What is a drug?

[ungelesene_bettlek]

SwampFox56: you should make yourself clear that we're only talking about definitions here. a definition is in fact nothing more than a more-or-less arbitrary convention or abbreviation. it's nothing more than claiming "from now on, I am going to use the short term "a" in order to address the (important, but unhandy) long term "a43sgfsg009253453sdgs...". therefore, a definition can by its very nature never be true or false. the question to ask is: is it useful or not. and when a large maiority of the people working with the terms daily agrees upon the usefullness of a definition, it is more or less set to stone - at least until new findings show that another definition is more useful because of the newly discovered facts. everyone is of corse free to say "I prefer to make my own definitions!", but there rarely comes any good out of it; you always have to explain what you mean, so the sense of the newly coined term gets lost and all you do is creating confusion.

maybe it is also insightful to realise that definitions are often context-dependant. e.g. look up in wikipedia what mathematician mean when talking about "fields" - it's very different from the everyday meaning of that word. and then see how an entire passage of requirements is summed up in that single word. and the same is true for the term "drugs" itself: it can either mean all drugs in the general sense the FDA writes about, or only psychoactive drugs, or only medical drugs, or only illegalized drugs. I always get angry when I hear the phrase "alcohol and drugs", but unfortunately, even most medical doctors use it. btw, the origin of the word "drug" is in "dried plants" (this connection is more obvious in german ("droge" vs "trocknen") and even more in dutch ("drug" vs "drogerende"), and originally, it meant just that.

to get to the point: you can always water down definitions like you try to do buy making them more "general". if you extend your path just a little bit, you soon come to a point where every substance is a drug, because it interacts with the human body somehow (including black holes, the higgs boson and dark energy). then the very reason to make a definition got lost, because now "drug" is just a synonym for "substance". another good example are the opposites "artificial" and "natural" (not only in drug-related context). often people argue like "humankind is a part of nature, and therefor also all man-made things are part of nature". consequence: everything is natural, nothing is artificial, so both terms have lost their meaning and could be thrown away.

 

[missmeyet?]

"A substance that has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body"

Swampfox...no need for all the attempted explanation...in your very first quote that I just listed immediately above...it explains exactly what drugs are...in your own statement of definition. When it says or otherwise introduced into the body all this means is in some way introduced into the body...by mouth (ingested), dermally (applied to the skin and absorbed into the body), by injection, anal route, etc. The word introduced in itself, by very its very definition means that drugs do not include anything that is made in ones own body. Neurotransmitters and other chemicals such as endogenous hormones that are made inside ones body are not introduced into the body. They are already there or made inside the body!

Drugs, by definition are substances that come from outside the body. (Take it from someone in healthcare for wayy too long).

 

[Psychedelic Jay]

The real question is: What are not drugs?


We in fact are drugs.

Everything we do and live for changes our bodily chemistry. This reflects how we think and act towards other drugs. Then, these drugs create perceptions of what we actually call "drugs".

We cannot exist without drugs. Drugs enable us to use forces to sustain life. For without drugs, we wouldn't exist.

Without drugs, we wouldn't have the processes necessary to create more complex drugs to create more perceptions. We are perceptions of ourselves and others.

And with the knowledge we gain from such drugs, we create infinite drugs.


Drugs are substances, and substances are drugs. We are made of substances, so by default naturally...


We are the drugs. The drugs are us.

We are banning ourselves.

 

[missmeyet?]

The real question is: What are not drugs?


We in fact are drugs.

Everything we do and live for changes our bodily chemistry. This reflects how we think and act towards other drugs. Then, these drugs create perceptions of what we actually call "drugs".

We cannot exist without drugs. Drugs enable us to use forces to sustain life. For without drugs, we wouldn't exist.

Without drugs, we wouldn't have the processes necessary to create more complex drugs to create more perceptions. We are perceptions of ourselves and others.

And with the knowledge we gain from such drugs, we create infinite drugs.


Drugs are substances, and substances are drugs. We are made of substances, so by default naturally...


We are the drugs. The drugs are us.

We are banning ourselves.

What??

You are being silly right?

 

[ungelesene_bettlek]

The real question is: What are not drugs?

have you read my post above? I tried to explain very detailed what a definiton is, why it is useful, and when it becomes useless. and you are doing the thing I warned of: watering down a definiton until it is useless to satisfy some diffuse gut feelings that somehow make sense to you. but scientific insight is not what feels good to a particular person, it's about hard reproducable facts and strictly logical model building

We are made of substances, so by default naturally...

great, now youre arguing with my prime example for watering down to uselessness... it almost feels like my post above was a response to yours.

What??

You are being silly right?

I think you are now being too harsh on Psychedelic Jay; what he wrote are some metaphysical and spiritual thought that may be interesting to think about for a while (especially when stoned), but cannot be given a precise meaning.

and as much as I love the exact sciences, I still do think that also metaphysics and spirituality have their place. one just shouldn't mix it too much - IMHO this is the only mistake Psychedelic Jay made.

 

[missmeyet?]

have you read my post above? I tried to explain very detailed what a definiton is, why it is useful, and when it becomes useless. and you are doing the thing I warned of: watering down a definiton until it is useless to satisfy some diffuse gut feelings that somehow make sense to you. but scientific insight is not what feels good to a particular person, it's about hard reproducable facts and strictly logical model building


great, now youre arguing with my prime example for watering down to uselessness... it almost feels like my post above was a response to yours.


I think you are now being too harsh on Psychedelic Jay; what he wrote are some metaphysical and spiritual thought that may be interesting to think about for a while (especially when stoned), but cannot be given a precise meaning.

and as much as I love the exact sciences, I still do think that also metaphysics and spirituality have their place. one just shouldn't mix it too much - IMHO this is the only mistake Psychedelic Jay made.

Ahh..I apologize if it was taken that way and if I misunderstood his purpose. I too was only thinking strictly in the concrete.

 

[Psychedelic Jay]

It is impossible to imagine life as we know it without some form of mind altering chemicals.

We biologically thrive on stuff that may very well kill other species and vice versa...

So, I only said that last post to question our very thought of what is actually a drug?

Where does this line get drawn? Are internal natural bodily made substances that evoke some of the same properties as synthetic substances drugs?

If we were to theoretically widely abuse powdered endorphins, could they become illegal? Would it too be classified as a drug?

Old greek text refers to translation of what we now call pharmacology “The knowledge/study of poisons/toxins”

We now call these poisons/toxins “drugs”

So, by definition to add what was already stated...

Drugs are controlled toxins/poisons? Not asking this, but stating it is a rhetoric question.

When we take these poisons we are altered. This altercation whether good or bad is dependent on bodily effects.

They are either benign, active, or super active, as in we are not effected, we are altered, or we are heavily altered and/or dead....

I personally think the definition switch from medicine-to-drug is dosage.

Thanks for reading. I love you all. I am a heavy thinker. Is this too much?

 

[alt 14]

Drugs are bad mkay.

 

[Lightning-Nl]

You all made your point. However...

I find it inappropriate to call something a drug just because a synthetic "version" of it was made and taken as a tablet. A substance is a substance. The fact of the matter is; the way Dopamine is made in the body, is exactly the same way its made in a laboratory. Again, I understand that it must be "introduced into the body." However, with that logic, the L-Tryptophan that I consume when eating a Turkey dinner, is a drug.

You have to also keep in mind that many chemicals that are used in the body, are unable to be synthesized without consuming the "building blocks." So does that make certain amino acids and proteins drugs?

Then we come to the problem of supplements. If you consider amino acids - that the body HAS to have present from external sources, not a drug, then by following your logic something like L-DOPA isn't a drug.

 

[ebola?]

The fact of the matter is; the way Dopamine is made in the body, is exactly the same way its made in a laboratory.

This is incorrect, as naturally occurring enzymes are only rarely used as reagents. This also doesn't really suggest anything about how we should define what a drug is.

However, with that logic, the L-Tryptophan that I consume when eating a Turkey dinner, is a drug.

Would you be happy with the claim that it 'sort of' is? Is there any definition that is not fuzzy at its borders? Also, just fyi, chicken contains more tryptophan than turkey; it's quite opulent in typical diets. So what happens when we define things that are regularly dietarily present in large amounts as "drugs" (again, this method of 'proof' by reductio is quite useful)?

If you consider amino acids - that the body HAS to have present from external sources, not a drug, then by following your logic something like L-DOPA isn't a drug.

L-dopa is not an essential amino acid.

ebola

 

[Hammilton]

Actually, the definition covers only nonfood items that are introduced into the body to cause a physiologic change. Yes, your body has to consume some things in order to function properly, but they're not drugs.

So your turkey isn't a drug by the definition for that reason. I'm not sure that l-tryptophan actually has a measurable physiologic effect, so I'm not sure if it could be considered a drug. You always hear people talking about getting tired after eating a bunch of turkey, but as ebola? correctly points out, chicken has more of the amino acid in it than turkey, but no one talks about getting tired after consuming it. Sounds like placebo to me (or just a consequence of eating a shitload of anything).

I find it inappropriate to call something a drug just because a synthetic "version" of it was made and taken as a tablet.

It doesn't matter what you find inappropriate on this subject. Your opinion does not carry any weight in consideration of the entire scientific community.

And like it's been said, it doesn't matter if it's a synthetic version or not. If you extract the dopamine out of my blood, purified it and then later administered it to me or anyone else to have a physiological effect, it is then a drug. This isn't complicated at all. A drug is only a drug if we're using it for a very particular use. It is not a drug when it's floating around my body naturally, however.

L-dopa is a horrible example if you're trying to prove your point. It is not naturally present in the body and is administered for the specific purpose of altering a natural biological process. How is it that my (or rather, the whole scientific community's) logic it is not a drug? Of course it is.

If you just happen to be eating mucuna pruriens (why you would, I dunno) the L-dopa consumed is not a drug.

It would get a little tricky: is a Parkinson's patient consuming Mucuna pruriens to alleviate their disease using a drug? That gets a little grey. I suppose the FDA would say that if you're consuming it as a meal or an ingredient in a meal, then it would not legally be considered a drug, but if you're consuming an extract then it is? You'd have to ask an FDA lawyer for a ruling on the matter, but I would think most scientists would accept that regardless of how they're consuming it, if they're taking it for the purpose of modifying the disease, then it is a drug.

A few things that fall into grey areas does nothing to invalidate a good working definition, and certainly don't bolster the prospects of a definition that is completely unworkable, absolute and vague. A definition that includes everything is not a good definition.

So does that make certain amino acids and proteins drugs?

No. Remember the non-food portion? Are you just going to keep making additional arguments that ignore one part of another of the definition in order to continue?

A substance is a substance

Yes, a substance is a substance, and all drugs are substances, but not all substances are drugs!

 

[Psychedelic Jay]

To me the only grey area “is” the definition...

 

[atara]

The fact of the matter is; the way Dopamine is made in the body, is exactly the same way its made in a laboratory.

Actually, not even close. Dopamine is made in the body by tyrosine-3-hydroxylase and L-dopa-decarboxylase with cocatalyst tetrahydrobiopterin; dopamine is [IIRC] produced for laboratory purposes as a byproduct of L-DOPA via the Erlenmeyer-Plöchl azlactone reaction on vanillin, which is hydrolysed and reduced with the chiral catalyst R,R-DiPAMP; this was the subject of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

The natural reaction is more impressive, but the Nobel committee has repeatedly refused to accept my nomination of "God".

Then we come to the problem of supplements. If you consider amino acids - that the body HAS to have present from external sources, not a drug, then by following your logic something like L-DOPA isn't a drug.

L-DOPA when used in clinical practice is very obviously a drug, because it is introduced to the body with the intent of treating Parkinson's disease, two defining factors which are not present in the natural utilization of endogenous L-DOPA.

You might be asking: when it is introduced into the body, is it still a drug?

Let me answer this with an example that may explain why you are missing the point here so totally: Water vapor is a gas. When it condenses onto a surface, is it still a gas? Who in their right mind would ask such a question?

Old greek text refers to translation of what we now call pharmacology “The knowledge/study of poisons/toxins”
We now call these poisons/toxins “drugs”
So, by definition to add what was already stated...
Drugs are controlled toxins/poisons?

The etymological fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. This is a linguistic misconception.

More generally, when translating different languages to each other, we should understand that this translation is always a messy business. Language is by its nature discrete, but thought is certainly continuous, the most common example being the spectrum of colors, which we divide into categories "red", "yellow", "purple" and so on, but not every culture divides this spectrum in the same way, in fact some cultures have totally different divisions around the blue and green parts of the spectrum. In order to translate a description of color, one must assume some inaccuracy, unless you can see the original color. This is seen not only with "concrete" words like nouns but also with syntactic modifiers such as prepositions. The English prepositions for, to, by, at are translated variously to Spanish a, por, para with no clear direct correspondences.

So no, we can't define things a certain way because the Greeks did.

Often when we seek to define "drug", what we really want to define is drug-using behavior, or drug-administering behavior, and obviously the body cannot for itself display drug-using behavior, but when I smoke weed that is obviously drug-using behavior. Thus the word "drug" has not always a precise, formalized meaning, but, as Wittgenstein said: uttering a word is like striking a note on the keyboard of the imagination. A combination of notes is referred to in music as a phrase, and I suggest that this entendre is a useful one, for a note on its own is merely a noise, and it is only in context that it contributes to our state of being.

"For a large class of cases — though not for all — in which we employ the word meaning it can be explained thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language."

 

[ebola?]

The natural reaction is more impressive, but the Nobel committee has repeatedly refused to accept my nomination of "God".

Ahahaha...so this thread now harbors a redeeming quality.
...

thought is certainly continuous

Hoo boy. What a philosophical can of worms. I would say instead that there have to be aspects of experience through which we engage continua in various ways. As to what thought is, distinct from other aspects of experience, and how various continua relate to the experiences in which they're embedded, and how thought relates to such continua, remain open questions, I think (or rather, I'm dissatisfied with my own and other answers I've yet encountered on the matter).

ebola

 

[Psychedelic Jay]

I am rhetorically asking questions to let people see my “train-of-thought”

I should in fact have stated that those translations are indeed not written in any solid stone. Thanks for pointing this out atara.

But, to me the whole “drugs are controlled toxins/poisons” is a very good starting point...

I think the word drug is not specifically attached to abuse just like a lot of people also agree.

 

[Lightning-Nl]

This is incorrect, as naturally occurring enzymes are only rarely used as reagents. This also doesn't really suggest anything about how we should define what a drug is.

I never said that was the point, I said that in order to help with my point.

Anyways, I am fully aware enzymes aren't commonly used as reagents. What I meant by that is, the process that takes place inside the enzyme - whether it's oxidizing a substance or reaction with an acid - that's the same process that occurs in a laboratory. Obviously, an enzyme isn't causing the reaction when two substances are reacted in a vat, however, the reaction still occurs the same way.

Would you be happy with the claim that it 'sort of' is?

Yes I would. In fact, that is the entire point I'm trying to make.

While you are trying to change what's going on in your body by taking something like an L-Tryptophan supplement; by eating something with a high L-Tryptophan amount (such as a chicken dinner) the body still uses that to change what your biological functions are. The only difference is you took the L-Tryptophan supplement with the conscious intent of changing a biological function.

While with the chicken dinner, you don't consciously think to yourself "I'm going to eat chicken in order obtain the amino acids found in this food so my body can synthesize essential proteins. This will, therefore, allow the enzymes in my body to synthesize Serotonin thus changing my biological function." However, you're subconscious mind is thinking that. You're conscious intent wasn't to supply your body with amino acids, however, you're subconscious mind is eating with the intent to change a biological function.

Is there any definition that is not fuzzy at its borders?

The entire world is grey, I don't deny that. However, "what looks grey to me, may not be the same grey to you." When something is defined within a grey area, opinions will always differ on the matter, which is the second point I'm trying to make. Just because my opinion is different than yours, because this is a grey definition, I'm not wrong. This also means you're not wrong - are opinions are just different.

L-dopa is not an essential amino acid.

I'm fully aware of that. I was just using L-DOPA as an example, due to the fact that it's conversion into Dopamine is the exact same mechanism that goes on when another amino acid is converted into an essential protein or cholesterol in the body.

Actually, the definition covers only nonfood items that are introduced into the body to cause a physiologic change. Yes, your body has to consume some things in order to function properly, but they're not drugs.

It doesn't matter what you find inappropriate on this subject. Your opinion does not carry any weight in consideration of the entire scientific community.

I never tried to make the claim that my interpretation of the definition was the last say. I also never tried to make the assertation that my opinion carries weight anywhere, I know it doesn't. That's because I'm a nobody. I have no reputation in the science community, therefore my word means nothing. However...

You have no reputation in the science community either. Therefore, your say on the matter also carries no weight. You're not listening to me, therefore, I have no reason to listen to you. But I am, because of what I explained to Ebola above. This is a grey area. Due to that fact, you're not wrong, I'm not wrong - our interpretations on the matter are different and will always be different. No matter how much you try to convince me that I'm wrong - you NEVER will. As I will never be able to convince you that you're wrong.

I am mature enough to admit that both of our sides have valid points. If you clear your mind, and realize that you aren't as smart as you think, thus eliminating your ego on the subject, I'm sure you can realize that too.

This IS my last word on the matter

 

[sekio]

While with the chicken dinner [... your] conscious intent wasn't to supply your body with amino acids, however, your subconscious mind is eating with the intent to change a biological function.

by the same token, all food is the same is drugs, then.

I don't buy it.

 

[Erikmen]

Anything that may change your behavior artificially (?)

 

[Sprout]

I try to stick to a drug being 'an exogenous substance which, at particular dose ranges, will alter neurological or physiological processes when administered'.

Avoids the semantic bog of opioid peptides/exercise/sex/endogenous NT's.

 

[Pomzazed]

I try to stick to a drug being 'an exogenous substance which, at particular dose ranges, will alter neurological or physiological processes when administered'.

Then, the mind-altering hallucinating CARBOGEN is NOT a drug, eh?
CO2 and O2 isnt so "exogenous"