Talk:Drugs:Fact and Fiction

Copyright concerns

I have been thinking about rewriting this book. I inquired into using from material posted on another website funded by the US government. The US government usually requires all material produced go into the public domain, but to be sure I asked. This is the reply I received

From: "NIDAVIC" <nidavic@iqsolutions.com>
To: <cencored>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 15:57:04 -0400
Subject: FW: Copyright
From nidavic@iqsolutions.com  Tue Jul  6 15:06:44 2010

Hello,

Thank you for your message to the National Institute on Drug Abuse
(NIDA) asking if the material on our website is in the public domain.

Thank you for your interest in NIDA's website. As part of the Federal
Government, we currently hold no copyright on the materials we produce.
Therefore, you are free to use or reproduce, in whole or in part, any of
our NIDA publications or website materials.

We hope this information is helpful.


Sincerely,
Office of Science Policy and Communications
National Institute on Drug Abuse

--Thenub314 (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well this is good new and can be a good way to make this book neutral. I just want to caution against turning this into an anti-drug book, since that is not any more neutral than a pro-drug book. A thought I had on how we might maintain a neutral point of view is by importing and adopting some work that already has been done on Wikipedia for use in this book. Most of w:Recreational drug use could probably be adopted for use in the Introduction chapter for example. --darklama 16:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree about the usefulness of w:Recreational drug use, the material at the wikipedia is not very good and in many places is tagged as such. I will try a bit harder to be neutral in my own writing and I have been careful to try to only bring in factual information that is properly sited from the websites controlled by NIDA. There will undoubtedly be some clean up necessary in the end to make sure we maintain NPOV. Thenub314 (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oy! What happend!

Can we discuss renaming the entire book, I have been actively editing this and it is a bit annoying to work hard for an hour on a page click save and find a message saying the page has been deleted. For reasons I don't have time just at the moment to explain I would perfer to keep it under the previous title. Thenub314 (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the current title as I forsee this book as potential reference during "NIDA National Drug Facts Week - Shatter the Myths" for which the mantra of fact vs fiction fits in quite well. Thenub314 (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

My reasoning/thought is that the book should attempt to honor/stick with the original aim/scope of the book, which is about recreational drug use. However the book's title suggests a scope that is broader than the reality.

I think in the context of recreational drug use a NPOV can include the benefits from the perspective of those that use the drugs, and the dangers from a medical perspective. --darklama 12:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It is my intention rewrite the book in part to take care of the POV problems that we collectively recommended for clean up in multiple RfD's but were never implemented by anyone. Unfortunately after I returned last evening I discovered my laptop was not plugged in and I could no longer copy and paste work elsewhere. Which is a bit disappointing. If you plan any major restructuring of the book, particularly one that involves moving many pages, could please leave a note here to give me a heads up it would be appreciated. Thenub314 (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be specific suggestions of what clean up needed to be done. I think you are already aware of the name I think this book should have so I doubt I need to mention that. Other than the name the only other structural changes I had in mind right now was to include a full table of contents, add navigational aids, and try to get this book to have an actual order for pages to be read. I had in mind to import and use work from Wikipedia to fill in a lot of missing details, not necessarily keeping everything from the Wikipedia pages, but the import would be done to preserve history and provide proper acknowledgments. --darklama 16:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned pages

• Drugs:Fact and Fiction/Hydrocodone

– Adrignola talk 00:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Title should reflect the scope

The book is about scheduled drugs not so called "ethical pharmaceuticals." Geofferybard (discuss • contribs) 23:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Huge cleanup

Because this will no doubt attract controversy, I'm going to post here and wait for discussion. Most of this book violates [|TOS], specifically, Lawful behavior. Not all of it does however, so I propose to clean out the illegal drugs from this book. I'm aware this sounds kind of murky since we're from all over the world, so my proposal is to clean it so that it complies to U.S law, since Wikibooks is hosted in the USA, specifically Florida law where the servers are. That would mean that Marijuana would have to go, since recreational use of marijuana is still not legal in Florida, prescription use is. Obviously psychedellic mushrooms are illegal everywhere so they would go, meth, crank , speed are illegal everywhere, so they'd go too Caffeine, Alcohol and nicotine are all legal and could stay. Yes, it will make the book shorter, but, IMHO we can't keep it in it's current state as it violates TOS as I have described earlier. So , what do you think ? Necromonger Wekeepwhatwekill 16:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

This is not the only instance of a book which lies in a 'grey area'; see Suicide. Both books have received a fair attraction of controversy, but the general consensus is that these books are here to stay (and both survived multiple RfDs). Specifically, WB:CENSOR notes that content isn't censored for anyone, so I think that the content has to stay as it is. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 17:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

This isn't about censor, I never said that. The contents of this book fail [|TOS], specifically, Lawful behavior. This isn't something that can worked around or ignored. What I mean is, the contents of this book either pass that criteria or it fails. In my eyes some of this passes but some of it fails. Rather than invoke IAR, I thought I should at discuss the changes first. Necromonger Wekeepwhatwekill 20:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok....I'm going to allow 7 more days for discussion. If no further discussion happens, I'll start cleaning this up so that it doesn't run a foul of [|TOS]. Be aware this will involve a lot of this book being cut out. Yes, I'm aware Wiki is not censored, but in this case, not censored can't be used as a way to keep this book as it is, as it violates TOS, spwecifically, lawful behavior. Since the servers for this are in the U.S, it has to conform to US laws. My intent is get this article to comply with current US laws. Necromonger Wekeepwhatwekill 18:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You cam certainly count on me to prevent the deletion of any valid and lawful content. As you have stated things I'm a bit afraid of what you intend to do, especially when you make legal claims over the general work without a real contested object and start with the motion that "I propose to clean out the illegal drugs from this book". --Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Panic Do you mean that I'm not specifying what exactly I find illegal ? I'm happy to:

First , be aware that the law I'm talking about is the State of Florida law, as Wikimedia's severs, which wikibook is a part of , are in Florida, that law is certainly applicable, so my cuts would be

• Psychedilics - like LSD, Psilocybin and Mescaline. They're illegal in the state of Florida as have to be cut to conform to TOS:Lawful.
  
• Marijuana - is legal for medicianal purposes, therefore, I cant remove it as the book doesn't state whether it's medicinal or recreation use.
  
• Ectasy/MDMA - is illegal, and would have to be removed
  
• Angel Dust/ ketamine - Angel dust is illegal. Ketamine is an animal tranqulizer and not legal for human use, so even though it's legal, it's not for human use, so that would have to be cut.
  

Obviously, this will mean big cuts in this book, so rather than just Be Bold and do it, I'd rather discuss first, since large changes generally are best when discussed first. My rationale for doing this is, again, TOS , specifically, Lawful. Necromonger Wekeepwhatwekill 15:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand the legalities and agree in the general terms but you fail to understand that information about illegal stuff is not illegal by and in itself, the editors (or Wikimedia at the end of the line) could only be actionable if they promoted, facilitated or sold said illegal stuff and frivolous civil actions due to damages can easily be avoided by the normal disclaimer we use on these type of works (like the one referencing cannibalism or suicide). So no, no demolitionist actions required on that regard. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 20:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Also note that "You agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of, and agree that venue is proper in, the courts located in San Francisco County, California, in any legal action or proceeding relating to us or these Terms of Use." and that you are overextended the intention of the point about Lawful behavior (the legal infringements considered there are mostly about intellectual property rights). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 20:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Panic2k4 I expected resistance, which is why this discussion is happening. I agree that talking about drugs isn't illegal. However, talking about how to have a good trip is an unspoken endorsement to use the drug safely. Yes you're correct that using Florida Law to decide the "lawful" part of the TOS isnt correct either since Wikibooks explicitly is housed in a San Francisco server. I've verified this from wikitech itself. That means I would have to leave the marijuana section as is, since San Francisco does allow for recreational use of marijuana. That still leave the mushrooms , ectasy, MDMA, Ketamine and Angel dust open to deep cuts.

Bear in mind, they may not need them, they may only need slight changes in wording to keep them legal.

In the end, I think you and I disagree and where to draw the line on discussing drugs. SO where do you think the line should be drawn? Necromonger Wekeepwhatwekill 13:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Wekeepwhatwekill: According to your logic, topics discussing adult topics on Wikipedia and related pictures on Commons (eg: nudity) should be banned. That isn't happening. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 19:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Leaderboard: Nope, not quite. Adult topics and pictures and still legal, and don't run afoul of TOS:Lawful, so it's not the same thing. I haven't touched anything in this book, and as you can see, my focus is pretty narrow (mushrooms, ectasy, MDMA, ketamin and Angel dust), and just like I said above, I may only have to slight rewrites. Necromonger Wekeepwhatwekill 20:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup list

Ok , so here' the detail on my proposed cleanup

Drugs:Fact and Fiction/Introduction - no change

Drugs:Fact and Fiction/General:

Strike "At higher doses it is an extremely powerful psychoactive" - goes into unlawful use / unintended use / not a how-to

Drugs:Fact and Fiction/Hallucinogens:
Strike "It is because of this that hallucinogens can cause life-changing experiences" - encourages experimintation / goes into unlawful use/unsourced

Drugs:Fact and Fiction/LSD:
Strike "To avoid a trip turning bad, it is suggested to create a change of environment (such as a different location, or listening to soothing music), or to remember that the mental effects are just being caused by the drug, and are only temporary. " - goes into unlawful use/nonreliable source
Strike "The "threshold" (smallest dose with perceptible effects) is 20 micrograms. A "common" dose is between 50 and 150 micrograms. The lethal dosage is 12,000 micrograms, roughly 120 times a common dose" - goes into unlawful use / non reliable source

Drugs:Fact and Fiction/Marijuana - No Change

Drugs:Fact and Fiction/DXM - No change

Drugs:Fact and Fiction/PCP - No change

Drugs:Fact and Fiction/Salvia :

Strike " He recommends that it be used for meditation, or other spiritual pursuits. " - goes to Unlawful use / non-reliable source

Strike "There is no known lethal dosage of Salvia divinorum. However, it is very strongly recommended that a trip sitter be present. Because of its short-lasting effects (when smoked), users can take turns being a sitter. Before setting forth to explore the potential of this substance, please read this entire page!" goes to Unlawful use / not a manual.

Strike " A butane torch is recommended to vaporize all of the salvinorin A, but a regular lighter is sufficient and will vaporize most of the salvinorin A. Most users find a regular lighter to be sufficient and the resulting smoke easier to keep in the lungs due to the lower temperature." Goes to unlawful use / again, not a manual.

Strike "so the smoker must hold the smoke in the lungs for a short period if he or she wants to absorb all of the salvinorin A, a generally accepted time frame to hold salvia smoke in is 20-40 seconds, or however long the smoker can hold in the smoke " Unlawful use / not a manual

Strike "Generally salvia leaves and extracts are smoked using the same paraphernalia as Cannabis. Bongs are considered best because the hits are bigger than any other widely used method of smoking. Furthermore, the water cools the smoke and makes it smoother, making the smoke easier to hold in. This in turn allows for optimum absorption of the salvinorin A.
In order to vaporize the most salvinorin A, the flame from the lighter must be held on the salvia for the duration of the inhalation, because salvinorin A has a higher vaporization temperature than, for example, THC does in the case of cannabis. Glass pipes are also used and a "second best" to bongs, mainly due to the fact that that they allow the lighter to be held on the salvia for the duration of the hit. Pipes are ineffective in that, due to a smaller chamber, less smoke is able to be absorbed for each hit, and the smoke is hotter and more harsh than with the bong method due to lack of water filtration. It is a rule of thumb that in order to receive the same level of intoxication, one must smoke three hits of a pipe to every one hit from a bong, although experienced pipe users might argue it is also a matter of technique. Cigarettes will work, but not to an extent where they are considered efficient, this is because it is not common practice nor is it practical to hold a flame a cigarette, by the method's very nature. Some effects will come from smoking it in a cigarette, and..." - Unlawful use and we're not a manual nor a how-to by any means.

Strike "Salvia cigarettes are best when only raw dried leaves are used, as extracts are costly and seem to be less effective in cigarette form than the raw leaf." again - unlawful use and we're not a manual or a how-to

Strike - "Raw dried leaves can be smoked, but, except in users with low tolerance to salvinorin A, the full effect will not be achieved unless large amounts of leaf are smoked. The smoke is a bit harsh, and unlike most other substances, salvinorin A does not have a cumulative dosage effect - if the dosage is not completely consumed within one to two minutes, smoking further will do little to increase the effects." Run afoul of legal / not a how-to

Strike " It is therefore important to prepare mentally for this before smoking salvia." Run afoul of legal / not a how-to

Strike - "Traditionally, the leaves are sublingually ingested. The most common way for this to be done is what is called the quid method. This entails of wrapping 6-20 fresh leaves together in a stick form, and slowly chewing on more and more of the quid, over the period of a half hour, eventually having the whole quid in your mouth, without swallowing it. Swallowing salvia is ineffective since for all practical purposes, stomach acid breaks down salvinorin A, and you would have to swallow enormous amounts in order to receive significant effects. Sublingual absorption generally produces milder effects than smoking and requires much larger doses in order to match the intensity experienced with smoking, but produces much longer lasting effects. The come on period starts after 5 minutes and lasts 20-40 minutes; the peak lasts 40 minutes to an hour and a half, and the after effects last 3-6 hours. Sublingual absorption is also said to have more of a euphoric effect both during and after the peak. Extracts, although they can be quite costly, can also be used this way in order to cut down on the amount of bitter plant material that has to be held in the mouth. Doses for extracts can be 1.5-2 grams of 5x, 0.75-1 gram of 10x, 0.35-0.5 grams of 20x, in proportion to the strength of the extract." runs afoul of lawful / not a how-to



Strike - all of "Effects" This was already stated in Method of ingestion / runs afoul of lawful / not a how-to



Strike - all of "Other important facts" Per Not Trivia/ runs afoul of lawful

Drugs:Facts and Fiction/Stimuants:

Strike " In moderation and at recreational doses however, most are relatively safe. " unreferenced

Strike "Stimulant users should have strong will power, and the ability to tell themselves 'no', and stick with it - Less they wish to join the many individuals that have succumbed to addiction." - unreferenced

Strike "Though not generally as strong as any purified stimulant, the plants are very safe to use as a stimulant on a frequent basis and can generally be enjoyed free of major side effects." Unreferenced

Drugs:Fact and Fiction/Amphetamine - as is.

Drugs: Fact and Fiction/Meth - as is.

Drugs: Fact and Fiction/Ritalin

• SPECIAL NOTE : I'm NOT neutral on Ritalin, as I was prescribed this drug in my youth.
  
  

Strike "For enhanced effects but a shorter duration, you may crush the time release capsules and parachute (crush in napkin and swallow as if a pill). It may also be insufflated (snorted) for even more intense effects. There have been reports of the drug being injected, but these are rare. Keep in mind that tolerance and addiction may easily develop on this drug from irresponsible abuse." - We're not a how-to / lawful use / unreferenced

Strike "*IMPORTANT*- Tolerance builds up quickly with repeated use. A dose that is right for an experienced user may not be right for you. Remember that you can always take more, but once you've taken more you can't take less. " Unreferenced / not a how-to/ lawful.

Drugs: Fact and Fiction/Nicotine - as is

Drugs: Fact and Fiction/Depressants - no change

Drugs:Fact and Fiction/Depressants/Zolpidem (Ambien)

Strike "When intended for recreational use, one person may take even a prescribed dose and simply stay awake. It's not hard to keep yourself awake while under the influence of zolpidem, but one may notice a loss of motor skills if it's their first time." Unreferenced / not a how-to/ it's not inteneded for recreational use

That's the list - any objections to the cuts? Necromonger Wekeepwhatwekill 17:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

As it stands, your proposed changes don't really have consensus. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 21:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Right now, I've just put up my specific list of changes, so yes, I realize I have no consensus. ) Necromonger Wekeepwhatwekill 21:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)