Talk:Recreational drug use

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 ([1]) 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)

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)

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 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 • contribs) 14:57, 8 January 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)

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)

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 [2] 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 ([3]) 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

I propose we revert back to the last stable version here [4]

• 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)

(Comment) The lead seems very extreme, I realise that. It summarises the most extreme parts of the article, because I was trying to make it as interesting as possible. I didn't put much more thought into it than that, other than making it read well. Maybe I did get it badly wrong. In which case, Thanks for this 'intervention'. As I said, it wasn't finished anyway, and I believed it's better than it was? Maybe not. I don't really know what I think about it any more. zzz (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

(Comment) If the lead was replaced with the old lead, that would be a step backwards, IMO. But then additions could be discussed, so it might not be the end of everything. zzz (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

(Comment) I have not deleted any of the old sections of the article. The overview of the subject cannot be improved by removing valid, sourced material. zzz (talk) 16:32, 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)

(Comment) I am not arguing for keeping the lead as it is. I agree that the lead focuses unduly on the US. It is unfinished, and needs to be expanded, possibly with some of what was there before (although I, personally, could not see anything that needed keeping, which is why it's not there at the moment). No one expressed any interest while I was writing the article, and the lead. Now 4 editors turn up and don't like the lead. So change it. Since when was deletion the best policy? I have not deleted any of the article, except the lead, eventually, which you should restore, if you want. But there is no point in removing the material that is currently there, as it summarises a major part of the article. It makes no sense - it would need to be added back again. However, obviously some of what is there could be removed if it is thought necessary (and the picture). zzz (talk) 16:33, 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)

(Comment) I am in the process of summarising the largest quotes. The article is not finished. I agree it was not great, that was why I decided to write some new sections (same thing with the Boko Haram article. Then I thought I'd added so much, I might as well redo the lead from scratch in the end. This can be reversed, but I'm just saying, it's not essential to delete the whole thing.zzz (talk) 16:34, 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)

• 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)

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)