Media Dustup Pits Bloggers and Wired Against NYTimes

destinyland writes "Wired magazine ran a table listing the scientific effects of prescription drugs (and one illegal drug) — leading to an accusation from the NYTimes that they were 'promoting' drug use. But this routine controversy led to a fierce pushback online from bloggers and from Wired's reporter, who discussed his past drug use on his own blog and called for an honest discussion of scientific evidence and straight talk about medical effects."

Comments

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:first poop!

[mrbluze]

haha.. you missed! Now go clean up the mess!

Re:A league of their own

[mrbluze]

What kind of odds are they giving in Vegas? I don't know, but I bet hardly anyone can be bothered to RTFA. The summary doesn't leave much to discuss I have to say.

Wired magazine should change it's name

[Dr.Who]

to stewed, or blasted, or ...

Re:Wired magazine should change it's name

[sm62704]

Actually "wired" means (or at least used to mean back in the stone age, aka "the 70s") high on amphetamines, cocaine, meth, or other speed.

Re:Wired magazine should change it's name

[HiThere]

And before that so full of coffee your nerves were jangly.

Re:Wired magazine should change it's name

[macdaddy357]

I wonder how much they paid The Times to promote their rag with an article? There is no such thing as bad publicity.

when haven't we promoted drugs?

[saiha]

I flip on the TV and I see people promoting drug use all the time /shrug. And some of the side affects of those make me sick just to hear it.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Ethanol-fueled]

Substance used in moderation provides benefits, is harmful when used in excess. Film at 11.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[TubeSteak]

I flip on the TV and I see people promoting drug use all the time /shrug. And yet you'll never see an advertisement promoting a generic drug.
I wonder why that is.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[maxume]

Because the manufacturers of generics don't bother advertising?

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[the_humeister]

What are you talking about? I see it all the time. For example, Bayer has TV advertisements for aspirin. Sure, they're selling their brand of aspirin, but the patent on aspirin expired long ago.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Xyrus]

Reminds of the "story" not too long ago that screamed "SMOKING POT SHRINKS YOUR BRAINS!!! OH N0ESSS!!11!"

Of course, if you had actually dug into the details you would have found out that it was a small study that really wasn't best run, and that these people had smoked a minimum of 5 joints a day for 10 years.

I could probably run a similar study on people who took 5 multivitamins a day over 10 years and showed that all of them either died or ended up with some pretty bad complications. Then I could write a story that says "MULTIVITAMINS WILL KILL YOU!!!!".

What is it about drugs that set people on edge? Parents absolutely lose it if they find they're kind smoking a joint, but they don't think twice about jacking their kids up on ritalin and anti-depressants.

Exactly what message is that sending them?

At least get hemp legalized. Aside from the recreational use, it has so many other uses that keeping it illegal is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

~X~

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[clang_jangle]

Exactly what message is that sending them?

Do the right drugs, the ones that help you fit in with corporate culture and make $$$?

Have you noticed how freaking huge Hillary's face has become recently? Symptom of anti-depressant abuse.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[morgan_greywolf]

Then I could write a story that says "MULTIVITAMINS WILL KILL YOU!!!!" You could write a story right now. This study shows that, among other things, black pepper will kill you:

Black pepper has the scientific name Piper nigrum, which refers to black and white peppers. Individuals self-medicate (orally) with pepper to treat gastric, bronchial, and cancer conditions (Leung & Foster, 1996). Early evidence indicates that black pepper may protect against colon cancer (Nalini, Sabitha, Viswanathan, & Menon, 1998). Conversely, Singh and Rao (1993) found that black pepper induces the enzymes that cause liver tumors (el-Mofty, Khudoley, & Shwaireb, 1991). Aspiration of large amounts of black pepper has caused deaths (Cohle et al., 1988; Sheahan, Page, Kemper, & Suarez, 1988). Typical doses range from 300-600 mg or as much as 1.5 g per day (Gruenwald et al., 1998); 0.25 tsp is equivalent to 1.25 g dry weight. Treat this herb with caution.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Max Littlemore]

Drug use is promoted everywhere. Alcohol consumption, for example, is so ingrained in our culture that it forms an important part of some religious observances. Caffeine consumption, particularly amongst ./ readers I'll wager, is also incredibly high.

That's the thing that really shits me about the kind of story the NYT has run here. It's a story based on a knee-jerk "OH noes, wired included positive effects of an ILLEGAL drug in an article" approach rather than any semblance rational thought. I'll say it now, knowing full well there are idiots who can't get over this: the legality or otherwise of a drug has a causal relationship with how bad/dangerous it is.

Compare the effects of heavy coffee consumption with equivalent coca consumption and the actual medical side effects start to make coffee look a lot worse. Of course coca is not readily available except as a processed powder with is usually cut with other chemicals and it is associated with criminal activity, but if were not illegal would that be the case? I don't think there is any rational argument that can be made to suggest that criminalisation is not the cause of the majority of the ill effects on society of cocaine.

These articles help perpetuate the myth that all illegal drugs are bad and prescription drugs are good. This has two very detrimental effects on society. Firstly, people tend to trust the latest wonder drug that doctors hand out because it is legal. Then a few years later we find out too late just how many people taking the latest wonder drug are sleep walking off balconies or committing suicide or dying of liver failure.

The second effect is that drugs that are illegal but which can have real benefit are ignored. I don't take drugs usually, but a few years ago I broke my clavicle and a couple of ribs and bruised my spine in a bicycle accident. I could not get up or down without extreme pain and at the time I was single and had to look after myself. The prescribed pain killers where physically addictive and felt unpleasant to me as I tend not to enjoy opiates. The anti-inflammatories had evil side effects. So I ate pot. I hadn't used that since college and never really thought I would again, but as a muscle relaxant, anti-inflammatory and pain killer it was excellent, plus it made lying down and doing nothing a lot less boring. I didn't have to drive a car, there was not a lot of chance of long term mental health issues from a couple of weeks use, all in all it was perfect.

So as far as I'm concerned the whole "illegal drugs are bad because they are illegal" attitude gave me a choice of feeling like shit as a result of drugs that doctors can legally prescribe, or feeling okay physically, but committing a crime or several and taking my chances that the drug I was taking was not laced with something more dangerous. Clinically what I took was more appropriate for my situation, but knee jerk idiots who are incapable of rational debate on drugs made it more dangerous to me than it should have been.

Drugs are bad, mkay, but they are useful and given any health situation where using a particular drug may be beneficial, it should be legally available.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[oracle128]

Hydrogen Cyanide is safe in extremely small doses too. Based on that, perhaps we should legalize it too? Of course, at least cyanide isn't phsyiologically addictive, nor are multivitamins. Guess what is?

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[ColdWetDog]

Have you noticed how freaking huge Hillary's face has become recently? Symptom of anti-depressant abuse.

Well maybe you ought to cut down on the Prozac then. Of course, consult your doctor.

Either that or move away from the screen.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[stickystyle]

Yeah..but they are the ones that came up with name aspirin

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[the_humeister]

And they lost copyright to that name after WWI so anyone can use it now.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>Of course, at least cyanide isn't phsyiologically addictive, nor are multivitamins. Guess what is?

Alcohol.
Tobacco.
Oxycontin.
Benzodiazepines (http://www.medicinenet.com/alprazolam/article.htm).

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[the_humeister]

I wouldn't exactly consider the overly rampant but legal use of opium in China in the late 1800s a positive development.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[celle]

"Do the right drugs,--"

That explains cocaine I guess.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Max Littlemore]

I wouldn't exactly consider the overly rampant but legal use of opium in China in the late 1800s a positive development.

I didn't say that drugs are good, nor did I suggest anywhere that rampant abuse of drugs is ever positive. This is exactly the kind of brainless knee-jerk non argument I did refer to. You have a position which you seek to support by taking one case that on the surface appears contradict my argument, while in truth it doesn't. Idiots with preconceived notions who half read my post and read your response will have their preconceived idiot notions reinforced. This does nothing to further rational debate.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Anonymous Coward]

And they lost copyright to that name after WWI so anyone can use it now. The word is trademark, moron. How can people not understand the difference? No wonder our IP laws are so fucked up. Nobody seems to have the first clue about it, yet they seem to think they do.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Idiomatick]

weed isnt physiologically addictive either until you get to about a few pounds of it a day. If you are doing that much weed addiction is the least of your problems. Good luck finding a study that says any different.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[mixmatch]

I think we should use your reply for every post on Slashdot that mixes up the two, but will need your permission since your comment is trademarked to you.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[inKubus]

weed isnt physiologically addictive either until you get to about a few pounds of it a day. If you are doing that much weed addiction is the least of your problems. Good luck finding a study that says any different.

unfortunately weed prevents capitalizing the first word in your sentence and if I may be quite frank here the proper use of the comma.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[joelSantaguida]

I took Ambien, prescribed, for a year. It messes with you so much, and you have to take larger doses as you progress. I couldn't sleep for 3 months after I stopped taking it. My Adderall had the same effect. And with hemp, if you speak of the unsmokable male plant, can grow 7x faster than corn, replenishes the soil, and would put a lot of industries under.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Artifakt]

You do see big chain pharmacies such as Walmart promoting their low cost generic programs, including listing specific drugs and often the diseases they affect. It's not nearly so significant that a Drug maker heavily promotes Avandia when the customer is equally likely to hear Kroger pharmacy telling type 2 Diabetics to ask their doctor about generic Metformin, available at only 4.00$ a month.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[phalse phace]

Yup, I agree. Turn on the t.v. and you'll see drug commercials, turn on the radio and you'll hear drug commercials, flip open a magazine and you'll see drug ads. Shit, there are drug ads everywhere. When are the NY Times going to start blaming them for 'promoting drug use'?

It's like what Chris Rock said about the government and drugs.....

"The government, they don't want you to use your drugs. They want you to use their drugs. So every night on t.v. you see a weird ass drug commercial trying to get you hooked on some legal shit. And they just keep naming symptoms til they get one that you fuckin' got."

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Domo-Sun]

Unlike pot, vitamins are necessary for living. No one disputes that ODing on iron, vitamin D, etc. presents dangerous side effects. Likewise, vitamins don't have an abuse risk, while there are people who get high constantly. So why can't people report that without hippies getting outraged.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Domo-Sun]

That's because it was hard to administer weed to animals. Advances in administration showed that it's addictive and the animals experience withdraw. Can't find the study at the moment, but you should never say never.

issue of cross-sensitisation of cannabis/opioid receptors
"research in rats suggests that using marijuana reduces future sensitivity to opioids, which makes people more vulnerable to heroin addiction later in life. It does so by altering the brain chemistry of marijuana users...rats that had been given THC during adolescence had a significantly altered opioid system in the area associated with reward and positive emotions. This is also the area linked to addiction."

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet you'll never see an advertisement promoting a generic drug.
I wonder why that is. Because there's plenty of promotion for the name brand version, and once you get to the pharmacist they'll offer you the generic anyway.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[cromar]

Hee hee... you left out an important comma.

::Lights another batty::

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for closing your tag. It would have spoiled my trip if I kept thinking about that unending shrug.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohhhh. You mean in "isn't." Dude that's an APOSTROPHE. You do know what an apostrophe is, don't you? It's a HIGH comma. (I am so baked.)

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[networkBoy]

for what it's worth pot does increase your likelihood of developing givial disease.
-nB

And it's not from the munchies...

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Idiomatick]

animals? ^^;;;; weed is legal in plenty of countries and is tested in those countries. I don't see why getting animals stoned would be such a barrier. Also the article you pointed to refers to the possible scientific backing of the 'gateway grug' theory. It doesnt say anything really on the addictive qualities of cannabis. Anyways cannabis is rated well below cocacola nvm coke on the addictive scale.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Creepy Crawler]

So, in your opinion, would it be better overall to legalize and regulate all classes of drugs (regulation of purity, not restriction)?

Is the possibility of further abuse worth the tradeoff of getting rid of organized drug crimes?

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Domo-Sun]

In drug studies, they need to get the animals to self administer. There is a study, which I can not find at the moment that talks about this. I don't care what other countries have legalized. Weed has some heavy-duty side effects. Period.

Addiction is a definition in the DSM-IV or somewhere though I don't have all the details, it still has been demonstrated to be addictive. Maybe it's less addictive based on your criteria compared to heroin, but it also excites areas of the brain associated with addiction, and addiction is addiction, however much you'd like to minimize that, relatively.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Google doesn't think that's an English word.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Miseph]

Because hysteria and overblown studies aside, marijuana is essentially harmless and stupid to prohibit. Plus, for all you fiscal conservatives out there, it is extraordinarily expensive to arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate marijuana users especially given that it is such a mild drug in the first place.

The fact that even the most dire effects found in studies basically amount to "it can be addictive if used in large quantities over long periods of time", "generally mildly detrimental to health and higher nervous function" and "mildly impairs judgment and perception" is just sort of the icing on the cake. 40 years of anti-weed hysteria has yielded little more than "ha! it actually MIGHT be addictive!" and frankly that just doesn't cut it (especially as, to the very best of my knowledge, there is no law against being addicted to something, or any compelling reason to outright ban a substance based on a possibly addictive nature... alcohol and tobacco would both be considerably more illegal than weed if either were the case).

Most nations with sensible drug policies have at least decriminalized marijuana, and some have even had the good sense to go as far as legalizing and regulating it similarly to alcohol and with comparable legal requirements for both its sale and consumption. If your real problem is people driving while high, then make laws against DUI, but don't just arbitrarily ban various substances which people could use to run afoul of that law while protecting the corporate interests of those who produce others.

As for vitamins not having an abuse risk... I've known many people to substitute a large daily regimen of vitamins for balanced diets as a means of maintaining "healthy" weight. I've heard from many, many sources that I trust (including dietitians) that doing this is EXTREMELY counterproductive because, among other reasons, your body will acclimate to receiving these nutrients in that format and will therefore ramp up the ability to use them in pure form while deactivating the systems intended to extract them from actual food. Aside from weakening the digestive system overall, this actually leads to people being unable to properly obtain nutrients from food, making them dependent on supplements for proper nutrition. That sounds an awful lot like abuse leading to physiological addiction to me, even if it doesn't occur in the brain's "addiction center" (so called because many addictive substances cause stimulation there, not because it defines what is addictive, by the way).

The point is, pharmaceutical companies are praised for pushing all kinds of dangerous mind-altering substances (including, by the way, amphetamines, synthetic opiates, barbiturates and hallucinogens) with extremely dangerous side affects and addictive properties, while marijuana is obsessively attacked by various groups despite being essentially harmless by comparison. Treat your stress and anxiety by smoking pot and you run the risk of having a negative reaction and possibly going to jail; do it with Xanax and you still run the risk of a negative reaction, but you've paid a whole lot more and the negative reaction in question may include suicidal tendencies (something never credibly linked to marijuana use) or a potentially fatal drug interaction (again, something never credibly demonstrated with marijuana), but it's legal.

Sure, some of it is about "hippies" who want to smoke pot... but it's also about people who just don't buy into the "pot is evil" bullshit because it's a bunch of hypocritical fear-mongering with no basis in reality other than the business concerns of legal drug producers who prefer to compete as little as possible. I'm mostly just sick of seeing tax dollars that could be spent on useful things, like education or health care or the enforcement of laws that actually matter instead wasted on fighting a pseudo-war on drugs that can't ever be won and has no point.

Granted, I also want to put a spike in the head of every idiot asshole who balks at spending a couple of mill

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

I saw that test in an article in my local news site. One thing that they don't take into account, of course, is the life-style these people live. Depression has also be shown to shrink your brain. The brain shrinkage from that scientific test could just be a consequence of the lifestyle of the test subjects. It's not too hard to believe that people who smoke 5 joints a day for 10 year might not do very much and be in a similar state to depressed people in terms of neurological activity. You could probably get the same results from people who watch TV all the time.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Max Littlemore]

I think it's certainly worth a try. We have established that prohibition doesn't work, and in fact makes the problems worse.

There is little evidence that prohibition is a deterrent, in fact there is some evidence that prohibition makes illicit drug use more attractive to some people, in particular risk takers like teenagers and twenty-somethings. So there is a strong case suggesting that legalisation can reduce drug abuse, or at least leave it at unchanged levels.

What is certain is that the associated crime would drop if these drugs were legally available - why shoot people to protect a supply chain that is cheap, legal and unchallenged? Why rob people to support a cheap drug habit, or would that be any worse than alcohol related crime? Also, changing the status from bad illegal drug to legal drug that you're welcome to use but has a long list of side effects is more likely to deter peoples than keeping it illegal and just saying it's bad because it's bad. People will no doubt still abuse drugs, but accurate information is more of a deterrent to abuse than prohibition.

Which brings me to another related point. I firmly believe that prohibition is maintained because it creates an illegal economy. I believe there are people in positions of influence who profit from the illegal drug trade who are outspoken supporters of prohibition, otherwise how could so many people be stupid enough to support a system that so obviously fails to do what it intends and oppose even debate on alternative strategies? To my mind, anyone who supports prohibition must be a drug pusher.

But then again, maybe that's just a paranoid delusion caused by my week and a half stint of criminal THC abuse when I was injured...

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

No, it wasn't. It was a deliberate effort on the part of the British to addict as many Chinese as possible to enlarge their influence there.

What's your point? Not all drugs should be legalized because some are very addictive? I don't think GP ever said we should.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[TapeCutter]

"In drug studies, they need to get the animals to self administer."

So what is difficult about having two piles of cookies, one with dope and one without?

I realise you have some objection to dope for some reason or other but please don't pretend science is on your side with the addiction thing or that the current laws against dope have anything to do with medical issues. The dope plant is in fact one of the most studied plants on the planet and as such we now know a great deal more about it than we did when Anslinger went on his self-serving crusade.

The main problems with using dope are scizophernia[sic] for those who are already genetically predisposed and lung/throat disease for those who smoke rather than ingest it. As for addiction, opiates, tobacco and alcohol are physically addictive in that you will suffer physical symptoms during withdrawal. Dope, chocolate, and video games are mearly habit forming.

Now even if smoking a joint was as foolish as playing russian roulette, under what moral/ethical imperitive do you have the right to stop me putting chocolate or battery acid into MY veins should choose to do so?

Prohibition did not work for booze and it is not working for other drugs. Someone once said that "If we eliminate all recreational drugs people will simply spin in circles on their front lawn until they can no longer stand up, because that is what we as humans like to do".

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Anonymous Coward]

but you should never say never.

Hey, that's just what my dealer says, when he has some new stuff to try!

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we should use your reply for every post on Slashdot that mixes up the two, but will need your permission since your comment is trademarked to you. That's a great idea actually, I give you permission.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Toonol]

Of course, if you had actually dug into the details you would have found out that it was a small study that really wasn't best run, and that these people had smoked a minimum of 5 joints a day for 10 years.

Now, I'm all for legalization, and think that any rational standard that allows legal consumption of alcohol would have to allow marijuana.

But that said, I have also ran into crazed pro-pot fanatics that have the same problem as prohibitionists, in reverse: They have already decided that marijuana does no harm, and will reject any study that even hints otherwise. This is to the point of some of them even arguing that inhaling smoke from burning pot plants does no damage to your lungs. That's just as biased.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[clang_jangle]

You steenkeeng Eengleesh bed wettair!

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tobacco and alcohol?

LSD, just to give another example, isn't addictive, BTW, neither physiologically nor psychologically.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[a_real_bast...]

You're obviously delusional. I mean, where would you get that idea?

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[TapeCutter]

I agree and I can explain the motivation for the bias displayed by "crazed pro-pot fanatics". What I can't explain is the motivation for the opposite bias displayed by the far larger group of "crazed prohibitionists", particularly the sub-group of "crazed prohibitionists" who regularly (ab)use tobacco and/or alcohol.

These so called rational and drug free individuals who are the 'pillars of society' are anything but rational when it comes to the drug trade. And it's not just the US, my country's federal police have been recently accused of deliberately allowing young Aussie drug mules to fly to Indonesia and tipping off the authorities on the other side. They now face the very real possibility of execution by firing squad. The original accuser is the farther of one of the mules who tipped off the cops several days before the flight in order to stop his son leaving the country for "dada means death" land.

As for the study in question it doesn't take a genius to recognise that dope can fuck with a head of a heavy user, particularly if the head belongs to a teenager, a glutton (5 J's/day!!!), or someone who is already battling to remain 'sane'.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[oracle128]

The latter two of which have a real medical purpose, and the former two of which I'd be all to glad to see banned. Phew! For a moment there, I thought I was the only one against stupid pointless addictive drugs. Welcome brother!

Of course, then we'd be left with only gambing to fulfill the economic boost gained from the Stupid Tax.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[StarfishOne]

What is it about drugs that set people on edge?

I believe the late Terence McKenna said that it was basically the fact that drugs break down boundaries that makes it threatening to ehmm.. certain 'cultural values' and 'power structures' (politics, religion, etc.).

An interesting point that he raises is that drugs that make us more productive 'in the factory', like coffee/caffeine, are promoted, while drugs that bring us 'as close as possible to the Bardo while still being able to return' (paraphrase) are not promoted at all.

Think DMT: our bodies produce it naturally(!), it's not addictive and it brings out the wildest psychedelic properties. It is however one of the most illegal substances known to man...

I'm not sure in which video this was mentioned, but probably 'The World and its Double'. I've got no time to find the exact fragment, but I believe it was in one of the following videos which are great anyway!

Terence McKenna: The World and its Double:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiFD8pM4Mcs

Terence Mckenna - Culture is your operating system:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c8an2XZ3MU

Terence McKenna in Seattle 1999_Culture is NOT Your Friend:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOy3H4yyocQ

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer to make my own informed choices, and to allow others to do likewise.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[oracle128]

And before I forget, many thanks to whoever modded me Flamebait for comparing the "safe!" Marijuana to the known lethal hydrogen cyanide. Real well thought out, considering Marijuana actually CONTAINS hydrogen cyanide. 5 times more than tobacco smoke. Bravo!

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Mprx]

There's no reason to smoke anything now that vaporizers are easily available.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[indifferent children]

Is the possibility of further abuse worth the tradeoff of getting rid of organized drug crimes?

To answer that question, we probably have to first answer this question: does the current prohibition scheme reduce drug abuse? As your question says, there is a "possibility" of further abuse. Looking at countries that have already legalized, do abuse rates increase, decrease, or stay the same? Are those patterns applicable to the U.S.? Getting rid of organized crime is valuable. Fighting against a "possibility" can have as little as zero value.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know what an apostrophe is, don't you? It's a HIGH comma. Oh my God, that is some funny stuff. I know I am not the greatest when it comes to grammar, so frequently have grammar Nazis after me, but I love that comment.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Ellis D. Tripp]

They also invented and trademarked another well-known drug. It is technically known as diacetylmorphine, but you probably know it better under Bayer's tradename--HEROIN.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Anonymous Coward]

who the fuck abuses antidepressants?

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Pictish Prince]

But that said, I have also ran into crazed pro-pot fanatics that have the same problem as prohibitionists, in reverse: They have already decided that marijuana does no harm, and will reject any study that even hints otherwise. This is to the point of some of them even arguing that inhaling smoke from burning pot plants does no damage to your lungs. That's just as biased. As crazy as they may be, they don't have the power to throw you in jail.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[DaveV1.0]

So, when was the last time you saw an ad for methamphetamine?

And methamphetamine, which the magazine [Wired] says can âoeincrease concentration and creative output.â

Wired makes clear that it knows methamphetamine is illegal; in the âoeHow to Get Itâ box, it advises readers to âoetap the black market.â

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[DriedClexler]

You know, since you mention it, someone once told me that (paraphrasing), "Just as religions tell you not to do fun stuff because it will take you out of their grasp, governments ban drugs because if you had easy access to them, it would be so much easier to see why you don't need [most of] government." (that is, it would raise your awareness of your oppression)

I dismissed him as a crackpot, but then I realized I couldn't find any actual counterevidence. For example, if drugs were merely bad because of the harm they might unleash on third parties, why not set up special "drug bars" that are scrupulously controlled so as to make sure no one leaves while dangerous? You could get a lot of free tax money. And why the pressure to destroy any information stating positive effects?

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Danse]

I think we should use your reply for every post on Slashdot that mixes up the two, but will need your permission since your comment is trademarked to you. That's a great idea actually, I give you permission. Me too!

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[wolrahnaes]

Hell with easily available, they're trivial to build. Less than $100 at Home Depot will get you everything needed to build something I consider nearly equal to a Volcano. If you already have a decent heat gun, you can cut more than half that cost out.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[MiniMike]

Nobody seems to have the first clue about it, yet they seem to think they do.

I currently hold the patent on having the first clue on widely discussed topics. Sorry for all the chaos and discomfort.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[JCSoRocks]

Can we just shorten it to "-1 IP Idiot" so the mods can do it?

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[kalirion]

Ok, I wanna meet this guy who smoked pounds of weed a day to show it could be addictive.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[sm62704]

Of course, if you had actually dug into the details you would have found out that it was a small study that really wasn't best run, and that these people had smoked a minimum of 5 joints a day for 10 years.

Also that the shrunken areas are parts like the amygdala that are responsible for fear, anger, and aggression.

My latest journal entry is actually on topic here, as it concerns the noble weed.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[sm62704]

Hydrogen Cyanide is legal; farmers use it as pesticide. If you smell almonds while driving through farm country, you're ingesting it.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[sm62704]

Ohhhh. You mean in "isn't." Dude that's an APOSTROPHE. You do know what an apostrophe is, don't you? It's a HIGH comma. (I am so baked.)

So's Bob! Bob is one of my favorite cartoon characters. Every nerd should know Bob.

Bob's Quick Guide to the Apostrophe, You Idiots
Destroy the Apostrophe!
Schrodinger's Fridge
Boobs (BSFW)
Dalek Shell

All the Bob cartoons

Yes, I'm an ANGRY FLOWER fanboy, I admit it...

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[ihuntrocks]

Forgive me, since I am a regular pot smoker, and to tell the truth, I'm a little high right now, but you've mentioned "heavy-duty side effects" and a DSM-IV addiction citation, neither of which you can find. I can find plenty of reputably conducted studies on marijuana which show both sides of the argument, and it didn't take much searching to find the DSM-IV criteria for determining addiction.

I'm failing to see why your post was modded as informative, as it didn't provide any concrete information (and it's okay for me not to at this point, since I'm editorializing and not attempting to be informative). It constantly irks me that people enter into a discussion and use "it's in some study somewhere about something that I read sometime but can no longer find and apparently no one else can either" as an argumentative device. I'm sorry, but you do more to discredit your cause (even if you are right) than to help it in my opinion by employing that.

Now for some anecdotal evidence:

I've been a daily pot smoker for a few years now. I have not suffered any signs of physiological or psychological dependence on it. I do it because I enjoy it, and I do it when I choose to enjoy it. Consequently, this happens to be every day, but in a moderated amount and at a time of my own choosing (typically before going to sleep, and never when it would interfere with any other obligations that I have). So far, it hasn't cut into anything yet, but that's not saying that it can't, and it's only me. I will also admit that under the DSM-IV, my habits qualify as substance abuse.....then again every time I read the DSM-IV, I think I have some condition listed in it. I think it's the way it's written, but that is entirely off topic, for which I apologize.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[sm62704]

A study using one test subject that has been running since 1971 shows that marijuana can be psychologically habituating, but not physically addictive and has NO withdrawal symptoms whatever.

I am that subject. There have been periods in my life (lika bakc when Jeff was growing some KILLER hydro) that I smoked daily and heavily. These days I can barely afford the shit. I have never experienced any withdrawal symptoms whatever. When I was smoking it daily and gave it up I missed it, but less so than I missed Pepsi after quitting the drive in theater where the Pepsi was free.

Cigarettes, now, they were a fucking BITCH to give up.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[NeoSkandranon]

Offtopic, but:

As for vitamins not having an abuse risk... I've known many people to substitute a large daily regimen of vitamins for balanced diets as a means of maintaining "healthy" weight. I've heard from many, many sources that I trust (including dietitians) that doing this is EXTREMELY counterproductive [...]

The main reason it's counterproductive is that your body can only absorb so much of a compound at once. If you pop a handful of multivitamins (or even one poorly proportioned one) and supplements, you piss out a nontrivial amount of the "good stuff" since it simply moves through the GI tract before it can be absorbed.

I've heard the idea of the body "forgetting" how to absorb nutrients tossed around before, but never with any references. Not trying to criticize, just curious--if you're finding that from an internet source could you provide it so I could read for myself?

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[networkBoy]

try this:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/gingivitis/DS00363

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[sm62704]

There is little evidence that prohibition is a deterrent, in fact there is some evidence that prohibition makes illicit drug use more attractive to some people

Some say that the end of prohibition proved that prohibition kept people from drinking, but my teetotaling grandmother who was a young adult during the flapper/prohibitionist era (my great aunts had tattoos, kids, just like you youngsters do) says otherwise.

prohibitionists note that the rate of drinking nearly doubled from before-prohibition levels after it was lifted. Grandma sais yes, but not for the reasons they put forth.

Before prohibition, most women never visited salloons. Salloons were "men only" and the only women who went to salloons were disreputable types. Women who drank did it secretly, at home.

Prohibition changed that when it introduces the "speakeasy". Unlike the per-prohibition salloons, the speakeasy hosted both sexes.

Prohibition got the women drinking, according to Grandma.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[jc42]

And with hemp, if you speak of the unsmokable male plant, can grow 7x faster than corn, replenishes the soil, and would put a lot of industries under.

Actually, one of the main reasons that hemp was outlawed in the US was that it was a cheap source of high-quality fiber. Google for "marijuana hemp paper Hearst" to find lots of the history.

The basic summary is that in the 1920s and 1930s, the Hearst publishing empire owned extensive acreage of pulpwood farms. But some very cheap methods of making high-quality paper from hemp had been developed, and were seriously threatening to make the Hearst-owned forests worthless. So the Hearst-owned publications, especially newspapers, went into a major PR campaign about the dangers of the female hemp plant, aka marijuana. They also paid for lots of lobbying in Congress. They succeeded in getting marijuana added to the growing list of outlawed drugs. But the actual intent was to make it illegal to grow hemp for fiber.

It's common knowledge that paper mills are among the worst industrial polluters. If hemp were legal, and most of the pulpwood farms were converted to hemp, it would not only result in cheaper paper; it would also result in a lot less pollution from the paper-making process.

Hemp is also a good source of oil (from its seeds), and is a fairly good crop for producing cheap industrial (fuel) alcohol.

I suppose one could object to such things because they "put a lot of industries under". But that argument could be used against any scheme to improve the efficiency of any industry by introducing a new process. An industry that can't adopt improved production processes probably deserves to go under.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[digitrev]

Alcohol is addictive too. Oh, and so is tobacco. In fact, so are many over-the-counter drugs. Oh, and don't forget all those prescription drugs with addiction issues (diazepam or morphine, anyone?). Oh, and there's things that do major damage your body, such as various cancer treatments, or the potentially fatal side effects of aspirin. However, all of these things also have many medical benefits.

So let's make them illegal. Oh wait, that worked so well with prohibition. And in Canada, almost 25% of cigarettes are suspected to be illegal, and that's just due to the high taxes.

So let's drop the addiction argument and take a good long look at how addictive it is, how much it takes to get addicted, etc... Let people make their own decisions for themselves. Inform them. Discourage them from doing it, but let them if they want to. The problems associated with the illegality of drugs are probably worse than the problems associated with addiction to said drugs. Now I'm not saying go out and start selling them in your local 7/11, I'm just saying stop throwing people in jail for having those drugs.

But I'm getting off-topic. Addiction is addiction, yes, but one must look at the severity of the addiction and the benefits of using the addiction product, before automatically dismissing the product.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[DarthJohn]

I saw one just this afternoon. It was for a national pharmacy chain that was going for the "we look for ways to save you money" angle.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[maxume]

Would the mods get it right?

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now even if smoking a joint was as foolish as playing russian roulette, under what moral/ethical imperitive do you have the right to stop me putting chocolate or battery acid into MY veins should choose to do so?

Altruism in its "for your own good" paternalistic form, common to all mainstream ideologies (but profoundly alien to Americanism).

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Miseph]

I honestly have no citable source, but I have been told this by people with more formal education on the subject.

That said, my general understanding is that most of our bodily functions operate largely on positive feedback loops such that the things our bodies encounter and become accustomed to are better dealt with. If long-time vegetarians are generally unable to properly digest meat (many are, by the way... I know a lot of vegetarians who have tried to go omnivore or had to under extenuating circumstances, and most report that at least for the first few times eating it meat is very difficult to digest), I would imagine that a long-time user of dietary supplements would have a lot of trouble getting their vitamins and minerals were they to quit them cold turkey.

Thanks for pointing out the absorbency issue as well, I forgot to mention that one, and it's definitely key. The dangers of overpriced food semi-replacements are never off topic in my book.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Domo-Sun]

I'm glad you've admitted that it's addictive. Maybe everyone else can, finally, instead of being retarded.

I'm not convinced of the medical value of cannabis, especially in light of the significant adverse reactions it causes.

As for tobacco and alcohol, I'm not sure they should be legal.

Prohibition failed therefore what? No substances can or should be prohibited?

I'm trying to Inform them, but people don't seem to want to hear that pot isn't completely harmless. Instead they'd rather listen to popular opinions promoted by the lay person who gets high all the time. Very scientific.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[TapeCutter]

I have never been to the US but they are certainly not the only ones that (when it comes to drugs), define altruisim as: incarcerating/executing someone for the 'crime' of self-abuse. No matter what a misinformed control freak belives they are not being alturistic by supporting a war on drugs, wether they know it or not these ignoramasus are simply confirming that when it comes to drugs the road to hell really is paved with good intentions.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh. Of course! So the solution to taking illegal, harmful, and yet incredibly pointless drugs is to make them slightly less harmful. And I do stress slightly, because chances are, Joe SixPot isn't an expert DIYer (assuming they even bother), and doesn't have USD$500 to blow on a device to make him get less stoned for his money. Why would he care about causing less self harm anyway? He's on pot, so we already know he doesn't care if he's killing himself.



Worried about murder? I have the ultimate solution! It's called the ShortKnife (tm). Just like your regular knife, but shorter! Our patended ShortCut technology allows you to stab all you want, yet avoid hitting those nasty major organs. Now when you stab people to death, you can be comforted by the slightly less harm you'll be causing! Order now for just $99.95, and we'll throw in this handy steak knife - which also double as a second ShortKnife!

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[nightcats]

The icons of our age are walking ads for the blitzed life - Rush Limbaugh, Mel Gibson, Beerhouse or whatever her name is - the story and the short list would be famous people who are sober.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs?

[Domo-Sun]

Wow, what a drug radical.

People who have no history of mental illness have psychotic reactions to weed, just as, conversely, people who have no history of Parkinsonism develop tremors on anti-psychotics. Of course, that doesn't stop you and drug companies from calling them susceptible or "already genetically predisposed" as if it's their fault when they develop a permanent tremor or heart attack and not the drugs. Which is like saying people who have a susceptibility to PTSD/Flashbacks will get it after a car accident or war, therefore trauma is completely safe to the brain. Mind you, no one has found the schizophrenia gene or proven what you miraculously believe without evidence.

The brain is a delicate balance of neurotransmitters that are responsible for consciousness, movement and everything else human. When you introduce foreign substances directly into it, you can alter it, permanently, leading to addiction, depression, anxiety, psychosis, Parkinsonism, etc.

People who use PCP become schizophrenic. People who use china white become Parkinsonized, Michael J Fox. Therefore brain disorders are not exclusively caused by genes. They can be induced by drugs.

Failure of ONE Prohibition is no excuse to do nothing in light of the inherent dangers of drug addiction and the many and varied toxic effects drugs have on the brain. Drug abuse, rape, murder and crime are all problems that are not completely eradicated by prohibition but they certainly are not helped by a lack of prohibition.

And no, I don't believe it's your right to become a drugging vegetable riding my highways and me having to support you and your kind via welfare when you're disabled because you're an idiot who posts and believes that kind of nonsense.

Methamphetamine is NOT illegal!

[Ellis D. Tripp]

It is listed in DEA schedule II. Truly illegal drugs (like heroin and pot)are Schedule I.

Methamphetamine is available on prescription under the brand name Desoxyn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desoxyn

Re:Methamphetamine is NOT illegal!

[Frosty Piss]

Meth isn't illegal, eh? Try that one on the cop when you get busted. "Honestly officer, it's only schedule II.

Re:Methamphetamine is NOT illegal!

[Capsaicin]

And quite apart from that, though the initial effects are dramatic, Ice isn't likely to boost your cognitive function in the long run.

Re:Methamphetamine is NOT illegal!

[morgan_greywolf]

Schedule II drugs are illegal without a prescription. They are considered 'controlled substances'. You can get arrested for carrying a Schedule II drug without a prescription. (Note: my wife is substance abuse counselor)

Re:Methamphetamine is NOT illegal!

[tshetter]

All DEA Scheduled drugs are legal given proper permits.

Schedule 2-5 usually only require a prescription from a doctor with proper DEA licensing.

Schedule 1+ can also be had, but with more restrictive DEA licensing.


Alexander Shulgin may be the best known for his DEA Schedule 1 license and his ensuing discovery of numerous psychoactive substances.

Re:Methamphetamine is NOT illegal!

[Anonymous Coward]

Any schedule drug is illegal without a Rx, not just schedule II. If you are found with any schedule drug by an officer, it better be in the bottle and you better have a valid Rx.

I'm a pharmacist.

Re:Methamphetamine is NOT illegal!

[lysse]

*scouts around for a naive doctor to make an appointment with*

Re:Methamphetamine is NOT illegal!

[cayenne8]

Isn't is funny, that it took a freakin' Constitutional Amendment to ban alcohol from the US, and a 2nd one to repeal prohibition....and yet none of that has been required for pot, coke, or any other drug?

I've yet to figure how/why this angle hasn't been pursued by those who would like to see the freedom to do with their bodies as they please...

Re:Methamphetamine is NOT illegal!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's bullshit. You shoot, eat, snort any scheduled substance. Provided you don't get busted. I'm the war-on-drug tzar.

Re:Methamphetamine is NOT illegal!

[Aloisius]

I'm surprised they even put methamphetamine in there considering they already had Adderall which after all is a mix of amphetamine and dextroamphetamine. It is also a schedule II drug same as methamphetamine. The effects of adderall are pretty similar to meth, except it is far less potent. You can get addicted to it if you take too much. I knew a doctor that was hooked on it and prescribed large doses (in excess of 150mg) that had to be specially made in liquid form to feed his habit. He got busted of course (the DEA tracks it pretty closely).

Re:Methamphetamine is NOT illegal!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because the temperance movement ultimately respected the constitution. The constitution has a lot less power when you simply ignore it. And when people point it out, you just scream "DRUGS ARE EVIL" all that much louder.

Re:Methamphetamine is NOT illegal!

[MrDERP]

Desoxyn is metamphetamine in a pill form for aorl use, from what I have heard it is nothing like the "rush " effect one would get from street meth , street meth is not meant to be taken orally, it's menat to be smoked. So it is really like comparing (a small dose of time release stimulant ie dexedrine, adderal, desoxyn (Which is no worse than dexedrine in pill for but 999.99% of Dr. would refuse to Rx it because of fear of the DEA, Small doses of Sesoxyn (5mg ) tend to have less side effects and be "cleaner" than reacemaic ampehtamine ((adderal 2 different types of amp) I have taken Adderal in the past and it was VERY HELPFUL for concentration/memory, UNFORTUNATELY.. it's not sustainable, lead to tolerance, long term side effects ("ticks" tourettes like symtoms and Dopamine Down reguation (your brain stops producing as much dopamine naturally becuase it "see's" there is plenty there already. Withdrawal after only a few days of use causes depression, sluggishness, and even worse concentraation,. There is no cure for ADD you need to learn to deal with it, excercise, eat healthy and take supplements (that are sustainable ie Hydergine, Piracetam, Deprynyl (the patch becuase it's an MAOI and only tiny amounts are safe.. my experience .. NOT WORTH IT!!!!!!!!! IF you NEED to pass the final and are doing it maybe a few times a year in small doses (ritalin etc NOT STREET METH) after that it just causes problems, EXTREME MODERATION. Also I believe that more than 90% of people who get "ADD MEDS" DO NOT HAVE ADD, nor is ADD some terrible thing more a personality trait that you learn to live with. I fugred maybe I shouldn't go into computer science with all the math and went for CIS/Business instead because of my "ADD" and the pressure to take pills to do great in class (yes all 100 % that semester, not worth it )... ... grammar nazi's .. STFU! AND TO THINK LITTLE KIDS are given class 11 drugs EVERY DAY .... FOR YEARS. THIS CAUSES SERIOUS MENATAL PROBLEMS, a m8 of mine took dexedrine from age 9 -18 , the dr. recomended it so he would be "more like the other kids" ... a shame..

Re:Methamphetamine is NOT illegal!

[Anonymous Coward]

The increasingly-liberal interpretation of the "interstate commerce" clause of the constitution, post-dates the alcohol-prohibition era. In 1919, no one could have imagined that, so they bothered with amendments.

Re:Methamphetamine is NOT illegal!

[Ellis D. Tripp]

Schedules 2-5 are legal for anyone with a prescription.

Schedule I substances are "legal" in about the same way as weapons-grade plutonium is "legal". You need a special license from the DEA, which it will only grant to "legitimate research institutions" who agree to intrusive government inspections, endless paperwork, and accountability down to the last microgram for any drugs used. Criminal background checks for anyone who comes into contact with the drugs.

And that only allows you to use the drugs in a laboratory setting for forensic analysis or possibly in animals. If you wanted to do HUMAN testing (even for something as innocuous as pot), you'll need to go through several more layers of hell with the FDA, NIDA, NIH, and a few others, BEFORE you can apply for your DEA license.

And then the DEA can always yank your license on some bullshit pretense if they don't like the "sound" of your research results. That's just what they did with Dr. Shulgin after he published "PIHKAL".

Who really cares what the NYT has to say?

[lawn.ninja]

I know I certainly don't. On that note I'm tired of all the main stream media in the US. It's all lies and talking points. Watch the news some night and flip back and forth between the channels, or better yet catch a few with the DVR at 7 and 11. Get different samples from the two time slots and tell me what's different. Nothing, other than the filler material. They even use the same verbage most of the time. So I figure this is all coming from a very small group of sources (probably AP wire considering how lazy the media is). Which means that you can't really trust it. Hell I don't know how many times recently we've seen articles about the media being duped by someone or something. So that means to me that they don't vet their stories or sources properly anymore. Fuck it, at least the ratings and the revenues are up, god forbid the profit margin shrinks.

Re:Who really cares what the NYT has to say?

[je ne sais quoi]

Most of the "newsy" articles come from AP and Reuters. That's one of the reasons I love to watch Jon Stewart's show, he does these montages of the cable news morons where he shows off just how silly and repetitive they are. I just laugh, how can anyone take cable news seriously after that? They've got one up right now about Clinton's concession speech and Obama's VP choice.

Re:Who really cares what the NYT has to say?

[TubeSteak]

On that note I'm tired of all the main stream media in the US. It's all lies and talking points. Watch the news some night and flip back and forth between the channels, or better yet catch a few with the DVR at 7 and 11. Get different samples from the two time slots and tell me what's different. Nothing, other than the filler material. I get better national news from Fark* and I almost always know the stories in more detail.

When I see a story I find interesting, or one that sets off my BS detector, I plug it into Google News to increase my understanding.
More often than not, the article I was reading didn't have the full story or had the story wrong.
This is painfully obvious whenever I watch the "news".

What isn't so surprising is how much 'reporting' is just edited copypasta from the AP or Reuters.

*Click the politics & business tabs

Re:Who really cares what the NYT has to say?

[nuzak]

> I plug it into Google News to increase my understanding

I used to think that Google News was this great equalizer of news media. But when you think about it, the stories that make the google news page are just the ones that are the most popular. The more exactly alike the reporting is, the more likely it'll aggregate to the top.

But then people who think journalism standards are shoddy in the mainstream press have never come across an Indymedia Collective. I'm pretty well left-of-center myself, but these guys make Marx look like Ayn Rand.

Re:Who really cares what the NYT has to say?

[Creepy Crawler]

Karl or Groucho?

wink wink

[Kneo24]

Winking is serious business.

Promoting Drug Use

[nurb432]

Who cares if they were anyway? Its their magazine, they can say what ever they want. Or has it become illegal to express your beliefs?

Re:Promoting Drug Use

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, if your beliefs involve communism, or more recently, having sex with kids, it's illegal to talk about it.

Re:Promoting Drug Use

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also legal to criticize people for expressing beliefs you find stupid or immoral...

Re:Promoting Drug Use

[nurb432]

Yes, but it shouldn't have become news that it happened. ( either side really )

Re:Promoting Drug Use

[nurb432]

It wouldn't be illegal to *discuss* either, unless the 1st amendment has been totally repealed.

It would be illegal to practice sex with children, or show images of the act, but not discussions. ( might get you put on a watched list tho )

Considering......

[Anachragnome]

.......That William Randolph Hearst and his Yellow-journalism fueled the war on drugs in the first place, the Media are the LAST people I trust to provide me with reliable information in regards to drugs.

As a matter of fact, I don't trust anyone to provide me with information regarding drugs anymore. Guv'ment included. The DEA website is so full of blatant propaganda, I find it hard to believe anyone can take it seriously

And besides, I seriously doubt anyone has my best interests in mind more then myself.

Re:Considering......

[zappepcs]

.......That William Randolph Hearst and his Yellow-journalism fueled the war on drugs in the first place, the Media are the LAST people I trust to provide me with reliable information. There, fixed that for you

Re:Considering......

[Anachragnome]

Thank you.

Now I can just cut/paste that line in to all of my future Slashdot posts. :)

Re:Considering......

[zappepcs]

Actually, thank you...
Reminding me that the media played a large part in the initiation of the 'other war', the war on drugs.

I'm pretty happy to have all media owners drawn and quartered... literally. Well, ok, lets find the ones complicit in hoodwinking the people at large and just do those.

I believe their actions criminal, as much so as Bush's actions/inactions/mistruths etc.

There is no longer any reason to trust the media. Its a sad thing to say that. They used to stand for something better than the thugs that now own them and shake their leashes.

Bloggers are wont to report their own bias, and not check sources so you end up having to do research to find truth, but that is better than trusting those that will stab you when they get the chance to put the knife in.

Re:Considering......

[RebelWithoutAClue]

There is no longer any reason to trust the media. Its a sad thing to say that. They used to stand for something better than the thugs that now own them and shake their leashes. There never was a reason to trust the media. There just used to be nothing to check them against. That has changed recently.

Re:Considering......

[Anachragnome]

Your exactly correct.

I continue to read the CNN website, but once I read a story, I go look for the "real" story elsewhere.

I wish everyone would do that.

Ever notice that some of the stories on CNN have a "Comments from the readers" section at the bottom? But when you read the story about Kucinich trying to get Bush impeached, all there is is links to Blogs condemning the idea? Where are the reader comments on THAT particular story? Trust me, I would have actually posted a comment on that story if provided the means.

Yellow journalism is alive and well.

Re:Considering......

[radimvice]

They used to stand for something better than the thugs that now own them and shake their leashes. Yet another fabrication that the media would like you to believe!

Re:Considering......

[Lars T.]

German journalist Paul Sethe once said "Freedom of the Press is the freedom of two-hundred rich people to promote their opinion."

Re:Considering......

[compro01]

Or "Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one." - H.L. Mencken

Slow news day

[Freaky Spook]

I usually find on slow news days the media likes to run stories that get people angry about drugs. Its one of those topics that everyone has an opinion on, enough to get some kind of emotive response and engage the readers/viewers, whether its from what Amy Winehouse put up her nose to more political issues like legality or protecting your children.

Re:Slow news day

[Anonymous Coward]

NYT falls off the wagon and writes something that doesn't tow the liberal line and BOOM everyone and is dog goes apoplectic...

Smart move. If their ideology didn't completely overwhelm their business decisions they might notice that they've hit a nerve and briefly attained some relevance. More likely they'll just issue an apology and get back to business as usual. It'll be funny when they get bought by Murdoc.

How the NY Times has fallen.

[cunina]

It's been a year since I deleted the New York Times from my news media diet, and I haven't looked back (pardon the mixed metaphor). I was willing to forgive them for Jayson Blair nonsense, but Judith Miller's warmongering lies masquerading as journalism seriously damaged its credibility. And with the Times' caustic, perverted coverage of the Duke Lacrosse rape trial, any last shred of integrity they had in my eyes went out the window.

The Times has discarded their long tradition of conscientious news gathering in favor of making money, and it shows. At least we know how they paid for their shiny new skyscraper.

Re:How the NY Times has fallen.

[DNS-and-BIND]

You know, it's funny, I was saying the same thing about them 20 years ago. They're horribly biased, twist the news to suit their agenda, and so on. All 100% true.

Now, liberals are saying the same thing. It's not because anything has changed at the NYT - they're still pulling the same crap that they always have. No, it's because you NO LONGER AGREE with their biases. Funny how that makes a world of difference, eh?

Re:How the NY Times has fallen.

[sheldon]

But when you were saying it 20 years ago, you didn't really know why. You just "knew" they were biased because your conservative buddies told you so. And it probably had something to do with an Editorial page thing titled "Nixon should resign", which is hardly reporting but opinion. Not that conservatives can tell the difference between the two.

Re:How the NY Times has fallen.

[digitrev]

Excuse me. I'm a more-or-less conservative person. Note the lower case c. I regularly read stuff from my relatively conservative newspaper and I'm often offended by the conservative opinions leaking into the story. That being said, I love reading a good editorial, especially if the writer uses humour.

Re:How the NY Times has fallen.

[DNS-and-BIND]

20 years ago, I didn't have any "conservative buddies", I was 17 (I was 2 during Nixon) and confused as to why the newspaper twisted its news all the time. You know, I can see bias when it's as obvious as the NYT makes it. And just because our opinions don't agree doesn't make anyone stupid. Labeling people like this is just an excuse to avoid intellectual debate. Why bother with a discussion when you can just slap a label on anyone who disagrees with you, and be done with it?

Re:How the NY Times has fallen.

[sheldon]

Who said you were stupid? I certainly didn't.

Just because something is a Known Fact(tm) doesn't mean it's a fact. That's all I was pointing out.

"like heroin and pot"

[Reality Master 201]

Truly illegal drugs (like heroin and pot)are Schedule I.

It's a sad commentary on the stupidity of our drug laws that heroin and marijuana get lumped into the same category.

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[trawg]

... and that alcohol and tobacco isn't alongside them.

(not saying they should be illegal, just pointing it out)

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a sad commentary on the stupidity of our drug laws that heroin and marijuana get lumped into the same category.

Not really, it's a legal classification based on the properties and uses (or, more properly, lack of specific uses) of the dugs. According to wiki, Schedule I drugs:
(A) The drug or other substance has high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

As much as I think recreational drugs should be decriminalized, I don't have a problem with attributing A, B, and C to both heroin and marijuana.

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[chubs730]

Nicotene isn't actually a harmful drug, just extremely addictive. I wouldn't put it in the same class as alcohol and heroin (which should be in the same class).

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[chubs730]

The problem with B is that a Schedule I drug rarely will have the opportunity to be accepted in medical treatment in the US, despite overwhelming evidence in support of it. (See motor disorders for marijuana).

Drugs similar to heroin (including morphine of course) do have accepted medical use in the US however, and heroin itself does in the UK. Both of these drugs can be safely used under medical supervision, but heroin is far more harmful to the body than marijuana.

You could also attribute all three of these to caffeine if you wanted to, it's potential for abuse is far higher than that of marijuana.

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[fabs64]

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision. It doesn't bother you that these two are simply untrue for pot?

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[Domo-Sun]

Every drug was touted as a medicine in popular opinion. Those opinions happen to be wrong, including the current opinions on pot as a medicine. Pot doesn't have a great safety record. Just because a lot of people smoke it and are obsessed with it doesn't mean it's safe.

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[fabs64]

Look, I don't smoke pot.
But, I have to say that I don't consider it a giant leap of logic to think that arguably the oldest drug known to man, still being used by medical professionals all over the world as a treatment, has earned the status of a Schedule II drug.

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[notdotcom.com]

Nicotine is not a harmful drug???

Since when? Not only was Nicotine used widely as a pestacide (because of its toxicity), but it's one of the most dangerous drugs that the public are exposed to. 40 1/1000th of a gram is considered potentially deadly to a human. (40mg)

The LD50 of nicotine is 50 mg/kg for rats and 3 mg/kg for mice. 40â"60 mg (0.5-1.0 mg/kg) can be a lethal dosage for adult humans.[11] [12] This designates nicotine an extremely deadly poison. It is more toxic than many other alkaloids such as cocaine, which has an LD50 of 95.1 mg/kg when administered to mice. Spilling liquid nicotine on human skin could result in death.[13] [Wikipedia.org]

Sure, yeah, um, "not a harmful drug" in what sense?

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[Anonymous Coward]

Pot doesn't have a great safety record Actually it does. Not a single documented case of overdose.

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[Idiomatick]

"(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States."
 
ROFL you think it MIGHT not have any accepted medical uses in the states because its ILLEGAL. In other countries its used for medicine. I am amazed you used the argument that its illegal so obviously it should be illegal.

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[Idiomatick]

And C is the same ... theres no supervised use w/e because its illegal >.>

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[Domo-Sun]

I don't care how old or how many people use and believe it's a safe drug. Marijuana causes acute toxic reactions in people, psychosis, LSD-like hallucinations, paranoia, anxiety, depression, recurrent flashbacks and depersonalization, habitual use, apathy. etc. etc. 30% of people report negative symptoms as the reason they avoid it. Marijuana is not a great example of a safe drug. Even opioids are better tolerated, and not as harmful to the body as previously mentioned. Marijuana is far from safe. It's a very powerful drug.

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[Domo-Sun]

I'm not so sure of that, but even still, lethality alone is one miniscule detail when regarding safety. An acute toxic psychosis from a potent dose of THC isn't made any less worse.

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[nuzak]

Marijuana causes acute toxic reactions in people, psychosis, LSD-like hallucinations, paranoia, anxiety, depression, recurrent flashbacks and depersonalization, habitual use, apathy. etc

That must be some powerful bud you're smoking there. Consider packing it a little lighter.

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[MrDERP]

Only drug that has benefited me tremendously is 2-CB a Shugin invention, used with therapy it allows you to see what's going on in your head and change it / break habits, have moments where you KNOW YOU HAVE TO CHANGE something in your life, also I realized all the crap and negative thoughts in my head, in small doses, it really helped me (permanently) 2-CB et al should be studied/researched and even RX'ed with therapy IMO , it is a psychedelic but gentler, it "holds your hand" but you get the benefits of trippig without the super intense and potentially BAD experience (although it tends to be bad only if you THINK it will) My point is that a few sessions of therpy with 2-CB in a controlled setting kept me from taking brain rotting SSRI's on a daily basis (and those are VERY hard to quit, solve no problems, only covers them up, were as the 2-cb is let me DEAL with the problems and made it clear what I needed to do to better myself, I have been off all drugs/meds for 8 years, (used to take a lot of benzo's and weed for fun , Xanax for the "issues" that got solved by my trip-therapy session... Oh an if you think Xanax is hard to quit?? TRY PAXIL! WORST DRUG *EVER* ;-)

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[MrDERP]

Heron is not a harmful drug when it is pure, measured accurately and injected by a Dr/Nurse just another morphine type..(diacetly-morphine) Dilaudid (hydromorphone ) and Fentanyl are actually more addictive and more sought after by junkies. Heroin physically is Really not bad for your body when used in this way but EXTREMELY ADDICTIVE!!!!!!!!!! like too hard for a lot of people to ever quit.

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[MrDERP]

why not 2-CB/MDMA/milder psychedelics, they can cure (in my personal experience) mental problems instead of just "covering them up" you literally are forced to face your problems .. was good for me, check out MAPS, they do research in this field but unfortunately these powerful and very useful substances are extremely illegal (WHY *SO* ILLEGAL) IMO, they would put psychiatrist with the take 2 pills a day and come back in 30 days for another $200 visit.. JMHO.

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea is that nicotine isn't (even close to) the most harmful chemical in tobacco, but it's the one that keeps you hooked. But as you say, it is incredibly potent, but that doesn't mean it's harmful in the amounts that are in cigarettes (in other words, the other chemicals are going to get you long before the nicotine does).

PS. I'm not the original GPP..

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[sessamoid]

I don't care how old or how many people use and believe it's a safe drug. Marijuana causes acute toxic reactions in people, psychosis, LSD-like hallucinations, paranoia, anxiety, depression, recurrent flashbacks and depersonalization, habitual use, apathy. etc. etc. 30% of people report negative symptoms as the reason they avoid it. Marijuana is not a great example of a safe drug. Even opioids are better tolerated, and not as harmful to the body as previously mentioned. Marijuana is far from safe. It's a very powerful drug. I assume you have peer-reviewed, reliable studies to back up those claims?

Opioids have true physical withdrawal that make the worst THC abuse reactions look like a playland. But then again, you've probably never seen an opioid withdrawal patient tear his esophagus from prolonged vomiting die in front of your eyes. I have.

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[sessamoid]

I'm not so sure of that, but even still, lethality alone is one miniscule detail when regarding safety. An acute toxic psychosis from a potent dose of THC isn't made any less worse. Explain to me why opioids are prescribable and THC isn't then? Even though marijuana use is at least two orders of magnitude more common than heroin use, death from heroin overdose (and even more so when you throw in other opioids) is frighteningly common (seen two this week), and death from marijuana overdose has basically never been done.

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[Kattspya]

What kind of idiotic reasoning is that? Is there even a known case of a tobacco user accidently getting a fatal overdose of nicotine from comercially produced tobacco?

If you'd talked about nicotines effects on the cardiovascular system or other health effects you would at least have had a point. But calling nicotine bad because taking 50+ doses at the same time could be fatal is idiotic.

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[Nursie]

Heron is probably self injecting, with it's sharp pointed beak.

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[Reality Master 201]

Is there even a known case of a tobacco user accidently getting a fatal overdose of nicotine from comercially produced tobacco?

Yes, actually, there is, though you might quibble with the method of dosing.

My father's a doctor at a state hospital, and he's had several patients that needed to be put under special watch because they eat cigarette butts and get nicotine poisoning. I believe they've actually had patients die this way. Of course, they also have patients that need to be watched around water, because they compulsively drink water, and will die of cardiac failure; they need to be monitored in the bathrooms, at meals, when it's raining, etc.

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[notdotcom.com]

Yes, just about any cigarette is only going to deliver 1-2MG of nicotine per cigarette when SMOKED. However, if INGESTED, cigarettes become exponentially more toxic. One ingested cigarette is easily enough to kill a child (the people more likely to expermient with eating things).

There are also those people who will wear a nicotine patch, chew the gum and then decided that they really need a cig too.

Just what do you consider a "dose"? The OP stated that nicotine was "not a harmful drug". I have refuted that statement. Nowhere did I say or imply that an adult would die from smoking 50 cigs back to back. However, nicotine, as a chemical, is very toxic.

I stand by my original statements. It's not ricin, but it's not candy either. Calling it "not dangerous" is ignorant.

Here are 5 mules who OD'd and died from nicotine by eating natural tobacco plants (their lethal dose is 2-6 times that of a human adult, and they had no problem dying)

http://jvdi.org/cgi/reprint/6/4/503.pdf

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[notdotcom.com]

Heroin is actually LESS toxic than nicotine, if you go on LD50 values (the amount of a substance that it takes to kill 1/2 of a population).

Even for a non-user, the LD50 can be placed above 350 mg[citation needed] though some sources give a figure of between 75 and 375 mg for a 75 kg person.[25] [Wikipedia.org]

Nicotine is somewhere around 40â"60 mg (0.5-1.0 mg/kg) can be a lethal dosage for adult humans. [Wikipedia.org]

Nicotine is 6-7 times more toxic than HEROIN, when measured by LD50.

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[Kattspya]

A dose would be the amount of nicotine absorbed in the body at each instance of smoking, chewing or using dip.

Do you have a case where someone has worn multiple nicotine patches and then smoked a cigarette and died from it?

IMO dangerous and harmful are two different things. I would define dangerous as something that is risky i.e. running with scissors. And harmful as something that causes injuries or sickness over the long or short term. Running with scissors is dangerous but it isn't harmful unless you fall down. And the same is somewhat true for nicotine. It isn't that harmful in and of it self. It's dangerous to overdose but accidental lethal or possibly lethal overdoses through normal use is unheard of (unless you can supply a case).

The research done on Swedish steam cured snuff(snus)with low levels of nitrosamines are inconclusive and that isn't even pure nicotine (other chemicals are might be the cause). I haven't read any long term studies done on nicotine patches and the like.

I'm not interested in animals eating tobacco, children swallowing butts or compulsive eaters swallowing either. I'm interested in smokers, chewers or snuffers that have given themselves lethal or near lethal overdoses.

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[Anonymous Coward]

1) fill glass with water, drop in cigarette
2) let sit overnight
3) filter and drink "nicotine tea"
4) ???
5) profit!!!!
6) die.

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[phoenix.bam!]

Wow. LSD like hallucinations? haha Powerful drug? Pot is the Zima of the drug world. Pot makes people sit around and not do much when they're high! News at 11.

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[Anonymous Coward]

Heron is probably self injecting, with it's sharp pointed beak. Mocking typos works better if you don't commit additional ones in your reply.

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[Domo-Sun]

I'm not sure that death from marijuana overdose can't be done. What I am sure of is this, while opium is addictive and in high doses can stop respiration, it has no toxicity to the body, is well tolerated by patients, and has a specific and predictable pain-relieving effect.

Marijuana on the other hand, has cross reaction within all the categories of drugs. It's not simply a pain reliever, anxiolytic, depressant, or fantasticant alone. It's all of those combined, and significant numbers of people, 22-30% have adverse reactions to it, and it's loaded with carcinogens.

Therefore it's not a predictable, safe, or reliable medication to be prescribing to people. Should some patients who are dying and simply want it be prescribed it?

I don't really care, although I think they're simply mistaken. That some people anecdotally report that cannabis helps them does not make a medicine safe. It's the specific number and % that are helped compared against the numbers who are not helped or harmed. This notion that it's a medicine is just legalization propaganda promoted by pot heads.

Re:"like heroin and pot"

[Domo-Sun]

Two cases of "cannabis acute psychosis" following the administration of oral cannabis

Cannabis psychosis following bhang ingestion.

Psychological Responses To Cannabis
Cannabis and acute functional psychosis, chronic psychosis, amotivational syndrome, Evidence for dependence..

Animals Exposed To Marijuana's Active Component Will Self-Administer

"Self-administration of drugs by animals, long considered a model of human drug-seeking behavior, is characteristic of virtually all addictive and abused drugs. ...The drug-seeking behavior in these animals was comparable in intensity to that maintained by cocaine... This finding suggests that marijuana has as much potential for abuse as other drugs of abuse, such as cocaine and heroin."

See: Tolerance and dependence

Cannabis use increases risk of psychotic illness

Cannabis link to mental illness strengthened

drugs and honesty

[drDugan]

It is almost impossible to have a large discussion about drugs and medical effects in the public sphere. There is a massive, taxpayer funded multi-media campaign from the U.S. federal government that has for many years taught a large fraction of the public a series of messages about drugs that are just plain false. Almost anyone with significant experience with using these same drugs knows this to be the case, but their voices are typically marginalized or not taken seriously.

Re:drugs and honesty

[moderatorrater]

Well, yeah, you're all on drugs. Duh.

Now, if you can get someone high up, like the president, to say that they've done drugs, then you might be able to convince people...

Re:drugs and honesty

[Domo-Sun]

Hey, did it ever occur to you that drugs have side effects that need to be reported on? Even aspirin comes with death warnings. I see it the other way around: A lot of over blown skepticism from hippies in denial.

Re:drugs and honesty

[nuzak]

> A lot of over blown skepticism from hippies in denial.

It isn't hippies kicking down doors.

Re:drugs and honesty

[Antique Geekmeister]

Unless you've got corn chips and salsa. It's amazing what a stoned roommate will do your cupboards looking for a snack.

My lawyer said....

[Balthisar]

I'm suing Wired. Even though my lawyer said not to mention anything outside the courtroom, the Wired article enticed me to try ALL of those drugs in order to rescue my failing career.

Under the Aderall, everyone that passed my cube though I was calling them names. That resulted in an unpleasant meeting where I swore at my boss.

With the Aniracetam, I had the unpleasant assignment of examining the weld quality on some Ambassor Bridge repairs. Thank goodness for fall harnesses!

I don't even want to recall the embarrassment at work when taking the Aricept. It was like first grade all over again.

Methamphetamine was probably my best try. I had to stop taking it when I was sent home for "the nerves."

The Modafinil made everyone think I actually *did* something with the stripper in the back room at the club, and worse, that it was contagious.

The Nicotine just got met cited by the county for violating workplace rules. It actually worked out quite well, but the $250 smoking fines really add up, ya know?

The Rolipram was a little better than the Aricept. You get much more sympathy when everything comes out from above rather than from below.

I'm currently taking Vasopressin. For some reason, people keep telling me to chew my food before I swallow it.

Maybe I shouldn't have taken them in the prescribed order? In any case, don't tell my attorney. Something about "spoiling my case."

Sometimes, old things just need to die

[hyades1]

Ever since it failed to address its support for the Bush administration with respect to the invasion of Iraq, the New York Times has become steadily less relevant. I don't know whether they believe only old, right-wing fossils still read newspapers or whether they're having trouble recruiting quality staff on the wages they're willing to pay. Whatever the problem, they should either fix it, or just turn out the lights and go home.

Wired has always published its share of articles written with a smart-ass or tongue-in-cheek tone, and its audience both likes them and understands that they're not intended to be taken as gospel. The Times reviewer is clearly from the "full body armour to ride a bicycle" school of saving us all from ourselves.

Re:Sometimes, old things just need to die

[Just Some Guy]

I don't know whether they believe only old, right-wing fossils still read newspapers or whether they're having trouble recruiting quality staff on the wages they're willing to pay.

I have never, not once, heard anyone describe the Times as conservative. :-)

Wired has always published its share of articles written with a smart-ass or tongue-in-cheek tone, and its audience both likes them and understands that they're not intended to be taken as gospel.

They've also had plenty of non-mainstream material that was dead serious. I subscribe to Wired, and although I haven't read that article yet, I wouldn't be surprised if it was completely straightforward and factual. They're one of the last magazines I expect to pander to conventional wisdom (except for the "Ask Wired"-style columns where they tell people that it's illegal to rip CDs and other such idiocy), so I wouldn't be surprised if they had an article about the best drugs.

Incidentally, 2600 had a good article on nootropic drugs a couple issues ago, but I halfway expect it to be followed up some day with "Hacking 2600 Readers: Convincing Geeks to Give Themselves Parkinsons". Even if I weren't old and boring with kids and a mortgage, I wouldn't try stuff out of it.

LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11!

[sakusha]

BLOGGERS ARE TEH OUTRAGE! WiRED IS L337!!!!1!11

Oh not this crap again.

Wired is wrong to promote drug use, especially stuff like meth. I work with recovering addicts and believe me, some gullible young kids ARE swayed by this sort of stupid publicity by those self-appointed arbiters of coolness. Even the allegedly "innocent" prescription drugs like Adderal do lead to addiction. If even one weak person was swayed to a life of addiction by Wired's advice to "do the right drugs," Conde Nast has done evil.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11!

[Anti_Climax]

If even one weak person was swayed to a life of addiction by Wired's advice to "do the right drugs," Conde Nast has done evil.

If it's come to that, we all might as well fold our hands and wait to die.

Some people make good choices in life, some make poor ones. If a kid gets hooked on meth because of a mention in Wired, there's a certainly a problem; it's definitely not with Wired.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11!

[Bullet-Dodger]

Wired is wrong to promote drug use, especially stuff like meth. I work with recovering addicts and believe me, some gullible young kids ARE swayed by this sort of stupid publicity by those self-appointed arbiters of coolness. Yes, wired promoted using meth by saying it causes "Parkinson's-like symptoms, addiction, stroke, psychosis, prison, death" and "Prolonged use can also make you stupid and crazy.".

How dare they make it look so cool and sexy!

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11!

[sakusha]

You skipped over the part about "Triggers the release of dopamine. Can increase concentration and creative output." I note that this description comes BEFORE the downside.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11!

[dangitman]

Such bullshit. Don't people have any right to choose, or responsibility for their own actions? Why is it evil to talk about the effects of drugs in an honest way? Why should there be any form of guilt or wrongdoing associated with that?

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11!

[quanticle]

Come back and tell me when your kid get hooked on meth FROM READING AN ARTICLE IN WIRED.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11!

[Bullet-Dodger]

I would still say that "Triggers the release of dopamine. Can increase concentration and creative output." alongside stupid, crazy, Parkinson's-like symptoms, addiction, stroke, psychosis, prison, and death isn't a huge endorsement.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11!

[eikonos]

I think the previous poster's point, which you missed, is that if a person is so gullible that they'll do something just because they read about it somewhere, then we might as well give up and wait to die. The point is that people have to be smart enough to do a bit of research and think a little bit for themselves.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11!

[Anti_Climax]

I can tell you with absolute certainty that my view on free will is not going to be changed by my child making a poor decision in the future.

If we have to temper everything we say in the public sphere based on the reaction of the lowest common denominator of society, we're going nowhere fast.

The world is full of pitfalls and dangerous stuff. There's no end to the stuff that could hurt or kill you. But pretending that stuff doesn't exist isn't going to keep people safe from it.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11!

[Fx.Dr]

Honestly, if a magazine article does a better job at getting your kids hooked on drugs than you are at keeping them off, I'm placing the blame solely on YOU, the parent. Stop passing the buck.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11!

[Man On Pink Corner]

You skipped over the part about "Triggers the release of dopamine. Can increase concentration and creative output." I note that this description comes BEFORE the downside.

You skipped the part that describes how that's not 100% true.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11!

[Anonymous Coward]

I note that this description comes BEFORE the downside.

No, you'd gripe about it either way.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11!

[Artifakt]

Every commercial drug advertisement lists the effects that it is being sold for before it lists the 'side' effects. That is, "BEFORE the downside" as you put it. They also do what they can with large print vs small, and eloquent on screen actor vs mumbling guy in background, to make this more effective. I understand why you feel this method is unethical in Wired's case, but I have to ask, do you think it's equally nasty in these other cases?

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11!

[TommydCat]

You skipped over the part about "Triggers the release of dopamine. Can increase concentration and creative output." I note that this description comes BEFORE the downside.

I agree... there's definitely a <strong> message there...

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11!

[Domo-Sun]

Yes. I think everyone sees that drug companies are selling you something. And while it's the parents responsibility, there's a little bit of responsibility that wired has when suggesting that every-day people benefit by using drugs and they turned out as writers and successful. That stuff sways kids because they're stupid.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11!

[PitaBred]

Ignorance is not really the best for your kids. If you shield them from information, they're gonna make stupid choices. Your job is to teach them how to process information properly, and then let them go. Give them the tools to survive without you. If you can't do that, you've failed as a parent.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11!

[maj1k]

you moron. i'm a recovering meth addict; i also know a lot of other recovering meth addicts. i can tell you for a fact that none of us started using this drug due to reading a blog post. a weak person who is swayed to use a drug due to a blog post is the same person who would use the drug if a random person gave it to them on the street. you have no clue what you're talking about.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11!

[servognome]

Yes, wired promoted using meth by saying it causes "Parkinson's-like symptoms, addiction, stroke, psychosis, prison, death" and "Prolonged use can also make you stupid and crazy.".
How dare they make it look so cool and sexy!

Damn straight. Ever since I started taking meth, I totally fit in with the cool guys down at the retirement home.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11!

[Anachragnome]

Oh, please.

Just because there are idiots out there that believe anything they read does not mean that I myself need to be protected, "for my own protection".

As I stated in a previous post, I seriously doubt anyone has more concern about my well-being then myself. I do NOT need your concern.

Sure, go help the idiots, but I'm doing just fine.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11!

[sessamoid]

Since we have to temper everything we say in the public sphere based on the reaction of the lowest common denominator of society, we're going nowhere fast.
Fixed it for you.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11!

[sonamchauhan]

Hey Bullet-Dodger!

He got you at "I work with recovering addicts and believe me, some gullible young kids ARE swayed by this sort of stupid publicity by those self-appointed arbiters of coolness."

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11!

[aplusjimages]

The point is that people have to be smart enough to do a bit of research and think a little bit for themselves. This is true, but lets face it advertisements work because people are easy to influence and if people were smart we wouldn't need seat belt laws.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11!

[digitrev]

So what? Call me an inhuman bastard, but if people are that goddamn stupid and gullible, then maybe they deserve to learn the hard way. Just because Joey Highschooler makes an idiot decision does not mean that I'm not allowed to discuss the benefits of drugs. Especially if I'm kind enough to point out the negative effects of said drugs immediately after that.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11!

[digitrev]

What about the fact that the stuff sways kids because they're ignorant? Maybe telling them all the benefits and drawbacks without the screaming hysteria would give them an opportunity to make an informed decision. Then, when they do take the stuff anyways, it's not for lack of effort on society's part to inform them.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11!

[Domo-Sun]

I don't think Wired's reporter did that. He didn't say that while he, the author, became a successful writer x number of people didn't. He's not a drug-educating expert or doctor. And I don't think children should be given the "opportunity to make an informed decision" to take drugs.

Hillary's face

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought it was distortion in my CRT monitor.

Staring:Meth AND....nicotine?

[Anonymous Coward]

Growing up in the meth capitol of the world (Des Moines, IA...Anhydrous? farmers? perfect!) I know the devastation meth causes, but nicotine?...

seriously? Promoting meth use and nicotine use in the same article? Get the fuck outta here...

You wouldn't like me when I'm angry...

[DuChamp Fitz]

I figured it was steroids.

Have you noticed how freaking huge Hillary's face has become recently? Symptom of anti-depressant abuse.

Re:You wouldn't like me when I'm angry...

[cayenne8]

"Have you noticed how freaking huge Hillary's face has become recently? Symptom of anti-depressant abuse."

"I figured it was steroids."

I kind of doubt it...I mean..isn't her penis large enough already?

Re:You wouldn't like me when I'm angry...

[Miseph]

Fun fact: many 'roids shrink your junk.

Kind of puts the whole thing in perspective, doesn't it?

Re:You wouldn't like me when I'm angry...

[sm62704]

I had to google "'roid" to find out that you weren't talking about hemroids! What would a nerd know about steroids? Do you know any musclebound nerds? Most of us are either way too fat or way too skinny.

Another fun fact about steroids: they cause cataracts, as I found out after getting steroid eyedrops prescribed for an eye infection. I'm now a cyborg, click the sig for details (although I haven't been "three eyes" for quite a while, I haven't been using the one contact lens)

Promoting Drug Use

[Anonymous Coward]

The Wired article did make me interested in at least researching further cognitive enhancement drugs such as Adderal. I experience serious focus issues that make it difficult for me to work consistently on the things I most want to do. Is that so bad? Can't I as an adult be presented with the risks and benefits, and make my own decision?

Unfortunately, to even try such a medication, I'd have to find an illegal source or lie about symptoms to my doctor.

Wired is the bad guy here, for honestly presenting both pros and cons, rather than yelling the accepted government propaganda. The government is in the right for protecting us from ourselves. Most people would agree that meth is so destructive and addictive that it warrants strong controls, but many of the other substances on Wired's list are not so clear cut.

Both Writers Are Guilty of...

[joocemann]

...simply searching too hard for something to write about. Both the article and the times' response are just blather that will pass like a fart in the wind.

Re:Drugs Drugs Drugs, Which are good which are bad

[Anonymous Coward]

See children, drugs are bahhhd (c'mon)
and if you don't believe me, ask ya dahhhd (ask him man)
and if you don't believe him, ask ya mom (that's right)
She'll tell you how she does 'em all the time (she will)
So kids say no to drugs (that's right)
So you don't act like everyone else does (uh-huh)
Then there's really nothin else to say (sing along)
Drugs are just bad, mmm'kay?
eminem

It's sad...

[msimm]

When organization strays so far from the heartbeat of the American entertainment business.

Most people who abuse drugs self-medicate...

[msimm]

Maybe if we taught them that they'd choose medication or coping-skills over addiction.

When you start to view balanced information as promotion you've clearly lost your way.

Re:Most people who abuse drugs self-medicate...

[sakusha]

I don't consider Wired's specific details on how to fake the right illness to get a prescription for a specific drum, or to buy it online from dodgy pharmacies, to be anything resembling "balanced information."

Best Quote from Article:

[CrashNBrn]

"One of Gawker's commenters jokingly asked what kind of high they'd get from putting a rattlesnake in their anus. "Is it a jumpy high, like cocaine, or a dancey, laughy high, like shrooms, or is it groovy, like LSD? Does anyone know where I could score a rattlesnake in midtown?"

Oh man that had me laughin' ma azz off.

to be fair

[Phantom of the Opera]

Do you remember the first thing that you read, or the latest?
Placing the downsides last stresses the downsides.

No no no.

[Max Littlemore]

My concentration was so bad before I took crystal meth that I couldn't take the rest of the sentence in.

By the way, did you know that self mutilation with a chainsaw can shed weight quicker than any known diet and exercise regime? Oh, and it may cause death or permanent disability.

My god, what have I done?

Did you read it?

[msimm]

Nothing personal, but if that's the impression you got you clearly aren't their target audience. It was cheeky, yes, but every drug mentioned included a list of mostly horrific side effects. But I guess that's hardly worth noticing if your going for the knee-jerk reaction.

I don't know whether it was the drugs...

[patio11]

...or MySpace, but whatever it was, buddy, get help.

Re:I don't know whether it was the drugs...

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you'd have to RTFA to get the joke.

Link to Wired article?

[edelholz]

I know, I know, I must be new here. But I'd really like to RTFA!

Re:Link to Wired article?

[CmdrSammo]

Don't think anyone has linked it yet:
Original wired article

Re:Link to Wired article?

[edelholz]

Thank you.

Hahaha!

[stormguard2099]

Some of the Dems are pushing to impeach Bush, the OOXML has been put on hold, Macs are getting some love in the game department and to top it all off a more or less mainstream news source is defending open and honest dialog on marijuana.
I have to hand it to you /., you really got me good this time! I mean everyone sees it coming at the beginning of April but to have it in the middle of June. Best April Fool's day ever!
Hats off to you sir!

corn chips

[Anonymous Coward]

My feet smell like corn-chips

If I put salsa on my toes

Can I get stoned girls

To lick my toe jam?

Ob Pee Wee

[servognome]

There is a massive, taxpayer funded multi-media campaign from the U.S. federal government that has for many years taught a large fraction of the public a series of messages about drugs that are just plain false.

At least give a good example of the media campaign
I know I'll never use drugs... see money well spent

Re:Ob Pee Wee

[drDugan]

This pretty much speaks for itself:

http://boss.streamos.com/download/federal/aspen/slom_h_1.mov

Quoth the ONDCP: "Well folks, there is no rational or reasonable argument we can use, so lets make people think that using drugs is like putting leeches on themselves. (Intern sucks up:) Yeah yeah - that'll work! They'll fall for that, for sure."

For more of the recent ones:

http://www.mediacampaign.org/mg/television.html

I was really looking for the 2003 Superbowl commercial that with a straight line basically told teens that pot got them pregnant, and completely avoided the possibility that, oh, let's see, condoms might be a good thing to mention, or that when you're 14 and do mess up and get pregnant, then abortion is an option to take seriously.

I said the same thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I said the same thing months ago during her campaign (I noted it was a giant head) and everybody told me it was a different haircut. No one would just admit that her face/head were now giant and looked bizarre.

Who cares what the NY Times thinks?

[ZWithaPGGB]

I mean seriously? Haven't they lost ALL credibility by now?

Even you ultra-libs have to laugh at that bespectacled tween in the ads who says she turns to the old grey litterbox liner to "find out what's happening on the web".

Last I checked, the leftmedia echo chamber had moved to the Huffington Post. (Who hired Hilary Rosen, she of the RIAA, so where does that leave us?)

The core market are old and dying. Even inventing the news hasn't resurrected circulation.

Heroin isn't harmful to the body

[Kattspya]

Heroin gets you constipated. It's not dangerous to the body in and of itself. Look it up, you won't find any physical side effects other than constipation and perhaps itching. It's addictive as hell but its side effects are very mild compared to most other drugs.

Re:Drugs Drugs Drugs, Which are good which are bad

[fishdan]

Asking your mom or dad makes more sense than reading about it in the New York Times which is now the 2nd most reputable paper in the city. I read left over copies of the Times on the subway every day, but it's political agenda is laughable. I read the Times when I am looking for partisanship or statistics to support my own personal liberal agenda, but I certainly don't think I'm getting a full picture when I read an article.

Being mad at the Times for inaccurate, biased or fear mongering articles is like being mad a dog when he nips you. He's a DOG! That's what he does! Being mad at the NYT is just as silly. Trust them like you would Entertainment Tonight.

UK drug policy

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC comissioned a study a few months back which was televisised as part of their last "horizon" series. The top 20 illicit drugs.
It seemed to be a fairly scientific discussion on the relative merits of the 20 most prevelant drugs in the UK, including tobacco, alcohol, and the usual crowd of recreationals.
Its available as a torrent and on the bbc iplayer.

We live in a drug laden society.

[clevguru]

For those of you who have watched the "BBC Horizon - 2008-02-05 - Is Alcohol Worse than Ecstasy?" [available at http://www.mininova.org/tor/1173622%5D realize that alcohol and tobacco are among the worst offenders when it comes to drugs. I turn on the TV at times (very few times) and see wholesale promotion of drug use by budweiser, Miller, and a whole slew of drug-pushing beer companies. I say legalize ALL drugs and sell them including alcohol and tobacco ONLY at state drug stores and tax them all. I'm tired of all of the drug related crime here and abroad. Put all drugs on a level playing field, don't promote one dangerous one over another. Scott Emick Euclid, Ohio

Re:Drugs Drugs Drugs, Which are good which are bad

[Monkeyboy4]

Being mad at the Times for inaccurate, biased or fear mongering articles is like being mad a dog when he nips you. He's a DOG! That's what he does! Being mad at the NYT is just as silly. Trust them like you would Entertainment Tonight.

But you can train a dog not to nip you...How do you train the NYT? Roll them up and hit them on the nose with themselves?

Ridiculously one sided debate

[LowJik78]

I live in the UK where it _could_ be said that drug laws (particularly the classification of Cannabis) are in flux. There was an interesting program on television that asked many health and drug proffesionals to rank many common legal and illegal drugs by their harm to the body (toxcicity) and their harm to society, very intersting that one of the lowest was ecstacy (18/20) and top three (from memmory) were heroin, coccaine and alcohol with tobbaco up there as well. Tobbaco advertising has been banned almost everywhere, yet alcohol is advertised on TV. Oh the disparity. All the 'debates' or discussions about drugs are so massively one-sidded, in order to have a proper debate you have to talk about the all aspects of drug taking, including the benefits of why people would take them. Maybe then we will get some straight answers as to what we should 'do about drugs'. We need to have a real, reasoned debate about drugs and their effects on society. But you find me a politician/lawmaker who will stand up and actually talk about benefits of taking drugs.

The newest drug battle

[cerelib]

If you have not heard of it yet, the newest drug battle is an herb called salvia. It is supposed to provide a short hallucinagenic effect and is available over the counter in many places. State governments have moved to create laws to ban it locally, but the DEA has still not scheduled it. There has been no hard evidence of negative health effects. It will be interesting to see how the DEA classifies it and what the justification is. Salvia might be the rallying point for reform of drug laws, or it could just become another marijuana. Worst of all, the news media has spread FUD about kids getting HIGH using COMPLETELY LEGAL OVER THE COUNTER herbs from MEXICO.

okey, maybe you are right.

[Phantom of the Opera]

I would still expect people to place the emphasis on what they read last. That isn't everyone though.

No matter the order, you'll have a group that won't pay attention to the downsides.

Pot sometimes a palliative for schizophrenia

[zooblethorpe]

The main problems with using dope are scizophernia[sic] for those who are already genetically predisposed

Though totally anecdotal, my best friend growing up was afflicted with schizophrenia, and later in life (college-age) discovered that pot actually helped alleviate a number of his symptoms.

Incidentally, there is some evidence that infection by toxoplasma, a psychotropic and behaviour-modifying systemic parasite that sometimes sets up shop in the host's brain, might be the root of schizophrenic symptoms. The causal relationship is still not fully understood (i.e. it could be that people with schizophrenia might be more prone to infection, rather than infection causing schizophrenia), but the circumstantial evidence so far seems to suggest that the parasite might be the cause. In my friend's case, the family had a cat that spent as much time as possible outside, and outdoor cats are a known vector for toxoplasmosis. Certainly not a smoking gun, but suggestive, and at the very least another point on the graph.

Cheers,

Re:Pot sometimes a palliative for schizophrenia

[TapeCutter]

Very interesting!

I have two personal anecdotes but neither of them are good. A woman I knew would start pacing and pulling her hair out after smoking and a guy I knew would become extremely parinoid. One day about 5yrs ago the forty something year old guy drove off into the Aussie bush, the cops found his abandodned car a few days later but nobody has seen him since. The guy was a regular smoker and the woman smoke only on rare occasions but in both cases it seemed to me that dope made their symptoms much worse.

These people were in their early 40's and were both diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia in their late teens, in both cases the onset of the illness coincided with traumatic 'betrayal of trust' type events.

Re:Pot sometimes a palliative for schizophrenia

[zooblethorpe]

Interesting indeed. Schizophrenia is one of the odder mental ailments, and certainly seems to be one of the less-understood. I was about to ask why the fellow was a regular smoker if it only made him paranoid, and then I read your second paragraph and realized that the question isn't the right one to ask.

FWIW, my friend's diagnosis was not paranoid schizophrenia, but schizoeffective disorder, explained to me as non-paranoid schizophrenia plus other emotional elements, in his specific case, including obsessive-compulsive disorder, anxiety, mild bipolarity, and a preoccupation with personal appearance. His illness seemed to arise more gradually than with your acquaintances, but around the same time, with the OCD becoming noticeable to others around grade 10 or so, and the schizophrenia arising seriously a couple years later with a failed suicide attempt. He later found that pot really helped him mellow out, as it took the edge off his anxiety and helped damp down his OCD. For the schizophrenia itself, he described it as if your imagination got stuck on a really disturbing set of images and you couldn't change the channel; apparently the pot helped push such not-quite-full-blown hallucinations more into the background. But again, his specific manifestation of schizophrenic symptoms did not include paranoia, so that may well account for a large part of the difference from what you describe.

Unfortunately, though in my view understandably, he ultimately became so unhappy with his massively curtailed options in life, which were at stark odds to his ambitions, that he decided to end it himself many years ago, in his mid 20s. Though I still miss him terribly, I can see why he chose to exit the way he did, and when he did, and I do not blame him.

He quite liked Pink Floyd too.

Cheers,

Re:Drugs Drugs Drugs, Which are good which are bad

[eam]

No. It's obvious: hit them on the nose with a rolled up dog.