Talk:Drug harmfulness/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consolidation into Hard and soft drugs

I have been bold, and consolidated two articles that had already pretty much converged. I have left the talk pages from the old hard and soft articles. I have dropped the interwiki links until I see what the right thing to do is, though the inbound links should simply come here.

I left out a paragraph on another distinction made, which I quote here. I am still thinking how it might fit (I think it may need more context, as it is the only pharmaceutical usage discussed).

Recently, a new definition for soft drug has come into use. This definition refers to a drug which undergoes predictable metabolism to inactive metabolites after exerting its therapeutic effect. The ophthalmic drug loteprednol (Alrex, Lotemax) is one example of this kind of 'soft drug', as it undergoes hydrolysis into inactive carboxylic acid metabolites.

-SM 23:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Definitely include this. To a pharmacologist or medicinal chemist, this is the first definition that comes to mind upon mention of the term "soft drug". Perhaps include a tidbit on important metabolic enzymes. 70.106.137.28 00:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

Propose and Support: I feel this article should be merged to recreational drug use as this article is only a stub that goes over recreational drugs and a distinction between them. Please comment. Thaagenson 16:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that a little more work should be done on this article before it is merged, but I would support merging . Basically the hard/soft drug label is both a legal one of the Dutch drug policy, as well as a scientific one based upon the relative addictiveness of different drugs. I propose that we separate these into two separate sections, or make the Dutch drug policy a subsection to reduce confusion.
Scientifically the hard drugs are (in order of descending hardness): nicotine, ice (meth smoked), crack (cocaine smoked), crystal (meth injected), valium, qualuudes, barbituates, alcohol, heroin, crank (meth insufflated), cocaine (insufflated), caffeine, PCP
Scientifically the soft drugs are (in order of descending hardness): marijuana, MDMA, psilocybin, LSD, mescaline. --Thoric 16:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Strongly opposed to proposed merge, the assumption that this article is only a stub that goes over recreational drugs and a distinction between them assumes a greater validity of the term Recreational drug use than warranted.

Please see further discussion. -SM 08:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


Strong oppose. I don't think the articles should be merged. Serious addiction to hard drugs, especially herion, is not a recreational activity, and I would argue the same for hard core meth (that I have only read about) and crack addicts. While I am not keen on the term recreational for describing marijuana use, as it implies that it is taken in one's leisure time whereas my perception (and I am know I am not alone) is that it's more like coffee, ie a good drug to use while working, and whereas alcohol is considered a recreational drug coffee is not. But while I can live with cannabis described as a recreational drug I oppose casting hard, highly addictive drugs like crack and heroin as recreational drugs, SqueakBox 19:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed template per notice at Talk:Recreational drug use#Bifurcation of issues (merges and scope)

Nicotine harder than crack?

It would also be good to get some evidence that nicotine is harder than meth or crack. I simply don't believe it. You can't smoke 60 rocks a day for 50 years and still be aslive and the deleterious effects of meth are ntorious. So whatever criteria you are using to claim nicotine is harder than meth and crack is likely seriously flawed, and may have been written by people who didn't have a clue what they were on about (it sounds like that to me). Personally as an ex tobacco addict (larst on 11 and a half years ago) I am not pro tobacco but it is not in the same class (though in many ways tobacco is similar to crack, especially the short lasting affect), SqueakBox 19:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Meth may be notorious, but how much of that notoriety is based on facts? How many methamphetamine users actually get into trouble?
Crack is a bad example simply because the primary harmful effect has nothing to do with cocaine - it is simply that crack produces exeptionally hot smoke. You could easily use cocaine at regular intervals daily for decades. It is arguable who'd be in worse shape, the 60 a day cigarette smoker or cocaine user.

Not true, crack burns at a low temperature, much more so than cannabis. That is why people snmoke it using plastic syringes, if you smoked cannabis through one of them the pipe would melt. Years ago an ENT surgeon said the problem with cannabis is it burns so hot. I disagree about about the harmful effects of cocaine, it is a drug that destroys people's peace of mind and kills far more rapidly than tobacco. You may be right about meth, it is not a drug used here in Honduras or that I have come across in others, SqueakBox 13:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the hardness rating isn't based on intoxication, it is based on ability to stop using a drug. How hard it is to stop. Not necessarily how hard the drug is on your body. The drugs interference with your ability to function can actual reduce its ability to addict you. Studies show that if 100 people use cocaine, about 10 people will get hooked. The same studies show that if 100 people smoke cigarettes, that 20 of them will get hooked. Which is the harder drug to stop using? --Thoric 22:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The scale cited which puts nicotine ahead of crack is for addiction only.

The idea of drug hardness is actually a subjective assessment of the magnitude of consequences of use, which has solidified into common usage, the primary component of which is the likelihood of addiction (in practice), but also includes deterioration of health (in practice) likelihood of antisocial behaviour (in practice), and likelihood of injury to self and other during use (in practice). The line between hard and soft is most aptly described as acceptable and non-acceptable in either a personal or a societal sense.

Even here, there is a cultural bias for users of naturally occuring drugs such as mescaline, peyote, psylocybe and cannabis to classify as soft drugs those synthetic hallucinogens similar in effect such as LSD (acid) and MDMA (ecstasy). Although all are powerful, I would observe that, in contrast to alcohol, meth, coke and heroin, these drug seldom lead to degradation.

-SM 23:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree but I would say the same about nicotine which, if you don't count getting cancer or some long term health problem, clearly doesn't lead to long term degradation. I can believe it is very addictive but I seriously doubt if it has anything on crack in terms of short term addiction (we are talking minutes and hours here) which addicts have to keep smoking in order to avoid the extremely unpleaseant comedown which can extend over several hours if one has smoked enough. I don't find it credible that heroin is less addictive than alcohol as it takes a long time to get addicted to alcohol at least for most people whereas a degeneration into heroin addiction can be very fast. Again while valium is very addictive in the long run again you have to have used a lot of it to get addicted, which is why doctors still do pescribe it short term. I wonder how many of the 100 would get addicted to crack? I bet a lot more than would get addicted to cocaine, and anecdotal evidence would certainly back me up (I live in a city and a country and a region full of crack). There are clearly people like marijuana anonymous who consider cannabis to be highly addictive but one could argue lots of things are addictive (recorded music, work etc). I am amused that the blackberry mini portable computer has been nicknamed the crackberry and personally doubt whether I have come across anything as addictive as a computer hooked into the internet. If it is taken away from me (power and internet cuts) I quickly develop sym toms of depression, SqueakBox 23:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It takes quite some time to get addicted to heroin. It is not, contrary to popular myth, fast. I also wonder how many recreational users of heroin actually become abusers. We appear to have no reliable information on this. All the heroin users I know are long-term recreational users, i.e. they use it on Friday and Saturday nights, and have done so for many years. They may or may not be typical of the majority of heroin users (note we only hear about the degenerate abusers in the news; we don't even hear about the addicts who use it daily, but otherwise live normal lives).
Again, I must make clear that the term "hard" applies to how hard it is to quit. I realize that on this scale, your old drug of choice seems to be the supreme evil, but if you look at mortality statistics, you will see that cigarette smoking is still the number one killer, second only to obesity. The short term effect on your health is secondary to life-long addiction. By your measure, the hardest drugs would be real poisons such as strychnine and arsenic. There is little concern by the DEA of people abusing those substances, and in fact the more toxic a substance, the less the DEA has to worry about it. This is partly why alcohol and nicotine are legal — because they are both quite toxic. Nicotine is a deadly poison. Two average strength cigarettes contain enough nicotine to kill an adult if the nicotine was extracted and injected. Alcohol poisoning is also very real. Alcohol and tobacco use kill over half a million Americans per year. --Thoric 00:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The term hard applies to how hard it is to quit in part. My description above reflects actual usage. I hasten to point out that degradation was my own observation. That said, I also note two dear older friends of mine- smokers for decades- at home sadly on respirators. -SM 03:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that the common use of the word hard as in hard drug relates to the level of addiction but to the level of impact. Drugs like Meth and Crack and Heroin have a high-level impact on the lives of many users within the short term, while alcohol has an equally high impact on a minority of users in a mid to long range but can also inflame tragedy in the short run (drink driving or violence). The UK government does consider psilocybin and I believe ecstasy as class A ie hard drugs, and this indicatesd that many people clearly believe these are hard drugs, and with hallucinogens (LSD shrooms etc) it is understandable that people do classify these as hard drugs, IMO. Marijuana is the de rigeur soft drug, some would argue uniquely so and others would argue not so, SqueakBox 03:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is called meaning drift. People hear the term "hard drug" applied to meth, crack and heroin, and assume that it must be because of all the nasty stuff they hear about in the anti-drug propaganda. In actuality, it primarily refers to addictiveness. With all drugs on a level playing field, this would be the primary factor of harmfulness. Impact on health would be secondary, and level of intoxication tertiary. On a completely level playing field, opiates are less of a problem than alcohol. The true problem with drugs comes from lack of experience and knowledge in their use. --Thoric 03:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

MDMA

The article lists MDMA under the hallucinogens, however it is not hallucinogenic. Although it is possible to hallucinate after taking an Ecstacy pill, this is because pills are rarely pure, and sometimes contain no MDMA at all. The hallucinations are caused by other drugs used in the pill. I have edited the article to add a section devoted to empathogens, as I feel they should be considered seperately from hallucinogens.

Incorrect. It's primary effect is not hallucinogenic, but it does alter perception in a way that is reminiscent of low doses of true hallucinogens. I and others who have participated in research with pure MDMA can verify this.
Anectodal reports of that sort are really of no consequence here unless they have been published elsewhere. Print references would go a long way to improve this article.--Eloil 19:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hallucinogenic does not necissarilly mean that there will be visual distortions or what we call hallucinations.

Empathogens, Hallucinogens and SSRIs

Note these drugs are not dangerous when mixed with SSRIs. I have no idea why this myth persists. Quite the contrary SSRIs dramatically reduce the effects of hallucinogens such as LSD and empathogens such as MDMA. Drugs such as MDMA could produce dangerous stimulant effects when combined with non-reversible type A MAOIs, but that is an entirely different type of antidepressant. Note the caution does not strongly apply to the reversible type A moclobemide nor the non-reversible type B selegiline. Users should still exercise caution when combining the latter MAOIs with hallucinogens and empathogens, but the chances of life-threatening interactions is small.

Do not be too quick to dismiss the potential for MAOI-MDMA interactions. A quick google turns up "Addiction, Volume 98, Number 3, March 2003, pp. 365-368(4)" as documenting four deaths following the use of moclobemide to potentiate MDMA. Presumably, the dose was the usual 75-150mg employed to orally "activate" DMT, which is an insignificant fraction of the dose used therapeutically (300-600mg in primary care, 450-1200mg being more common with specialists).
The combination of any MAOI with MDMA will significantly potentiate the effects of MDMA. I would imagine the extent is similar to the 2-8x potentiation for CNS stimulants or the 4-8x potentiation for sympathomimetics.
More significantly, it will very significantly increase the likelyhood of serotonin-related adverse effects. Not only is the amount of 5HT and DA dumped into the synapse by MDMA-induced reversal of the reuptake pump increased a lot (due to greater quantities of monoamines stored in the vesicles), but there is no other metabolic pathway for 5HT than MAO inactivation. When you dump a lot of 5HT into the synapse, prevent its reuptake by reversing the pump, and prevent its degradation entirely, you get a further increase on the order of 5-100x (depending on the source you want to cite, and the dosage studied) in postsynaptic stimulation, cumulative with the increase in available 5HT.
The increase in phasic and tonic serotonergic activity, central and peripheral, is a serious problem, and this is not lower for moclobemide than any other MAOI, provided the dose is such that an equivalent level of MAO inhibition is achieved.
That said, like any combination of serotonergic drugs and MAOIs, an expert with access to lots of equipment and resources to allot a patient can probably find a safe way to combine them in an in-patient setting, given lots of time, serum level determination, genotype testing, and so forth. They know who they are, and they usually do this with tricyclics.
No-one else should attempt such combinations, even with moclobemide, unless they are doing so for a reason that justifies a clinically significant risk of serotonin syndrome, seizures/convulsions, rigidity, rhabdomylosis, hypertension, hyperthermia, coma and death, IMO.
Zuiram 05:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference Removed

I have removed this reference at the end:

^ Ball KL., Alcohol is a hard drug. Part 1., Lamp. 1984 Oct; 41(9):34-40.

because the link is dead. 203.217.4.119 03:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

References involving a link to a website should not be removed due to the fact the page is no longer available any more than a reference to a book no longer in print should be removed. The reference only needs to contain the date when that webpage was available. If, and only if that page was not available on the date specified should it be removed. --Thoric 19:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hardness of hallucinogens

AFAIK, hallucinogens have always been considered to be "soft" drugs due to the fact that while they may have a perceived "high potential for abuse", in actuality a very small percentage of the population uses hallucinogens (excluding cannabis), and most hallucinogens (with the mentioned exceptions of the dissociatives) are non-addictive. Any claim of hallucinogens to be "harder" than cannabis is due to a misunderstanding of the term "hard" (or soft as the case may be). --Thoric 22:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree.KroneMeltzer 21:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Misunderstanding" the terms

It seems to me, especially from the comments directly above, that there is a good deal of misunderstanding of the terms -- even by people who are otherwise knowledgeable in the subject.

The terms apply only to illegal drugs. This is stated in the article, but it could be clearer. Tobacco kills about 400,000 people per year. Alcohol kills about 100,000 people per year. For addictive qualities, they both rank right up there with the best. Heroin treatment programs often won't even try to get their patients to give up tobacco because they know it is hopeless. Heroin addicts have often reported that it is harder to kick tobacco than it is to kick heroin. Alcohol withdrawal is so severe that it results in death far more often than heroin withdrawal.

Just to put things in proper perspective - heroin typically kills fewer than 5,000 people every year, about the same number as Tylenol. That is pretty remarkable considering most of it is injected directly into the vein. If people were injecting alcohol or tobacco they would be dying like flies in the Raid factory.

So there ought to be a little more explanation that this is really a BS term like "bogeyman". It is something meant to sound scary that really doesn't make any sense at all. Everyone picks and chooses their own list of "hard" and "soft" drugs to suit their own particular prejudices, often accompanied by complete ignorance of the subject.

Wolfman97 17:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Heroin treatment programs won't even try to get their patients to give up tobacco because they realise that their heroin addiction is causing much greater problems. I find it hard to believe that many people say tobacco is harder to kick than heroin; if that was the case there would be a larger amount of tobacco related crime, and is why we don't have everyone going into rehabilitation for nicotine addiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.42.146 (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Its really annoying when people misattribute crime to addiction instead of illegality. People don't generally knock over convenience stores for tobacco or alcohol because they're affordable. Nicotine does in fact have a higher rate of addiction. 32% of those who try nicotine become clinically dependent. The next highest drug on the list is heroin with 23%. There is such thing as a functional heroin addict, its just very hard for them to exist in the legal climate that they do. In a world with drugs re-legalized, there are many reasons to believe (based on hard facts) that we would have the same number of heroin addicts, but they would be more likely to be out in the open and functional just like nicotine addicts. 67.60.12.119 (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"Alcohol withdrawal is so severe that it results in death far more often than heroin withdrawal."

Part of this is incorrect. Opiates withdrawals will make you feel indescribably awful, but they can NOT kill you. Alcohol withdrawals and benzodiazepene withdrawals can most certainly kill you though. 

- LazyNoAccountYet

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

segment removed

I figure it's rude to remove something without saying why, so: I removed a bit saying that long-term use of aspirin and indeed all over-the-counter painkillers causes severe liver toxicity. This is untrue. Certainly there are many circumstances under which widely available, uncontrolled painkillers (most famously acetaminophen) can cause liver damage in most people, but long-term use at recommended doses is not one of them. If anything, this will probably cause kidney damage, and that's still not something that will happen in "most cases".

The suggestion that heroin use over a period of years causes no damage to the body is also somewhat misleading, as even experienced, cautious IV drug users (and- correct me if I'm wrong here- I don't think anyone's eating heroin) have a rather high risk of peripheral circulatory problems. It's a small thing, though, and I don't find it quite as offensive as the suggestion that an aspirin a day causes liver toxicity. Also, I can't think of a way to rephrase it. 128.113.228.16 03:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the statements were overly bold, but from a strict substance vs. substance on equal ground point of view, opiates do little to no actual damage to the body(or brain), as they are nearly identical to natural chemicals produced by the brain and control the perception of pain at the source of where pain is perceived -- in the brain. NSAIDs (such as aspirin) on the other hand actually have a full-body effect on the platelets in your blood. Acetaminophen does damage the liver, both from high doses, and from long term use of low doses. --Thoric 04:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that opiate use, itself, is basically considered to have negligible harmful effects in the long term (at reasonable dosage levels, obviously). I feel it is important to note, however, that this is not actually because they are very similar to naturally occuring chemicals. Epinephrine naturally occurs in the body, but it is still associated with provocation of nasty arrhythmias at normal doses. It just so happens that the mind and body suffer no ill effects from prolonged high (but acceptable) levels of opioids. Lucky thing, too, since so many people are dependent on these compounds on a long-term basis.
Anyway, the reason I objected to that specific point is that it used heroin as an example. Certainly, heroin is a perfectly innocuous opioid. I actually think it's supposed to be associated with a lower incidence of side effects than morphine. Problem is, in many countries (including my own, the US), heroin is illegal, which means that "heroin use" can only mean IV heroin use for people there/here (in countries where it is legal, oral preparations are available, like with other opioids). Long-term intravenous use of anything, whether it is heroin or isotonic saline solution, is associated with all sorts of nasty circulatory problems when not performed by medical professionals; even then, there's a reason mainlines are installed in patients who get regular injections. I'm just saying that I'd like to see it with a better qualifier, or maybe with something that won't usually get interpreted to mean IV use (hydromorphone and morphine are definitely up there, right?).
Acetaminophen is pretty nasty, but it does not damage the liver in long-term use of low doses in alcohol-abstinent patients (i.e. "patients who follow directions"), only in high doses. It causes KIDNEY damage over the long term, not liver damage (and bear in mind that we're talking upwards of five years, here). In any case, the article claimed that aspirin and indeed all' OTC painkillers caused liver damage when taken over the long term. 128.113.229.81 19:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC) (ooh, dynamic ip)

moving nicotine and alcohol section

I am moving the nicotine and alcohol sentence to the "soft" section. LIke the soft drugs, it is veryharder to overdose on either alcohol or nicotine. --ProdigySportsman 02:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Overdosing isn't the main criteria for determining whether a drug is hard or soft. Both drugs are quite addictive, especially nicotine. And the health risks are undeniable. Alcohol screws up your liver, kidneys, and kills brain cells. Nicotine is very addictive and usually leads to an early death. How can these drugs be considered soft? And ODing on alcohol isn't as hard as you think. Just do a google search of you are confused. Zachorious 22:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but nicotine is the most addictive drug known to man. --Thoric 17:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? More than Heroin and Cocaine? I must have a special ability not to get addicted I guess. Many years ago I started experimenting with tobacco and smoked for a couple weeks everyday. Because the effects where so mild, I figured it wasn't worth it and quit right away quite easily. Maybe I'm different, I dunno. But I wouldn't doubt nicotine being as addictive as the hardest drugs, I've certainly seen people who get manic depressed if they didn't have their 12 pack that they usually have a day. Zachorious 23:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

if you injected nicotine (possible but unheard of) you would be addicted immediatly and if its purity was questionable like heroin you could quite easily overdose, nobody has ever died of smoked heroin over dose The Right Honourable 09:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I would agree that nicotine perhaps qualifies for hard status but alcohol is not nearly as addictive. Nicotine overdoses pretty much are impossible via normal methods of smoking or chewing. Having alcohol especially as a hard drug makes this article just appear ridiculous. Alcohol is about as addictive as chocolate or marijuana, give me a break. 68.245.186.169 10:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


No, you're wrong. Alcohol is very addictive. What do you think alcoholism is?....Addiction to Alcohol. It is also easy to OD on, a few of my friends have been hospitalized by Alcohol overdose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.197.156 (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

cite sources for potentially dangerous claims

  • "There are also few physical health risks associated with soft drugs."
  • "and are not known for causing any deaths"
  • "many of which are closely related to amphetamines"
  • "synthetic hallucinogens such as LSD (acid) and MDMA (ecstasy) as hard drugs, although they have very similar action to naturally occurring drugs such as mescaline"

These statements are completely false. Please cite the sources you have for these claims.

I'm not sure they are all completely false. For example, the text "the phenethylamine-based empathogens such as MDMA., many of which are closely related to amphetamines" (gone from the article now anyway) is saying nothing particularly controversial. All phenethylamines are closely related to amphetamines structurally and many, including MDMA, are amphetamines.
"There are also few physical health risks associated with soft drugs." is unsourced and extremely controversial, especially considering how loosely the term "soft drug" is used. I have removed it from the article now.--Eloil 20:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

definition for hard drugs

is there any definition for hard drugs? or it's just a group of drugs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.250.232.251 (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

MDMA as reletively safe compared to Alcohol/Tobacco?

I think this isn't an appropriate claim to make at all. You can't just take the stats listing the number of deaths for each and then conclude that X substance is safer than X substance. Fewer people die every year from eating cyanide than from drinking alcohol, is cyanide safer than drinking? People who drink alcohol often consume it every day in varying amounts. People who use ecstacy don't take it every day.

I think such a claim isn't appropriate to make. It may be true or not, I don't know, but more statistics and information would have to be cited. There's more to the safety of a substance than just how many people die from using it, as that is attributable to so many other thing such as dosage, adulterants, pre-existing health issues, other issues such as water intake etc. etc.

I won't make any changes myself as I don't have information to cite either discounting or supporting such a claim, but I think, as simple common sense would dictate, the manner in which the statement is framed hardly constitutes a valid, factual claim.

Also, as I may add having just thought of it. PCP and DXM are listed as a hallucinogenic drug when they are not. They are classified as dissociative substances along with other such as Ketamine, Nitrous Oxide, Salvia and others.

On the whole I think this article is filled with factual errors.

You are absoulutely right about MDMA. As to DXM and PCP, they are indeed hallucinogens; They are not psychedelics, if that what you meant, they are dissociatives, but both are hallucinogens. Let The Sunshine In 17:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
who eats cyanide? and medical grade MDMA is probably safer than alcohol or tabacco, but street MDMA isnt medical gradeThe Right Honourable 09:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Ever heard of "Molly"? It's a street name for pure MDMA. Much safer, and literally less harmful than what "Ecstasy" takers usually die from;the other drugs in the street manufactured pill form. It is, indeed much less damaging than alcohol or tobacco, when compared to the long and short term physical and mental affects of all three. 3:44, 5 September 2009

NPOV

One thing this article is not. It needs fixing Crested Penguin 07:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this article is, in its entirety, very biased towards a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_drugs Hard and soft drugs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaminority view of the concept of 'hard' and 'soft' drugs. These might be difficult definitions, but clearly the general understanding of 'hard drugs' is not something that includes cocaine, heroine *and* alcohol and nicotine, while excluding mescaline and LSD. Even more obviously is that the popular understanding of "hard drugs" doesn't come close to considering caffeine, a substance that, while potentially addictive, is totally uncontrolled and so well within mainstream 'morality' that its popularly accepted even for children (something that, cannabis, even if generally considered 'soft', is not).

I think the reality is that there is no generally agreed upon definition of "hard" and "soft" drugs so an article on this topic ought to present it that way with multiple, cited definitions and classifications. The whole thing however seems to be largely original research (especially for instance, the claims about psychedelics).

The concept is really only consistently used to distinguish cannabis as a "soft" drug from heroin as a "hard" drug, often to indicate greater social acceptance to the former and greater stigma to the later, with alcohol and tobacco virtually never discussed that way at all (and this is certainly the first place I've ever heard caffeine discussed in these terms).

Generally however I think the terms are used to distinguish drugs considered especially edgy or suspect from those that are socially tolerated, and while this generally depends on the speaker, it seems that classifying nicotine and alcohol and even caffeine as less hard than cannabis and LSD is almost designed to suggest that some drugs should be more socially tolerated than they actually are. Whether or not you think this is right or wrong its clearly not neutral. 

S.Buckly (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

I'm going to rewrite a few things in this article. There is no need for a hallucinogen section, because hallucinogens can be discussed in the either the hard or soft drug section (most of them of course go in the soft drug section). I am also going to add a "Medium drug" section......since there are middle ground drugs. Zachorious 18:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You realise it's all oringinal research and point of view, don't you? Let The Sunshine In 19:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is original research......none of the info I wrote is false. Do the research yourself ;-). Zachorious 10:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it isn't (don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of responsible drug use..), but it's still original research. There is no term in use such as "medium drugs". You can't rate by yourself the harmfulness of drugs based on fatality rates (although you could use the new study that was published in the Lancet). Put in the article whatever you can source, using NPOV language. Let The Sunshine In 14:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with User:LetTheSunshineIn, "Medium drugs" seems to be a neologism. Renaming the section to "other drugs" and putting it after the "hard" and "soft" sections might be the best. I think a good thing to keep in mind is that "hard drug" and "soft drug" are pretty fuzzy terms. In this article I think we should mostly be documenting use of the terms, esp. by 'official' sources, not trying to place drugs into arbitrary categories ourselves. For example I don't think nicotine belongs in the "hard drugs" section unless there is documentation of use of the term "hard drug" to describe it. I'm not sure there's a reason to include anabolic steroids in the article at all, as they're not primarily used for psychoactive effects. --Eloil 20:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Medium drugs" section was supposed to be an intermediary between hard and soft. I'll rename it to avoid confusion but where it was before was fine. The whole point of that section was to show drugs that don't fit "hard" or "soft". I agree with you on anabolic steroids and will remove it. Zachorious 00:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

PCP is both a hallucinogen (to be more exact, a dissociative), yet it is a hard drug....

Is it not?

Very hard indeed.Ajax151 (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In a section above, Thoric writes:

AFAIK, hallucinogens have always been considered to be "soft" drugs due to the fact that while they may have a perceived "high potential for abuse", in actuality a very small percentage of the population uses hallucinogens (excluding cannabis), and most hallucinogens (with the mentioned exceptions of the dissociatives) are non-addictive. Any claim of hallucinogens to be "harder" than cannabis is due to a misunderstanding of the term "hard" (or soft as the case may be). --Thoric 22:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC

What am i missing here? 3:50, 5 September 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.5.25 (talk)

Look up the effects of PCP (angel dust), compare them to the effects of other hallucinogens, and see for yourself. PCP is the strongest dissociative on the street, and can cause psychosis (true hallucinations, delusions), violence, inability to feel pain, memory loss, seizures, and unpredictable changes in mood. Psychotic effects mimic schizophrenia, and can last much longer than the high. It is also quite addictive, unlike most hallucinogens. So yes, it more than qualifies as a hard drug.Ajax151 (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The criteria for a drug being considered "hard" weighs primarily on its addictiveness, and second on its potential for (long-term) harm. As I was quoted in saying, some dissociatives (especially PCP, and also Ketamine), are physically addicting. Not only that, but NMDA receptor antagonists such as PCP have been shown to cause physical brain damage (see Olney's_lesions) where other hallucinogens such as LSD and psilocybin do not. So yes, PCP is considered to be a hard drug, even though it is considered to be a hallucinogen. It is only the serotonergic (aka psychedelic) hallucinogens (LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, etc) that are considered to be "soft" drugs because they are not physically addictive, and they have not been shown to result in physical brain damage. --Thoric (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy in The Netherlands

Use and retailing of cannabis in the Netherlands is regulated and not prosecuted. However large scale production of cannabis is actively prosecuted, which is not clear from the article. (I don't have sources but it shouldn't be hard to find)

  • "Hard and soft drugs are loose categories..."
  • "...many nations around the world continue to discourage soft drug use and refuse to recognize the clear distinction between the two.

Loose categories and clear distinction are not consistent with each other.

See Five_pillars. This article is not in accord with the first pillar. Perhaps this would be better if it identified this as specific interpretation stated in Netherlands Drug Policy. (Netherlands calling it their policy does not make it fact).

66.27.98.44 02:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Deaths due to MDMA/XTC

From the article:

"MDMA alone also produces fewer than 10 deaths per year, which is far lower than most other drugs."

This is a potentially misleading statement as it does not specify location. Is it 10 deaths per year in all of human population, or specific to a country? GodGell 19:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced, Disputed factual accuracy and neutrality

This article is completely unreferenced, and makes some unusual claims - such as alcohol and nicotine being hard drugs. I therefore dispute both the factual accuracy of the article as well as its neutrality. Sakkura 14:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

UN Definition doesn't really count

The UN's policies on anything is largely based on the US classification, which are politically defined rather than scientifically defined. We obviously don't cite nonsense from the DEA website, so citing something from a crime prevention wing of the UN doesn't make much sense either. So I'm going to remove it. Zachorious 08:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A common complain from US is that UN does not agree with US. I put i back. --Dala11a 04:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Weed not soft?

So what DO they classify marijuana as? A hardcore, addictive narcotic? Oh well, I better just stick to the cigarettes and heroin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.77.54 (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

bad page

this page will be in constant debate because there is no true definition of hard or soft drug. 'hard' and 'soft' are some of the most oversimplified classifications there are. furthermore, it seems as if everybody here is mostly misinformed. there are so many factors in every drug's 'hardness' or 'softness' e.g. legality, toxicity, addictiveness, dissociativeness, etc. if there were below a stub-class, that is what I would rate this. _______________________________________________________________________________________________

i would completely agree with this notion. these are painfully oversimplified classifications and dont carry any real merit. they are totally subjective classifications depending on which aspects of drugs you hold as more important. pot could be a 'hard' drug since its illegal. heroin could because its usual method of administration is iv injection. lithium could because it has a rather poor therapeutic ratio for some. nicotine could because its the most addictive. likewise arguments can be made in the other direction for all drugs as well. i guess basically what i'm trying to say is that this page oughta be deleted "with prejudice." 67.60.12.119 (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new intro

Seems to me this would define the subject more clearly than the current intro:

Hard and soft drugs are ususally controlled drugs, which are ranked according to associated harm. Thus, for example, heroin is ranked higher than cannabis under the United Kingdom's Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and is considered there to be a harder drug.
Some authorities include alcohol and tobacco in hard-soft drug rankings, although these drugs are outside the scope of drug control laws.

Laurel Bush (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

With respect, it's as if, you only have a superficial understanding of this subject and want to bring articles down to that level. Here, the distinction between hard and soft, is further explained, lower down in the article. Also, in many western countries, tobacco and alcohol is 'controlled' via licensing, so such a change as suggested above will reduce clarity in a topic, which has much uncertain and confusing terminology. However, it is good to have a fresh pair of eyes shifting through it. (It would make more sense to have tobacco and alcohol licensed as pharmaceuticals rather than under food regs, but then, not much of the laws on psychotropics makes sense)--Aspro (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel I have a clearer understanding of 'legalities' than is represented by the article
It seems clear to me that it is in the context of drug control law that hard-soft ranking originates
In the UK, for example, class A drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 are supposed to be "harder" than class B and class C
Alcohol and tobacco are not controlled and licensed under drug control laws
They may be controlled and licensed in other ways, but they are not controlled drugs and, therefore, there is no effective prohibition on recreational or self-medicational use
To my mind, it is the existence of drug control law which excludes alcohol and tobacco which creates a lot of the confusion re terminology, and controlled drug should be in the opening sentence
And maybe you would be able to help in Substance abuse, where I have altered one sentence to include controlled drug, and left an earlier note on the talk page about the context of that sentence
Laurel Bush (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I now have this as my proposed new intro:

Hard and soft drugs are ususally controlled drugs, which are ranked according to associated harm. Thus, for example, heroin is ranked higher than cannabis under the United Kingdom's Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and is considered there to be a harder drug.
Some authorities include other drugs, especially alcohol and tobacco, in hard-soft drug rankings, although these drugs are outside the scope of drug control laws. There may be restrictions on their use, however, under other laws
Drugs used for recreational purposes are usually considered to be psychoactive.

Laurel Bush (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Think your wanting to get into specifics too soon. Expanding the article by singling out individual drugs and giving examples of different geo/political regions (like reference to the Netherlands and UK) is better placed lower down. This helps to avoid the bias from the editors demographic background -after all, this is supposed to read like an encyclopaedic article not a tabloid newspaper; or even simplewiki. (For more on biases of all types see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias ) --Aspro (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe you will find that the idea of ranking or scheduling drugs can be found in the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961, and will tend to be a feature of the drug control law of any country which is a party to the convention
Difficult to get across the fact of legal difference between controlled drugs and other drugs (which may be controlled outside drug control legislation) without offering specific examples
(Note how I fall into a semantic pitfall above)
Wondering whether you sould agree with this, from Illegal drug trade:

The illegal drug trade or drug trafficking is a global black market consisting of the cultivation, manufacture, distribution and sale of illegal controlled drugs. Most jurisdictions prohibit trade, except under licence, of many types of drug by drug control laws. Some drugs, notably alcohol and tobacco, are outside the scope of these laws, but may be subject to control under other laws.

I have to admit it is a result of one of my own edits
And the Hard and soft drugs article does seem to need a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction section
Laurel Bush (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed: that's made the intro to illegal drug trade article more precise.--Aspro (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Awful page

I am tempted to propose this page for deletion, it is that bad. It is all original research, unverified claims and POV, and seems to add nothing to the articles Drug use, Drug abuse or Drug addiction. It needs a major rehaul. Fences and windows (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha, it was nominated in December. No improvements since then, I see. Fences and windows (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
There is clearly original research in the article, despite the deletion review. Let's try finding some verifiable sources. Compare to definitions in academic research:
  • Soft drugs = cigarette, marijuana, and alcohol use (McCuller et al.).
  • Soft drugs = alcohol and marijuana, hard drugs = cocaine, hallucinogens etc. (Deas et al.)
  • Hard drugs including intravenous drugs, soft drugs include ecstasy (He et al.)
  • “Soft drugs” = like nicotine; “hard drugs” = like heroin (Saddicha et al.)
  • Soft = cannabis and amphetamines. Hard = heroin, LSD. (Glatt, BMJ 1970)
  • “Hard” drugs = heroin and crack; “Soft” and licit drugs = marijuana and alcohol; ketamine is intermediate (Lankenau and Sanders)
  • ‘Soft’ drug category (class B or C) consisting of amphetamines, cannabis and unprescribed tranquilisers; and a ‘hard’ drug category. (MacDonald and Pudney).
  • Soft = cannabis, amphetamines, barbiturates, chlordiazepoxide; hard = "narcotics": heroin, cocaine. (Noble, BMJ 1970).

It is common to define Class A (UK classification) as 'hard', class B & C as 'soft', and legal drugs often fall outside this dichotomy, but into soft if anything. Also see these news sources: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/jul/06/drugsandalcohol.politicalnews http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2008/feb/11/yehey/top_stories/20080211top4.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/693416.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1409036.stm Fences and windows (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

New list suggested

I think one of the points of contention about hard vs. soft has to do with the level of social problems (i.e. violence, crime, accidental injuries to others, harm to the user's family and/or community, etc.) caused by a substance, which is not part of the article's definition at all. Adding this additional "dimension" to the others changes the order of some of the drugs significantly, from order of hardest to softest:

Hard Fentanyls PCP Methamphetamine Heroin and morphine Crack/freebase cocaine Vicodin and OxyContin Ritalin (insufflated) Cocaine (powder) Other amphetamines Ritalin (oral) Barbiturates Benzodiazepines Toluene and other solvents

Borderline DXM, ketamine, and other strong dissociatives (besides PCP) Tobacco/Nicotine GHB Alcohol MDMA LSD DMT, psilocybin, mescaline, and other strong, processed psychedelics Ether

Soft Psilocybin mushrooms (in natural state) Salvia (in natural state) Cannabis Khat (in natural state) Kava Kava Nitrous oxide Caffeine


The list is not exhaustive, and is only approximate. Remember this is just an overall rating; there may be a particular aspect about a substance that makes it significantly more dangerous than one above it on the list. If you're not sure, best bet is don't try this at home! Notice how I put alcohol (which can easily be used responsibly, as evident in entire countries in which alcohol-related problems are rare) and tobacco (which is deadly and addictive but ranks comparatively low in terms of social problems) as borderline instead of hard. Strong psychedelics (especially LSD) in their pure, concentrated state would be borderline, not soft, due to their very high potency. The "natural state" idea is a tiebreaker. And caffeine would be the softest of all when used in the form of coffee/tea/cola/chocolate. Indeed, it is the only one considered socially acceptable to give to children, even in DEA-land. By the way, sugar is a food, not a drug. Just my 2 cents.Ajax151 (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the fictitious Ring of Power from Lord of the Rings, which is extremely addictive and mind-altering, would belong somewhere between heroin and methamphetamine in the list above (lol). Gollum was even willing to kill for his "precious." The ultimate junkie IMO. Ajax151 (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ajax, that's a good 2 cents. Do you know of any references that would back up this categorisation, which more closely matches the definitions I have found (see above)? Fences and windows (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at this one [1]. My list is similar to the one in there, especially in that alcohol and tobacco are not considered hard. There are a few caveats, though. However, I changed a few things around (inhalants like toluene are not hard?) and added a few substances (like fentanyl, PCP, mushrooms, and caffeine) by crude extrapolation, and deleted others (like anabolic steroids). I also separated out some subtypes (e.g. meth is harder than other amphetamines). In addition, I am very doubtful that LSD, ecstasy, steroids, and Ritalin is "softer" than cannabis as the article implies (ROTFLMAO), and changed those as well. The "in its natural state" tiebreaker is not part of that article, but it is a significant aspect of the drug policy of the Netherlands, one of the few current drug policies that makes any kind of logical sense. Also see this one [2].Ajax151 (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Your classification doesn't make so much sense though.....for example mescaline, dmt, and other psychedelics are not considered borderline. I'm assuming you listed that because you are assuming that natural organic substances are softer but being organic has nothing to do with hard or soft. Datura is very toxic and can easily be considered hard but it's natural.

The "natural state" idea was just a tiebreaker between borderline and soft. Of course "natural" does not mean safer (this meme never seems to go away!), as the Datura (Jimson weed) example illustrates. But may I also point out that Datura, while highly toxic, is nowhere near as addictive as most other drugs, even LSD, mainly because the side effects are so unpleasant that few are willing to repeat the experience. Addictiveness also counts toward a drug's "hardness," so even Datura could be considered borderline (soft in terms of addiction, very hard in terms of physical harm) instead of hard as a result (though I prefer considering it hard due to its unusually high toxicity). That is why LSD is borderline and not hard, as with most other psychedelics since they rank so low on addictiveness, even less than, say, cannabis or caffeine. The potency of pure, concentrated natural psychedelics (psilocybin, salvinorin A, mescaline) is arguably more hazardous than in less concentrated forms (mushrooms, salvia, peyote), and so are categorized with LSD and synthetic hallucinogens. But again, I am not saying that any of these are safe.Ajax151 (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's best to just leave it as it is for now as the list provided is based off the actual harms of given psychoactives....and all it needs is the citations. Zachorious (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The Nutt et al. article in the Lancet would be good to discuss in the article, as it explicitly lays out a classification of drugs on the basis of harm. Great find, Ajax151. I propose:
  • 1. Sourcing articles like this that give estimates of the various harms (societal, physical, dependence) caused by each substance;
  • 2. Including a discussion of the various ways in which drugs can be classified as "hard" or "soft", not giving preference to any particular categorisation;
  • 3. Describing how each drug has actually been referred to, by governments, academics, media sources and others.
Fences and windows (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would be good.Ajax151 (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

How about this list?


Hard
Fentanyls (all of them)
PCP (angel dust)
Methamphetamine
Heroin and morphine
Crack/freebase cocaine
Vicodin and OxyContin
Ritalin (insufflated)
Cocaine (powder)
Rohypnol (roofies)
Barbiturates
Jimson weed (Datura)
Toluene and other solvents

Borderline
Amphetamines (excluding meth)
Ritalin (oral)
Benzodiazepines (excluding Rohypnol)
DXM, ketamine, and other strong dissociatives (excluding PCP)
Tobacco/Nicotine
GHB
Alcohol
MDMA (ecstasy)
LSD
DMT, psilocybin, mescaline, and most other psychedelics
Ether
Peyote
Psilocybin mushrooms

Soft
Alkyl nitrites
Salvia
Cannabis
Khat
Kava Kava
Nitrous oxide
Caffeine

I think this one is more in line with the Nutt et al. article. I put most of the psychedelics together. I still don't think psychedelics (excluding salvia and cannabis) are soft, but got rid of the "natural state" tiebreaker. I realize that the borderline category is there for anything "on the fence", so no tiebreaker should be needed. I added a few substances as well. The severity of addictiveness, physical or psychological, is crucial to a drug being hard unless there is something extraordinarily dangerous about a substance (e.g. PCP, toluene, Datura). As for the idea that only physically addictive drugs are hard, remember that cocaine is not physically addictive, but is extremely psychologically addictive, expecially crack. And few people would consider crack to be anything other than hard. Any opinions?Ajax151 (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a single list is ever going to be agreed, or is even desirable - any attempt to define hard and soft drugs in this article using our own criteria will inevitably be original research (although this categorisation seems to match cited references and Nutt et al better than the current article). The status of the different substances is disputed, and we need to make that clear in the article, and rely on published sources. Fences and windows (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Does this help? It's a new chart of drug dependence potential and active/lethal dose ratio based on well-referenced data.

I think it might be appropriate for inclusion on this page. Thundermaker (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Yours is probably the most objective ranking system I've ever seen. Unfortunately there is much that it does not take into account, such as social harm (very low for nicotine) and non-lethal but serious adverse effects that occur far below the lethal dose for some substances (such as strong psychedelics/dissociatives and MDMA). But many of those harms are subjective in nature, and often are controversial among experts. And now that I think about it, the Nutt et al. chart that I had referred to previously has some flaws (solvents/glue are safer than cannabis? Yeah, right!). How would you rate solvents, steroids, and amphetamines? I'd personally put meth near the top for both axes, right near heroin. If you add the chart, which you should, please cite your sources.Ajax151 (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Improving the article

My edits were not vandalism. Unfortunately, the page contains unsourced and apparently original research. There is not a single citation to definitions of hard or soft drugs. If you read my comments above, you'll see that I've sourced references to definitions of 'hard' and 'soft' drugs in the academic literature and press, and they do not match the listings in the article. In particular, defining alcohol, nicotine and caffeine as anything other than 'soft' or even out of this (over-simplified) dichotomy entirely needs good backing, and LSD as a soft drug contradicts usual categories. Without sources and citations, the article has little or no value. Please find references generally to show that it isn't original research, and specifically to back up where I've added a fact tag; don't just revert. I get the impression that editors of this page have reached a previous consensus on what they think hard or soft drugs are, but Wikipedia editors agreeing on something does not make it verifiable. I am not aiming to start an edit war - I want to work to improve the article. Fences and windows (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

LSD contradicts usual categories? What categories are you referring to? Government classifications that lump every psychedelic in class A or schedule 1? Sorry but that isn't good enough to use. LSD is very similar to psilocybin and carry the same risks and such. Same with DMT, which btw is produced in the body. Most psychedelics carry the same risks. So there is no need to keep such tags there. Also there is no need to remove the venn diagram as it already had a citation needed marker, so I'll restore it. I'll leave your other edits up as they are ok, but don't just make a gazillion edits without seeking a consensus first ;). Thank you. Zachorious (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The diagram has been fact tagged for 15 months. The tag serves to point out information that may be removed if a reliable source is not found; it is not protection from deletion. With terms as loosely defined as these are, I don't believe such a diagram, which implies rigidity, is appropriate, anyway. Jomasecu talk contribs 00:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Zacharious, your opinion on what constitutes a hard or soft drug is not the same as fact. Wikipedia =/= truth. Wikipedia = verifiable evidence. Please include references to reliable sources. Otherwise, with your references to 'government propaganda' etc., your edits look POV (N.B. I am not pro-war on drugs). The diagram is inappropriate as it implies that these categories are rigid and agreed. Fences and windows (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

LSD as a hard drug

All examples are from peer-reviewed academic journals.

  • "Sold hard drugs such as heroin, cocaine, LSD?" [3]
  • "With respect to hard drugs, LSD was the most frequently used hard drug for White males and Black males".[4]
  • "another "hard" drug, mainly LSD"[5]
  • "Ever used hard drugs (speed, LSD, cocaine, heroin...)"[6]
  • "In contrast to cannabis, hard drugs such as opiates, cocaine, amphetamines and LSD are seen to be associated with ‘‘unacceptable risks’’"[7]
  • "the number of seven substances that the student reported ever having tried: alcohol, cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, marijuana, inhalants, "uppers" (e.g., speed, crystal meth), and other "hard drugs" (e.g., cocaine, crack, LSD, heroin)."[8]
  • "past year use of six hard drugs (uppers, downers, cocaine, PCP, LSD, other psychedelics"[9]
  • "Approximately one quarter (22, 1%) of learners indicated that they can buy "hard" drugs such as LSD, ecstasy, cocaine or heroin within a few hours"[10]
  • http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1699806&blobtype=pdf
  • "'hard' drug use (amphetamines, barbiturates, LSD, cocaine, heroin)"[11]
  • "Hard-drug users were defined as those whose drug use experience had included the illegal use of LSD, barbiturates, amphetamines, methamphetamines,..."[12]
  • More here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?tool=QuerySuggestion&cmd=search&db=pmc&term=(%22hard%20drug%22%20OR%20%22hard%20drugs%22)%20lsd

Fences and windows (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Those aren't referring to any reason why lsd is hard....just that it is included in lists like that (same principle with class A/schedule 1 drugs in political classifications). Like I said the risks of LSD are pretty much the same as psilocybin and other soft drugs like cannabis. This is scientific fact, and can easily be seen with the toxicity and addiction potential. Zachorious (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Zachorious, please carefully read WP:NPOV. In particular: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.". What you say about the references not giving reasons for LSD being hard is true, but it is your opinion that the definition of hard and soft drugs is as you define it. Because these sources refer to LSD as a hard drug, we must mention that in the article, as it is clear that medical researchers commonly regard LSD as a hard drug. Because the labels "hard" and "soft" are subjective, we cannot record a definitive list of hard and soft drugs in this article. If you want to define hard and soft drugs by harm, then find references that back up such a categorisation, and also find references that support the placement of various drugs in these categories. Fences and windows (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me:

Laurel Bush (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there is some sort of case for simple deletion of the article, on grounds that no such article is possible except as:

  • Recital of blind faith as represnted by various UN conventions and related pieces of legislation: or
  • Original research

Perhaps a more pragmatic approach is that aiming for description of the faith followed by references to notable criticism thereof and notable proposed alternatives thereto
Laurel Bush (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that the terms "hard" and "soft" are loaded words with different meanings for different people. The definition in the context of this article refers primarily to addiction potential, with harm potential being secondary. This means that while a drug such as LSD can be very unpredictable and therefore has a significant harm potential, because its addition potential is very low, it is considered to be a "soft" drug. This is mainly with respect to the drug laws of the Netherlands, especially during the time when cannabis was effectively legal. A "hard drug" is one that is hard to quit and hard on your body and mind to be addicted -- cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, alcohol. A "soft drug" is anything that is not a hard drug. When some people hear the term, "hard drugs", they think, "street drugs", or "illegal drugs". This is simply a case of the reader injecting their own POV -- something we as wikipedians need to try to prevent. --Thoric (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
These terms are fairly undefined, it seems, outside of Netherlands law. Perhaps the best option is to merge the relevant info from this article into Drug policy of the Netherlands. Jomasecu talk contribs 22:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Thoric is on the mark here. Fences and windows, I'm not saying anything based on a biased opinion....what I state is fact. As pointed out LSD is non-addictive and non-toxic (limited to no OD potential). No medical researchers attempt to make an argument that LSD is hard and defend it....they just list it as street drugs that are commonly considered hard due to reputation and what not. And like I stated, the risks of lsd are the same as those of psilocybin and these risks are similar to the risks of cannabis. Therefore if you include lsd under hard there would be no reason not to include psilocybin or cannabis under hard drugs. Which btw you could probably justify if you were to example cite the DEA which considers cannabis for example as "one of the most commonly abused illicit drugs" (doesn't that sound hard?). So unless you find a citation describing and making a case on why lsd is hard....such as it being addictive or highly toxic (which as I cited show it isn't) then there can't be a justifiable reason to move it from hard to soft. And btw, the risks assessment chart recently posted in this article ranks lsd lower than cannabis, which is the most considered soft drug. That pretty much slams the door in trying to label it hard. I won't remove the tag right now but I will soon, if not proper evidence is given why it should be up....since I already cleared up why lsd being soft isn't just some POV. Zachorious (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you're saying LSD is similar to cannabis (which I think we can all agree is a soft drug) so it must be a soft drug, too, which is synthesis. F&W has provided sources which specifically use the term "hard drug" in describing LSD. Even if those sources don't argue the point, they are the only reliable sources that have been presented, as far as I know, which use the terms represented in this article. Synth should especially be avoided in cases like this, where the terms in question are so loosely defined. Jomasecu talk contribs 00:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the best one can say about LSD (and other strong psychedelics), without being synthesis, is that it is not consistently placed into the hard or soft categories. Which, by the way, is the essence of the "in-between" category--dispute is a good reason to put it there. Cannabis, on the other hand, is consistently placed in the "soft" category by most sources with few exceptions, almost by definition. Though less addictive than cannabis, most true psychedelics like LSD and psilocybin are definitely stronger drugs (NOT the same as toxicity) with more chance for adverse effects. So there is a difference.Ajax151 (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirect to Drug policy of the Netherlands

Xasodfuih has redirected the page to Drug policy of the Netherlands. I would argue that we need to undo this redirect and discuss it. There is an active discussion on improving the article, and the redirect goes against a deletion discussion that was had in December. The article needs improving (a lot), but I don't agree with a redirect. The topic is notable, even if the current content is not encyclopedic. The concepts of hard and soft drugs exist outside of Dutch law. Fences and windows (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. With over 1000 hits with the string "soft drugs"+"hard drugs" on Google Scholar it should not even be so hard to find some article discussing the concept in more detail. Steinberger (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Amen. Redirecting without discussing it was a bit too rash IMO. I restored all that was lost, and made a few new edits as well.Ajax151 (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Except that "hard" and "soft" are used in a completely different context in the very fist hit on google scholar [13], i.e. they refer to how metabolizable a drug is. Xasodfuih (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hard and soft drugs are colloquial terms which we are trying to define medically. When used by medical researchers, they are mentioned in passing ("hard drugs such as LSD", as mentioned earlier) in much the same way one might say "heavy objects such as cars". (Hard/heavy in relation to what?) It's not a medical term, and the only well-defined usage of it seems to be in the Dutch legal system. I see two possible solutions to this. First, the article be altered to be more about the social connotations of the term. This only works if we find reliable sources about the social aspects. The second is the solution I find much more likely to work; we use the definitions made by Netherlands law and merge it with Drug policy of the Netherlands. Jomasecu talk contribs 23:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
"Hard and soft drugs are colloquial terms which we are trying to define medically." That's exactly the problem, and where the WP:OR in this article stems from; I'd replace "colloquial" with "social science" though. Clinging at off-hand remarks in one source or another, some of them medical but most not, which may not even be using hard and soft with the same meaning, this article builds an original classification system that's not seriously used by anyone anywhere. Like I said, the only meaningful real-world hard/soft classification seems to be one used in the Dutch legal system, but that is best covered in its own article, which surprisingly lacks a clear list of hard and soft drugs. Based on quick review of google books "hard+drug"+"soft+drug", I think it's fair to say that the hard/soft classification is made mostly in social sciences rather than medicine. But we need some source to say that explicitly. Xasodfuih (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I rewrote the lede from a source [14] that is however ignoring the Dutch system, and calls the term "hard drug" unequivocally colloquial. Xasodfuih (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

For a clear list on soft and hard drugs in the Netherlands, see Opium Law. Personally, if this article is to be redirected somewhere I would suggest that it is to that article. Steinberger (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources that do discuss the notion of hard and soft drugs outside the Dutch system have been added, so a redirect is not necessary any more. I note however that the Dutch law treats LSD (given as soft in this article) as a list I (same as cocaine) drug. Is the hard/soft distinction actually worded as such in the Dutch law? From Opium Law it appears that they use a list I/II. If the hard/soft wording is not present in the law, then it's WP:OR to make the claim that the Dutch law divides drugs in hard and soft unless some other source makes this observation. Xasodfuih (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis?

I disagree that this article is a synthesis solely because some (NOT all) of the references cited do not use the words "hard" or "soft." Some, such as Nutt et al., divide substances into categories that do not have those specific names, but are equivalent in common discourse nonetheless (e.g. comparing them to the UK classifications A, B, and C). This does not make it a synthesis or original research. And other sources I added do use the terms, though not in ways that we all agree upon. Do the duck test: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, what then should we call it? Not a platypus, that's for sure.Ajax151 (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That isn't exactly synth. It's OR, because we don't seem to have a source linking UK classes to the hard/soft distinction. If we did, it would be synth to tie Nutt et al. to hard/soft based on their usage of UK classes. Jomasecu talk contribs 22:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:SYNT tags

The definitions of hard/soft are unsourced, WP:OR. The examples that are matched to hard, soft or borderline are done so in utter disregard for WP:SYNT, since most of the sources cited don't classify those drugs in these categories. This entire article one giant WP:OR piece. Xasodfuih (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS violations

erowid.org is an advocacy site, which doesn't even identify the posters/authors. It is unacceptable as source of medical information per WP:MEDRS. I've removed its many occurrences, but I've been reverted by Ajax151. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

From L.A. Weekly: "It is an independent Web site run by a couple of neo-hippie data geeks without Ph.D.s, institutional backup or government funding. [...] Erowid is basically a collection of other people’s documents, many of which contradict one another." Xasodfuih (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
If Erowid were about another topic it wouldn't even meet WP:RS, let alone MEDRS. Jomasecu talk contribs 22:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Erowid.org an advocacy site? What exactly do you mean...it's not pro-drug if that's what your thinking it's just a collection of information? Wikipedia has not made any policy against erowid, nor isn't against violations to site. In fact citing any government site can also be considered an advocacy site as done with the dutch opium act. Secondly lsd and psilocybin should not be removed....if erowid bothers you so much then I'll just add primary study sources already cited by erowid. Zachorious (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a very good idea and one I have done before (go to published jounral article that is) :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The same can be done for other controversial sites such as Prof. David J. Hanson's homepage about alcohol (cite the sources he cites, not his webpage). He gets funding from DISCUS (aka Big Liquor), but he cites many good studies as well. Take with a grain of salt.Ajax151 (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

History of the terms

I can find this reference to hard drugs in 1933: [15], this in 1949 [16], this in 1956 ""Sleepers" ... and "alertness" drugs such as Benzedrine ... are {causing} many deaths in homes and on highways and are starting teenagers on the road to the "hard" drug habit" and this in 1968 (which refers to LSD and barbiturates as "soft"[17]. See these timelines for the use of the terms in the press: Soft drugs, Hard drugs. It is in the late 60s that the terms start gaining currency. The earliest date I can find in the medical literature is 1968 [18]. Fences and windows (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This reference from Feb 1968 cites a meeting in October 1967 using the term "hard drugs" to refer to opiates.[19] Fences and windows (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Fascinating stuff - this is the sort of information that needs to be in the article for sure (or section of parent article). Good find. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Alcohol and nicotine

Zacharious has again edited to remove any note of controversy to alcohol and nicotine as hard drugs. This is POV, and should not keep being done. I found references in the academic literature that cannot just be ignored, which list alcohol and nicotine as soft drugs. See:

  • Soft drugs = cigarette, marijuana, and alcohol use (McCuller et al.).
  • Soft drugs = alcohol and marijuana, hard drugs = cocaine, hallucinogens etc. (Deas et al.)
  • “Soft drugs” = like nicotine; “hard drugs” = like heroin (Saddicha et al.)
  • “Hard” drugs = heroin and crack; “Soft” and licit drugs = marijuana and alcohol; ketamine is intermediate (Lankenau and Sanders)


I'm sure there are more out there if we look. Zacharious, it is unacceptable to continue to ignore the discussion on this page and keep reverting to one minority viewpoint. Fences and windows (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur. And that LSD uncontroversially is a soft drug is also bull, as Fences and windows have shown far above. That heroin always is considered a hard drug and cannabis is the prime soft drug seems clear, but on the rest there is more or less controversy. And the article must reflect that fact. Steinberger (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
There is obviously much controversy over labeling alcohol and nicotine as hard, so they both go in the disputed section. Disputed not the same as borderline; name of the section was changed. While the Lancet article does not use the terms "hard" or "soft," alcohol and tobacco are placed between the most dangerous and least dangerous categories. Sounds like borderline to me. As for LSD, it is clearly controversial if you read any of the sources cited in the pre-Zachorious-revert version, and it being "soft" is far from obvious. Implying otherwise is POV, and gives undue weight to a fringe view.Ajax151 (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

LD50

Does anyone think that LD50 (median lethal dose) would make a good tiebreaker as for whether a substance is hard, soft, or in-between? By itself, it is a virtually useless criterion, but it can possibly be a tiebreaker. Take a look at the following list (includes non-drugs and poisons as well for comparison), from the article on median lethal dose:

Substance Animal, Route LD50 Reference
Water rat, oral 90 mL/kg (~90,000 mg/kg) [1]
Sucrose (table sugar) rat, oral 29,700 mg/kg [2]
Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) rat, oral 11,900 mg/kg [3]
Grain alcohol (ethanol) rat, oral 7,060 mg/kg [4]
Table Salt rat, oral 3,000 mg/kg [5]
Paracetamol (acetaminophen) rat, oral 1,944 mg/kg [6]
THC (main psychoactive substance in Cannabis) rat, oral 1,270 mg/kg males; 730 mg/kg females [7]
Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) rat, oral 200 mg/kg [8]
Caffeine rat, oral 192 mg/kg [9]
Nicotine rat, oral 50 mg/kg [10]
Strychnine rat, oral 16 mg/kg [11]
Sodium cyanide rat, oral 6.4 mg/kg [12]
Aflatoxin B1 (from Aspergillus flavus) rat, oral 0.048 mg/kg [13]
Dioxin (TCDD) rat, oral 0.020 mg/kg [14]
Batrachotoxin (from poison dart frog) human, sub-cutaneous injection 0.002-0.007 mg/kg (estimated) [15]
Polonium 210 human, inhalation 0.00001 mg/kg (estimated) [16]
Botulinum toxin (Botox) human, oral, injection 0.000001 mg/kg (estimated) [17]

Note alcohol's relatively high LD50 (higher than THC, caffeine, aspirin, Tylenol, or even table salt), and nicotine's low one. What is funny is that younger rats have appear to have a higher tolerance than older rats according to Erowid, but I digress. Of course, a higher LD50 does not necessarily mean safer. But a very low one is always a cause for concern. By the way, the (oral bird) LD50 for supposedly "soft" LSD is 1.8 mg/kg, and intravenous-rat is 16 mg/kg.[18] Strange is that the oral human LDLO (lowest published lethal dose) is 0.0007 mg/kg (0.7 ug/kg) according to the same source (that would be a dose of about 50 ug for the average adult, which is a low dose not much more than the threshold--wonder how they died?). However, the therapeutic index for LSD is quite high when looking at the median lethal dose.Ajax151 (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the LD50 of a substance would be wildly misinforming in determining whether it is a "hard" or "soft" drug; You gave an excellent example of why when you noted that alcohol has a relatively high LD50 compared to THC. Yes, this is true. However, that does not take into account that it is not very difficult for a human to consume the LD50 of Alcohol, whereas to date not a single human has ever managed to consume the LD50 of THC. So, if the colloquial terms "hard" and "soft" are to have any indication of how dangerous a drug is, the LD50 will not do, it will show only what is possible in the realm of scientific fantasy.KVND 23:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KVND (talk • contribs)

Yes, you're right that it is misleading when LD50 is used alone. Therapeutic index (ratio of toxic dose to effective dose) is better for the reasons you said. But the only reason I even thought of it was as a tiebreaker. By the way, bisphenol A has a very high LD50 too (oral rat LD50 = 3250 mg/kg)[20], implying (falsely) that it is safer than table salt. GHB is also pretty high, but that has a narrow therapeutic index, as is the case with alcohol (though GHB is narrower still).

Another measurement that can be used is are certain safety factor (LD1/ED99). That one uses lethal dose, while therapeutic index uses TD50 (toxic dose). Both have strengths and weaknesses. Non-lethal toxicity (i.e. drain bamage) can still be very bad indeed, and LD50 ignores that, but remember that some people may create artful definitions of "toxicity" as well (while death has one and only one definition).

The point is we need to use objective data, especially hard numbers, as part of the hard/soft defintion if it is to have any scientific validity as opposed to mere colloquial value. Just my 2 cents.Ajax151 (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't be inventing our own definitions of hard and soft drugs. If the terms are colloquial, then we report that. We don't need to use objective data if no reliable sources exist to give objective definitions to "hard drug" or "soft drug". We need to stick to reliable sources for their definitions and categorisations. If we can find reliable sources that use harm to define them, great. If we can find reliable sources that refer to LD50, therapeutic index, LD1, great. If not, it's all original research, and you'd be better off writing in a blog about it rather than trying to include it in Wikipedia. Fences and windows (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that hard vs. soft drugs are defined culturally, not scientifically. It would be an interesting contrast to juxtapose the cultural POV with toxicity. Rather than raw LD50 I prefer to use the LD50/RD ratio, that is, the lethal dose divided by the recreational dose. (In simpler terms, how many doses do you need to take to kill yourself.) I found some research on the subject and made a chart from their numbers (below, click for refs). But basically we need to cite cultural experts to define which are hard and soft. Thundermaker (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Why dependence only?

I think that the harm (physical AND psycological) is more important to say how dangerous a drug is than the dependence. This test are focusating very much on dependence. There's a reason why LSD is forbidden in all countries, when Tobacco and Alcohole is legal in ALL countries. By saying that Tobacco is as hard as Amphetamine, you shows that it's more important with dependence than physical and psycological harm. You aren't focusating at psycological at all. And

here is my option:

Psycological

Hard drugs:

Middle-hard drugs:

Soft drugs:

Extra soft drugs:

Physical:

Hard drugs:

Middle-hard drugs:

Soft drugs:

Extra soft drugs:

  1. ^ MSDS for water--JT Baker
  2. ^ Safety (MSDS) data for sucrose
  3. ^ "Safety (MSDS) data for ascorbic acid". Oxford University. 2005-10-09. Retrieved 2007-02-21. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ Safety (MSDS) data for ethyl alcohol
  5. ^ Safety (MSDS) data for sodium chloride
  6. ^ Safety (MSDS) data for 4-acetamidophenol
  7. ^ THC Material Data Sheet
  8. ^ Safety (MSDS) data for acetylsalicylic acid
  9. ^ Safety (MSDS) data for caffeine
  10. ^ Safety (MSDS) data for nicotine
  11. ^ Safety (MSDS) data for strychnine
  12. ^ Safety (MSDS) data for sodium cyanide
  13. ^ Safety (MSDS) data for aflatoxin B1
  14. ^ [http://www.pesticideinfo.org/List_NTPStudies.jsp?Rec_Id=PC35857 U.S. National Toxicology Program acute toxicity studies for Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)]
  15. ^ Brief Review of Natural Nonprotein Neurotoxins
  16. ^ Topic 2 Toxic Chemicals and Toxic Effects
  17. ^ By Diane O. Fleming, Debra Long Hunt. Biological Safety: principles and practices. ASM Press, 2000, p. 267.
  18. ^ [21]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Drug_harmfulness/Archive_1&oldid=880190034"