Janik Peter, Kosticova Michaela, Pecenak Jan, Turcek Michal
a Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine , Comenius University in Bratislava , Bratislava , Slovakia.
b Institute of Social Medicine and Medical Ethics, Faculty of Medicine , Comenius University in Bratislava , Bratislava , Slovakia.
Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2017 Nov;43(6):636-646. doi: 10.1080/00952990.2017.1335736. Epub 2017 Jun 26.
Precise terminology and definitions are important components of scientific language. Although the terms "hard drugs" and "soft drugs" are used widely by professionals, neither the International Classification of Diseases nor the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual classify psychoactive substances into the categories "hard" and "soft."
To analyze the occurrence of the terms "hard drugs" and "soft drugs" in recent scientific literature and to establish the degree of consensus in labeling psychoactive substances as "hard" or "soft."
A critical review of scientific papers listed in PubMed and Scopus between 2011 and 2015. Three hundred thirty-four articles were initially identified as potentially relevant for review, 132 of which were included in the final analysis.
One hundred twenty-four articles used the term "hard drugs" and 84.7% provided examples of substances considered "hard." Forty-four articles used the term "soft drugs" and 90.9% provided examples of substances considered "soft." Citations of relevant articles supporting categorization as "hard" or "soft" were not given in 90% of the articles. The authors often provided no or only very sparse information on their reasons for considering specific drugs as "hard" or "soft."
Although it initially appeared that there is substantial agreement as to which psychoactive substances should be regarded as "hard" and "soft," closer inspection shows that the dividing line is blurred without clear criteria for categorization. At this time, it remains uncertain whether these terms should persist in the scientific literature. We therefore recommend these terms should be avoided or, if used, be clearly and precisely defined.
精确的术语和定义是科学语言的重要组成部分。尽管“硬毒品”和“软毒品”这两个术语被专业人士广泛使用，但无论是《国际疾病分类》还是《诊断与统计手册》都未将精神活性物质分为“硬”和“软”两类。
分析近期科学文献中“硬毒品”和“软毒品”这两个术语的出现情况，并确定在将精神活性物质标记为“硬”或“软”方面的共识程度。
对2011年至2015年期间PubMed和Scopus上列出的科学论文进行批判性综述。最初确定了334篇文章可能与综述相关，其中132篇纳入最终分析。
124篇文章使用了“硬毒品”一词，其中84.7%提供了被视为“硬”毒品的示例。44篇文章使用了“软毒品”一词，90.9%提供了被视为“软”毒品的示例。90%的文章未给出支持分类为“硬”或“软”的相关文章引用。作者通常没有或仅提供非常稀少的关于他们将特定毒品视为“硬”或“软”的原因的信息。
尽管最初似乎对于哪些精神活性物质应被视为“硬”和“软”存在很大共识，但仔细检查表明，分类界限模糊，没有明确的分类标准。目前，这些术语是否应在科学文献中继续存在仍不确定。因此，我们建议避免使用这些术语，或者如果使用，应进行清晰准确的定义。
