It's a bit of a silly thing to rail against, but the headline of this BBC story makes me livid: "Student died after buying web drugs".
What the hell are "web drugs"? Given that the vast majority of (legal or illegal) drug sales, including those that end in someone's death, happen over the phone, are we going to see a spate of stories warning of the dangers of "phone drugs"? Can we see all the cybercrime stories dropped to give full coverage to the nefarious telecrime scourge that's threatening all of us?
I would think that the Internet and web technologies are ubiquitous enough now that we could finally stop explaining the medium that people use to pursue their stupidity or criminality. It always seems to be news organizations with a background in print or television that contribute to this demonization of the web in these stories, of course. I suppose it'd fall under the headline of "Dead Tree Scaremongering on the Rise".
I share your sentiment entirely, although I raise an eyebrow to the implication that the BBC is traditionally just a "print or television" organization. Their BBC site (http://www.bbc.co.uk/) is neck deep with content created just for the site. You can quite literally spend hours digging through some pretty quality stuff. A mate I currently work with has spent some quality time doing work for the site, and suggests that they have massive teams for each category of content within the BBC site. Sure, the BBC has been focused on radio and television in the UK, but to suggest that they are involved in "Dead Tree Scaremongering" is a bit off target when one considers the incredible effort they put towards their web site.
Point granted, Michael. The BBC is absolutely one of the most web-savvy large media organizations (well, organisations) in the world, but if even they are prone to this sort of idiocy, what hope do we have for groups that *don't* get the web?
Sigh. *shakes head*.
And I like the BBC quite a bit, too.
I'm not sure what they mean by "web drugs", but I get dozens of spams weekly from online pharmacies selling prescription medications "without a doctor's prescription" by they own admission. Most of these are illegal and based in China or other foreign countries. So when I read "web drugs" that's what I thought of immediately. It's entirely possible, and not unlikely, that someone could die from taking drugs obtained from an illegal online pharmacy.
Well, I wrote that before reading the article - duh! I'm a nurse and I totally agree wtih the kid's mother about the need to regulate the online pharmacies.
Relax. I think characterizing the drugs as "web drugs" is valid in that it speaks to the distribution channel by which the drugs were obtained. To call drugs that someone called up and asked for "phone drugs" wouldn't because the person would still get the drugs in person from someone local. The important thing here that I think the headline was trying (ineptly) to point out is that the internet makes a whole new pool of drugs available to people to whom they once weren't. Okay?
To be clear, the Web isn't the distribution channel. It's the ordering channel, just like the phone. The distribution channel is good ol' snail mail. So, in most countries, the avenue for law enforcement to go after abuse of online pharmacies would be through mail fraud prosecution.
Let's wait to see the "blog drugs". Because it will happen.
Anil, whatever you do, don't relax. Someone needs to be incredulous at poor negative-to-our-medium editing, and we loves ya for it.
He used an interesting choice of web drug. I can only assume he had his font sizes cranked WAY up to combat the dizziness.
Personally, I find caffiene is a much better drug aid to web surfing.
Where I'm from these are called, "drive town to Tijuana" drugs.
These are legal prescription drugs that he could probably have gotten a doctor to give him. I wonder if it would have mattered to the boy if a pharmcist (or web store) advised him to "stay away from big trains while medicated."
Drugs!? That's nothing... The the web causes AIDS!
AIDS, drugs, terrorism... Somebody ought to shut this place down...
My choice of web drugs is still PHP. Dude.
Notice how borders and regulations are becoming irrelevant because of the internet?
The larger question is why shouldn't people be able to buy and consume whatever medication they see fit?
It's ludicrous that some government agency can tell a desperate AIDS or cancer patient, "Nope, this might save your life, but we've decided it's too risky for you."
The headline should read "Student's second attempt at suicide successful." If he didn't use "web drugs" he would have had access to other drugs, as the article made clear. Did the "Web drugs" make one bit of difference in this poor souls untimely death? I doubt it. If it had been alcohol that "made" him walk in front of the train, would we have even seen this article?