Discussion Main / DrugsAreBad

Nolan J Burke has a point (even if he did make it eight years ago). The gist of this article feels less like "anti-drug aesops have too often been delivered in a self-sabotagingly disingenuous and hamhanded fashion," which I think is a fair criticism, and more like "drugs are fun and people who say they're bad are lying poopheads," which seems redundant since we have a Drugs Are Good page. I've made a couple of edits to address this. Hopefully it won't spark an edit war.

One thing I'm curious about, in fact it may even warrant a new article about it, but... what should be done concerning drug references that obviously Did Not Do The Research? For example, any reference that suggests that heroin (by name) makes the user hallucinate wildly, despite the fact that heroin is not a hallucinogen? Should it be placed under Did Not Do The Research, placed into a new article with similar—even non-drug—references where someone seriously assumes this one thing has a completely different/opposite/unrelated effect (possibly even after "doing the research", albeit from a flawed source), or something else I didn't think about?

The idea here is that even this article is littered with references of people—either the series writers or TV Tropers themselves—not doing their research properly, but it feels like the way they do it differs from the Did Not Do The Research concept.

Whaddya think?

Nolan J Burke: I'm just not getting this bizarre determination to cleanse this article of even the vaugest suggestion that drugs in the real world could actually have negative effects, but I suppose I'll have to roll with it.
The line I removed outright stated that "drugs are bad", which is far from a vague suggestion. Prior to that it read "drugs can be bad", which I was quite happy to accept, but it attracted edit warring from people on both sides of the fence. At any rate, the first sentence of the second paragraph says all that needs to be said about the real-world potential for drug harm.