Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Media

Media Dustup Pits Bloggers and Wired Against NYTimes 242

Posted by kdawson
from the evidence-please-not-bullet-points dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Media Dustup Pits Bloggers and Wired Against NYTimes

Comments Filter:
  • by Dr.Who (146770) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @08:53PM (#23740549) Homepage
    to stewed, or blasted, or ...
  • by saiha (665337) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @08:55PM (#23740573)
    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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Substance used in moderation provides benefits, is harmful when used in excess. Film at 11.
    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      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: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by maxume (22995)
        Because the manufacturers of generics don't bother advertising?
      • 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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Artifakt (700173)
        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.
    • by Xyrus (755017) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @09:23PM (#23741005) Journal
      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~
      • by clang_jangle (975789) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @09:31PM (#23741107) Journal

        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.
      • by morgan_greywolf (835522) * on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @09:35PM (#23741137) Homepage Journal

        Then I could write a story that says "MULTIVITAMINS WILL KILL YOU!!!!"
        You could write a story right now. This study [ons.org] 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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by oracle128 (899787)
        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?
        • by Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @10:10PM (#23741521) Homepage Journal
          >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).
        • 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.
          • by inKubus (199753) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @11:05PM (#23742149) Homepage Journal
            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.
            • by cromar (1103585)
              Hee hee... you left out an important comma.

              ::Lights another batty::
            • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

              by 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: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Domo-Sun (585730)
            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 [newscientist.com]
            "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
            • 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: (Score:3, Informative)

        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: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Domo-Sun (585730)
        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.
        • by Miseph (979059) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @01:23AM (#23743329) Journal
          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
      • for what it's worth pot does increase your likelihood of developing givial disease.
        -nB

        And it's not from the munchies...
      • by SoupIsGoodFood_42 (521389) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @01:52AM (#23743537)
        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.
      • by Toonol (1057698) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @02:46AM (#23743873)
        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.
        • by TapeCutter (624760) * on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @04:17AM (#23744409) Journal
          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 [wikipedia.org] 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 [abc.net.au] 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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by StarfishOne (756076)

        What is it about drugs that set people on edge?

        I believe the late Terence McKenna [wikipedia.org] 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 [wikipedia.org] while still being able to return' (paraphrase) are not

    • by Max Littlemore (1001285) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @09:45PM (#23741249)

      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by the_humeister (922869)
        I wouldn't exactly consider the overly rampant but legal use of opium in China in the late 1800s a positive development.
        • by Max Littlemore (1001285) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @10:35PM (#23741821)

          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.

          • 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?
            • by Max Littlemore (1001285) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @01:52AM (#23743541)

              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...

        • by YeeHaW_Jelte (451855) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @02:07AM (#23743647) Homepage
          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.
    • by phalse phace (454635) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @11:18PM (#23742311)
      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 [youtube.com].....

      "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."
  • by Ellis D. Tripp (755736) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @09:04PM (#23740743) Homepage
    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 [wikipedia.org]
    • by Reality Master 201 (578873) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @09:30PM (#23741095) Journal

      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by trawg (308495)
        ... and that alcohol and tobacco isn't alongside them.

        (not saying they should be illegal, just pointing it out)
    • by lysse (516445)
      *scouts around for a naive doctor to make an appointment with*
  • by lawn.ninja (1125909) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @09:04PM (#23740751)
    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.
    • by je ne sais quoi (987177) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @10:16PM (#23741593)
      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 [thedailyshow.com] about Clinton's concession speech and Obama's VP choice.
    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      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

      • by nuzak (959558)
        > 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 th
  • wink wink (Score:2, Funny)

    by Kneo24 (688412)
    Winking is serious business.
  • Promoting Drug Use (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @09:15PM (#23740881) Homepage Journal
    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?
    • Slow news day (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Freaky Spook (811861)
      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.
  • Considering...... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anachragnome (1008495) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @09:20PM (#23740963)
    .......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.
    • by zappepcs (820751) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @09:31PM (#23741103) Journal

      .......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
  • by cunina (986893) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @09:21PM (#23740985)
    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.
  • drugs and honesty (Score:4, Insightful)

    by drDugan (219551) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @09:35PM (#23741143) Homepage
    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.

    • 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...
  • by Balthisar (649688) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @09:36PM (#23741151) Homepage
    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."
  • by hyades1 (1149581) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @09:42PM (#23741217)

    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: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Just Some Guy (3352)

      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 su

  • by ZWithaPGGB (608529) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @04:30AM (#23744481)
    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.
  • by cerelib (903469) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @10:05AM (#23748003)
    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.

Forty two.

Working...