Wikipedia

Talk:Recreational drug use: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
(287 intermediate revisions by 51 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{Talk page header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 12
|minthreadsleft = 15
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Recreational drug use/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject PsychologyAltered States of Consciousness|class=C|importance=highHigh}}
{{WikiProject MedicineAnthropology|class=C|importance=highMid}}
{{WikiProject PDDLaw|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|class=|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Neuroscience|class=|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Pharmacology|class= |importance= Mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs|class=}}
{{WikiProject Psychology|class=|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=|importance=Mid}}
}}
{{Archivebox|auto=long|search=yes}}
 
== Valerian minor issue ==
 
Near the bottom valerian is mentioned and the active chemical constituent is listed is "valerian (chemical with the same name)". But there is no such chemical this is a mistake. The chemicals in valerian that could be placed here are valerenic acid or valepotriates. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2601:602:8900:a25:293e:3465:14c3:750a|2601:602:8900:a25:293e:3465:14c3:750a]] ([[User talk:2601:602:8900:a25:293e:3465:14c3:750a#top|talk]]) 05:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)</small>
 
== Proposed merger ==
== The introductory paragraphs of the article seem out of place ==
 
I think the page [[Drug harmfulness]] should be merged into this page's "Health risks" section. There were concerns about the neutrality of the drug harmfulness page and as the offending material was removed, the page became shorter and shorter, to the point that it is just a stub now. The material could easily be added here without causing any problems with [[WP:DUE]]. I will place templates on the two pages proposing the merger in a moment. [[User:Gazelle55|Gazelle55]] ([[User talk:Gazelle55|talk]]) 18:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
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.
 
:{{reply to|Gazelle55}} I agree with you that [[Drug harmfulness]] should be merged into this article, there's no point in keeping it as a stub. [[User:GenoV84|GenoV84]] ([[User talk:GenoV84|talk]]) 01:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
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.
== "[[:Getting high]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Getting_high&redirect=no Getting high]</span> has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 11#Getting high}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> [[User:Steel1943|<span style="color: #3F00FF;">'''''Steel1943'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:Steel1943|talk]]) 03:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 
== Concerns with Definition ==
: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? [[User:Jxm|jxm]] ([[User talk:Jxm|talk]]) 15:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 
I had some good faith concerns about the neutrality of the definition of "recreational drug use." They were summarily deleted. According to Wikipedia policy:
*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. [[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|talk]]) 16:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 
"'''Avoid stating opinions as facts.''' Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, '''<u>these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice</u>'''. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, <u>an article should not state that genocide is an evil action but may state that genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil</u>."
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.[[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|talk]]) 16:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 
<big>
:I was referring to ''human'' usage over millions of years. Thank you for the clarifying edit. [[User:Jxm|jxm]] ([[User talk:Jxm|talk]]) 17:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Currently, the article defines recreational drug use as drug use that is "either for pleasure or for some other casual purpose or pastime."
 
Miriam-Webster has [[mwod:casual|a few definitions for casusal]]. The most relevant one seems to be "done without serious intent or commitment."
::Oh. No problem. [[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|talk]]) 17:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 
'''The contention that some drug use is less "serious" than others is <u>your opinion</u> and not a fact.'''
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. [[User:WarriorLut|WarriorLut]] ([[User talk:WarriorLut|talk]]) 02:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 
'''If you think some drug use is "serious" and some is "unserious" (or "recreational"), you are welcome to your own personal opinions. Please avoid presenting those personal perspectives and opinions as facts. It is against Wikipedia policy.'''
::[[User:WarriorLut|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. [[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|talk]]) 10:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 
</big> [[User:Chomps123|Chomps123]] ([[User talk:Chomps123|talk]]) 18:39, 14 April 2024 (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.[[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|talk]]) 13:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 
== "Hard drugs and soft drugs" - a topic that is living a life of its own on at least another wikipedia ==
::With regard to "Hundreds of tiny edits just minutes apart", I would like to refute the allegation ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Revert_war_at_recreational_drug_use]) that I am merely an [[Terminator 2: Judgment Day|evil robot from the future]]. This should be supported by reliable references, as should any possible concerns about wasting electrons. [[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|talk]]) 13:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 
I have suggested that the corresponding(?) article, on another-English version of wikipedia, gets deleted.--Feel free, if there is ''any'' information at all, that could be valuable for the English-wiki article, to copy such. (Please see simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_drugs ). [[Special:Contributions/2001:2020:345:8F5E:894E:A82B:A393:40D3|2001:2020:345:8F5E:894E:A82B:A393:40D3]] ([[User talk:2001:2020:345:8F5E:894E:A82B:A393:40D3|talk]]) 14:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
== The second paragraph of the article seems a bit 'off' to me... ==
 
== Erroneous Citation and Injection of Personal Opinion ==
I have a problem with most of this paragraph:
 
Near the top of the article is the line:
"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."
 
"In popular practice, recreational drug use is generally tolerated as a social behaviour, rather than perceived as the medical condition of [[self-medication]]."
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. [[User:ElectricWizard 0|ElectricWizard 0]] ([[User talk:ElectricWizard 0|talk]]) 16:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 
The "evidence" for this assertion is a Motley Fool article that is unrelated to this topic. The statement is someone's opinion. The framing is pejorative rather than neutral, as well. ('People "tolerate" recreational drug use.'). There are many different cultures with many different attitudes towards drug use. Which culture is Wikipedia written for - or about? [[User:Chomps123|Chomps123]] ([[User talk:Chomps123|talk]]) 20:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
:I took a look at the preview of the nearby source [http://books.google.com/books?id=t-6YPniKgVkC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false 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. [[User:Boogerpatrol|Boogerpatrol]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/174.55.184.14|174.55.184.14]] ([[User talk: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 ([[nootropic]]s and [[ergogenic]]s) or religious/cultural use. [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Seppi333/Maintenance|''Maintained'']]) 19:27, 15 March 2014 (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:
 
<{: )}>
 
== 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:
 
<{: )}>
 
== 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 [[Inhalants|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 [[inhalant|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?
<{: )}> <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:98.248.67.211|98.248.67.211]] ([[User talk:98.248.67.211|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/98.248.67.211|contribs]]) 14:57, 8 January 2014(UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
{{Did you know nominations/Recreational drug use}}
 
== 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. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:WarriorLut|WarriorLut]] ([[User talk:WarriorLut|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/WarriorLut|contribs]]) 19:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 
: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.) [[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|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.)[[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|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).[[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|talk]]) 20:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 
 
: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. [[User:WarriorLut|WarriorLut]] ([[User talk: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. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:WarriorLut|WarriorLut]] ([[User talk:WarriorLut|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/WarriorLut|contribs]]) 08:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::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". [[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|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 [[User:WarriorLut|WarriorLut]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|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. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:WarriorLut|WarriorLut]] ([[User talk:WarriorLut|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/WarriorLut|contribs]]) 09:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 
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.[[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|talk]]) 09:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 
And, thirdly, what relevance does the ''beyond-the-scope'' definition have for my ''misguided'' statement?[[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|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.[[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|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.[[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|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.[[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|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. [[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|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.[[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|talk]]) 10:51, 12 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? [[User:Jxm|jxm]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|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.
[[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|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.[[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|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.[[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|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|entertainment]] should be replaced with the words [[Recreation|recreational purposes]]. Recreational drug use isn't simply for entertainment. People do drugs for various reasons including socialising; winding out of stress; [[Self-medication|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 needs|fundamental human need]]. Drinking alcohol is recreational drug use and to say that people do it simply for entertainment isn't correct.--[[User:Custoo|Custoo]] ([[User talk: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 [[tautology (rhetoric)|avoiding saying anything]]. [[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|talk]]) 21:08, 16 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"? [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 
===No convinced lead has improved===
Appears better here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recreational_drug_use&oldid=622082491] [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|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. [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|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. [[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|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. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|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) [[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|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. [[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|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. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk: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 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NeilN#I_am_not_a_sockpuppet]) 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. [[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|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. [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|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)[[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|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. [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|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.[[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|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? [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|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. [[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|talk]]) 12:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 
===Revert to last stable version===
I propose we revert back to the last stable version here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recreational_drug_use&oldid=622082491]
 
*'''Support''' as article better followed [[WP:MEDMOS]] and was a better overview of the subject at hand. [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|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. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 12:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''' This was the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recreational_drug_use&oldid=622082491 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. [[User:Wiki CRUK John|Wiki CRUK John]] ([[User talk:Wiki CRUK John|talk]]) 12:25, 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 thhat allay the concerns? [[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] ([[User talk:Signedzzz|talk]]) 12:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Recreational_drug_use"