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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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".

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.

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.

"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.