Talk:Inhalant abuse

Petrol vs Gasoline

I am aware that the content of Wikipedia is for use around the world, but I also think it necessary to point out that I almost missed the information I was looking for on Petrol-sniffing amongst Aborigines. The simple reason for this is in the wording. The word "Gasoline" is not used in Australia(except in American movies).

Accessibility considerations aside, however, the information in this section is most likely to be relevant to Australians. I am therefore changing the wording to reflect the name given to the practice in Australia.

Does anyone feel that it's necessary to discuss this further? Johno (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Local colloquialisms aside: technically "gasoline" is the 'petrolium product' referred to by both regional slang terms "gas" & "petrol" 216.227.117.35 (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Blah Blah

Do you really think this article should begin with, "Blah blah blah"? Violet Yoshi (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Patterns of Non-Medical Usage: Africa

Is the text referring to a specific 'something' that is no longer there, or did the author think there was no inhalant abuse in Africa? Because I can assure you it's rampant, but I'm hesitant to edit to reflect this in case the present version is in fact trying to say something true that I'm unaware of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ytterix (talk • contribs) 00:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

important note

i think it should be mentioned somewhere that huffing cyanoacrylates is analogous to slow suicide due to the abundance of formaldehyde in the fumes emitted as it undergoes hydration and hardens —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.67.41 (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Lumped together?

I'm not sure that solvents should be lumped together with nitrous oxide and amyl nitrate. What's next? Should we add cocaine to this article since it's "inhaled"? It seems to me there is a vast difference between inhaled solvents and inhaled psychoactive chemicals. Gigs (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The only way cocaine is inhaled is if it is smoked. Though I believe what you mean is insufflation, which is so it can be absorbed by the mucous membrane, which has little to do with inhaling at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.158.24 (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That isn't his point, nitrous oxide is a psychoactive drug unlike say butane which just causes hypoxia. Sincerally, C6541 (T↔C) at 18:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The difference between nitrous oxide and butane is not that one is psychoactive and one is not. Butane and other solvents and fuels are most certainly psychoactive when inhaled (hypoxia *may* be a major cause, but that just describes a mechanism of action), but while nitrous oxide and amyl nitrite can be used with relative safety as long as one is educated and responsible about said use and uses appropriate caution - there is no such thing as safe use of solvents/fuels, etc due to the physical damage they do to the body.

I think thats what Gigs' was referring to above and his problem with nitrous/amyl nitrate being "lumped together" with other inhalants. 74.80.58.186 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC).

I agree that alkyl nitite inhallation has certain characteristics that distinguishes it from other forms of inhalent use (i.e. glue, thinners, butane, etc). One difference is that poppers are specifically manufactured (by PWD[1], for example) for recreational inhallation (and are sold under trademarked names such as "Rush", "Buzz", etc) whereas most sales of glue/thinners/butane/petrol are used for gluing/thinning/burning/driving and their manufacturers (BP, Loctite, UHU, etc) regard inhallation negatively and have no interest in marketing their products as inhallants. Also, there is the issue of target audiences - I would think that statistics would show clear differences between groups using petrol/glue/acetone and those using poppers, with little overlap between the groups, although this is just supposition 87.115.159.209 (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a clear difference between users, and N2O use rises with age while the use of others drops. http://archives.drugabuse.gov/pdf/monographs/129.pdf

Some other stuff could be improved; "blood levels peak rapidly" is not true for diethyl ether since it's quite soluble in water. I don't think there has been much evidence of brain damage in users, except following accidental asphyxiation, and acetone abuse seems unlikely, unless it's an ingredient of some composition.

"Inhalant users inhale vapors or aerosol propellant gases using plastic bags held over the mouth or by breathing from an open container " is mentioned two times. Maybe I'll work on it later. DS Belgium (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Dusting

I was about to move "Dusting (inhalent abuse)" to "Dusting (inhalant abuse)" (since the article does, in fact, refer to inhalant abuse and not abuse of the intake portion of a duct) when I came upon this article and realized that this seems to me to be the best place for this information. However, since it's already pretty long and there is some discussion of which inhalants do and do not belong in the article, I've just put up the proposal for now.Originalname37 (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Drop it into the section under other inhalants and whippits.--Knulclunk (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The Dusting article is poor in quality and cites no sources for the preachy second paragraph. I would include the definition and description and find sources to substantiate the rest.BGinOC (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, just do it folks. There are far, far too many stub articles in Wikipedia, for which by far the easiest, most pragmatic solution is to merge into a broader category so that the information, and the efforts of the originating editor/s are not lost. Dusting is one such article. Inhalant abuse pertains to a broad category of phenomena. Dusting is a sub-category. The article on dusting is currently too brief to warrant retaining on its own. It is however about the right length for a brief sub-section in an article on the broader category to which it belongs. As I've said with other merges which I've commented upon, if perchance the sub-section grows to a point that it warrants its own article again, the solution is simple: split it, retaining a brief paragraph and a link to the main article. All quite straightforward. Cheers Wotnow (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Inhaling..

Inhaling can also cause your lips and parts of your face to become numb. Depending on how much you inhale and what it can last a while..like an hour. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Livelifefull (talk • contribs) 11:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well yeah. That is how I sort laundry to see what needs to be rewashed - if it is clean (ie free from air freshener) then my cheeks don't go numb. However, you got to wait until your cheeks thaw out to be able to tell after a few to be rewashed items are found. MCS is like Inhaling (same substances and same symptoms) but you get wasted on less. 24.77.75.185 (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

"Inhalant users tend to be people who are bored or do not have access to other drugs or alcohol, such as children, teenagers, incarcerated or institutionalized people, and marginalized individuals"

I feel there are a few issues with this statement:

1. "....do not have access to other drugs or alcohol, such as ... teengagers" - while teenegers do not have legal access to alcohol, I think it is a bit of an overstatement to say "do not have access". If anything, solvent abuse would probably be more prevalent in those that do drink

2. Alkyl Nitries (poppers) - main group of users traditionally are homosexual males - not really any of the groups listed (unlesss they are being classified as "marginalized individuals", which would not be NPOV)

3. "..people who are bored..." - sound unencylopedic, possible not NPOV

4. " ..do not have access to other drugs ... such as ...incarcerated people" - the availability of drugs inside the prison system is well documented, so I'm a bit dubious that convicted criminals would use inhale gasoline or aerosols as opposed to the readily avaialable stronger narcotics. 87.112.13.164 (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Splitting up?

I would argue that glue sniffing and petrol sniffing deserver their own articles. The former is fairly important in European culture, the latter in Australian culture. Thoughts? Egg Centric (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible Copyright Violation

It seems more likely, just based on feel of the website the text is claimed to be from, that the website is copying wikipedia's text. Sections of it appear to come from the Recreational drug use article, as well. 137.113.210.61 (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not a copyright issue, this website cites Wikipedia as a source of their material. The reason this appears to be that this article cites the webpage as a source. I cannot find this citation in this article though. --JamesGrimshaw (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

SAP Connection?

Look in socioeconomic factors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.17.194 (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Article states that structural adjustment programs might be responsible for increased inhalant abuse. The source does talk about poverty stricken countries and their increased abuse of inhalants among young people, but does not try to connect that to SAPs.

I think its an interesting idea (whoever edited the page to say SAP's caused this) but their is no source to really back this connection up. Seems to be a political jab against SAP programs (which many argue has increased poverty in the countries that use them). 75.111.17.194 (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)