Media Dustup Pits Bloggers and Wired Against NYTimes 242
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Drugs Drugs Drugs, Which are good which are bad (Score:5, Funny)
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?
Wired magazine should change it's name (Score:3, Funny)
when haven't we promoted drugs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder why that is.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
Well maybe you ought to cut down on the Prozac then. Of course, consult your doctor.
Either that or move away from the screen.
Hillary's face (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I figured it was steroids."
I kind of doubt it...I mean..isn't her penis large enough already?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Kind of puts the whole thing in perspective, doesn't it?
Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Alcohol.
Tobacco.
Oxycontin.
Benzodiazepines (http://www.medicinenet.com/alprazolam/article.htm).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
::Lights another batty::
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
-nB
And it's not from the munchies...
Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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
Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Is the possibility of further abuse worth the tradeoff of getting rid of organized drug crimes?
Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like what Chris Rock said about the government and drugs [youtube.com].....
Methamphetamine is NOT illegal! (Score:5, Informative)
Methamphetamine is available on prescription under the brand name Desoxyn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desoxyn [wikipedia.org]
"like heroin and pot" (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
(not saying they should be illegal, just pointing it out)
Re:"like heroin and pot" (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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, bec
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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
Heroin isn't harmful to the body (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
That must be some powerful bud you're smoking there. Consider packing it a little lighter.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Methamphetamine is NOT illegal! (Score:5, Informative)
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! (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm a pharmacist.
Who really cares what the NYT has to say? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who really cares what the NYT has to say? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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)
Promoting Drug Use (Score:5, Interesting)
Slow news day (Score:3, Interesting)
Considering...... (Score:5, Insightful)
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...... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 thu
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How the NY Times has fallen. (Score:5, Interesting)
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 sad... (Score:2)
drugs and honesty (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
It isn't hippies kicking down doors.
My lawyer said.... (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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
Who cares what the NY Times thinks? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
The newest drug battle (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11! (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Come back and tell me when your kid get hooked on meth FROM READING AN ARTICLE IN WIRED.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11! (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11! (Score:5, Informative)
How dare they make it look so cool and sexy!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You skipped the part that describes how that's not 100% true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
to be fair (Score:2)
Placing the downsides last stresses the downsides.
No no no. (Score:3, Funny)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Most people who abuse drugs self-medicate... (Score:3, Insightful)
When you start to view balanced information as promotion you've clearly lost your way.
Re: (Score:2)