Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Media Dustup Pits Bloggers and Wired Against NYTimes

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the evidence-please-not-bullet-points dept.

The Media 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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Drugs Drugs Drugs, Which are good which are bad? (4, Funny)

conner_bw (120497) | more than 6 years ago | (#23740481)

Re:Drugs Drugs Drugs, Which are good which are bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23742555)

See children, drugs are bahhhd (c'mon)
and if you don't believe me, ask ya dahhhd (ask him man)
and if you don't believe him, ask ya mom (that's right)
She'll tell you how she does 'em all the time (she will)
So kids say no to drugs (that's right)
So you don't act like everyone else does (uh-huh)
Then there's really nothin else to say (sing along)
Drugs are just bad, mmm'kay?
eminem

A league of their own (-1, Offtopic)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 6 years ago | (#23740485)

What kind of odds are they giving in Vegas?

Re:A league of their own (1)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 6 years ago | (#23740531)

What kind of odds are they giving in Vegas?
I don't know, but I bet hardly anyone can be bothered to RTFA. The summary doesn't leave much to discuss I have to say.

first poop! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23740491)

ahhhh!

Re:first poop! (0)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 6 years ago | (#23740515)

haha.. you missed! Now go clean up the mess!

Wired magazine should change it's name (3, Funny)

Dr.Who (146770) | more than 6 years ago | (#23740549)

to stewed, or blasted, or ...

when haven't we promoted drugs? (5, Insightful)

saiha (665337) | more than 6 years ago | (#23740573)

I flip on the TV and I see people promoting drug use all the time /shrug. And some of the side affects of those make me sick just to hear it.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (2, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#23740695)

Substance used in moderation provides benefits, is harmful when used in excess. Film at 11.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (2)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#23740795)

I flip on the TV and I see people promoting drug use all the time /shrug.
And yet you'll never see an advertisement promoting a generic drug.
I wonder why that is.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23740861)

Because the manufacturers of generics don't bother advertising?

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 6 years ago | (#23740893)

What are you talking about? I see it all the time. For example, Bayer has TV advertisements for aspirin. Sure, they're selling their brand of aspirin, but the patent on aspirin expired long ago.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (3, Informative)

stickystyle (799509) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741401)

Yeah..but they are the ones that came up with name aspirin

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741469)

And they lost copyright to that name after WWI so anyone can use it now.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23741835)

And they lost copyright to that name after WWI so anyone can use it now.
The word is trademark, moron. How can people not understand the difference? No wonder our IP laws are so fucked up. Nobody seems to have the first clue about it, yet they seem to think they do.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (4, Funny)

mixmatch (957776) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742015)

I think we should use your reply for every post on Slashdot that mixes up the two, but will need your permission since your comment is trademarked to you.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (2, Interesting)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742171)

You do see big chain pharmacies such as Walmart promoting their low cost generic programs, including listing specific drugs and often the diseases they affect. It's not nearly so significant that a Drug maker heavily promotes Avandia when the customer is equally likely to hear Kroger pharmacy telling type 2 Diabetics to ask their doctor about generic Metformin, available at only 4.00$ a month.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23742697)

And yet you'll never see an advertisement promoting a generic drug.
I wonder why that is.
Because there's plenty of promotion for the name brand version, and once you get to the pharmacist they'll offer you the generic anyway.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (5, Insightful)

Xyrus (755017) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741005)

Reminds of the "story" not too long ago that screamed "SMOKING POT SHRINKS YOUR BRAINS!!! OH N0ESSS!!11!"

Of course, if you had actually dug into the details you would have found out that it was a small study that really wasn't best run, and that these people had smoked a minimum of 5 joints a day for 10 years.

I could probably run a similar study on people who took 5 multivitamins a day over 10 years and showed that all of them either died or ended up with some pretty bad complications. Then I could write a story that says "MULTIVITAMINS WILL KILL YOU!!!!".

What is it about drugs that set people on edge? Parents absolutely lose it if they find they're kind smoking a joint, but they don't think twice about jacking their kids up on ritalin and anti-depressants.

Exactly what message is that sending them?

At least get hemp legalized. Aside from the recreational use, it has so many other uses that keeping it illegal is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

~X~

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (5, Interesting)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741107)

Exactly what message is that sending them?


Do the right drugs, the ones that help you fit in with corporate culture and make $$$?

Have you noticed how freaking huge Hillary's face has become recently? Symptom of anti-depressant abuse.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (5, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741369)

Have you noticed how freaking huge Hillary's face has become recently? Symptom of anti-depressant abuse.

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 (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741501)

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought it was distortion in my CRT monitor.

You wouldn't like me when I'm angry... (1)

DuChamp Fitz (987592) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741707)

I figured it was steroids.

Have you noticed how freaking huge Hillary's face has become recently? Symptom of anti-depressant abuse.

Re:You wouldn't like me when I'm angry... (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742101)

"Have you noticed how freaking huge Hillary's face has become recently? Symptom of anti-depressant abuse."

"I figured it was steroids."

I kind of doubt it...I mean..isn't her penis large enough already?

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (1)

celle (906675) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741775)

"Do the right drugs,--"

That explains cocaine I guess.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (4, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741137)

Then I could write a story that says "MULTIVITAMINS WILL KILL YOU!!!!"
You could write a story right now. This study [ons.org] shows that, among other things, black pepper will kill you:

Black pepper has the scientific name Piper nigrum, which refers to black and white peppers. Individuals self-medicate (orally) with pepper to treat gastric, bronchial, and cancer conditions (Leung & Foster, 1996). Early evidence indicates that black pepper may protect against colon cancer (Nalini, Sabitha, Viswanathan, & Menon, 1998). Conversely, Singh and Rao (1993) found that black pepper induces the enzymes that cause liver tumors (el-Mofty, Khudoley, & Shwaireb, 1991). Aspiration of large amounts of black pepper has caused deaths (Cohle et al., 1988; Sheahan, Page, Kemper, & Suarez, 1988). Typical doses range from 300-600 mg or as much as 1.5 g per day (Gruenwald et al., 1998); 0.25 tsp is equivalent to 1.25 g dry weight. Treat this herb with caution.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (3, Interesting)

oracle128 (899787) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741269)

Hydrogen Cyanide is safe in extremely small doses too. Based on that, perhaps we should legalize it too? Of course, at least cyanide isn't phsyiologically addictive, nor are multivitamins. Guess what is?

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (4, Insightful)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741521)

>Of course, at least cyanide isn't phsyiologically addictive, nor are multivitamins. Guess what is?

Alcohol.
Tobacco.
Oxycontin.
Benzodiazepines (http://www.medicinenet.com/alprazolam/article.htm).

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741907)

weed isnt physiologically addictive either until you get to about a few pounds of it a day. If you are doing that much weed addiction is the least of your problems. Good luck finding a study that says any different.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (5, Funny)

inKubus (199753) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742149)

weed isnt physiologically addictive either until you get to about a few pounds of it a day. If you are doing that much weed addiction is the least of your problems. Good luck finding a study that says any different.

unfortunately weed prevents capitalizing the first word in your sentence and if I may be quite frank here the proper use of the comma.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (2, Informative)

Domo-Sun (585730) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742437)

That's because it was hard to administer weed to animals. Advances in administration showed that it's addictive and the animals experience withdraw. Can't find the study at the moment, but you should never say never.

issue of cross-sensitisation of cannabis/opioid receptors [newscientist.com]
"research in rats suggests that using marijuana reduces future sensitivity to opioids, which makes people more vulnerable to heroin addiction later in life. It does so by altering the brain chemistry of marijuana users...rats that had been given THC during adolescence had a significantly altered opioid system in the area associated with reward and positive emotions. This is also the area linked to addiction."

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (3, Informative)

joelSantaguida (1233198) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742169)

I took Ambien, prescribed, for a year. It messes with you so much, and you have to take larger doses as you progress. I couldn't sleep for 3 months after I stopped taking it. My Adderall had the same effect. And with hemp, if you speak of the unsmokable male plant, can grow 7x faster than corn, replenishes the soil, and would put a lot of industries under.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (2, Informative)

Domo-Sun (585730) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742347)

Unlike pot, vitamins are necessary for living. No one disputes that ODing on iron, vitamin D, etc. presents dangerous side effects. Likewise, vitamins don't have an abuse risk, while there are people who get high constantly. So why can't people report that without hippies getting outraged.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (5, Interesting)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741249)

Drug use is promoted everywhere. Alcohol consumption, for example, is so ingrained in our culture that it forms an important part of some religious observances. Caffeine consumption, particularly amongst ./ readers I'll wager, is also incredibly high.

That's the thing that really shits me about the kind of story the NYT has run here. It's a story based on a knee-jerk "OH noes, wired included positive effects of an ILLEGAL drug in an article" approach rather than any semblance rational thought. I'll say it now, knowing full well there are idiots who can't get over this: the legality or otherwise of a drug has a causal relationship with how bad/dangerous it is.

Compare the effects of heavy coffee consumption with equivalent coca consumption and the actual medical side effects start to make coffee look a lot worse. Of course coca is not readily available except as a processed powder with is usually cut with other chemicals and it is associated with criminal activity, but if were not illegal would that be the case? I don't think there is any rational argument that can be made to suggest that criminalisation is not the cause of the majority of the ill effects on society of cocaine.

These articles help perpetuate the myth that all illegal drugs are bad and prescription drugs are good. This has two very detrimental effects on society. Firstly, people tend to trust the latest wonder drug that doctors hand out because it is legal. Then a few years later we find out too late just how many people taking the latest wonder drug are sleep walking off balconies or committing suicide or dying of liver failure.

The second effect is that drugs that are illegal but which can have real benefit are ignored. I don't take drugs usually, but a few years ago I broke my clavicle and a couple of ribs and bruised my spine in a bicycle accident. I could not get up or down without extreme pain and at the time I was single and had to look after myself. The prescribed pain killers where physically addictive and felt unpleasant to me as I tend not to enjoy opiates. The anti-inflammatories had evil side effects. So I ate pot. I hadn't used that since college and never really thought I would again, but as a muscle relaxant, anti-inflammatory and pain killer it was excellent, plus it made lying down and doing nothing a lot less boring. I didn't have to drive a car, there was not a lot of chance of long term mental health issues from a couple of weeks use, all in all it was perfect.

So as far as I'm concerned the whole "illegal drugs are bad because they are illegal" attitude gave me a choice of feeling like shit as a result of drugs that doctors can legally prescribe, or feeling okay physically, but committing a crime or several and taking my chances that the drug I was taking was not laced with something more dangerous. Clinically what I took was more appropriate for my situation, but knee jerk idiots who are incapable of rational debate on drugs made it more dangerous to me than it should have been.

Drugs are bad, mkay, but they are useful and given any health situation where using a particular drug may be beneficial, it should be legally available.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (2, Insightful)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741667)

I wouldn't exactly consider the overly rampant but legal use of opium in China in the late 1800s a positive development.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (5, Insightful)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741821)

I wouldn't exactly consider the overly rampant but legal use of opium in China in the late 1800s a positive development.

I didn't say that drugs are good, nor did I suggest anywhere that rampant abuse of drugs is ever positive. This is exactly the kind of brainless knee-jerk non argument I did refer to. You have a position which you seek to support by taking one case that on the surface appears contradict my argument, while in truth it doesn't. Idiots with preconceived notions who half read my post and read your response will have their preconceived idiot notions reinforced. This does nothing to further rational debate.

Re:when haven't we promoted drugs? (3, Insightful)

phalse phace (454635) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742311)

Yup, I agree. Turn on the t.v. and you'll see drug commercials, turn on the radio and you'll hear drug commercials, flip open a magazine and you'll see drug ads. Shit, there are drug ads everywhere. When are the NY Times going to start blaming them for 'promoting drug use'?

It's like what Chris Rock said about the government and drugs [youtube.com] .....

"The government, they don't want you to use your drugs. They want you to use their drugs. So every night on t.v. you see a weird ass drug commercial trying to get you hooked on some legal shit. And they just keep naming symptoms til they get one that you fuckin' got."

Methamphetamine is NOT illegal! (5, Informative)

Ellis D. Tripp (755736) | more than 6 years ago | (#23740743)

It is listed in DEA schedule II. Truly illegal drugs (like heroin and pot)are Schedule I.

Methamphetamine is available on prescription under the brand name Desoxyn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desoxyn [wikipedia.org]

Re:Methamphetamine is NOT illegal! (0, Flamebait)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#23740941)

Meth isn't illegal, eh? Try that one on the cop when you get busted. "Honestly officer, it's only schedule II.

Re:Methamphetamine is NOT illegal! (5, Informative)

tshetter (854143) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741085)


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! (3, Interesting)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742155)

Isn't is funny, that it took a freakin' Constitutional Amendment to ban alcohol from the US, and a 2nd one to repeal prohibition....and yet none of that has been required for pot, coke, or any other drug?

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:Methamphetamine is NOT illegal! (1)

Capsaicin (412918) | more than 6 years ago | (#23740953)

And quite apart from that, though the initial effects are dramatic, Ice isn't likely to boost your cognitive function in the long run.

Re:Methamphetamine is NOT illegal! (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741047)

Schedule II drugs are illegal without a prescription. They are considered 'controlled substances'. You can get arrested for carrying a Schedule II drug without a prescription. (Note: my wife is substance abuse counselor)

Re:Methamphetamine is NOT illegal! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23741719)

Any schedule drug is illegal without a Rx, not just schedule II. If you are found with any schedule drug by an officer, it better be in the bottle and you better have a valid Rx.

I'm a pharmacist.

Re:Methamphetamine is NOT illegal! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23742493)

That's bullshit. You shoot, eat, snort any scheduled substance. Provided you don't get busted. I'm the war-on-drug tzar.

"like heroin and pot" (5, Insightful)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741095)

Truly illegal drugs (like heroin and pot)are Schedule I.


It's a sad commentary on the stupidity of our drug laws that heroin and marijuana get lumped into the same category.

Re:"like heroin and pot" (2, Insightful)

trawg (308495) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741581)

... and that alcohol and tobacco isn't alongside them.

(not saying they should be illegal, just pointing it out)

Re:"like heroin and pot" (1)

chubs730 (1095151) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742097)

Nicotene isn't actually a harmful drug, just extremely addictive. I wouldn't put it in the same class as alcohol and heroin (which should be in the same class).

Re:"like heroin and pot" (4, Informative)

notdotcom.com (1021409) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742663)

Nicotine is not a harmful drug???

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:"like heroin and pot" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23741661)

It's a sad commentary on the stupidity of our drug laws that heroin and marijuana get lumped into the same category.

Not really, it's a legal classification based on the properties and uses (or, more properly, lack of specific uses) of the dugs. According to wiki [wikipedia.org] , Schedule I drugs:
(A) The drug or other substance has high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

As much as I think recreational drugs should be decriminalized, I don't have a problem with attributing A, B, and C to both heroin and marijuana.

Re:"like heroin and pot" (2, Informative)

chubs730 (1095151) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742157)

The problem with B is that a Schedule I drug rarely will have the opportunity to be accepted in medical treatment in the US, despite overwhelming evidence in support of it. (See motor disorders for marijuana).

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 these to caffeine if you wanted to, it's potential for abuse is far higher than that of marijuana.

Re:"like heroin and pot" (1)

fabs64 (657132) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742273)

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
It doesn't bother you that these two are simply untrue for pot?

Re:"like heroin and pot" (1)

Domo-Sun (585730) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742495)

Every drug was touted as a medicine in popular opinion. Those opinions happen to be wrong, including the current opinions on pot as a medicine. Pot doesn't have a great safety record. Just because a lot of people smoke it and are obsessed with it doesn't mean it's safe.

Re:"like heroin and pot" (1)

fabs64 (657132) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742605)

Look, I don't smoke pot.
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:Methamphetamine is NOT illegal! (1)

lysse (516445) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742091)

*scouts around for a naive doctor to make an appointment with*

Re:Methamphetamine is NOT illegal! (1)

Aloisius (1294796) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742557)

I'm surprised they even put methamphetamine in there considering they already had Adderall which after all is a mix of amphetamine and dextroamphetamine. It is also a schedule II drug same as methamphetamine. The effects of adderall are pretty similar to meth, except it is far less potent. You can get addicted to it if you take too much. I knew a doctor that was hooked on it and prescribed large doses (in excess of 150mg) that had to be specially made in liquid form to feed his habit. He got busted of course (the DEA tracks it pretty closely).

Who really cares what the NYT has to say? (5, Insightful)

lawn.ninja (1125909) | more than 6 years ago | (#23740751)

I know I certainly don't. On that note I'm tired of all the main stream media in the US. It's all lies and talking points. Watch the news some night and flip back and forth between the channels, or better yet catch a few with the DVR at 7 and 11. Get different samples from the two time slots and tell me what's different. Nothing, other than the filler material. They even use the same verbage most of the time. So I figure this is all coming from a very small group of sources (probably AP wire considering how lazy the media is). Which means that you can't really trust it. Hell I don't know how many times recently we've seen articles about the media being duped by someone or something. So that means to me that they don't vet their stories or sources properly anymore. Fuck it, at least the ratings and the revenues are up, god forbid the profit margin shrinks.

Re:Who really cares what the NYT has to say? (3, Interesting)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741593)

Most of the "newsy" articles come from AP and Reuters. That's one of the reasons I love to watch Jon Stewart's show, he does these montages of the cable news morons where he shows off just how silly and repetitive they are. I just laugh, how can anyone take cable news seriously after that? They've got one up right now [thedailyshow.com] about Clinton's concession speech and Obama's VP choice.

Re:Who really cares what the NYT has to say? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741755)

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

wink wink (2, Funny)

Kneo24 (688412) | more than 6 years ago | (#23740779)

Winking is serious business.

NYT (-1, Troll)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 6 years ago | (#23740821)

The NYT is a rag and always has been. Their byline "All the news that's fit to print" is complete bullshit. I look forward to the day when newspapers are completely out of business.

Promoting Drug Use (4, Interesting)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23740881)

Who cares if they were anyway? Its their magazine, they can say what ever they want. Or has it become illegal to express your beliefs?

Re:Promoting Drug Use (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23740981)

Yes, if your beliefs involve communism, or more recently, having sex with kids, it's illegal to talk about it.

Slow news day (2, Interesting)

Freaky Spook (811861) | more than 6 years ago | (#23740983)

I usually find on slow news days the media likes to run stories that get people angry about drugs. Its one of those topics that everyone has an opinion on, enough to get some kind of emotive response and engage the readers/viewers, whether its from what Amy Winehouse put up her nose to more political issues like legality or protecting your children.

Re:Slow news day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23742539)

NYT falls off the wagon and writes something that doesn't tow the liberal line and BOOM everyone and is dog goes apoplectic...

Smart move. If their ideology didn't completely overwhelm their business decisions they might notice that they've hit a nerve and briefly attained some relevance. More likely they'll just issue an apology and get back to business as usual. It'll be funny when they get bought by Murdoc.

Re:Promoting Drug Use (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23741179)

It's also legal to criticize people for expressing beliefs you find stupid or immoral...

Considering...... (5, Insightful)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 6 years ago | (#23740963)

.......That William Randolph Hearst and his Yellow-journalism fueled the war on drugs in the first place, the Media are the LAST people I trust to provide me with reliable information in regards to drugs.

As a matter of fact, I don't trust anyone to provide me with information regarding drugs anymore. Guv'ment included. The DEA website is so full of blatant propaganda, I find it hard to believe anyone can take it seriously

And besides, I seriously doubt anyone has my best interests in mind more then myself.

Re:Considering...... (4, Funny)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741103)

.......That William Randolph Hearst and his Yellow-journalism fueled the war on drugs in the first place, the Media are the LAST people I trust to provide me with reliable information.
There, fixed that for you

Re:Considering...... (1)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741163)

Thank you.

Now I can just cut/paste that line in to all of my future Slashdot posts. :)

Re:Considering...... (2, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741355)

Actually, thank you...
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 thugs that now own them and shake their leashes.

Bloggers are wont to report their own bias, and not check sources so you end up having to do research to find truth, but that is better than trusting those that will stab you when they get the chance to put the knife in.

How the NY Times has fallen. (5, Interesting)

cunina (986893) | more than 6 years ago | (#23740985)

It's been a year since I deleted the New York Times from my news media diet, and I haven't looked back (pardon the mixed metaphor). I was willing to forgive them for Jayson Blair nonsense, but Judith Miller's warmongering lies masquerading as journalism seriously damaged its credibility. And with the Times' caustic, perverted coverage of the Duke Lacrosse rape trial, any last shred of integrity they had in my eyes went out the window.

The Times has discarded their long tradition of conscientious news gathering in favor of making money, and it shows. At least we know how they paid for their shiny new skyscraper.

It's sad... (1)

msimm (580077) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742623)

When organization strays so far from the heartbeat of the American entertainment business.

NY Times deserves it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23741043)

Liberal bastards.

SCORE! m4s NO STRINGS!!! - 42 (North Bay) pic (-1, Offtopic)

not_hylas( ) (703994) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741135)

m4s

Looking to score rattlesnake ... ah, to a good christian home, will respond immediately.
For use in a religious, err, way - rite.

drugs and honesty (3, Insightful)

drDugan (219551) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741143)

It is almost impossible to have a large discussion about drugs and medical effects in the public sphere. There is a massive, taxpayer funded multi-media campaign from the U.S. federal government that has for many years taught a large fraction of the public a series of messages about drugs that are just plain false. Almost anyone with significant experience with using these same drugs knows this to be the case, but their voices are typically marginalized or not taken seriously.

Re:drugs and honesty (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742445)

Well, yeah, you're all on drugs. Duh.

Now, if you can get someone high up, like the president, to say that they've done drugs, then you might be able to convince people...

Re:drugs and honesty (1)

Domo-Sun (585730) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742523)

Hey, did it ever occur to you that drugs have side effects that need to be reported on? Even aspirin comes with death warnings. I see it the other way around: A lot of over blown skepticism from hippies in denial.

My lawyer said.... (5, Funny)

Balthisar (649688) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741151)

I'm suing Wired. Even though my lawyer said not to mention anything outside the courtroom, the Wired article enticed me to try ALL of those drugs in order to rescue my failing career.

Under the Aderall, everyone that passed my cube though I was calling them names. That resulted in an unpleasant meeting where I swore at my boss.

With the Aniracetam, I had the unpleasant assignment of examining the weld quality on some Ambassor Bridge repairs. Thank goodness for fall harnesses!

I don't even want to recall the embarrassment at work when taking the Aricept. It was like first grade all over again.

Methamphetamine was probably my best try. I had to stop taking it when I was sent home for "the nerves."

The Modafinil made everyone think I actually *did* something with the stripper in the back room at the club, and worse, that it was contagious.

The Nicotine just got met cited by the county for violating workplace rules. It actually worked out quite well, but the $250 smoking fines really add up, ya know?

The Rolipram was a little better than the Aricept. You get much more sympathy when everything comes out from above rather than from below.

I'm currently taking Vasopressin. For some reason, people keep telling me to chew my food before I swallow it.

Maybe I shouldn't have taken them in the prescribed order? In any case, don't tell my attorney. Something about "spoiling my case."

Sometimes, old things just need to die (4, Insightful)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741217)

Ever since it failed to address its support for the Bush administration with respect to the invasion of Iraq, the New York Times has become steadily less relevant. I don't know whether they believe only old, right-wing fossils still read newspapers or whether they're having trouble recruiting quality staff on the wages they're willing to pay. Whatever the problem, they should either fix it, or just turn out the lights and go home.

Wired has always published its share of articles written with a smart-ass or tongue-in-cheek tone, and its audience both likes them and understands that they're not intended to be taken as gospel. The Times reviewer is clearly from the "full body armour to ride a bicycle" school of saving us all from ourselves.

Re:Sometimes, old things just need to die (2, Funny)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741583)

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 surprised if they had an article about the best drugs.

Incidentally, 2600 had a good article on nootropic drugs a couple issues ago, but I halfway expect it to be followed up some day with "Hacking 2600 Readers: Convincing Geeks to Give Themselves Parkinsons". Even if I weren't old and boring with kids and a mortgage, I wouldn't try stuff out of it.

LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11! (0, Troll)

sakusha (441986) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741307)

BLOGGERS ARE TEH OUTRAGE! WiRED IS L337!!!!1!11

Oh not this crap again.

Wired is wrong to promote drug use, especially stuff like meth. I work with recovering addicts and believe me, some gullible young kids ARE swayed by this sort of stupid publicity by those self-appointed arbiters of coolness. Even the allegedly "innocent" prescription drugs like Adderal do lead to addiction. If even one weak person was swayed to a life of addiction by Wired's advice to "do the right drugs," Conde Nast has done evil.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11! (3, Insightful)

Anti_Climax (447121) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741489)

If even one weak person was swayed to a life of addiction by Wired's advice to "do the right drugs," Conde Nast has done evil.
If it's come to that, we all might as well fold our hands and wait to die.

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:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11! (-1, Flamebait)

sakusha (441986) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741651)

Come back and tell me that when YOUR kid gets hooked on meth.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11! (1)

quanticle (843097) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741977)

Come back and tell me when your kid get hooked on meth FROM READING AN ARTICLE IN WIRED.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11! (2, Insightful)

eikonos (779343) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742059)

I think the previous poster's point, which you missed, is that if a person is so gullible that they'll do something just because they read about it somewhere, then we might as well give up and wait to die. The point is that people have to be smart enough to do a bit of research and think a little bit for themselves.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11! (3, Insightful)

Anti_Climax (447121) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742071)

I can tell you with absolute certainty that my view on free will is not going to be changed by my child making a poor decision in the future.

If we have to temper everything we say in the public sphere based on the reaction of the lowest common denominator of society, we're going nowhere fast.

The world is full of pitfalls and dangerous stuff. There's no end to the stuff that could hurt or kill you. But pretending that stuff doesn't exist isn't going to keep people safe from it.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11! (2, Insightful)

Fx.Dr (915071) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742117)

Honestly, if a magazine article does a better job at getting your kids hooked on drugs than you are at keeping them off, I'm placing the blame solely on YOU, the parent. Stop passing the buck.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11! (5, Informative)

Bullet-Dodger (630107) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741633)

Wired is wrong to promote drug use, especially stuff like meth. I work with recovering addicts and believe me, some gullible young kids ARE swayed by this sort of stupid publicity by those self-appointed arbiters of coolness.
Yes, wired promoted using meth by saying it causes "Parkinson's-like symptoms, addiction, stroke, psychosis, prison, death" and "Prolonged use can also make you stupid and crazy.".

How dare they make it look so cool and sexy!

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11! (0, Troll)

sakusha (441986) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741673)

You skipped over the part about "Triggers the release of dopamine. Can increase concentration and creative output." I note that this description comes BEFORE the downside.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11! (1)

Bullet-Dodger (630107) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742049)

I would still say that "Triggers the release of dopamine. Can increase concentration and creative output." alongside stupid, crazy, Parkinson's-like symptoms, addiction, stroke, psychosis, prison, and death isn't a huge endorsement.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11! (1)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742165)

You skipped over the part about "Triggers the release of dopamine. Can increase concentration and creative output." I note that this description comes BEFORE the downside.

You skipped the part that describes how that's not 100% true.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23742225)

I note that this description comes BEFORE the downside.

No, you'd gripe about it either way.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11! (1)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742315)

Every commercial drug advertisement lists the effects that it is being sold for before it lists the 'side' effects. That is, "BEFORE the downside" as you put it. They also do what they can with large print vs small, and eloquent on screen actor vs mumbling guy in background, to make this more effective. I understand why you feel this method is unethical in Wired's case, but I have to ask, do you think it's equally nasty in these other cases?

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11! (1)

Domo-Sun (585730) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742589)

Yes. I think everyone sees that drug companies are selling you something. And while it's the parents responsibility, there's a little bit of responsibility that wired has when suggesting that every-day people benefit by using drugs and they turned out as writers and successful. That stuff sways kids because they're stupid.

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11! (1)

TommydCat (791543) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742469)

You skipped over the part about "Triggers the release of dopamine. Can increase concentration and creative output." I note that this description comes BEFORE the downside.
I agree... there's definitely a <strong> message there...

Re:LOLOUTRAGE!!1!11! (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741767)

Such bullshit. Don't people have any right to choose, or responsibility for their own actions? Why is it evil to talk about the effects of drugs in an honest way? Why should there be any form of guilt or wrongdoing associated with that?

Most people who abuse drugs self-medicate... (2, Insightful)

msimm (580077) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742695)

Maybe if we taught them that they'd choose medication or coping-skills over addiction.

When you start to view balanced information as promotion you've clearly lost your way.

Staring:Meth AND....nicotine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23741665)

Growing up in the meth capitol of the world (Des Moines, IA...Anhydrous? farmers? perfect!) I know the devastation meth causes, but nicotine?...

seriously? Promoting meth use and nicotine use in the same article? Get the fuck outta here...

Promoting Drug Use (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23741795)

The Wired article did make me interested in at least researching further cognitive enhancement drugs such as Adderal. I experience serious focus issues that make it difficult for me to work consistently on the things I most want to do. Is that so bad? Can't I as an adult be presented with the risks and benefits, and make my own decision?

Unfortunately, to even try such a medication, I'd have to find an illegal source or lie about symptoms to my doctor.

Wired is the bad guy here, for honestly presenting both pros and cons, rather than yelling the accepted government propaganda. The government is in the right for protecting us from ourselves. Most people would agree that meth is so destructive and addictive that it warrants strong controls, but many of the other substances on Wired's list are not so clear cut.

Both Writers Are Guilty of... (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742323)

...simply searching too hard for something to write about. Both the article and the times' response are just blather that will pass like a fart in the wind.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?