This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Responsible drug use article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 July 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2 December 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Responsible illegal drug use was copied or moved into Responsible drug use with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I realize that many people can't wait to VfD this. I'm asking you to please discuss your reasons here on the talk page first. DryGrain 08:29, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Actually, this version seems much better than the Oath page. I'm still VfDing your other SoBe pages, though. DS 22:01, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The first two sentences in the controversy section, those that discuss addiction, made pretty bold claims (e.g. that moderate use of certain drugs would precipitate addiction). I changed the wording to make it clear that these are opinions, rather than facts, and also added citation needed, as well as clarification needed, markers. If we are to claim that (some argue that) certain drugs are addictive, we need to clarify which ones, and there needs to be evidence given for the assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:9D80:36C:2D25:C4FE:AC1B:2E4F ( talk) 21:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Is the oath a joke? Are you kidding? That content does not belong in here. It does not adhere to any Wikipedia rule: it seems to be original research, and has no sources. It can be easily seen the bias toward drug use the person who wrote it has... perhaps who added thta section was under the influence at the time of editing. That section will be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JBGM ( talk • contribs) 14:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I like this page also much better than the "oath". The latter is not encyclopedic, IMO. This one is.
According to my personal set of rules I am using successfully since about 18 years by now, I am missing the following statements for responsible drug use:
- Not taking any irreversible (or just important) decisions while not sober (editorial: best to be put after "Not driving, ..."; in fact, that point is a special case of this one, since those actions can lead to irreversible outcomes)
- Not taking drugs daily; and even exceptionally (which means less than twice a year) not for more than 3 days in succession, especially not one and the same substance at the same time of day and/or in a similar context. After such an exceptional excessive event give the body at least 2 weeks time to detoxify. (For many people a simple rule for this one is just: "Don't use drugs on weekdays.")
- Not taking drugs for the purposes of improving a depressed mood, calming aggression, nervousness, or anxiety, or overcome sleep disturbances. All these conditions should be considered medical and treated professionally by a doctor. (Self-improvised "treatment" using recreational drugs will only worsen the condition in the long run.)
(outside edit:these ideas are at the very least controversial sometimes this is a persons only option)
- Not taking drugs just because others do.
- Be attentive to symptoms of addictionality: if your craving for some drug (can be also non-chemical, such as computer games, sex etc.) is increasing while your satisfaction from it's use is decreasing, stop using it immediately for at least 1-2 months! After that, be extremely careful!
Last but not least I'd like to give my two cents to the arguments of those opposing any possibility of responsible drug use in general:
I am fine with this position, IF those don't drive (not only motorcycles, but also cars), don't smoke, don't drink alcoholic beverages, don't overeat or eat unhealthy (no sweets etc.), don't do any sports more dangerous than running in the woods, don't engage in any risky sexual behaviour, and most importantly, don't hurt others by any means.
I admire everyone who meets these criteria! I don't.
However, experience shows that these people usually are not the ones denying the freedom of others to use their drugs of choice. Usually the opponents live either a risky life by themselves and just underestimate their own risk-taking while overestimating the risk-taking of others. Or they are the ones chronically "improving" others in any case out of a deep conviction to be the best human being which ever lived on earth. Both types of people shall stay away from me as far as possible!
--DA 07:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That didn't look like much of an agenda... here's one though:
This is a nit-picking point, but when you're saying that "The philosophy of responsible drug use—which applies to alcohol, tobacco, and medical products as much as to any other drugs—asserts that to use drugs responsibly one must adhere to the following principles:" "Not making irreversible or otherwise important decisions while under the influence"
Are you seriously saying that no one should make any important decisions while under the influence of medical drugs?
Yes, merging the 2 seems useful, to get the best of both versions, for instance. Korky Day 07:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Done, SqueakBox 16:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I have added a bit about the deaths caused through the cocaine trade, which some call irresponsible drug use by the users and others blame on governmebnts for making cocaine illegal and thus highly profitable to the criminal mind. The Times reckon 3,000 deaths a year are caused inm this trade (though they appeared to be referring exclusively to Colombia) whereas the number of deaths in the Americas alone I would put as at leastn 10 times that, ie 100 a day. I have removed the bit about not making impoprtant decisions while under the influence as being hopelessly inaccurate. One could argue, especially with cannabis, that one should consume it before making an important decision, assuming one has substantial experience of the drug, SqueakBox 16:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Dose it strike anyone else as inapropriate that the first section is on the criticisms of the subj. or am I just looney? AP 01:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The contents of the "Criticisms" section and the "Recreational drug use: can it be responsible?" sub-section from the "The Responsible Drug User's Oath" section are almost the same, and it looks like one is just a re-worded version of the other. I believe the "Recreational drug use: can it be responsible?" sub-section should be removed, since it's just re-stating what was mentioned before. 66.60.1.153 04:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
First of all, let me emphasis what I do not explicitly agree or disagree with the content of the article. My objection to this article has nothing to do with the morality of drug use. My problem with the article is that it doesn't seem to deserve its own article. The article seems to semi-imply that this is some sort of movement as opposed to just some random opinions put up on everything2. At the very least add some more references that backs up this as being notable enough to deserve its own article. If this cannot be done, the article content should in my personal opinion be merged with an article on drug use. That having been said, I'm not going to VfD it but would agree with such a vote if it became an issue under the current circumstances. Debolaz 16:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Although I am in favor of harm reduction and believe that drug use can be made relatively safe (although most people won't care, but that's another story), this topic doesn't deserve its own article. Some content can be merged into Harm Reduction, and maybe into Recreational Drug Use, but most should be deleted. 208.102.122.87 ( talk) 15:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
"Measuring accurate dosages and taking other precautions to reduce the risk of overdose" OK, as a general rule, this is virturally impossible to do. Unless you are buying pharaceutical drugs, there will be no effective way to "measure accurate doses". Street drugs are not quality controlled, they are mixed in a backstreet chemist. One pill, or one gram, may be significantly stronger than another pill or gram coming from the exact same batch. And this assumes that you have the equipment to accurately test the drugs (which you probably don't). To imply that the above possible is wishful thinking...
"Taking the time to chemically test all drugs being consumed to determine purity and strength" Again, there is no accurate way to chemically test most drugs. even the police have to send drugs to their forensic services to be tested.
Both these comments should be taken out now. Along with 90% of the rest of this ridiculous article.... 82.19.66.37 13:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how this oath (in its entirity no less) belongs on Wikipedia. The section should be deleted. Drcwright 02:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This articles seems to cite sources in two different styles -- one old-fashioned footnote and several A.P.A. style citations. I don't know wikipedia style well enough to edit it into whichever single style it should be, but someone should do so. Responsible drug use is a very important issue to those of us who are researchers in the field of drug policy and drug use behaviour. It also apparently is something of a movement now. I receive emails from an organization called INPUD (I don't know what the acronym stands for) which has sponsored a rather large international conference here in Europe every year for the last several years. Manny ( talk) 06:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I meant 'not objective or concrete anyway' Munci ( talk) 10:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
But with good references, this article can serve as the {main} article for the drug part of Harm reduction as per WP:SS. This kind of thing was bound to happen anyway. Very many "merge" debates are found to be premature "spin off" debates. S B H arris 02:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The article appears not to cover, for example, such drug use as self-medication with aspirin and use of professionally prescribed dihydrocodeine (a class B controlled drug in the UK)
Is this sort of drug use irresponsible?
Seems to me the article should be at
Responsible illegal drug use
Laurel Bush (
talk) 11:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The article title matches the established terminology. If disambiguation is necessary, this can be done in the standard Wikipedia convention -- Responsible drug use (recreational) and Responsible drug use (medication). I would not recommend Responsible drug use (illegal) as this article is not exclusive of legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, and this article is also inclusive of "responsible use" of legal medications used in an unapproved (yet "responsible") recreational manner. -- Thoric ( talk) 18:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
To my mind the article is clearly about, or trying to be about, illegal recreational use of drugs which belong, in legal terms, to two distinct categories: (1) drugs for which recreational use is prohibited; and (2) drugs for which recreational use may be legal or illegal, depending on circumstances
The article does seem, however, to confuse legality with social and professional medical approval
Maybe it should be at
Responsible recreational drug use
The problem we seem to have is that current laws about drugs are themselves so irrational that it is very difficult to find meaningful consistent terminology on the subject, and to get Wikipedia drug-related articles interlinking in any useful meaningful way
Laurel Bush (
talk) 11:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
You liked use illegal drugs, or illegally use legal drugs?
You would want
illegal drug or
illegal drug?
This looks to me to be a better way of introducing the subject:
Laurel Bush ( talk) 15:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
OK
I will go with
Responsible drug use (recreational)
Wikipedia is more than a platform for the "harm reduction community", and therefore I feel we need an article title which distinguishes that commmunity's sense of the meaning of the term from that of obvious possible other senses
Laurel Bush (
talk) 10:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Another point to consider in this context, however:
What of claims by some users of illegal cannabis that their use is self-medicational, for example, for treatment of MS?
Is this seemingly non recreational drug use something which might fit within harm-reduction-community definitions of responsible drug use?
And how does this look as a new intro to the article:
Laurel Bush ( talk) 12:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
You liked use illegal drugs, or illegally use legal drugs?
And you would want
illegal drug or
illegal drug?
There seems to be no drug which is necessarily illegal in all circumstances, but drug prohibition/control laws do seem to create a class of drugs for which, at present, recreational use can not be legal
If you use a controlled drug for recreational purposes you might well be illegally using an otherwise legal drug
I would now tend to prefer prohibited drug, in the context of this article, over controlled drug which is perhaps a drug which would be prohibited except it is used under licence (for example, dihydrocodeine, class B in the UK, prescribed for pain relief)
If you do not like the effects of a law, it is perhaps a good idea to use terminology which says what the law actually is, rather than a rather vague reference like illegal drug
Laurel Bush (
talk) 12:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Responsible drug use is a harm reduction strategy which argues that people can engage in illegal recreational use of drugs with reduced or eliminated risk of negatively affecting other parts of their lives or the lives of others.
Thanks Thoric, for the opinion about what should be included in a harm reduction strategy re recreational drug use
The point for us is that those who pursue such strategies do seem to include recreational alcohol and tobacco use, which is not necessarily illegal
And the following still makes sense to me as an intro, putting the article's use of responsible drug use within the context of a particular community's opinion (the harm reduction community), and making clear that it is about recreational use of both prohibited and other drugs:
Laurel Bush ( talk) 13:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a platform for the "harm reduction" community
If "reponsible drug use" as used by that community is to be an article title, then it should be clear in the intro that the community's sense of the expression's meaning is not necessarily that of others
Also, it is not clear to me anyway that the sense of the term used in the article really originates in a harm reduction community
I am not sure its origin is not more in a movement seeking to abolish drug prohibition laws
Laurel Bush (
talk) 12:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC).
I wonder what readers here (this page) might make of my changes to the intro of/to "
Self medication"
They seem to be unchallenged, although they may be seen as out of kilter with the rest of the article, the latter perhaps about self medication as a psychiatric quasi diagnosis
Laurel Bush (
talk) 10:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe what I have recently done to
Prescription drug is an example of writing for the enemy, except I am not sure I have or want any real enemy
Laurel Bush (
talk) 14:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
My thinking now is that the article would be better placed under
Responsible self-prescribed drug use
I am sure many people suppose that responsible use is use within the law and in accordance with professional medical advice, but the article seems to ignore drug use prescribed by medical professionals, as if somehow this does not exist, or is necessarily and patently not responsible, or is not really drug use
Laurel Bush (
talk) 09:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
"however, drug testing should not be necessary if this is so, as a user's work performance would be observably deficient, and be grounds in itself for dismissal."
I believe that this statement and a few other in this article are not fit for an encyclopedia due to an obvious personal bias. Although I do think we should try and repair this article rather than delete it as this information should be easily available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avocadobride ( talk • contribs) 10:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Somebody seems to have the idea this article is about drugs commonly banned in the west but drugs include tobacco, caffeine and alcohol, and the latter has a notorious history of irresponsible use. I am trying to fix the article so it reflects its title, the other option would be to move it to something like Responsible drug use of commonly banned drugs or Responsible drug use of commonly controlled drugs♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
This article is about (or was first intended to be about) those people who claim that it is possible to responsibly use illegal drugs, which is something that other people claim is intrinsically impossible, inasmuch as illegal use of drugs must be intrinsically irresponsible. The crux of the matter is whether or not all illegal behavior is ipso facto irresponsible behavior. It is not WP's place to judge that, but there exist plenty of WP:RS and WP:V sources for both major views in that debate, especially as regards drugs, which may be used in many nonviolent ways, and where it is possible to argue that the nature of reality is that adults may do many private things responsibly, without permission from anybody. Hence, the need for an WP:NPOV article on the subject. S B H arris 22:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed this article got renamed last year (haven't been watching too closely) to "responsible illegal drug use" (~4.5K google hits). No real consensus was reached since the discussions in 2009. The proper terminology is "responsible drug use" (32K+ google hits) as existing in reference literature. If we need to for some reason put an emphasis on the legality of the drugs involved, then we should follow the wikipedia convention of "Responsible drug use (illegal)", although a more correct term would be "responsible substance use" (21K google hits). -- Thoric ( talk) 18:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not qualified enough to talk about Drug policy reform, I actually recommend resources from: https://www.tdpf.org.uk/resources
There are many other wiki-like engines talking about responsible drug use.
There are so many other resources, this one is spot on: https://www.facebook.com/trippersguide/
A few moments ago I've found /info/en/?search=Talk:Responsible_Drug_User%27s_Oath and I genuinely believe it is my responsibility to educate people.
Stefek99 ( talk) 19:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I am at work so I won't change it now, but in the "Organizations" part, Energy Control[26] does not redirect to the correct page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexisbu ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Responsible drug use article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 July 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2 December 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Responsible illegal drug use was copied or moved into Responsible drug use with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I realize that many people can't wait to VfD this. I'm asking you to please discuss your reasons here on the talk page first. DryGrain 08:29, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Actually, this version seems much better than the Oath page. I'm still VfDing your other SoBe pages, though. DS 22:01, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The first two sentences in the controversy section, those that discuss addiction, made pretty bold claims (e.g. that moderate use of certain drugs would precipitate addiction). I changed the wording to make it clear that these are opinions, rather than facts, and also added citation needed, as well as clarification needed, markers. If we are to claim that (some argue that) certain drugs are addictive, we need to clarify which ones, and there needs to be evidence given for the assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:9D80:36C:2D25:C4FE:AC1B:2E4F ( talk) 21:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Is the oath a joke? Are you kidding? That content does not belong in here. It does not adhere to any Wikipedia rule: it seems to be original research, and has no sources. It can be easily seen the bias toward drug use the person who wrote it has... perhaps who added thta section was under the influence at the time of editing. That section will be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JBGM ( talk • contribs) 14:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I like this page also much better than the "oath". The latter is not encyclopedic, IMO. This one is.
According to my personal set of rules I am using successfully since about 18 years by now, I am missing the following statements for responsible drug use:
- Not taking any irreversible (or just important) decisions while not sober (editorial: best to be put after "Not driving, ..."; in fact, that point is a special case of this one, since those actions can lead to irreversible outcomes)
- Not taking drugs daily; and even exceptionally (which means less than twice a year) not for more than 3 days in succession, especially not one and the same substance at the same time of day and/or in a similar context. After such an exceptional excessive event give the body at least 2 weeks time to detoxify. (For many people a simple rule for this one is just: "Don't use drugs on weekdays.")
- Not taking drugs for the purposes of improving a depressed mood, calming aggression, nervousness, or anxiety, or overcome sleep disturbances. All these conditions should be considered medical and treated professionally by a doctor. (Self-improvised "treatment" using recreational drugs will only worsen the condition in the long run.)
(outside edit:these ideas are at the very least controversial sometimes this is a persons only option)
- Not taking drugs just because others do.
- Be attentive to symptoms of addictionality: if your craving for some drug (can be also non-chemical, such as computer games, sex etc.) is increasing while your satisfaction from it's use is decreasing, stop using it immediately for at least 1-2 months! After that, be extremely careful!
Last but not least I'd like to give my two cents to the arguments of those opposing any possibility of responsible drug use in general:
I am fine with this position, IF those don't drive (not only motorcycles, but also cars), don't smoke, don't drink alcoholic beverages, don't overeat or eat unhealthy (no sweets etc.), don't do any sports more dangerous than running in the woods, don't engage in any risky sexual behaviour, and most importantly, don't hurt others by any means.
I admire everyone who meets these criteria! I don't.
However, experience shows that these people usually are not the ones denying the freedom of others to use their drugs of choice. Usually the opponents live either a risky life by themselves and just underestimate their own risk-taking while overestimating the risk-taking of others. Or they are the ones chronically "improving" others in any case out of a deep conviction to be the best human being which ever lived on earth. Both types of people shall stay away from me as far as possible!
--DA 07:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That didn't look like much of an agenda... here's one though:
This is a nit-picking point, but when you're saying that "The philosophy of responsible drug use—which applies to alcohol, tobacco, and medical products as much as to any other drugs—asserts that to use drugs responsibly one must adhere to the following principles:" "Not making irreversible or otherwise important decisions while under the influence"
Are you seriously saying that no one should make any important decisions while under the influence of medical drugs?
Yes, merging the 2 seems useful, to get the best of both versions, for instance. Korky Day 07:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Done, SqueakBox 16:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I have added a bit about the deaths caused through the cocaine trade, which some call irresponsible drug use by the users and others blame on governmebnts for making cocaine illegal and thus highly profitable to the criminal mind. The Times reckon 3,000 deaths a year are caused inm this trade (though they appeared to be referring exclusively to Colombia) whereas the number of deaths in the Americas alone I would put as at leastn 10 times that, ie 100 a day. I have removed the bit about not making impoprtant decisions while under the influence as being hopelessly inaccurate. One could argue, especially with cannabis, that one should consume it before making an important decision, assuming one has substantial experience of the drug, SqueakBox 16:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Dose it strike anyone else as inapropriate that the first section is on the criticisms of the subj. or am I just looney? AP 01:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The contents of the "Criticisms" section and the "Recreational drug use: can it be responsible?" sub-section from the "The Responsible Drug User's Oath" section are almost the same, and it looks like one is just a re-worded version of the other. I believe the "Recreational drug use: can it be responsible?" sub-section should be removed, since it's just re-stating what was mentioned before. 66.60.1.153 04:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
First of all, let me emphasis what I do not explicitly agree or disagree with the content of the article. My objection to this article has nothing to do with the morality of drug use. My problem with the article is that it doesn't seem to deserve its own article. The article seems to semi-imply that this is some sort of movement as opposed to just some random opinions put up on everything2. At the very least add some more references that backs up this as being notable enough to deserve its own article. If this cannot be done, the article content should in my personal opinion be merged with an article on drug use. That having been said, I'm not going to VfD it but would agree with such a vote if it became an issue under the current circumstances. Debolaz 16:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Although I am in favor of harm reduction and believe that drug use can be made relatively safe (although most people won't care, but that's another story), this topic doesn't deserve its own article. Some content can be merged into Harm Reduction, and maybe into Recreational Drug Use, but most should be deleted. 208.102.122.87 ( talk) 15:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
"Measuring accurate dosages and taking other precautions to reduce the risk of overdose" OK, as a general rule, this is virturally impossible to do. Unless you are buying pharaceutical drugs, there will be no effective way to "measure accurate doses". Street drugs are not quality controlled, they are mixed in a backstreet chemist. One pill, or one gram, may be significantly stronger than another pill or gram coming from the exact same batch. And this assumes that you have the equipment to accurately test the drugs (which you probably don't). To imply that the above possible is wishful thinking...
"Taking the time to chemically test all drugs being consumed to determine purity and strength" Again, there is no accurate way to chemically test most drugs. even the police have to send drugs to their forensic services to be tested.
Both these comments should be taken out now. Along with 90% of the rest of this ridiculous article.... 82.19.66.37 13:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how this oath (in its entirity no less) belongs on Wikipedia. The section should be deleted. Drcwright 02:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This articles seems to cite sources in two different styles -- one old-fashioned footnote and several A.P.A. style citations. I don't know wikipedia style well enough to edit it into whichever single style it should be, but someone should do so. Responsible drug use is a very important issue to those of us who are researchers in the field of drug policy and drug use behaviour. It also apparently is something of a movement now. I receive emails from an organization called INPUD (I don't know what the acronym stands for) which has sponsored a rather large international conference here in Europe every year for the last several years. Manny ( talk) 06:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I meant 'not objective or concrete anyway' Munci ( talk) 10:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
But with good references, this article can serve as the {main} article for the drug part of Harm reduction as per WP:SS. This kind of thing was bound to happen anyway. Very many "merge" debates are found to be premature "spin off" debates. S B H arris 02:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The article appears not to cover, for example, such drug use as self-medication with aspirin and use of professionally prescribed dihydrocodeine (a class B controlled drug in the UK)
Is this sort of drug use irresponsible?
Seems to me the article should be at
Responsible illegal drug use
Laurel Bush (
talk) 11:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The article title matches the established terminology. If disambiguation is necessary, this can be done in the standard Wikipedia convention -- Responsible drug use (recreational) and Responsible drug use (medication). I would not recommend Responsible drug use (illegal) as this article is not exclusive of legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, and this article is also inclusive of "responsible use" of legal medications used in an unapproved (yet "responsible") recreational manner. -- Thoric ( talk) 18:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
To my mind the article is clearly about, or trying to be about, illegal recreational use of drugs which belong, in legal terms, to two distinct categories: (1) drugs for which recreational use is prohibited; and (2) drugs for which recreational use may be legal or illegal, depending on circumstances
The article does seem, however, to confuse legality with social and professional medical approval
Maybe it should be at
Responsible recreational drug use
The problem we seem to have is that current laws about drugs are themselves so irrational that it is very difficult to find meaningful consistent terminology on the subject, and to get Wikipedia drug-related articles interlinking in any useful meaningful way
Laurel Bush (
talk) 11:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
You liked use illegal drugs, or illegally use legal drugs?
You would want
illegal drug or
illegal drug?
This looks to me to be a better way of introducing the subject:
Laurel Bush ( talk) 15:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
OK
I will go with
Responsible drug use (recreational)
Wikipedia is more than a platform for the "harm reduction community", and therefore I feel we need an article title which distinguishes that commmunity's sense of the meaning of the term from that of obvious possible other senses
Laurel Bush (
talk) 10:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Another point to consider in this context, however:
What of claims by some users of illegal cannabis that their use is self-medicational, for example, for treatment of MS?
Is this seemingly non recreational drug use something which might fit within harm-reduction-community definitions of responsible drug use?
And how does this look as a new intro to the article:
Laurel Bush ( talk) 12:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
You liked use illegal drugs, or illegally use legal drugs?
And you would want
illegal drug or
illegal drug?
There seems to be no drug which is necessarily illegal in all circumstances, but drug prohibition/control laws do seem to create a class of drugs for which, at present, recreational use can not be legal
If you use a controlled drug for recreational purposes you might well be illegally using an otherwise legal drug
I would now tend to prefer prohibited drug, in the context of this article, over controlled drug which is perhaps a drug which would be prohibited except it is used under licence (for example, dihydrocodeine, class B in the UK, prescribed for pain relief)
If you do not like the effects of a law, it is perhaps a good idea to use terminology which says what the law actually is, rather than a rather vague reference like illegal drug
Laurel Bush (
talk) 12:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Responsible drug use is a harm reduction strategy which argues that people can engage in illegal recreational use of drugs with reduced or eliminated risk of negatively affecting other parts of their lives or the lives of others.
Thanks Thoric, for the opinion about what should be included in a harm reduction strategy re recreational drug use
The point for us is that those who pursue such strategies do seem to include recreational alcohol and tobacco use, which is not necessarily illegal
And the following still makes sense to me as an intro, putting the article's use of responsible drug use within the context of a particular community's opinion (the harm reduction community), and making clear that it is about recreational use of both prohibited and other drugs:
Laurel Bush ( talk) 13:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a platform for the "harm reduction" community
If "reponsible drug use" as used by that community is to be an article title, then it should be clear in the intro that the community's sense of the expression's meaning is not necessarily that of others
Also, it is not clear to me anyway that the sense of the term used in the article really originates in a harm reduction community
I am not sure its origin is not more in a movement seeking to abolish drug prohibition laws
Laurel Bush (
talk) 12:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC).
I wonder what readers here (this page) might make of my changes to the intro of/to "
Self medication"
They seem to be unchallenged, although they may be seen as out of kilter with the rest of the article, the latter perhaps about self medication as a psychiatric quasi diagnosis
Laurel Bush (
talk) 10:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe what I have recently done to
Prescription drug is an example of writing for the enemy, except I am not sure I have or want any real enemy
Laurel Bush (
talk) 14:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
My thinking now is that the article would be better placed under
Responsible self-prescribed drug use
I am sure many people suppose that responsible use is use within the law and in accordance with professional medical advice, but the article seems to ignore drug use prescribed by medical professionals, as if somehow this does not exist, or is necessarily and patently not responsible, or is not really drug use
Laurel Bush (
talk) 09:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
"however, drug testing should not be necessary if this is so, as a user's work performance would be observably deficient, and be grounds in itself for dismissal."
I believe that this statement and a few other in this article are not fit for an encyclopedia due to an obvious personal bias. Although I do think we should try and repair this article rather than delete it as this information should be easily available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avocadobride ( talk • contribs) 10:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Somebody seems to have the idea this article is about drugs commonly banned in the west but drugs include tobacco, caffeine and alcohol, and the latter has a notorious history of irresponsible use. I am trying to fix the article so it reflects its title, the other option would be to move it to something like Responsible drug use of commonly banned drugs or Responsible drug use of commonly controlled drugs♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
This article is about (or was first intended to be about) those people who claim that it is possible to responsibly use illegal drugs, which is something that other people claim is intrinsically impossible, inasmuch as illegal use of drugs must be intrinsically irresponsible. The crux of the matter is whether or not all illegal behavior is ipso facto irresponsible behavior. It is not WP's place to judge that, but there exist plenty of WP:RS and WP:V sources for both major views in that debate, especially as regards drugs, which may be used in many nonviolent ways, and where it is possible to argue that the nature of reality is that adults may do many private things responsibly, without permission from anybody. Hence, the need for an WP:NPOV article on the subject. S B H arris 22:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed this article got renamed last year (haven't been watching too closely) to "responsible illegal drug use" (~4.5K google hits). No real consensus was reached since the discussions in 2009. The proper terminology is "responsible drug use" (32K+ google hits) as existing in reference literature. If we need to for some reason put an emphasis on the legality of the drugs involved, then we should follow the wikipedia convention of "Responsible drug use (illegal)", although a more correct term would be "responsible substance use" (21K google hits). -- Thoric ( talk) 18:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not qualified enough to talk about Drug policy reform, I actually recommend resources from: https://www.tdpf.org.uk/resources
There are many other wiki-like engines talking about responsible drug use.
There are so many other resources, this one is spot on: https://www.facebook.com/trippersguide/
A few moments ago I've found /info/en/?search=Talk:Responsible_Drug_User%27s_Oath and I genuinely believe it is my responsibility to educate people.
Stefek99 ( talk) 19:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I am at work so I won't change it now, but in the "Organizations" part, Energy Control[26] does not redirect to the correct page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexisbu ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)