Talk:Drugs:Fact and Fiction/General

Neutral Point of View
I don't know where to start with this section at all. This is deliberately taking on the viewpoint that it is acceptable to experiment with drugs. There are acceptable realms for pharmaceutical experimentation, and clinical trials for many drugs. Of course this is my point of view that I feel needs to be addressed as well, but there is no reason to conduct amature clinical trials on drugs with well known side effects that are used in the often illicit drug trade. Encouraging people to conduct these amature clinical trials is going to simply get people killed, especially when some substances have no known safe limits.

They might as well conduct amature nuclear fission research in their backyard as well, for all the good it is going to do for them and their neighbors. --Rob Horning 03:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is acceptable to experiment with drugs, if you research into it before doing so. There are plenty of sites on the net that set out recommended threshold doses, experiences, side effects (Good and bad), and health effects. Comparing it to nuclear fission is asinine as thats extreme exaggeration.


 * This article is telling users to use things responsibly instead of experimenting without proper knowledge. - Floydian 07:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rob that this article has a huge problem. However taking on the viewpoint that it is not acceptable to experiment with drugs is also not a NPOV. I've tried to add my 5c although I hate this article. I've seen my cousin and the son of a friend ruin their lives because of drugs. But censorship is not the answer, and thats what deletion would do. Lets try pad this rubbish with some facts, and hopefully scare anybody off from actualy trying. The facts behind drugs should be enough to scare people off. --User:Mig77


 * There is a reason why drug research is heavily monitored and controlled by formal certification by the FDA (& DEA) in the USA, and similar agencies in other countries. This is a very dangerous proposition, and many of the chemicals that are used in the production of drugs (even recreational drugs) can be very hazardous.  Meth lab cleanup is increasingly a huge issue, where many police officers have been coming down with fatal illnesses due to improper handling of the materials after a drug bust.  This usually takes some very specialized training and the proper cleanup of a single meth lab can cost millions of dollars.  House fires are common and even explosions that rip out a building with significant damage to neighboring buildings and homes.  And other drug processing (like cocaine) is also equally dangerous, but not done as often on a local level.


 * If you could clean up some of the "red-flags" (words like "dangerous" and the "strong enforcement" which will only alienate rather than inform). It could concievably be worked into the article. --Mig77 10:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is for that reason I compare what is happening with experimental drug use to nuclear fission research, as they are both equally dangerous from this standpoint. Fine, this is a POV, but experimentation even on the level that is suggested by this article is contrary to laws and even common sense based on a lifetime of certified medical personnel that have to deal with the unfortunate consequences of this sort of experimentation.  Very few of the people who are going to try and follow the guidelines on this page are realistically going to follow recommended threshold doses, as the recommended dose is absolutely none for most of these drugs.  And unfortunately there is a large body of research material which is available to a bonified medical researcher simply due to the number of individuals who try this experimentation at home, usually with disasterous results.  --Rob Horning 05:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry Rob, but I think your comparison to nuclear-fission is rubbish. Firstly a drug user generaly harms only himself. Granted the manufacture may be dangerous, but would you then support the "abuse" of legal drugs, manufactured by a large multinational pharmasutical company, formaly certified by the FDA (& DEA). I took a hint about your medical personel comment and added a section. I think were making progress, but it still sickens me. --Mig77 10:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I said nothing about large pharmasutical companies and that is a seperate issue that has seperate political implications. The current drug patent laws ensure that only the largest drug companies are going to be involved with these trials.  There is no reason why a small group of doctors and nurses working out of a small-town hospital couldn't do the same thing except for BS regulations designed to support large drug companies.  Legal experimentation should be available for people who are interested, but it ought to be done according to strict scientific criteria, not the whimsical notions of a random drug user.  BTW, I feel the same way about nuclear fission research, and think there are many things that could be developed with nuclear materials which aren't, simply because too many people are irrationally scared of the "boogyman" of use of the word "nuclear".  Some regulations are necessary, but I think the current arrangements are way too far. As far as drug users only harming themselves, that is a big heap of rubbish in itself.  Besides the permanent damage that they do to themselves that their familes and "loved ones" have to deal with in terms of after effects, long term risks of exposure to these drugs can be a nightmare as well.  And pregent women who ingest many of these illicit drugs give their unborn babies a hellish introduction to this world.  If you want to see something scary, try to look at a newborn baby who is already addicted to cocaine or meth, and then suggest that drug use only affect the person who uses the drugs. For myself in terms of a personal health code (and a strong POV), I avoid all mind altering chemicals that I can.  Besides the general collection of illicit drugs, I also abstain from alcohol and tobacco, and even use as little asprin or caffine as possible (Coca-cola being my prefered form of caffine).  I'm down to about 3 cans/month, and I'm trying to cut back.  There are legitimate uses for drugs, but they are far too often abused even by trained doctors who know better.  For the times you need them, though, they are invaluable and have been documented to be incredibly useful.  I believe that canibis is one of those drugs that under very limited circumstances could be useful, but due to idiots who don't know their own limitations abuse a plant that would otherwise be considered a noxious weed.  --Rob Horning 07:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Rob, you are write very well (much better than I), consider adding a less loaded version of the effects on others especialy newborns, to the actual book. I have no idea how to phrase that with a NPOV though. Also a paragraph on toxic dosages i.e. More than x mg of substance y is fatal may help stop somebody doing something stupid. Perhaps some references to clinical trails would be of value. (e.g. Doses of x mg of y shown to cause cancer.)

btw. I am a non-smoking, non-drinking, vegetarian, who only takes prescription medication (i.e. not even asprin). Keen to work on my caffeen "addiction" too (about 3 cappucinos a month.) --Mig77 11:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A was stated before, censorship is not the answer. What is the answer is providing facts.  What it appears the author is trying to do is to provide a "users guide" of a sort.  Not a definitive answer book, but rather a high-level conceptual guide.  Now, with that said, we have the following questions to answer before deciding to delete.  1) Are the format and intent of this book/article compatible with Wikibooks?  2) Is the subject one on which neutrality can be maintained? (I think it is...) 3) Is there a sufficient factual basis supporting what the author is writing?
 * For item 1) I've seen nobody address this question. I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough to give an opinion.
 * For item 2) I believe that, if skillfully done, one can in fact maintain neutrality on this issue.
 * For item 3) So far I've seen lots of claims that there is sufficient contradictory information. But, nobody has provided article names, web links or other information that can lead to a resolution of the question of the facts.
 * Going forward, my personal preference is that item 1) be answered directly, and if the answer is "no" then the route is clear. Remove it. 'nuff said.  If the answer is "yes" then proceed to debating items 2 and 3, but support your statements with hard facts where sources are cited.
 * Well I'm done rambling -- Jason C Daniels 22:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

same issue different subnetwork
The core issue here isn't that information like this shouldn't be here, it is that for it to be here it should be accompanying everything else. To get a sense of how lucidly I mean this, check out the Psychonaut article on wikipedia. Pay close attention to the edit history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychonaut

People are going to use drugs whether we tell them about them or not. What we can do and what some might argue that we have a rsponsibility to do is to provide the theoretical framework that does justify that use ethically and spiritually. That means digging way deeper than the superficiality of this article. As one far end of a mpov circuit, this is mostly good information. The problem is the missing center, which is about Ethics and serious knowledge about what one is getting into. Then, for balance, a few other corners ought to be pulled up around that center, including the more dire legality and addiction and harm warnings.

For people like myself, this is exactly the kind of emberassing thing which gives the entire movement a bad name. I managed to change the Psychonaut Article on Wikipedia drastically, but it still needs a lot of work. For an evolving conversation over the topic, THINKSTARSHIP/Psychonautics

This article needs a complete do-over
... which is actually relevant to its (supposed) intention of seperating fact and fiction in the confusing and clouded world of drugs. In my opinion most of the module could be safely deleted, especially tripe like this:

"With the exception of Marijuana, all drugs should be gradually introduced so that you become familiar with their effects, dosages, and how to react to them. Nobody takes three hits of Acid their first time."

I'd suggest, if this doesn't get seriously cleaned up soon, the whole article should be scrapped. --138.217.48.53 11:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)