• Neuroscience & Pharmacology Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Recent Journal Articles Chemistry Mega-Thread
    FREE Chemistry Databases! Self-Education Guide

  • N&PD Moderators: Skorpio

What is a drug?

Lightning-Nl

Lightning-Nl

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 11, 2012
Messages
1,247
Hammilton said:
That's a lot of talk to explain a piss shiver ;)
Click to expand...

Ah but that's the point! It's not just a simple piss is it? ;)

Everything in the body is much more complicated than that. All behavior is driven by the want to reproduce and the will to live. What keeps is going is the endogenous drugs that work in perfect harmony with each other. That's why I hate the phrase "drugs are bad." No! Drugs are VERY good! In fact life COULD NOT exist without drugs.

Without drugs, something as "simple" as taking a piss would require a mountainous amount of effort. Without drugs, no animal could have stayed alive. Without drugs, no life would exist.
 
Life could probably exist without drugs. I'm pretty sure I existed without them at some point.

Endogenous drugs is a bit of misnomer, as drugs are by definition chemicals of an exogenous nature.

Anyway, I was just remarking on the irony of expending so much effort to explain a piss shiver. It is humorous.
 
Hammilton said:
Life could probably exist without drugs. I'm pretty sure I existed without them at some point.
Click to expand...

That's actually incorrect.

Every cell contains neurotransmitters and hormones. Even when you were just an egg in your mommies tummy, you were kept alive by drugs.

Hammilton said:
Endogenous drugs is a bit of misnomer, as drugs are by definition chemicals of an exogenous nature.
Click to expand...

I disagree. While the things I listed are all neurotransmitters, the definition of "drug" from Merriam Webster is...

A substance that has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.
Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware; your body naturally synthesizing chemicals that act as drugs is a way that a drug is "otherwise introduced into the body." Keep in mind as well, that neurotransmitters can be synthesized synthetically and then put into the body and still be active. With your logic, the dopamine that is made by my body isn't a drug, but the dopamine I take in a tablet is? Doesn't make sense man...
 
Sorry that's the scientifically accepted definition. You may like it to be otherwise but that's not the case. And it makes perfect sense because that dopamine of exogenous nature is being used to alter a natural biological function and so by its use it is made a drug. Just like a plant is just a plant until it's ingested and then it becomes food. Differing definitions for one thing based on its use is nothing new or uncommon.

The usual definition includes that the physiological effect be in addition to or differing from the natural state. The scientific definitions usually used correlate tightly with the legal definition offered here:
http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ucm074201.htm

Disagree with it all you want but that is the accepted definition and we cannot function if every word is subject to redefinition whenever it suits someone.

You're diverting your own thread now, though.
 
Hammilton said:
Sorry that's the scientifically accepted definition. You may like it to be otherwise but that's not the case. And it makes perfect sense because that dopamine of exogenous nature is being used to alter a natural biological function and so by its use it is made a drug. Just like a plant is just a plant until it's ingested and then it becomes food. Differing definitions for one thing based on its use is nothing new or uncommon.

The usual definition includes that the physiological effect be in addition to or differing from the natural state. The scientific definitions usually used correlate tightly with the legal definition offered here:
http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ucm074201.htm

Disagree with it all you want but that is the accepted definition and we cannot function if every word is subject to redefinition whenever it suits someone.

You're diverting your own thread now, though.
Click to expand...

What exactly are you getting at here?

By posting that reference, you proved my point. No where in the FDA's definition of drugs does it say that the drug must be exogenous in order to be considered a drug. Take a look at the definition again.

The FD&C Act defines drugs, in part, by their intended use, as "articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease" and "articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals" [FD&C Act, sec. 201(g)(1)].
Click to expand...

All neurotransmitters are drugs according to this definition; due to the fact that they are there for the sole purpose of manipulating body and brain function. Just because Dopamine is taken in a tablet form, or whatever the case is, it still has the exact same affect as the endogenous dopamine in the synthesized by the body. Yes, it's artificial, but it would be very inappropriate to call synthetic dopamine a drug and endogenous dopamine not a drug just because one is synthesized and released naturally by the body.
 
You're clearly no legal scholar, but that's not an excuse to willfully misread the definition. You can't separate the second half of the sentence because it suits your argument. It must be read as "defines drugs, in part by their intended use as "..." AND nonfood articles intended to affect the structure. You're also ignoring the word "articles" because it suits you, or because you're illiterate (it would seem that this is an endemic problem here!).

Second, they do not affect the structure or function of the body of man. They are the normal structure and function. Exogenous dopamine would be affecting the natural function because it is in addition to the natural requirements. Why are we hung up on dopamine though? It's administered peripherally as a pressor. Your body doesn't release large quantities of dopamine to correct blood pressure. it's entirely unnatural, but very effective. It's purpose and use is what makes it a drug.

This is getting into ridiculous semantics now, and I cannot understand why someone would argue this. There is not a real scientist who would argue for a definition of the word "drug" that would include all endogenous bioactive substances because it would necessitate that virtually EVERYTHING be considered a drug. Your cells, your DNA, your gastric fluids, everything is a drug with this definition. It's a moronic and useless definition that isn't used by anyone except some idiot who wants to win a pointless argument.

Yes, it's artificial, but it would be very inappropriate to call synthetic dopamine a drug and endogenous dopamine not a drug just because one is synthesized and released naturally by the body.
Click to expand...

The point is not that it's artificial. The point is that it's serving a function that is not natural. You could extract endogenous dopamine, purify it and then at some point when your blood pressure crashes re-administer it and it will then be a drug, because as the legal definition says, it's the intended use that determines whether it is a drug.


But like I've said, this is a pointless argument. The scientific community does not use your definition. It never has and it won't because it's unworkable even if you consider it aesthetically pleasing and find the accepted definition "inappropriate" because you're not in the position to make such determinations.
 
Hammilton said:
You're clearly no legal scholar, but that's not an excuse to willfully misread the definition.
Click to expand...

That's an incredibly insulting and hypocritical statement.

The definition you provided made no reference, what-so-ever, to whether or not a drug must be an exogenous chemical. YOU are the one who manipulated and misread the definition of drug. You assumed that a drug must be exogenous in nature. You also claim that the scientific community does not use "my" definition of drug. In fact, this can be interpreted in many ways, and this point differs from person to person. Nowhere in the definition you provided did it say that a drug must be exogenous.

Although, given how condescending your assumptions were, I wouldn't be surprised if you tried to rationalize how idiotic you made yourself sound. Your thinking is not how a "scientist" would think. Science requires that everything recieve an exact definition. Assumptions, like how you assumed that the FDA definition refers to exogenous chemicals respectively, is how misconceptions are made.
 
I'm assuming nothing. Feel free to query the FDA on their interpretation. The use of the word 'article' makes it clear that they are not referring to the chemicals naturally present in your brain. They interpret it the same way I have (but then again I've actually read it carefully, not just taking the parts I want to see). The definition you want to use isn't used scientifically because it would create an untenable situation where there would be no way to differentiate between natural biological activities and the additional drugs added. That and it would literally mean that every chemical in your body- that is, everything in your body would be considered a drug. The proteins that make up the various receptors, the proteins that make up the enzymes of your liver. Monoamine oxidase enzymes would be drugs. Water? Must be a drug. Calcium ions? Drugs! Chloride ions? Drugs! Sucrose? Definitely a drug. ATP? Drug. Carbon dioxide? Clearly a drug. Cartilage? Drug!

Drugs are non-food articles administered with the intent to affect biological systems. Pills, injectable products, suppositories, sublingual products, transdermal patches, inhaled gases, insufflated powders, etc.

Everything does have an exact definition (or is able to have one), and the accepted definition doesn't have any problem with exactness. Not that your claim saying that science has to have exact definitions for everything is really true, either. Studies routinely redefine words for their own purposes (and will provide the definition to provide clarity and usually the reason for using a modified definition). A single chemical may be a drug in one context and something else in another. Diamond may be a jewel when cut and polished, or it can be a cutting tool. You certainly wouldn't call industrial diamond cutting tools jewels or confuse ashiny two carat princess cut diamond for a cutting tool. Why is the idea of a context-dependant definition so difficult for you to grasp?

Condescending and insulting? The first part I'll admit to. When one is right it is easy to be condescending. Insulting? Not at all. I merely made observations based upon what you've written. If you don't like those observations you'd do well to change the landscape I'm observing.

If you can find one member here whose opinion I respect who agrees with your position, let me know. Otherwise I'm afraid I'm wasting my time giving knowledge to someone who isn't interested in actually learning. Your position reminds me of something that someone would come up with when stoned.
 
Last edited:
Drugs are non-food articles administered with the intent to affect biological systems. Pills, injectable products, suppositories, sublingual products, transdermal patches, inhaled gases, insufflated powders, etc.
Click to expand...

M-W sez; a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body.

I don't think you will find very many scientists that argue that the "natural" endogenous neurotransmitters entail "drugs" when present in normal levels for that particular organism. Even endogenous horomones. It needs to be exogenous. say I painstakingly extract testosterone from my piss, it's still a "drug" if I administer it later.
 
I originally sent this post as a PM to SwampFox to avoid cluttering the other thread, but seeing as this is its own thread now..

I don't think including endogenous substances as "drugs" is a very useful definition. Normally when people think of "drugs" small molecule chemicals like morphine, pseudoephedrine, THC, etc. etc. come to mind. But there are also drugs that are enzymatic proteins (Butyrylcholinesterase), or small peptides (HGH).

So now if you use your definition, all neurotransmitters, all enzymes, and every small peptide produced by your body falls under the category "drug." There are also RNA/DNA based drugs, so with your definition you'd also have to include all genetic material in your body as a "drug" as well.

Here's the full FDA definition of a drug (probably the most universally accepted definition): "according to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (1) : a substance recognized in an official pharmacopoeia or formulary (2) : a substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease (3) : a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body (4) : a substance intended for use as a component of a medicine but not a device or a component, part, or accessory of a device"

Intent is a big part of the definition. I don't see any way endogenous substances could fall under this definition of drug. It might seem strange that dopamine in your brain doesn't count as a drug, but extracting, concentrating and consuming that same dopamine "to affect the structure or function of your body" makes it a drug, but that's what the word means.

edit:
sekio said:
say I painstakingly extract testosterone from my piss, it's still a "drug" if I administer it later.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a good idea, what solvent do you recommend? ;)
 
I don't see how the bolded part of the definition doesn't exclude chemicals that are made by the human body.

or otherwise introduced into the body.
Click to expand...

So anything with a physiological affect that is introduced to the body, is a drug.
 
I don't see how the bolded part of the definition doesn't exclude chemicals endogenous to the human body.
Click to expand...

Including "endogenous synthesis" as "introduced to the body" is playing pretty damned fast and loose with definitions. I dunno...I find Hammilton's argument via reductio pretty damned convincing.

ebola
 
It's not what is made but what chemicals made by the body are used as drugs. Insulin, dopamine, adrenaline, morphine (apparently) spring to mind immediately. There are probably more biologicals that I'm unfamiliar with.
 
Testosterone, estrogen, cortisol, progesterone, insulin, HGH, HCG, clotting factors, so on and so forth.

morphine (apparently)
Click to expand...

Really? I think it's more likely an artifact of poppyseed consumption.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top