Category talk:Drugs/Archive 1

message: hi urod.  i'm really curious as to where this category came from . . .  It seems inherently POV and difficult to deliniate.  something like hydrocodone is clearly not only a drug of abuse, and seems to deserve to be in a "drugs" category rather than only "drugs of abuse"; something like ayahuasca, a psychedelic and therefore under the umbrella of the drugs of abuse category, has been used as a religious sacrament and medicinally for thousands of years.  yes, "drugs" has two different meanings, but that doesn't make all psychoactive drugs drugs of abuse.  
also, for many of the pages you've made these changes to, the category shouldn't be there in the first place; drugs is a fairly overarching category, with many subcats, which makes the use of this category for any individual drugs entirely unnecessary.  
anyways.  We need to get a discussion about this going some place--or, if i've missed one, i'd love to be pointed to it.  
cheers--heah 07:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a false analogy.  drugs affect the workings of the body, whether therapeutically, medicinally, perceptually, etc.  perhaps a more proper analogy would be that the thing in your car regulating emmissions, a pda, and a cray are all computers, despite their widelt differing applications and uses.  --heah 18:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, this needs to be worked out, as per the discussion above and centrx's comment below. --heah 18:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is why the category is inherently pov.  if something is not approved for medicinal use by the fda, that makes it a drug of abuse?  what about st. john's wort?  what about places outside of the united states?  what about morphine?  --heah 18:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it means nobody changed this after the drugs article was recently created, and again, "drugs of abuse" isn't even an article.  --heah 18:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Drug of abuse isn't even an article, it redirects to drug abuse, which is a very different thing than "drug of abuse"; the category was linked to that because there was no article for drug until fairly recently; drug served only as a disambig page.  as you mention, such drugs as cocaine, as well as morphine and hydrocodone and many others, clearly fall into both categories.  the entire existence of this cat is inherently pov, and it messes up the umbrella cat system that existed until yesterday.  It is entirely unnecessary, as all we need is the psychoactive drugs cat to be under drugs to clearly dilineate different types of drugs in a non-pov, effectual fashion.  again, most of these articles shouldn't be in cat:drugs at all, because drugs is fairly high up on the heirarchy of categories, and their placement there is redundant.  --heah 17:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agreed, if you look above I brought this up 2 years ago, and didn't really follow up. Basically, all it needs is someone to do the work or to get a bot to fix the categorization on the many articles. —Centrx→talk • 17:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, you're quick to point to Be Bold as your inspiration, without reading a notable exception contained within the policy.  Urania3 18:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also like to point out that several places already exist with the express purpose of facilitating such discussion, such as WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants and WikiProject Drugs--which is oriented towards the non-"drugs of abuse" part of drug, yet clearly considers "drug" to cover not just antibiotics and etc. but also lsd and other drugs used recreationally/religiously/abusively/whatever.  --heah 18:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: okay, so, i have some questions about that--are you suggesting that pharmacological agents replaces drug as the category?  do psychoactives fall under the rubric of pharmocological agents?  (they are currently categorized as such.)  forgive me for not reading all of the above conversation, it is quite long, though i did skim it earlier . . .   --heah 18:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, all drugs are pharmacologic agents. The 'pharmacologic agents' category was only created as a substitute for this one because this one was already taken by this peculiar use. 'Pharmacology' meaning that the thing produces a specific physiological response or is 'pharmacologically active', all drugs are pharmacological agents and that category was only created as a substitute for this one was already taken by this peculiar use. 'Pharmacology' can also be taken to be related to the branch of medical science about drugs, but in this still, cocaine, cannabis, etc. have all been used in medicine and have been or are under medical study. Any drug that is known about enough to be abused and put on Wikipedia falls under the branch of medical science. —Centrx→talk • 22:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Changing it to "illegal drugs" totally messes up the cat system, as :Category:Drugs is an umbrella cat with all sorts of drugs underneath, not all of which are illegal.  many are not controlled, many are available by perscription, and laws differ from country to country and state to state.  the subcats all need to go back into the drugs cat.  many (maybe all) of the articles listed herein shouldn't be in this cat anyways, as that is redundant with the subcategories they all already belong too.  see the discussion at the bottom of :category:drugs as well.  --heah 17:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't suggesting renaming Category:Drugs. I was suggesting renaming Category:Drugs of abuse. All of the drugs there are illegal for some uses. If they aren't, they are already in the wrong category. I'm not tied to the name "Illegal Drugs", but I am opposed to "Drugs of abuse" as POV. I am going to move these comments to category talk:drugs#Drugs vs Drugs of abuse. Rbraunwa 17:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: heh, yeah, i understood you meant "drugs of abuse" should be changed to "illegal drugs"--i just thing the whole category should be eliminated rather than the name changed.  --heah 18:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually it is still used in humans as an anesthetic in hospitals.
LSD enjoyed about twenty years of official use in research. 
This is not a medicinal usage.
Amphetamines are still legally prescribed for narcolepsy, ADHD and obesity.
Then they belong to both categories.
There are exceedingly few "drugs of abuse" which have not been used in medicine to some degree, and most of the ones which have no history of medical use are based on existing drugs which were (hence the creation of the Federal Analog Act).
If they were used only in past, they belong only to the :Category:Drugs of abuse.
The "war on (some) drugs" is entirely political, and has no place making an influence here. 
This is what organized crime wants you to believe.  War on drugs saved thousands, if not millions of people, from drug addiction and probable death in several years.
We can document its point of view, but we will not allow its point of view to corrupt the content of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia should represent scientific point of view.  Currently, there is a consensus (in a scientific community) that some substances are useful to cure/treat diseases, for other substances there is no such consensus.  Thats why they don't belong to the same category.
You may rename :Category:Drugs of abuse to :Category:Recreational and psychedelic drugs or something, but I strongly believe that drugs which are approved by FDA or similar bodies in other countries should have separate category.
--Urod 08:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There are varying scientific views.  In general there are exceedingly few substances which exist for the express purpose of recreation.  By far the most abused drug to date is alcohol, so that would be the prime candidate for your category.  Alcohol has little medical use besides being a topical antiseptic, but it certainly contributes to the degradation of society far more than anything else.  The War on drugs has done nothing but cost lives and billions of dollars.  Organized crime only got involved after prohibition started.  Do some research and read up on your history, my friend.  You know not of what you speak.  --Thoric 16:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Even under the more restrictive definition of "pharmacologic" — which still is not appropriate here, a physiological definition is superior — it is about being under the branch of medical science, not whether it is currently used medicinally in your part of the world. —Centrx→talk • 19:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drugs vs Drugs of abuse