Talk:Substance-related disorder

message: The fact that you have presented one group's opinion as fact does not mean that you can ask others not to change that. This page should reflect the fact that there is disagreement about what substance abuse is. Get a grip. Guttlekraw 00:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have been asked to cite sources for the last week, and still, you refuse to do so. --Viriditas  | Talk 00:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My God. What universe are you in? What sources do you want? Please, instead of a rant, simply state which part of this you want sources from. Everyone who has comented agrees with my edits except you. Guttlekraw 00:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not my job to find sources for your claims.  You need to do the research. Please stop changing cited articles to reflect your own personal, POV. --Viriditas  | Talk 22:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cited? 

message: 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)
thread_title: OK, this is beyond what I can put up with.

message: I suggest we start with something like this for defs: http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=24405. Guttlekraw 14:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Guttlekraw seems to be misleading you.  I have used the DSM definition of Substance abuse, while Guttlekraw has been changing cited definitions to reflect his POV.  The link Guttlekraw uses above is merely an abbrieviated version.  Please also look at the page history to view the data that Guttlekraw is removing.  The definition on the drug abuse page was a cite from Mosby's, and not invented out of thin air like the one posted by Guttlekraw. --Viriditas  | Talk 21:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is misleading me on this. I did read the history and Guttlekraw's contributions.  Whether or not he has an agenda is irrelevant to this article, which should be able to stand on its own merit.  I am aware that the link he provided above was to the DSM definition.  I strongly support making the distinction between legal and clinical definitions clear. Osmodiar 04:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Guttlekraw hasn't made any contributions aside from manipulating cited text that I provided, so I believe you are being misled.  He did not originally provide the link to the DSM definiton.  I am the one who provided the link here.  The problem with Webster's definition is that it basically restates the defintion for drug abuse, whereas Mosby and Mediline Encylclopedia discern between the two.  The distinction between legal and clinical definitions is being developed on the drug abuse page, however it should certainly be added here as well. --Viriditas  | Talk 05:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Your point is covered by the statement:  There are on-going debates as to the exact distinctions between substance abuse and substance dependence, but current practice standard distinguishes between the two by defining substance dependence in terms of physiological and behavioral symptoms of substance use, and substance abuse in terms of the social consequences of substance use.  I will attempt to further clarify this as much as possible, and would appreciate any suggestions or contributions on your part. --Viriditas  | Talk 05:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have altered the introduction in response to your criticism. --Viriditas  | Talk 06:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Defs

message: I removed several of the footnotes which only reflected general usage.  For example, there is no need for a footnote for the DSM-IV definition when it is clearly labeled as such in the article body.  As the presence of the footnotes seems to be related more to the ongoing dispute over the article, rather than any real need, perhaps the should go on the talk page. Having the notes section as large as the article is a distraction. -- Osmodiar 08:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In such a case, the footnotes can be made "invisble" using the inote tag.    The reason we have footnotes in controversial articles is to allow others to verify the content. --Viriditas  | Talk 11:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  footnotes 

message: Guttlekraw, be careful with your changes.  We don't want to imply that the term substance abuse is something to be used lightly (ie. a term used to refer to unapproved use of a substance) when clearly by definition, substance abuse should only refer to detrimental abuse of a substance.  Your removal of the word, "harmful" actually works against your efforts to justify recreational use.  --Thoric 20:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning obscured 

message: This page should be shown when searching for drug abuse.  I am new here (just wrote my first article), can someone experienced do this? Plf515 03:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I disagree.  We are dealing with two different topics.  Drug abuse deals with a general overview of the overuse of drugs for nontherapeutic effects while substance abuse is a specific diagnostic classification of a mental disorder. I will create a dab header to highlight the difference. —Viriditas | Talk 05:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Something strange is happening.  Today when I clicked on your link to drug abuse, an article appeared.  Yesterday, when I typed in drug abuse in search, it was blank, which is why I suggested linking from there to here.  I do agree there is room for at least two pages (I do work in substance abuse).
The only difference between 'drug abuse' and 'substance abuse' is that drug abuse is a non-politically correct term. Usually used by people who are unaware of the term substance. The term drug abuse also differs in its use due to peoples definition of what a drug is. The word 'drug' is often used by people when refering to substances which are illegal or have a stigma attached to there use. Drug abuse is some times used to not include alcohol or prescription medication as some do not see these as drugs but would understand that they are also substances. Drug abuse could be called a 'slang' term' or a general term used by the public or the media. The term 'drug abuse' is also used as it is more likely to strike fear due to its associations with hyperdermic needles etc. 
I agree that the page drug abuse should stay as it is a common term but it should link straight to this page and the fact that it is not the professional or pc term used should be stated. Delighted eyes 14:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Link from drug abuse

message: The section on substance abuse vs. drug abuse seems to conflict with the intro definition of the topic. Whether any use of illicit drugs is substance abuse or drug abuse is controversial. This section defines the use of illicit drugs as abuse simply because society and the law labels them illicit. The intro definition seems to refers to the "overindulgence in and dependence on a psychoactive" thus making not all use of illicit drugs as (if not overindulged) as substance abuse. Now if the medical communities believes that any use of illicit drugs is "overindulgence" then that ought to be made clear. Otherwise the two sections should be harmonized. Also the other terms mentioned in the section such a drug abuse and chemical dependency have various definitions depending on who is using them and thus may be synonyms for substance abuse or may not be. The section needs to be rewritten though I not sure how to rewrite best.  --Cab88 06:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge tag removed.  I've read the discussion and can see no useful purpose in merging this page. —Viriditas | Talk 12:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substance vs. drug abuse 

message: See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Drug_abuse_mess for discussion. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge tag removed.  I've read the discussion and can see no useful purpose in merging this page. —Viriditas | Talk 12:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge to Drug addiction

message: Why was this link removed ? It had nothing to do with DMOZ which had been there before. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SAMSHA link 

message: Not sure I am getting the drug/substance abuse distinction
Does a perceived need for some such distinction arise from the fact that some drugs are within the scope of drug control laws while others are not?
Does it imply that drug abuse is controlled drug abuse and substance abuse encompasses, also, abuse of other drugs?
Laurel Bush (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drug/substance abuse distinction 

message: I edited contributions made by User:HDurr47. They failed to correctly cite their content, so I cleaned that up for them. 
Ndrysdale2 (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing