| Revision as of 21:39, 7 April 2009 editRussavia (talk | contribs)78,741 edits remove template← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 06:49, 16 December 2024 edit undoTempestSounds (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users978 edits →Classification vs Medication content: new sectionTag: New topic |
| (321 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{skiptotoctalk}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBanners |
|
|
|1={{WikiProject Pharmacology|class=start|importance=top|nested=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Altered States of Consciousness|importance=Mid}} |
|
|2={{WikiProject Neuroscience|class=start|importance=High|nested=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Chemicals|importance=High}} |
|
|3={{WPMED|class=B|importance=High|nested=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Pharmacology |importance=top}} |
|
|4={{Template:WikiProject Drug Policy|nested=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Neuroscience |importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Medicine |importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Drug Policy |importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 846354967452427&&848473736356 |
|
|
|counter = 1 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4rh484773874663667282882827736376373 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(31d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Drug/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== This should be a disambiguation page == |
|
|
|
|
|
''JFW enters stage, wearing firefighter's costume and holding fire extinguisher'': Ladies and gentlemen, I have finally turned this page into the disambiguation page it was supposed to be. The previous contents were an indiscriminate mix, mainly about illegal/recreational drugs with some medicinal preparations mixed in. |
|
|
this is history rel,ated sources <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
As I was unable to get a clear answer on the talk page, I've ] and moved the old page to the highly POV-titled ], where it should get the treatment it deserves, such as a merge with the more NPOV-titled ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm wearing this suit because I'm expecting flames. My answer to all of them is: |
|
|
* There are drugs and drugs. Some are used (OTC or on prescription) to treat symptoms or illnesses. Some are taken for recreational purposes. Some substances happen to be in both classes (e.g. diamorphine, cocaine). But to suggest that someone doing heroin is doing this for a medical purpose is bizarre. |
|
|
* The old page did not make this distinction, and all the editing in the world could not justify its independent existence. |
|
|
* Please edit ], or merge it adequately, if you feel there are still issues, but undoing the move will automatically meet with an ] from my side. |
|
|
:I can't believe you made such a statement, when heroin is still administered in some hospitals, and legally prescribed pharmaceuticals such as ] are indistinguisable from heroin.(unregistered user removed comments about sex)First of all, you ignore requests for you to elaborate on your disambiguation ideas. Second, you rename the (NPOV named) "Drug" page to the (POV named) "Drugs of abuse" page, which goes against the NPOV policy. Lastly, you threaten to give a hard time to anyone who reverses your uncalled for changes. --] 06:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think JFW is right with his bold move; the article has evolved so that it is less about drugs generally, it has developed more into an article specifically about drugs of abuse. Nor am I convinced there is a severe POV problem with the name, but, as has been stated, merging with recreational drug use would seem to solve any remaining POV and content problems. Drug should be a disambiguation page, it makes more sense that way. ] 21:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Disambiguation pages are for seperate topics with the same name. Drugs are drugs, that us why there was an article on them. There are many drug related articles and they are linked to largely in the drug article. The ] article covers many topics briefly as the ] article did. Do you think it should be changed into a disambiguation page as well with history, economics, etc.? I fully support the reversal of the changes Jfdwolff has made. Jfdwolff has broght this up on the talk page but no-one has supported it.--] 04:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Links to disambiguation pages are nothing new. There is a seperate project page for that, see ]. These links are used to mean ''either'' pharmacological drugs or substances used recreatively but very rarely both at the same time. I've actually started using <nowiki>]</nowiki> when writing about a medical drug. |
|
|
|
|
|
The page that I moved from here to ] was absolutely not about pharmaceutical drugs, save a few lines. All the rest was about recreational substances. Nobody made an effort to harmonise this or to make the article more unbiased, and I doubt this would have been possible. This is why I acted unilaterally, and I'm quite pleased with the result. |
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, the ] article is about the federation of states in North America. That's ''one'' subject, ''one'' entity, from various perspectives. It is a poor comparison. ] | ] 09:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Maybe we do need an article called ''Drug of abuse''. Or maybe not, there is already '']''. And I am, for one, far from happy with the way the current ''Drug of abuse'' article has been created, at the cost of the style, content and intented purpose of two pre-existing articles. ] 09:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
Which two articles?! No style or content has been lost. I suggested above that a merge of ] would be a sensible option; I agree that ] would be a good candidate. ] | ] 10:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I am saying that ''Drug abuse'' is not really a moved article: it is a new article masquerading as a moved article. ''Drug'' and ''Drug (disambiguation)'' should be restored to their condition prior to the 'move'. ] 13:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
I hope you understand what I've done. I've moved the old ] page, including its history, to ]. Then I moved ] to ]. I have not touched ], and I will not. No information has been lost. Nothing needs to be restored. The only change I've made is removing references to medicinal drugs from the article that is now called ]. If you'd like to access this, which is redundant with ] at any rate, there is always the history. ] | ] 13:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I know exactly what you have done. And the "only change" you have made changes fundamentally the parameters of the article, as defined in the opening paragraph, and makes the rest of the article quite nonsensical. ] 13:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
You are free to restore the content to that article and move it about or perform a frank merge. It did not appear nonsensical to me at all, but I may not be best person to judge that. I am not, however, happy moving that page back here. We've passed that stage now. In fact it has not received much editorial attention at all for a little while, and could do with a cleanup anyhow. ] | ] 13:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:All drugs and medications can be abused. There is no justification for singling out certain substances as "drugs of abuse". The DEA spreads plenty of propaganda, we don't need to encourage that here. If this ''needs'' to be a disambiguation page, then the original drug page should at least be named something like ]. ] is extremely POV. --] 05:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Hmmm... I don't believe they can all be abused, even if that is true then most drugs rarely are. There clearly IS great justification for assuming that some drugs are more prone to abuse. "Commonly abused drugs" would be a more sensible title than "common drugs", which doesn't fit the content of the article in any way at all. Overall the way forward seems to be a merge with ] as there is already a great deal of overlap. ] 21:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Do either of you have any idea what you are talking about? Most drug abuse goes unseen. The hard-core drug abuse that is seen by law enforcement and rehab clinics (and crack houses, back alleys, etc) primarily involves illegal drugs '''because''' they are ''illegal''. There are still many alcoholics, and gutter-bum-winos, but they are treated differently because alcohol is a legal drug. Commonly prescribed medications, OTS and OTC medications are far more abused than illegal drugs, but little is seen or heard about that, because they are legal. We are a pill-popping society, and everyone is happy as long as you are popping legal and approved drugs. Cocaine, cannabis, heroin, street meth, MDMA, LSD and the rest of the illegal street drugs continue to be illegal for one primary reason -- the pharmaceutical industry doesn't make one red cent from them because they aren't patentable. The only reason alcohol is legal is because the majority of the population likes to drink, and alcohol prohibition was too hard to enforce 80 years ago. As a free entity open encyclopedia, Misplaced Pages should not have to be bound by the constraints of DEA enforced propaganda. Do some real field research, and stop echoing the rhetoric of the brainwashed. --] 15:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Yes; I do know what I'm talking about; I'm a pharmacist, and work directly with recreational drug users of all varieties. The article we are discussing lists a very small number of commonly abused drugs. I could easily list hundreds of rarely abused drugs; should I add them to the article? I think NO as they would be irrelevant to the nature of the article, which is undeniably about drugs used recreationally. ] 15:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I'm not talking about rarely abused drugs, I'm talking about drugs that you sell in your pharmacy, off the shelf, over the counter, and prescribed to patients. Obviously you pay little attention to sales of off the shelf products... non-narcotic analgesics, antihistamines, cough suppressants, antinauseants, etc. Plenty of people use these drug far more often than they really need them. I know a lot of women who pop several aspirins daily for "pains and headaches", a behavior no different from women who pop stronger medications on a regular basis. Are they really less habituated to these pain killers? We certainly know that NSAIDs cause far more serious physical problems for the body than opiates do, but we can't have people getting hooked on narcotics, can we? Better to get addicted to NSAIDs, and rot out your digestive tract. Prescription medicine is a whole different ball of wax. We freely prescribe stimulants to children which are little different from the illegal psychomotor stimulants, but in the name of medicine, it's all just fine and dandy. Big business are lining their pockets well. Add some prozac to the mix, and everyone is happy. I see you're paid well to keep on preaching the propaganda forced down your throat by the pharmaceutical conglomerates. I'm sure you can always take a few pills to help you sleep at night. --] 17:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::You underestimate me (and I suspect pharmacists generally); I'm well aware of the misuse potential of OTC medicines, by rarely abused drugs I refer to drugs like (random examples!) balsalazide and doxazosin and sotalol and imipenem and bleomycin and literally thousands of others. Analgesics and cough suppressants etc. are already referred to in the article. The article is what we are discussing, and it is greatly biased towards both legal and illegal recreational drugs, with little mention of less "interesting" drugs. That's fine, but "drug" was not an appropriate title. I'm just talking about the article; I think you are also underestimating how much I agree with much you say! (e.g. relative risks of NSAIDs and opiates) ] 19:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Ahh :) Sorry for the rant then... as usual most arguments involve some misunderstanding and miscommunication. My primary disagreement is with the POV labeling common drugs as "Drugs of abuse". Maybe the article can merged into other articles, or maybe renamed as "Commonly used drugs", but the word ''abuse(d)'' implies a certain point of view. --] 20:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::I stated early on that I considered "drug of abuse" a POV title and that alternatives (and merges) could be contemplated. "Recreational" is actually also a point of view. ] | ] 04:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::"Recreation drug use" is not really POV, where "Recreational drugs" is -- just as "Drug abuse" is not really POV, where "Drugs of abuse" is POV. This is why I suggested either "Common drugs" or "Commonly used drugs" as a NPOV alternative. --] 17:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Alternatives to drug of abuse == |
|
|
|
|
|
Is ] a good alternative title to ]? I would also like to bring attention to the articles ], ], and ]. They also have POV problems in their titles, especially the first two. -] 20:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Note: ] is currently a redirect to ]. -] 20:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:All those pages should be merged into ] or ]. The distinction between "hard" and "soft drugs" is political. ] | ] 04:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Actually, interestingly enough, the distinction between "hard" and "soft drugs" is scientific, not political. It's mostly based upon the research of relative addictiveness of substances. (See ). Technically "soft drugs" should only include ], ], ], ] and ] (as well as other very similar substances). --] 17:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Classification under the UK Misuse of Drugs Act has nothing to do with 'hardness' and 'softness'? If there is a 'scientific' definition of a 'hard-soft' spectrum it seems to be not much used or respected by politicians. ] 10:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
== We need more on illegal drugs because of the links to the article == |
|
|
|
|
|
While trying to sort out this mess, I'm finding there is no article about illegal drugs, or the related laws that people end up in jail for breaking. When someone is a ] dealer, or in jail on ] charges, where should those links point? ] 16:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Surely we need an article here == |
|
|
|
|
|
I think it is appropriate to have an article here, at ]. I can see above that it was made a disambiguation page to move the drug abuse stuff away, that fine. But what we need is an article here giving a definition and providing a naviagtional structure to the other drug related articles. have an aritcle, and there's no reason why Misplaced Pages shouldn't.--] 21:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Someone did read the old ''Drug'' article as being primarily about drug abuse. That was not my opinion at the time. And I agree: an article at '']'' would be appropriate. ] 10:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC). |
|
|
:All we have at the moment are two major articles on the same subject divided by the legality (]) and illegality (]) of the drugs in question. Considering the number of legal jurisdictions in the world, this is not the best situation to be in. A drug is a drug is a drug, regardless of legality. The OED defines 'drug' as ''"an original, simple, medicinal substance, organic or inorganic, whether used by itself in its natural condition or prepared by art, or as an ingredient in a medicine or medicament"'' (OED) (where medicinal can be defined as therapeutic). Of course, as well as this umbrella article should be those other two. --] ] 15:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The divide is not so much over legality as it is over purpose; medicine vs recreation. The other meanings of '''drug''' belong on a disambiguation page. ] 16:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Recreational drug use is the wrong term == |
|
|
|
|
|
Not seeing anything in the article about the use of drugs to enhance performance. Is this medical, recreational, or what? ] 10:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
:It's sort of mentioned in the recreational section, when it states that recreational use is different than utilitarian use, so I suppose we could have another section entitled, "Utilitarian drug use", but the lines are blurry. I'd say that in some cases, utilitarian use falls between medicinal and recreational, but it seems that when used in a utilitarian fashion, drugs can jump from performance enhancing straight to habitual addiction without any recreational component. Likewise this can sometimes happen with legitimate medicinal use, albiet rare... |
|
|
|
|
|
Abuse Imagine this rough diagram as a circle with a cross of |
|
|
M / | \ R two lines showing the how drug use can go between different |
|
|
e /___|___\e classifications... medicinal, recreational, utilitarian and |
|
|
d \ | /c abuse (addicted). |
|
|
\ | / |
|
|
Utilitarian --] 19:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::That's the problem with the term "recreational drug (use)". Many people take LSD for enlightenment, not "recreation". Many people take drugs just to feel numb, not to have fun. There should be a better term for what we call "recreational drug (use)", and I've given it some thought, but can't come up with one. But perhaps a better generic description is "a drug intended to induce an abnormal state of consciousness". That way, drugs for colds and what not are not included (unless they have other uses). Neither is Prozac, since it's intended to induce what is considered a <b>normal</b> state of consciousness (I specifically made sure to use the word "abnormal" rather than "altered") --] 20:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I have to say I find the use of "abnormal" in your comment a problem amphetamines for instance mimic a state produced by adrenalin the presentation itself is within the normal ranges of human consciousness and emotion (As is the case with all drugs, no drug can make your state of consciousness outside of that which is defined by the normal limits of the human physiology) perhaps artificial would be more appropriate as it describes it better being that it is a state which is normal biochemically but is inconsistent with what is natural for the environment and/or circumstances at the time. Thus while it may be natural to feel hyper stimulated and euphoric after a ride on a roller coaster or even after emerging from a motor vehicle accident unscathed (Which is a similar feeling I found) it is artificial if the same state exists because one is under the influence of cocaine, thus the state being artificial (not natural) rather than abnormal (not normal) the latter describes the state as not normal where the latter seams to refer better to the cause being beyond the natural. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Classification system needs supporting reference == |
|
|
|
|
|
The system of classification into two broad classes, without mention of performance enhancement, needs some reference to identify origin. It is only one way one classifying so-called ''drugs'', and does not itself define what a drug is or is not. ] 14:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree that it can be done better (I'm the one who set it up this way). This was just an attempt to make the introduction accurate and readable, as the previous introduction was simply awful as well as contradictory and misleading. The 'two broad categories' were essentially derived from the two different definitions for the word 'drug' that are provided in the dictionary and also appear later on in the article. If you can think of a better way of presenting the information, by all means do so! --] 17:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== A drug is a molecule? == |
|
|
|
|
|
A drug is a molecule? Under the UK's Misuse of Drugs Act, entire plants are classified as drugs. ] 11:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
:Isn't that just silly? —'']''::<small>''']'''</small> 14:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Is what just silly? The Misuse of Drugs Act? If so, I would tend to agree. Nontheless, the article seems to be using, at present, in its leader, a very specialist definition of ''drug''. ] 16:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
:Well, both the act itself, and the labeling of entire plants as drugs are silly, although I intended the meaning to be towards the latter. I would say that the UK act has a misconception of the meaning of the word ''drug'' in this case. Politicians can not be trusted to define scientific terms properly, so if you were suggesting that ] discuss entire plants which have been classified as "drugs" for political reasons, then I would have to strongly disagree with you. —'']''::<small>''']'''</small> 16:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I am suggesting that "]" should be, effectively, about all uses of the term ''drug'', or should be simply a redirect to "]". And I am not aware of any truely scientific definition of the term (while ready to accept that licensed drug producers, and suppliers, like to believe that there is some such defintion). ] 18:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
::Scientifically, biologically speaking, yes. A drug is the chemical that acts on the body. Technically, marijuana <i>contains</i> a drug, but is not one itself. However, we (unfortunately, IMO) need to include all uses of the word. --] 20:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Seems to me the article might work better as a simple redirect to '']''. ] 09:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
== Definitions of 'drug' == |
|
|
|
|
|
Are antibiotics drugs? Does any contain ''a chemical which binds with a receptor in a cell membrane or an enzyme''? ] 11:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
== Super-POV in "Recreational Drugs" == |
|
|
|
|
|
I find this quote COMPLETELY POV, and definitely needs some citations. |
|
|
{{"|For example, the term is often used by regulatory agencies to refer to any drug which is unpatentable/unmarketable and a) might compete with existing widely established commercial markets (such as amphetamines, which would compete with the caffeine industry), b) might interfere with the multi-billion dollar medical industry (such as cannabis which has been shown to effectively treat cancer & AIDS victims, and several medical conditions) or c) has been shown to cause disillusionment in the general population (much like the knee-jerk regulation of LSD and psilocybin mushrooms in the 60s).}} |
|
|
I agree, but really, this is opinion and not wiki-worthy. ] 19:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Nobody seems to care, so I'm removing this and quoting the ] article. |
|
|
|
|
|
== List of Drugs - Necessary? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure why the text under "List of Drugs" is even necessary on this page. There is already a ] page with a comprehensive list. Besides, the formatting and POV of the section need a major reworking. (] 10:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree. This section should be deleted and the internal link to the "List of drugs" should be moved to the "See also" section. I will do so if there are no objections. ] 17:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== We need a section for illegal drugs == |
|
|
|
|
|
I think we need a section for illegal drugs on this page since most of the visitors coming to this page are looking for information on drugs and most of them in my humble opinion are looking for information on medication and illegal drugs which is missing from this article. So i request someone to add some useful information. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 09:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Replaced opening paragraph == |
|
|
|
|
|
I replaced the opening paragraph, which contained no references for a long time, with fully sourced material. (Dictionaries in this case, since it's a basic overview.) I left some unsourced material later in the opening section. I know some people won't like the new text, prefer the old text, and have strong opinions on changes. It's not great writing, and there's clearly room for improvement. Newly added information should cite reliable sources, which would qualify under ] guidelines. The old introductory paragraph that was replaced is as follows: |
|
|
{{"|A '''drug''' is any chemical or biological substance, ] or non-synthetic, that when taken into the organism's body, will in some way alter the functions of that organism. This broad definition can be taken to include such substances as ]. However more strict applications of the word prevail in everyday life. In these cases the word "drug" is usually used to refer specifically to ], ], ]ic ]s, ] or ]. Many natural substances such as ]s, ]s, and some ], blur the line between food and drugs, as when ingested they affect the functioning of both ] and ].}} |
|
|
I retained the last sentence later in the section, in the hope that it can be sourced. -] 02:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== History of Drug Use == |
|
|
|
|
|
Drugs have been used for at least as long as recorded history. There are cultures that have survived to this day that consider certain psychedelics to help a shaman gain wisdom and/or insight. Someone should add at least something on the history of drugs and humanity. I would, except I just told you just about everything I know on the subject. ;) --] 20:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Cannabis == |
|
|
|
|
|
I added a link to ] since ] states it is one of the four most popular worldwide drugs, thus merits inclusion in the article. Would have preferred to use a better picture but couldn't find any. Would appreciate discussion. ] (]) 01:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2021 == |
|
... <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Drug|answered=yes}} |
|
== Natural Substances??? == |
|
|
|
A very useful graph showing the potential for self harm or harm to others by David J Nutt should be added. I have made one and it's ready to use. Be aware that there is a english and a german version. For a preview you can check the german wiki page of drugs. ] (]) 13:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done for now:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> An actual link to the graph would be helpful. ] (]) 13:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2021 == |
|
The last sentence of the first section says that beer and wine are natural substances. I'm not sure if this is the best term to use. Perhaps "food substances" or just "]" would be more appropriate. I cannot find a beer or wine bush anywhere (and I've been looking!)] (]) 20:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have to agree, mushrooms yes they are natural substances but beer and wine? No, neither are natural substances they are artificially produced beverages (Using organic processes yes, but not something produced by nature without interference) In fact if anything beer and wine are both intentionally produced by human activity to generate the psychoactive drug ethanol in a form desirable for human consumption. If nobody objects I will remove beer and wine as examples but I will attempt to replace them with other natural substances which blur the boundaries. Perhaps such as cocoa ie the source for chocolate? and why is coffee not in the list, or tea for that matter, both contain caffeine which is a psychoactive drug and would be closer than beer and wine to a natural substance producing drug like effects (coffee is actually natural and will grow wild for a start) and just like beer or wine is consumed more often for it's effect. (Apologies for the double edit, forgot to sign) ] (]) 03:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Drug|answered=yes}} |
|
== Medication == |
|
|
|
"Abuse of several psychoactive drugs can cause psychological or physical addiction." |
|
I used the UK Medicines and Health Regulatory Agency (MHRA) glossary as a source for the unsourced claim regarding P medicines the link does back up the facts however it is just part of a glossay and a better link would probably be nice (It is however the first item on the page which is a bit of a bonus). ] (]) 03:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Should be changed to "Abuse of several psychoactive drugs can cause addiction and/or physical dependence". " "Physical dependence" should link to the page "drug dependence" and "addiction" should have its own link. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2021 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Drug|answered=yes}} |
|
== US bias == |
|
|
|
] (]) 12:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] <small>] • [[Special:Contributions/Pupsterlove02|contribs/ |
|
|
ASYRXGq]]</small> 13:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== indovenous isn't a valid route == |
|
The article states that there is no single, precise definition, of ''drug'', as there are different meanings in ], ]s, and colloquial usage, but appears, eg in supporting references, to disregard the fact that what applies in the United States may not apply elsewhere. ] (]) 13:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administration of drugs |
|
I have added a link to '']'', but maybe, therefore, the subsequent reference has ceased to be strictly appropriate<br> |
|
|
|
Main article: Route of administration |
|
] (]) 12:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
All drugs, can be administered via a number of routes, and many can be administered by more than one. |
|
|
Bolus is the administration of a medication, drug or other compound that is given to raise its concentration in blood to an effective level. The administration can be given intravenously, by parenteral,by indovenous, by intramuscular, intrathecal or subcutaneous injection. ] (]) 03:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Agree; removed and took 'bolus' out of that list, as its not a route of administration. ] (]) 16:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{resolved}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Terminology == |
|
== Drug-related articles generally a mess == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest a section called ==Terminology== with the following text: |
|
Misplaced Pages's drug-related articles are generally a mess<br> |
|
|
Perhaps this is because current thinking about drugs is generally a mess<br> |
|
|
Perhaps there is no coherent objective way of thinking and writing on the subject<br> |
|
|
We have laws seemingly dedicated to the notion that drugs are evil, and the use of force (sometimes lethal) to suppress their production and supply<br> |
|
|
Somehow, at the same time, we have a vast legal drugs industry, for ever chasing the holy grail of immortality<br> |
|
|
] (]) 15:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The term "drug" has become a ]; ] can have a negative connotation, often associated with illegal substances like cocaine or heroin. This is despite the fact that the terms "drug" and "medicine" are sometimes used interchangeably.<ref>{{cite journal |pmc=7120710 |date=2011 |title=Introduction to Drugs and Drug Targets |journal=The Science and Business of Drug Discovery |pages=11–27 |doi=10.1007/978-1-4419-9902-3_2 | vauthors = Zanders ED |isbn=978-1-4419-9901-6 }}</ref> |
|
I offer the following as potentially useful definitions: |
|
|
* '''Controlled drug''': drug within the scope of laws which are named, effectively, as drug control laws, for example, in the ], the ] and the ] |
|
|
* '''Pharmaceutical drug''': product of a body, ''pharmaceutical company'' or ''drug company'', which is licensed to produce and supply controlled drugs as medicines |
|
|
* '''Legal drug''': |
|
|
** pharmaceutical drug, provided it is not held contrary to drug control laws; or |
|
|
** drug falling outside the scope of drug control laws and not otherwise illegal, for example, in the United Kingdom, ] or ], |
|
|
* '''Illegal drug''': |
|
|
** drug held contrary to drug control laws; or |
|
|
** drug falling outside the scope of drug control laws and defined as illegal in some other way, for example, in the United Kingdom, alcohol sold to someone under the age of 18 |
|
|
] (]) 16:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
--] (]) 06:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 06:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Routes of Administration == |
|
|
|
:Agree with the sentiment; I've added something along these lines to the existing Etymology section. ] (]) 17:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
I can't log in from my work computer and the page is locked so I can't make the edit myself, but could someone include in the top section under methods of administration a line about transdermal administration? Drugs such as fentanyl are often administered via a transdermal patch, and I think that's an important route to include. Thoughts? ] (]) 01:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Classification vs Medication content == |
|
== Idiots and Drugs == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first half of the classification section is the exact same as the last paragraph of the medication section. I wonder if there is a way these sections could be combined, or be better distinguished from each other? ] (]) 06:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
--] (]) 16:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)If you really want to improve the article then you should also point out how people often use drugs as an escuse to escape the real world. There are problems in the world, and how they will never get resolved if you hide behind the false euphoria of narcotics. In doing so you are missing out on alot of beautiful things. You might say that it is better to forget than to remember, but I say that it is better to remember and move past the difficulties in life. Don't Just point out the advantages point out hte disadvantages. --] (]) 16:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
A very useful graph showing the potential for self harm or harm to others by David J Nutt should be added. I have made one and it's ready to use. Be aware that there is a english and a german version. For a preview you can check the german wiki page of drugs. SiXtreme (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
"Abuse of several psychoactive drugs can cause psychological or physical addiction."
Should be changed to "Abuse of several psychoactive drugs can cause addiction and/or physical dependence". " "Physical dependence" should link to the page "drug dependence" and "addiction" should have its own link.
Administration of drugs
Main article: Route of administration
All drugs, can be administered via a number of routes, and many can be administered by more than one.
Bolus is the administration of a medication, drug or other compound that is given to raise its concentration in blood to an effective level. The administration can be given intravenously, by parenteral,by indovenous, by intramuscular, intrathecal or subcutaneous injection. Tada222 (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
The first half of the classification section is the exact same as the last paragraph of the medication section. I wonder if there is a way these sections could be combined, or be better distinguished from each other? TempestSounds (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Not done for now: An actual link to the graph would be helpful. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs/
Resolved