Talk:Recreational drug use - Definition and Overview

New Concerns

Why do stimulants have their own sub-heading in section 3?

Old items

Many of these "recreational" drugs are also commonly used for self-exploration and spirituality. I think it is unfair to portray them as being used by only irresponsible "junkies" who fall under this stereotype of people looking for a fix and willing to do anything to get it. I use drugs for enlightenment and self-knowledge. DryGrain 19:05, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As the article says, The use of drugs for spiritual development and exploration is not usually included under the definition of recreational drug use.... Perhaps there is another article somewhere about spiritual drug use? If not, maybe you should start one.. Kwertii 23:39, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps entheogen is what you are looking for. Tuf-Kat 04:25, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, that works too. Sorry. DryGrain 17:41, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Enhancing drugs are also used for recreational purposes. It's very difficult to separate these two uses, but there are important differences between recreational use of enhancing drugs and use of purely enhancing drugs. The most popular enhancing-and-recreational drug is caffeine, but it's used for enhancement much more often than for recreation.

What about quat, or chat, the African chewing stuff? Mark Richards 00:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This article is written so that it is somewhat bogus nevertheless. No drug could be defined as, simply, "a recreational drug". It may be of use for recreational purposes, or it may be used popularly for recreational purposes, but that is a different matter that need distinction. - Centrx 06:02, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

That's why the article is recreational drug use rather than recreational drugs, I think. The adjective "recreational" applies to the compound noun "drug use" rather than just "drug"; that is, we're talking about "recreational drug use", not "recreational drug use". Surely some usage is recreational and some non-recreational. I think the subject definitely deserves an article. Matt gies 17:51, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely. I was just saying that the wording in the text of the article is a little off. I'll get around to fixing it soon if no one else does. - Centrx 20:36, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Aspirin example

Centrx, please note that aspirin not being a recreational drug is only a society's consensus, not a logical conclusion from some definition. The point of this "stupid" example is precisely to show that the definition of "recreational drug" is tricky. Aspirin acts on the nervous system and is taken to make one feel better; so why is it that no society (at least none that I know of) considers it a recreational drug?

If that example seems too stupid, try replacing "aspirin" by "Prozac"...

All the best,
Jorge Stolfi 21:40, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

In the future, please do not insult me by presuming my argument and asserting that I have not thought about it ("it is "of course" only if one does not think about it"). My objection to its classification here as a "recreational drug" is not due to societal consensus. It is due to a logical conclusion from the way in which the drug works.

Aspirin cannot be a recreational drug because administration does not produce a direct effect on mood or behavior (see footnote). It is not a psychoactive drug. It is no more a recreational drug than vitamin A or athlete's foot cream. Its pain relief is due to a local analgesic effect on nerve endings. It inhibits the production of localized hormones that sensitive nerve endings to pain, modulation of the hypothalamic thermostat, inflammation, and blood clotting, which is why it is used as an analgesic, antipyretic, anti-inflammatory, and to prevent heart attacks, respectively.

It does not act directly on the central nervous system or bind to any neurotransmitter receptors in the brain, like opiates, caffeine, ethanol, stimulants, cannabis, etc. The pain relief of morphine, for instance, is mostly due to effects on the opiate respectors distributed widely throughout the brain. All of these are psychoactives, with significant effects on the binding or transmission of neurotransmitters in the brain; they affect mood and behavior. Taking aspirin when one does not have some physical pain will not improve his mood: it does not "make one feel better" if there is not specific physical pain. In terms of a machine, it is the difference between modifying signals from peripherals like a keyboard (aspirin) and modifying the operation of the central processing unit (psychoactives).

As for Prozac, it is wholly unlike aspirin. It inhibits the reuptake of seratonin in the brain (called selective seratonin reuptake inhibitor). In other words, it changes the quantity of a certain neurotransmitter in the brain, effecting mood. I've been told by medical professionals that it does not affect persons who do not have a so-called "chemical imbalance" in the brain, that is a deficiency in seratonin, but I suspect that this may be from propaganda by pharmaceutical companies. Nevertheless, I doubt Prozac should be classified as a possible recreational drug, because its effects on mood are not significant until a relatively long period of time (a week or two) of regular consumption. However, I think this is a matter of interpretation, but nevertheless this class is unlike any of the other recreational drugs.

footnote: An INdirect effect on mood, would of course be the appreciation of not being in physical pain anymore. But this is appreciation is no more an effect of the drug than an amusement park or whatnot. The drug will not improve well-feeling if there is no physical pain.

- Centrx 23:54, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Centrx, peace and love... I never intended my comment to sound as an insult, to you or whomever; blame it on this medium. However, as your long explanation above shows (and as you seem to agree), the distinction between "drug" and "medicine" (which the previous version of the was trying to make with the caffeine example) is far from obvious.

I agree that the new version is better, because it makes it clear that the article is about "recreational use of drugs" not "use of recreational drugs". And I agree with you that the article legal section now is rather problematic.

All the best,
Jorge Stolfi 04:57, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Major revision

I started editing, but it seems that the problems with this article seem more pervasive. There is no way to determine if the known use of these drugs in history necessarily means that they were used recreationally. Knowing human nature, we assume they were, but the information on history doesn't contain anything particularly concrete or, and this is important, unique to recreational drug use. More thorough histories are found in the respective articles about the drugs and, for that, I don't see why it wouldn't be better to simply link to the articles about the drugs, and say some things about their popularity as recreational drugs. I doubt it took any time after medical or spiritual discovery to determine that any recreationally interesting drug was indeed so.

As one can see, otherwise I removed a lot of redundant stuff because I made it more succinct and the meaning of "recreational drug use" is readily apparent without much explanation. In many ways, recreational drug use seems to be an artificial distinction, when it actually is a spectrum of use without defining characteristics that is sufficiently described by its subordinate terms. It almost seems like making a distinction between "recreational foods" and "nutrition foods", and then having an article discriminating between the nutrition of food and tastiness and deserts.

Its appropriate to discuss the theoretical foundation/philosophy and the motivation for discouraging or illegalizing recreational drug use but, as for the legal section there is nothing in law that actually pertains to it. Recreational drug use is not illegal in most places, use (just possession and sale in many places, but not use) of drugs that have been made illegal because of widespread recreational use is. In practice, there is no distinction between medical, spiritual, and recreational use for many drugs. There are certain drugs that are not forbidden by law. There are certain drugs that are forbidden entirely by certain governments (cannabis in U.S. federal). There are certain drugs that are forbidden except for small-scale medical use (such as cough syrup, although there is no way to enforce medical use). There are certain drugs that are forbidden except when prescribed and supervised by a physician. And there are certain drugs that are forbidden except when it is in common use by a major religion. Medical use (the distinction between recreational use and non) that is not supervised is still forbidden, which means that the distinction in law is not from the distinction between recreational and non. Spiritual use (the distinction between recreational use and non) that is not a facet of a major religion (and not minor religions or personal use) is still forbidden, which means that the distinction in law is not from the distinction between recreational and non.

So, I think that, maybe, the only reason for which this article can exist is to house philosophy of recreational drug use or abstainment from it. Comments?

- Centrx 01:08, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point, but my opinion is that this article should spend most of its time describing what "recreational drug use" is and how it differs (morally, spiritually, etc.) from other kinds of drug use. Obviously, legal issues are an important part of this. Certainly, this article is not about the drugs themselves, though they are related and must be described and listed (briefly), since there are articles on cannabis, peyote and alcohol which can discuss all the social, legal and spiritual connotations of the specific drugs. So, I think I agree with your final statement ('only reason for which this article can exist is to house philosophy of recreational drug use or abstainment from it), but I'm not sure what agreeing to it entails. What do you want to change to the article? (I actually haven't read it in quite a while, so I have no opinion on the content) - TUF-KAT

There is nothing unique that warrants an article about recreational drug use aside from the philosophical aspects of it. The legal issues are somewhat important historically, but I think the current text of that section isn't appropriate for this page. By historically, I mean that they are important in terms of the motivation behind passing laws against drugs that are commonly used recreationally, but there is nothing in law that pertains to recreational drug use. In most places, the possession and not even the plain use of certain drugs, and only certain, named drugs, are illegal. Even a law against use in general would be a far cry from one specifically proscribing recreational use. Most certainly, nothing can be said about the class of recreational drug use in general, because there are many drugs used recreationally that are legal and others that are illegal, and scheduled with no rhyme or reason. These drugs are illegal whether they are used recreationally or not; the recreationality of it, which the standing of the article, does not pertain to the law at all. So, anything that could be said about the legal status of certain drugs should instead be done in the article about those drugs, or about drug law in general, but not in an article about recreational drug use. In actual law, I don't think there's anything that pertains to recreational use. - Centrx 05:44, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Tobacco and Caffeine

Should tobacco and caffeine be mentioned on this page? I say yes, I assume says no. These drugs were historically used for recreational purporses, and they continue to be used during people's daily lives. I don't agree that to be recreational drug use, your consciousness must be altered - anyway, both of these drugs can alter one's mood and thought patterns. Rhobite 03:33, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

I was 68.10.240.80, now crxssi (thank you for prompting me Rhobite). Almost everything a human consumes is "psychoactive", but that doesn't necessarily make it a "recreational drug" in the sense of cocaine, heroin, LSD, etc. People think of a "recreational drug" as a substance that is mind/reality altering/bending... a "trip" if you will. Neither nicotine (tobaaco) nor caffeine have the typical attributes that would place it in such a category. They don't alter cognition, motor skills, language, judgement, nor perception of reality. My example is sugar. Sugar is a chemical which people consume. Like most other chemicals it has physiologocal and "psychoactive" effects. People seek it out, use it regularly, it even has negative effects (tooth decay, blood sugar swings, empty calories, etc). But it would not be in the spirit of the article to include it as a "recreational drug". -crxssi

Is nicotine a drug? If so, what kind of a drug is it if it's not recreational? Same question for caffeine. Rhobite 04:01, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Don't think of these as a class of drugs, for what is "recreational drug use" is entirely determined by the circumstances of the use and is not a property of drugs. These are both useful stimulants and are commonly used for staying awake. - Centrx 05:36, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nicotine is certainly a drug, and it is definitely a recreational one. Same goes for caffeine. Caffeine and nicotine do alter congition (heightened alterness). Essentially, they're both stimulants. Why else do people take NoDoze? crxssi, I think they should be reinstated everywhere you've taken them out. --Lukobe 05:04, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed; I would categorise nicotine as a recreational drug as it is a drug that is taken for its own sake, if you are going to classify anything as a recreational drug. I think overall however it is a silly classification. porge 07:21, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Almost everything a human consumes is "psychoactive"

First of all, by this sort of reasoning, you could further argue that everything a human does is psychoactive. It all has an effect on the mind. This is clearly not what is meant by the word. I suggest you pick up a book on biology and learn the difference between, say, sugar and caffeine, and look at the above comment I made about aspirin for another example. Also, nicotine and caffeine certainly both alter cognition and motor skills, and the others too but maybe not significantly. You may not notice it if you have developed a tolerance, but as I rarely consume them, a single cigarette or a single coffee significantly changes my cognition, motor skills, and perception of reality. You may also be thinking of low doses, as these are very powerful drugs when taken at higher doses. I did not reinsert "caffeine" because it is most commonly used non-recreationally as a stimulant, or is incidentally consumed as part of a beverage, but that is a matter of degree not the quality of it being used for recreational purposes. - Centrx 05:36, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Of note, (dosage dependent) caffeine, nicotine, cocaine and amphetamine all have similar stimulant effects at low doses. That said, it would be difficult to classify cocaine and methamphetamine as recreational drugs without including caffeine and nicotine. --Thoric 20:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Drugs aren't "recreational"; some drug use is.

The category of "recreational drug" is ill-defined. Worse, it is often used as a slur to belittle other people's choices. For instance, categorizing marijuana as a "recreational drug" allows the arguer to dismiss medicinal claims for it. Likewise with peyote and religious claims. The stigma of "recreational drug" implies that users who say they are alleviating AIDS symptoms or communing with ancestor spirits are doing no such thing: they are doing nothing but getting high.

Saying "recreational drug" can thus be a way of claiming to know more about a person's experience with that drug than he himself does; that is, to arrogate oneself above him.

It is not clear to me that any drug has within itself the property of being recreational. That is, the adjective "recreational" does not apply meaningfully to "drug", in the sense that adjectives such as "stimulant" or "plant-derived" do. Rather, some people sometimes choose to use certain substances recreationally; that is, for pleasure. There are no recreational drugs: there are rather instances of recreational drug-use.

Thus, what of the claim for tobacco? Clearly, many tobacco users do use it recreationally; that is, for pleasure. Many others, however, use it addictively; that is, to stave off pain of withdrawal. Some use it socially; that is, to meet with others in the context of drug use (think "smoke break"). Some people I know only smoke when they have to study, using tobacco for stimulant effect much as others use caffeine. Likewise, some people use caffeine because they like the buzz; some because it helps them focus; some because they are addicted, and if they stop, they get a raging headache.

I recommend against the use of the expression "recreational drug" to describe tobacco or any other substance. --FOo 05:28, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But as long as it is being used to describe other substances, surely it should also be applied to nicotine and caffeine. Lukobe 05:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The term "recreational drug" should be removed everywhere, whereas "recreational drug use" is acceptable although possibly unclear in its precision, that is (recreational) (drug use) not (recreational drug) (use), and should be avoided where possible. - Centrx 05:43, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely. This article should only be here to very simply define the term and indicate legal and philosophical aspects and history (which actually may not be appropriate as it is inseparable with the regular history of the drugs, and I don't see anything new in the history currently in the article). - Centrx 05:43, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There's good info in this article, where do you think that should go? I also don't have a problem with the term "recreational drug." It's just an easier way of saying "drug that is commonly used recreationally." Rhobite 14:30, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

There is currently a total of about three sentences that are properly in an article about "recreational drug use", that is the remainder do not pertain to recreational drugs, but are rather very generally about all drugs or all psychoactive drugs. Many of the statements currently in the article are false and misleading, attributing some speciality to the information pertaining to recreational drugs when in fact it does not and is relevant instead to the histories of specific drugs and the legal aspects of psychoactive drug use in general. There are some glimmers of relevance aside from the introduction, in the religion sentence of the History and in the fact that these drugs are prohibited because of their recreational use (although this is not explicitly stated accurately in the article). The remainder of those two sections should be integrated into the appropriate articles, and the list is the same set of drugs as a list of "psychoactive drugs" would be. - Centrx 22:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is some good info in the article, but I would agree with several other posters that the whole entry seems odd, and perhaps unnecessary. As for the question posed before, Just because a chemical builds a dependence, that doesn't make it a "recreational drug". Lukobe: your example of "nodoze" with caffeine flies directly in the face of the article, which clearly says that recreational drugs have no medical or ascribed purposes (fisrt paragraph). Rhobite asks "are nicotine and caffeine a drug?", the answer is yes. But a "recreational drug"? Again, most people are going to consider that category of drug mind-altering. Niether fits that bill. Lukobe asserts that they (tobacco/caffeine) do alter cognition.... I disagree, it does not *in the context of the other drugs listed*. I must say, though, I am impressed with the quality of this discussion; although I am disappointed that Centex would just add nicotine back when it doesn't appear that a clear consensus exists, yet; and note that caffeine was NOT added back.

I will assert again, that most people will identify a "recreational drug" as one that most certainly produces an "altered state", regardless of whether it possibly causes "addition" or not. Noone has addressed this assertion yet. Nicotine and caffeine do not produce such results. If you had 30 minutes to interview people (you already knew) each of which was using one of the chemicals listed, you would not be able to determine which were using caffeine or nicotine... they simply do not alter personality, decision making, etc. While it would be quite easy to tell those who consumed (reasonable quantities) of alcohol, cocaine, LSD, Ecstasy, PCP, etc. - crxssi

In other words, the set of "recreational drugs" this article talks about is the same set as the set of "psychoactive drugs". About my adding of nicotine, I had not noticed that there was any addition to Talk and the modification seemed to be baseless, and subsequently seen in the vein of a comparison of sugar to caffeine and the assertion that neither caffiene nor nicotine alter consciousness.

If I had 30 minutes to interview someone I already knew, I probably wouldn't be able to tell if they were on Adderall rather than Ritalin, or methamphetamines rather than cocaine, or on any drug rather than simply not. I know for a fact that people often behave indistinguishably, especially in the small amounts. That does not mean that these are not drugs. Caffeine and nicotine do alter consciousness, they do change the way you do things, especially in higher doses. Just because you might not be able to tell if a regular coffee drinker has had a couple of cups of coffee or the similar for nicotine does not mean that higher doses would not have a significant effect (and I have personally seen considerable such use), or that a person who has not developed a tolerance of these drugs will not experience a change in thought processes. This has happened to me demonstrably with the euphoria of smoking a single regular cigarette and if I had smoked an additional one or two I would have been unable to drive. I know for a fact that you cannot necessarily determine that someone has consumed a reasonable quantity of alcohol (that is, 3-4 drinks which is as reasonable as a couple cups of coffee). This is especially true with drugs that a person has not tried before. If a person has not had a drug before, or any drug at all, they are unlikely to notice change in others depending on the drug and dose. - Centrx 22:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Recreational drug use" (which is what the article is called, not "recreational drugs") is simply when people use a drug recreationally. That is, people use it for the sake of using it, rather than e.g. to treat some sort of medical condition. Marijuana is a recreationally used drug because people smoke it for its own sake, to experience its effects. This does not imply that it can't also be used for medical purposes - if someone smokes pot for relief of chemotherapy nausea, then they're not using it recreationally. An even better example is morphine, used by doctors in hospitals all over the world to alleviate severe pain. Nobody would argue that this constitutes recreational drug use. But this doesn't imply that people can't or don't also use morphine for recreational purposes. I think you guys are overanalyzing this... Kwertii 01:39, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, largely these analyses are in response to persons to hold the opposite view, or hold an imprecise view that is not consistent with your statement. Also, another major issue here is whether this article--on the use of drugs recreationally--belongs here at all. With its current content, it is simply not appropriate as a separate subject or as an article in an encyclopedia. - Centrx 02:48, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Recreational drug use is very popular worldwide, and recreational drug use has been practiced at least as long as recorded history, and likely much longer. Therefore, I believe that, as a significant social phenomenon which has affected and continues to affect many, many people the world over, it deserves treatment in its own article. Why wouldn't we want to have an article on a topic that has such far-reaching relevance to so many people over such a long period of time? Kwertii 00:43, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but as it stands the articles has nothing that is specific to recreational drugs. I've noted above that this article might should include relevant information on the philosophical and possibly legal foundational aspects of the use of drugs recreationally, but as it stands the article does no such thing. The history section is a history of drugs in general, blankly adapted to say that drugs were used recreationally throughout their history of human use. It could just as well say that "Psychoactive drugs have been used recreationally throughout there historical human use" and then point to an article on "The History of Drugs". That is the sum of information unique to recreational drug use there. Similarly, the section on legal aspects is simply a section on the legal aspects of drug use in general. The third section discusses certain drugs which do not really qualify into use recreationally in any traditional or sound sense. If these drugs qualify as recreational drugs, so does nearly every drug, and not the more confined category of psychoactive drugs. - Centrx 16:17, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Recreational" drugs?

Shouldn't we mention Viagra and similar potions as recreational drugs? These things are interesting primarily because they were the first recreational drugs that were brought out by the pharmaceutical industry, which then had to promote the idea that they "treated" a "medical condition." In fact, the "medical condition" they treat is fairly obviously a social construction. At least at the beginning, the advertising campaign was largely aimed at promoting the idea that there was in fact a disease of "erectile dysfuction." Having sold that, the ads seem more lifestyle oriented, and seem to be selling the mood enhancing properties and recreational potential of sex. Smerdis of Tlön 19:48, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. While sildenafil certainly has medical uses (it was invented for the treatment of angina) it is certainly promoted for its recreational and social uses. --FOo 20:45, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What is currently called recreational drug use necessitates some recreation of the drug in itself. Is Viagra an aphrodisiac that affects the mind or does it instead increase blood flow the penis, etc.? Recreational drug use cannot be expanded to simply mean that some drug facilitates some recreation. That is, Viagra cannot be for recreational drug use if it simply facilitates sex, the actual recreation. Another example, if you play chess while on a drug that makes you "smarter", it is the chess, facilitated and improved by the drug, that is the recreation, not the taking of the drug itself. The other drugs for recreational use have a recreational quality in themselves. Will a person have a good time with Viagra while chilling out on a couch, going for a walk, or talking to someone? That is, not having sex? - Centrx 18:38, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not to discount that this article is an unapplied mess and the category of "recreational drugs" is absurd. - Centrx 18:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's the use that is recreational, not the drugs. -- The Anome 00:48, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please, before adding this section, respond to the points above soundly. These are not drugs that are used recreationally in themselves. It is a grand expansion of "recreational drug use" to include any drug that is not medically necessary. - Centrx 16:20, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

At least in the USA, the drugs that are considered part of the "drug problem," and that law enforcement goes after "dealers" of, include such things as anabolic steroids. These things are not taken because their effects are recreation in themselves; they too are taken to enhance other activities such as bodybuilding, athletics, or for sexual effects. Yet, they are considered "controlled substances" and the machinery of the law is brought in against them. The chief difference between other recreational drugs and such things as Viagra, from where I see it, is that Viagra has corporate backing and money. These things prevent it from becoming a legislative moral panic, though it's easy to imagine how such a panic could be made. Smerdis of Tlön 19:33, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A controlled substance is not the same thing as a drug that's used recreationally, and the direction of the law against a drug does not mean that the drug is used recretaionally. Anabolic steroids should not be included in this class either. - Centrx 00:20, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. Laetrile is another example of a controlled substance which is not used recreationally: it is deemed a quack medical treatment under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and is illegal to sell. While the moral panic surrounding recreational use of drugs is one reason that certain drugs are targeted for legal interdict, it is not the only reason. --FOo 03:56, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jonathan Ott has suggested the term ludibund or "ludible use of drugs" to replace "recreational drug use". While not widespread, I think it could help to reduce the bias and stigmatism that has been placed upon "recreational". I suggest we consider adopting this term to avoid confusion. --Thoric 18:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First, ludible and ludibund are extremely rare and obsolescent words in general use, let alone for this drug use, and so should not be used in an encyclopedia that describes rather than generates. Second, these words mean playful rather than recreational. The former is frolicsome, sportive, and merry whereas the latter is the more general, accurate term about amusement and pleasure. Simply, one can use a drug recreationally without using it ludibly. So, this terminology ought not be introduced into the encyclopedia, for it is inappropriate to the purpose of an encyclopedia by the first reason, and inaccurate to the practice by the second reason. - Centrx 07:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The issue is that the term "recreational drug use" carries a burden of social stigmatism. When a word or a term loses its original meaning due to strong or popular opinion and "misconstruation" of facts usually due to religious and/or political agenda (think communism or anarchism), then sometimes a new replacement word is required. The point is not to nitpick over the subtle nuances of playful versus recreational. Jonathan Ott also pioneered the use of the word entheogenic rather than psychedelic when referring to spiritual use of drugs. As an expert in the field, he put some thought and consideration into his choice of words. --Thoric 23:12, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Drastic changes

I reverted the drastic changes done by Centrx. Such things should be discussed here before being vandalized in this manner. If you had a problem with the changes done by 62.251.119.6, 64.168.29.153, 65.26.120.140, or 82.124.50.171, you should have simply reverted them... instead you through out the baby with the bathwater so to speak. Anyways, point out the parts of the article of which you have contest, and I will back it up with references. Better yet, first see if a previous revision was more to your liking. --Thoric 16:38, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First of all, to equate changes by someone of myriad productive contributions and nary an edit made in bad faith, with barbarous despoilment of something worthy, akin to inserting "penis" remarks or indiscriminately removing swaths of text long in good-standing is slanderous and unproductive, and more impugns your wisdom than mine own.

It is unclear what you mean by your statement that a 'reversion' of those edits would have been more productive than the change I did actually make. On the contrary, reverting would have been to 'throw out the baby with the bathwater', whereas my change did in fact keep what good I thought there was and did not throw it out with the bad. It would seem, instead, that your suggestion of finding a previous revision more to my liking would indeed be to throw out the good with the bad, and it does appear that your own reversion is the one that is indiscriminate, for it reverts several minor formatic changes as well.

Those edits seem to be original research, and are not appropriate for an encyclopedia.

The first section of text, in the introduction, is eminently misplaced and is a vapid and ill-presented statement of appropriate divisions on a spectrum and of the very definition of the word abuse. This is not appropriate, though possibly in itself and without wholesale modification, for an encyclopedia article. It also simply incorrect to state singly that "Christians and Muslims" consider any intoxicant consumption to be abuse.

For the second section that states that cannabis and alcohol have been used by "virtually" every culture in recorded history does indeed require some substantiation with sources.

The third part of changes is a simply change from the less formal "19th" and "20th" to the more formal full spellings.

For the fourth part, why is the poorly written, long-winded, and imprecise text regarding law enforcement more appropriate than the succinct version that I inserted? Here is a clear case where it is better that I did not do a simple reversion, but kept what seemed good.

For the fifth part regarding illegality throughout history, this is a vapid statement because it is bound to be true because of the sheer fact that history is so long and the number of jurisdictions so many that it would be strange for it not to be true that all of the presently illegal drugs have been legal at some time, in some place, and vice-versa. This is likely true of myriad laws and the reason is there have been various and sundry societies in history that it would be odd for it not to be true.

As for the references, those must also be substantiated, with some indication of their value; considering the other changes of those edits, the value of their references are also questionable. Also, references, even if valuable, should not be put in the main article if they are very particular to a certain subtopic unless there are other, more general references that balance it out. So, whatever the value of these references, currently they belong only in the discussion page for future use.

The links are at best unprofessional and hackneyed, and at worst are full of factual errors, are inappropriate to this article, and inappropriate to the encyclopedia.

So, please provide some reason why these ill-conceived and poorly implemented changes ought to remain in an encyclopedia of fact. - Centrx 03:21, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with most of Centrx's points, although removal may not be the best policy. We should mention that many people believe that use and abuse are not the same thing. This wasn't done well in the paragraph you removed, but we shouldn't just delete it. re: cannabis in every culture, Cannabis has been used in many cultures, but certainly not "virtually every culture." re: "millions of illicit drug users in the USA" section, I agree it was poorly written but again the solution wasn't removal. There's a point to be made there. re: all of the current illegal drugs being legal at some time, this sentence is useless and I agree with removing it. I strongly disagree with centrx's changes to the links. "See also" is the standard name, and the wikilinks drug paraphernalia and psychedelic are relevant. The references seem a little sketchy, they need to be verified. I'm not sure if an NPOV notice is justified at this time.

On a behavior note, Thoric it would be helpful if you didn't accuse people of vandalism when they are obviously not committing it. You and I may not disagree with all of Centrx's changes, but that doesn't give you a right to call them vandalism. Centrx, I hope this doesn't sound rude but "vapid" is a word best used sparingly. Rhobite 03:56, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Removal of several paragraphs without discussion is vandalism in my point of view, and I'm sure others agree. To label my reversion of said cullings as some sort of penis-waving in the same breath as boasting about one's accomplishments seems to me a little ironic, but this is besides the point. All the currently legal recreational drugs (alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea, chocolate, etc) were outlawed at various times fairly recently (within the past 300 years in different countries around the world), and within the past 100 years, all of the currently illegal drugs (cocaine, opium, heroin, marijuana, LSD, MDMA, etc) have lost their legal status. This is a very important fact to the recreational drug use argument, because it shows that the public opinion of an acceptable drug (tolerated) and an unacceptable drug has been in a constant state of change. If you take a look at the previous version by me (Thoric) you'll see that it is missing a lot of the items Centrx had contest with -- yet in Centrx's revision he completely removed paragraphs that were since modified by others. I would have reverted the article to my previous version, but I didn't want to toss out anything useful that was since added without closer inspection. I think my original paragraph -- "A distinction must be made from (recreational) drug use and drug abuse, although there is much controversy on where the dividing line lies on the spectrum from a drug user (someone who maintains control over his or her use of drugs) to a drug abuser (someone who has become addicted to, or dependent on the use of drugs)." -- was well enough written... sure it could be improved, but nothing is wrong with it. I guess my argument is that rather than revert inappropriate changes, Centrx took it upon himself to simply remove the sentences and/or paragraphs completely. --Thoric 06:03, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, and I assure you that most people here would agree. Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism if you still have doubts. What Centrx did was not "indisputable bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia". Moving on.. you have a good point that all of those drugs are recently illegal, at least in the U.S. I think that needs to go in the article. You are correct that it's a very important point. I'm not so sure if you're right about the currently legal drugs - when and where have tea and coffee been illegal recently? About the use/abuse thing, yes I agree that centrx shouldn't simply remove those sentences, but I also think that addressing the reader is generally bad. Wikipedia should never say "the reader must note" or "hey this is important", etc. Rhobite 06:23, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I guess it fell under the category of a "bold edit" which "may feel like vandalism". Maybe it was more than 300 years ago that coffee was made illegal (1543 in Istanbul), in 1700 King Charles II tried to ban coffee houses, but the ban only lasted 11 days. Various leaders have made unsuccessful efforts to ban coffee over the past few hundred years. I'll have to look up references to tea and chocolate, I'm in a bit of a Christmas rush atm, but I know similar actions exist for those two... and it's well known that tea has been under strict (and high) tax controls in the past. --Thoric 17:28, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)