Talk:Drugs:Fact and Fiction

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Contents 1 Only Recreational? 2 Drugs:Fact_and_Fiction (From VfD) 3 Appeal for personal experiences 4 I don't think you guys get the point of this book 5 Just as always and (nearly) everywhere

[edit] Only Recreational?

• We definitely need more information on prohibited drugs, because what little info most people have is propaganda. However, is this book only concerned with recreational usage? What about spiritual, entheogenic usage? (Substances that are difficult, or impossible to use recreationally, such as salvia and DMT.) I think this is at least as important as the recreationally-used drugs. PurplePieman (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This page was previously nominated for deletion, but was kept. Please see the discussion on Wikibooks:Requests for deletion for justifications and discussion. Old discussions should be taken into account before nominating again for deletion.

Please don't delete parts of this book, its not something that can be written in 10 minutes, give it some time to be filled out more. --Floydian 16:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Drugs:Fact_and_Fiction (From VfD)

• Strong Delete I don't think Wikibooks needs anything promoting drug use. For specific violations of the official policy here are a few: it violates NPOV in many instances - most importantly it does not say anything about the harm of drugs; it is violation #1 and #2 from Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks#Wikibooks_is_not_a_soapbox by advocating drug use and having personal essays (for example see Drugs:Fact_and_Fiction/Meth), in fact one of the beginning paragraphs of the book encourages personal essays. If not delete all of it, at least some parts of it.--Konstable 06:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - While I in general support the NPOV dispute as a valid argument for module cleanup, and that this needs to be organized into chapters and turned more into a book-like format (at least for Wikibooks-like format), this is slightly more than a stub and is something that has general value to Wikibooks readers. There is no reason to delete the factual information about psycedellic drugs that are illegal in many countries. This is more a discussion about the effects of such drug consumption, and often is even included in the core curriculum of many school systems as a required subject. The harmful effects of drug useage should be documented, and Wikibooks is certainly an appropriate place to do that sort of documentation, given a NPOV and objective fact checking. --Rob Horning 16:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I have not found any significant attempt to present NPOV in this article, no long term effects are mentioned, nothing about addiction and only very limited mention of negative short term effects and dangers. There is a lot of work that needs to be done ot make it be useful rather than damaging, and to conform to NPOV. It seems to me that the whole idea that the authors of the book try to present is viewing drugs from the perspective of the user, hence the article is written in a fundamentally NPOVish way.. This reason I listed for Delete rather than suggesting a clean up, but maybe in fact it would be better to just clear or heavily alter some sections of it - in particular some particular modules that I've noticed: Drugs:Fact_and_Fiction/Meth, Marijuana Myths section, Personal notes on Hydrocodone and Ritalin Trip Report. --Konstable 23:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess I could say BE BOLD and do it! I don't deny that this book needs some cleanup, but the topic is certainly not too far off for a project like Wikibooks. The only point of deleting a book like this is to wipe the slate clean so that a proper book on the same topic could be written that would follow NPOV guidelines. That was done BTW for Monopoly and a few other Wikibooks, but it is a drastic step. --Rob Horning 21:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep There's no reason we should not have the book because its about drugs- please remember that drugs are not illegal everywhere. THere's probably a few turns of phrase that ought to be cleaned up and a few places with bias showing (the marjuana page ought to stress that smoking the sutff is just as harmful as smoking tobacco, although you tend to smoke fewer blunts to lessen the total effect). But it shouldn't be deleted for those cleanups, it should be fixed. If you want to nominate some of the user stories, I might support deleting those. --Gabe Sechan 00:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Most of the individual drug pages are NOT written by me, but by some of my collegues on an internet forum. I have not had time recently, but I will in-time get around to changing those stories into more factual works.

  The legality of drugs is not the issue at hand here, however. The book in now way recommends or encourages drug use. It encourages the knowledge of them, and the choise of the individual as to whether he or she wishes to persue that lifestyle.

  Also, just to point out, marijuana should not be compared to tobacco in terms of detrimental health effects. The act of smoking anything is harmful; The substance itself is not. - Floydian 23:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This book has not encouraged me to use drugs, because it includes lists of scary side effects. --Kernigh 00:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Cleanup or delete. This book is written for druggies by druggies. As such, it includes, um, original research in violation of WB:WIW. This makes the book a problem for the reputation of Wikibooks that could negatively affect our efforts to be taked seriously and to attract good authors. It needs to be refocused to be straight-up informational. In particular, the first non-template paragraph encouraging first-hand accounts with the various drugs needs to go (as well as the existing first hand accounts). Slang geared to a druggie audience (like "tweaked") needs to go. My guess is this. There is enough good stuff here to be worth keeping if someone is willing to take on the cleanup task. However, there is not so much good stuff to be worth keeping it around in the vague hopes that some good samaritan will come along and take on the cleanup task. Ask for someone to do the cleanup. If someone volunteers in, say, a month, then great. Otherwise, delete. --JMRyan 09:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately you won't find many places with actual proven facts on most drugs. "Druggies" (Obviously a derogative term, there's some irony there) would provide the best facts with written accounts of their experience since many of them have been doing said substances for several years and thus would have the best account of long and short term side effects.

Or you could go look up a study done by the American government (NIDA) that would be misleading and completely false. Drug studies cannot be trusted because all too often the "facts" are made up simply to discourage the use of a substance.

Also, I am not a druggy. While I may use them from time to time, I definately do not fit the classic (And for the most part false) cliche of a druggie.

I have also moved all of this to the Talk page of the article. -Floydian 07:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I think is important to bear in mind that "good authors" have a very wide variety of opinions regarding drug use, and that a difference of opinion does not mean that they are a "druggie." For example, alcohol consumption is a major part of the culture is much of Europe and the U.S., hashish has been a part of middle-eastern culture (while alcohol is generally frowned upon) since the rise of Islam, and coca has been an intergral part of South American culture for millenia. Those who feel that the article is not written in a NPOV should realize that a NPOV on this subject varies depending on one's culture. While many in the U.S. intolerantly label users of non-traditional (from their POV) drugs as "druggies", people from different cultures may feel that we are "druggies" for our level of consumption of alcohol or prescription drugs. Let's not censor others because our cultural values are different. 68.117.98.223 20:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)EGA

[edit] Appeal for personal experiences

I deleted the paragraph at the beginning that requested personal testimonials about drug experiences. Wikibooks is not for original research, which this sort of appeal violates and as such we can't have it here. If it is put back in, this may be grounds to delete this whole Wikibook. Such testimonials will be deleted from other parts of this Wikibook under this standard as well. If you want to discuss drug experiences between different drug users, please try Wikicities, or start your own web server for that sort of content.

I have defended the idea that this book could exist, and make sure that it becomes something worthy of a pre-med college textbook, not a drug user's handbook worthy of the uncyclopedia. --Rob Horning 07:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, to add here, if you want to point to testimonials and other such stuff that has been put onto other websites as a reference and cite it here, that would be another issue altogether. Legitimate scholarly research is acceptable, where you are citing other publications to prove a factual point. We also don't want to be seen as encouraging people to partake of these very harmful substances. --Rob Horning 03:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't think you guys get the point of this book

Its not a book about drugs, straight up and out. Its a book that someone who is looking to try drugs should read so they DON'T end up killing themselves, but at the same time don't get discouraged by obvious lies that are published about them.

Fact of the matter is, unless you have tried drugs, you are trapped on the outside of a wealth of knowledge and an alternative view of our reality. You see someones quest for inner peace and knowledge as "A druggie looking to get high".

The appeal for people to post experiences is there for people who have already had those experiences to describe them. Somebody who has experienced a drug has far more factual points on a drug than a medical journal that has conducted tests on rats or monkeys. Someone who has done ecstacy for 20 years can tell you how amzingly safe MDMA itself is. Someone who has tripped on acid since the 60's can tell you that acid is comparible to marijuana in safety. Someone who has snorted cocaine hundreds of times can tell you how a little self control is all it takes to avoid an addiction, and that you can surely feel it getting out of hand well before you have a heart attack.

Can medical journals that have studied rats tell you this? Can rats describe their symptoms of the euphoria? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.117.98.223 (talk • contribs) .

No, but you are practicing amateur pharmacology when you participate in the consumption of controlled substances without any sort of scientific methodology or even throw caution to the wind and willy nilly partake of random substances. Please, if you want to add content here, please look at WB:NPOV and find citable material which can be used to define what exactly happens when you consume these drugs.

As for consuming mind altering drugs... I can say that yes, I have. In every case under the supervision of a licensed medical practitioner. I won't go into further details, and it was for specific medical procedures that would stand up to state medical board review. I can't say that about what is advocated in this page. --Rob Horning 22:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just as always and (nearly) everywhere

as i found this book i wondered how it could be that wikipedia, that is very often influenced by the current public opinion, has things like that on their list. i read and after a while i noticed the link that brought me here. i can just say that it is so sad and it really hurts me reading your argumentation. i cant speak in my own words without getting rude, because i got so frustrated over the years caused by people being mad about stuff about drugs they have read in a magazine. so i want to say it through 3 sayings:

1) If you have no concept of it at all: Just sh*t up from time to time! (german, dunno who; not meant discourteously)

2) Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. (Benjamin Franklin)

and after searching for half an hour for a exact translation i thought about the third "why should i try to talk to those that wont listen anyway?", so if you want to understand the last you will have to translate it yourself and proof me that you're listening.

3) Der Durchschnittsmensch gleicht einem eingepferchtem Tier, das noch nie bis zum Gatter vorgedrungen ist und daher völlig verständnislos die Berichte seiner Leidensgenossen hört, die von Begrenzung und Gefangennahme sprechen. Weil er noch nie weit genug gegangen ist, weiß er nicht, dass er im Käfig sitzt. (Baba Ram Dass)

a few words to me: early 20s, lot of experience with thc, specially after i nearly stopped touching ethanol when i was around 15/16 (3-4 times alcohol/year now); german (sorry for the spelling and grammar mistakes btw!). in my mind there are people who shouldn't take drugs or substances that could be seen as such, because they have latent mental problems or the natural tendency to get problems when getting in contact with drugs in common. The others wont need drugs to survive, too, yes, but this group simply splits into the ones who cannot talk about the topic and the ones who can. Sorry that this sounds so arrogant, but i am not able to say it in other words. i could write an essay here why the ones, who had no long term drug consumption or at least to people who get to manage to take drugs without messing everything up, can, but this isnt the place for such things. in short: every single, adult person having drug problems has no right to complain, because it is his/her own fault. and according to 3) nobody who has no drug experience should tell a one who has, what to do, say or think. if you would research a little bit, you will find out that Baba is some kind of mental leader of some weird club, but thats exactly what i want to say: Only because we have no idea what anyone is talking about we dont have the right to judge.

i understand that wiki... are public and have to hold up the law, thats ok and thats right. but in every other point where the law isnt broken every open minded person should let the others have as much freedom as possible. i dont get it in my head whats the problem with that idea... u dont have to read this book. If one person reads the section about life changing experiences and so on and thinks by itself "thats a step to far for me" and decides to take something less dangerous (i know how misplaced this word is, but you know what i mean: less risk) or nothing at all then you should be happy that this book exists. and the ones that would still want to try wont be held up by law or anything else if not by their own will, believe me. this is also the reason why im quiet shocked since i saw this site, because i thought wikipedia would be such a place of such people, where everyone does as he wants as long as nobody is hurt and when you show me the person that is hurt and didnt had the possibility to say no, then i might think about to argue seriously about that topic again.

at the end a saying about the third common usage of drugs despite fun and spiritual stuff, refers to alcohol but is true for all other drugs i think:

alcohol is a bridge, but no path (i know what ur thinking :-))

   greetings        LaVey