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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLP violation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV distortion in new lead

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

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

"Responsible use" section needs to go

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

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

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

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

"Demographics" (?)

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

"Movements"

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

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

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

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

"Prevention" needs to be expanded

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

Revert to last (referenced) version

After the deletions suggested above, required by Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, the article will be a very short stub. I would suggest therefore that the previous version ([5]) takes its place. This seems to me to be the most sensible course of action. Comments?zzz (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And stop WP:HOUNDING me. ([6]) zzz (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

New sections

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

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

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

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

Sections deleted for POV reasons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article tagged as worthless

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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