Talk:Responsible Drug User's Oath

Is "war on drugs" still a thing?
thumb|right|preserving the history

It seems like the deletion debate was back in 2004.

Now the sentiment towards using drugs is changing.

I'm always advocating the following factors:
 * research
 * data
 * science
 * education
 * rationality

On the other hand, I don't really like the B.S. and media propaganda of the 1960s. War in Vietnam in full swing, peaceful movements getting out of control:
 * make love not war
 * drop acid not bombs

The economic incentives of private prison system combined with "war on drugs" and no such thing as internet to share the knowledge, suppressed scientific research and here we are in 2018...

— Stefek99 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Please dont VfD this, I'm planning on adding more about the origins and popularity, etc DryGrain 03:40, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Origin
It seems to have originated at Everything2 in 2001 -- Cyrius|&#9998 10:52, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

ah, thx for pointing this out

Deletion debate
This was a tough one--close but not quite a consensus to delete, IMHO. Removed the VfD notice. Perhaps it could be more NPOV, since the subject itself is debatable, including the title. Maybe "Drug use debate - Responsible Drug User's Oath" (?) or something. If it can't be worked out, I'm sure someone will post VfD again. The debate is below. -- Cecropia 03:02, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Non-famous, and probably self-promotion: 2 Google hits, one of which is to the cited bulletin board.
 * Keep. It isnt on Google because it has been previously sent around as email. And even if the text itself isnt famous, the attitudes it represents surely are shared by many members of the online community. DryGrain 09:17, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. I glanced at this article and see nothing wrong with it.  As well, I think Google hits are an irrelevant popularity meter of subject material if the material is, as in this case, of worth. --ShaunMacPherson 10:25, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Danny 10:28, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. SweetLittleFluffyThing 11:29, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I am completely at a loss as to why anybody would want to keep this. It's not an article, it's source text, it's non-famous.  Why would you want to keep it?  Delete.  RickK 14:49, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, albeit with rolling eyes. Cribcage 15:04, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete as self-promotion. - Lucky 6.9 15:56, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Why is this self-promotion Jungboho
 * Comment: Because the person who "invented" this thing is the same person who posted it here in the first place.  Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but your user page gives every indication that you're what's referred to as a "sock puppet." - Lucky 6.9 20:31, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: You're forgiven, Lucky. Jungboho is a friend of mine from IRC. And one more thing you're wrong about: I didn't write this text. If you read the article before jumping to your anti-drug propaganda based conclusions, you'd know that. DryGrain 03:17, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Title is itself a POV promotion of recreational drug use, a very hot topic. If it became famous then we'd be forced to keep it just the same, but let's not promote it ourselves until then, regardless of what we think of the issues. Andrewa 16:40, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: source text, not notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:58, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Like Wile said. And zero hits for "When taking a drug I am inexperienced with" or "I will understand the effects of all recreational drugs I take prior to ingestion". I have no problems with the concept or subject, but this doesn't seem encyclopedic. Niteowlneils 18:19, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Source text, possibly obscure. Andris 19:40, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: User DryGrain takes credit on his talk page for creating this article in the first place. - Lucky 6.9 21:35, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: So? DryGrain 20:31, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Counter-comment: I'd be glad to tell you.  It's a highly biased POV with no apparent history that glorifies and even attempts to justify a dangerous and potentially lethal lifestyle.  I'm against censorship, but with freedom of speech comes an awesome responsibility.  - Lucky 6.9 21:33, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but please will someone add more context/history and may be move the original text to wikisource Lady Tenar 23:40, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: There isn't any history.  This POV ramble is all of twenty-four hours old.  I strongly disagree with the topic - I find it highly irresponsible to put it politely - but that's not all that I'm concerned with.  This doesn't exist outside of Wikipedia, and may I be so bold as to say we would be doing a serious disservice to the world in general by using this site as a springboard for promoting this type of behavior.  Please, please delete.  Speedily, if possible. - Lucky 6.9 00:06, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete and move to wikisource. Falcon 00:07, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article needed work, and I de-POVed it. I think it's a valid entry (though I admit I had never seen the RDUO before now, being not an illegal drug user). If no one can substantiate the existence of the RDUO (outside of this page), rename to something more general (perhaps Recreational drugs and responsibility) and demote the significance of the RDUO to a mere mention. Mike Church 03:54, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: It now reads in part While some believe that recreational drug use is an inherently irresponsible action (in that drug use is fraught with danger, and is illegal in many societies) and therefore can never be done "responsibly", most would disagree with this assertion. To me that's still POV. Most of whom? Who says? Even if these opinions were sourced, the title still presupposes that there's such a thing as responsible recreational drug use. So do we really want an article by this name? I can see that some do, and I think I can see why, too. Andrewa 10:17, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Counter-comment: Consider marijuana. It's not free of physiological and psychological danger, but neither, by far, is alcohol. The only major aspect of the drug that makes moderate marijuana use arguably less responsible than moderate alcohol use is that it's illegal. (I have never used the drug, for this reason.) Nonetheless, we often see pamphlets (at least on college campuses) on "Responsible Alcohol Use". If no recreational drug use can ever be responsible, then clearly alcohol can neither, ever, be responsible. This is not an invalid viewpoint. However, most Americans drink and would therefore agree that "responsible alcohol use" is not inherently self-contradictory. Mike Church 21:10, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Counter-counter-comment-comment: In other words, this article title supports your POV. The prosecution rests. I'd similarly oppose an article called Responsible use of alcohol, just BTW, although I drink, on the grounds that my POV isn't an NPOV on this. Andrewa 00:41, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * But to say a document called "Responsible Drug User's Oath" exists and including an article which features its existence doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as saying drug use can be responsible. If someone writes a newspaper editorial called "Junior is a Great President, and Quite Sexy", I can acknowledge that the column exists, even write the words to refer to it (like I just did) but that doesn't necessarily imply agreement. (I loathe Shrub, and he's not sexy.) Mike Church 05:10, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. It would be extraordinarily difficult to make an article like this NPOV, and it's source text anyway. Lord Bob 17:44, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I disagree. It includes the source text in the article, but the article itself is not merely the text. And Mike Church did an excellent job of making it NPOV. DryGrain 20:31, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-famous. Radicalsubversiv 21:18, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't exist outside of Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is not a campus bulletin board.  Jgm 21:37, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Postdlf 5:24 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete it. It may reflect common attitudes among recreational drug users, but not with that weird source text and apocryphal origin. Pteron 06:07, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delet Title is an oxymoron, drug usuers are not responsible. ping 08:09, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep in a reasonable form if there are any other sources to back it up. It is not up to us to declare what is and isn't responsible, so it is a valid point of view (and should be defined as such).  NPOV means representing all sides fairly.Mat-C 18:12, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete and replace. I don't think this particular oath is important enough to warrant its own article.  However, the ideas it espouses are certainly worthy of mention in a new article on, say, responsible drug use. Psychonaut 23:38, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can we reach a compromise on this by moving the actual source text of the oath to Wikisource, keeping the article with a link to the oath, and creating a Responsible drug use article to better express the attitude of the oath? DryGrain 04:05, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * As long as it is completely NPOV and of any length and content, yes. But have fun trying to write an article on it.  Falcon 04:45, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I didn't realize that irrational stereotypes of drug users and drug use were so prevalent here. Nohat 19:14, 2004 Apr 24 (UTC)
 * Comment: How do you define "irrational?"  Society-at-large frowns upon illegal drug use.  Every country in the world has laws prohibiting their use, importation and distribution.  If that means "irrational" is defined as someone who doesn't share your viewpoint, may I say with all due respect that I seriously question your eyesight. - Lucky 6.9 20:31, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I define irrational as not based on reason. There are many viewpoints that I don't hold but which I would characterize as rational, such as some arguments for vegetarianism. Alcohol has been scientifically proven to be a more harmful drug, both to the user as well as to society overall, than marijuana, but yet alcohol is legal in most countries and marijuana is not. That is irrational. Frowing upon marijuana use but not frowning upon alcohol use is irrational. Buying into the drug-war propaganda that all drug users are bad and irresponsible is an irrational stereotype. Nohat 20:48, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC)
 * You're correct. I'm certain that I could find a ton of subjects here that I don't agree with, as can we all.  However, please keep in mind this article started out as one person's opinion and not a plank on some existing pro-drug platform.  If it was pre-existing and if it was presented in the point of view of an encyclopedia, I'd vote to keep it despite my personal beliefs.  Your argument about alcohol versus marijuana is a valid one, but it comes back to a single, undeniable fact:  One is legal and socially acceptable and one is not.  Can you honestly say that you support the burden on society that would happen if recreational drug use were suddenly made legal?  And, can you honestly cite a single positive stereotype regarding drug use?  Let me put this succinctly:  This is an opinion, and Wikipedia is not a forum for untried and untested opinion. - Lucky 6.9 02:48, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * It WAS pre-existing, I cited references to it in the article. Legal and social acceptance has nothing to do with the place of an article in the Wikipedia, see vampire lifestyle, pedophilia, and transsexuality if you don't believe me. And I'd like you to honestly show me what 'burden' society would face if drug use were made legal? Why don't we turn to some statistics and look at the crime rate in Holland? Incedentally, Holland has much less oppressive drug laws and somehow an incredibly lower crime rate. And while I can think of many positive stereotypes involving drug use, I'm not going to quote them. Stereotypes should not be used as a factual basis for anything. Surely, Wikipedia is not a forum for untried or untested opinion, but this opinion is one that has been around for many, many years. DryGrain 03:17, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you for not taking a personal pot shot. I appreciate participating in intellectual debate without resorting to ad hominem attacks.  It's certainly more refreshing than having a debate with people I agree with!  :^)  Seriously, it's true that I don't agree with your POV on the subject and I shudder to think that a young and impressionable person would use this as rationalization to try illegal drugs for the first time.  My initial objection stems from the fact that the oath isn't famous, or even moderately well-known, and that Wikipedia isn't a springboard for original research or ideas.  While I appreciate your attempt to present a responsible POV, this does not, IMO, meet the criteria for inclusion as an encyclopedia article.  It's better than it was, but I feel it still lacks NPOV and it may be near impossible to make it so. - Lucky 6.9 04:11, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Apocryphal document: you could try having an article on responsible drug use (can it exist, etc?), but not one on the so-called RDUO. -- The Anome 14:01, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Unless someone can demonstrate that this "oath" exists outside Wikipedia and is significant, it should be deleted. Isomorphic 03:11, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with The Anome. Maximus Rex 03:18, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * If kept, combination approach- move some content to something like responsible drug use, transwiki main portion to Wikisource, make the page as is a redirect to responsible drug use, and mention it there. - Fennec 03:28, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete for nonfamousness. Tuf-Kat 04:52, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - talk about rationalizing your addiction - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 15:25, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I meant by "irrational stereotypes of drug use"---i.e. that all drug use constitutes addiction. Nohat 16:06, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC) (No offense, Texture, I just am using you to illustrate a point. :-) Nohat 16:15, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is awesome. The more people that hear this the better. Helps to clarify what it means to be a responsible drug user. I have learned something from this, and seems popular enough to be kept. Jeshii 01:57, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Complete Text?
Should the complete text of the oath be here? I think maybe it belongs in Wikisource if it is indeed public domain. Kit 23:13:26, 2005-08-25 (UTC)