User talk:Thoric/archive2

God

(Messages related to the dispute of my addition of One to the list of names of God.)

hi Thoric — sorry, I did not want to appear to be censoring your "the One" addition. I just wanted to encourage you to give some attribution, which you have now done. thanks, dab 15:24, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No offense taken :) --Thoric 14:55, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Meaning of Life

(I added this to the talk page for the meaning of life)

The meaning of life is simple...

The purpose of life is, and I quote, "To better oneself through forming mutually beneficial relationships". The actual meaning of life is a personal thing, and is for each individual to discover.

If an eight word summary is too wordy for you, it can be summed up with a single word -- live. Think of this not just as a simple verb, but as a command (either from God, for those who are religious, or from the entire Universe for the atheists). The all important will to live that drives all forms of life.

The statement on the purpose of life is obvious, and based completely on how life exists and evolved on this planet.

Meaning cannot truly be imposed upon the masses. There will always be someone who doesn't agree. The purpose, however is clear. If society fails to establish and maintain a mutually beneficial relationship with each other and the entire planet, then we will go the way of the dinosaur. --Thoric

Comments/Complaints/Dialog

Got a comment, complaint or suggestion... put it down here :) --Thoric

Hi there, Thoric. I just read something you wrote on the LSD-discussion page: "Due to LSD's rapid tolerance effect, you couldn't successfully get an effect from it more often than twice per week..." - I guess that's if you keep on taking it, week after week? I'm in the middle of a psychedelic revival after not having tripped for a couple of years and recently went to Jutland to do a weeks house-sitting, bringing along six blotters (100 micrograms each). Monday I ate two - nice trip, escape velocity reached. Tuesday I ate two - curious if anything would happen, not much did. Thursday I ate one - definitely out there. Saturday I ate the last - out there again. So that's me succesfully getting an effect at least three times in a week. And in the acid-frenzies of my early 20's, there's been weeks (not in a row) where I've tripped something like 4-5 times, starting with weak blotters and then upping to 250 micrograms-ones. You seem quite interested and knowledgeable in the subject of acid, and I thought you'd maybe appreciate this info. Kind regards, --Twisturbed Tachyon 18:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, Thursday I got my skates on at about 9.00 in the morning. Saturday the time was somewhere between 18.00-19.00 when I decided to drop the last blotter. My experiences were certainly comparable. Though Saturday's visuals weren't cranked up so much as Thursday's, Saturday's introspective dimensions seemed superior in depth. I think you must be right about the tolerance dissipation... --Twisturbed Tachyon 16:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking it might be wise to wait some time before going at it like that again ;) Next time I'll try to plot the tolerance curve, if you can give me some pointers on how to do it properly. Regarding introspection vs. visuals, I find it hard to tell if the visuals are decreasing, as my experiences with LSD have never had much to offer in that department, compared to shrooms fx. I'll keep this in mind for the future and try to reach a conclusion. --Twisturbed Tachyon 10:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Opioid

I hope you accept my apologies for implying that you're a recreational drug user. It has certainly been an interesting discussion on that page. That said, do you think you would be able to separate drug dependence from drug addiction? I feel that they are two distinct concepts that should be more clearly differentiated - I've been meaning to do so, but would rather defer to someone with more expertise in the matter. -Techelf 13:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Drug abuse

Before I attempt to do a major revision on this article, I would like to get your opinion on the title. I notice that substance abuse redirects to drug addiction, so what is the current consensus for keeping drug abuse as a standalone article? It seems to me that drug abuse should redirect to substance abuse, and an attempt should be made to split substance abuse issues off of drug addiction. What do you think? If you disagree, in what direction do you want to see the drug abuse article go, and what topics do you think it should focus upon? I was thinking it could examine the scientific, poltical, and social aspects. -Viriditas | Talk 22:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe the drug abuse article existed to coincide with the drug use article (which is a redirection to recreational drug use). It could also be a matter of renaming articles to the most accepted NPOV term, and having appropriate redirects.

I agree that substance abuse is a more correct title for the article, but then such an article (substance abuse) should also include information on alcohol abuse, which currently has its own page as alcoholism.

The drug addiction page has some POV problems. What should be done here is to leave 'drug addiction' itself under the domain of Addiction, and rename the drug addiction page (with all its references to brain chemistry, and method of action) to Drug dependence. Anything addiction specific should be moved to the addiction page.

I'm more of an advocate of giving separate topics their own pages of proper NPOV naming (even if they are stub articles) as long as those pages are well linked into from relevant pages.

My vote would be to make substance abuse it's own page talking about substance abuse in general, and have it reference other pages talking about specifics of chronic abuse the different substances (i.e. alcoholism). Specifics of problems with certain substances can have their own pages. I'm certain that all the individual drug pages have plenty of information that can be moved off to specific abuse pages.

I'm certain that some will be opposed to separating the "good and the bad" of different substances into regular pages and abuse pages (consider Alcohol --> Alcoholic beverage --> Alcoholism), but if alcohol is treated that way, then other substances deserve the same consideration.

If people disagree, then I'd argue that the alcoholism and alcoholic beverage pages should likewise be combined. --Thoric 23:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It looks like we are in complete agreement. I think we almost need a roadmap to implement these changes. Any idea on how to take the first step and how to approach this transition? --Viriditas | Talk 23:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I guess there are two paths... one would be to plan it out well, prepare the changes apart from the original articles, and bring the changes in all at once in a broad sweeping motion so that there's no conflict and uproar in the middle of the process. The other path would be to do it a bit at a time, but do expect some opposition to occur midstream.

Wikipedia is somewhat devoid of details of abuse of substances which have very low addiction potential (for example cannabis and psychedelic drugs such as LSD, so little existing content will be available. I'm kind of leery of the idea of grabbing propaganda from the DEA or ONDCP, but it's likely better that we add it in using a NPOV manner rather than leave it up to others. It's not too hard to point out all the social problems related to alcohol, tobacco, opioid (heroin, oxycontin) and stimulant (cocaine, meth) abuse, but pointing out the evils of marijuana is a little more difficult ;)

Separating the use from abuse of all these substances should also prove to cut down on disputes, or at the very least confine the disputes to the abuse related pages. --Thoric 06:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cocaine would score low to moderate for medical use? I'm not sure that's correct, since it was used as an analgesic for a century until it was synthesized. I guess you are referring to personal medical use? --Viriditas | Talk 21:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Before I get started on substance abuse, I would like to know if you have any recommendations for reputable online references. Further, it seems that most medical dictionaries define substance abuse and drug abuse differently, so I'm not sure a redirect is the best thing at this time. --Viriditas | Talk 22:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've taken the plunge, and I've begun working on both drug abuse and substance abuse. I'd appreciate any suggestions you could offer, and I will also be making an attempt to follow the roadmap you have left on my talk page. I have removed some text from the drug abuse article to the talk page temporarily, due to its lack of citations and use of weasal words. There does seem to be overlap between drug abuse and substance abuse, however I am fleshing out the differences (if they can be argued to exist -- if not, eventual merge). Any help is greatly appreciated. --Viriditas | Talk 08:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my talk page - I think we agree, but to be clear, whether we are talking about drug or substance abuse there are a number of differnt definitions (legal, medical, other, and different definitions between different national medical boards and legal jurisdictions). I think that we need to state this, and get away from the idea that there is an 'official' definition. I agree that we should not separate different classes of substance or drug. As I say, I don't think that you and I disagree on this, but want to make sure. Yours, Guttlekraw 18:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are many points of view, and all deserve to be represented. I do notice that the scientific community feel that the scientific POV deserves some sort of precedence, typically because they (usually) base their POV on scientific fact. I think the common goal we all have is to separate fact from speculation (as much as possible) while retaining reference to different points of view. My suggestion in accomplishing this is to separate that which is under dispute away from the subject matter itself -- namely to free the drug pages from both advocacy and adversity, and instead defer those topics to separate pages. A page on a certain drug (regardless of how safe or dangerous it is) should contain primarily scientifically proven data, historical information, and NPOV cultural references. Links should refer to the Responsible drug use, Recreational drug use, Substance abuse, Prohibition (drugs) and Addiction pages, as well as anything else relevant. If that particular drug has a significant history of abuse, that can be detailed on an abuse page specific to that particular drug (i.e. Alcohol abuse), this way controversy can be restricted to that page. Likewise if that drug has a strong history of recreational use that would otherwise make the primary drug page too cluttered, it can have its own page too (i.e. Alcoholic beverage). I use Alcohol as an example, because it contains a fairly balanced distribution of information, and can be used as a model upon which to base changes to the other drug pages. --Thoric 19:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there are many points of view, but the problem is that there is an attempt by some to present one point of view as fact. One major problem is that there is a crossover between the medical and scientific and the legal and social spheres here. We all agree on what drug use is, and we agree on what addiction is, but 'abuse' is necessarily subjective. Some people want to take one medical organization in one country's opinion about 'abuse' is, and claim this is fact. That's what I take issue with. Guttlekraw 19:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW - thanks for adding a notice asking noone but Viriditas to edit it - could you check that though? It's not my understanding that V wants to merge those two pages. For how long do you want people not to edit it? What happens if he does not, in fact, intend to merge these pages? Drug abuse right now is a POV rant about how drugs are bad. I think that's a problem. Guttlekraw 19:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, according to his comments earlier, he agreed with the merger. It makes sense to me to merge the two, because it's all the same stuff. Of note, a page titled, "Drug Abuse", does give one the idea that the article would primarily document the negative consequences of drug use. The intention is to separate the advocacy and adversity pages from the primary subject pages. So, for example, the Drug page should point to the Substance abuse page, rather than contain any information specific to drug abuse. It can also point to the Recreational drug use and Responsible drug use pages. Just as we don't want the responsible drug use page to contain much in the way of anti-drug POV, we have to allow the same consideration for "drugs are bad" pages. If we allow POV to clutter the primary articles, it makes them difficult to read and hard to find the factual information without getting lost in the argument. --Thoric 20:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - if the merger is taking place then that's fine by me. I think the problem is that the concept of 'drug abuse' is a pov one. It is not about negative aspects of drug use, it is about someone's judgement that a particular use (nearly all of which have both positive and negative consequences) is 'abuse'. I don't believe that any pages should be about 'drugs are bad' or 'drugs are good', rather, they should characterise the facts about drug use, the opinions of various groups, and subjects like drug advocacy or the war on drugs. My only issue is with characterising 'drug abuse' as anything more than an opinion about a particular instance of drug use. Just as spanking does not redirect to child abuse, even though some people think that spanking is a form of child abuse. In fact, I think that the treatment of those subjects could form the model for this. Does what I'm saying make any sense to you? Thanks, Guttlekraw 00:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Drug abuse, weasel words, etc...

Aloha, Thoric. In reply to your latest comments on my talk page, I was referring to the semi-policy of Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms, and the problems inherent in the removed text. After doing a few hours of research, I can't really justify a merge at this time. One reason is because substance abuse refers to a psychiatric condition which is used in public health (outreach), mental health (treatment) and behaviorial science (research). Obviously, drug abuse is not really about mental disorders (and drug abusers aren't necessarily mentally ill). I'm afraid that redirecting "drug abuse" to "substance abuse" would give that erroneous impression. As you are well aware, drug abuse has many facets, including those of history, politics (war on drugs), legal (criminal justice), science (neuropharmacology, neuropsychology), social, and medical (phsyiological, drug-induced injuries). The drug abuse article should point the reader to "main" or "related" articles per your original suggestion, with brief summaries of commonly abused drugs. As always, I support offical Wikipedia policy, and encourage the additions of cited, respected contrarian views (B. K. Alexander). I have posted a sample outline on Talk:Drug abuse for your review. I will be working on an outline for substance abuse as well. I understand that you favor merging the article with substance abuse, but I would like to wait and see if we can flesh out the two articles. If not, then I would of course, support a merge. I would greatly appreciate the help of Gruttlekraw and yourself in this endeavor. Sadly, Guttlekraw has recently informed me on Jayjg's talk page that he is not interested in following Wikipedia policies. I have attempted to explain these policies to him a number of times, but I appear to have failed. Since you have somewhat of a rapport with him, I was hoping you could point him in the right direction, especially in terms of citing sources. --Viriditas | Talk 12:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would, indeed, be interested in hearing from anyone who can make any sense of Viriditas' incoherent rants. Guttlekraw 18:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: references

The more the better. Some is better than none, but ideally all important facts would be cited to the best sources available. As a start, general references that have been used to confirm or add to the material in the article would be great. - Taxman 19:12, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that people should remove all (including uncontroversial) material that is not explicitly referenced? Guttlekraw 19:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your comments, I will take a deep breath, a fresh look, and try to take them to heart. Yours, Guttlekraw 23:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge

I cleaned up the definition on drug abuse and prepped the page for content addition by adding source refs on talk. I removed most of the content that deals with substance abuse from the drug abuse page and moved it to Talk:Substance abuse for cleanup and merge, and requested help. Guttlekraw then reverted all of my changes. If the content is going to be merged, Guttlekraw is going to need to stop reverting. Additionally, he has refused to read the Wikipedia policy on citing sources, and he claims that quoting from a medical dictionary is "controversial". --Viriditas | Talk 15:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)]

I'm going to have to agree with Guttlekraw ... "Drug abuse is the overuse of a drug for a nontherapeutic effect" is a little strongly worded

It's a quote from Mosby's and differentiates the definiton from substance abuse. I have discussed some of the differences with substance abuse as well. It's obviously less strongly worded than describing drug abuse as a mental illness, which is exactly what many definitions of substance abuse actually do.

is the term "drug abuse" in itself a biased POV term?

Everything has bias, which is why I cited the sources and added a footnote.

If not, then we have to provide multiple definitions, and where they come from.

That is exactly what I have been doing, but Guttlekraw has not helped contribute to this effort in any way. All he does is revert cited sources and invent his own definitions. My changes to the drug abuse page are a start in the right direction by attributing sources to definitions and discussing the differences. This is all in the outline.

Clearly, non-therapeutic use of alcohol is only drug abuse if ones use of alcohol causes significant social and/or personal problems for the user.

But differentiating the physiological, legal, and historical aspects of drug abuse from the psychological or physical dependence of substance abuse which focuses on treatment and prevention, is the difference between the two articles. As User:Jfdwolff wrote on the talk page, the science of drug abuse is well documented, and we should focus on those aspects.

I think it may also be important to point out that the term "drug abuse" primarily segregates certain substances based on their legal placement in the Controlled Substances Act.

I was hoping you could do just that, and start with my version of the page. In fact, I would encourage you to modify my version of the page as you so desire, as I have full confidence in your judgement. Guttlekraw, on the other hand, has been less than honest, and I don't believe he is editing in good faith.

There is no contest within the scientific community that alcohol, nicotine, caffeine (and other xanthines) are all drugs, but you will get a completely different view from law enforcement.

Yes, and we should add cited views in the article. Perhaps a "perspectives" section, or simply an addition to the intro.

I fear that any medical definition of "drug abuse" is political bias supported by NIDA. (Also note that NIDA does not list alcohol as a substance of abuse).

I have explicitly avoided using NIDA as a source, as well as any other political sources.

I suggest that we work on Drug Abuse in some sort of neutral ground, and not put it in place until it is more than a stub article

I have been doing just that. Again, I encourage you to add everything you have mentioned in my talk page, and like I said on the Talk:Drug abuse page, the rec. drug section should be added in after it is cleaned up, as it is important to discuss the distinctions between moderation and abuse. The problem that I am having, is that after NPOV'ing the article, and merging substance abuse related content, Guttlekraw continues to revert to pre-merge material. You and I are in complete agreement, and I'm hoping we can work together to make these articles more reliable in terms of their accuracy and use of sources. I would like to revert to my version of drug abuse and go from there. The content that has been moved from drug abuse is on Talk:Substance abuse and is ready to be cleaned up, cited, and merged into that article. Once that is done, we can merge back relevant information. The entire point of removing the content from drug abuse was so that we could start fresh. Working from my version in the history, I could use your help adding the controlled substances data, and explaining the legal aspects of the definition. I would certainly like to add harm reduction and other therapies back into the article when we get to that point, but right now they should be merged into substance abuse while we work on the definitions. I would like to incorporate all of your suggestions in this process, as they fall perfectly into section one of my proposed outline, which I would like to focus on. --Viriditas | Talk 21:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New categories, your opinion is needed

Aloha. User:Heah has created two new categories which may be problematic. I was hoping you could take a look at them and my comments on User_talk:Heah. The new cats are: Category:Organizations associated with hallucinogens, Category:Hallucinogen researchers, users, and proponents. I think all three of us would agree that we need categories like this, but there may be issues with the use of the word "hallucinogen", and the first cat seems to lump three cats into one (research, users, proponents), with the latter two being POV. --Viriditas | Talk 08:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

veriditas and thoric, i agree a better name and system is needed. after putting a few articles in each of them i stopped; the name is awkward, and doesn't really distinguish in the way it should- for instance, it isn't a category john lennon should be in, despite his use of hallucinogens; the Harvard Psilocybin Project" is not actually an organization- but some sort of categorization of these things is certainly needed. i'd like to set up a hallucinogens project for all of this to be discussed- i've briefly outlined it on the drugs project talk page as i wanted input from the people working on that. unfortunately i've been unable to out up a project page with a more detailed outline and whatnot as it has suddenly become finals week and i have a bunch of papers to write and a lot of german to study. hopefully i'll be able to find time soon; in the meantime, i'll hold off on putting anyone else/any orgs in the categories and would love to start discussing this on user pages or something . . . (cross posted to my talk page, thoric's talk page, and veriditas' talk page.) thanks --Heah 18:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)