Slashdot Mirror
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."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
to stewed, or blasted, or ...
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.
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
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
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.
Winking is serious business.
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?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
.......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.
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.
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.
It's a sad commentary on the stupidity of our drug laws that heroin and marijuana get lumped into the same category.
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.
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."
--Jim (me)
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.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
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.
Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
Thanks for clearing that up. I thought it was distortion in my CRT monitor.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
How dare they make it look so cool and sexy!
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?
... and then they built the supercollider.
Come back and tell me when your kid get hooked on meth FROM READING AN ARTICLE IN WIRED.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
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.
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.
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.
Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
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.
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.
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?
Who is John Cabal?
...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.
This comment does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the author.
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.
When organization strays so far from the heartbeat of the American entertainment business.
Quack, quack.
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.
Quack, quack.
"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.
Do you remember the first thing that you read, or the latest?
Placing the downsides last stresses the downsides.
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.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
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?
I don't therefore I'm not.
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.
Quack, quack.
...or MySpace, but whatever it was, buddy, get help.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
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.
I know, I know, I must be new here. But I'd really like to RTFA!
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. /., 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!
I have to hand it to you
Hats off to you sir!
http://greenobyl.com/ please.... think of the children!!
I know I'll never use drugs... see money well spent
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
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.
Fixed it for you.
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
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 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.
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.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
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
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."
Can I bum a sig?
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?
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.
Meanwhile, behind the innocent facade of an old hat shop......
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.
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.
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,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
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.
Cynical Idealist
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.
Cynical Idealist
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.
No. It's obvious: hit them on the nose with a rolled up dog.