Talk:Chronic

Chronic as a "drug slang" term

What is the reason for having an entry for this term in an encyclopedia? Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so, that the term is in the English language is not a reason for including it here. Further, the text here is mostly a duplicate of information that is already in its proper place, cannabis. - Centrx 21:36, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On what basis do you decide which definition of the term more "deserves" an encyclopedia entry? All three are equally a part of our culture. On what basis do you conclude that "chronic" as a part of Cannabis trade jargon is "slang"? On what basis do you believe that informal definitions which have come to eclipse their "technical" definitions outside of medical circles should be discouraged or silenced? On what basis do you consider medical jargon to be more "correct" than the business and slang meanings of the term -- and on what basis do you believe this to the extent of excluding all other meanings of the word in favor of a single use restricted to a single subject (medicine)? On what basis have you concluded that people should have to go to the Cannabis page to find out what have likely become the two most common uses of the term "chronic" (outside of medical circles), rather than to the "chronic" page? --Corvun 22:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is merely a collection of definitions; they are not encyclopedia articles. Inclusion in a culture does not mean that a word warrants an entry in an encyclopedia. It makes no difference whether the definition is formal or informal, rather what invalidates the sections is that they are merely definitions, not encyclopedia articles. I make no claims that the the medical definition is more "correct".

The only reason that the medical section might remain is that it might serve as a disambiguation, referring to some examples of chronic illnesses. I think the reason that I did not eliminate the medical section was that I did not immediately know that the entire informational use of the section was obviated by the presence of the information in a more encyclopedically appropriate article, and that more encyclopedic explication might be possible for chronic illnesses. Looking on it now though, it does seem that this section ought also be removed as well. It might be appropriate to have the barest of disambiguation pages here, but even that is questionable, as "chronic" is not a topic that seems to warrant an encyclopedia article in any subject. - Centrx 04:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm forced to agree. I think all three uses should be moved to Wiktionary, and this page converted to a disambiguation page. --Corvun 14:19, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

To disambiguate what? I do still think that all of the uses, except for the Dr. Dre album, are generally adjectival in nature and so not even appropriate for a disambiguation page. Anyone searching for "chronic" is much better off looking at a dictionary; none of the meanings are encyclopedic. - Centrx 14:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe none of the meanings are encyclopedic (although the word fuck seems to be), but they are used in contexts of subjects wich are encyclopedic. It's simply a matter of finding the appropriate articles in which to place the information on this page (or the articles which already contain this information), and listing those articles here as the disambig. --Corvun 17:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, man... I forgot how I even GOT to this page. What we need is a DOOBIEPEDIA.

I am so stoned right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.60.144 (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and Business?

I really don't think that references to drugs belong under the heading of "business". I don't even see any material that would relate to any economic gain in there. I removed the business heading and moved it under slang, however the slang section and the former business section contains a pro-cannibis POV. IE Cannibis is not physiologically addictive, but it does become habit forming, otherwise terms like "wake and bake" would not exist. As such, I don't think it's a fair POV that ignores that aspect. Additionally it may be wise to rewrite some areas using less slang to define the slang. Explanations of things like "nuggets" are necessary --Waterspyder 21:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]