Talk:Drug

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

"write and link it here pleez the world haz too many links to wikipedia already"[edit]

The heck? Its not my fault that wikipedia already happens to contain well researched articles. I also didn't realise that RationalWiki is supposed to try to compete with Wikipedia. I just noted two drug like substances that occur in the human body and linked to more information about them. (that they do, was the contribution, not what they are) Removing them was just an act of removing information because frankly, this is a case where "take it or leave it" applies. Sen (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The main issue is that if they look linked, they might not get written here. So then the question becomes, is it likely RW will ever need or have articles on DMT or endorphins? The latter I think is likely, the former not so much? I'm going to put them both back on the list, but footnote the links to the WP articles, ok (which is what I should have done anyway)? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok. :] , On a sidenote, DMT is (might be) involved in Near Death Experiences, so it might become relevant in the future. Sen (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thread moved from Saloon Bar[edit]

Ok, I figured that I would get a faster response here than in the talk page for Drugs. I originally added this comment while not logged in: "However this does not change the fact that, in the vast majority of cases, a person taking addictive drugs for the first time is making a choice and is aware of the risk of addiction." This was in response to the section against drug legalization, which is basically relying on the straw-man idea that social libertarians think that anyone can stop drugs at any time. What, exactly, is wrong with that comment? In what way is it inaccurate? Yes, there are cases in which people (particularly people involved in human trafficking) force others to take drugs to, essentially, enslave them, but that is not the majority of cases, and that most definately SHOULD be illegal. How is a private citizen, who has spent years in school getting the dangers of drugs hammered into his brain, making the decision to consume a substance that he knows perfectly well COULD result in him becoming addicted, NOT a "choice?"--Mustex (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the statement is factually correct. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find there were people who think "you can't get addicted from taking it just once" in the same way that some kids think "you can't get pregnant the first time you have sex." Anyway it would be interesting to see if there's any evidence on this point. With all the money wasted spent in the "war on drugs" certainly someone must have looked at this by now. Doctor Dark (talk) 03:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Right now your argument boils down to "It's as clear as 2+2=4. Deny this and lose all credibility." Hit the psychology journals or the sociology journals and get some evidence for what happens in the minds of people "in the vast majority of cases" the first time they take a drug. P-Foster (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


I just checked. At no point in the section against Drug Legalization are ANY citations presented for anything. If that's really you're argument, then the entire section should be removed. Furthermore, the issue here's isn't psychological. We don't question the exact mental state that induces murder to make murder illegal. Instead, we make murder illegal, and then leave it to defense attourneys to prove that a given suspect was not liable for his actions. What IS relevant is what information the person taking drugs had the first time he took them and, if it was an adult living in virtually any modern country, he/she would almost always be aware that the risk of addiction existed. Also, I put "the vast majority of cases" solely to exclude cases involving sex traffickers trying to control the people being trafficked with drug addiction.--Mustex (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, but now we're discussing children, and people who don't know wtf they're talking about. No one seriously suggests that children should be allowed to shoot-up heroin. Furthermore, everyone wants people to be well-informed of the risks of drugs. That's why I feel that the current article is really a straw-man. If someone wants to ignore all the information presented to him, even after he's been required to attended our federal school system until at least the age of 16, in which he was supposed to be taught about the dangers drugs, than its no ones fault but his own, anymore than its the fault of a chemical-producing company when someone doesn't read their warning labels, and fails to wear proper safety gear.--Mustex (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
What country do you live in where there's a "federal school system"? And bear in mind, we're on the WORLD Wide Web, so being country-centered is always going to be problematic. And you're arguing as if school/anti-drug education is the only message about drugs a kid is going to get. AND that that kid is going to trust/pay attention to/give a shit about what his incredibly lame teacher says about anything. P-Foster (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I live in the US. While its true that the States have more control over schools, the Federal government still requires children to go to them, last I checked. And no, I'm not assuming that, because its irrelevant. If children ignore what their teachers tell them, that's their choice. If you're an adult, and I tell you that hitting yourself in the genitals with a hammer will result in intense pain, and you chose to ignore my warning, its not my place to pry the hammer out of your hand. Teachers can only advise.--Mustex (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Those are state laws. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Mustex, you are so wrong by now... it bores me. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The last sentence is especially true when youths' natural spirit of independence is reinforced by people telling them that anything from official sources is automatically suspect. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
So, you're saying that because people have the capacity to make choices unwisely, they should not have the right to make choices? And this still doesn't address the fact that the initial article was a strawman.--Mustex (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)--Mustex (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
While the School of Hard Knocks is often the best teacher, its tuition rates are sometimes astronomical. Hence, we have some precedent for denying "bad choices" (anti-suicide laws, for example). Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Anti-suicide laws are a violation of human rights (people own their own lives, and hae the right to end them at any moment they choose), but that's beside the point. That section relies upon the idea that libertarians claim that every. single. time. you. take. drugs. its. a. choice. Do you deny that the first time you take drugs its, in cases where a human trafficker did not force you to do so, a choice? Yes or no? Simple question. Do you deny that social libertarians want drugs to be available only to adults? Yes or no, once again? Do you deny that virtually all modernized countries now have some mandatory education that would include learning about drug addicion? Yes or no? Therefore, do you deny that, in the circumstances under which social libertarians believe that drug use should be legal, the first time would be a choice, in which the person would have at least heard (regardless of his/her decision to ignore the information presented to them) about drug addiction? Yes or no again? Now, given that information, how would the first time in these cases not be a choice?--Mustex (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

By your assumption, everyone is a rational actor, and everybody makes the choices they make with nothing in their head besides the information they were allegedly given. That's not how people work. Don't be so naive. P-Foster (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I've said no such thing. In fact I've quite clearly said the exact opposite. We can now conclude that you either haven't read anything I've said, or you are lying. Which is it? Please answer the question. Now, as for what I'm actually saying: Whether or not people are rational is irrelevant to their right to be irrational, and they have everything available to them that they need to be rational, which in any other context is more than sufficient. We don't go around monitoring every person who MIGHT do something irrational. Once again, I ask: have you not read what I wrote, or are you lying? One or the other. I know you're going to try to dodge that question. And as a secondary question, how does anything you've said justify leaving up a straw-man argument unchallenged?--Mustex (talk) 03:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

TrollP-Foster (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

So, not wanting to leave up a straw-man argument unchallenged is now "trolling?"--Mustex (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
(EC3) Agree with P-Foster's last two posts. As a final remark, the way I read that section, it is merely refuting the idea that a dopey always has a choice. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
So, is it not fair to point out that, under reasonable circumstances, the first time is a choice, and that during that time the person knows that addiction is a risk? Would it not be fair to say that when I drink, or when someone smokes (I don't smoke, hate the smell), they know there's a chance he/she might become addicted (even if it takes longer)?--Mustex (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, a bit more sober now (not retracting anything I said, but I was certainly a bit over-the-top about it). I still hold that that article was a straw-man, and I think that you guys are allowing that straw-man to stand because of your own pro-statist beliefs. So, once again, please answer the following: 1) Do you deny that the first time you take drugs its, in cases where a human trafficker did not force you to do so, a choice? 2) Do you deny that social libertarians want drugs to be available only to adults? 3) Do you deny that virtually all modernized countries now have some mandatory education that would include learning about drug addicion, that takes place before you're an adult and could leagally use drugs under these circumstances? 4) Therefore, do you deny that, in the circumstances under which social libertarians believe that drug use should be legal, the first time would be a choice, in which the person would have at least heard (regardless of his/her decision to ignore the information presented to them) about drug addiction? 5) Now, given that information, how would the first time in these cases not be a choice? and 6) Given this information, do you not think that the current article should be amended to include this perspective?--Mustex (talk) 04:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that last edit was fair enough, so I'll just consider this resolved.--Mustex (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Made some edits to the article before realising it was under discussion here. The choice issue is being overemphasised. Even if we accept that most users are at some level making a "choice", there are a bunch of societal pressures which determine what that choice is likely to be. Besides which, I find it very naive to take the view that the drug question is an ideological issue of freedom of choice vs nanny state. Governments are practical creatures; even if they support the ideals of personal freedom, they're not going to want a population of unemployable drug addicts to drain their economic & healthcare resources. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Societal pressures are not an argument against choice. EVERY CHOICE WE MAKE is influenced by societal pressures. Furthermore, no effort to control drugs in the history of mankind has been remotely successful, and legalizing substances does NOT increase demand (that was shown VERY clearly by the end of prohibition), so your "population of unemployable drug addicts" already exists as much in this world, as it would in a world with legalized drugs. If you want to stop them from existing, you should push from the money for the war on drugs to be put into a better rehab program.--Mustex (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC):
Legalising substances increases availability & hence usage. If attempts to control drugs are not remotely successful, why can I not buy crack over the counter at my local supermarket? €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Because you haven't taken the time to find out where to get it. In any major city, any drug addict is able to get whatever he/she wants within half an hour. There is no control of availability.--Mustex (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Horseshit. I've just given you an example of how availability is restricted. The fact that some people disobey laws does not negate the function of those laws. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel17:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes you did, and I explained why your example is wrong. If someone is going to use drugs because of peer-pressure, their peers will provide it. If someone is going to use drugs because they want to do so, they'll be able to find a source. You underestimate people when you think that they can't find drugs, they will ALWAYS be able to find drugs as long as the market exists. All we accomplish by arresting them is flooding our prisons with people who don't share our personal morality. However, now you appear to be disregarding what I'm telling you out of hand, without any attempt to provide evidence that I'm wrong. Furthermore, you even deleted a cited source from the page, claiming that alcohol prohibition is not comparable to current drug prohibition. On what basis do you make this claim? Or are we now suppose to accept everything you say on faith?--Mustex (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and furthermore, how exactly would drug-legalizers go about proving that hard-drug usage won't go up when its legal, if we can't actually legalize it? Why do I get the feeling that if I showed you similar statistics for pot in Amsterdam you'd just say "Pot isn't heroin!" In short, you demand a type of evidence that you refuse to let us gather, and insist that we take your unfalsifiable beliefs as true until such evidence is presented. As for the whole "that's not how the anti-legalization argument goes," so you're saying that no counter to that argument can be put within the anti-legalization section, but yet the anti-legalization section is last, as if to imply that its a refutation to the pro-legalization section? If that's your argument, then I suggest we reverse the order of the two sections, and allow information and arguments countering the anti-legalization section to be put in the pro-legalization section.--Mustex (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
If you want to discuss edits made to an article, it should be on the article's talk page. I suggest that this whole thread be moved there. The article is supposed to present both sides of an argument on which there are differing opinions, both with their own logic & merits. What you are doing is whitewashing & strawmanning the hell out of it so that only one side is presented as a valid argument, then reverting any attempts by other editors to tone it down. I am very much reminded of Earthland's treatment of the article on abortion.
My example was that I cannot buy crack over the counter at my local supermarket. This is not "wrong"; it is factual, regardless of whether I could score it elsewhere. A market which can only exist illicitly is entirely different to one where drugs are manufactured & retailed openly by recognised business, & the argument that nothing would change in terms of supply or demand under legalisation just doesn't make sense.
I claimed that alcohol prohibition is not comparable to drug legalisation. You use unsuccessful prohibition of one thing as an analogy for legalisation of another thing, which is highly flawed logic, besides the demographics for alcohol consumptions both before & during prohibition being wildly different from those of, say, crack or heroin. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes,its factual that you can't buy crack over the counter, but that doesn't prove that distribution has been CONTROLLED, only that its been MOVED. To indicate that its been controlled you have to actually show that there's less of it being distributed. Whether or not it makes sense that there would be is irrelevant. Lots of things that are true don't make sense. As for only presenting one argument as valid, its not my fault if only one argument IS valid. I honestly don't get how you can see drug prohibition as any more valid an argument than creationism.--Mustex (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't claim its a perfect analogy, but in the absence of other data, its all we have. When you can't get perfect data, you use what is available. For instance, for most of the history of neuroscience we had no means of studying what any given part of the brain did under normal scientific conditions for ethical reasons. Thus, we simply studied the effects when people happened to suffer head injuried. This data was heavily questionable, but it was all we had so we accepted it.--Mustex (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Most discussions of drug availability, such as this one, focus on the "recreational" or psychotropic. Let me rephrase the libertarian argument: controls are needed on drugs that can threaten others. That still covers some recreational drugs that have a high probability of inducing violent behavior, such as PCP. Anabolic steroids, which are quite controlled in the US, also give this risk.
Far greater a public risk, however, are antibiotics, which have huge exceptions for agricultural growth stimulants -- and which merrily create resistant strains even when they are not exact human drugs, but of related structures (e.g., quinolones). Many US hospitals require a specialist countersignature to use "last resort" drugs such as vancomycin; obviously, there are small hospitals that don't have infectious disease subspecialists on staff. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that antibiotics should be controlled. That is the one exception I make, because they do have the potential to directly harm others.--Mustex (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the current edit works alot better, but I realized there was no reference to the expense of the drug war, so I added in some extra stuff.--Mustex (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I blew the whole thing back to before Mustex started being a moron. Please to take to article talk page where it belongs. ħumanUser talk:Human 09:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

While I don't dispute that Mustex is being a moron, that wasn't the most helpful way to go about it as he wasn't the sole editor. I had made a few additions & copyedits which I now need to try & retrieve. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that, Weaseloid. I just tried to find a sane version to use. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm a moron because I don't buy government propaganda, expect damn good reasons when people try to take away my rights, and want some evidence that the War on Drugs actually does anyone any good? Yeah, thanks for that. I just lost a ton of respect for you.--Mustex (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
No, you're a moron because you don't understand the basics of collaborative editing, coherent article structure, or that your opinion is not sacrosanct at this website. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Fine, I put all the problems in the talk page.--Mustex (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm still waiting for anyone to answer those questions I posted. Or, alternatively, give me a reason for refusing to answer them.--Mustex (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok[edit]

Where do we begin. This is one of the most biased articles I've ever seen. First off, I cited a source giving the cost per prisoner in the United States in 2001, that is unquestionably highly relevant. Why cut it? Next, by what standard do we say Amesterdam is "excessively" liberal on drugs? That's an opinion. It should be returned to "extremely." For another thing, I've seen the Penn & Teller War on Drugs episode several times, and do not recall them every saying that people who do drugs will die off as natural selection. I want to know when they said that in the episode, and if they didn't say it, it should be removed. There is still no reference to the idea of the first time doing a drug being a choice, the argument still just goes "addiction takes away choice, Derp, Derp, Derp." Complete strawman. Why is it that no one but me is concerned by this blatant example of dishonesty? While there is reference to the cost of the war on drugs, it comes before the talk about governments "protecting" its cititzens, it should be referenced after that as a counter-point. Finally, and most obviously, the article about prohibition has been cut, which is probably the most important piece of evidence in this article. On what possible basis could it have been cut?--Mustex (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Because it's irrelevant? I've put it in the Prohibition article where it belongs. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so where's your evidence that prohibition of drugs does anything different? If you can't present any, then why shouldn't the article just say that there's a complete lack of evidence either way? Furthermore, this article already makes references to alcohol and cigarettes as an example ("Alcohol and cigarettes are most certainly legal in most parts of the world, but these in no way have, overall, self-regulated into light, recreational use"). Is it only allowed to do so when the references favor your opinion? --Mustex (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I realize I'm starting to get too emotional here, so here's what I'm going to do: To bring in an outside party (who has alot more data than me anyway), I'm sending this link to a friend, and I'm going to let her do an edit. In the mean time, I'm not going to touch it.--Mustex (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You know we probably have several different articles with different approaches, right? Like War on Drugs, for example? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I try to concede to majority opinion in these sorts of things, but when its just two people that's not really possible.--Mustex (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

So, are we allowed to question whether or not the government even has the capacity to meaningfully impact the drug trade? Yes or no?--Mustex (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Comparing the drug market in Belarus or Singapore to that in other equally wealthy countries could be a start. --62.142.167.134 (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ooooooooooooooh[edit]

Just wait until I tell you what-for in my video blog! - David Gerard (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Cigarettes from street gangs[edit]

A lot of people buy cigarettes from criminals here, due to high taxes and restriction. The true figure is unknown.

Edit by user:JohnP.BushIII removed by user:PowderSmokeAndLeather[edit]

Dolan.png
Llamabean.gifLlamabean.gifLlamabean.gifLlamabean.gifLlamabean.gifLlamabean.gifLlamabean.gifLlamabean.gifLlamabean.gifLlamabean.gifLlamabean.gifLlamabean.gif
"Writers should feel free to offer commentary and analysis that is outside their sources" To add a perspective I (a primate in intellectual symbios with other primates via a silicon mycelium called the internet) gained one day on LSD to the pro-legalization argument, think about it this way. Generally when we think about evolution, we think about noticeable physical changes in a species over a long period of time, but in reality minor changes that happen moment to moment are just as much evolution, just of a smaller scale. So when you use LSD for example, you literally evolve into a creature who uses Lysergic Acid Diethylamide in place of or in conjunction with Serotonin, and thinking about this whilst on acid, and knowing that I could be jailed if caught by police, my perspective shifted from thinking I was being arrested for using a substance to me being arrested for being this conscious entity that mentally processed the world differently from the conscious entities(sober people) that ran society, and that this was similar to racism. "What, you discriminatin against me just cuz my existence as this specific variety of human only lasts 12 hours and is induced by a slightly different tryptamine?!" Thinking about how the specific variety of human I was because of having used LSD also made me appreciate how psychedelic the situation was because of the very nature of psychedelics. The idea(which I can't accurately explain but will attempt to anyway) of a creature becoming a different cognitive species or breed which existence within time differs from the default and also perceives time differently, or in other words who's condition reflected the psychedelic properties of it's experience was nerdgasmic to me. Of course if such a concept were to be scientifically recognized it would most probably use different terminology than 'species' or 'breed'. If Thomas Paine had been in the counter-culture, he would have said "Give me Cognitive Liberty, or give me Death!", unless of course his practicing of this ideal temporarily disabled his ability to communicate.

Waves.gifWaves.gifWaves.gifWaves.gif Scream!! (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Performance-enhancing drugs[edit]

I am shocked -- shocked, I tell you! -- that our hallowed article on drugs doesn't mention that "other" category of illegal drugs. The ones that don't get you high, but might help you win arm-wrestling contests. What are anabolic steroids, chopped liver? --Tracer (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

What does this say about RW editors?[edit]

The weirdest omission on the page is that the drugs you get in hospitals and from doctors apparently don't exist! The intro states:

  • Drugs are generally divided into two categories - the ones your mother gives you (which don't do anything at all), and the ones a hookah-smoking caterpillar offers you (and you know you're going to fall). The latter are frequently illegal, or at least heavily regulated.

So they either don't work or are illegal! Maybe it says something about RW users that all drugs are either recreational drugs or placebos!--Weirdstuff (talk) 09:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It says that we're all way too healthy?
Anyways, we should probably modify that, you make a good point. Nullahnung (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)