sections of the article you prefer are are unsourced. They should, in fact, be deleted.
• As I pointed out when the point was raised before, this is not a MEDMOS article any more than coffee, Cannabis smoking, Tobacco smoking, etc. However, you have not "discussed" this point.
• You are choosing to ignore Wikipedia policy WP:DR, apparently so as to promote your POV.zzz (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• How can it be "controversial" to quote directly from peer-reviewed scientific research, with references? I am not aware of any evidence of controversy. zzz (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• I repeat, deleting large well-referenced sections of an article that don't agree with your POV is against WP policy - specifically, WP:DR. zzz (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

well right now you keep inserting the exact same material, and three separate editors have reverted you. If you think you have a case that we are violating policy you are welcome to take it up with the appropriate board, but yelling at us about why you believe we are collectively aligned against policy and toward an unspecified POV (you have not said what POV we are all collectively supporting) is not working.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Your POV is presumably what you said in your edit summary, "evolution section is undue suggestion that recreational drugs are good". The section is, in fact, an unbiased appraisal of scientific research. The readers can decide for themselves what it "suggests". By deleting well-sourced sections of the article, you are blatantly ignoring WP:DR, section 1:

"When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page." zzz (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

that is your third revert, you are now edit Waring against consensus.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Right now there is an agreement that we should use the MEDMOS layout, you are the dissonant voice and have yet to propose a different manual of style layout which you would prefer. There is an agreement that the evolution section unduly uses block quotes, instead of addressing this, you just keep reinserting the same material and tell us how we are violating policy by maintaining the consensus that the way it addresses the material is problematic. You keep proposing that you will take things to the talk page, but I haven't seen anything yet. And right now you have just reverted three different editors in a 24 hr. period.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I will repeat myself again. If you find the size of any quote problematic, summarize it; or leave it there for me to summarize. If you want a particular layout, that does not justify ignoring policy, and deleting sections. Layout has nothing to do with deleting sections. Justify deleting them in terms of policy, or improve them. zzz (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC) And deleting well-referenced sections "by consensus", against fundamental Wikipedia policies, is still illegitimate.zzz (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

if you really want to test that, feel free. It rarely ends well when someone stands by their guns against three other editors quoting wikipedia policies as their justification.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Three editors want to ignore the policy quoted above. It's still unjustifiable, no matter if it was 50. zzz (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I'm interested in how your edit war over this policy turns out. I would suggest to you that you further explore the edit war policies. You will find that there are only two exceptions to the three RR rule. BLP violations and blatant vandalism. All other violations lead to a block regardless of reasons.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Removing well-sourced sections in open defiance of policy is indeed blatant vandalism (even "by consensus"). Replacing them is reverting said vandalism. Catching me out with 3 in 24 hours, if your right about that, is a tactic that may have worked for you on this occasion. Why not try doing something useful instead of using tactics to censor articles?zzz (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

So here is a deal, it would be in your best interests if you reverted yourself to the version that currently has consensus. That would show everyone that you didn't intend to start an edit war and you are willing to work within the editor consensus. From there post on the talk page the evolution section for discussion, including where in the article it would be placed. I would suggest that your post on the talk section already has a summary of the block quotes. If you do this it will show good will to the community, and demonstrate that you are willing to work with others to improve wikipedia. It will not be a confession that you were wrong, only that you are willing to work within community guidelines with other individuals.

The other way I have seen this play out involves people calling admins and getting blocked, or getting so pissed off they quit. Just a suggestion based on 8 years of block free editing.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The article, including the new sections, is just being copy-edited by another editor (that's why it seems like a good idea to leave it in the article) so I can't revert myself. Looking at the quotes, I can't imagine how to paraphrase them without going deep into copy-vio territory - both quotes are already a concise summary of long scientific reports. For this reason, I am now thinking they should not be summarised - it would be impossible to do that without missing out crucial facts or copy-vio-ing. So I'll just delete them all, I guess. I tried improving the article, I suppose people will now just have to get their information from elsewhere - which, obviously, makes me wonder what the purpose of Wikipedia is. But, since I'm waiting for my last article to get GA reviewed, I have a responsibility to not get blocked in the meantime for writing a different article.zzz (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Lead section

I will prepare a draft for the lead, and propose it here for discussion. The current lead is inadequate in several key respects. zzz (talk) 05:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Correction: I will leave this article to the editors who have formed a consensus not to change or add anything.zzz (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't - as the end of "Lead image" above shows, there is no "consensus not to change or add anything" at all. Why not give a collaborative process a try? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The whole article needs work. Since the lead is supposed to summarize the article, doesn't it make more sense to talk about how to fix the article first and then figure out how to change the lead to reflect the revised article? Ca2james (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. At the end of the day, anything I do can always be a new article if not part of this one. So: no real problem there, then.zzz (talk) 06:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, an interesting idea. It seems that the previous Evolution and History sections, which zzz has archived here, might usefully serve as the basis for a new Early origins of drug use type of article. This could include factual material drawn from archaeology and ancient texts, as well as early artistic and cultural references. It would also provide a background guide to some of the ancient religious and medical applications that are discussed elsewhere, as well as conveniently stepping aside from the challenges of presenting the more modern issues concerning recreational use and regulatory matters. Thoughts, anyone? jxm (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no need for that at the current length of the article. They should be here. We have a certain amount of relevant stuff in Prohibition of drugs. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Article tagged as worthless

I have reduced the rating to "start-class" and added tags to the article, since it clearly contains nothing of any possible value. I strongly suggest that no one removes the tags, since that would require first massively improving the article, something which is opposed by consensus. In case any unbiased editor is interested, here are the well-referenced updates and additions I made over a month ago which were deleted in their entirety (rather than letting editors improve them) in favour of the worthless garbage that still masquerades here as an "article" (probably the worst one in wikipedia).

Unlike in the rest of Wikipedia, none of the material in this article may be deleted, since, again by consensus, the policies concerning "Original Research", unreferenced information, etc. do not apply here. zzz (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

so either we accept your version of the article which you tried to maintain by edit Waring, or you will throw a hissy fit?Coffeepusher (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

try it again, this time without the temper tantrum.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

So here is what you have to do if you want to keep the tags. Rather than throw a fit as you do above, you need to tell us on this page how the tags apply. all of these tags are placed on the top of the article, so you are making the argument that the whole article has the following problems. You gave this article the "unreferanced" tag, yet the article actually has a lot of references so what sections do you believe need more references and why? You gave the original research tag, so where is the original research because from what I can see the article does not violate WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. You make the argument that it needs more medical references, where and why? You argue that it relies too heavily on primary sources, but I can only find two references that qualify as a primary source. So if you aren't simply tagging up an article out of revenge, how do these tags apply?Coffeepusher (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it's your WP:OWN article, apparently. Listing hundreds of substances as drugs, giving supposed classifications and instructions on "Routes of administration, without a single reference, is Original Research by any definition. But since you can't see that, I'll just leave the article alone. With the (obviously correct) tags at the top, to warn readers that this article does not follow any of the normal Wikipedia rules. zzz (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

One more thing: it's noticeable that you immediately start out with personal attacks, and then start talking about "us on this page" and what "I need to do". You've got a very strange idea of what - voluntarily - building an encyclopaedia entails - clearly not improving articles! zzz (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

What are you expecting to get out of this zzz?Coffeepusher (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes agree this article is poor quality. It has sufficient tags on it though and these efforts are only an attempt to add a badge of shame. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Not my motivation. Plenty of articles have tags on them, but this one needs tags at the top, as it is particularly bad. Eg, listing substances with instructions to insert them intravenously, rectally, etc. The reader deserves to be warned. Simple as that. What is the motivation for removing the tags?zzz (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

the motivation to removing the tags is that they were placed there in bad faith as badges of shame, not for constructive purposes. But please tell us, what do you expect the end result of this exercise to be?Coffeepusher (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, you may think you can see inside my mind, but you haven't given a reason to remove the tags. As I've already said, the reader should be warned about the abysmal quality of the article. That's what the tags are intended to be used for, and that's what "I expect the end result of this exercise" to be. zzz (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It is called over tagging. You may be blocked again if you continue to restore them against consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

No, the tags are being used correctly. If they weren't, that would be "overtagging". This article is exactly the right place to use these tags. I am waiting for an explanation for the removal of the tags.zzz (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It's no good demanding an explanation for the use of the tags, which I gave (although it should have been obvious), and then removing them anyway. That just suggests bad faith editing. zzz (talk) 02:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read the template cleanup message introduction: "Cleanup tags are meant to be temporary notices that lead to an effort to fix the problem, not a permanent badge of shame to show that you disagree with the article or a method of warning the readers against the article." So your use of the cleanup templates is in fact inappropriate, and according to wikipedia policy they should be removed. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Your explanation of the relevant policy is much appreciated. I had mistakenly assumed tags were precisely for "a method of warning the readers against the article". zzz (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Popular drugs

I propose adding this section, Popular drugs, as it is well-referenced, and uncontroversial as far as I can see. It concisely explains crucial, sourced, information that readers may well be unaware of. It seems illogical to not use the section, since it seems like a clear improvement on the section in the current article. zzz (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Demographics on Australia Simply Not True

According to this site, Alcohol is the most widely used drug in Australia. 86.2% of Australians aged 14 years and over have drunk alcohol one or more times in their lives, while 34.8% of Australians aged 14 years and over have used cannabis one or more times in their life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnApparition (talk • contribs) 06:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I have fixed it myself. I hope I did it correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnApparition (talk • contribs) 07:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Caffeine Use

Note that the survey that is the cited source of this ranking included "caffeinated energy drinks" as a category, but not "coffee." This may have influenced caffeine's placement in this ranking. I think it's worth adding that disclaimer to the article. As is, it seems as though Cannabis ranks higher than all caffeine and coffee products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.0.130 (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

In 2009 it was estimated that about 3% to 6% of people 15 to 65 had used illegal drugs at least once (149 to 270 million).[4]

The reference is about cocaine use, not recreational drug use in general. The numbers are in the abstract and refer to just cocaine use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.172.72 (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the whole paper? It states "The 2011 world drug report by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) estimated that 149–271 million people aged 15– 64 years (3·3–6·1%) had used an illicit drug at least once in 2009." We can likely update it to the UNODC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Both Amphetamines and Methamphetamine have the potential to be neurotoxic

It depends on dosage. "the stimulant amphetamines are clearly neurotoxic in laboratory animals. MDMA causes selective and persistent lesions of central serotonergic nerve terminals, whereas amphetamines damage both the serotonergic and dopaminergic systems." from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3181923/. Though Methamphetamine has a much higher chance of causing brain damage due mostly to the context (environment) in which they are illegally abused and to a lesser extend their mechanism of action. I have updated the page to reflect this as before it made a statement that said amps are safe, meth is not safe.Boilingorangejuice (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)