Talk:Drug abuse

Tagged for reasons below and overuse of "most" without adequate citation. I'm not into NPOVing this all by myself. Zosodada 03:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

"Scientifically there is little difference when comparing recreational use of alcohol to that recreational use of marijuana."

I'm not going to change this, but I ask: WTF? I'm no scientist, but somehow I highly doubt the factuality of this statement. Apples and oranges. --68.38.159.93 22:01, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This was comparing the recreational use, not comparing the drugs themselves. Both drugs are used for similar recreational purposes -- as a social lubricant, and as a destressor at the end of a work day. In actuality I was being lenient towards the status quo, because factually alcohol is far more subject to anti-social use and abuse. So yes, there is more difference than I implied -- but only such that would put marijuana into a more favourable light. --Thoric 18:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Weasel words

Most of this article is composed of nothing but weasel words. --Viriditas | Talk 11:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

deletion of links

Please stop deleting the link to recreational drug use. It occurs immediately under the heading 'advocates of recreational drug use'. It is a relevant link. Guttlekraw 15:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The link to recreational drug use has never been deleted. It has always beeen included in see also. Please read the article before editing it. --Viriditas | Talk 20:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it has been in the see also section, but it is directy relevant to the section of the same title. There are a lot of links in the article - are you advocating taking them all out and putting them in the see also, or just the ones that don't suit your point of view? Guttlekraw 21:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The issue at hand is your insertion of POV into multiple articles. In this case, you have distorted the context of this article (like you have done in many other articles). First of all, you've been asked to cite sources on other articles, so you should start doing that here as well. Your current additions are not sourced, and may in fact be in error. The lead clearly states, Drug abuse or substance abuse is the use of any chemical substance...in a way that society deems harmful to the user or others. You then added, The definition is necesarily controversial and subjective since perceptions of abuse and social norms change over time and place. That's all nice and good, but you need to provide a reference. Regarding alcohol abuse you wrote, No comparable term is in common use to describe damaging use of cigarettes. That is clearly false, as it is referred to as substance abuse ("Averaging 10 or more cigarettes a day for a period of 1 or more years, on the other hand, served as the sole criterion for tobacco abuse") in the American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. See this article as an example. Finally, you added back in a duplicate link to recreational drug use in relation to the statement, there are those who advocate strongly that the right to use drugs (see recreational drug use and responsible drug use), even to the point of harming oneself, is an individual right. While I would agree with this addition, it does not read well, and would be better qualified as an additional sentence that does not break up the text. --Viriditas | Talk 21:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for getting to the point, I will concentrate on your comments re this article. I added sources to the comments about changing perceptions, referencing opium as an example. Is that satisfactory, or would you like more? I agree with your comment on tobacco, and added the term. I re-worked the reference in the advocacy paragraph, since we both seem to agree that the link is valid. Let me know what you think, Guttlekraw 21:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment please?

Can someone else weigh in on this one? Linking the name of a section seems relevant to me. I'd like other's opinions. Guttlekraw 21:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not certain where the controversy is. What link was removed? Where was it before? It's hard to tell from the history. --Thoric 22:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In a nutshell, Guttlekraw is on a campaign to remove the term drug abuse from the Wikipedia. In doing so, he has gone so far as to change direct quotes from medical journals, distort accepted summaries of movies and books, and introduce glaring errors of fact (he claimed that tobbacco addiction wasn't classified as substance abuse). In waging his edit war, he has shown no regard for the 3RR, nor for the NPOV policy. He has been consistently asked to cite sources but he shows no understanding of that concept. He has also changed links that link to drug abuse, even when such links were directly substantiated by references of fact. --Viriditas | Talk 22:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why don't we stick to the facts on this article. Viriditas objected to a link to recreational drug use under the sub-heading 'advocates for recreational drug use'. While full of bluster on what he thinks I did on other pages, he now seems to agree that this link is relevant, despite having removed it many times without explaining why. I think this is issue is solved now (see above) sorry to have wasted your time Thoric. Viriditas - I have added sources, and tried to accomodate your extremely onerous and unusual requests as far as possible, and in trying to compromise have been hounded by your insistance that in trying to propose new versions I am breaching some rule or other. I am reaching the end of my patience with your unreasonable behaviour. Guttlekraw 22:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have great difficulty "sticking to facts", and your mischaracterizaton of my reasoning and my edits is unjustified. I have explained on your talk page and on related talk pages what is wrong with your edits but you refuse to take responsibility, instead placing the blame on others. You have violated mulitple policies in your attempt to rid the Wikipedia of the term, drug abuse. I do not agree with your edits and I will be changing them. Unlike you, I adhere to policy, and I'm currently constrained by the 3RR. I think it's quite telling that you refer to Wikipedia policy as "extremely onerous and unusual requests". You aren't interested in contributing to an encyclopedia. Your purpose here is to push your POV. --Viriditas | Talk 23:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As usual, you have ignored the substance of the content here and instead focussed on your personal attacks. Are you saying that you have changed your mind about the comments you made above about agreeing that the links are appropriate? I do not want to remove the term 'drug abuse', but I want to use it appropriately, as a value judgement made by some people, where possible, citing who thinks the drug use in question is an abuse. Stating that you intend to revert my attempts at compromise as soon as you are technically able is not editing in good faith. Please try to be more constructive, and offer an alternative instead of simply reverting. Guttlekraw 23:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You aren't editing in good faith, as you are motivated by a POV campaign to distort the Wikipedia. The number of errors you are introducing into articles increases exponentially with every edit you make. I intend to revert your edits to remove the errors, nothing more. --Viriditas | Talk 23:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As you are well aware, I addressed the one legitimate error (on tobacco name issues), there are no other 'errors' that you have pointed out, aside from the one of not agreeing with your point of view. Once again I would like to ask you to focus less on personal attacks and more on proposing alternatives to individual 'errors' that you are talking about. I am confident that a common understanding can be reached if you will stop your crusade based on the principle of reverting me. Guttlekraw 23:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am especially disheartened by your personal crusade to insert your POV into the Wikipedia at the expense of facts and in violation of known policies and guidelines. You did not take responsibility for your changes on Sex education, where you changed a direct quote from a scientific study that referenced drug abuse to instead read, recreational drug use. Changing direct quotes to suit your POV is a violation of policy. This is a pattern that you have across multiple articles. When these things are pointed out to you, you blame the person who catches your errors. Currently, you have still refused to cite sources (perhaps you still haven't read the policy page?) when you make statements like, "the definition is necesarily controversial and subjective since perceptions of abuse and social norms change over time and place". This is ironic, considering I just pointed out, as an example, the criteria of tobacco abuse, for example, which is not considered distinct from drug abuse (other than the fact that it's legal), yet you inserted your POV that it was. Again and again, you continue to do this. I can only conclude that reverting you on sight is the best policy. --Viriditas | Talk 23:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Erm? Hello? If you want to talk about sex education I suggest you do it on that page. This is the drug abuse page. What sources do you still want me to cite? I have referenced the "the definition is necesarily controversial and subjective since perceptions of abuse and social norms change over time and place" to the opium page, which contains a long history of how opium was socially acceptable in some times and places and now is not. Do you want more detailed references on this page? If so, say that instead of reverting. I simply don't agree that when most people use the term 'drug abuse' they are thinking of tobacco use. I am happy to be disproved if you can source that. Please try to stick to the point instead of this endless smoke and mirrors about other pages and issues that have been addressed already. If the edits are so heinous, I am surprised that no-one else has bothered to comment, apart from one person who could not see what the problem was. Guttlekraw 23:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point with your usual misdirection and misplacing of blame. Your changes to the sex education page were identical to the changes you made to this and a number of other pages (A Scanner Darkly, Francis Ford Coppola, etc.) in your zeal to rid the Wikipedia of the term, "drug abuse". Until you become familiar with policy, I have said everything there is to say about your edits. I recommend that you study, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Cite sources, and Wikipedia:NPOV. --Viriditas | Talk 00:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please try to stick to the point, we are talking about drug abuse. Are you saying that the opium page is not sufficient reference? Please try to answer the question, it's hard to feel that I am having a conversation with you if every effort at compromise is met with the same irrelevant smoke and mirrors. Drug abuse. Is the opium reference sufficient? If not, I'll add more. Guttlekraw 00:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is not a reference for what you have written. How many times do I have to point you to Wikipedia:Cite sources? --Viriditas | Talk 00:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So let me get this right, you want me to reference an external social history of opium? That's easy, although probably less useful to a reader. a timeline showing major events in the history of opium - this shows that major sections of society used opium in the past without considering it abuse. Another history of opium, showing the same thing. Another history of opium with quotes from famous historical figures extolling it's virtues. I could go on. And on. And on. Which of these would you like me to add to the beginning of the article to show that definition of abuse has changed over time and location? How many do you want? Guttlekraw 03:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

None of what you just posted has anything to do with citing sources for the content that you have added to this and other articles. I'm beginning to think that you don't understand the purpose of this article, nor the encyclopedia. --Viriditas | Talk 04:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Definition

I have asked you to take this discussion to the talk page of drug abuse. Whether you agree with it or not, the reference is Medine Plus Medical Encyclopedia, run by the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. Regarding your comments, you again seem to have not understood what you have read. I have now explained this to you twice. The defintion does not say that the use of illicit drugs is "abuse". Read it again until you understand it. Advocacy groups are relevant to political topics, but they have no bearing on scientific or medical definitions. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I'm sure certain statements by some advocacy groups might be relevant, but not if your intent is to redefine things outside their expertise, as you are trying to do, and have been doing on various articles. Please respond on the Talk:Drug abuse page. --Viriditas | Talk 04:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So you are ok giving this referenced definition, along with others (referenced) from orgs that disagree? Guttlekraw 04:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now, you are attempting to politicize the medical concept of drug abuse. Are you claiming that the concept of drug abuse/substance abuse is invalid? If so, feel free to post reputable sources on this talk page which purport to demonstrate that drug abuse/substance abuse does not exist. Let me also add, good luck. --Viriditas | Talk 04:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Drug Use In America: Problem in Perspective, Commissioned by President Richard M. Nixon, March, 1972 - Drug abuse is another way of saying drug problem. Now immortalized in the titles of federal and state governmental agencies (and we might add, in our own), this term has the virtue of rallying all parties to a common cause: no one could possibly be for abuse of drugs any more than they could be for abuse of minorities, power or children. By the same token, the term also obscures the fact that "abuse" is undefined where drugs are concerned. Neither the public, its policy makers nor the expert community share a common understanding of its meaning or of the nature of the phenomenon to which it refers. - will this do as an alternative? It goes on to say: These data illustrate that drug abuse is an entirely subjective concept. It is any drug use the respondent frowns upon. Most respondents disapprove of the use of medically-distributed pills for other than medical purposes (those sanctioned by a physician), any use of heroin, and any use which suggests that the user is dependent or seeking pleasure. Guttlekraw 04:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see that you have taken a time machine and travelled here from 1972. I guess you have a lot of catching up to do. --Viriditas | Talk 04:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are we speaking the same language at all? I thought that you were asking for evidence that the definitions and norms had changed over time. More interesting stuff on historical defs here. It's political already. Sorry.

You are looking for contempory sources that disagree with the NIH? An easy one would be the British Medical Association: In the context of the current diagnostic criteria the concept of substance abuse has a specific meaning, namely, a destructive pattern of substance use, leading to significant social, occupational, or medical impairment. Substance abuse may be thought of as problematic substance use that does not rise to the level of substance dependence(addiction). By definition, all substance dependence includes substance abuse. But substance abuse may and sometimes does occur without the presence of the full substance dependence(addiction) syndrome. They are clearly not 'pro-drug', but their definition excludes use that is not 'destructive'. [1] Guttlekraw 04:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That statement by the BMA does not in any way invalidate the claim by the NIH, but in fact, adds to and clarifies it. Look, you may be new to Wikipedia and to drug abuse research, so I'm going to cut you a little slack. Why don't you do some more research? I'm working on about a dozen articles at once, and this article is probably going to be moved to substance abuse in the very near future, so you may want to search using that term as well as drug abuse. Feel free to edit, change, and modify this article in any way, as long as you cite sources and follow the general guidelines and policies -- and even if you don't -- somebody will come along and correct your work. --Viriditas | Talk 06:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your patronising tone is less easily forgivable than your ignorance. Constant personal attacks don't cover up the fact that your argument is vacuous. You know this, and so constantly ignore the facts. The BMA has a different definition of drug abuse to the NIH. That is the point I was making. Now that you can no longer ignore that fact you want to change the name of the article entirely. I'm getting a little tired of this. Guttlekraw 15:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only person who has made personal attacks is you, and the "patronising tone" that you perceive is actually written into policy, which I was quoting. Your repeated ignorance of policy, consensus, and inability to cite sources after being politely reminded is indicative of your refusal to follow the rules. I suggest that you stop blaming others for your actions and start taking responsibility for your mistakes. --Viriditas | Talk 21:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Text moved from main article

This text was moved from the article for many reasons, many of which have to do with lack of citations, weasel words, and POV. Some of this text would be appropriate in the substance abuse article, that has yet to be created. I will probably move much of this text there after I create the article.. After thinking about it, this type of content belongs on this page, not substance abuse. I would like to include the below content (but cited and reworked) in a section on moderation vs. abuse. I think the main points of this section are important, and should be incorporated into the article with references. --Viriditas | Talk 23:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Advocation Of Recreational Drug Use

There are those who advocate strongly that the right to use drugs, even to the point of harming oneself, is an individual right. Issues around advocacy for recreational and responsible drug use are covered in those articles. There are others who argue that some drugs, such as marijuana can used in a relatively safe non-abusive manner, similar to moderate use of alcohol, and that those drugs should be legal while harder drugs should remain illegal for recreational use. Both of these groups believe not all illicit drug use is automatically abusive and that only when harm comes to others should society intervene. This model is already followed in many countries for alcohol and cigarettes, and in a few countries for additional substances like marijuana.

The counter argument is that all recreational drugs are abusive, even soft drugs in moderation, and thus any recreational drug use harms the individual and often other members of society. They also argue that addictive substances, by definition, limit the individual's ability to make a free choice in their use of drugs, and therefore drugs should be controlled and criminalized at a societal level. Some people argue that while it may be true that some drugs can be used recreationally in a non-abuses manner, the majority of individuals will likely abuse the drug. Thus a blanket prohibition is justified as it the only realistic way to protect the majority individuals who will likely abuse them. There are many countries that prohibit the use of all addictive substances including alcohol, and the Prohibition movement in the United States was an eventually revoked attempt to do just that.

For many of those favoring the continued criminalization of all currently illegal drugs, the recreational use of such drugs is synonymous in their minds with drug abuse, and thus they use the term "drug abuse" to refer to any recreational use of drugs.

Refs to be added

1. Gruszecki AC et al. (2005). "Unexplained sudden death and the likelihood of drug abuse." J Forensic Sci. Mar;50(2):419-22. PMID 15813554
2. Fishbein DH et al.(2005). "Risky decision making and the anterior cingulate cortex in abstinent drug abusers and nonusers." Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. Apr;23(1):119-36. PMID 15795139
3. Miller, WR. (2005). "Treating alcohol and drug abuse." Addiction. Apr;100(4):566-7.
4. Keawkingkeo, S. (2005). "Community drug abuse prevention in a Hmong village in Thailand." J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. Feb;43(2):22-9. PMID 15745237
5. Hursh SR, et al. (2005). "The economics of drug abuse: a quantitative assessment of drug demand." Mol Interv. Feb;5(1):20-8. PMID 15731502

Sociology of drug abuse section needed

It should, "focus on several important social dimensions, including stress, poverty, domestic and societal violence and various diseases that are spread by drug abuse and addiction." (Qureshi et al.)[2] --Viriditas | Talk 02:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV

I removed some of the more severe pov that you introduced here, I think this new version is ok, except that picking a research paper that says 'drug use is bad' and then claiming that this is undisputed fact is clearly wrong. We must present the diversity of views on this topic, not just your point of view. Guttlekraw 17:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You must be reading an entirely different article. What paper or section claims that "drug use is bad"? Are you still having difficulty understanding the difference between drug use and abuse? --Viriditas | Talk 00:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I understand the difference. Clearly you do not. Use is a fact, abuse is an opinion. Spanking is a fact, child abuse is an opinion. Guttlekraw 18:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merger

This page is to be refined and merged as a small subtopic of substance abuse. Most of the information that is building up here should (and does) exist on other pages that discuss those topics primarily. Wikipedia articles should stick to the topic at hand, and provide links to related topics with their own page. This way we can keep the holy wars organized and have a Why Drugs are Good page and a Why Drugs are Bad page, and as long as each page clearly points to the other, people are free to argue their POV in the proper location. (BTW, I was joking about those article names -- I was trying to make my point clear.) --Thoric 19:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would like to temporarily put the merger on hold as I work out the differences between the terms, "drug abuse" and the clinical diagnosis (and treatment) of "substance abuse". My medical dictionary defines both differently, and I have placed both definitions on those respective pages; Substance abuse is a clinical diagnosis, and has a specific meaning. There is of course, overlap between the two articles at this point, and that needs to be addressed. So far, the term "drug abuse" appears to be a subset of "substance abuse", however this may not always be the case if for example, one is not diagnosed as a "substance abuser" as stated by the DSM IV. I would like to continue my research before any merge is completed. It would also be helpful if we could bring in any experts from the fields of pharmacology and medicine. --Viriditas | Talk 00:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Certainly. The medical difference is that drug abuse is specific to substances legally classified as "drugs"... basically anything in under the Controlled Substances Act, sections I through IV. Substance abuse would additionally include anything under the CSA sections V and VI, as well as alcohol, nicotine, and just about anything people abuse... besides perhaps food, although that likely should be included. Beware that much of the medical literature has been stigmatised by legal status and government pressure. Scientific study shows that while lab rats (and even non-human primates) have little cognitive control over their "drug of choice", humans have quite a bit more "free will" on the matter. It is well documented that addicts can switch their addiction between substances and onto behaviors with little difficulty (for example from cocaine, to alcohol, to sex, to gambling). The line between drugs such as cocaine, heroin and marijuana versus drugs such as alcohol, nicotine and caffeine is completely a product of 80 odd years of propaganda, completely without scientific basis. I think that at the very least, this article should be renamed to "Illegal substance abuse", and have the Drug abuse page as a disambiguation page with links to both Substance abuse and Illegal substance abuse. --Thoric 00:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We are in agreement with the differences between drug abuse and substance abuse. Could you modify both articles to reflect those changes? Regarding the medical literature, I have tried to avoid any politically-motiviated conclusions, choosing to quote from what appear to be neutral studies that help illustrate the issues. I can't see any reason to rename the article, "Illegal substance abuse" as much of drug abuse is legal. I would be more interested in clarifying the differences. --Viriditas | Talk 00:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

True, I just noticed I made a suggestion which contradicts what I stated at the beginning of my paragraph (it's been a long day). In this case, the Drug abuse entry should be made to include all controlled substances (I-IV), rather than focusing primarily on schedules I and II even if they are the most abused substances (next to alcohol and tobacco). The drug abuse entry should also be subject to the same definition as the substance abuse page... namely stating that abuse is "A maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress". It is important that non-abusive use does not fall under the same heading as abuse, otherwise the article will be subject to POV Jihad ;) --Thoric | Talk 00:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any issues with your suggestions, although the definitions for both articles appear to be different. Again, I would like to find a consensus for keeping the pages separate based on different definitions. I have no interest in including non-abusive use under drug abuse, and would be especially interested in explaining the difference with references. I would actually like to move most of those discussions to the appropriate drug pages like you suggested, although a brief summary might be fine, with main or related link pointers. Of coures, this article might have to be merged in any case, so I'm prepared for that if need be. BTW, if you have any references to non-American citations (in English) that would be a welcome addition to this page. --Viriditas | Talk 01:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Drug abuse is a subset of substance abuse. I suggest the two are kept seperate. There is a lot of science about drug abuse; much less has been written about substance abuse as a whole (e.g. personality structure predisposing to any addiction). JFW | T@lk 15:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Plenty has been written about substance abuse beyond CSA schedules I-IV. No drug is abused more than alcohol is, yet "drug abuse" (which excludes alcohol) gets far, far more attention regardless of being a small drip out of a large keg (or cask). I agree to keeping them separate as long as it is clear in the definition that the distinction between drug abuse and substance abuse is more a legal one than a scientific one. (BTW, the science in question is based on decades of anti-drug agency funded research... essentially, "we'll give you funding if you can show the negative effects of these drugs, and we retain the right to interpret the data for our own purposes, and suppress any mention of non-detrimental effects"). There's absolutely no question that alcohol abuse is a far larger problem than marijuana abuse (which is CSA schedule I by the way). --Thoric 21:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposed outline

1. Introduction
   1. Medical, legal, and sociological definitions
      1. Problems with defintions
      2. Issues with abuse potential for listing as schedule I or II (i.e., cannabis does not seem to meet this requirement) (Related article: Cannabis rescheduling in the United States)
      3. Crime or disease?
2. History of nonmedical drug consumption (Main article: History of drug use)
3. Basic science, clinical, social issues
   1. Moderation vs. abuse
   2. Addiction (Main article: Drug addiction)
   3. Crime (Related article: Prohibition (drugs))
4. Commonly abused drugs
   1. Alcohol (Related article: Alcohol abuse)
      1. General risks (diseases)
      2. Neuroscience
      3. Adverse effects on organ systems, from prenatal to adult (Related article: Alcoholic beverage)
      4. Benefits {Related article: Alcohol consumption and health)
   2. Cannabis
      1. General risks (diseases)
      2. Neuroscience
      3. Adverse effects on organ systems, from prenatal to adult
      4. Benefits (Related article: Medical marijuana)
   3. Opiates
      1. General risks (diseases)
      2. Neuroscience
      3. Adverse effects on organ systems, from prenatal to adult
      4. Benefits
   4. Cocaine and other stimulants
      1. General risks (diseases)
      2. Neuroscience
      3. Adverse effects on organ systems, from prenatal to adult
      4. Benefits
   5. Inhalants
      1. General risks (diseases)
      2. Neuroscience
      3. Adverse effects on organ systems, from prenatal to adult
      4. Benefits
   6. Other drugs
      1. Anabolic steroids
      2. Secondary stimulants
         1. Nicotine
         2. Caffeine
5. Management and treatment (Main article: Substance abuse)
   1. Pharmacotherapies
   2. Other therapies
      1. Harm reduction
      2. Acupuncture
      3. Entheogens
6. References

Please make comments and/or suggestions below. --Viriditas | Talk 12:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The outline looks great so far :) I think for commonly abused drugs, either under "other drugs" or its own section you need to mention abuse of prescription drugs, and non-prescription drugs. Plenty of people abuse prescription pain killers (oxycontin), stimulants (ritalin) and tranquilizers (valium), as well as over-the-counter cold medications, cough syrup, codeine containing preparations, and heck... even plain old aspirin ;) --Thoric 14:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's an improvement, but why the list of 'commonly abused drugs'? Since you've introduced the multiple definitions above, acording to whom are they commonly abused? What you actually seem to be doing is listing possible effects of drug use, and I think that would be better off in another page. I also think that putting harm reduction in there under treatments is important. Guttlekraw 18:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, that section is about the long-term consequences of drug abuse, not drug use. For commonly abused drugs, see the Handbook of the Medical Consequences of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Handbook of Psychotrophic Drugs (13th Revised Edition), and the Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology. --Viriditas | Talk 22:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are mind bogglingly ignorant. Citing one source, and claiming that that represents all opinions is not acceptable. Get beyond googling for articles that support your view and educate yourself before you begin lecturing others. The fact that one medical or legal authority defines abuse one way does not mean that all do. I have provided you citations for other reputable medical and legal sources that define it differently. The section refers to long term use of drugs. Whether or not long term use is equal to abuse is a matter of opinion. Guttlekraw 01:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do agree that Harm reduction deserves mention as a form of treatment (other therapies?) Several countries are exploring this option, and a few have been practicing it for a few decades. Methadone treatment is not all that far off from heroin maintenance. Needle exchanges exist all over the place. Canada has implemented safe injection sites that supply clean needles with medical supervision, and are about to start a limited trial of heroin maintenance clinics. Non-profit organizations also exist which give out clean needles, crack pipe kits and information on how to minimize the harm you do to yourself and others. --Thoric 23:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, although I would like to add the bulk of that content to substance abuse. --Viriditas | Talk 23:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you agree that harm reduction deserves a mention, why do you keep removing it? Think. Please. Guttlekraw 01:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You aren't fooling anyone with complex reverts. --Viriditas | Talk 03:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The outline looks good. Obviousley the article has a long ways to go to reach that ideal. I feel making the distinction between medical and legal definitions is important. Also, I do not understand what is meant by 1.1.2 in the outline: "Issues with abuse potential for listing as schedule I or II...." Osmodiar 04:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Section 1.1.2 is a response to a suggestion by Thoric made further up in the discussion, and pertains to U.S. drug law. He wrote: The medical difference is that drug abuse is specific to substances legally classified as "drugs"... basically anything in under the Controlled Substances Act, sections I through IV. Substance abuse would additionally include anything under the CSA sections V and VI, as well as alcohol, nicotine, and just about anything people abuse... besides perhaps food, although that likely should be included. --Viriditas | Talk 05:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Content to be added

There's some good information here if anyone is interested in adding it to the article.

Neurobiology of drug abuse

• Knowlton, Leslie. (Feb 1, 2005). "Why Are Drugs Abused By Humans?". Psychiatric Times.

Opiates

• Harding, Anne. (March 28, 2005). "A delicate balance: opiates are more common, but more controversial than ever." The Scientist. v19 i6 pS38(2).

Inhalants

• Wu, Li-Tzy, et al. (Oct, 2004) "Inhalant abuse and dependence among adolescents in the United States". Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. v43 i10 p1206(9).

--Viriditas | Talk 13:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Content moved to Talk:Substance abuse for merge

See Talk:Substance abuse for old content from this article that needs to be cleaned-up, cited, and merged. It would be nice if someone could work on the rec. drug use section that was removed, and add it back in to this article. I tried to add it back in, but it needs a lot of work, and I'm about to sign off. --Viriditas | Talk 14:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, this is beyond what I can put up with.

You just destroyed two articles, replacing both with stubs that summarize your point of view. Stop this vandalism and discuss these radical controversial changes before you make them. Guttlekraw 14:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree the resulting article should be developed "offline" so to speak rather than replace the current articles with stubs in progress. Viriditas agrees, and I'm hoping that you will also discuss your views here, and help us collect references to support them. I believe we're all pretty much in agreement as to the direction of the articles, just hitting a few minor rough patches. We must try to avoid butting heads and bruising egos, and remember that we're working towards a common goal. --Thoric 21:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, much of this page has been proposed for merging into substance abuse and is waiting patiently on the talk page for someone to help do just that. I think that the stub version of my last known edit to drug abuse allows us to proceed along a clear path. Obviously, we will need to make mention of the information that has been proposed for merge, and I make that clear in the last section of the proposed outline. While there is certainly merit to what you say about working offline, I was hoping that we could work together online. --Viriditas | Talk 21:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I meant offline from the "live" page -- i.e. in a section of the talk page (somewhere not prone to reverts), certainly not "go work on it on your own computer" ;) Or better yet, how about we work on it at User:Viriditas/Drug abuse? --Thoric 22:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's one solution. We should all be able to work on this page, but Guttlekraw won't abide by policy. Should I have to change my editing habits to accommadate his learning curve? I'm going to upload a version of the page that I would like for us to work on, however this is a compromise, because I have attempted to merge this content with substance abuse, but nobody has helped. I seem to be the only person actively working on these pages, with Guttlekraw sitting on the sidelines reverting. It's one thing for him to be a rude and obnoxious newbie, but it's another for him to refuse to contribute to these articles in any meaningful way except by reverting to unsourced and unmerged versions.--Viriditas | Talk 22:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm just trying to find a solution to the revert war ;) I'm sorry I haven't been able to be more helpful, but my week has been insanely busy. Major rewrites are a lot of (often thankless) work, but the result will certainly be worth it. --Thoric 23:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand completely. BTW, I've taken your previous suggestions to heart and I've merged the removed content back in for the time being. Let me know what you think. I want to add your comments about controlled substances next. Feel free to add them if you have the time.--Viriditas | Talk 23:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

citations

OK, one more time. You have cited one medical dictionary. That's fine, but, as you know, different medical authorities have different definitions. Different legal regimes have different definitions. The fact that you have worked out how to google for medical articles and dictionaries must be fascinating for you, but finding one source that fits your pov and then deleting everything else is not acceptable. Please, stop. Discuss radical changes to the article on the talk page, and try to reach consensus instead of pushing your pov without discussion. Guttlekraw 15:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your comments are bizarre. My definition comes from a book, not from google, and this is not about my POV nor deleting anything, but citing sources and merging content. Nothing has been "deleted", but exists in various states of disarray on both talk pages. Is there a reason you cannot help contribute to this article, and instead continue to revert to unsourced, pre-merge versions? --Viriditas | Talk 21:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The point is that there are many different definitions in play. An easy example for you to understand is this: US law considers ANY use of hash to be drug abuse. UK medical definitions do not. Therefore, the application of the term 'drug abuse' to drug use is a matter of opinion. Where we do it, we need to cite in whose opinion the drug use is abuse. Guttlekraw 03:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't seem to be the one having trouble understanding, as you seem to fail to note the cited statements you keep changing. --Viriditas | Talk 04:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

You are wasting everyone's time by not reading. The point is that you cite one source, and claim that it is the only one worth presenting. Guttlekraw 19:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Your edit history demonstrates that you are a troll, so I will ignore your comment which is clearly erroneous, as this has been discussed many times. --Viriditas | Talk 02:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

changes

Included a definition as used by NIDA at one of their websites [3].

emphasised the sociological nature of the term "drug abuse" to distinguish it from the more medical "substance abuse"

My hope is that this definition is fairly neutral.

Some copy editing and correction of factual errors.

Placed sociology of drug abuse at beging of article rather than end in accordance with emphasis on "drug abuse" as a sociological term. Also, I believe flow of article is improved if scope of problem is introduced before solutions.

There were too many notes. I cut several of them which related to common knowledge, kept a few that related to specific facts.

Both this article and substance abuse could use a lot of work. Perhaps a request for peer review? Osmodiar 07:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

NIDA is not a neutral source, and as such has been explicitly avoided by all parties. The definition of drug abuse has many contexts, and this article is addressing the medical definition, as displayed in the outline, however the sociological and legal definitions need to be expanded. This article has already been mistakenly placed on peer review by Guttlekraw and promptly removed. Peer review is not for content disputes, but for improving articles that are approaching the status of a featured article. --Viriditas | Talk 02:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any support for this claim regarding NIDA? Perhaps you are confusing them with ONDCP. -- Osmodiar 03:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

There are many problems with NIDA, a few of which are discussed on that page. Most notably, the retracted NIDA-funded, Ricaurte-McCann Ecstasy study [4][5] and UCSF AIDS researcher Donald Abrams' previous difficulty in getting NIDA support for a proposed study on marijuana smoking by patients with HIV-related wasting syndrome [6] have illustrated some of the issues with NIDA. Thoric and I have made mention of some of these problems, [7] [8] and we are in agreement that NIDA is politically biased. Some critics claim that NIDA only supports research that promotes the administration's point of view, fails to fund projects that could undermine or disprove its research, opposed medical marijuana research, and used images drawn from advanced medical technology to create misleading anti-drug campaigns. [9] Peter Cohen, a professor at the Centre for Drug Research at the University of Amsterdam has also pointed out problems with NIDA, as has UCLA public policy professor Mark Kleiman and City University of New York pharmacologist John Morgan, both of whom describe the previous NIDA director (Alan Leshner) as the "propaganda minister in the war on drugs". [10] [11] Kleiman also described NIDA's educational campaign as "astonishingly dishonest". [12] Sociologist Craig Reinarmanm, who studies drug policy at UCSC claims that NIDA's agenda has been profoundly shaped by a drug-war ethos. Charles Grob, who studies hallucinogens at UCLA describes NIDA as "science in the service of politics". Alan Marlatt, a psychologist at the University of Washington, who formerly served on NIDA's National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse, states, "I got the message that it will fund things showing harm, but when it comes to benefits there's no chance." William Miller, who studies addictive behaviours at the University of New Mexico claims that in order to gain funding, one must emphasize the damaging effects of drugs. At a NIDA presentation in 2003, brain scan expert Stephen Kish observed that NIDA repeatedly overstated the certainty of their data, and that NIDA had been misleading the public and Congress in regards to the issue of ecstasy-related brain damage. [13] In regards to NIDA's position on LSD, critic Neal M. Goldsmith states: "Overall, the data sets upon which the government's "war on drugs" is built come off here as woefully inadequate - subject to political agendas and thus miscontructed and misdirected from the start." [14] Nick Sandberg claims that pharmaceutical industry influence led NIDA to halt studies on ibogaine, a drug that has the potential to treat addiction, but I have not been able to verify Sandberg's claim. Most damaging of all, a July 2004 Scientific Integrity in Policymaking report issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists documented alleged incidents of political litmus tests for NIDA appointees. While being considered for a position on NIDA's advisory council, Dr. Claire Sterk was questioned by a White House staffer about whether she supported "faith-based" drug treatment program, or voted for President Bush. In 2002, Dr. William R. Miller of the University of New Mexico, professor of psychology and psychiatry, and pioneer of a leading substance abuse treatment, was questioned by a NIDA advisory panel about whether his views were congruent with those held by President Bush and whether he had voted for Bush in 2000. Rather than focusing on Miller's scientific qualifications, a White House liaison to the Department of Health and Human Services grilled Miller about his views on abortion, capital punishment, and other topics. [15] --Viriditas | Talk 12:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, that is nice that you and Thoric feel the NIDA is politicaly motivated, but you still have not provided any evidence of this. The statement at [16] and [17] which reads: "Also note that NIDA does not list alcohol as a substance of abuse" is patently false. NIDA most certainly does list alcohol as a drug of abuse, as well as nictotine, androgens, and all the usual suspects. Your other links all seem to point out the faulty 2002 Ricaurte MDMA study. You seem to be basing your view of NIDA based on the mistake of one resercher who received NIDA funding. Your threshold for evidence when it supports your viewpoint seems rather low. I assume you do not have much of a science background. -- Osmodiar 08:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

(Note: Osmodiar's reply was made in response to a different version of my commments found here: [18] Due to an edit conflict, my updated changes were saved after his response.) I have posted more than one example, and my science background as well as my viewpoint is irrelevant. Please stick to the discussion at hand. --Viriditas | Talk 08:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

You also just did extensive editing of your comment above what I wrote after I replied. The point remains: your view of the NIDA as biased is not well supported. I am also curious why you consider Mosby's to be the authoratative definition of the term? It seems a rather arbitrary choice. -- Osmodiar 08:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Due to an edit conflict resulting from your reply, I was unable to save my comments in time (For accuracy, I have now noted the original revision you were replying to below your comments. Feel free to change your comments if necessary). The extensive editing was actually made before you replied, but saved after your comments. Again, this is not about my "view". I have never said that I consider Mosby's as an authoritative source, but it does describe the literal, neutral definiton of drug abuse. NIDA's definiton seems to vary greatly, often times as a substitute for substance abuse. Perhaps you could post a link to the definition you offered? Ok, just saw the link to your definition, above. We certainly should include multiple definitions if possible, but NIDA's definition seems to change depending on which page you view. The definition, "the use of illegal drugs or the inappropriate use of legal drugs...the repeated use of drugs to produce pleasure, to alleviate stress, or to alter or avoid reality (or all three)" differs from the definiton offered here, which is basically the definition of substance abuse, and the definition offered here, where in relation to the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10), NIDA defines drug abuse as: 1. the use of prescribed or over-the-counter drugs in excess of the directions, and 2. any nonmedical use of drugs (It should be noted that the assessment in question explicitly excludes alcoholic beverages). The latter definition is synonymous with Mosby's and Medline, both of which I have previously referenced. --Viriditas | Talk 10:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Please stop reverting without reading or caring what anyone else writes Veriditas. There are many different definitions based on differentlegal and medical authorities. Everyone except you seems to recognise this. Stop it, you are not funny, and not being constructive. If you have some real reason why you only want one definition listed, please give it, otherwise, stop pushing your own POV at the expense of the rest of the world. Guttlekraw 13:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, I'm going to ask you to stop trolling. I am the one who asked for multiple defintions to be included (Talk:Drug_abuse#Proposed_outline) and you are the one who continues to revert without consulting the talk page. Accusing me of your own actions is trollish. --Viriditas | Talk 14:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Footnote removal

I've added the footnotes back in. Osmodiar, you might be interested in Template talk:Inote. --Viriditas | Talk 10:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Veriditas, missing the point as ususal

Veriditas, your comment in the edit history that Mosby's is published by a global company is, as usual, completely irrelevant. The point, again, is that in the US drug abuse is typically defined by reference whether the drug is legal or medically indicated, whereas in Europe, typically, it is defined as use of a drug in such a way that the user cannot function normally. These are important differences, and you completely fail to address this, instead wanting to present the notion that there is only one definition, that everyone agrees to. Guttlekraw 14:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to once again ask you to stop trolling. My comment was in direct response to your contention that Mosby was a US based definition. What you seem to be having trouble understanding is that the Mosby definition is a neutral medical defintion that is not controversial, whereas NIDA is controversial. This has been covered in talk, and again, you keep ignoring issues that have already been covered by bringing them up again and again. Your allegations are false as usual, as my outline specifically calls for multiple definitions where they are appropriate. The medical definition of drug abuse, as offered by Mosby is the primary, neutral definition. --Viriditas | Talk 14:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I see citations for the version Viriditas is using; I see no citation for the claim that "in Europe, typically, it is defined as use of a drug in such a way that the user cannot function normally". I'm going to return this article to the properly cited version until some authoritative citations can be found which indicate that the definition is significantly different in Europe. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I can cite that, for sure, it's very easy. It was cited in the past, and Veriditas removed them. Is the citation the issue though? There are tonnes of cited definitions of drug abuse - the problem is that V wants only one to appear. Guttlekraw 09:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Citation is indeed the issue, and is why your other paragraph was removed as "original research". An insistence on citations tends to stop people from inserting their own opinions. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Calm down

Can both of you please chill out and discuss this on the talk page? Veriditas, I don't have an axe to grind here, but it does seem that there are more than more nuance to this - could there be a compromise in here somewhere? There's nothing sacred about Mosby, it's just a US medical text. Take her easy, Intrigue 15:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Nursing diagnoses

Can we please change this ghastly neologism to symptoms? JFW | T@lk 01:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• The term crept back in. "Nursing diagnosis" is a not a concept used by the medical community outside of the nursing profession. Probobly not appropriate for a general article. Osmodiar 12:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Nursing diagnosis classification is not a new phenomenon. The work begun at the First National Conference on the Classification of Nursing Diagnosis, held in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1973, eventually led to the founding of the organization now called NANDA International [formerly, the North American Nursing Diagnosis Association] NANDA's Classification of Nursing Diagnoses was the first nursing terminology recognized by the American Nurses Association (ANA) and the first included in the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS). NANDA defines nursing diagnosis as a "clinical judgment about individual, family or community responses to actual or potential health problems/life processes". The term "nursing diagnosis" is included in the regulatory or statutory language of the Nurse Practice Act in forty-one of the fifty States and the District of Columbia and in the 2002 Model Nurse Practice Act of the National Council of State Boards of Nursing. The establishment of a nursing diagnosis constitutes one of the standards of nursing practice as enunciated by the ANA and has been a part of the ANA's definition of nursing since 1982...medical diagnosis refers to a disease; a nursing diagnosis refers to a human response to an actual or potential health problem or life processes. Although nursing diagnoses are complementary to medical diagnoses, nursing diagnoses are not dependent upon medical diagnoses...[19] --Viriditas | Talk 21:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas asked me to take a look at this article (particularly wrt nursing diagnoses), I've decided not to edit the article since it's a fairly charged issue so I'll just offer my opinion here and anyone who wants to incorporate that into the article can do so. Nursing diagnoses are the only thing in the section titled "signs and symptoms", but nursing diagnoses aren't really the same thing as signs and symptoms. If there is a section in the article for "nursing care for drug abuse" as a second level heading like "medical treatment" under "Approaches to managing drug abuse" then that would be an appropriate place for them. However; the whole nursing section should not be too much larger than the "medical" or "therapy" sections. If you were to just include a few diagnoses as an example, I would suggest that anxiety (item 1), noncompliance (item 9), and disturbed thought processes (item 4) are probably the most relevant. If there's not a subsection on nursing care, then I don't see that the nursing diagnoses are all that relevant and could be removed. Matt 02:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Right. My point is that "nursing diagnosis" is a concept used only by nurses. If this was a nursing article, then it would be appropriate. On the other hand, "signs" and "symptoms" are concepts well understood by all healthcare providers, includeing nurses. Also, "nursing diagnosis" is an amalgamation of medical and social issues. Its inclusion here can only serve to confuse. And finaly, the section does not fit in the suggested outline. Osmodiar 03:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's try one more time

OK, I kept the Moby definition, added the NIDA one, and added a note about historical definitions. Let me know what you think, and please, can we talk about this, instead of revert warring? Guttlekraw 09:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Please stop your biggotted reverting

Ver. Please stop. Your rampant POV pushing is beyond what I can tollerate. Removing a statement that is a fact from another article, that I don't think you disagree with, and which is relevant, without discussion, is vandalism. Please stop it. Guttlekraw3 06:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Is this "statement that is a fact from another article" cited there? Wikipedia cannot use one Wikipedia article as a citation for another in this way, we need to have the original primary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you disagree that opium use was not considered drug abuse in the 18th century? You don't really think that every uncontested fact in every article needs to be directly sourced, that would be ridiculous. The opium article gives a detailed history of the drug, and references it. It is simply a bad faith attempt to remove things that don't fit your POV to remove this. Guttlekraw3 10:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

This does look bizarre Jayjg - it is not original research, it is well documented. Intrigue 05:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

At last, some sense

Well done, you have finally done some research and recognized that the word has many definitions - this version is a lot better than the previous ones. Guttlekraw3 11:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

My proposed outline, dated Apr 21, 2005 (almost a month ago) specifically requested multiple definitions, which implicitly require citations - citations you refused to provide. The version you are looking at was scheduled for April 22, not May 26, but instead you spent the last month waging a revert war instead of helping contribute to a fair and balanced article that can be independently verified. --Viriditas | Talk 12:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Then why did you keep reverting my suggestions? No, don't even let's go there. I'm happy that we agree to this step forward. Let's put the past ridiculousness behind us and work on improving the article. Guttlekraw3 10:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I've explained this many times. Suggestions are for talk pages, not for articles. Unsubstantiated article additions cannot be verified, and without citing sources for such content, your changes may be removed. --Viriditas | Talk 22:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

As I said to Jayjg above V, you should not go around removing establish uncontentious facts because they are not cited. It's rude and unnecessary. Intrigue 05:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)