Talk:Recreational drug use/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Undue weight on evolution hypothesis

Signedzzz, re: your revert to my edit. (1)Evolutionary theory doesn't belong in its own section as it gives WP:UNDUE weight to one of many theories about why people start using drugs (which are listed under Reasons for use). Of the theories, evolution is not a prominent one. It fits perfectly in the "Reasons for use" section, though that subsection may not belong under Risks, but that's a different conversation. (2)Both studies you cited were written by the same group of researchers and the premise of their paper is that they're offering a hypothesis that challenges the mainstream view. The abstract of the 2002 article says, "According to a conventional evolutionary perspective, the human propensity for substance use is the product of a ‘mismatch’ between emotional mechanisms that evolved in a past without pure drugs or direct routes of drug administration, and the occurrence of these phenomena in the contemporary environment. The primary purpose of this review is to assert that, contrary to the conventional view... Our second, and more speculative objective is to suggest provisional hypotheses of human substance-using phenomena that can incorporate the evolutionary implications of a deep time relationship between psychotropic substances and people. We discuss hypotheses of selective benefits of substance use..."[1] In the conclusion they acknowledge that their idea has not been tested yet. The next article was published in 2008 and they state that still no research had been done towards exploring their hypothesis. In 2015, the same authors wrote a chapter in this book and still no research had been done. Personally, I think evolution could be mentioned in one word in the list of possible explanations for use. If we're going to say more than that, it shouldn't be more than 1 sentence about the conventional evolutionary theory. This isn't the right place to go in depth about all of the new and untested speculation about evolution and drug use. PermStrump(talk) 04:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not a "theor[y] about why people start using drugs". zzz (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The authors say it is. In positing the reasons for substance abuse, the conventional perspective is logically dependent on a mismatch between an emotional reinforcement mechanism that evolved in a past without pure drugs or direct routes of administration and the novel occurrence of these phenomena in the contemporary environment. However, the evidence presented above positing a deep-time relationship between psychotropic chemicals and people undermines the logical consistency of the conventional view. Also here, We also questioned the importance of hedonic reinforcement in the etiology of substance use, emphasizing that the first experience of ubiquitously used drugs is often aversive. And here Our focus is on the most enigmatic phase of drug use—initial drug seeking and its acute effects, which we detail here... PermStrump(talk) 04:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The evolution, or origin, of recreational drug use, obviously has the potential to inform debate about the cause of drug use (which the authors would have been remiss to ignore), but the article section does not examine that aspect. However I agree with Sizeofint's edit placing it under Reasons for use.zzz (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Your recent reverts do not reflect the sources. You've re-added, "Genetic research has indicated that man and his distant ancestors "may have evolved to counter-exploit plant neurotoxins"." But this is not what the sources say. The authors said that no research had been done thus far to explore whether humans have evolved to "counter-exploit plant neurotoxins." They stated several times that their goal was to substantiate a reason for evolutionary biologists to research this area as the primary authors are anthropologists. This sentence, "Chemical–ecological adaptations, and the genetics of hepatic enzymes, particularly cytochromeP450 have led researchers to propose that "humans have shared a co-evolutionary relationship with psychotropic plant substances that is millions of years old."" splices 2 different sentences, one from each article, and directly implies that there is evidence supporting their hypothesis, when there is none. The actual sentences from the sources say,

Emerging insights from plant evolutionary ecology and the genetics of hepatic enzymes, particularly cytochrome P450, indicate that animal and hominid taxa have been exposed to plant toxins throughout their evolution.2008

The primary purpose of this review is to assert that, contrary to the conventional view, humans have shared a coevolutionary relationship with psychotropic plant substances.2002

As I stated above, if we're going to talk about evolution in this article, it should be the conventional view, not a new and untested hypothesis as it's WP:UNDUE. PermStrump(talk) 05:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not aware of any controversy surrounding the evolutionary hypothesis. If you are aware of any, (perhaps a source for what the "conventional view" currently is) this could be added. Chemical–ecological adaptations, and the genetics of hepatic enzymes, particularly cytochrome P450 have led researchers to propose that "humans have shared a co-evolutionary relationship with psychotropic plant substances that is millions of years old". The quote is from the source, and the first part is a summary of "Among what could be called chemical–ecological adaptations, the most relevant are the cytochrome P-450 and other liver enzyme systems, which have evolved specifically with the function of metabolizing allelochemicals by oxidation, hydrolysis or reduction", also from the same source [2]. zzz (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

That's better than the first version, but it's still WP:UNDUE. The authors themselves call their theory controversial and refer to the "conventional" theory multiple times. I like how this source puts it. First they explain the conventional theory:

"...for many toxic compounds, the dangers of which are perceived as a bitter taste, each of which appears to trigger an opioid response (Gilbertson and Kim, 2002; Sullivan, 2002). This helps to explain why drugs of addiction are commonly smoked, snorted, or injected but rarely chewed up and eaten: our bodies have natural mechanisms that prevent ingestion of toxins. That some of these toxins, taken in moderation, selectively activate specific “reward” centers in the brain that govern addiction appears to be an accident of plant-herbivore coevolution. This “accident” nevertheless displays all the hallmarks of an adaptation in natural settings.²⁶"

Footnote 26 is in reference to the articles we've cited. The footnote says,

"26 This hypothesis is not completely uncontroversial—some argue that substance abuse may have been around long enough for the human genome to have developed defensive mechanisms (see, e.g., Sullivan and Hagen, 2002). The debate, however, is mostly one of degree: no one would argue, for example, that hypodermic needles have been around long enough for humanity to develop an innate aversion to heroin."

Our current sources might actually summarize the conventional theories more succinctly and I think they're a good choice for secondary source in that context. I don't even think a footnote is really appropriate considering that this isn't an evo psych article. Their hypothesis is interesting, but I think an Evo Psych article would be the place to go into it. PermStrump(talk) 05:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the evolutionary origin of recreational drug use is certainly relevant and of interest to readers. If you have a source for the latest research (ie, later than the 2008 source in the article section), that should be added - especially if a contradictory theory is being proposed, obviously. zzz (talk) 06:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Images

Sizeofint, the new images are  Great! Also, thanks for moving those lists to the end. I finally read the article's actual content in full for the first time. I'm working on a draft of a stand alone list that I'll make a subpage for, so other people can add stuff that I'll inevitably overlook by accident. PermStrump(talk) 06:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, although they were already in the article. All I did was put them in a multiple-image template. Sizeofint (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Funny, I didn't notice them before. PermStrump(talk) 20:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Stand-alone lists

Does anyone mind if I make stand-alone lists and link to them in the article instead of having these lengthy lists that take up so much main article space? PermStrump(talk) 03:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably not a bad idea. I spun off List of designer drugs from its main article since the list was growing large. Are you proposing List of recreational drugs? My only concern is such a list could become extremely large as more and more obscure substances are added. Sizeofint (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

True, but at least it wouldn't be an extremely long list in the middle of the article. I haven't really thought this all the way through yet. Right now at least, they wouldn't be too too long if there were lists named after the subsections, like... List of popular recreational drugs, List of routes of administration (recreational drugs), etc. Some already exist, like List of psychedelic plants. We should add List of designer drugs. I just did ctrl F "design" and that word isn't even in the article at all apparently. I bet lists like the one for psychedelic plants will need to be synched with what's in the article, so only keeping them as stand-alone lists would help that problem. As a "class" of drugs gets longer, it could get its own spin off list similar to List of designer drugs. I think it's ok if there's overlap, like synthetic cannabinoids might be on both List of designer drugs and List of cannabinoids. I'm just thinking out loud. Tbh, I haven't even finished scrolling through the entire article yet, because it's so long. PermStrump(talk) 11:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Just came across this long list List of ethnic slurs and thought the layout could be good for recreational drugs too. It's like a glossary list format. PermStrump(talk) 13:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

There is also List of psychedelic drugs already. Sizeofint (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh man, there's also: List of psychoactive plants, List of plants used for smoking, and Drugs controlled by the UK Misuse of Drugs Act (which is really a list article). I think I might have hit the end finally, maybe. I'm putting them here to keep track, because I had too many tabs open. PermStrump(talk) 06:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk) 08:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if going into the legal status lists is necessary. It would probably be easier to link to drug prohibition law which should then link to relevant articles/lists. Sizeofint (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking maybe the common recreational drug list could stay in the main article if the others had their own list articles. This is my first draft: Talk:Recreational_drug_use/Druglist. Anyone can feel free to edit as you like. A few of the lists were already tagged as needing sources, so I left that. PermStrump

Yes, that seems reasonable. Sizeofint (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking the prose of "Types of recreational drugs" should be a part of the main article. We could then link to List of stimulants, List of depressants etc. Template:Recreational drug use may be helpful for assembling the lists. Sizeofint (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

And delete the prose from list page, like this... Talk:Recreational drug use/Types of recreational drugs? I only did the first couple because I wasn't sure if that's what you meant. PermStrump(talk) 01:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's along the lines of what I'm thinking. Sizeofint (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Legality should not be mentioned in this article

This article is about recreational drug use not legality. Statements like "caffeine: A legal drug, often" and "A legal drug contained in tobacco leaves" are controversial. Caffeine is illegal in many parts of the world including some LDS isolated communities. in The country of Bhutan, Tobacco use is punishable by 3-5 years in jail. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Numbers

"In 2009 it was estimated that about 3% to 6% of people aged 15 to 65 had used illegal drugs at least once (149 to 270 million)."

versus

"In 2012, the study Data Available on the Extent of Cocaine Use and Dependence: Biochemistry, Pharmacologic Effects and Global Burden of Disease of Cocaine Abusers indicated that 3–6 per cent of people aged 15-to-65 (149–270 million persons) had used illegal drugs on at least one occasion."

The years the data is from is more important than when the study is published. If we were to say when every single bit of data is published it would result in serious clutter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Recreational drug use. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090117220900/http://www.utexas.edu/safety/ehs/msds/glossary/?page=d to http://www.utexas.edu/safety/ehs/msds/glossary/?page=d

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

How about theobromine?

I think that when one decides to group caffeine together with dangerous narcotic drugs under the common term "recreational drug", then caffein's sister compound theobromine should also be included. Theobromine is also a psychoactive compound and widely used in all parts of the world. Is there any special reason why theobromine is not included?

- Ingvar Åberge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.94.9.35 (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The graph on "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse"

I would like to point out that different estimates do exist. There's a graph based on the source [3], whereby both barbiturates and benzodiazepines rank as much less dangerous than on the graph here. From what I know, benzos aren't really that harmful. You can easily guess someone is an alcoholic and under influence by seeing his trembling hands and slurred speech while benzo users tend to be like normal persons with (possibly superb) careers etc. they just need their 'drug' to cope with anxiety and panic attacks and such. It can't be that bad. Miacek (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Sugar and chocolate

If we're going to cite coffee and tea, we might also need to cite sugar and chocolate. Sugar is active on dopamine, and it's long term use is associated with intense cravings. These days one rarely sees a neurochemistry book on dopamine that doesn't touch on sugar. Well, you argue that sugar is nutritious (soft of). But so to does caffeine lay claim to a legitimate use, among professionals, by pilots and people in the military when not being alert is not an option. A lot of people would take a drug that promised sustained alertness, even if it delivered no other buzz at all. Certain forms of exercise, are, in fact, such a drug (though you do a get buzz if you work hard enough). Recreational training camp? Many major league athletes would snort in derision. — MaxEnt 17:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Outdated References and correct 'corynantheidine' link

First year Medical Students will update outdated references and correct 'corynantheidine' link Aenugent (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

POV

"In popular practice, recreational drug use generally is a tolerated social behaviour, rather than perceived as the serious medical condition of self-medication." According to WHOM? This is far from an objective presentation. I, also, was educated at a left-leaning academic institution, where recreational drug use was tolerated in certain circles, but beyond alcohol and caffeine, you're deluded if you believe the general population is so accepting of recreational drugs. Abusers are, of course, more tolerant, until they wreck their lives and take up recreational recovery as a substitute for the drugs. And so it goes, and Big Pharma gets richer, and our revolving-door criminal justice system and treatment for the well-insured, with lots of guaranteed recidivism that will bring us back to Do Ra Me. Sixty years of listening to horse-hockey makes me say, provide strong neutral sources for your blanket statements, or I will be leaning in the deletionist angle on this particular article. Just sayin' rags (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Cannabis and Alzheimer's disease

This section shall be about the following line:

"The review article Campbell & Gowran (2007) states that "manipulation of the cannabinoid system offers the potential to upregulate neuroprotective mechanisms while dampening neuroinflammation. Whether these properties will be beneficial in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease in the future is an exciting topic that undoubtedly warrants further investigation.""

Firstly, this line does not seem to contain a proper citation. I've attempted to find the source and come up with this link https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190031/.

The article seems to make a baseless claim that cannabinoids could have benefit in the treatment of Alzheimer's because a characteristic of the disease is neuroinflammation and that cannabinoids may reduce inflammation. I was not able to find information in the study that directly supported that cannabinoids reduce the inflammation, this seems to be speculation. In addition, the only cited potential benefit of reduction of inflammation appears to be the reduction of amyloid beta peptides. In clinical studies that specifically looked at these peptides, reduction resulted in either no benefit or negative benefit to Alzheimer's disease patients.

The particular statement "Whether these properties will be beneficial in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease in the future is an exciting topic that undoubtedly warrants further investigation." is a personal opinion and should not be included at all. The fact that the only cited potential benefit has been shown to have zero or negative benefit leads me to believe that this section should be removed in its entirety.

Other sources outright contradict the claim, stating that "There are no research studies that prove cannabis, or products such as cannabis oil (CBD oil), can stop, slow, reverse or prevent the diseases that cause dementia...No studies or trials have looked into the effects of cannabis or its components on the underlying causes of Alzheimer's disease in people...It is also worth noting that many of these studies have involved a particular component of cannabis in isolation. Even if one component is found to influence dementia risk, it doesn't necessarily mean that taking cannabis would have the same effect."

In conclusion, I believe the entirety of the outlined text should be removed in its entirety.

FACP2007 (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Thanks for removing that. Regardless of the merits of the claim it is totally unsatisfactory to host speculation about what future work might show. That's typical boosterism which is routinely deleted from many articles. Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Pink Elephants on Parade Blotter LSD Dumbo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

"Freaked out" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Freaked out. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 11#Freaked out until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 05:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Demographics

The demographics section in this article is really bad, as it only covers Australia and the US and it almost exclusively focuses on alcohol for the former and marijuana for the latter. I think just having a demographic breakdown of a worldwide study of drug use would be better. Didn't know if anyone had any thoughts because it's a lot to unilaterally change. Adamopoulos (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)