Talk:Recreational use of ketamine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of psychoactive and recreational drugs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Destructive side effects[edit]

A recent NatGeo documentary stressed serious kidney and bladder damage with long term use, quoting British doctors. Is this a reputable source for this article and the main Ketamine article? Rumiton (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Briefly, no, I don't think so. The side effects of ketamine seem pretty well characterized in the scientific literature anyway. -Pmillerrhodes TalkContrib 20:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

While I'm sure the disassociative effects noted here can occur on very high doses, I'm just as sure that for the majority of users/experiences, the effects are significantly less intense than what is described in this article. The drug is more comparable to ecstasy than anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.230.128.108 (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I just realized that Recreational_use_of_ketamine#Effects describes effects at both low and (more prominently) high doses in humans, but not mid-range doses -- e.g., a dose that might be used in a club setting, where ketamine gained its popularity. That said, the described effects may seem exaggerated; however, one would do well to remember that ketamine enjoys a wide (worldwide, in fact) and diverse audience, and use has been reported in both public and private settings, and by different routes of administration, which, of course, all contribute to the intensity of effects experienced by the user. Pmillerrhodes TalkContrib 15:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that there are increasing statistics on fatalities associated with short- and long-term use, and no section on its uses should appear without a lead in making this clear. Medicine is studied in populations but its tragedies are experienced by individuals and their families, and encyclopedic writing about recreational drugs needs to lead with individual risks and associated statistics. One editors first or second hand experience regarding this agent's possible high is completely immaterial. 71.201.62.200 (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
That's crazy, why should EVERY section "lead-in" with mentioning the mortality? Wikipedia is an informational source, and it's just bad organization to start every section by mentioning its mortality profile. That's what the "Mortality" section is for. You're making these really bold prescriptive claims about what "encyclopedic writing" NEEDS to do that just don't align with any of the standards of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.38.24 (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Encyclopedic writing about recreational drugs does not need to start with risks and statistics. Those are part of the informational profile of a drug. Articles about riding horses do not need to start with a safety profile or the statistics about the substantial number of people that suffer injuries or die from horse riding accidents. Wikipedia's role is not to discourage recreational drug use by emphasizing the safety profile because of the tragedies experienced by some; while harm reduction and these things are important, they just aren't the place of an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias should provide knowledge in a clear and organized fashion and the mortality profile should not be given precedence over, say, the subjective experience or the history of ketamine's recreational use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4502:2D1F:9A6:E84:DF71:1560 (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Bladder problems should be included[edit]

"The increasingly popular and addictive club drug ketamine, also known as “Special K” causes a variety of urinary tract problems that are more likely to occur with heavier or more frequent use, according to a new UK study."

http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles/9445/20120405/ketamine-special-k-drug-use-urinary-tract-problems.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/10003110

Also, in the intro line says it has "relatively safe clinical profile" and the title of the article is "Recreational use of ketamine". Highly misleading phrase to say this is a safe drug in the context of drug abuse.

--MarsRover (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Good call. I can see how the introductory statement could be misleading. Feel free to add information about the adverse effects of long-term use (e.g. bladder problems). I may be able to contribute to this in the near future. Pmillerrhodes TalkContrib 21:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggested references[edit]

Both are third party, secondary reliable sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced experiential text moved here as WP:OR, and moved here[edit]

The following material appeared in the Non-lethal manifestations section, but without any attribution whatsoever, so can only be an editor's opinion or experience, and therefore is inappropriate (WP:OR or worse):

Users may experience worlds or dimensions that are ineffable, all the while being completely unaware of their individual identities or the external world.[citation needed] Impressions of the K-hole often include profound distortions in or complete loss of bodily awareness, sensations of floating or falling, euphoria, and total loss of time perception.[citation needed] ...

Users may feel as though their perceptions are located so deep inside the mind that the real world seems distant.[citation needed] Some users may not remember this part of the experience after regaining consciousness, in the same way that a person may forget a dream.[citation needed] Owing to the role of the NMDA receptor in long-term potentiation, this may be due to disturbances in memory formation.[citation needed] The "re-integration" process is slow, and the user gradually becomes aware of surroundings.[citation needed] At first, users may not remember their own names, or even know that they are human, or what that means.[citation needed] Movement is extremely difficult, and a user may not be aware that he or she has a body at all.[citation needed]

Please do not return experiential text to the encyclopedia article without reviewing appropriate sources, and adding text clearly derived from good secondary scientific sources. Anecdotal or personal experience is not acceptable. 71.201.62.200 (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Now there's no description of the ketamine experience in the article!! By removing this and not providing anything as a replacement to do one of the central jobs of the article, to tell people what ketamine feels like and why people do it (along with moving the mortality section to the top) you've instilled this anti-drug philosophy into the text and setup of the article. Like believe what you want about ketamine's safety profile but this article is worse when you put your personal feelings about drugs into it, not better
If you can be bothered I'd source an experiential report from Karl L. R. Jansen, M.D. He's written up such things extensively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.142.205.170 (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Bias[edit]

While part of documenting the recreational use of a drug is describing its mortality profile and adverse effects, that's certainly not the only thing that should be covered, and this article gives an undue emphasis to illustrating what it portrays as ketamine's poor safety profile.

I removed a quote from a Vice article suggesting ketamine would mentally and physically damage you more than cocaine, ecstasy, mephedrone, and LSD. While that may be the case (I don't think it is but that doesn't matter) it's a very bold statement that requires a lot more documentation than a quote from a Vice article and such a radical statement shouldn't be included in the Wikipedia article about ketamine use.

Also the entire Effects section is focused on adverse effects, I don't see a single paragraph in this article talking about what ketamine feels like, what the dosages are, why people enjoy it, or even a mention of the "K-hole" which is very pertinent to recreational use of ketamine and is even in the general article about ketamine.

This article feels like a DARE page and needs a lot of work. I would do it but I don't have time, but a place to start is this article cataloging the subjective effects of ketamine use: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/189/2/173 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.38.24 (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)