Talk:Date rape drug/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ketamine? Odorless?

Companies around the world are making or trying to make paper coasters or drink stirries that change color when dabbed with a drink doctored with a date rape drug. These colorless and odorless tranquillisers can lull victims into a semi-comatose state, leaving them unable to remember what happened to them.

Ketamine may be colorless and is largely odorless, it is a strong HCl salt, and I have heard that it is extremely salty/bitter. It seems like it would be an inappropriate "date rape drug" - are there any news articles out there about this? I have a feeling that the use of ketamine as a date rape drug is more exaggerated than the "date rape drug" phenomena in general- while it has happened, and it's #$@%ING TERRIBLE when it does, it's probably just not terribly common. Overand 06:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

To comment on this, I don't believe the taste of it would be too noticeable in an average sized drink, as the dosage is rather small (~80 mg oral I believe).

GHB on the other hand has a dosage of 1-3g and has an extremely salty flavor as stated in the article. (Sorry if this isn't the proper format for commenting, first time) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.94.56.66 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ketamine has an extremely strong taste and would require a significant dose to be effective orally.On Thermonuclear War (talk) 03:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the bolder section on GHB, based on these comments. If someone has evidence that it is actually being used this way, please feel free to re-add the section containing this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.225.212 (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I added it back. The first two parts of the GHB section even have a citation. If you had ever tasted GHB you wouldn't need a citation on the third paragraph. I know that's not verifiable since it's only personal experience, so feel free to make small edits to the third paragraph, but I'd really rather find a reliable citation on the taste. There are plenty of web sites out there that discuss it, but they all seem to be copied out of DEA propaganda rather than reliable information. Gigs (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The type of drink is relevant. You can't exclude GHB as a date rape drug simply because it is a salt. It might easily go unnoticed in something like a margarita, for example. 67.170.74.195 (talk) 04:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Chloral hydrate

What about slipping someone a Mickey - is Chloral hydrate a date rape drug, or could date rape drugs be considered a Mickey. - Matthew238 04:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Chloral Hudrate was once a common date rape drug waaay back before there was even such a term, but it now has, and has had for decades, an added very strong and disagreable flavor added. It is so strong that it has to be taken diluted in very sweet or strong tasting juice such as white or purple grape juice or something like V8 Splash. I have a prescription for it for insomnia and/or infrequent panic issues and I can barely gag the stuff down. Even an amount as small as a quarter teaspoon would be noticeable in an average drink uncless it was say, a Gin gimlet (Gin and lime juice) and even then, it would still have an astringent effect on the back of throat.(kinda like if you drink choke cherry juice) The standard dosing is a teaspoon and I have to mix that with at least 10 ounces of V8 Splash Mango just to mask the taste. I don't know how dentists manage to get kids to take it. (It's a common pediatric sedative). My guess is it's mixed with grape juice or grape flavor.LiPollis 00:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Covered drinks

According to a TV documentary I watched, in some city (Paris? Berlin?) glasses are served with a cover for rape fears. --Error 00:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

More statistic, please!

The study from the UK is great, but more statistics like it are needed. The idea of "Data Rape Drugs" is propoganda churned out by American media to support the government's War on drugs. As in most anti-drug propoganda, Ethanol is the largest offender in the class of complaints, and for whatever reason, society seems to be able to tolerate that drug but not others. Note the use of the language "drugs and alcohol" in the "Combating the drugs" section; Somehow "alcohol" is seperate from "drugs", and since we have a War on drugs we need to Combat them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.130.137.252 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There's some good stats work at http://pmj.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/83/986/754, which was collated as a medical research project. This shows contributions of alcohol, intentionally taken street drugs, and genuine drink spiking. Not only does this indicate the people don't know their own alcohol limits, it indicates that they don't know what to expect from drugs they voluntarily take! Note that this is a record of alleged drink spikings, not rapes attributed to drink spiking. Drink Spiking is over-reported, however since Rapes have always been under-reported these figures are somewhat out of context. Scruffy brit (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The lack of statistics in this entry is ridiculous. If the use of such drugs is common then let's have some credible evidence. Nicmart (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Straw indicator?

I read in a Swedish science magazine about a straw that was used as an indicator if the drink was spiked or not? Some Scottish scientists had designed it. RGDS Alexmcfire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.20.130.17 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I attempted some cleanup. I think the bottom section is a little more coherent now. It probably needs a few more once-overs though before we can take off the tag. Gigs 01:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

MDMA - why is it listed?

I can understand MDMA being used to make someone more loved up and touchy-feely, but i can't see it as a date-rape drug seeing as its an upper (methyl-dioxy-methamphetamine) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.138.8 (talk) 06:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If MDMA can distort someone's decision making process, and they then have sex, the decision to have sex wouldn't be informed consent. A quick google returns lots of anecdotes, but I agree that the article is noticably lacking in that it doesn't describe how other classes of drugs (Psychotropics, Halucinogens, Stimulants) can also facilitate rape.

I don't want to see this page turn into a "Rapists Handbook" but I feel that victims seeing this page will have dificulty reconciling their experiences with wikipedia's definition of drug rape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scruffy brit (talk • contribs) 10:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Innacurate section

"It should be pointed out that both GHB and the short acting Benzodiazapines are difficult to identify in the victims after the fact. A victim who waits several hours before reporting the incident or having a blood or urine test may still test negative even though the victim was under the influence of one of these drugs just hours earlier. The short duration and high level of effectiveness of these drugs combine with alcohol to make it a very powerful and very difficult to detect drug.[citation needed] There is a synergistic effect when combined with another depressant such as alcohol. A small amount of GHB and several drinks will put most people in the hospital and can very easily cause respiratory arrest.

Most rape victims arrive for a medical evaluation hours after the incident and usually after waking up the next morning. A time lapse of 10 to 12 hours is common and by that point in time, evidence of a drugging would be gone.[citation needed]"

This section is almost completely at odds with Flunitrazepam#Drug-facilitated sexual assault, Benzodiazepine#Duration of action, and Gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid#As a date rape drug. These sections cite their sources, and could be drawn from to re-write the current, paragraph cited above. Penguinwithin (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I can only agree with the above comments and can easily qualify what's been referenced i.e. all drugs breakdown in the body and it's those products that can be identified.

I believe that the whole section should be removed due to it's innacuracy. If any references to the contary appear then reinstate it. Drag09 (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how inaccurate that is really. GHB is completely metabolized rather quickly, and completely, and after 12-24 hours it would be difficult to detect any metabolites. I should also mention, GHB and compounds like GHB naturally occur in the body, which clouds the issue. This is an issue when doing post mortems on drug overdoses, because upon death, the body generates large quantities of GHB-like substances which, to the uninitiated, may make it look like a GHB overdose. This fact was exploited by lawmakers and the media, ascribing deaths to GHB overdose that were really congenital heart defect deaths. Gigs (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ketamine

It seems like ketamine is frequently included in discussions of date rape drugs based on the idea that it could be used as one. I have not seen even one actual citation to it ever having been used as one. It's extremely strong taste and short duration of action make it seem like an unlikely candidate. Regardless, without some kind of cite, it seems irresponsible to include it here.On Thermonuclear War (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

benzodiazapines and drug testing

The claims that benzodiazapines are not able to be detected the day after they are ingested is just plain wrong. Benzodiazapines (including rohypnol) are detectable for a good 3 days after use. In fact, this claim is contradicted by reference #5. On Thermonuclear War (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Alcohol

maybe should have the wording changed as this is not considered the case in many countries e.g. the UK, (And in Saudi Arabia it is a legal reason to commit an act that you would normally not if under intoxicated by alcohol - with no repercussions other than having consumed alcohol) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.99.147 (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That is complete bollocks! Production, sale and consumption of alcohol are serious offences in their own right in Saudi. And "I was drunk" is neither defense nor "reason" for breaking any English law. There are a number of offences in English Law, notably "Drunk and Incapable" that specifically deal with the willfully irresponsible consumption of alcohol, and these do not in any way lessen other charges. A clinical diagnosis of alcoholism might be used to argue "diminished responsibility" but that is still not an intrinsic complete defence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scruffy brit (talk • contribs) 11:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; "I was drunk" so I am not responsible does not fly anywhere in the western world (that I know of), when you drink alcohol you are responsible for drinking it and therefore responsible for any actions you take while under the influence. For example if you get drunk, decide to go for a drive and accidentally run a red light and mow down a bunch of schoolchildren "I was drunk, I don't even remember it happening" is in no way a legal defence. The same goes for "I was drunk and had sex with him (or her) and really regretted it the next day, therefore I was raped" conversely if you (knowingly) get so drunk you are unconscious (or so drunk you can't walk without help) and thus cannot fight back against an attacker, that is then rape. Sadly some people use the above "I regretted it the next day" as a reason to go to court, causing real cases of alcohol assisted date rape to be heavily scrutinised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David David Davidson (talk • contribs) 22:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• "Alcohol is very useful to make girls look better" - I assume a troll added that? Trailmixjustin (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

NIDA Propaganda

The opening paragraph states that "Date rape drugs commonly have sedative, hypnotic, dissociative, and/or amnesiac effects, and, when used to facilitate rape, are often added to a food or drink without the victim's knowledge." However, the page it cites states that the majority of date rape victims who claim to have been drugged in fact WERE NOT drugged and had VOLUNTARILY consumed excessive amounts of alcohol. Does that mean I can cite an Anti-Defamation League page to "prove" that Nazis were good? This statement is completely ridiculous and cites a page which clearly refutes it. It needs to be changed or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.217.136.225 (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

sexual assault (date rape)

The 1st sentence in the article: "Date rape drug refers to any drug that can be used to assist in the commission of a sexual assault (date rape)."
This is misleading, someone might think that sexual assault = date rape, but it's not. I suggest re-prasing:
"to assist in the commission of a sexual assault during a date (date rape)". What do you think? Thanks 89.139.227.226 (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The use of these drugs isn't limited to "dates" - they can be used on dates, chance encounters with acquaintances or people who are completely unknown to the assailant. As the next sentence says: "The term originated in Journalism and has no strict scientific or legal definition..." In other words, the term itself, while widely used, is not technically accurate. Date rape is a different term with different meanings and may or may not include the use of drugs. – jaksmata 14:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

To avoid the "sexual assault = date rape" comparison, how about just removing "(date rape)" from the first sentence? Since date rape is a different term only partially related to this article, it could be linked later. – jaksmata 14:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding POV-section dispute: Mistaken Self-Diagnosis

My assertion is that the title and body of this section are biased either intentionally or unintentionally in that:

-"While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased."

-"The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another"

-"A type of analysis of facts that can lead to the article suggesting a particular point of view's accuracy over other equally valid analytic perspectives."

-"Alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms."

The section that I question has several reasons why I've decided to create a login and dispute its neutrality. This section is positioned at the end and naturally appears to sum up the article and hence "insinuates" that it is the correct point of view. The point of view in question seems to be more "loudly" or "directly" (persuasively) asserted. The articles cited to reinforce the point of view seem to be "cherry picked" and also appear themselves to be biased or possibly based on erroneous information and/or hearsay. I do not doubt that there may be some grain of truth to what's mentioned in said articles, however I do doubt the totality of the articles and that they are unbelievable. The section in question is based on "mainstream" media accounts and I will assert, also, that news media is not the say all, know all, final word in what is known by people or society and what is presented by the news media is inherently disputable and should by no means be accepted as cold hard fact. Furthermore the title of this section indicates that the parties in question "self-diagnosed" themselves when the mentioned articles and entire section seem to indicate the opposite; lending a dis-credible nature to those in question further enhancing the non-neutral point of view. Solarsails (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

weasel words...

Reference 1 is full of weasel-ality:

1. ^ Jenny Hope (16 February 2007). "Drug rape myth exposed as study reveals binge drinking is to blame", Daily Mail. Retrieved on 28 April 2008.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-436592/Drug-rape-myth-exposed-study-reveals-binge-drinking-blame.html

Reference 14 does not clearly support the opinion stated in the section. 14. ^ Alcohol, not drugs, poses biggest date rape risk - health - 07 January 2006 - New Scientist

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18925334.400

With regard to this statement:

"In the UK, of a study of 75 women who reported falling victim to date rape drugs, not one instance turned out to be due to a date rape drug."

Pure weasel! There isn't a statement within the referenced articles that supports this statement. Whats the word wikipedia uses when one distorts referenced material?

The facts in this section appear to be quite uncoordinated. They seem skewed to the point of being biased. When one follows the links, statements in the referenced articles themselves are weasel-word laden or quite simply the statements from the referenced article are not stated correctly or are misrepresented in the wikipedia article. This section seems to be completely out of place in this article. Must analyze... AN-A-LYZE... AN-A-LYZE! Solarsails (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Mistaken Self-Diagnosis

Mistaken Self-Diagnosis <--- Kill section with stick and fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarsails (talk • contribs) 05:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You've made it pretty obvious what you disagree with... Why not fix it? You say sources are unreliable and biased... Why not add sources that are reliable and unbiased? A word of caution, since you're new to Wikipedia: you can't add original research to articles, and deleting information that have sources is usually frowned upon. To create an unbiased article on a sensitive subject, differing viewpoints should be shown and be referenced.

I'm going to remove some of the redundant tags you placed on the article, but not all of them. I'm going to leave the "Unreliable Source?" tags for now, but you need to show why they are unreliable, using other sources (not just your opinion of the evil news establishment). – jaksmata 14:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's something that can even have a POV. If we had a section on "rotation of the earth", we couldn't find reliable sources that the earth does not rotate, most likely. The section is merely describing well documented cases of moral panic. Gigs (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Summary of larger UK study

I have access to this study full text, however it is copyrighted, so I post the abstract here as fair use, please do not incorporate this directly into the article:

This paper outlines the toxicology results from 1014 cases of claimed drug-facilitated sexual assault (DFSA) analysed at the Forensic Science Service, London Laboratory between January 2000 and December 2002. Where appropriate, either a whole blood sample and/or a urine sample was analysed for alcohol, common drugs of abuse and potentially stupefying drugs. The results were interpreted with respect to the number of drugs detected and an attempt was made to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary ingestion from information supplied. Alcohol (either alone or with an illicit and/or medicinal drug) was detected in 470 of all cases (46%). Illicit drugs were detected in 344 cases (34%), with cannabis being the most commonly detected (26% of cases), followed by cocaine (11%). In 21 cases (2%), a sedative or disinhibiting drug was detected which had not been admitted and could therefore be an instance of deliberate spiking. This included three cases in which complainants were allegedly given Ecstasy (MDMA) without their knowledge. Other drugs detected included gammahydroxybutyrate (GHB) and the benzodiazepine drugs diazepam and temazepam. Another nine cases (1%) involved the complainant being either given or forced to ingest pharmaceutical tablets or an illicit drug. Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd and AFP. All rights reserved.

Gigs (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting to note, the 2% only may have been spiking. It is also possible the victim was just reluctant to admit consentual use. Gigs (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Mistaken Diagnosis...

Being so new to the process I wasn't comfortable simply changing the work here. However, being familiar with the topic, I was compelled to comment. The section seems to be somewhat one-sided and the references turned out to be rather vague. This becomes apparent when one reads the referenced materials; the information does not appear to be anywhere near believable, as it is so absolute in its scope, and the references in the referenced articles are very vague and difficult to substantiate. The references appear to be more like opinions or the authors selected facts or boiled the results of the studies down to the point that they were inflammatory and/or opinionated. The bias/unbelievability becomes obvious upon reading the references and doesn't require additional citations/refrences which would serve only to further cloud the topic. My solution would simply to be to delete the entire section, as it hinges on a debate about what "date rape drugs" aren't and injects unnecessarily biased opinion into the definition. Obviously people are going to be mistaken, some lie about it outright. But is that what "date rape drug" is? I.e. for those who have gone through such an ordeal? The subject per the title should not be minimized or negated as it is in this section under the guise of "having an alternate opinion". Should there be another article about misrepresenting rape and the crimes associated with it? I'm fairly open minded here, but I am wavering towards deleting this section AND the sections that are exactly like it in several of the other articles related to the topic as they smack of POV-warrioring.

I feel that I may have compromised my own objectivity and am even more hesitant to rectify this article on my own and will require additional advice and discussion with others on this matter. (At least until I've retained more experience with the protocols of this site.) Solarsails (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

PS I don't necessarily think that the entire news establishment is evil (I'm not into the grand conspiracy thing and inflammatory labeling system currently practiced by novice flamers), but the news media, obviously, does recruit from the human race, some of who are biased. Solarsails (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the section needs to be renamed. "Perceived date rape"? Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with the section. It is verifiable (The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth). The text here accurately restates what was in the studies. I think I understand why you don't like the subject of the section - it calls into question the reliability of the testimony of victims of a serious crime. Maybe the studies are true, and only 2% of victims were really drugged with something other than alcohol. Maybe most of them really were raped, but the only drug used was alcohol. The thing is, for Wikipedia, adding that would be original research. You can only add a different point of view if you can back it up with appropriate sources. You can't delete the section because you don't like the way it's going. As I said before, you can edit the section and the title to remove any bias that has been introduced here. The sources, however, are not dubious - they are in respectable medical journals - therefore you can't delete the section. – jaksmata 20:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I really appreciate your input on this. I can agree with the idea of having to have different points of view. Additionally I will not argue the possibility that a disproportionate number of the people who claim to be victims of the discussed crime are possibly erroneous in the claim. The point I'd like to make is that even though the number of verifiable cases may be extremely small the definition of the crime still remains the same. If we were to exclude the false reports would the crime still not be the same as has been defined in the rest of the article? Even though 2% are verifiable the definition is still the same and the crime is just as relevant and should not be discarded or negated. The wording and arrangement of the section seems to refute, overshadow or at the very least places great doubt on the cases that are legitimate. Additionally, the science is not solid and the nature of the crime is such that concrete evidence of the crime is lost due to a delay in reporting. I've noticed the same point made in other articles with similar content. It may appear that the author is trying to refute the entire subject through a guise of trying to define it, hence the neutrality vanishes.

Solarsails (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine to solicit other opinions. You are correct that "mistaken self-diagnoses" do not change the definition or the severity of the crime. I think that that information was placed here in an effort to provide more comprehensive information on the topic. The studies mentioned relate specifically to the use of drugs and alcohol in sexual assaults, so to me, the section seems appropriate for this article rather than some other one. I am totally open to improvements made by rewording the section in a way that removes any bias while preserving the facts.

If you are uncomfortable editing the article directly, you can put suggested rewordings here on the talk page. Other editors, such as me, can help you refine your ideas in a way that conveys what you want to say without violating any Wikipedia policies. – jaksmata 05:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion on Mistaken self-diagnosis section

It seems to me that this section violates WP:UNDUE by overemphasizing the mistaken self-diagnosis view. The studies quoted appear to be unscientific (potential victims self-identified themselves) and the reality is that they prove nothing about the date-rape drug (since the women tested negative for the drug they did not even take the drugs) but do show that alcohol may be a factor in date rape. If anything, this information should go in the 'Alcohol' section. Solarsalis is right, in my opinion, in being concerned that the section misrepresents the effects of the drugs and I suggest deleting the entire section and, possibly, including a line in the alcohol section about how date-rape victims often mistakenly attribute the rape to other drugs when, in actuality, they are under the influence of alcohol. I would include the 2% finding here and drop every statement that uses a newspaper article for support. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 22:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds acceptable to me. If I understand you correctly, we'd move the last sentence of the Mistaken self-diagnosis section to the Alcohol section with its references and delete the rest of the section (referring to this version). – jaksmata 22:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That sums it up very well. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 22:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. I removed the RFC tag, but if anyone feels like this issue isn't resolved, feel free to put it back. – jaksmata 21:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I buy that there was undue weight. I don't know if we have enough "meat" to do it, but a branched article about the drink spiking moral panic (which was well documented to be very exaggerated in the media by pretty much every study that bothered to look into it) might be appropriate. Don't you all remember when women were being advised to always pour their own drinks, put covers on their drinks at parties, never let their drink out of their sight, and other such nonsense? It reached a fever pitch for a while... it was as bad as LSD on payphones. Gigs (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a drive by editor adding my 2 cents. The studies was not in any way unscientific. It is not giving it undue weight, and the level of this evidence overrides how believable you may consider it to be. I'm in Australia, and we recently had another cohort study published recently in the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine of 100 patients presenting to the ED, of which none had a non-consentual drug in their system. Furthermore, a significant proportion of those in the study refused to acknowledge that their drinks were not spiked. All this evidence points strongly to the fact that only a small minority of people who say their drinks are spiked are actually spiked with something other than alcohol, counterintuitive and unbelievable as it may seem. By far the majourity of drink spiking cases are alchol related. As somebody who works a lot in an ED environment, I have never seen a case of alleged drink spiking (although I don't see the actually rape stuff though) where a tox screen has shown anything unexplained. 60.242.64.202 (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

GHB in US

Just one, basic, question: What's the status of drug GHB in US (I do not see that clearly in text), please let someone answer on my question, Thank you, --212.200.218.158 (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Illegal – jaksmata 13:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Marijuana?

I thought there were some stronger joints (such as tulips or nose cones) that could knock a person out if they don't have much tolerance to weed. In fact, I heard this guy I know claim to use it to put out his girlfriend and have a bit of fun with her while she was unconscious. The guy brags about everything, he has lied to me before so I don't know if I trust him, but could really strong joints do that? If so, they should be mentioned in the article, shouldn't they? 64.127.152.35 (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge with date rape

There doesn't seem to be enough material for separate articles on Date rape and Date rape drugs. Shall we merge them? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The good, the bad, and the nitpicky

Ed's recent edits make me go "Hrm", though I'm a bit hesitant to be bold right now (and because it may look a bit too bold to basically fully revert half a dozen edits by our dear User 188), so I'll just present my thoughts here:

• Who Says issue on the whole blood test thing being imperative. While I agree that this deserves a source and expansion, this is hardly something that has to be "championed" by some person or group - it sounds more like common sense to me when it comes to detecting this stuff (and thus proving that you have been drugged). Still, a very quick googling gave me Michigan Department of Community Health ("Ask to be tested for date rape drugs right away. (Traces can disappear within 12 hours.) Within five to seven hours of the time you consumed the drug, ask for a blood test along with a urine test.") and the University of Alberta Sexual Assault Centre ("When testing for date rape drugs the closer to the time of the drugging at possible is best, as after 72 hours detection will be impossible. [...] Date rape drugs are detected through a urine sample test, but rohypnol can also be detected through a blood test that screens for Valium"). In light of those sources, the sentence should be expanded to include urine tests, come to think of it.

• Thanks, Sid, I agree that that it's not something that has to be "championed", and I see that you agree with me that it deserves a source. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Amusement issue removal pains me mostly because you delete the entire sentence and a valid reference and later on suggest merging this article because of a lack of material. And if you really can't imagine who would find slipping drugs into drinks amusing, Ed, you maybe shouldn't be quite so bold in trimming it. As a rule of thumb, stupid people do stupid things and find even stupider things funny - and this is what people should be warned about. People don't have to hate you to drug you, as horrible as it sounds. The sentence could and maybe should be reworded, but fullscale removal is overkill in my eyes.

  Sure, let's put this one back with some rewording. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• "No legal/scientific definition" removal strikes me as weird because it's a simple statement of fact and doesn't seem to be advocating any POV. I especially don't understand the "POV that there is no such thing as a date rape drug" argument because the entire article is about the very real nature of date rape drugs. I think it's fairly important to keep in the article because otherwise people might wonder about the lack of a legal/scientific definition, or they might assume that only the things listed here count as date rape drugs.

  Agree with this one too. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• "may/can" is a bit "ehhhhhh" since I could make Ed's argument (that "may" implies it being okay) just as well about "can". I'd revert it on the basis of flow and to spite Ed since I'm on a roll here because I find the argument silly. I may kill the next guy who reverts me, but that nobody would interpret this sentence as me having the right to do so. ;)

  Perhaps the point here is that people have spiked drinks for motives other than sexual assault. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Kinda hard to see the actual changes, but other than the first sentence either needing a "three -> two" change or an indicator that it's two specific types of sleeping aids and not just sleeping aids as one item, the edit strikes me as redundant because the two sentences basically say the same (alcohol and sleeping aids, sleeping aids and alcohol). I guess that paragraph could use some editing, though I don't think this is how it should go (got no better suggestion myself, though). The extra source is nice, of course (and it also makes the case for quick urine testing, see first bullet point).

  Yes, I was unsatisfied with this edit myself and felt it needed to be followed up on. I wanted to point out that alcohol is (still) the primary "date rape" drug (as in "I got her drunk to sleep with her.") Then there's Rohypnol (banned in the US) and 2 or 3 others. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Some food for thought. None of the edits or proposed reverts are super-urgent in my eyes, but I'd still appreciate comments in favor or against my reasoning since I didn't really look deeply into the article history or the subject. --Sid 3050 (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for paying so much attention to my edits. This must be the encyclopedic equivalent of a slow news day. ;-)

I think we are basically in agreement, as indicated in my interleaved comments above. I look forward to working with you on further improvements to this article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, real life kept me busy.

I've attempted to fix the first two points by (1) adding the two sources I mentioned above and including urine tests and (2) rephrasing/expanding the "amusement" sentence.

I'm not sure if the two sources for (1) are up to WP's sourcing standards, so I invite input there. The part I added in (2) is a bit clumsy in my eyes and could use some better integration into the flow of the article, but I guess it's a start.

Ed and I agree that the "no legal/scientific definition" bit is important, but I didn't put it back in yet because I guess it's a somewhat bold claim without a source. --Sid 3050 (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

BOLLOX

as a recreational and habitual user of GBLGHB in the past....there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY you could add a significant amount to ANYdrink with out them noticing.....

CERTAINLY not any type of drink available at a bar the only way to do it would be add say 2ml og GBL to about two pints of extremely strong tasting squash or juice........ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.52.31 (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Alcohol remains the most commonly used date rape drug

In the source given, the main points of the report are:

Young women in Northern Ireland are leaving themselves vulnerable to rape or serious sexual assault because of their binge drinking,

The research undermines claims that the use of 'date-rape' drugs or 'spiking' of drinks is the major factor involved.

This research once again has highlighted the need for a clear message to be given to all regarding the importance of responsible drinking.

There is no mention anywhere in the report about who supplied the alcohol, the tenure seems to be that they themselves are responsible for their intoxication. Nothing to do with date rape drugs, only with rape. Ssscienccce (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion to merge with drug-facilitated sexual assault

A few days ago Vagary put a template on the article suggesting it be merged with drug-facilitated sexual assault, but he or she didn't say why. I don't think it should be merged -- I think that although there is some material that is common to both articles, that's appropriate given they're related topics, and I think there's sufficient article-specific material in each to justify them remaining separate. It would be a very long article, if it tried to encompass all the material relevant to both topics. But Vagary and others should have a chance here to make the case for merging, if they want. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it should be merged either, and changes have been made to replace terminology all through this article as well. I'm going to remove the template and the terminology changes. Gigs (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

After looking at it, DFSA as a term is probably more precise here anyway, so I'll leave that. Gigs (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

ghb duration

this article says ghb lasts "three to six hours." while the ghb one says 1.5-3 hours. get your story straight guys. im guessing its like alcohol, the amount you drink is what matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.74.42 (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Merged

I've merged Date rape drug to Drug facilitated sexual assault as they had copy pasted text. --David Hedlund (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your merge. The topics are discrete and each warrants an article. Merging them results either in an article that is too long and unwieldy, or in the loss of too much information. If you believe there's too much overlap text, better to refine the existing two articles to tighten the focus of each, rather than merging. Please also note the previous discussion, above. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

media coverage

I fail to understand why "Media Coverage" is the first section on this page. It's clearly biased and completely misdirects the topic. Media coverage is not and should not be the issue here. It should be about date rape drugs. Having this section is just trivializing the topic. Do psychotropic drugs have a first section about media? No. Do other drug subjects follow this style. No. This section at the beginning is just a waste of space and intelligence. If someone really thinks this is a credible section that deserves being #1 one I'd love to hear why it should be placed above a scientific explanation of what a date rape drug is. Lambandmartyr (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Date rape drug. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110714004221/http://ncadi.samhsa.gov:80/govpubs/prevalert/v5/11.aspx to http://ncadi.samhsa.gov/govpubs/prevalert/v5/11.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Citations for Michael Robertson from the San Diego Medical Examiner's office

Formerly the "rohypnol" section said something about a paper by Michael Robertson, but I could not find a direct citation. Did find a citation for the other stat though so have added it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamishtodd1 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The Blade

The article quotes a newspaper article from 22 years ago. It criticizes some studies conducted prior to the article, but there have been a number of studies since then. The article and its conclusion aren't relevant anymore. If the author of this section would like to find something more recent to support his theories, then it should be added, otherwise the stuff from The Blade will be deleted. It's all tangential anyway. This is an article about date rape drugs, but I guess the title attracts editors who want to express their opinion on the existence or non-existence of rape on college campuses. 24.190.51.21 (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

In addition, the paragraph about the Blade article is unclear. In the sentence "According to The Blade, the study specifically ignored an Ohio statute that excluded '… situations where a person plies his intended partner with drink or drugs in hopes that lowered inhibition might lead to a liaison,'" the reader doesn't know (1) from what did the Ohio statute exclude such situations? and (2) In what sense, and with what effect, did the study ignore the Ohio statute? As it stands, the ratio of words to information is very very high. Wegesrand (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)