Wikipedia

Talk:Recreational drug use: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
(80 intermediate revisions by 37 users not shown)
Line 2:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 12
|minthreadsleft = 5
|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 PDD|class=CLaw|importance=tophigh}}
{{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}}
}}
 
== Valerian minor issue ==
== fix brackets at end of first paragragh ==
 
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>
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.
 
== Proposed merger ==
quoting:
 
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)
 
:{{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)
Understood broadly, this is [recreation]].
== "[[: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 ==
That is how it actually reads. I'm pretty sure that what was meant was:
 
I had some good faith concerns about the neutrality of the definition of "recreational drug use." They were summarily deleted. According to Wikipedia policy:
Understood broadly, this is [[recreation]].
 
"'''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>."
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.
 
<big>
my sig:
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."
<{: )}>
 
'''The contention that some drug use is less "serious" than others is <u>your opinion</u> and not a fact.'''
== alcohol not consumed by whom? ==
 
'''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.'''
Under Types: Common Drugs: second bullet, [[ethanol]]: religious proscription of alcohol is described as follows:
 
</big> [[User:Chomps123|Chomps123]] ([[User talk:Chomps123|talk]]) 18:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
not consumed by members of some religions.
 
== "Hard drugs and soft drugs" - a topic that is living a life of its own on at least another wikipedia ==
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."
 
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 logical conundrum (whether "not by all" or "not by some" is meant) could be solved by:
 
== Erroneous Citation and Injection of Personal Opinion ==
not consumed by some members of some religions.
 
Near the top of the article is the line:
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:
 
"In popular practice, recreational drug use is generally tolerated as a social behaviour, rather than perceived as the medical condition of [[self-medication]]."
forbidden by some religions: therefore not consumed by many of their adherents, or consumed only clandestinely.
 
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 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}}
 
== 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. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.85.172.72|75.85.172.72]] ([[User talk:75.85.172.72|talk]]) 01:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::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. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|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.[[User:Boilingorangejuice|Boilingorangejuice]] ([[User talk:Boilingorangejuice|talk]]) 23:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 
== Stand-alone lists ==
 
Does anyone mind if I make stand-alone lists and link to them in the article instead of having these lengthy lists that take up so much main article space? '''<font color="indigo">[[User:Permstrump|PermStrump]]</font>'''<font color="steelblue">[[User:Permstrump|(talk)]]</font> 03:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
:Probably not a bad idea. I spun off [[List of designer drugs]] from its main article since the list was growing large. Are you proposing [[List of recreational drugs]]? My only concern is such a list could become extremely large as more and more obscure substances are added. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 07:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
::True, but at least it wouldn't be an extremely long list in the middle of the article. I haven't really thought this all the way through yet. Right now at least, they wouldn't be too too long if there were lists named after the subsections, like... [[List of popular recreational drugs]], [[List of routes of administration (recreational drugs)]], etc. Some already exist, like [[List of psychedelic plants]]. We should add [[List of designer drugs]]. I just did ctrl F "design" and that word isn't even in the article at all apparently. I bet lists like the one for psychedelic plants will need to be synched with what's in the article, so only keeping them as stand-alone lists would help that problem. As a "class" of drugs gets longer, it could get its own spin off list similar to [[List of designer drugs]]. I think it's ok if there's overlap, like [[synthetic cannabinoids]] might be on both [[List of designer drugs]] and [[List of cannabinoids]]. I'm just thinking out loud. Tbh, I haven't even finished scrolling through the entire article yet, because it's so long. '''<font color="indigo">[[User:Permstrump|PermStrump]]</font>'''<font color="steelblue">[[User:Permstrump|(talk)]]</font> 11:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Recreational_drug_use"