Category talk:Drugs/Archive 1

Old, unsectioned comments
In my Talk page, SimonP said: There is more than one meaning of the word drug, please stop trying to impose the one meaning you think it should have.

Of what multiple meanings do you speak, and why are they appropriate classifications in an encyclopedia of fact? Please also define what is a "recreational drug" and also why "recreational drug use" and "drug abuse" ought to be the subject of a category entitled "Drugs". Suffice it to say, I disagree with the classification this category is being used for, and consider this category and the terms used in the description to be not be self-consistent classifications at all, that is, like is being put with unlike when the purpose of a category, class, or term to contain or refer to items that are like each other, in substance. - Centrx 10:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * What should the category be called that brings toghether topics such as drug trafficking, drug culture, and the legal issues surrounding drugs? - SimonP 17:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is putting these topics together at all. Even letting alone the major differences between legally (say, FDA) approved drugs, no-legal-status drugs, and illegal drugs, the fact is that, even among illegal drugs, there are not common properties in the way they are trafficked, and the culture of the people who use them is not the same between different drugs, let alone between different regions of the world. So, for example, the article illegal drug trade is divided into sections that cover each particular drug, the trade of each having in most cases no relation to the trade of the others. Even the sections which are not divided so are mostly an abstract inapplicable gloss and when they go into useful, encyclopedic specifics they do so by referring to particular drugs with information that is not relevant to other drugs. Also, for example, there is no such thing as a drug that is recreational ("recreational drug"), rather a drug can only be recreationally used, depending on the intention or circumstances of a person and a particular use. So, for example, the recreational drug use article has a hodgepodge of history about certain drugs distinctly and has a gloss of legal information that could be about concerted efforts to prohibit the recreational drug use, which could be thought of a self-consistent (like going together with like) position were it not for the fact that, depending on jurisdiction, certain recreationally used drugs are accepted (say alcohol) for historical or cultural reasons despite them being recreationally used drugs. Though, in that article I think it could be useful to talk about philosophical issues about changing ones mind for pleasure, but is currently not anything like that. The legal issues also are pertinent to certain jurisdictions, not being properties of the drugs at all, but products of regional legal systems and the fickleness of history.


 * Anyway, I'm not sure what can be done about categorizing things that are not, in substance, qualified to be in the same class. As a matter of information science these things ought not to go together, but are put together because of meandering and musing reader interest. Nevertheless, if this be the purpose, the information should at least be more organized so that there is a "Drug trafficking in the United States" category, and then all those country categories might go under a general "Drug trafficking" category", or maybe even going one further and putting a subordinate "Drug trafficking of amphetamine in the United States" category. Or, for culture, say even a "Drug culture" category. Ultimately though, these ought not go into a category so general as "Drugs", which is specifically appropriate for chemicals which affect animal physiological processes (and better than the convolutedly tautological and somewhat inaccurate Category:Pharmacologic agents), and so which would cover fully legal drugs alongside the illegal ones (the distinction so often being a whim of history rather than a difference in substance). Note also that this is along the lines of the general dispute about items going in categories because the item is a thing of which the category is named (so that a category named "Drugs" should include only articles that are of something that is a "drug", and not also articles like "analgesic" or "diuretic", though they directly pertain to the chemical affectant). - Centrx 23:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how you can object to this category but not demand alternate names for drug paraphenalia, arguments for and against drug prohibition, hard drug and the Drug Enforcement Administration. They all use the word drug in the same fashion as this category. Wikipedia is not prescriptivist, we accept common meanings of words just as readily as "correct" ones.- 01:31, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * With the exception of Drug Enforcement Administration, which is a proper noun, so is necessarily a prescriptivist name for a singular organization that exists as a historical and legal matter rather than as an empirical or theoretical matter, I do think that the subject of those other articles could be questionable. That I have not opposed them is because I have not really come across them in my wanderings through the Wikipedia; generally I am not methodically going through all the articles in Wikipedia and making recommendations on each of them. So, that I have not opposed them is not evidence that I think them appropriate; it is more a matter of fortune.
 * I do think that hard drug is an entirely inappropriate article for the encyclopedia, especially because this is an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary and so is concerned with describing information rather than word usage.
 * The two others are less clear to me which is more appropriate. In at least part of the article, Arguments for and against drug prohibition is an appropriate subject because, whatever the substance of a particular chemical, drug prohibition, which necessarily pertains to the illegality of certain drugs and so is not necessarily relevant to matters of legal or no-legal-status drugs, unlike this general category "Drugs", is a feature of the law in a particular territory and there are historical reasons why it may or may not be a good thing, as well as political or philosophical reasons about it. Nevertheless, such historical matters may be relevant only to a particular country, so the so general article about all "drug prohibition" does not seem to be appropriate for many of the matters in the article that only pertain to the U.S. legal system or culture, for instance. As for political and philosophical matters, some do pertain to political theory about what justifies the state in interfering in such matters that are directly only personal. Just as I think that recreational drug use might only be warranted as an article that deals with philosophical matters of consuming mind-state-altering chemicals for recreation rather than medicinal or spiritual purposes, I think that this article could pertain to similarly theoretical rather than historical matters. Overall though, separate articles about "arguments for and against" seem to be a bad idea anyway, because those arguments are directly relevant to the thing in question and so should be in an article about that thing, or in articles about things that a very general "drug prohibition" category would include.
 * Similarly, drug paraphernelia does have a legal meaning that might be appropriate for the subject of an article.
 * As for this being prescriptivist it is not. We are not creating a brand new category out of nothingness with some "original research" or whatnot. If this category would be for what I think it should be for, it would be describing the natural category of drugs that exists because of common substance of the category's items. This same natural category is also considered a natural category in medicine and in other encyclopedia's. So, if this category would be for what I think it should be for, it would certainly be describing the natural world and the common usage, indeed the most common usage, of the word. As for what it seems you would have this category describe, that thing you would have it describe is not a thing that is with its own identity at all. If a "common meaning" is not self-consistent, which is to say that the common person using that meaning does not understand it in the first place, then we ought not describe it as something that has some meaning of its own. If the common meaning is to put like together with unlike, such as it would be to say that a number is both even and odd, at once, then its common use is a historical matter of how a certain people have done something. Instead of describing the way the world actually works, as we do when we invent words and commonly use them, like "force" and "anteater", an article on this absurd use of the word "drug" is a matter of describing how certain people, mostly some people in the U.S. since the mid-20th-century, have used this word in history and so may be appropriate for some specific article in the general subject of U.S. history or the U.S. legal system. Yet, in 100 years hence, there will still be a class of chemicals that physiologically affect the human body, but the thing that many people call "drugs" today may be merely a freak of the historical record. The question is not a decision between prescribing "the way a thing should be" and "the way a thing is or is used". Rather, the question is a decision between describing "the way a thing is or is used most naturally" (and, at least in this case, most commonly and, more importantly, most commonly in experts who Know, say medicine or philosophy, rather than the man on the street who got the idea of the word from an incomplete understanding or some effective marketing effort) and "the way a thing-that-does-not-exist is "described" (yet the thing-that-does-not-exist cannot really be described because it does not truly have some common characteristic) with some commonality". I challenge you to define, describe, what the thing is that this category is supposed to classify, without resorting to historical matters, because I don't think it possible because the thing does not exist as having constituents with like characteristics. If it is a historical matter, then it must be treated as such, and not treated so generally as to be called "Drugs", for it was not a pattern that existed in the past, it is not a pattern that exists in many places of the world today, and it may not exist in the future, and the word already has a more common and specific meaning that ought not be prescriptively overturned. - Centrx 03:27, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The Merriam-Webster definition "an often illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation, or a marked change in consciousness" works for me. - SimonP 03:37, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all, sometimes dictionaries aren't very good at describing certain things well and, as in this case, they have several definitions for a word. Removing the "often illegal" (or illicit) part which is a historical or legal matter for certain territories, this definition might be so general as to include any drug by the definition I gave before, as anything that affects a person's body can come to be used as a habit, is addictive, or causes a marked change in consciousness, and so it would be the definition I gave before and would include all non-nutritional chemicals that physiologically affect the body when administered. Or, it is specific enough as to mean "psychoactive drug", if by habituation it means psychological habituation as someone seeks a certain state of mind, like an addiction. In this case, there is already a Category:Psychoactive drugs and one wonders then what category should something like aspirin go, when that clearly fits the more general term "drug". Ultimately though, this isn't a very good definition as its very non-specific and depending on the interpretation could mean numerous things, even letting alone the fact that substances don't just "cause" addiction or habituation by themselves, they must be used by or administered to an animal several times and whether one becomes addicted is a function of the frequency and heaviness of use and the features of a person's mind and body. Another: does this definition exclude use of small quantities of the same drugs which in large quantities would result in addiction, or which in small quantities only produce an unmarked change in consciousness. Another is the use of the word substance: I have certainly become habituated to chapstick at times, and, for instance, a person who ceases use of deoderant will smell more for a while than someone who had never used it because the body secretes more in those areas in reaction to its regular application, which is precisely the withdrawal of addiction or habituation. I doubt, though, that you mean to include this sort of thing, though a valid argument might be made for including.


 * Also, this definition, without its empirical "often illegal" part would seem to not include "Drug traffickers" or "People Against Gangsterism and Drugs" in the category. So, this definition is deeply flawed, but taken at face value it would seem to be meaning what is already in the category "Psychoactive drugs" and leaves out other drugs that certainly qualify to be drugs under other, more general and accurate definitions of "drug", when they are clearly drugs and properly belong in a category.


 * Note also another problem about an "illegal drugs" category that I neglected to mention before: that some drugs, like methylphenidate (Ritalin) for instance, are "legal" entirely depending on the circumstances of their use. A person is legally prescribed the drug and uses it legally as a so-called "legal drug" and then they transfer it to someone else and magically it becomes an "illegal drug" when in fact nothing is different about the substance itself. Ultimately, because of this sort of thing, and also because of jurisdictions (by which the drug is a "legal drug" in a certain place and an "illegal drug" somewhere), every drug article qualifies to be both in the category "Legal drugs" and in the category "Illegal drugs", which is to say that these are not really categories of reality at all.


 * Merriam-Webster just isn't a very good dictionary, it's made concise and easily accessible to the general people at the expense of precision and, indeed, definition, the very thing for which it is supposedly purposed. The Oxford English Dictionary and many of the Webster dictionaries are much better at defining things, although their definitions can only be so good. Just as it's difficult to define "intelligence" or "consciousness", it's difficult to define exactly what a drug is, but it is certainly not a category of things that includes only drugs used recreationally or drugs that are abused, or things like Just Say No or Drug urban legends. - Centrx 05:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The phrase "often illegal" is central to the definition of drug that many people use. While it is a "historical or legal matter for certain territories" it is also true.  If you believe that this category could be better named then please propose a new title.  If you believe that the subjects here are not closely related enough to even have a category then list this page on Categories for Deletion and the community at large can settle the issue. - SimonP 05:50, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * That definition that you say many people use is a subset of drugs in general. All "illegal drugs" are necessarily also "drugs", so that if a thing an article is about "illegal drugs" then it belongs in a category called, for instance, "Illegal drugs", and that "illegal drugs" category would then be subcategorized under the more general category "Drugs". However, I think that an "Illegal drugs" category is not a good way of classifying information, and such information is more appropriately categorized like it is in some places here where the category is U.S. schedule I drugs or something, etc.
 * So, many or most or all of the items presently here in Category:Drugs, mostly regardless of anything that I've commented here even, belong in more specific categories. So Office of National Drug Control Policy might belong in some category Drug control organizations or Anti-drug organizations or something that is more specific and Just Say No might go under something about marketing campaigns and Trip sitter might go under something about psychedelics, and/or maybe we should implement a categorization theme where the specific information about each drug and region is categorized so that some things might go in Cocaine culture in the United States or something, and some of the articles might not should even be articles in an encyclopedia at all and so should be incorporated into other articles. The circumstances are different for each article. As for this category, I think it is a perfectly appropriate name for a category, but it should cover precisely what the most general term "drug" means. As it stands, I advocate that everything that is a "drug" that is currently put in the Category:Pharmacologic agents, which is a lot of it, should instead be in here, and other things in that category might need to be recategorized somewhere else. There are two parts of the matter that must be discriminated between, though. The first is what I've been arguing here, which is that Category:Drugs ought to be a category for that more general meaning of it, and not just for things in the non-category called "illegal drugs". The second is the more general question, which should be discussed in Wikipedia talk:Categorization, which is whether categories should only things for which it could be said that the subject of the article IS a thing of the category title. Hypothetical example: whether the category Nations should include only articles like Canada, India, and China, or whether it should also include subjects that are about, say, sovereignty, civil administration, or international relations. - Centrx 06:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * What category would link Just Say No and Office of National Drug Control Policy? Or do you assert that there is no link whatsoever between the two. As to your dislike for Category:Pharmacologic agents this matter was discussed back in August on CfD and it was decided that Category:Pharmacologic agents was a better name because most people think illegal when they see the word drugs. If you want to reopen the debate then feel free to list Category:Pharmacologic agents on CfD. - SimonP 06:41, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I would think that Just Say No could go in a category something like Anti-drug slogans and Office of National Drug Control Policy could go in a category something like Anti-drug organizations and both of those categories could go under a category something like Anti-drug movement. Or, more simply, both of those articles could go under a category something like Anti-drug movement. I'm not sure what the precise titles should be, but I think those are good category meanings. - Centrx 22:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, better meanings would be Drug control slogans for the former and Drug control organizations for the latter, and Drug control movement for the more general, as neither of these things are against drugs, per se, rather they are against "Drugs we don't like" depending on who is speaking. Again, I'm not exactly sure of what the precise titles be, as it's a rather convoluted topic, but you get the idea of the general meaning; it is possible to put them in appropriate historically oriented categories, though not to put them in appropriate theoretically or scientifically oriented categories that describe the way the physical world works, as these slogans and organizations mostly don't represent a coherent ideology. - Centrx 22:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * What categories would your "drug control" ones belong to? - SimonP 20:14, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems appropriate to go in to Category:Political movements, but if that might be possibly be too specific then it might possibly go into Category:Politics and/or Category:Movements. - Centrx 21:00, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I personally think it is ridiculous to assert that drugs are only exist in a political context and to deny that drugs do not also have importance, legally, culturally, and recreationally. Please list this page, or pharmacological agents, on CfD so that this debate can be ended.  Alternatively, list them on requested moves if you feel another name would be more appropriate. - SimonP 21:25, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * I was referring specifically to the political (seeking to govern, or control) forces of the world that are advocating "drug control". I have never asserted that drugs exist only in a political context, only that the forces which seek to control it, which would fit under a general category like "Drug control", go in Political movements, or more generally, Movements. (Note here that it does seem possibly reasonable that a Drug control category might go under the more general Movements, which would include those legal and social elements.) The individual articles that are in a category Drug control, of course might fit in various other categories to which they should be added, but they do not all fit in legal, cultural, and recreational categories, only a subset. The Just Say No campaign does not fit in a legal category, though the Drug policy of the Netherlands might. 420 might fit in culterural categories, but not legal ones. My response regarding the Political movements category was directly and only related to those articles which fit in a Drug control category and I do not dispute that those articles fitting under that category, and other articles related to drugs in general, do fit under other categories as well. The point here is that the elements that are presently in this Category:Drugs do not belong here and ought to be recategorized more appropriately. Because this is an inappropriate category, when that is done there will not be articles under this category. The Drugs vs. Pharmacologic agents issue is rather separate, as it only relates to the specific chemicals or the form in which the chemicals come. That issue can be resolved after this one, for it is separate, and I will be happy to recategorize such chemicals and chemical forms under Pharmacologic agents in the mean time before that is resolved. Most of the articles here, though, do not fall into that class of things; Office of National Drug Control Policy does not belong in a category so non-specific as Drugs. - Centrx 22:17, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * If you agree that drugs have cultural, legal, and political aspects, how do you feel these elements can best be brought toghether in a single category? - SimonP 22:27, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Generally, they might not should be. It's not obvious why "Cocaine culture" in Spain, if there is such a thing in itself, for instance, has something in common with the FDA process for approving Viagra. Why does the "Just Say No" campaign have anything to do with aspirin or Prozac? It's not clear how these disparate things connect together, but if they do it would only be in terms of a general histories. The cultural, legal, and political aspects are features of the region and time of it, so that certain drugs will fall into the histories of certain regions and eras and will have commonality in that respect, but there is simply no connection between "cocaine culture" in the U.S. today and alcohol laws of the Roman Empire. There is no connection between LSD culture in the U.S. in the 60's and the ancient use of tree bark for its acetylsalicylic acid (now synthesized and put in pills as aspirin). Now, of course articles on the drugs, as drugs in themselves, will fit into the same, low-level category (that is, Pharmacologic agents) and an article on alcohol prohibition in the U.S. will fit into the same low-level category as an article on cannabis prohibition in the U.S., because it is a common legal system with past law influencing present law, and those laws will often fit into many of the same categories as political drug items in the U.S., but, for instance, the Temperance movement in late 19th- and early 20th-century U.S. will not fit in the same low-level category as alcohol laws in Indonesia. The key here is how low in the category hierarchy the common categorization will be. All the culture and political items will ultimately fit into the Human category and on down the line numerous articles related to drugs will fit into similar categories, but this does not mean that there should be created an artificial category that horizontally spans all the articles in some way related to drugs, because they're just not related that closely. There is absolutely no reason why the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the U.S. should be in the same lowest-level (and horizontal) category (like this category Drugs is trying to be) as Opium Wars. Rather, they would fall into the same category, by the nature of proper information science, in so far as Opium Wars would fall into some history of drugs category for a particular region would fall into a category about the causes of the present world-wide drug treaties and the WHO and the UN and ONDCP would fall into the same category as being a political organization in the U.S. that is an product of the those treaties. - Centrx 22:03, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Aspirin and Viagara do not meet the definition of a drug as "often illegal", and thus do not need to be included in category:drugs. To me it is obvious that the culture of drugs is linked to their illegality and a top level category linking the two facets is useful. - SimonP 23:03, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * As said before, that the use of a certain drug is legal or illegal in a certain jurisdiction at a certain time is a matter of historical circumstances and is unrelated to the substance of the thing in itself. No drug is illegal, there is nothing illegal about a plant or fungus, for instance, growing of its own accord in the woods, having had spores there moved by the wind or whatever natural circumstances are the cause. Rather, the illegality is in a particular use, possession, or transfer, and drugs for which certain use is illegal are legal for other uses, and drugs for which possession is illegal in a jurisdiction may be legal for use, and drugs for which possession is illegal in one jurisdiction are legal for possession in other jurisdiction, and drugs for which sale is illegal in a jurisdiction may be legal for possession depending on the amount, etc. I don't know about the world of aspirin, but note that there is an illegal market/trade for Viagra, just as there is an illegal trade of other prescription drugs. I already explained why that definition was flawed and how it is inapplicable to the categorization of information on Wikipedia, so please respond rather than asking questions in circles.
 * Why is there a single "culture of drugs" throughout the world and throughout history and why is it connected to the legality of circumstances about those drugs? How is certain paraphernelia like water-pipes connected at all to the legality of cannabis, when their use is purposed for making the experience less burning on the throat and lungs and more healthy and are used for tobacco as well. What does trip sitter have to do with the illegality of a drug when it is more for the protection of the user than for deterring law enforcement, when there are highly psychedelic, but legal, drugs for which trip sitting is more important than for ones which are less psychedelic but illegal? The fact is, there are numerous elements of certain subcultures that have nothing to do with the legality of the particular drug, for they exist independent of that legality and exist in places where the particular drug use is not illegal. - Centrx 01:28, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * This defintion of drugs, like many other terms, only really applies to the modern context. While all these substances existed in the past the modern notion of "drugs" did not. - SimonP 04:08, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * The "modern notion of "drugs"" is a self-inconsistent historical vagary, then, rather than a classification of reality in which each item of the class has like properties with the other items of the class. The modern notion is a misconception, not a result of analyzing the real world or history. That the notion exists as a meaning of the word used by misinformed, ill-conceiving people does not mean it ought to be a category of an encyclopedia of information about the world. It makes no difference that there are many terms like this or that many people use them, just as if a layman thinks that Einstein's theories of relativity is a justification for relativism or if a layman thinks that Columbus was acting in the face of overwhelming thought that the Earth was flat does not make these things so. One can describe a word, and many people may use it, that means "a number that is both odd and even", but that does not mean that there actually exists such a thing, and those people who use it might be thinking of, say, the numbers pi and e and other irrationals, when they use the word, but that does not mean pi is actually a number that is both odd and even. Rather, the word is not self-consistent and does not describe anything at all, and the people using it are in a profound confusion. Whatever the propriety of classifying items in the physical world according to penalties exacted upon persons who possess them, they do not apply as universal properties of those substances, rather they are apply only to certain circumstances so no item of this class could be said to fall into a category "Drugs", instead each might fall into categories like "Drugs of the United States" (assuming the flawed misconception of the word "Drugs"). If this "often illegal" definition is to be the case, then these items more belong in a category "Illegal drugs" rather than this one, though that categorization itself has problems as delineated in other comments above and the fact remains that it is also flawed. I ask again for a self-consistent definition of what you mean, for the one from M-W is, at best the same as Psychoactive drugs in meaning, and at worst so general to include all Drugs, and in any respect is poorly worded so as not to be clear. A clear definition is not only important for resolving this dispute, but also for defining what should be put in here at all. - Centrx 05:47, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I personally would not consider the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the United Nations Drug Control Programme, the Drug Enforcement Administration, or the British Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to have been named by ignorant laymen. - SimonP 07:36, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

My two cents: I just added the Drugs category to the NORML page and the Marijuana Party of Canada although I'm thinking perhaps there should be a subcat of Drugs such as Marijuana Legal Reform. Anyway, the Drugs category seems very valuable for anyone doing research in the field - it's a simple, widely understood term and works well within the category/subcategory system that allows people to bring together articles that are both loosely related and tightly related. --LeeHunter 03:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * In what way is, for instance, NORML related to people who use drugs to be more strong in sports, or to the Eucharist, and how is that more useful to someone "doing research", whatever you mean by that, than, say, Goldfish the cracker being in the same category as whale? - Centrx 03:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Marijuana, steroids, alcohol etc. are substances that people ingest for the purpose of creating certain non-medical changes in their mind and/or body. While Goldfish the Cracker and whales might not be comfortable in the same category, whales, laws governing fishing, and groups like Greenpeace would fit together quite nicely.--LeeHunter 15:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, so those drugs do fit into the same Pharmacologic agents category, with some subcategorization below that category, but the laws and culture of it are particular to specific regions and times. So, Fishing laws in Australia would be a different category than Fishing laws in Britain, though they would ultimately fit under the same supracategory. More to the point, an article about, say, the recent tsunami in the Indian Ocean, or about underwater jet streams of the Pacific, would not fit under the same low-level category as the culture aboard U.S. Navy aircraft carriers or information about lobster cages. They are all in some way related to the ocean, just as the Goldfish cracker is (most tangentially), but that does not mean that they should all be put in the same lowest-level Ocean category. Articles about the natural features of the ocean would fit into a fairly low-level category like Oceanography, but they would do so as part of numerous other categories below Oceanography like Chemical oceanography and Fauna of the Ocean or somesuch. Articles about the laws of the ocean would fit in separate low-level categories, and articles about human culture related to the ocean would also fit in separate low-level categories. Now, of course, subsets of the vast set of items that are in some way related to the ocean do belong in the same category, so that articles about whales, the laws of whaling, and Greenpeace might fit under a single category that fits into, say Whaling, those articles do not fit into the same general Ocean category because they are not related in the same way. Greenpeace is related to the laws of whaling is related to whales, all in the same way, but that does not mean that because whales are directly related to octopus (as sea creatures) or even whales directly related to deer (as mammals) and each pair should be put in the same category, that Greenpeace is directly related to octopus or deer and Greenpeace should not be put in the same category as these. In the same way, just as bong may be related to cannabis (as something used to consume it) and cannabis may be related to psilocybes mushrooms as both fauna with psychoactive ingredients (or "psychoactive drugs") and ought to be put in the same category, it does not mean that bong is directly related to psilocybes mushrooms and so this pair should not be put in the same category. The category system is supposed to categorize and subcategorize, and though anything at all can be tangentially related (like Kevin Bacon), it does not mean that everything should be put in a single category. - Centrx 19:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * If lobster trap, 2004 Indian Ocean tsunamis, and U.S. Navy aircraft were the only three articles we had that related to oceans then listing them in the main ocean category would be perfectly appropriate. Categories are subdivided because they grow too large, not because the items are too different.  Currently we only have a few articles relating to drugs and they fit well into a single category. - SimonP 21:59, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * You do understand that the scope of this category as you have defined it is so broad that it will include so many articles that it is not useful to categorize them in this way. It is simply not a good idea to categorize a whole bunch of articles in this Drugs category only to go back and change all their categories. That sort of thing means that the categorization scheme wasn't a good idea in the first place. Do you really think this is just a matter of someone going through all the relevant articles and categorizing them as Drugs so that, boom, all of a sudden it will be the case that they don't fit together in the same category? This is categorizing information; categories are subdivided not because they grow too large, but because the items actually fit in different subcategories. The points I've been making from the very start have been that this Drugs category as you have defined it is not actually self-consistent and the articles in it do not "fit well into a single category", and you have not presented any sound reasons why they do. You cannot, at the same time, logically hold that the only reason why listing irrelevantly related articles in the same category is because there are so few of them and also that "they fit well into a single category" when the very reason why the articles should not otherwise be in a single category was that they do not fit well together. The fact remains that they do not fit together, and the categorization of information ought not to be a matter of waiting for there to be an actual critical mass in the category (the wiki Category) when there is, no matter what, a critical mass in the category (the classification). You still have not defined a self-consistent definition for this category and your respondent arguments have been parsimoniously incomplete. - Centrx 04:52, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * What are these hundres of articles that will make this category too large to be useful? The drugs themselves are already in various subcategories. - SimonP 05:19, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well what is this threshhold anyway, or is the threshhold just when you think it's too large? I already think it's too large, when the items in the category can be put in smaller ones. It doesn't matter anyway, categories are subdivided when they become too large, yes, but the category must be self-consistent in the first place. If there were 38 articles and 10 subcategories about Ocean with all manner of unrelated things as noted above, they shouldn't go into the same category no matter what. - Centrx 22:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You have yet to demonstrate how the things listed here are unrelated and inconsistent. Even the most disparate of them get Google hits when searched for together. - SimonP 22:59, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * You're kidding right? Most of what I've written here has been about showing how these things are not consistent with each other, and you have not responded to most of them. As for Google, you should check out googlewhacking, which is entirely devoted to finding words which, when put together, do not have results. And it's a very hard thing to do. vagina ocean, philistine computer, and linksys bong all have thousands of hits, and they do not belong in the same category. Most disparate things will get Google hits when you search for them. Note also that I am not asserting that the items in this category are all totally unrelated, in some way, for most things are related in the most tangential of ways. It could even be the case that any one of the items in this category is related to any one of the others, but the point remains that, as I said before, "bong" may be related to "cannabis" in the same way that "bong" is related to "tobacco" (as smoking-related), and "cannabis" is related to "psilocybin mushroom" in the same way that "cannabis" is related to "amanita muscara" (as both are drug flora), but that does not mean that "bong" is related to "psilocybin mushroom" in the same way that "bong" is related to "cannabis". Please try to comprehend what I've written here before responding in so trivial and redundant a manner. - Centrx 23:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I pulled six pairs of articles from random pages and five of the pairs did not get a single hit when searched for toghether ("Goce Delchev" "Bench grinder", "Symplectic representation" "Huernia", "Nassau Stakes" "Morse College", "Immolation" "Harry Cassidy", and "Ding Yuan" "Bydgoszcz-Torun"). When comparing names in category:drugs I got hits 100% of the time (I ignored the constructed titles like "drug policy of the Netherlands", I also ignored such titles when they came up randomly.) - SimonP 23:51, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * The difference is that the names you came up with above are all very rare in the first place, so "Goce Delchev" only has about 1,000 hits in the first place, while even "People Against Gangsterism and Drugs" has more than 5,000 hits. "Symplectic representation" about 400, "Nassau Stakes" has about 2,500, "Harry Cassidy" has about 700, "Bydgoszcz-Torun" has about 2,000. In fact, only "immolation" and "bench grinder" have more than 5,000 hits alone, and they are paired with very rare ones. In this Drugs category, with the exception of the Lists and other strange constructs, all of the articles, by themselves, have many more. But anyway, my point in the first place was that this is not a sound way of deciding whether something belongs in the same category, as it can include numerous collections which simply do not belong in the same category. It is much better to stick with sound methods and theory for this, and you have not responded to the points I have made. You have also not come up with a sound definition, which is necessary for any category, especially if it means something different from what the title would generally indicate. Otherwise, the qualification for something fitting in this category exists only in your mind, which has two obvious problems. First, others simply do not know what is supposed to be here; they cannot rely on the definition in English of the last 700 years of "drug" and they cannot rely on the standard medical definition. Second, because the category definition is one you have made up, it must be exposed to the light of examination by you formulating it into a sequence of words that describe a classification of items with a single shared property, which others can look at and consider. If you cannot do this, how do you yourself even know that you comprehend what you are talking about? - Centrx 03:01, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I have come up with a sound definition used by a respected dictionary, which is similar to the definition used by the DEA, United Nations Drug Control Programme, and many other high profile organizations. All of your arguments against this category are based upon an illegitimate prescriptivist rejection of this definition.  Wikipedia does not accept that a word can be used "incorrectly", the only valid argument is that this definition is not in common use. You have yet to demonstrate this. - SimonP 03:29, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have already responded to your assertion that I am being prescriptivist, and you did not respond to what I said regarding that. You, not me, are advocating a vague prescriptivist position that is more in-kind with propaganda than the natural world and pharmacology. The definition which I advocate is the general definition, used through modern English in history, and used in medicine. I have already responded why the definition you presented was deeply flawed and is not appropriate for the categorization of information, and you did not respond to what I said regarding that. The profile of an organization has no bearing on the validity of its statements, and even if it did, you have not proivded what "standard" definition this organizations use. If you mean the definition you presented above, then I have already explained why it is deeply flawed and is not appropriate for the categorization of information. Whatever you mean by your vague statement about "incorrectly"ness, it is in fact the case that Wikipedia policy does not accept items that are not appropriate for an encyclopedia of fact. If it were the case that Wikipedia only accepted items that are in "common use", then the position that I am holding is in fact prevailing over yours with respect to that, as I am holding that this category would ought to be used for the more common use of "drug". You have yet to demonstrate anything, as for every extensive response I have made to your arguments you have made few rejoinders and have not responded to vast tracts of what I have stated. There have been no lines of argument which have no stopped at me, which is to say that there are many lines of argument to which you have not responded at all. - Centrx 04:28, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am planning to implement a new 'drug' categorization scheme as outlined below. All subcategories and articles of the current Category:Drug fit well into this scheme. Every category will have enough entries - many drug-related pages are not yet categorized. The substance categories should not only cover the substances itself but also any article related to them. I'd like to hear your opinions, Cacycle 23:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Drugs
 * Drug test, Intravenous drug
 * Category:Drug risks
 * Drug Mix, Drug overdose, Harm reduction, List of celebrities with illicit drug history, List of deaths by accidental drug overdose, List of drug-related deaths
 * Category:Pharmacologic agents
 * Category:Non-medicinal drugs (replacing Category:Drugs)
 * Category:Psychoactive drugs
 * Hard drug, Psychoactive drug, Responsible drug use, Soft drug, Vaporizer
 * Category:Alcohol
 * Category:Cannabis
 * Bong, Cannabis, Chronic, Hemp
 * Category:Ecstasy
 * Club drug, Ecstasy_(drug)
 * Category:Nicotine and Tobacco
 * Category:Opioids
 * Opium, Heroin
 * Category:Hallucinogens
 * Hallucinogenic drug, Trip sitter
 * Category:Stimulants
 * Category:Drug addiction (replacing Category:Physical_addiction)
 * Category:Drug rehabilitation, Drug addiction
 * Category:Doping
 * Category:Drugs cheats in sport, Drugs in sport
 * Category:Drugs and religion
 * Calea zacatechichi, Entheogen
 * Category:Drug use and culture (replacing Category:Drug culture)
 * 420 (drug culture), Drug paraphernalia, Drug subculture, Drug urban legends, Responsible Drug User's Oath, Rochdale College
 * Category:Drug prohibition
 * Arguments for and against drug prohibition, Drug Abuse Resistance Education, Gateway drug, Just Say No, Marijuana Party of Canada, National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, People Against Gangsterism and Drugs, Prohibition (drugs), Students for Sensible Drug Policy
 * Category:Anti drug law
 * Category:British Misuse of Drugs Act, Category:U.S. controlled substances law, Ashcroft v. Raich, Director of the National Drug Control Policy, Drug Enforcement Administration, Drug policy of the Netherlands, Office of National Drug Control Policy, United Nations Drug Control Programme
 * Category:Illegal drug trade
 * Category:Drug cartels, Category:Drug traffickers, List of famous drug smugglers, List of street names of drugs, Drug tourism


 * Sounds good. Some of the subcategories will not have many entries, but in time I'm sure they will grow. - SimonP 01:36, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Most of the drugs listed under "Non-medicinal drugs" can and are used for treating illness, and so are medicinal. Further, drugs which I suppose you would not consider to fall under "non-medicinal drugs" nevertheless fit under this vague notion, as nearly any psychoactive drug is used for non-medicinal purposes, so that such a category is identical to "Category:Psychoactive drugs". Also, many of the drugs which are sometimes called hallucinogens do not actually cause hallucinations, that is, perception of external objects which are not actually present. Rather, many drugs called this simply change the perception of objects which are actually there, and so are not properly hallucinogenic. Possibly, psychedelics would be good, as it certainly is a better category, but it may not be the best. - Centrx 17:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * My intention was a main categorization not about substances but about types of usage. The full names could have been
 * Category:Medicinal_use_of_drugs (Pharmacologic_agents)
 * Category:Non-medicinal_use_of_drugs (Non-medicinal_drugs)
 * Category:Non-medicinal_use_of_psychoactive_drugs_not_in_sports_nor_in_religion (Psychoactive_drugs),
 * Category:Non-medicinal_use_of_drugs_in_sports (Doping)
 * and so on. The plain substance page amphetamine would have to be indexed under at least three different categories. But recreational amphetamine related pages would only go into the Non-medicinal_drugs subsections.


 * As for the hallucinogen / psychedelic part: we might use a Category:Hallucinogenic_drugs (which is (unfortunately) the current scientific terminology and common use) with the subcategories Category:Psychedelic_hallucinogens, Category:Dissociative_hallucinogens, and so on. Category::Cannabis would be additionally indexed under Category:Hallucinogenic_drugs. It is no problem at all to put categories and articles into more than one category if it aids in finding an article by descending the tree of categories from the main page.
 * Cacycle 02:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * See also Categorization for a description of the Wikipedia categorization scheme and rules. Cacycle 12:46, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Drugs vs Drugs of abuse
hi urod. i'm really curious as to where this category came from. . . It seems inherently POV and difficult to deliniate. something like hydrocodone is clearly not only a drug of abuse, and seems to deserve to be in a "drugs" category rather than only "drugs of abuse"; something like ayahuasca, a psychedelic and therefore under the umbrella of the drugs of abuse category, has been used as a religious sacrament and medicinally for thousands of years. yes, "drugs" has two different meanings, but that doesn't make all psychoactive drugs drugs of abuse.

also, for many of the pages you've made these changes to, the category shouldn't be there in the first place; drugs is a fairly overarching category, with many subcats, which makes the use of this category for any individual drugs entirely unnecessary.

anyways. We need to get a discussion about this going some place--or, if i've missed one, i'd love to be pointed to it.

cheers-- he ah  07:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The category "Drugs" was extremely confusing. The word "Drugs" means two different things:
 * substances which used to cure or treat diseases
 * psychoactive substances used recreationally, most of them either addictive or psychedelic

It is as if somebody made a category "Palm" and attach to it both articles about Palm PDA and articles about palm of a hand.
 * This is a false analogy. drugs affect the workings of the body, whether therapeutically, medicinally, perceptually, etc.  perhaps a more proper analogy would be that the thing in your car regulating emmissions, a pda, and a cray are all computers, despite their widelt differing applications and uses.  -- he  ah  18:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

To make a confusion even worse, there was a category "Pharmacological agents". Some medical drugs were attached to "pharmacological agents" and its subcategories, others to "drugs", without any system.
 * Yes, this needs to be worked out, as per the discussion above and centrx's comment below. -- he ah  18:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Such a system was almost useless. I did the obvious thing and divided "Drugs" to two subcategories, following the Be bold principle.

You write about ayahuasca, which is used both as a psychedelic and medicinally. If this is so, it is one of a small number of substances which belong to both categories. If it had been used medicinally in past but is not approved for medical use now, it belongs to "drug of abuse" only. Cocaine also had been used as a medicine.
 * This is why the category is inherently pov. if something is not approved for medicinal use by the fda, that makes it a drug of abuse?  what about st. john's wort?  what about places outside of the united states?  what about morphine?  -- he  ah  18:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the category name, I just used the name for main article. Before my editings, the category "Drugs" contained the following sentence:

Main article: drug

(Note that the word "drug" above leads to the article "drug of abuse"!)

This sentence stayed intact for almost 4 montes, which means that there is a consensus that this category should be called "Drugs of abuse".
 * No, it means nobody changed this after the drugs article was recently created, and again, "drugs of abuse" isn't even an article. -- he  ah  18:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

--Urod 08:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC) (slightly changed --Urod 08:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC))


 * Drug of abuse isn't even an article, it redirects to drug abuse, which is a very different thing than "drug of abuse"; the category was linked to that because there was no article for drug until fairly recently; drug served only as a disambig page. as you mention, such drugs as cocaine, as well as morphine and hydrocodone and many others, clearly fall into both categories.  the entire existence of this cat is inherently pov, and it messes up the umbrella cat system that existed until yesterday.  It is entirely unnecessary, as all we need is the psychoactive drugs cat to be under drugs to clearly dilineate different types of drugs in a non-pov, effectual fashion.  again, most of these articles shouldn't be in cat:drugs at all, because drugs is fairly high up on the heirarchy of categories, and their placement there is redundant.  -- he  ah  17:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Completely agreed, if you look above I brought this up 2 years ago, and didn't really follow up. Basically, all it needs is someone to do the work or to get a bot to fix the categorization on the many articles. —Centrx→talk &bull; 17:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, you're quick to point to Be Bold as your inspiration, without reading a notable exception contained within the policy. Urania3 18:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to point out that several places already exist with the express purpose of facilitating such discussion, such as WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants and WikiProject Drugs--which is oriented towards the non-"drugs of abuse" part of drug, yet clearly considers "drug" to cover not just antibiotics and etc. but also lsd and other drugs used recreationally/religiously/abusively/whatever. -- he  ah  18:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Pharmacological agents need to be moved here. —Centrx→talk &bull; 17:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * okay, so, i have some questions about that--are you suggesting that pharmacological agents replaces drug as the category? do psychoactives fall under the rubric of pharmocological agents?  (they are currently categorized as such.)  forgive me for not reading all of the above conversation, it is quite long, though i did skim it earlier . . .   -- he  ah  18:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, all drugs are pharmacologic agents. The 'pharmacologic agents' category was only created as a substitute for this one because this one was already taken by this peculiar use. 'Pharmacology' meaning that the thing produces a specific physiological response or is 'pharmacologically active', all drugs are pharmacological agents and that category was only created as a substitute for this one was already taken by this peculiar use. 'Pharmacology' can also be taken to be related to the branch of medical science about drugs, but in this still, cocaine, cannabis, etc. have all been used in medicine and have been or are under medical study. Any drug that is known about enough to be abused and put on Wikipedia falls under the branch of medical science. —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

''From the talk page of Category:Drugs of abuse, so that the discussions can be merged. Rbraunwa 17:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)''

I just noticed that we have drug reform personages listed in this category. That combined with the category name is definitely NPOV. In fact the category name alone is probably NPOV. To fix this, I propose renaming the category to something like "Illegal drugs". Rbraunwa 13:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing it to "illegal drugs" totally messes up the cat system, as Category:Drugs is an umbrella cat with all sorts of drugs underneath, not all of which are illegal. many are not controlled, many are available by perscription, and laws differ from country to country and state to state.  the subcats all need to go back into the drugs cat.  many (maybe all) of the articles listed herein shouldn't be in this cat anyways, as that is redundant with the subcategories they all already belong too.  see the discussion at the bottom of category:drugs as well.  -- he  ah  17:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting renaming Category:Drugs. I was suggesting renaming Category:Drugs of abuse. All of the drugs there are illegal for some uses. If they aren't, they are already in the wrong category. I'm not tied to the name "Illegal Drugs", but I am opposed to "Drugs of abuse" as POV. I am going to move these comments to category talk:drugs. Rbraunwa 17:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * heh, yeah, i understood you meant "drugs of abuse" should be changed to "illegal drugs"--i just thing the whole category should be eliminated rather than the name changed. -- he  ah  18:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is a little confusing to follow as it appears some comments are unsigned -- please sign your comments. Anyways, my $0.02 is to agree that a category named "Drugs of abuse" is POV, and breaks the NPOV policy. Almost every drug labeled as a "drug of abuse" is currently or was at one time used medicinally. Cocaine and heroin are still used medically (heroin not in the USA, but fentanyl, which is virtually identical in action, yet ten times more potent is used in its stead). Cannabis is still used medicinally in the USA as well as Canada and other countries. MDMA was used in psychotherapy until the 80s, and is currently being re-evaluated along with other psychedelics such as LSD and psilocybin. Ayahuasca, mescaline (peyote) and psilocybin mushrooms are still very much used by indigenous peoples for religious/spiritual purposes, some of which are officially recognized by the United States government. PCP was originally marketed as an anesthetic by Parke-Davis in the 1950's. Ketamine is still used as a veterinary anesthetic. LSD enjoyed about twenty years of official use in research. Amphetamines are still legally prescribed for narcolepsy, ADHD and obesity. There are exceedingly few "drugs of abuse" which have not been used in medicine to some degree, and most of the ones which have no history of medical use are based on existing drugs which were (hence the creation of the Federal Analog Act). The "war on (some) drugs" is entirely political, and has no place making an influence here. We can document its point of view, but we will not allow its point of view to corrupt the content of Wikipedia. --Thoric 19:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Almost every drug labeled as a "drug of abuse" is currently or was at one time used medicinally. If it was used medicinally in past but not now, it does not belong to Category:Pharmacologic agents.

''Cocaine and heroin are still used medically (heroin not in the USA, but fentanyl, which is virtually identical in action, yet ten times more potent is used in its stead). Cannabis is still used medicinally in the USA as well as Canada and other countries.'' Then they belong to both categories.

MDMA was used in psychotherapy until the 80s, and is currently being re-evaluated along with other psychedelics such as LSD and psilocybin. As long as they are not approved yet (or already), they don't belong to the Category:Pharmacologic agents.

Ayahuasca, mescaline (peyote) and psilocybin mushrooms are still very much used by indigenous peoples for religious/spiritual purposes, some of which are officially recognized by the United States government. Usage in relogious/spiritual rituals is not a medical usage.

PCP was originally marketed as an anesthetic by Parke-Davis in the 1950's. This was a grave mistake (or an attempt of corporations to profit on dangerous "drug"). Anyways, if PCP is not approved as a medical drug now, it does not belong to the category Category:Pharmacologic agents.

Ketamine is still used as a veterinary anesthetic. This is not a medicinal usage.
 * Actually it is still used in humans as an anesthetic in hospitals.

''LSD enjoyed about twenty years of official use in research. '' This is not a medicinal usage.

Amphetamines are still legally prescribed for narcolepsy, ADHD and obesity. Then they belong to both categories.

There are exceedingly few "drugs of abuse" which have not been used in medicine to some degree, and most of the ones which have no history of medical use are based on existing drugs which were (hence the creation of the Federal Analog Act). If they were used only in past, they belong only to the Category:Drugs of abuse.

''The "war on (some) drugs" is entirely political, and has no place making an influence here. '' This is what organized crime wants you to believe. War on drugs saved thousands, if not millions of people, from drug addiction and probable death in several years.

We can document its point of view, but we will not allow its point of view to corrupt the content of Wikipedia. Wikipedia should represent scientific point of view. Currently, there is a consensus (in a scientific community) that some substances are useful to cure/treat diseases, for other substances there is no such consensus. Thats why they don't belong to the same category.

You may rename Category:Drugs of abuse to Category:Recreational and psychedelic drugs or something, but I strongly believe that drugs which are approved by FDA or similar bodies in other countries should have separate category.

--Urod 08:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


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


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