text:
Clothing

Clothing (also known as clothes, garments, dress, apparel, or attire) is any item worn on the body. Typically, clothing is made of fabrics or textiles, but over time it has included garments made from animal skin and other thin sheets of materials and natural products found in the environment, put together. The wearing of clothing is mostly restricted to human beings and is a feature of all human societies. The amount and type of clothing worn depends on gender, body type, social factors, and geographic considerations. Garments cover the body, footwear covers the feet, gloves cover the hands, while hats and headgear cover the head, and underwear covers the private parts.

Clothing serves many purposes: it can serve as protection from the elements, rough surfaces, sharp stones, rash-causing plants, and insect bites, by providing a barrier between the skin and the environment. Clothing can insulate against cold or hot conditions, and it can provide a hygienic barrier, keeping infectious and toxic materials away from the body. It can protect feet from injury and discomfort or facilitate navigation in varied environments. Clothing also provides protection from ultraviolet radiation. It may be used to prevent glare or increase visual acuity in harsh environments, such as brimmed hats. Clothing is used for protection against injury in specific tasks and occupations, sports, and warfare. Fashioned with pockets, belts, or loops, clothing may provide a means to carry things while freeing the hands.

Clothing has significant social factors as well. Wearing clothes is a variable social norm. It may connote modesty. Being deprived of clothing in front of others may be embarrassing. In many parts of the world, not wearing clothes in public so that genitals, breast, or buttocks are visible could be considered indecent exposure. Pubic area or genital coverage is the most frequently encountered minimum found cross-culturally and regardless of climate, implying social convention as the basis of customs. Clothing also may be used to communicate social status, wealth, group identity, and individualism.

Some forms of personal protective equipment amount to clothing, such as coveralls, chaps or a doctor's white coat, with similar requirements for maintenance and cleaning as other textiles (boxing gloves function both as protective equipment and as a sparring weapon, so the equipment aspect rises above the glove aspect). More specialized forms of protective equipment, such as face shields are classified as protective accessories. At the far extreme, self-enclosing diving suits or space suits are form-fitting body covers, and amount to a form of dress, without being clothing per se, while containing enough high technology to amount to more of a tool than a garment. This line will continue to blur as wearable technology embeds assistive devices directly into the fabric itself; the enabling innovations are ultra low power consumption and flexible electronic substrates.

Clothing also hybridizes into a personal transportation system (ice skates, roller skates, cargo pants, other outdoor survival gear, one-man band) or concealment system (stage magicians, hidden linings or pockets in tradecraft, integrated holsters for concealed carry, merchandise-laden trench coats on the black market — where the purpose of the clothing often carries over into disguise). A mode of dress fit to purpose, whether stylistic or functional, is known as an outfit or ensemble.

Early use
Estimates of when humans began wearing clothes vary from 40,000 to as many as 3 million years ago, but recent studies suggest humans were wearing clothing at least 100,000 years ago.

Recent studies by Ralf Kittler, Manfred Kayser and Mark Stoneking—anthropologists at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology—have attempted to constrain the most recent date of the introduction of clothing with an indirect method relying on lice. The rationale for this method of dating stems from the fact that the human body louse cannot live outside of clothing, dying after only a few hours without shelter. This strongly implies that the date of the body louse's speciation from its parent, Pediculus humanus, can have taken place no earlier than the earliest human adoption of clothing. This date, at which the body louse (P. humanus corporis) diverged from both its parent species and its sibling subspecies, the head louse (P. humanus capitis), can be determined by the number of mutations each has developed during the intervening time. Such mutations occur at a known rate and the date of last-common-ancestor for two species can therefore be estimated from their frequency. These studies have produced dates from 40,000 to 170,000 years ago, with a greatest likelihood of speciation lying at about 107,000 years ago.

Kittler, Kayser and Stoneking suggest that the invention of clothing may have coincided with the northward migration of modern Homo sapiens away from the warm climate of Africa, which is thought to have begun between 100,000 and 50,000 years ago. A second group of researchers, also relying on the genetic clock, estimate that clothing originated between 30,000 and 114,000 years ago.

Dating with direct archeological evidence produces dates consistent with those of lice. In September 2021, scientists reported evidence of clothes being made 120,000 years ago based on findings in deposits in Morocco.

According to Anthropologists and Archaeologists, the earliest clothing likely consisted of fur, leather, leaves, or grass that was draped, wrapped, or tied around the body. Knowledge of such clothing remains inferential, as clothing materials deteriorate quickly compared with stone, bone, shell, and metal artifacts. Archeologists have identified very early sewing needles of bone and ivory from about 30,000 BC, found near Kostenki, Russia in 1988, and in 2016 a needle at least 50,000 years old from Denisova Cave in Siberia made by Denisovans. Dyed flax fibers that date back to 34,000 BC and could have been used in clothing have been found in a prehistoric cave in Georgia.

Making clothing
Several distinct human cultures, including those residing in the Arctic Circle, have historically crafted their garments exclusively from treated and adorned animal furs and skins. In contrast, numerous other societies have complemented or substituted leather and skins with textiles woven, knitted, or twined from a diverse array of animal and plant fibers, such as wool, linen, cotton, silk, hemp, and ramie.

Although modern consumers may take the production of clothing for granted, making fabric by hand is a tedious and labor-intensive process involving fiber making, spinning, and weaving. The textile industry was the first to be mechanized – with the powered loom – during the Industrial Revolution.

Different cultures have evolved various ways of creating clothes out of cloth. One approach involves draping the cloth. Many people wore, and still wear, garments consisting of rectangles of cloth wrapped to fit – for example, the dhoti for men and the sari for women in the Indian subcontinent, the Scottish kilt, and the Javanese sarong. The clothes may be tied up (dhoti and sari) or implement pins or belts to hold the garments in place (kilt and sarong). The cloth remains uncut, and people of various sizes can wear the garment.

Another approach involves measuring, cutting, and sewing the cloth by hand or with a sewing machine. Clothing can be cut from a sewing pattern and adjusted by a tailor to the wearer's measurements. An adjustable sewing mannequin or dress form is used to create form-fitting clothing. If the fabric is expensive, the tailor tries to use every bit of the cloth rectangle in constructing the clothing; perhaps cutting triangular pieces from one corner of the cloth, and adding them elsewhere as gussets. Traditional European patterns for shirts and chemises take this approach. These remnants can also be reused to make patchwork pockets, hats, vests, and skirts.

Modern European fashion treats cloth much less conservatively, typically cutting in such a way as to leave various odd-shaped cloth remnants. Industrial sewing operations sell these as waste; domestic sewers may turn them into quilts.

In the thousands of years that humans have been making clothing, they have created an astonishing array of styles, many of which have been reconstructed from surviving garments, photographs, paintings, mosaics, etc., as well as from written descriptions. Costume history can inspire current fashion designers, as well as costumiers for plays, films, television, and historical reenactment.

Clothing as comfort
Comfort is related to various perceptions, physiological, social, and psychological needs, and after food, it is clothing that satisfies these comfort needs. Clothing provides aesthetic, tactile, thermal, moisture, and pressure comfort.
 * Aesthetic comfort: Visual perception is influenced by color, fabric construction, style, garment fit, fashion compatibility, and finish of clothing material. Aesthetic comfort is necessary for psychological and social comfort.
 * Thermoregulation and thermophysiological comfort: Thermophysiological comfort is the capacity of the clothing material that makes the balance of moisture and heat between the body and the environment. It is a property of textile materials that creates ease by maintaining moisture and thermal levels in a human's resting and active states. The selection of textile material significantly affects the comfort of the wearer. Different textile fibers have unique properties that make them suitable for use in various environments. Natural fibers are breathable and absorb moisture, and synthetic fibers are hydrophobic; they repel moisture and do not allow air to pass. :: Different environments demand a diverse selection of clothing materials. Hence, the appropriate choice is important.       The major determinants that influence thermophysiological comfort are permeable construction, heat, and moisture transfer rate.
 * Thermal comfort: One primary criterion for our physiological needs is thermal comfort. The heat dissipation effectiveness of clothing gives the wearer a neither very hot nor very cold feel. The optimum temperature for thermal comfort of the skin surface is between 28 and 30 C, i.e., a neutral temperature. Thermophysiology reacts whenever the temperature falls below or exceeds the neutral point on either side; it is discomforting below 28 and above 30 degrees. Clothing maintains a thermal balance; it keeps the skin dry and cool. It helps to keep the body from overheating while avoiding heat from the environment.
 * Moisture comfort: Moisture comfort is the prevention of a damp sensation. According to Hollies' research, it feels uncomfortable when more than "50% to 65% of the body is wet."
 * Tactile comfort: Tactile comfort is a resistance to the discomfort related to the friction created by clothing against the body. It is related to the smoothness, roughness, softness, and stiffness of the fabric used in clothing. The degree of tactile discomfort may vary between individuals, which is possible due to various factors including allergies, tickling, prickling, skin abrasion, coolness, and the fabric's weight, structure, and thickness. There are specific surface finishes (mechanical and chemical) that can enhance tactile comfort. Fleece sweatshirts and velvet clothing, for example. Soft, clingy, stiff, heavy, light, hard, sticky, scratchy, prickly are all terms used to describe tactile sensations.
 * Pressure comfort: The comfort of the human body's pressure receptors' (present in the skin) sensory response towards clothing. Fabric with lycra feels more comfortable because of this response and superior pressure comfort. The sensation response is influenced by the material's structure: snugging, looseness, heavy, light, soft, or stiff structuring.

Functions

The most obvious function of clothing is to protect the wearer from the elements. It serves to prevent wind damage and provides protection from sunburn. In the cold, it offers thermal insulation. Shelter can reduce the functional need for clothing. For example, coats, hats, gloves, and other outer layers are normally removed when entering a warm place. Similarly, clothing has seasonal and regional aspects so that thinner materials and fewer layers of clothing generally are worn in warmer regions and seasons than in colder ones. Boots, hats, jackets, ponchos, and coats designed to protect from rain and snow are specialized clothing items.

Clothing has been made from a wide variety of materials, ranging from leather and furs to woven fabrics, to elaborate and exotic natural and synthetic fabrics. Not all body coverings are regarded as clothing. Articles carried rather than worn normally are considered accessories rather than clothing (such as Handbags), items worn on a single part of the body and easily removed (scarves), worn purely for adornment (jewelry), or items that do not serve a protective function. For instance, corrective eyeglasses, Arctic goggles, and sunglasses would not be considered an accessory because of their protective functions.

Clothing protects against many things that might injure or irritate the naked human body, including rain, snow, wind, and other weather, as well as from the sun. Garments that are too sheer, thin, small, or tight offer less protection. Appropriate clothes can also reduce risk during activities such as work or sport. Some clothing protects from specific hazards, such as insects, toxic chemicals, weather, weapons, and contact with abrasive substances.

Humans have devised clothing solutions to environmental or other hazards: such as space suits, armor, diving suits, swimsuits, bee-keeper gear, motorcycle leathers, high-visibility clothing, and other pieces of protective clothing. The distinction between clothing and protective equipment is not always clear-cut since clothes designed to be fashionable often have protective value, and clothes designed for function often have corporate fashion in their design.

The choice of clothes also has social implications. They cover parts of the body that social norms require to be covered, act as a form of adornment, and serve other social purposes. Someone who lacks the means to procure appropriate clothing due to poverty or affordability, or lack of inclination, sometimes is said to be worn, ragged, or shabby.

Clothing performs a range of social and cultural functions, such as individual, occupational, gender differentiation, and social status. In many societies, norms about clothing reflect standards of modesty, religion, gender, and social status. Clothing may also function as adornment and an expression of personal taste or style.

Function of clothing
Serious books on clothing and its functions appear from the nineteenth century as European colonial powers interacted with new environments such as tropical ones in Asia. Some scientific research into the multiple functions of clothing in the first half of the twentieth century, with publications such as J.C. Flügel's Psychology of Clothes in 1930, and Newburgh's seminal Physiology of Heat Regulation and The Science of Clothing in 1949. By 1968, the field of Environmental Physiology had advanced and expanded significantly, but the science of clothing in relation to environmental physiology had changed little. There has since been considerable research, and the knowledge base has grown significantly, but the main concepts remain unchanged, and indeed, Newburgh's book continues to be cited by contemporary authors, including those attempting to develop thermoregulatory models of clothing development.

History of clothing
Clothing reveals much about human history. According to Professor Kiki Smith of Smith College, garments preserved in collections are resources for study similar to books and paintings. Scholars around the world have studied a wide range of clothing topics, including the history of specific items of clothing, clothing styles in different cultural groups, and the business of clothing and fashion. The textile curator Linda Baumgarten writes that "clothing provides a remarkable picture of the daily lives, beliefs, expectations, and hopes of those who lived in the past.

Clothing presents a number of challenges to historians. Clothing made of textiles or skins is subject to decay, and the erosion of physical integrity may be seen as a loss of cultural information. Costume collections often focus on important pieces of clothing considered unique or otherwise significant, limiting the opportunities scholars have to study everyday clothing.

Gender differentiation

In most cultures, gender differentiation of clothing is considered appropriate. The differences are in styles, colors, fabrics, and types.

In contemporary Western societies, skirts, dresses, and high-heeled shoes are usually seen as women's clothing, while neckties usually are seen as men's clothing. Trousers were once seen as exclusively men's clothing, but nowadays are worn by both genders. Men's clothes are often more practical (that is, they can function well under a wide variety of situations), but a wider range of clothing styles is available for women. Typically, men are allowed to bare their chests in a greater variety of public places. It is generally common for a woman to wear clothing perceived as masculine, while the opposite is seen as unusual. Contemporary men may sometimes choose to wear men's skirts such as togas or kilts in particular cultures, especially on ceremonial occasions. In previous times, such garments often were worn as normal daily clothing by men.

In some cultures, sumptuary laws regulate what men and women are required to wear. Islam requires women to wear certain forms of attire, usually hijab. What items required varies in different Muslim societies; however, women are usually required to cover more of their bodies than men. Articles of clothing Muslim women wear under these laws or traditions range from the head-scarf to the burqa.

Some contemporary clothing styles designed to be worn by either gender, such as T-shirts, have started out as menswear, but some articles, such as the fedora, originally were a style for women.

Social status
During the early modern period, individuals utilized their attire as a significant method of conveying and asserting their social status. Individuals employed the utilization of high-quality fabrics and trendy designs as a means of communicating their wealth and social standing, as well as an indication of their knowledge and understanding of current fashion trends to the general public. As a result, clothing played a significant role in making the social hierarchy perceptible to all members of society.

In some societies, clothing may be used to indicate rank or status. In ancient Rome, for example, only senators could wear garments dyed with Tyrian purple. In traditional Hawaiian society, only high-ranking chiefs could wear feather cloaks and palaoa, or carved whale teeth. In China, before establishment of the republic, only the emperor could wear yellow. History provides many examples of elaborate sumptuary laws that regulated what people could wear. In societies without such laws, which includes most modern societies, social status is signaled by the purchase of rare or luxury items that are limited by cost to those with wealth or status. In addition, peer pressure influences clothing choice.

Religion
Some religious clothing might be considered a special case of occupational clothing. Sometimes it is worn only during the performance of religious ceremonies. However, it may be worn every day as a marker for special religious status. Sikhs wear a turban as it is a part of their religion.

In some religions such as Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, and Jainism the cleanliness of religious dresses is of paramount importance and considered to indicate purity. Jewish ritual requires rending (tearing) of one's upper garment as a sign of mourning. The Quran says about husbands and wives, regarding clothing: "...They are clothing/covering (Libaas) for you; and you for them" (chapter 2:187). Christian clergy members wear religious vestments during liturgical services and may wear specific non-liturgical clothing at other times.

Clothing appears in numerous contexts in the Bible. The most prominent passages are: the story of Adam and Eve who made coverings for themselves out of fig leaves, Joseph's coat of many colors, and the clothing of Judah and Tamar, Mordecai and Esther. Furthermore, the priests officiating in the Temple in Jerusalem had very specific garments, the lack of which made one liable to death.

Western dress code
The Western dress code has changed over the past 500+ years. The mechanization of the textile industry made many varieties of cloth widely available at affordable prices. Styles have changed, and the availability of synthetic fabrics has changed the definition of what is "stylish". In the latter half of the twentieth century, blue jeans became very popular, and are now worn to events that normally demand formal attire. Activewear has also become a large and growing market.

In the Western dress code, jeans are worn by both men and women. There are several unique styles of jeans found that include: high rise jeans, mid rise jeans, low rise jeans, bootcut jeans, straight jeans, cropped jeans, skinny jeans, cuffed jeans, boyfriend jeans, and capri jeans.

The licensing of designer names was pioneered by designers such as Pierre Cardin, Yves Saint Laurent, and Guy Laroche in the 1960s and has been a common practice within the fashion industry from about the 1970s. Among the more popular include Marc Jacobs and Gucci, named for Marc Jacobs Guccio Gucci respectively.

Spread of western styles

By the early years of the twenty-first century, western clothing styles had, to some extent, become international styles. This process began hundreds of years earlier, during the periods of European colonialism. The process of cultural dissemination has been perpetuated over the centuries, spreading Western culture and styles, most recently as Western media corporations have penetrated markets throughout the world. Fast fashion clothing has also become a global phenomenon. These garments are less expensive, mass-produced Western clothing. Also, donated used clothing from Western countries is delivered to people in poor countries by charity organizations.

Ethnic and cultural heritage
People may wear ethnic or national dress on special occasions or in certain roles or occupations. For example, most Korean men and women have adopted Western-style dress for daily wear, but still wear traditional hanboks on special occasions, such as weddings and cultural holidays. Also, items of Western dress may be worn or accessorized in distinctive, non-Western ways. A Tongan man may combine a used T-shirt with a Tongan wrapped skirt, or tupenu.

Sport and activity
For practical, comfort or safety reasons, most sports and physical activities are practised wearing special clothing. Common sportswear garments include shorts, T-shirts, tennis shirts, leotards, tracksuits, and trainers. Specialized garments include wet suits (for swimming, diving, or surfing), salopettes (for skiing), and leotards (for gymnastics). Also, spandex materials often are used as base layers to soak up sweat. Spandex is preferable for active sports that require form fitting garments, such as volleyball, wrestling, track and field, dance, gymnastics, and swimming.

Fashion
Paris set the 1900–1940 fashion trends for Europe and North America. In the 1920s the goal was all about getting loose. Women wore dresses all day, every day. Day dresses had a drop waist, which was a sash or belt around the low waist or hip and a skirt that hung anywhere from the ankle on up to the knee, never above. Day wear had sleeves (long to mid-bicep) and a skirt that was straight, pleated, hank hemmed, or tiered. Jewelry was not conspicuous. Hair was often bobbed, giving a boyish look.

In the early twenty-first century a diverse range of styles exists in fashion, varying by geography, exposure to modern media, economic conditions, and ranging from expensive haute couture, to traditional garb, to thrift store grunge. Fashion shows are events for designers to show off new and often extravagant designs.

Working conditions in the garments industry

Although mechanization transformed most aspects of human clothing industry, by the mid-twentieth century, garment workers have continued to labor under challenging conditions that demand repetitive manual labor. Often, mass-produced clothing is made in what are considered by some to be sweatshops, typified by long work hours, lack of benefits, and lack of worker representation. While most examples of such conditions are found in developing countries, clothes made in industrialized nations may also be manufactured under similar conditions.

Coalitions of NGOs, designers (including Katharine Hamnett, American Apparel, Veja, Quiksilver, eVocal, and Edun), and campaign groups such as the Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC) and the Institute for Global Labour and Human Rights as well as textile and clothing trade unions have sought to improve these conditions by sponsoring awareness-raising events, which draw the attention of both the media and the general public to the plight of the workers.

Outsourcing production to low wage countries such as Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka became possible when the Multi Fibre Agreement (MFA) was abolished. The MFA, which placed quotas on textiles imports, was deemed a protectionist measure. Although many countries recognize treaties such as the International Labour Organization, which attempt to set standards for worker safety and rights, many countries have made exceptions to certain parts of the treaties or failed to thoroughly enforce them. India for example has not ratified sections 87 and 92 of the treaty.

The production of textiles has functioned as a consistent industry for developing nations, providing work and wages, whether construed as exploitative or not, to millions of people.

Fur
The use of animal fur in clothing dates to prehistoric times. Currently, although fur is still used by indigenous people in arctic zones and higher elevations for its warmth and protection, in developed countries it is associated with expensive, designer clothing. Once uncontroversial, recently it has been the focus of campaigns on the grounds that campaigners consider it cruel and unnecessary. PETA and other animal and animal liberation groups have called attention to fur farming and other practices they consider cruel.

Real fur in fashion is contentious, with Copenhagen (2022) and London (2018) fashion weeks banning real fur in its runway shows following protests and government attention to the issue. Fashion houses such as Gucci and Chanel have banned the use of fur in its garments. Versace and Furla also stopped using fur in their collections in early 2018. In 2020, the outdoor brand Canada Goose announced it would discontinue the use of new coyote fur on parka trims following protests.

Governing bodies have issued legislation banning the sale of new real fur garments. In 2021, Israel was the first government to ban the sale of real fur garments, with the exception of those worn as part of a religious faith. In 2019, the state of California banned fur trapping, with a total ban on the sale of all new fur garments except those made of sheep, cow, and rabbit fur going into effect on January 1, 2023.

Clothing maintenance
Clothing suffers assault both from within and without. The human body sheds skin cells and body oils, and it exudes sweat, urine, and feces that may soil clothing. From the outside, sun damage, moisture, abrasion, and dirt assault garments. Fleas and lice can hide in seams. If not cleaned and refurbished, clothing becomes worn and loses its aesthetics and functionality (as when buttons fall off, seams come undone, fabrics thin or tear, and zippers fail).

Often, people wear an item of clothing until it falls apart. Some materials present problems. Cleaning leather is difficult, and bark cloth (tapa) cannot be washed without dissolving it. Owners may patch tears and rips, and brush off surface dirt, but materials such as these inevitably age.

Most clothing consists of cloth, however, and most cloth can be laundered and mended (patching, darning, but compare felt).

Laundry, ironing, storage
Humans have developed many specialized methods for laundering clothing, ranging from early methods of pounding clothes against rocks in running streams, to the latest in electronic washing machines and dry cleaning (dissolving dirt in solvents other than water). Hot water washing (boiling), chemical cleaning, and ironing are all traditional methods of sterilizing fabrics for hygiene purposes.

Many kinds of clothing are designed to be ironed before they are worn to remove wrinkles. Most modern formal and semi-formal clothing is in this category (for example, dress shirts and suits). Ironed clothes are believed to look clean, fresh, and neat. Much contemporary casual clothing is made of knit materials that do not readily wrinkle, and do not require ironing. Some clothing is permanent press, having been treated with a coating (such as polytetrafluoroethylene) that suppresses wrinkles and creates a smooth appearance without ironing. Excess lint or debris may end up on the clothing in between launderings. In such cases, a lint remover may be useful.

Once clothes have been laundered and possibly ironed, usually they are hung on clothes hangers or folded, to keep them fresh until they are worn. Clothes are folded to allow them to be stored compactly, to prevent creasing, to preserve creases, or to present them in a more pleasing manner, for instance, when they are put on sale in stores.

Certain types of insects and larvae feed on clothing and textiles, such as the black carpet beetle and clothing moths. To deter such pests, clothes may be stored in cedar-lined closets or chests, or placed in drawers or containers with materials having pest repellent properties, such as lavender or mothballs. Airtight containers (such as sealed, heavy-duty plastic bags) may deter insect pest damage to clothing materials as well.

Non-iron
A resin used for making non-wrinkle shirts releases formaldehyde, which could cause contact dermatitis for some people; no disclosure requirements exist, and in 2008 the U.S. Government Accountability Office tested formaldehyde in clothing and found that generally the highest levels were in non-wrinkle shirts and pants. In 1999, a study of the effect of washing on the formaldehyde levels found that after six months of routine washing, 7 of 27 shirts still had levels in excess of 75 ppm (the safe limit for direct skin exposure).

Mending
When the raw material – cloth – was worth more than labor, it made sense to expend labor in saving it. In past times, mending was an art. A meticulous tailor or seamstress could mend rips with thread raveled from hems and seam edges so skillfully that the tear was practically invisible. Today clothing is considered a consumable item. Mass-manufactured clothing is less expensive than the labor required to repair it. Many people buy a new piece of clothing rather than spend time mending. The thrifty still replace zippers and buttons and sew up ripped hems, however. Other mending techniques include darning and invisible mending or upcycling through visible mending inspired in Japanese Sashiko.

Recycling
It is estimated that 80 billion to 150 billion garments are produced annually. Used, unwearable clothing can be repurposed for quilts, rags, rugs, bandages, and many other household uses. Neutral colored or undyed cellulose fibers can be recycled into paper. In Western societies, used clothing is often thrown out or donated to charity (such as through a clothing bin). It is also sold to consignment shops, dress agencies, flea markets, and in online auctions. Also, used clothing often is collected on an industrial scale to be sorted and shipped for re-use in poorer countries. Globally, used clothes are worth $4 billion, with the U.S. as the leading exporter at $575 million.

Synthetics, which come primarily from petrochemicals, are not renewable or biodegradable.

Excess inventory of clothing is sometimes destroyed to preserve brand value.

Global trade
EU member states imported €166 billion of clothes in 2018; 51% came from outside the EU (€84 billion). EU member states exported €116 billion of clothes in 2018, including 77% to other EU member states.

According to the World Trade Organization (WTO) report, the value of global clothing exports in 2022 reached US$790.1 billion, up 10.6% from 2021. China is the world's largest clothing exporter, with a value of US$178.4 billion, accounting for 22.6% of the global market share. Next are Bangladesh (US$40.8 billion), Vietnam (US$39.8 billion), India (US$36.1 billion), and Turkey (US$29.7 billion).

In Vietnam, clothing exports continue to be one of the leading export sectors, contributing significantly to the export turnover and economic growth of the country. According to the General Department of Customs of Vietnam, the value of Vietnam's clothing exports in 2022 reached US$39.8 billion, up 14.2% from 2021. Of which, clothing exports to the United States reached US$18.8 billion, accounting for 47.3% of the market share; exports to the EU reached US$9.8 billion, accounting for 24.6% of the market share.

title: Clothing


text:
Talk:Free On-line Dictionary of Computing/Status

10th May(roughly); There are two versions of the some parts of the index of the FOLDOC dictionary for some reason. I would suggest that one needs permanent deletion to avoid confusion.

For example:

A page from Free_On-line_Dictionary_of_Computing/Status is while we also have this floating about:
 * Free_On-line_Dictionary_of_Computing/C - D

 * Free_On-line_Dictionary_of_Computing/C - E

To my mind these also look like duplicates that I think should be removed:

 * Free On-line Dictionary of Computing/F - H

 * Free_On-line_Dictionary_of_Computing/R - T

 * Free_On-line_Dictionary_of_Computing/U - W

Or hopefully someone has some background here and can sort it out.

15th May - Ok, In a few days I'll delete all links to the above and add the duplicate pages to 'pages to be deleted', Any problems?

24th May, as I said.

In the course of revising the entries relating to various uses of the word "seal" I found that the FOLDOC entry in Wikipedia refered this to the US Navy Seals. I've written a page for SEAL (Computer Language) which does nothing more than expand the acronym. I've made that change on both the FOLDOC R-S and FOLDOC R-T pages even though I assume that the latter page will eventualy be eliminated.

The URL http://www.foldoc.org/ appears to be dead. -- Tarquin 14:38 Aug 24, 2002 (PDT)

There are mirrors that still work: -- Jan Hidders 14:48 Aug 24, 2002 (PDT)
 * http://www.instantweb.com/foldoc/
 * http://www.nue.org/foldoc/
 * http://www.nightflight.com/foldoc/
 * http://foldoc.linuxguruz.org/

http://www.foldoc.org/ is OK now. Aldie 00:21 Sep 14, 2002 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Talk:Narcotic

Narcotic
This statement is false: "When used in a legal context in the U.S., a narcotic drug is one that is totally prohibited, such as heroin, or one that is used in violation of governmental regulation." Narcotic does not refer exclusively to illegal drugs. For example, WI Chapter Phar 961.18(5) lists Schedule III narcotic drugs, which are not "totally prohibited." . There are many examples throughout federal and state law showing narcotics are legal in the correct setting.

Why doesn't this page give the mechanism of narcotics?
 * Because narcotics is a legal distinction, and does not indicate any specific group of drugs. The list of mechanisms would be long, as it is different from barbiturates (which do share mechnaism with benzodiazapines and other sedative-hypnotics), canabis, opioids, stimulants (and there are differences between them), and hallucinogens are all over the place.

What is the list of recreational drugs and laws regarding them doing here?

Beats me. Very few of them are narcotics.

 * Narcotics are defined by statue. If a drug is prohibited, it is listed as a narcotic.  All narcotics are prohibited from recreational use.  It is a legal term, not a medical term.  Use of 'narcotic' by physicians in any discussion should not be taken to mean opioids, etc. as it is an imprecise use of language where usually a more precise term may not be understood.  E.g. it can be a challenge to even get physicians and pharmacists to use 'opioid' ↦ i.e. a drug acting on the endorphin/morphine receptors, and 'opiate' ↦ i.e. a drug derived from opium or poppy straw, correctly.  Regardless of how pople use the term, 'narcotic' is a legal distinction and not a biological one.  Older texts refer to any drug that has soporific effects, including non-ilicit drugs like scopoloamine.

This page needs a major overhaul. - KneeLess 13:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Somebody just cleared out this entire page. Was that for a good reason, or was it just vandalism? I think this page should be a fairly brief one that gives the origins of the word "narcotic", explains how its legal definition is broader than its medical/biological definition, and links to other pages on specific drugs, bashir .g., opioids, etc. - User:Karn 4 May 2005 04:05 UTC

Well, I think it has been very educating. I don't think i would have been able to find such in-depth detail anywhere else! I am pleased that all that information is right here, and it saves me trawling through countless other web-sites. I know my presentaton will now be more interesting-thank you very much! - Elli 14:35, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

move the scuba diving disambig bit to the top

Re: move the scuba diving disambig bit to the top. Now done. - User:Dcflyer 07:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

List of Narcotics
Is it possible to get a list of the various kinds of narcotics on this page? I think that would be very helpful. 209.173.14.125 13:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to second this request. It would be helpful to have an illustrative, if not exhaustive, list of opioids/narcotics on this page. I assume this includes opium, morphine, heroin, but am not sure if more should be included.

Include (per the [AMA] letter at www.alcoholthenarcotic.org) Alcohol. Perfect fit.

 * There is already a huge list of most opioids in the opiate article at the very bottom and alcohol is clearly shown as a narcotic in this article already, so I'm not sure a list is necessary, it would be useful but probably not worth the time it would take.--Bigfootisreal (talk) 07:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

erowid.com does not have any list so it should be deleted from external links Boycraft (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Definition
The World Health Orginization (WHO) define a drug as Any substance other than food or water that effects the body and mind.

Should this be mentioned? Dfrg.msc 02:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Very much so, as the definition of a drug is useful information. Nero S. Baudelaire

If you do please don't forget alcohol...alcohol should absolutely be included in the list of narcotics. There's overwhelming proof at this site.

Alcohol is a depressant, not a narcotic, it is similar to a narcotic and though it is yes addictive and yes induces stupor — it does not relieve pain. The Oxford dictionary (IMHO much better than the Marrian Webster dictionary) says that a narcotic is a drug that induces drowsiness and relieves pain. That is always how I have understood the term narcotic. Only the opioids are true narcotics. It is ridiculous that such drugs as LSD are put into the same category as a narcotic. It makes no sense. LSD can certainly be put into the category of an illegal drug, a psychotropic drug, and even a dangerous drug, but it should not be listed as a narcotic. Neither should maryjane as maryjane is not an addictive drug.

www.alcoholthenarcotic.org

This page someone started is a good attempt at sanity about substances..Louis B Summers - (Director of the anti-teen drinking site Alcohol the Narcotic)

69.148.205.174 (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, LSD is put into the category of psychotropic substances as opposed to narcotic drugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.231.37 (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 * The definition of drug is totally irrelevant to the narcotic article. The definition of narcotic most definitely is important but not the definition of drug. --Bigfootisreal (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is worth reading
This article put the multi-billion dollar opium-herion industry into scope in regards to Afghanistan. If you want to learn more about this aspect of Afghansitan and how it ties in with Kosovo, the KLA, and the rest of the world and the world economy read this article.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061017&articleId=3516

Christianity link?
Anyone know why there is a link to Christianity in the "See Also" section of the article? Just want to check to see if there is something I'm missing, before I remove it. --Anietor 21:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Definition of narcotic
I looked at various definitions on dictionary.com and can't see why it's wrong to classify cocaine, marijuana and so on as narcotics, so it would be POV to state it outright. It's etymology is rooted in a substance causing a stupor--same with the word "narcosis." The most strict definitions even make an addition stating that it can be "opiumlike." Also, cocaine and many other drugs classified as "stimulants" do affect opiate receptors. =Nathan J. Yoder 16:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

 * This is straight from www.m-w.com:

Main Entry: 1nar·cot·ic Pronunciation: när-'kä-tik Function: noun Etymology: Middle English narkotik, from Middle French narcotique, from narcotique, adjective, from Medieval Latin narcoticus, from Greek narkOtikos, from narkoun to benumb, from narkE numbness 1 a : a drug (as opium or morphine) that in moderate doses dulls the senses, relieves pain, and induces profound sleep but in excessive doses causes stupor, coma, or convulsions b : a drug (as marijuana or LSD) subject to restriction similar to that of addictive narcotics

whether physiologically addictive and narcotic or not 2 : something that soothes, relieves, or lulls

It is very clear from the above definition that 1a is the correct definition, and that 1b is based upon legal definition. Cocaine does not induce sleep. --Thoric 15:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit/add/consider

Alcohol induces sleep, relieves (by masking) pain, dulls senses, and in excessive doses causes stupor, coma, or convulsions (within de-tox) (APA Criteria handbook) so therefore should be considered in the drug grouping of narcotics. 69.148.205.174 (talk)info@alcoholthenarcotic.org Lou Summers
 * No, not at all. You are confusing entymology of a term with what it currently means.  In current use, only time 'narcotic' is used with anything close to an explicit meaning is in statutes and regulations where it is typically defined precisely.  If alcohol is not part of a legal definition then it has zero relevance to this discussion.  Citing a single source from a group with an axe to grind is not productive use of WP. --DrKC MD (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

What they're not
Why is the "US legal system"s mistake the most prominent part of this article. They think speed is a weapon of mass destruction, amusing but not relevant. The article on Television isn't prefaced by what the taleban think of it. Why should another bunch of fundamentalist terrorists and their mistaken laws colour this article. 83.70.239.47 15:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suspect it is because the majority of authors and editors are from the US. I don't think the US considers 'speed' (a generic term for a class of stimulant amines) a weapon, but it is classified  as a narcotic in legal circles which don't care about the entymology but rather the current use of the word.--DrKC MD (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

needs work
It seems like there are a lot of issues with this article, starting with the fact that there are -no- sources. I could see statements like "Contrary to popular belief, marijuana is not a narcotic." being controversial without any citations. Jodamn 02:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Legally, marijuana is a narcotic, because it is included on the list of drugs in the UN "Single Convention On Narcotic Drugs, 1961". Obviously, a legal definition, not a scientific definition, which is why the use of the term "narcotic" in this article needs to be clarified, either where the term is used, or in the introduction.
 * At present, the introduction notes the ambiguity of the term, but no attempt is made to clarify how it will be used in this article218.214.18.240 (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, needs work...Please reference this (www.alcoholthenarcotic.org) to include alcohol. Sorry to seemingly spam but we need to consider this issue. On the main page please scroll down to see the American Medical Association's position on the identity of alcohol. (masked in yellow). I'll await further comments before posting anything else on this issue. Thank you.

69.148.205.174 (talk)Louis Summers —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Alcohol is not a narcotic in any definition other than that of a very specific POV and is not generally accepted. In particular, in the US (and other countries) "narcotic" is a legal distinction and has nothing to do (almost) with the biologic or social effect of the substance classified.  Attempting to push a specific POV that isn't at all aligned with the general mainstream of use is a violation of the NPOV unless you wanted to create a separate secton that specifically identified the singular group you reference and how they want to use 'narcotic' differently, takinig advantage of the prejudice, to push a specific social agenda.  But it has no place in the main discussion.--DrKC MD (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Narcotic vs. Opiod
As evidenced by the debate on this talk page, narcotic is a loose term with an inprecise definition and thus has limited usefulness as a classification. I think this article should limit itself to discussing the word and its different uses, and leave the pharmacological discussion of any drugs to other articles with more precise category boundaries. Specifically, narcotic is often equated with opiod, and this article currently duplicates a lot of content from the opiod article. Information on administration, effects, dependence, toxicity, etc. should be isolated to opiod. This article should discuss that narcotics technically refer to opiods, and should link to that article for users looking for more information on that topic, but also mention that there are broader uses of the term (psychoactive drugs in general) and link to articles appropriate to those uses. Steve CarlsonTalk 08:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed--Bigfootisreal (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed--Only has meaning in legal circles an has nothign to do with opioid or opiate, even though most of them do fall under the concept of psychoactive drugs.

USA versus Rest of the World
Why does the article distinguish between USA and "rest of the world"? A very odd and non-neutral weight given to a third world country ... If anything, it should distinguish between a developed country like France or Sweden and the rest of the world. E.g. "In Sweden the term "narcotic" means this ... in the rest of the world, it means ..." --Law Lord (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Its because users are being careful to provide the context of use of a term when the debate is about what a term means. You would not be able to discuss the discussion of what 'lift' means without being expclicit about how a group uses the term.  When commenting on a discuission like this, knowing the context of the author is important to distinguish given how terms are used in different countries.  There is nothing that excludes what France considers a narcotic, although I suspect there is more about that on the French language Wikipedia.--DrKC MD (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * While I suspect that this is just USA-bashing (which I, as a disgruntled American, support whole-heartedly, but not here on wikipedia), the reason that the US is called out here specifically is because we have a specialized definition for the word narcotic that is not shared by the rest of the world. If Sweden or France used the word differently, then it would be called out similarly.  May I suggest you read the article on first-world?  Those definitions were created during the Cold War to describe a nation's affiliation with NATO and capitalism (first-world), Soviet Russia (second-world), and countries that chose to remain outside of the conflict (third-world). It has since been distorted to refer to a nation's economic state, but in either case, the US is not a third-world nation.  Steve CarlsonTalk 23:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As do several other countries, and for the the same reason. The "Narcotic" laws have been extended to include other drugs. For example, in AUS, Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 [] is based on the United Nations "Single Convention On Narcotic Drugs, 1961" which includes "HEROIN" and "CANNABIS and CANNABIS RESIN"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.18.240 (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not exactly the case. We have to consider that we have an alcohol industry (US) that makes between 16 to 20 billion dollars per year off the sales of their narcotic drug to children. They will do anything to keep us from properly calling alcohol a narcotic. Our government agency the" Food and Drug Administration doesn't even classify alcohol as a drug. That's because the AI pretty much owns the decision making in that regard. So the result is a teen drinking epidemic that's not being addressed.

But the good news is the hope in the USA of restoring our representation that we're lost since the year 2000 elections.

 * That is not a POV that would be germain to include on a WP article. Perhaps your local editorial page would be a more suitable venue.  --DrKC MD (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Narcotic is a Precise Term
Narcotic is a precise term for chemicals with an established toxicology mode of action, it is not an imprecise definition. The confusion comes from the the incorrect use of the term narcotic to refer to drugs such as opiates which operate by very different modes of action. This incorrect terminology is not only specific to the US. The modes of action of non-narcotic recreation drugs is well established and not controversial. About 80% of organic chemical are thought to have their primary mode of toxicity through a narcotic mode of action. While narcotics are well known to alter the nature of the lipid layer on the outside of cells (most prominently nervous tissue, hence the effects), there are still competing hypotheses of how narcotics work on the cell membrane. The article as written is essentially correct, but could use some mechanistic descriptions of the mode of action of narcotics142.176.56.97 (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The word 'narcotic' is used by different people to mean different things, see for example the UN "Single Convention On Narcotic Drugs, 1961" and all derived legislation. At present this article notes the ambiquity, but then does not make clear which definition will be used.218.214.18.240 (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Narcotic" is used in specific circumstances only when it is defined by statue. It does not apply to a group of drugs based on biology.  Furthermore, you are incorrect about what you say about lipid bilayers that are on all cells just the same.  There are not competing hypothesis about how opioids, amphetamines, cocaine, THC, benzodiazapines, barbiturates, etc. work--they have different mechanisms which is why they have different effects.  Please do a bit more research before speaking in absolutes. --DrKC MD (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistencies
At the top of the page the article states that drugs like marijuana and LSD are not narcotics. However, later in the page they are listed as examples. Perhaps someone who is knowledgeable about the subject could edit the list of examples, since obviously at least LSD is a hallucinogen and not a narcotic. 76.118.143.136 (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

 * As pointed out by the top of the article, law enforcement uses the word "narcotic" to refer to just about any controlled substance. Medically narcotics are generally limited to opioids.  Historically, the term refers to any substance which is capable of putting someone to sleep (which would certainly rule out cocaine, amphetamines and LSD).  Perhaps we just need to make this more apparent in the article -- which substances are historically, scientifically and legally classified as "narcotics".  I think a table would prove most useful.  --Thoric (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

 * This article has been bugging me for a long time, so I finally went ahead and tried to clarify that the term simply means different things in different contexts - it is not "wrong" per se for law enforcement officials to refer to cocaine as a narcotic, since legally, it is defined as one, however imprecise that may be. This broad legal use is not limited to the United States, so if we could establish a common legal meaning (opioids + cocaine presumably) we could avoid US bias. St3vo (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

 * The list of drugs/substances at the bottom needs to be converted into a table showing in which context they are considered to be narcotics. --Thoric (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Disambugation
I propose making this article a disambugation article. It may refer to - Sedative agent - Narcotic (Illegal drug) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.190.151 (talk) 09:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Why does this article exist?
It's analogous to having an article entitled "Bad Word" or "Yummy!"98.64.162.7 (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC) one of ten people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.74.21.167 (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"CNS"????
The article mentions effects on the "CNS" without any explanation of what this means. I'm guessing "Central nervous system" but someone who knows for sure could you please add this in? No real encyclopaedia article would introduce an acronym without giving its definition. --LeakeyJee (talk) 05:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Glass of wine vs heroin bottle as picture
somebody reverted my change to a bottle of heroin as the picture to this article to a glass of red wine. why? I think heroin is a more recognizable narcotic and opiates what most people think of when they hear the word "narcotic" Dirtyfilthy (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"non-narcotic" section...
trying to find _reliable source_ info on fda and pharm companies dubiously marketing drugs as "non-narcotic"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.27.126 (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Narcotic is about a pie?
I don't understand why this article leads with saying narcotics are a pie. I don't know how to edit it either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.140.104 (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Hey, so the pronunciation at the start of the article is the north American pronunciation, but people in the UK, Australia, etc pronounce it /nɑːˈkɒt.ɪk/. I'd change it myself but I have no idea about the whole editting pronunciation thing. Thanks 124.170.29.178 (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh btw that was me ^, here's my source http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/narcotic_1?q=Narcotic

article needs work
I'd like to call attention to some issues with this article. A few of the sections have random words that need to be removed and are also structured in a non-encyclopedic fashion. For example:

'':608 F.2d 1135

 * United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Decided Oct. 31, 1979. LAY, Circuit Judge.

 * John Arthur Stieren appeals from....If cocaine is to be reclassified, defendant's arguments should be made to the legislative branch, not the courts.

 * We hold that Congress had a rational legislative purpose when it classified cocaine as a Schedule II narcotic drug for the purpose of imposing penalties.

 * JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.''

I hope that example makes it obvious. I will do some work to this at some point but for now I just want to call attention to it. The specific sections that need help are: ''UNODC terminology and information on drugs, Studies on the definition of counterfeit medicines in WHO member states, Lexicon of alcohol and drug terms published by the World Health Organization, United States Code of Federal Regulations,  US v Stieren, History.

To sum it up, there are a lot of stray words and the material seems like it was just copy/pasted from another website. Also, the non-narcotic section needs to be expanded on and needs a new link to a main article. Charles35 (talk) 08:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Agreed this article is quite a mess. There's clearly argument between the conventional usage of the word, its derivation, and the peculiar US legal definition. The History section only seems to have the history of the etymology, rather than a history of narcotics in general, which is a more interesting subject.Gymnophoria (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Heroin
I replace "heroin" with "codeine" in the section that talked about strictly controlled drug in the United States. In the U.S., heroin is a Schedule I drug and is not legal in any circumstance except DEA approved research.
 * That is a strict control. Heroin is defined as a narcotic in every statute in the US. They use different terms to classify controled substances in different juristictions.  But, in the US, the only time "narcotic" ever has a meaning is when it is defined in statute or regulation.  There is no other use of "narcotic" that has a precise meaning that would be subject of a WP article.--DrKC MD (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation
It might be best to move the various other meanings to a disambiguation page. While at it a reference to the hit by Liquido should be added. Any objections? 2A02:8109:9340:112C:E4AF:DA3B:A009:A8AD (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This article needs a little work
 I believe this article needs some minor changes. Particularly, I feel that the statement:
 * The term[narcotics]is, today, imprecisely defined and typically has negative connotations.

needs to be more closely associated specifically with law enforcement;   and the statement:
 * From a pharmacological standpoint it[narcotics] is not a useful term

is inaccurate and should probably be removed.  I realize that these statements are sourced; but I have at least a dozen reliable sources which contradict the existing one or two references. But before I make any changes, I would like to find out how other editors feel. Richard27182 (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * From a pharmacologic standpoint "narcotic" isn't used. It is only used with any real meaning in legal definitions.  It has zero meaning within medical/pharmacologic parlance.  --DrKC MD (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

PROPOSED CHANGE:

I would like to make a change in the article which would include changing the sentence:

to

I'm not planning on including the following additional references, but I present them here as additional support for my case:
 * britannica.com
 * macmillandictionary.com see definition #1 (medical)
 * emedicine.medscape.com
 * washingtonpost.com
 * CVS.com
 * consumerreports.org
 * Ball State University
 * Cambridge Dictionaries Online
 * National Public Radio

If anyone would have any objections to this change, please let's discuss it here before anything is done to the article itself. Richard27182 (talk) date=2015-NOV-05 (somehow the date didn't show up, so I'm adding it manually)

 * From a medical POV "narcotic" isn't used. It only has connotation of a legally prohibited substance in clinical use.  Do not confuse "narcotic", which deals with prohibition, from "controlled substance" which deals with how a substance can be legally used, from the various types of drugs which are included in this.  Some controlled substance (e.g. anabolic steroids) are not typically included as a "narcotic" AFAIK.  Ask a lawyer!  From a clinician POV, it is a term that I would discourage use even in casual settings and certainly in discussions with patients.  The reason we have so much jargon in medicine is because of our need to speak clearly and precisely.  "Narcotic" is never either in a clinical discussion.  You can warn a patient that the drug is classified as a "narcotic" in the context of why they absolutely cannot share it with someone and why they can only use it as prescribed--but the consequences of misusing a "narcotic" are legal, not medical.  If you misuse an opioid you can become addicted.  It is a property of opioids.  If you misuse a narcotic you can become arrested.  It is a property of narcotics.  The two apply to some of the same drugs, but they have different meanings and it is very important to not confound them.--DrKC MD (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

FINAL NOTICE: I'm planning to actually implement my proposed changes in the next 48 hours. (This will include removing the antiquated text from the 1800's used to back up the statement l'll be replacing.)  If anyone who follows this article objects, please say something now and we'll discuss it. Richard27182 (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have made the change to the article. If anyone disagrees with the change or has a problem with it, please don't edit war; we can discuss it here and work out a solution. Richard27182 (talk) 09:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

This is two articles that have been jammed into one
This article needs to be split in two. It currently contains a mishmash of: Strangely, the Narcotics (disambiguation) page that is linked to in the first paragraph does not even refer to this article! Fixed.
 * Narcotics (legal treatment); and
 * Narcotics (scientific definition).

Finally, the two articles that result from splitting this will require some major rewriting and formatting changes. I am happy to do some of this, but suggest that the split needs some consensus (e.g. titles) before any definitive change is made - and I do not have the skills or time to create a new Wikipedia article. Yet. Ambiguosity (talk) 07:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 * There is no scientific definition of a narcotic. It does not applly to a group of substances with similar effects or chemistry. The only time it is used with any sort of precision is in legal statues where the term is typically very precisely defined. Legal definitions and science are not remotely connected.  --DrKC MD (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Narcotic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090520040341/http://www.incb.org/incb/convention_1961.html to http://www.incb.org/incb/convention_1961.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Narcotic