Talk:Responsible drug use

I
I realize that many people can't wait to VfD this. I'm asking you to please discuss your reasons here on the talk page first. DryGrain 08:29, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, this version seems much better than the Oath page. I'm still VfDing your other SoBe pages, though.DS 22:01, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Controversy Issues
The first two sentences in the controversy section, those that discuss addiction, made pretty bold claims (e.g. that moderate use of certain drugs would precipitate addiction). I changed the wording to make it clear that these are opinions, rather than facts, and also added citation needed, as well as clarification needed, markers. If we are to claim that (some argue that) certain drugs are addictive, we need to clarify which ones, and there needs to be evidence given for the assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:9D80:36C:2D25:C4FE:AC1B:2E4F (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Oath?
Is the oath a joke? Are you kidding? That content does not belong in here. It does not adhere to any Wikipedia rule: it seems to be original research, and has no sources. It can be easily seen the bias toward drug use the person who wrote it has... perhaps who added thta section was under the influence at the time of editing. That section will be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JBGM (talk • contribs) 14:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * After reading other user's comments, it seems many editors agree that "the oath" does not belong in here. The entire article is questionable. Since nobody has deleted "the oath", I'll do it now. Whoever wants to preserve it better come up with a very good argument. --JBGM (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

addenda
I like this page also much better than the "oath". The latter is not encyclopedic, IMO. This one is.

According to my personal set of rules I am using successfully since about 18 years by now, I am missing the following statements for responsible drug use: - Not taking any irreversible (or just important) decisions while not sober (editorial: best to be put after "Not driving, ..."; in fact, that point is a special case of this one, since those actions can lead to irreversible outcomes) - Not taking drugs daily; and even exceptionally (which means less than twice a year) not for more than 3 days in succession, especially not one and the same substance at the same time of day and/or in a similar context. After such an exceptional excessive event give the body at least 2 weeks time to detoxify. (For many people a simple rule for this one is just: "Don't use drugs on weekdays.") - Not taking drugs for the purposes of improving a depressed mood, calming aggression, nervousness, or anxiety, or overcome sleep disturbances. All these conditions should be considered medical and treated professionally by a doctor. (Self-improvised "treatment" using recreational drugs will only worsen the condition in the long run.) (outside edit:these ideas are at the very least controversial sometimes this is a persons only option) - Not taking drugs just because others do. - Be attentive to symptoms of addictionality: if your craving for some drug (can be also non-chemical, such as computer games, sex etc.) is increasing while your satisfaction from it's use is decreasing, stop using it immediately for at least 1-2 months! After that, be extremely careful!

Last but not least I'd like to give my two cents to the arguments of those opposing any possibility of responsible drug use in general: I am fine with this position, IF those don't drive (not only motorcycles, but also cars), don't smoke, don't drink alcoholic beverages, don't overeat or eat unhealthy (no sweets etc.), don't do any sports more dangerous than running in the woods, don't engage in any risky sexual behaviour, and most importantly, don't hurt others by any means. I admire everyone who meets these criteria! I don't. However, experience shows that these people usually are not the ones denying the freedom of others to use their drugs of choice. Usually the opponents live either a risky life by themselves and just underestimate their own risk-taking while overestimating the risk-taking of others. Or they are the ones chronically "improving" others in any case out of a deep conviction to be the best human being which ever lived on earth. Both types of people shall stay away from me as far as possible!

--DA 07:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That didn't look like much of an agenda... here's one though:
 * break this page up into sections... i.e. defining reponsible drug use, drug use versus drug abuse, separating reasonable goals from ideal goals
 * more distinction from the drug user's oath page... this looks like a re-write of it --Thoric 22:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is a nit-picking point, but when you're saying that "The philosophy of responsible drug use—which applies to alcohol, tobacco, and medical products as much as to any other drugs—asserts that to use drugs responsibly one must adhere to the following principles:" "Not making irreversible or otherwise important decisions while under the influence"

Are you seriously saying that no one should make any important decisions while under the influence of medical drugs?

Merging seems needed
Yes, merging the 2 seems useful, to get the best of both versions, for instance. Korky Day 07:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Done, SqueakBox 16:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit
I have added a bit about the deaths caused through the cocaine trade, which some call irresponsible drug use by the users and others blame on governmebnts for making cocaine illegal and thus highly profitable to the criminal mind. The Times reckon 3,000 deaths a year are caused inm this trade (though they appeared to be referring exclusively to Colombia) whereas the number of deaths in the Americas alone I would put as at leastn 10 times that, ie 100 a day. I have removed the bit about not making impoprtant decisions while under the influence as being hopelessly inaccurate. One could argue, especially with cannabis, that one should consume it before making an important decision, assuming one has substantial experience of the drug, SqueakBox 16:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticisim as first section?
Dose it strike anyone else as inapropriate that the first section is on the criticisms of the subj. or am I just looney? AP 01:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Duplicated content
The contents of the "Criticisms" section and the "Recreational drug use: can it be responsible?" sub-section from the "The Responsible Drug User's Oath" section are almost the same, and it looks like one is just a re-worded version of the other. I believe the "Recreational drug use: can it be responsible?" sub-section should be removed, since it's just re-stating what was mentioned before. 66.60.1.153 04:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Does this belong on wikipedia?
First of all, let me emphasis what I do not explicitly agree or disagree with the content of the article. My objection to this article has nothing to do with the morality of drug use. My problem with the article is that it doesn't seem to deserve its own article. The article seems to semi-imply that this is some sort of movement as opposed to just some random opinions put up on everything2. At the very least add some more references that backs up this as being notable enough to deserve its own article. If this cannot be done, the article content should in my personal opinion be merged with an article on drug use. That having been said, I'm not going to VfD it but would agree with such a vote if it became an issue under the current circumstances. Debolaz 16:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * An article on responsible drug use certainly belongs on WP. About half the drug-users I know (to any significant extent) adhere to such a philosophy, while the other half does not. There is a significant difference between the two in terms of how their lives have turned out. Citing the Everything2 node is relevant, but there should be other references added as well. Harm reduction is a well known approach, and responsible drug use is kind of orthogonal to that, which is why it deserves its own article. Zuiram 04:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please realize that Wikipedia isn't some place where people can write whatever comes to mind. It has to have notability, and satisfy other requirements clearly documented in Wikipedia policies. Some random essay on how to be a responsible drug user simply isn't what Wikipedia is intended for. Debolaz 13:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Responsible Drug Use most definitely deserves its own page on WP. Currently there is a major project called The North American Opiate Medication Initiative, which has set up test sites in three other countries, along with Canada. Their basic premise is that true harm reduction is actually giving people the real thing: pure heroin. This is very much in line with responsible drug use. In fact, I live directly above the Canadian testing site and know a lot about it. When I have a bit more time I would like to add the NAOMI Project's findings to date on this page and list its' main objectives, one of which is to challenge the notion that giving people the actual drug is somehow going to ruin their lives or that it is an IRRESPONSIBLE act. OneWomanArmy923 19:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is, as the original poster pointed out, not really about any tangible or documented movement, but rather something that someone has dreamt up, probably whilst (responsibly) using a wide variety of psychotropic substances. Some bits should be merged with harm reduction (if it aint there already...), the rest should be deleted.  Quite simply, it is a nonsense article, written by people who know very little about "responsible drug use" or how to promote it... 82.19.66.37 13:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Although I am in favor of harm reduction and believe that drug use can be made relatively safe (although most people won't care, but that's another story), this topic doesn't deserve its own article. Some content can be merged into Harm Reduction, and maybe into Recreational Drug Use, but most should be deleted.208.102.122.87 (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense assertions
"Measuring accurate dosages and taking other precautions to reduce the risk of overdose" OK, as a general rule, this is virturally impossible to do. Unless you are buying pharaceutical drugs, there will be no effective way to "measure accurate doses". Street drugs are not quality controlled, they are mixed in a backstreet chemist. One pill, or one gram, may be significantly stronger than another pill or gram coming from the exact same batch. And this assumes that you have the equipment to accurately test the drugs (which you probably don't). To imply that the above possible is wishful thinking...

"Taking the time to chemically test all drugs being consumed to determine purity and strength" Again, there is no accurate way to chemically test most drugs. even the police have to send drugs to their forensic services to be tested.

Both these comments should be taken out now. Along with 90% of the rest of this ridiculous article....82.19.66.37 13:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There are many precautions you can take while using a substance, illegal or not. Your premise that even pharmaceutical drugs are somehow 'safe' because they've been tested still does not account for error. Even amongst pharmaceuticals there are deviations in quality as well as other variables such as shelf life, tampering etc. There is no absolute way regardless of what you're doing that doesn't involve some risk. We're talking about responsibility. Every consumer has to take at least some measure of responsiblity when taking ANY substance, whether it's from the street or from a pharmacy pill bottle. There is one factor common to all : human error. To scrap an article based on this seems a bit rigid.--OneWomanArmy923 20:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[[Image:Flag_of_Canada.svg|20px]]


 * People die from heroin overdoses because they fail tot ake basic precautions, like testing the quality by consuming a little bit instead ogf going for the high and consuming a large amount without knowing how strong it is. The addictiver nature of the drug greatly exacerbates this problem, SqueakBox 20:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Now, these are quite different arguments. Harm reduction is all well and good, but to imply that one can be "safe" by abiding to the "responsible drug users oath" is ridiculous.  This is not consistent with a good harm reduction philosophy, it is consistent with someone making something up that they like the sound of and putting it in an encyclopedia because they can.  The only harm reduction message that should be sent out about street drugs is that they are not quality controlled.  Yes, take a small dose first, but don't kid yourself that you are "measuring an accurate dossage", because you are not.  Stating that pharmaceutical drugs are not 100% safe (probably closer to 99.9%) does not discount the fact that street drugs are extremely unsafe.  This article is irresponsible and what little good content there is in it should be merged with Harm reduction.  82.0.206.215 (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody can be safe 100% of the time. I'm not talking about sticking to an oath. I'm talking about simple responsibility when using substances that just don't happen to be legal. Remove the value judgements for a moment. There are opiates on both sides: legal and illegal. Doesn't make one better or worse than any other. Yes, the opiates you get in hospital are quality tested but the fact remains that even opiates that get to the street are indeed tested, not in the way we may imagine or not even in a way to make 'some' of us secure that the quality is assured. But this defeats the purpose of what we're discussing here. It's not whether you believe in some code or use a value judgement based on what is currently legal and what isn't. It's whether or not this subject deserves attention and I'd have to say that it does based on the incredible amount of research being done today in regards to illicit drugs, namely opiates and harm reduction, which is a viable theoretical base from which to look at this issue. Not only that but opiates were widely available OTC re: laudanum and even today in Canada you can buy OTC codeine. As with anything, you can be irresponsible with ANY drug, irregardless of what side of legal it's on. --OneWomanArmy923 20:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[[Image:Flag_of_Canada.svg|20px]]


 * The stigma seems to be clouding people's judgment here. Measuring drugs can or can not be possible depending on the drug and, when not easily measurable, on the local legal status. As far as testing them goes, I know this country (Netherlands) has government-subsidized labs that test any drugs submitted and send you back a report (without an arrest warrant :P). If you are not educated on these subjects are you really in the position to scrutinize the validity of an article on responsible drug use or is this criticism just confirming the need for this information to be available, what do you honestly think? 62.223.3.249 (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"The Oath"
I don't see how this oath (in its entirity no less) belongs on Wikipedia. The section should be deleted. Drcwright 02:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Really, this whole article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Debolaz 14:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm n full agreement actually. If anything, it can be one sentence in the recreational drug use article. Drcwright 00:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My Edit Summary
I meant 'not objective or concrete anyway' Munci (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion closed as keep
But with good references, this article can serve as the {main} article for the drug part of Harm reduction as per WP:SS. This kind of thing was bound to happen anyway. Very many "merge" debates are found to be premature "spin off" debates. S B Harris 02:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Move article? Change opening sentence?
The article appears not to cover, for example, such drug use as self-medication with aspirin and use of professionally prescribed dihydrocodeine (a class B controlled drug in the UK) Is this sort of drug use irresponsible? Seems to me the article should be at Responsible illegal drug use Laurel Bush (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, which sounds oxymoronic. It could also be merged with Harm reduction as brought up in the AfD discussion. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 17:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The article title matches the established terminology. If disambiguation is necessary, this can be done in the standard Wikipedia convention -- Responsible drug use (recreational) and Responsible drug use (medication). I would not recommend Responsible drug use (illegal) as this article is not exclusive of legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, and this article is also inclusive of "responsible use" of legal medications used in an unapproved (yet "responsible") recreational manner. --Thoric (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

To my mind the article is clearly about, or trying to be about, illegal recreational use of drugs which belong, in legal terms, to two distinct categories: (1) drugs for which recreational use is prohibited; and (2) drugs for which recreational use may be legal or illegal, depending on circumstances The article does seem, however, to confuse legality with social and professional medical approval Maybe it should be at Responsible recreational drug use The problem we seem to have is that current laws about drugs are themselves so irrational that it is very difficult to find meaningful consistent terminology on the subject, and to get Wikipedia drug-related articles interlinking in any useful meaningful way Laurel Bush (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You liked use illegal drugs, or illegally use legal drugs? You would want illegal drug or ''illegal drug?

This looks to me to be a better way of introducing the subject:
 * Responsible recreational drug use is defined in different ways by different authorities. For some it excludes all illegal drug use, but the term (often in the shorter form responsible drug use) is used in the context of harm reduction strategies with respect to recreational use of both prohibited drugs and other drugs.

Laurel Bush (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I support a move to Responsible recreational drug use. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It should not be moved to responsible recreational drug use, because the term, "responsible drug use" is already well established terminology within the harm reduction community. It is not our job as Wikipedians to establish new terminology.  The established Wikipedia convention for removing ambiguity is a parenthesized suffix, which is why I suggested Responsible drug use (recreational) if any move is to be involved.  --Thoric (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Thoric's proposal. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 21:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I support Thoric's proposal too. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

OK I will go with Responsible drug use (recreational) Wikipedia is more than a platform for the "harm reduction community", and therefore I feel we need an article title which distinguishes that commmunity's sense of the meaning of the term from that of obvious possible other senses Laurel Bush (talk) 10:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Another point to consider in this context, however: What of claims by some users of illegal cannabis that their use is self-medicational, for example, for treatment of MS? Is this seemingly non recreational drug use something which might fit within harm-reduction-community definitions of responsible drug use? And how does this look as a new intro to the article:
 * Responsible drug use is defined in different ways by different authorities. For some it excludes all illegal drug use, but the term is used in the context of harm reduction strategies with respect to recreational use of both prohibited drugs and other drugs.

Laurel Bush (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I really preferred the article the way it was before your recent edits, Laurel. What was wrong with "illegal drugs"? And it now drags on in a long parenthetical statement about alcohol right in the middle of the definitional sentence. It seemed much clearer before your change. There are problems with the term "controlled drug" as well. It has always carried the connotation of...well...control. I'm sceptical about the claim that prohibition actually controls drugs, when I consider the contamination, variable strength of dose, and widespread availability of illegal drugs, even to the point where young people claim it's harder for them to obtain alcohol than marijuana. That all sounds like the opposite of "controlled". The term "prohibited psychoactive drug" is probably the most accurate and neutral, but "illegal drug" is common and widely understood, it seems to me. What was your reasoning behind the change?


 * Misha Vargas (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You liked use illegal drugs, or illegally use legal drugs? And you would want illegal drug or ''illegal drug? There seems to be no drug which is necessarily illegal in all circumstances, but drug prohibition/control laws do seem to create a class of drugs for which, at present, recreational use can not be legal If you use a controlled drug for recreational purposes you might well be illegally using an otherwise legal drug I would now tend to prefer prohibited drug, in the context of this article, over controlled drug which is perhaps a drug which would be prohibited except it is used under licence (for example, dihydrocodeine, class B in the UK, prescribed for pain relief) If you do not like the effects of a law, it is perhaps a good idea to use terminology which says what the law actually is, rather than a rather vague reference like illegal drug Laurel Bush (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Laurel, I think you're a little off the mark here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- which is essentially a resource to look up a specific topic to understand it better.  Each topic should essentially be a report, not an opinion.  It can contain the referenced opinions of others (typically published experts on the topic), but we are prohibited from using our own opinion (or terminology).  While Wikipedia is not a platform for certain interest groups, it still has a responsibility to properly and adequately describe their platform from a neutral point of view -- i.e. neither criticizing nor condoning, but certainly free to cite published references to the criticizations or praises.  I'm sure you know this already... I'm just reminding you ;)  Anyways, my point is that the term, "responsible drug use" was created by the harm reduction community many years ago, and already has a well defined meaning.  We are prohibited from making up our own definitions, and also from renaming the terms to suit our own tastes.  This is the very reason that we have a drug abuse article instead of an article named something like "unhealthy use of recreational drugs".  --Thoric (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps my criticism was biased. I'll drop my terminology complaint. I do still think that the previous version of the article, while less accurate, was simpler to understand. It's a tricky little sentence, though. Looking at all versions and suggestions, the very best opening sentence I came up with was this:


 * "Responsible drug use is a harm reduction strategy which argues that people can engage in illegal recreational use of drugs with reduced or eliminated risk of negatively affecting other parts of their lives or the lives of others."


 * I think that has the same meaning that the article had a week ago, and does away with having to define which drugs and drug laws the article is talking about, as it's anything that falls under "illegal recreational use".


 * What is your opinion?


 * Misha Vargas (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It sounds good to me, although it should be noted that responsible drug use includes responsible use of alcohol and tobacco, therefore it is not limited to "illegal recreational use". Simply put, abuse of alcohol and tobacco currently (and historically) cause far more harm overall to society than the abuse of any other substance (government statistics on deaths, disease and injury directly related to alcohol and tobacco support this), and thus it only makes sense to include responsible use of alcohol and tobacco in any harm reduction strategy.  --Thoric (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Thoric, for the opinion about what should be included in a harm reduction strategy re recreational drug use The point for us is that those who pursue such strategies do seem to include recreational alcohol and tobacco use, which is not necessarily illegal And the following still makes sense to me as an intro, putting the article's use of responsible drug use within the context of a particular community's opinion (the harm reduction community), and making clear that it is about recreational use of both prohibited and other drugs:
 * Responsible drug use is defined in different ways by different authorities. For some it excludes all illegal drug use, but the term is used in the context of harm reduction strategies with respect to recreational use of both prohibited drugs and other drugs.

Laurel Bush (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think you don't quite understand. The term, "responsible drug use" was created by the harm reduction community, and therefore cannot really be redefined by other authorities.  We can say for example, that the DEA does not believe in responsible drug use, and we can also say that law enforcement believes that responsible drug use should not include illegal drugs, but we should not say that these authorities define the term in some different way such as to change the meaning established by its creators.  We could possibly say that the term holds different meaning for different people, but the basic fact is that the term, "responsible drug use", most certainly does not refer to carefully following the instructions on your medication bottle, regardless if that is the first thing that comes to the mind of the average person.  --Thoric (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for the "harm reduction" community If "reponsible drug use" as used by that community is to be an article title, then it should be clear in the intro that the community's sense of the expression's meaning is not necessarily that of others Also, it is not clear to me anyway that the sense of the term used in the article really originates in a harm reduction community I am not sure its origin is not more in a movement seeking to abolish drug prohibition laws Laurel Bush (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC).


 * Wikipedia is also not a platform for the harm exacerbation community. This means that it is up to Wikipedia to prevent POV from being introduced into articles, which is why NPOV is a cornerstone of Wikipedia.  The meaning of "responsible drug use" within the context of the responsible drug use article should not be skewed or obscured by opposing points of view.
 * Opposing points of views can be added to the article, but should not alter the original definition. If you can find publications that cite the origin of the term, "responsible drug use", to be attributed to an anti-drug law movement, then you are completely free to add that information to the article.
 * If you look at the references of this article, you will find that it attributes the concept and term to Dr. David F. Duncan, a harm reduction pioneer who co-authored a book entitled, "Drugs and the Whole Person", published in 1982, where in chapter 18, there is a section on "Responsible Use of Psychoactive Drugs", where it describes "safe and responsible drug use". --Thoric (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)  (btw, I suggest you read Writing_for_the_enemy)

I wonder what readers here (this page) might make of my changes to the intro of/to "Self medication" They seem to be unchallenged, although they may be seen as out of kilter with the rest of the article, the latter perhaps about self medication as a psychiatric quasi diagnosis Laurel Bush (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with the changes you made to the Self-medication article. Alcohol is a drug, so I agree it is more correct to say, "drugs including alcohol", than it is to say, "drugs and alcohol".  It is also certainly illegal to self-medicate with controlled drugs for which you do not have a prescription, so I don't see any objection in making that point clear, as while some people might not think it's a big deal to let a friend or family member try one (or a few) of their pills to see if it helps their condition, they may not be aware of how serious an offense it is if they were caught and charged.  An example might be someone with chronic pain offering a Percocet tablet to someone with an acute pain attack for which an aspirin (or acetaminophen) will do little for.  While there may be a thousand reasons why this is a bad idea, I am certain that it happens all the time.  --Thoric (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe what I have recently done to Prescription drug is an example of writing for the enemy, except I am not sure I have or want any real enemy Laurel Bush (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

My thinking now is that the article would be better placed under Responsible self-prescribed drug use I am sure many people suppose that responsible use is use within the law and in accordance with professional medical advice, but the article seems to ignore drug use prescribed by medical professionals, as if somehow this does not exist, or is necessarily and patently not responsible, or is not really drug use  Laurel Bush (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Asserting personal views
"however, drug testing should not be necessary if this is so, as a user's work performance would be observably deficient, and be grounds in itself for dismissal."

I believe that this statement and a few other in this article are not fit for an encyclopedia due to an obvious personal bias. Although I do think we should try and repair this article rather than delete it as this information should be easily available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avocadobride (talk • contribs) 10:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Drugs definition
Somebody seems to have the idea this article is about drugs commonly banned in the west but drugs include tobacco, caffeine and alcohol, and the latter has a notorious history of irresponsible use. I am trying to fix the article so it reflects its title, the other option would be to move it to something like Responsible drug use of commonly banned drugs or Responsible drug use of commonly controlled drugs♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Responsible illegal drug use I think is what is wanted. Everybody's for responsible use of legal drugs, but that's not really what this article is about. The topic is more controversial than picking a designated driver or knowing your BAC after three Bud Lites. Yes, some drugs are legal in some places but illegal in others, but again, responsible use of them in places where they are legal is covered elsewhere. We want to know about the debate on responsible use of drugs in cases and places where they are NOT legal. This article is about (or was first intended to be about) those people who claim that it is possible to responsibly use illegal drugs, which is something that other people claim is intrinsically impossible, inasmuch as illegal use of drugs must be intrinsically irresponsible. The crux of the matter is whether or not all illegal behavior is ipso facto irresponsible behavior. It is not WP's place to judge that, but there exist plenty of WP:RS and WP:V sources for both major views in that debate, especially as regards drugs, which may be used in many nonviolent ways, and where it is possible to argue that the nature of reality is that adults may do many private things responsibly, without permission from anybody. Hence, the need for an WP:NPOV article on the subject. S  B Harris 22:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am happy to go with your title, I suggest moving the article tomorrow assuming nobody else comes along with a strong objection♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The point of the article is not whether all illegal behavior is irresponsible, but instead the description of the harm reduction principal of taking a responsible approach to substance use regardless of legality. We all know that some people are going to use certain substances recreationally, and it is difficult to put a stop to that for many reasons.  What can be done without too much resistance, is to promote responsible use, regardless of the legality of the substance involved. --Thoric (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Missed the rename
Hey, I noticed this article got renamed last year (haven't been watching too closely) to "responsible illegal drug use" (~4.5K google hits). No real consensus was reached since the discussions in 2009. The proper terminology is "responsible drug use" (32K+ google hits) as existing in reference literature. If we need to for some reason put an emphasis on the legality of the drugs involved, then we should follow the wikipedia convention of "Responsible drug use (illegal)", although a more correct term would be "responsible substance use" (21K google hits). --Thoric (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Importance of responsible drug use

 * Would you rather use an unknown substance or keep it safe?
 * Would you rather drug cartels benefit or some extra income from taxes?
 * Would you rather...

I'm not qualified enough to talk about Drug policy reform, I actually recommend resources from: https://www.tdpf.org.uk/resources

There are many other wiki-like engines talking about responsible drug use.

There are so many other resources, this one is spot on: https://www.facebook.com/trippersguide/

A few moments ago I've found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Responsible_Drug_User%27s_Oath and I genuinely believe it is my responsibility to educate people.

Stefek99 (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Wrong Link
I am at work so I won't change it now, but in the "Organizations" part, Energy Control[26] does not redirect to the correct page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexisbu (talk • contribs) 07:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)