• Welcome Guest

    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
    Fun 💃 Threads Overdosed? Click
    D R U G   C U L T U R E

What's up with the benzodiazepine articles on Wikipedia?

Burnt Offerings

Burnt Offerings

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
7,568
Location
USA
Has anyone else noticed how much space on Wikipedia is devoted to explaining how evil benzos are? There's an article on benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome, benzodiazepine dependence, benzodiazepine misuse, and one called "drug related crime" which somehow is almost entirely devoted to benzodiazepines! Also the articles on "benzodiazepines" and individual benzodiazepine drugs like lorazepam seem rather excessive in how much they emphasize the negative aspects of these drugs.

I don't know, just something I've noticed...
 
I think the answer to this is pretty easy really.lol

1.benzo dependance and withdrawal can be pretty horrific and have to potential to be the worst drug commonly in use in terms of severity of WD effects, length of time in WD and longterm detrimental health effects.

2. Anybody that takes the information on wikipedia as a complete truth are likely as ignorant as the people submitting the information and so the two fuel each other.

3. People like demonizing drugs because its easier then addressing the problems in the community that cause the drug-use and hence the problems stemming from this drug use.
 
I just think that the potentially harmful effects of benzos could be consolidated to one or two articles, that's all.

While benzodiazepines are potentially addictive drugs, I do think that their addictive potential is frequently overblown. The only people I see who use benzodiazepines outside of "legitimate medical practice" are 1) drug addicts for whom benzodiazepines are not their primary DOC, and 2) idiots who take some Xanax, "don't feel anything" and then eat 5 bars, black out, and end up with their cell phone in the microwave and their TV in the front yard. I realize that it may be different in other parts of the USA & world, but that's how it seems in my experience.

Also the way benzodiazepines have been historically prescribed by doctors is also questionable, but that's another topic.
 
Benzodiazepines are quite harmless drugs and when compared to nearly all other anti epileptic drugs they have virtually no side effects to speak of.

Withdrawal is bad but it really takes a long time and everyday use to develop a physical dependancy and they are not that psychologically addictive for most people.

I think most people get problems with benzos because of idiotic doctors that do not manage withdrawal properly for their patients. Some people will need months/years of tapering and when their doctors cut them off too fast or for some dumb reason like smoking weed they keep buying them on the streets and get even more addicted instead.
 
Last edited:
have you considered maybe they have those articles because benzos are a bad, bad thing to abuse and get addicted to?

personally i've gotten arrested on them two or three times and been dependent so i may be biased but people should know the real (yes, they are real) risks before diving into benzo world.
 
There was another thread recently about Wikipedia's drug info, and like last time, no ones actually specified exactly what they find objectionable. If it's wrong, just fix it, id have a go at fixing it if someone could point out what they object to.

All you need to do is read the basic stuff about how to go about writing for Wikipedia, then you can change it and likely your changes will stick. I do think I should point our though, obviously there's not going to be much advocating for a drug on an encyclopedia article. The purpose is to explain what the drug is, how it works, what it's for, its efficacy, side effects, history, etc. Naturally that's going to leave positive remarks on the drug limited more to what the article doesn't say rather than what it does. I mean it wont say "x drug does this, and it's extremely good at it". It'll say its "x drug does this" and not mention drawbacks if they are none. If you get what I mean.

Point out exactly what you object too and I might have a go improving it. But I wonder if what you see as negative bias isn't just the reality of how an encyclopedia section on this topic should realistically look.
 
I agree with Jess. I would also like to add that Wikipedia is not a drug rating site. It rather presents objective information that has to be backed up by (scientific) articles. It is true that benzodiazepine dependency is among the worst with very serious drawbacks and hellish withdrawal; it should also be noted that benzos are a very commonly prescribed drug, so this might explain why there's so much information about benzos on Wiki. Also, the fact that it says all that about benzos, but doesn't elaborate on other drugs should not be taken as an implication that other drugs aren't as evil/bad, rather that nobody has yet bothered to add relevant info about other drugs - you're welcome to do so if you can source every thing you write.

If you can point to exact examples of bias and/or subjectivity, then let's get that corrected.
 
Probably since they're one drug class out of two that'll kill ya in WD, and cause severe problems otherwise when dependent on them

Other drug being alcohol of course and I bet there's just as much "it'll kill ya" BS on that substance on wiki too.
 
These articles exist because somebody (probably someone who doesn't like benzos, for whatever reason), took the time to edit entries to reflect their views, as well as creating pages that support those views. If you don't like it--edit them (but be sure to cite your sources lol). There's no conspiracy here. If I'm correct, the medical literature actually supports the demonization and disuse of benzos, despite anyone's personal views on how necessary they are for survival.
 
Not all of the benzodiazepine articles are bad. The article on quazepam is one I remember being good/balanced, for instance. Alprazolam's article wasn't bad either IIRC

And it's not that I'm opposed to the potential pitfalls of a drug being discussed. That's not the case at all. But adverse effects shouldn't take up such a huge percentage of some of these articles.

Felonious Monk said:
These articles exist because somebody (probably someone who doesn't like benzos, for whatever reason), took the time to edit entries to reflect their views, as well as creating pages that support those views. If you don't like it--edit them (but be sure to cite your sources lol). There's no conspiracy here. If I'm correct, the medical literature actually supports the demonization and disuse of benzos, despite anyone's personal views on how necessary they are for survival.
Click to expand...

How so? The people who abuse benzodiazepines are a very small percentage compared to those who use them for "legitimate purposes".

Prescribing practices is a legitimate issue but that doesn't have much to do with the drug itself, more with how the drug is administered.

To me benzodiazepines seem very safe when used on a PRN basis. Their clinical efficacy is well established
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top