Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Drugs:Fact and Fiction (3)

Drugs:Fact and Fiction
This book as been nominated for deletion before. Insert I did not notice it was nominated twice before. See the link in Darklama's comment below. End Insert  The goal of this book is to "... provide responsible individuals with some guidelines which may prove helpful if they choose to use drugs." There are consistent POV issues throughout this book (as have been noted now for many years). And due to the nature of the subject, much of the explicit advice given about safe dosages is bound to fall outside the realm of verifiable information. So I also feel the whole book suffers from OR such as user testimonials, it included "tweeked"-ness, and occasionally list subjective side effects such as "definite enhancement to music", etc. In addition some of the information given is incorrect (I offer as corroboration the most recent comment on the discussion page), and hence dangerous. I find this doubly concerning because the book is well written, occasionally cites references, and thus presents the itself as a reliable resource.

Mostly I would like to make the case that this book falls outside the realm of what should be considered a textbook. Its goal of educating the user in how to use recreational drugs goes outside the scope of what is taught at any accredited educational institution that I am aware of. Thenub314 (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't know why information in this book couldn't be verified to be true or false. I imagine studies have been done, and recreational drug use is legal in some countries. Are the cited sources reliable and does the book accurately reflect what the cited sources state? Anyone seeking to be come a medical doctor is likely to need reliable information on this, so they know if a person has overdosed, or if the effects a person is experiencing could be related to drug use or something else. --dark  lama  12:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The resources that are cited are frequently other sites on the web which have a similar mission. I do not consider them particularly reliable, but perhaps others do.  Some of the information, such as classification of different substances is most certainly verifiable. What is more difficult to verify is dosages, as many drugs vary in potency depending on how they are manufactured, it is difficult to accept that constructing a book which indicates safe levels is really possible.  I agree there are probably studies understanding how the human body reacts to the active substances involved, but I don't think they would help with determining quantities of the substances "available on the street".  As comment in one of the previous RfD's the book hasn't been worked on in quite some time, and it is difficult to check the accuracy of the sites it references as many of the sites are now gone or are themselves equally out of date.  There is also problem of verifying general advise given.  Throughout the book is the theme "You can always take more later" meaning start with a small dose at first and take more as desired.  I can not verify this is bad advise, but I do have anecdotal evidence it might be.  During some conversations with cocaine addicts I know they described to me the phenomenon of being on patrol, which they claim often leads to overdose.  Being on patrol is a situation in which you have a relatively large amount of cocaine, and you do some moderate amount.  While high you become paranoid of being caught with this substance, so you do more.  (The thinking being the faster it is gone the less chance you'll run into police while you have it).  This unfortunately creates a very bad downward spiral.  So I personally think this is dangerous advise, after the first dose your judgment is impaired and you shouldn't attempt to make such serious decisions.  Of course this is my personal opinion which I can verify no more then what is written in the book. Thenub314 (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe the book makes some unstated assumptions. Where recreation use is legal, the streets is not the only place recreation drugs can be obtained. From What I gathered from watching some PBS shows you can often obtain recreation drugs from business vendors or special government distribution centers in places where recreation drug use is legal as a way to guarantee the drugs are safe to use. I imagine those would have safe dosages as well as documented ingredients. Perhaps this is also true of medical marijuana in the United States. Maybe the book ought to recommend that drugs be obtained legally in order to ensure a higher quality and safety of the product? --dark lama  14:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Simply adding a disclaimer to the affect that you should obtain drugs legally would be disingenuous. Sure if you then make claims about specific doses more accurately, but not all drugs are going to have such a source available, and the pages written are are not based on such sources, and realistically never will be. Thenub314 (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally I think marijuana should be legalized, but we know recommending that in a book would be to use Wikibooks as a soapbox - don't we? Recent Runes (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it is worth I am pro legalization as well, but it is, as you note beside the point. I don't know how much of the book you have read.  I have to say that I feel as a whole it violates the soapbox principle.  Reading this I can't help think of the section for and against the legalization of marijuana.  Doesn't this read like an argument for legalization?  Where are the arguments against legalizing?  Exactly this type of POV is present throughout the text. Thenub314 (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Symbol delete vote.svg Delete (for once I'm using a template, just because it makes me sound stronger. LOL.) I agree that it falls outside our project scope and has a consistent POV issue. Besides, doesn't everyone know that drugs are bad? It's against the mainstream viewpoint that they think a certain amount of drugs are good, which is also untrue. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 12:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment Whether something is taught at an institution is nice ideally, but I've never seen that explicitly stated in WB:WIW. Such a definition would call into question many books in Subject:Miscellaneous and Subject:Games.  As a comparison, there is a book How To Build A Pykrete Bong that has survived three RFDs, setting a precedent that books on topics illegal in the US jurisdiction (Marijuana Cultivation) or on topics not necessarily taught at a university (How to Solve the Rubik's Cube) can reside here.  The latter factor was, apparently, used to purge video game strategy guides, but not consistently applied subsequently.  As for this book, one wonders how much is fact and just how much is fiction. – Adrignola talk contribs 12:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * To be honest I kind of agree that what is taught at universities is not the best criteria. I find it difficult to describe but I do think there is a difference in this case.  If I can be vaugue for a minute... While I couldn't find a course on every game listed in Subject:Games I could cover a lot of them if I spent some time researching.  There are classes on Bridge, Chess, etc. so I feel it isn't a stretch to believe there a course that covers Monopoly (High school economics?)  Just to give an example it wasn't difficult to find a class that discusses How to Solve the Rubik's Cube, just see here.  There is some value judgment that Bridge is a more intellectual game the Poker, so may get classes in one and not the other.  I feel like this book fails to be textbook by a several orders of magnitude.  But I have no good way to suggest that we measure it.  It is not so much the illegality of the subject that bothers me.  But the potential harm to an individuals health the bothers me.  By intending to give explicit advice on how to take drugs, this book must contain a certain amount of unverifiable information.  This book implicitly encourages readers to use drugs and gives them some comfort in making the first step by telling them what is safe.  Eventually the first step will lead to someones death, if it hasn't already.  Yes, there is a disclaimer warning people death is a possibility, but I don't think a disclaimer is strong enough.  By allowing this to stay we are deciding that this type of information is part of wikibooks mission to create educational textbooks.  Just as with the Pykrete bong, it becomes a precedent.  Somehow I feel the difference is that in following the advise on how to build a pykrete bong, or grow a marijuana plant people are not fundamentally placing their lives in danger.  The same is not the case when they take advise on a specific dosage of a given drug. Thenub314 (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you feel that Wikibooks should also not have textbooks for medical students that gives advice on what dosage to give for prescription drugs? That also entitles a level of risk. Where do you draw the line on what risk is acceptable and unacceptable? --dark lama  15:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no line to draw. If anyone uses a book here for medical advice or anyone uses a book here for medical practice and somebody dies, neither we nor the Wikimedia Foundation are liable.  If it sounds plausible enough to be true, it's welcome at Wikibooks.  All we have to do is point to Medical disclaimer. – Adrignola talk contribs 16:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My response to the question of a text on medical prescription drugs is that the two are completely different in terms of verifiability. I personally could easily look up in, say the pill book if the information here is correct. Where as in the current book there is no such reference to turn to.  It is in effect the OR of the authors that determine the safe level.  Indeed in some cases it is the "safe level" by which you can exceed the medically safe level listed for a prescription drug.  It is not really a question about liability, I have no concern over anyone getting sued, but this just isn't a textbook. Thenub314 (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is true, if this book qualifies as medical advice or medical practice. I think the question, "Is the use of drugs for recreational purposes a medical issue", may be the same as, "Is social/recreational drinking a medical issue?" Another question is "When does it become a medical issue?" I think guidance on use and dosage advice might make it as medical issue, or at the very least a health or lifestyle issue. --dark lama  17:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Our disclaimer says "Wikibooks does not give medical advice", but this book presents drug dosages and how-to guidance. To be consistent, the information here should not be presented in a style that could be read as medical advice. Recent Runes (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If we want to be ANAL about it, sure. I think there is a difference between Wikibooks or us giving medical advice, and a book offering medical advice. The disclaimer warns readers to seek a qualified profession. If this is a question of our obligation to do anything, I doubt we are obligated to do anything more than ensure the disclaimer is included. --dark lama  18:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it depends on whether we want to follow the spirit or just the letter of the disclaimer. Recent Runes (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That would likely require people to do a much better job of reviewing books, removing or rephrasing anything that looks like advice, and harassing or blocking anyone that repeatedly adds or readds advice. Since teaching anything can look like advice, might as well close Wikibooks in that case. --dark lama  19:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We are only talking about material that appears to be medical advice, so there is little or no impact on 99% of Wikibooks. (I can only see eight pages from five books that include the medical disclaimer.) Regarding this material, I think extra care is called for. Recent Runes (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We got more than just a medical disclaimer to consider though. If we apply this to medical disclaimers, than that sets the precedent to apply it to the legal disclaimer, the general disclaimer, etc. --dark lama  20:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is that the medical disclaimer should be more than just a device to cover our backsides. It should imply a policy that "Wikibooks does not provide medical advice". To host material that can be read as medical advice, with no reference to the disclaimer since 2006 by the way, is simply two-faced. It is the potential for harm to naive readers that makes apparent medical advice a special case. There is no need for a precedent to be set for the other disclaimers. Regarding edit wars over material that looks like advice, we just have to make the policy on medical advice clear in the manuals of style for the handful of affected books. No calamity need result. Recent Runes (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the 3rd nomination for this book. See the second keep. --dark lama  12:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I noted this above so it gets more visibility. Thenub314 (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Though it pains me greatly to vote this way, <font color="midnightblue">dark lama  makes some good points that I cannot ignore.  --Jomegat (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * From previous votes this book seems unlikely to be deleted. Assuming that books like this are acceptable in principle, this one should be cleaned up to comply with our policies.
 * Can we agree that personal testimonies are not acceptable, and can be deleted without further discussion?
 * Regarding content making factual claims that are unsupported by any sources at all, these can be flagged for removal after a period of grace (1 month?).
 * There is also some material which refers to sources, so the question is then one of the reliability of those sources. For example, the EROWID page referred to by the page on LSD is obviously a secondary source with a disclaimer that says "All material is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind and should be double-checked and verified through other sources.". Doesn't this require the Wikibook to refer directly to the primary sources instead? The existing sources could be flagged as unreliable where appropriate, and either improved by supporters or the affected content will be deleted after a period of grace by opponents of the content. The situation where we know we are hosting unsupported and potentially unreliable content needs to be resolved one way or the other. Recent Runes (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can agree that personal testimonies are not acceptable, unless reliable primary sources have published similar testimonials or claims. Recreational drug use might be a good place to begin to clean this book up and make the book better. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  17:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe your right, and there is no chance of getting book deleted. But don't believe (unless you do it yourself) that this book will ever be cleaned up.  It has been flagged for cleanup and NPOV disputes since 2006, if we again say "it can stay, if we clean it up" it will remain exactly as it is. We are a different group of people and we can make a different decision about the book if we choose, and I sincerely hope we do.  Thenub314 (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep What has changed in the work or the community to warrant a new RFD? All the previous RfDs already cover all the reasons the work should be kept.
 * As for the personal testimonies the issue was also raised. I agree with Darklama that we should come to an understanding about the topic and express it on the WIW under "primary source". I wouldn't object personal testimonies if on the context for the work and if signed (real id or sourced) but this will have to be discussed in general terms and in the context of the WIW policy. --Panic (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Did something need to change? Personal testimonies of the editors here are simply not verifiable, by WB:WIW they shouldn't be included. In general I don't disagree with your comment below about personal stories used as motivating introductory material for a subject, but for this particular book we are talking about something much different. Thenub314 (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As I see it, any personal testimonies need to have been previously published in reliable sources. Anything else is OR. Recent Runes (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My problem here is with the "reliable sources" and "previously published". It all depends on how the testimonies are used. For instance I wouldn't object a Wikibook author stating his personal experiences as part of a work if on topic as a way to introduce the subject. This type of presentation is extremely effective as a learning material, a good example of that approach is some of the work by Richard Feynman (or even the way he structured the lectures), but I agree that most of the personal testimonies we are presented here on Wikibooks are not of that nature. It all depends on how we define and limit them. I would support that your view if some steps where taken to permit this approach.  --Panic (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess WB:SOAP could apply, since whether WB:OR is true or not is uncertain. Could also argue that since this is the 3rd time that this has been brought up and not much has been done in the past to address concerns that anyone that wants to write about this subject would be better off writing about it from scratch. If anyone were able or willing to adopt this work, they would of done so by now. I think the medical disclaimer should be a separate discussion. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  22:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The argument around time constrains is a fallacy in our context. There is no way to prove a negative. This is similarly to the reason as why we keep stubs. The content is valid and acceptable or not (and the criteria evolves). This leads to the double fallacy that since no one evolves it it should be deleted to enable a start from scratch. If people want to start from scratch they will, they can request a merge or even a RfD if they are indeed inclined to work on producing something, that way they make a real commitment.
 * I have seen both of these arguments used before and I never agreed with them, they can be stated as engaging in futurology even if well intentioned a deletion is never a productive step, even if it can be stated as a way to promote contributions this allegation without a follow-up is void. --Panic (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

1) I don't believe this book falls out of project scope. The subject is valid and the essence of its presentation is acceptable. I should mention that I do not appreciate the last resort "not suitable for an university course" argument, but I won't delve further in that issue in order not to get sidetracked.

2) As for the medical disclaimer issue, it seems quite clear that Wikimedia disclaimers cover all bases when it comes to legal troubles. Beyond the letter of the law, though, it is very understandable why we would like to be cautious about medical advice due to ethical issues. For an analogous situation I am more familiar with, I would certainly object to a "cookbook" of chemistry experiments which did not provide adequate safety advice. It is, however, extremely difficult to find out where to draw the line and define policy ("slippery slope" is the term I would use to describe the situation). In situations of this kind, maybe medical advice can be interpreted in terms of OR - providing detailed medical advice without confirmed medical qualifications or knowledge of the (possible) patients would amount to OR - but I am just speculating. In any case, barring some obviously problematic passages (such as testimonials) I don't think this book is ethically troublesome.

3) That being said, there are quite a few problems with the contents. While many pages are written from an objective and balanced perspective, some do not (the links Thenub provided make good examples). Some loaded terminology (such as "mind-exploring substances") is liberally sprinkled throughout the book as well, and even the title is not quite adequate in that respect if we want to be strict. And testimonials obviously should not be present. Though not a valid rationale for deletion by any means, an important issue worth mentioning is that the book only covers the (bio)chemistry of psychoactive substances. If it is meant to provide a balanced overview of risks of drug-taking it should also mention intake methods (smoking, injections, etc.).

4) All things considered, I believe there there are valid objections but they do not justify deletion of the book. A clean-up to make the overall package less subjective and closer to NPOV seems pretty feasible, even if done by people without medical or recreational knowledge of the topic - asserting the reliability of all of the contents would be difficult, but effective harm reduction can be done by just trimming the obviously excessive passages. In fact, I am willing to work on it as long as someone else (anyone, really) is willing to collaborate with me in order to promote sound reasoning.

--Duplode (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I wanted to make some small comments in response to Darklama's comment that "since whether WB:OR is true or not is uncertain". Consider the page on DXM, the dosage there far exceeds the usual recommended maximum dosage given on the Cough medicines this page lists as a source.  The dosage given, 600 mg, in is in line with what other pages about taking this drug recreationally suggest.  The time frame is certainly unclear, but given the discussion of hangover the next day it seems like 24 hours is reasonable.  (Corroborated by my cough medicine at home.) Looking up the medical information I find that "coma was reported in an adult who ingested 720 mg over 36 hours (Schneider, 1991)." So if someone taking the dosage here, once a day, they will certainly exceed 720mg per 36 hours.  Now was just one case, maybe it is a statistical aberration.   I don't know, but this book chooses the cut off 600mg not based on any study and in doing so it ignores this particular case history.  How can I verify it is valid to do so? Thenub314 (talk) 08:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe a way to fix pages about drugs that have medical usages which are being used recreationally is to begin by including what is more easy to verify, like its intended use, what is considered to be the maximum safe dosage for medical use, documented side effects, what side effects have been reported when exceeding the maximum safe dosage for medical use, whether the drugs remains in the body or is broken down and how fast, what are considered to be lethal dosages, drug interactions, what combinations of drugs with this one is considered to be lethal, etc. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  10:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if you mean that the new page would still recommend a dosage of 600mg to be taken for entertainment value or not. If the pages contained only the sort of information you describe perhaps it could be appropriate.  But if it if the book here that is deciding that 600mg (or what ever) is the correct amount to start with, that is not appropriate.  Regardless of the other verifiable information surrounding it. Thenub314 (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)