Talk:Methamphetamine/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

History/Legality in the US should be more international

The country specific legality information is included lower down. In the history section I think the legality should be discussed in a more international way, or simply referenced to the country specific information below. dmcg026 01:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Meth mouth image

My reasoning for removing the meth mouth image:

• All it shows is advanced tooth decay. There's nothing that distinguishes it from decay caused by anything else.
• Tooth decay requires bacteria and an acidic environment. No amount of meth will cause tooth decay with proper hygiene. Thus, it's not fair to say that the image shows the effects of meth, any more than it shows the effects of not brushing your teeth and not going to the dentist.
• Meth can promote tooth decay. It can dramatically speed it up. But it can't be "the" cause, since there is no single cause.

Miserlou, I don't see any previous discussion about this image. What were you referring to in your edit comment? KonradG 04:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Meth Mouth is a very real condition, there is a full article about, it is noted by the American Dental Association, it is featured in all of the documentaries about meth, and the picture in question, if you look at the description, is of an actual case of meth mouth. The picture is used in the meth mouth sub article and should definitely be used in the meth main article as it clearly illustrates actual effects of prolonged meth abuse. The picture itself isn't unnecessarily shocking, it is simply real. Wikipedia is about truth and should not be censored because you happen to think an image is for "shock value", when in fact it is provided for encyclopedic illustration.

Miserlou 07:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You've reverted someone else change with the comment that the image has been discussed on the talk page. So I'm asking for the second time where that discussion is. As far as I can see, there is no consensus that this image is appropriate.

KonradG 05:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

KonradG... to dispute "methmoth" displays your ignorance... it is a documented condition that can easily be cited.... and it is much more than simple irresponsibility. 05:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)BIG franky

Just because Meth users are too irresponsible to brush their teeth does not infer Meth is the cause. Only the individual choice to ignore dental hygiene would be the genuine cause. Horrifying reality is for those who can't handle drugs. Heartless drug war (or any other war) supporters constitute the epitome ignorance.

If we know prohibition doesn't work (proven for more than 80 years) and only creates a street market for crime, violence, child addiction, and destruction of innocent lives (prohibition creating anarchy), to continue the drug war madness (reminiscent of witch hunt days) means we are either stupid or irresponsibly greedy or both. Profit gains are far more promising than allowing people an education.

Meth Mouth? More like irresponsible mouth, similar to the crap people spew in discussion with few exceptions. Alphaquad 17:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

first, let us stop using attack words like ignorance. I found this article to be very quite factual as having lived in the meth culture for some time. The issue of "meth mouth" is somewhat up for debate, however the fact that I as well as many friends have had similar issues with our teeth is enough to end all debate, at least for me. I had near perfect teeth at the age of 17 and after two years of chronic meth useleft me with a mouth of disfigured extremely decayed teeth that still need replacing. I did not take care of my teeth as a direct result of my meth use, generally good oral hygeine is the last thing you think of when your main concern is procuring more meth for tommorrow. it is VERY irresponsible to ridicule attempts to banish this substance, while I am sympathetic with your dislike of the methods in which the government uses, if you honestly think that it is o.k. to allow meth to be used please talk to anyone in meth anonymous or sitting in jail as the price of their addictions. please place any pictures that would discourage the use of this drug. I still have chronic depression after ten years of abstinance my teeth are ruined and the amount of people I hurt in my attemps to procure more crystal should be enough for anybody to agree that meth must be eradicated.

Wikipedia isnt arguing for or against prohibition in this article and that has no bearing on the "meth mouth" issue...even if one was for canceling the prohibition on meth use one could still argue and present evidence that it was harmful...anyways its not wikipedias place to argue for or against prohibitions on meth...while specific editors may have opinions, thats fine, and is appropriate for the talk pages...so u are jusitified in bringing ur concerns to the talk page and bringing the subject up...wikipedia articles, however, are for factual information...and ur are correct that wikipedia should put out the most accurate info on the topic and doesnt want to get caught into falsehoods...the fact is there is much info out there decrying meths effect on the teeth...the article even specifically addresses this point that the effect of the drug in general is what causes the associated tooth decay and not merely direct chemical effect...yet as it dries the mouth out and reduces saliva cleansing and buffering of the teeth that is indeed a direct effect...the article does explain as well though that behaviors associated with meth use are a prime factor in causing meth mouth...and if all it was is that meth altered behavior consistently that led to tooth decay...then indeed it would cause or promote tooth decay and it should be mentioned even if there was no "direct" effect...however if u can find information and studies showing that meth users have no excessive problems with tooth decay wikipedia would want them...if there is indeed scientific controversy over this we would wish it known...so find some reliable studies that show us that these concerns, of those such as the american dental association, are unfounded, and give us some links...other wikipedia users are fully justified putting up their links to pages like the american dental association, and letting the ADA's concern that meth is a problem for the teeth come into the article on the subject...just as u are justified if u can find organizations and scientific studies that point out meth has no harmful effect on teeth...i read an article saying the meth mouth thing was exaggerated in many peoples articles on it, so i know the arguments, and this article still did acknowledge that at least behaviors caused by meth can lead to the tooth problems and it mentioned the dry mouth and lack of saliva issues too... the other articles i read consistently said it was a concern...and explained the reasoning...i am adding the NY Times article that explains a dentist saying there isnt much study into the issue yet, but dentists have themselves been noting a serious problem here with this...from what i see wikipedia is justified in mentioning it and placing up the photo from the ADA...the ADA isnt a drug policy organization...they just want healthy teeth...and after reading an article critical of exagerrations of meth mouth in articles i dont feel wikipedia has made those mistakes...i think wikipedia has stuck pretty much to the objective facts on this issue and doesnt exaggerate it...plus it takes no stand pro or against prohibition on meth...just is putting info on it up...look to some other more important cause than defending meth against accusations of tooth decay...theres plenty out there...yet if u want give us some links to some pro-meth studies...bye...Benjiwolf 01:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: studies of meth not promoting tooth decay On page 441 of my 2002 Physician's Desk Reference ( I don't find meth in my 2007 edition) covering Abbott Labs product Desoxyn, which they say is methamphetamine hydrochloride, we find no mention of dental sequelae under Precautions, Contraindications, Adverse Reactions, etc. Presumably, even though amphetamines are old and kinda-understood drugs, there were some FDA safety and efficacy clinical trial hoops Abbott had to jump through to bring Desoxyn to market (they gave this product to children, after all). The postulated anti-tooth effect would have to have been slight, to slip through. I vote it's more likely poor-self-care , or in the case of meth-smokers, a consequence of the ruinous method of administration rather than of the substance itself.9eyedeel (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)...

One thing you have to understand is this is article is not unique to the medical use of methamphetamine but is to its use as a whole including misuse and recreational use. Whilst the oral ingestion of methamphetamine may not cause tooth decay, it is a stable side effect; by pure statistics, observation and studies themselves; that recreational and misusers of methamphetamine, particularly subjects who resort to the smoked route of administration, demonstrate characteristics such as tooth decay/degradation. The word decay may not be the right word as damage to teeth can be from factors apart from decay caused by sugar itself. Damage to teeth is not limited to sugar based decay, which often is a misconception when it comes to proving some drugs do destroy teeth. You are simply assuming this article is dealing only with the medical consumption of methamphetamine whic is limited orally, when infact this article covers all associated aspects of methamphetamine use. An accurate analogy of this discussion: claiming diacetylmorphine (heroin) use does not increase the risk of HIV, STD's, septicemia and damaged veins when infact illicit and street use of diacetylmorphine, by users who choose the IV method of administration, pose such risks, directly, as proven over and over via a multitude of studies; However, diacetylmorphine (heroin) in a hospital setting does not carry any of these risks as shown with its use in hospitals in the UK and other European country who still regard heroin as a next in-line anti-pain medication after morphine. You have to understand that the risks posed by drugs are not always direct, but also indirect relative to the setting, circumstance and intention of use. You cannot generalize a medical setting for the use of methamphetamine with that of its street use. It is 100% acceptable to include the picture and list all the side effects and traits associated with methamphetamine misuse and use as a euphoriant rather than with a medicinal use, however, also noting to the reader, that such risks are minimal in the medical latitude. I hope this closes this discussion and allows the original user to proceed with demonstrating risks of methamphetamine misuse. To the user who mistakenly claims tooth decay is directly associated with poor oral hygiene: You are wrong, however, I base your assumption to your lack of understanding of teeth deterioration; inhalation of far acidic/ far alkaline gases/smoke, ingestion of chemicals/medicine with root and dentin (of some in proxy enamel weakening) weakening properties, ingestion of acidic, fizzy liquids, drinking colorant liquids such as coffee and many other factors contribute to the change of teeth colour and its degradation, not just sugar and poor oral hygiene. While the use and regular brushing of teeth does help minimize teeth hazardous factors, they do not stop them if the exposure if continuous. A study in Iran directly linked chronic ingestion of opium with the loss of teeth, not due to decay/poor oral hygiene, but dentin and root weakening effects due to some of its alkaloids. Many factors such as dry mouth etc. contribute to teeth degradation, not just poor oral hygiene and sugar. Personally, I would disagree with the conclusion that a meth mouth is due to lack of oral hygiene, saliva etc. Marijuana users exhibit to a far greater degree, dry mouth, lack of saliva and consumption of sugary drinks due to "munchies", however, they do not exhibit meth mouth. As a profesisonal, I would put down meth mouth due to meth vapors and smoke which are on the extreme end of the pH scale directly degrading teeth. It's very simple, vaporize methamphetamine and have the vapors flow through a ph indicator. You will have your answer.--78.86.159.199 (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed text

I have removed the following piece of text:

Many consider it dangerous and highly toxic to humans for many reasons, when not used in a legitimate medical setting.[1][2][3][4] In addition to reported neurotoxicity it is considered to promote violent behaviors sometimes, and in San Diego County 1/8 of all homicides in 1987 involved meth. Its effects on reproduction vary, with definite negative impacts on users, yet few reported impacts on fetuses besides higher aggression levels reported in the children later on, but it is passed through the breast milk and this may negatively impact the children of users as well. Special procedures have been established to deal with and clean up clandestine meth labs, as the residues are poisonous and can negatively impact children and women especially. It has been reported, however, that meth in addition to other harms may shrink the male testicles somewhat, and a single dose in the neighborhood of a human dose of 500mg to 1 gram elicted this. So even entering the room where a meth lab has been, is questionable for anyone without protective gear, houses where it is made are blocked from the public until they have been remediated, and those entering meth labs to clean them do in fact use protective gear to protect from the various toxic chemicals used in its manufacture and from meth itself.[5] Statistics show that the purity level has been increasing and predict greater deleterious effect from this. It is illegal to use and is placed in the greatest threat level of drug category in the UK & Canada, and in schedule 2 in the states (as of its sometimes limited temporary medical use in small amounts). Users are sometimes referred to as "tweakers" as a result of twitching and other behaviors sometimes observed. The american dental association puts out specific guidelines to deal with the negative impact crystal meth has on the mouth [6], and a term has been coined to characterize the often horrendous state of a meth users teeth as "meth mouth".[7][8] In addition it has been shown that meth can act in tandem with the HIV virus to cause even greater neurotoxic effects than with meth alone.[9][10]

First of all, it is disputed, two editors add and remove this over and over. That dispute is somewhere else on this talkpage, my concerns are different.

This text contains weasel words: "Many consider it dangerous ..", "..few reported impacts on fetuses.." Furthermore, some sentences are illogical: "Its effects on reproduction vary, with definite negative impacts on users, yet few reported impacts on fetuses besides higher aggression levels reported in the children later on, but it is passed through the breast milk and this may negatively impact the children of users as well."; the sentence starts with 'effects on reproduction', whereas the next half of the sentence describes fetuses and then children, what is the subject of this sentence? The whole sentence is not referenced, which is also a problem. Moreover, the whole paragraph is not wikified.

I suggest that after the discussion above has settled, and when addition seems to be the conclusion, this section gets rewritten, wikified, etc., before it gets readded again. Happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Has the dispute about this section been settled yet? I couldn't find the discussion about it? Also wanted to note that the location of the NYT article referenced for "meth mouth" has changed [11]. From what is written there and mentioned in the ADA report this doesn't seem to be directly caused by meth, but a side effect of the user stopping to take care of personal hygiene? 84.61.221.250 10:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Found it. Sorry for messing around editing so much. 84.61.221.250 10:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Heard on Loveline, 2/18/07, approx 11:10pm Dr. Drew stated that meth is highly concentrated in semen. I don't think it can transfer a high though. Just for drug testing. Possible side effects.

Remind me not to take a shot in the mouth and drive next time ;-) Timeshift 07:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

better yet, do it, you may drive better than usual ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.167.184.84 (talk) 07:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is another credible source article about "meth mouth" from 'The Medical Journal of Australia'. http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/186_12_180607/letters_180607_fm-4.html .

"To the Editor: Single case reports of “meth mouth”, similar to that recently published in the Journal,1 exaggerate the dental problems surrounding the use of methamphetamines. Evidence that methamphetamines cause grinding and wear of teeth,2 xerostomia,3 and cravings for sweet drinks is weak. The drug use reported by Shetty was intravenous or intranasal, not oral. While systemic effects may contribute to dental problems, local oral effects associated with acidity of methamphetamines would be minimal with intravenous or intranasal drug use.

A more plausible explanation for dental disease may be the years of neglect, trauma and poor diet experienced by many people who use drugs.4 Many drug users begin using as early as 14 years of age and consume multiple illegal psychoactive and legal antipsychotic and antidepressant medications associated with xerostomia. A comprehensive drug-use history is required before dental problems are attributed to one drug..."

Hopefully some of that article or at least its source could be incorporated into the main article, as I think it presents some credible information not yet discussed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha4beta2 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Slipping quality

The quality of this article is slipping. What is happening to the medical section? Other info is clumped in there randomly now. Miserlou 06:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Part of the issue is due to the constant vandalism that occurs with this article. Perhaps an anonymous block on the article might help cool peoples heels for a while. It's just a drug, if you (like me) don't consume it, then don't feel the need to vandalise it. Timeshift 15:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I just did that a few days ago, but the block has expired now. It seemed effective, so go ahead and request another (maybe longer) one. KonradG 16:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Partly a quality criticism. Footnotes 13 & 14 relate to 1.9 tonnes of pseudoephedrine being seized. The assumption is that pseudoephedrine as a precursor to methamphetamine has a 1:1 conversion factor by weight - ie with a street value of $100 per gram this equals $1.9 billion. This claim is not proven. How can a poor claim like this be left in, while pharmacology section is removed?? 202.89.182.35 19:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The quality is no longer slipping, it is gone, along with NPOV. As of 20070826, it is a blemish whose nomination for FA status is atrocitous (or so I hope). 84.48.95.71 21:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed Pharmacology Section

I removed the Pharmacology Section(Which I am preserving below):

Methamphetamine is a potent central nervous system stimulant which affects neurochemical mechanisms responsible for regulating heart rate, body temperature, blood pressure, appetite, attention, mood and responses associated with alertness or alarm conditions. The methyl group is responsible for the potentiation of effects as compared to the related compound amphetamine, rendering the substance more lipid soluble and easing transport across the blood brain barrier.

Methamphetamine causes the dopamine and norepinephrine transporters to reverse their direction of flow. This inversion leads to a release of these transmitters from the vesicles to the cytoplasm and from the cytoplasm to the synapse, causing increased stimulation of post-synaptic receptors. Methamphetamine also indirectly prevents the reuptake of these neurotransmitters, causing them to remain in the synaptic cleft for a prolonged period. Serotonin levels are only weakly affected (ratio NE: DA = 2:1, NE:5HT = 60:1). It is a potent neurotoxin, shown to cause dopaminergic degeneration.

The acute effects of the drug closely resemble the physiological and psychological effects of an epinephrine-provoked fight-or-flight response, including increased heart rate and blood pressure, vasoconstriction (constriction of the arterial walls), bronchodilation, and hyperglycemia (increased blood sugar). Users experience an increase in focus, increased mental alertness, and the elimination of fatigue, as well as a decrease in appetite.

I removed this section because the section was not specific to which enantiomer it was refering to. From now on I propose that this entire article be only about information pertaining to mixtures of the enantiomers, it turns out that any of these mixtures would be considered illicit in every country, so basically this article will be about "street meth" or "ice". However because this article is titled, 'methamphetamine', there shall remain a very small section on medical uses of the two methamphetamine enantiomers and links for readers to follow to easily reach each enantiomer(which IMO doesn't need to be expanded past what that medical section contains riht now right now).

I am preserving the Pharmacology information here because I did not write it and I believe it could possibly be used in the methamphetamine entantiomer articles, whoever feels they have a good understanding of the cites in the above preserved information should apply information to the appropriate entantiomer. [User:Edward Bower] (wiki wont allow me to log in for more then a few seconds from this location so i have to be an IP right now)69.19.14.35 03:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you should have waited for agreement from other editors before removing the infobox!

Ok sorry bout that

Ben 11:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that meth does not generally refer to a racemic mixture. It may have been simpler to make both l and d forms in the 60s, when the P2P synthesis was common. But even that was just a matter of convenience for illicit producers operating in the US in that particular time. It's not a defining characteristic, and I think you're creating an articifical distinction. KonradG 01:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand what you're saying however I did not say it was a racemic mixture i said it was a mixture of enantiomers. People purchasing something called "meth" anywhere but in a pharmacy will probably get a mixture of enantiomers. Why would clandestin chemists concerned with profits care the least about their product being of one enantiomer, especially when its more costly and time consuming to do so?User:Edward Bower66.82.9.46 04:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Methamphetamine produced by the most common methods (reduction of ephedrine/pseudoephedrine) results in d-methamphetamine exclusively. Therefore it can be assumed that the majority of illicit methamphetamine is the d-enantiomer along with various adulterants and diluents. The l-enantiomer is not considered to be particularly addictive or abuseable compared to d-methamphetamine. --Bk0 (Talk) 04:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Although that method be the most frequently practiced, is it the method employed to produce extremely large quantaties for distrobution? A mixture containing some of the R enantiomer would extend the period of being 'high' for the abusers. If mass quantities also have been synthesised quickily, and contain some R enantiomer, for distrubtion and consiquently it would have a longer 'high' life for the buyers. Anyway this is all asuming that reduction of ephedrine is not how the majority of 'meth' weight has been produced....You could be correct Bk0 but theres better ways then ephedrine, right?User:Edward Bower66.82.9.58 08:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

One gets the impression that this page is edited by anorexic, teeth-grinding clandestine chemists. The articles on nearly every other drug are good quality. But for some *inexplicable reason* this one sux.24.158.33.86 08:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Separate Enteries Kept in Wikipeida for different enantisomers

Wiki has a page for the R enantisomer. I assert that this page is not about the S enantisomer and a page should be kept for the S enantisomer because this page contains information about illicit methamphetamine, illicit methamphetamine is not regulated and not controlled and therefore does not contain only the S enantisomer. I request that other reasons for and reasons against keeping a page which is exclusively about the S enantisomer. Discussion on this topic will hopefully now commence below: Edward Bower 18:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That was ostensibly the reason for keeping the Desoxyn article, though I think it should be renamed to something like "Medical Use of Methamphetamine", since it isn't actually about the brand. See sections 3-5 of Talk:Desoxyn.

On a related note, I have nothing against a separate article specifically about medical use, but let's not pretend this is about enantiomers. Two people already explained to you that illicit synthesis usually only produces one enantiomer. Even if it did, many, if not most, illicit drugs contain fillers or impurities. So what? Nobody pretends that medical cocaine is a different drug from "street cocaine", even though the latter is often *mostly* filler. KonradG 22:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The substance they ephedrine is now controlled, so I need to be provided with a cite acknolging that ephedrine is now controlled and how this has impacted illict synthesis. I have a source which was written while controlling ephedrine was being debated that speaks of possible consquences and impacts.Edward Bower 03:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Try [12] and [13]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KonradG (talk • contribs) 16:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Levomethamphetamine

All references to L-Meth and the Vicks Inhaler were deleted! Why?! That was very important! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Miserlou (talk • contribs) 01:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC).Miserlou 01:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it because, apart from a few sentences, the entire article is specifically about d-meth. I realize it's called "Methamphetamine", which technically includes both, but presumably that's only because titles should follow the convention on common names. That's why I added the disambiguation at the top. P.S. Since you've popped up again, where is that discussion on the meth mouth image, which you previously mentioned? KonradG 18:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

How many of the sources cited on the methamphetamine page are about d-methamphetamine? Why does this page warrent a disambiguation saying that it is about d-methamphetamine and not l-methamphetamine? Edward Bower 03:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Meth Not Deadly ?

I have heard of people dying from using Meth, you telling me its not deadly is lies to me ! Gunnaraztek 04:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Who ever said you could not die from 'Meth'?.Edward Bower 15:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You can die from water, I bet you more people (over 16000 alone in the US) die from NSAIDS pain relievers then methamphetamine or any amphetamine to be precise. C6541 (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Pharmacology section needed

I see that a Pharmacology section was removed last month, but this article desperately needs one - this article is more a social history of the drug than a real encyclopedia entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.6.213.236 (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

This page isn't about pharmacologicals its about an illegal drug.Edward Bower 05:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No it's not. That statement doesn't even make sense, since all drugs have pharmacological properties. KonradG 11:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

So since it's illict then what are it's pharmacological properties, completely side effects?Edward Bower 19:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with legal status. Pharmacological properties refer to the drug's effects on the body. What you consider a therapeutic property rather than a side-effect is compeltely up to you. KonradG 22:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Pharmacology section now in place has no citations but makes some strong claims about hypertension and death. Can someone (preferably the author) put some citations in place for this - otherwise I will remove any such material. Thanks. Halogenated (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the primary dubious material - cold water and coffee producing a high risk of death when high on meth? Not likely. But I'll accept it with a proper peer reviewed citation. Otherwise common sense prevails. Halogenated (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have edited it myself, but I realized it was blocked. I think it would be useful to add a link to "half life" in the pharmacology section. Hackerdiabolico (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Methamphetamine variants

I came to the Wikipedia article to try to find out what the various different forms of the drug are. I had previously been given to understand that crystal meth was essentially a freebase form of methamphetamine hydrochloride, i.e. they have the same relationship as do crack cocaine and cocaine hydrochloride. The Wikipedia article "Freebase" seems to contradict this by stating that freebase meth is a yellow liquid. Could someone who knows about chemistry please give us a little more information about this? 86.147.157.43 23:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

'Crystal Meth' is venacular that would usuasually mean methamphetamine hydrochloride, it is not a freebase. For more information ask in a web forum this is not a webforum, the answer to your question could have been easily obtained from a google search.Edward Bower 21:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Methamphetamine is virtually never available as a freebase, but rather as the hydrochloride salt, as Edward Bower notes. The salt is more stable, water-soluble, and boils at a low enough temperature to be 'smoked' (actually vaporized), so there is no reason to 'freebase' it. Compare cocaine, which is water-soluble in its salt form (can be absorbed through mucous membranes easily) but cocaine HCl vaporizes at so high a temperature that much of the drug is lost to pyrolysis so it must be freebased in order to smoke. By the way ... don't smoke stimulant drugs.

This article needs to be fixed and LOCKED

Edward Bower 00:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I, on reading this article for the first time found an inaccuracy: "Hitler was injected with meth every day from 1942 until 1945" ... The citation 5 cited goes to a dead link, and the article on the doctor doesn't reference this "fact". I would like to know the source of this info, if it is reliable, it is interesting and very noteworthy. I know there has been a lot of speculation among historians. Because the article is locked, I couldn't remove the dead link from the references section and put a citation needed thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.224.141 (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dimethylphenethylamine

why is it called methamphetamine, amphetamine is short for alpha methyl phenethylamine so Methamphetamine would be N,α Dimethylphenethylamine —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Right Honourable (talk • contribs) 11:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

(One) correct name for methamphetamine is indeed (N,α)-dimethylphenethylamine. However, since it is "amphetamine" plus an additional methyl group at the N, you get "methylamphetamine" or "methamphetamine." You get this with a lot of the substituted phenethylamines, amphetamine has become a base descriptive structure. So calling methamphetamine "doubly methylated phenethylamine" and "methylated amphetamine" are both correct. Or n-methyl-1-phenyl-propan-2-amine. Or you could make a fancy substituted benzene out of it ... whatever you like.

Environmental effects of illegal meth labs?

I've read over the years of the environmental effects, in the form of ground pollution, of careless disposal of the waste associated with home methamphetamine labs. I understand these hazardous waste sites can be costly for governments to clean up, and that this illegal disposal can result in carcinogenic pollution of municipal groundwater, for example. In this case, home manufacturing and its illegal market for personal use can have—indirectly—significant public consequences. An added paragraph on this topic might be useful. Fagiolonero 07:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

One could also discuss the prosecution of meth 'cookers' for environmental offenses related to the illegal disposal of the dangerous chemicals related to meth production. Where I live, the local DA prosecutes meth 'cookers' for such offenses as environmental crimes and child endangerment (if children could be nearby). Meth 'cookers' are among the most blatant 'midnight dumpers' these days.

One couple was so rash as to attempt to conceal meth paraphenalia around childrens' toys and to use a portable swimming pool for mixing the substances.

Offenders are often caught as suppliers of precursor chemicals; at times users are caught with evidence in the form of blister packs for decongestants scattered across a car floor.

The reckless theft of anhydrous ammonia from farmers can result in the escape of ammonia fumes that kill livestock. I can imagine the civil and legal consequences of killing livestock through such behavior, as well as theft of the ammonia itself. --Paul from Michigan 07:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The environmental effects of clandestine labs are hysterical propaganda. One's exposure to gasoline when fueling a car is as bad as hanging around a meth lab for the same amount of time. An old pickup truck spews more carcinogenic oil and fumes. Very reactive chemicals are quickly neutralized by the environment. The insidious stuff like say, benzene, is just a tiny incremental addition to the load we have in the 21st century. Which is not to say that it is good, just pretty irrelevant compared to the rampant problem of the drug abuse itself. And a totally irrelevant complete waste of enviro-tax-money. Even the issue of children in the homes of meth "cooks" with assorted chemicals is overrated as children of junkies are in a bad situation, period. Obviously, the parents should be prosecuted and the children taken away. Farmers could simply make sure they have a good line of sight from the bedroom window for shooting ammonia thieves (just take care not to hit the tank). 24.158.33.86 08:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with the above user. The immensely tiny environmental impact from these labs relative to the amount of legal (and illegal) toxic waste dumping that occurs in the USA and globally is laughable. Groundwater contamination from leaking underground gasoline tanks is ubiquitous, yet you don't see red flags going up everywhere. Fortunately benzene, the main concern, rapidly biodegrades relative to many organic solvents. Ammonia is sprayed on fields in massive quantities - a few fumes from amateur theft is negligible, and ammonia is a very common form of nitrogen (although dangerous in anhydrous form). The incredible production put on by the EPA and police outfits over environmental impacts on health from the chemicals used in these labs ought to win awards for best dramatic role. It's simply a propaganda tool to create a culture of fear over drug use spearheading the latest craze against meth. Sorry for the opinions, but it gets out of hand sometimes Halogenated (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The impact of meth 'cooking' upon the environment (and this does not even account for explosions or fires involving meth labs) relates, of course, to the need by 'cookers' to conceal their illicit activity. Most of the substances used in illicit meth labs are also industrial chemicals. That said, licit use of industrial chemicals involves overt regulation of the disposal of wastes and the usual incentives for recycling of used chemicals. Licit users of dangerous chemicals such as strong acids in industrial processes have the powerful incentive of avoiding fines and lawsuits.

I am aware of the licit use of ammonia, anhydrous or otherwise as a fertilizer, and that in small quantities -- a little whiff -- it isn't quite in the same category as arsenic or mercury. That said, large quantities can kill livestock. Likewise, dilution ordinarily serves as a good means of disposing of strong alkalies and acids whose salts aren't particularly hazardous (sulfates, nitrates, chlorides, iodides, sodium, calcium, and potassium) even without neutralization.

The hazards that we know about generally cause less-serious problems than do those kept hidden. A meth lab or meth activity poses incremental hazards, including injury and economic loss, with substances inherently dangerous that most people use properly and do not allow to become unduly risky.

Legal consequences for illicit dumping of the wastes from meth labs are realities whether one sees the response to such behavior as hysteric.

Paul from Michigan (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Times (London) article

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article1755178.ece

Where should this link go. It's a good article with shocking pictures. It also implies a UK epidemic, and that meth is about the replace coke as the cool/most problematic substance abused.--81.105.251.160 19:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Strike-through text

Statistics

This article could use some statistics on how many users there are thought to be in various regions of the world. -- Beland 02:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[14] actually has some very interesting statistics, showing meth-related hospital admissions in U.S. states varying by two orders of magnitude. -- Beland

Removed text

I removed the following because it is somewhat self-contradictory and unreferenced. -- Beland 02:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Some users attribute this to a feeling as if reality is broken into independent segments, and that while in a certain segment the users do not feel obligated to engage in precautions actions if those actions affect other segments than the one the user is currently in. However, individual experiences of recreational methamphetamine use is too diverse to make categorical broad statements.

well done - Diana

Intro paragraph and ADHD treatment therein

I've modified the intro paragraph. Dextromethamphetamine is prescribed, as Dexosyn, to treat ADHD, though mainly when plain amphetamines have not worked. This is referenced later in the article (by another user, before my update). The para was contradictory previously.Menswear 19:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a wiki-link to Dextromethamphetamine when that link redirects to this very article? It's just forming a loop. --Tossrock (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that to. It says that dextromethamphetamine is an isomer of Methamphetamine. I'm not a chemist or anything but wouldn't that mean that they only have the same number of each atom but a differant structure? I mean I'm pretty sure that they don't give kids Meth for their ADHD. probably wouldn't work out to good. So their should be a seperate article right? one for methamphetamine and one for dextromethamphetamine.--Matt D (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the legal status is of Desoxyn in various countries these days but I suspect that the neurotoxic effects of d-methamphetamine would make ADHD worse. Woood (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Meth doesn't have neurotoxic effects at low doses. Technically, meth is a neuroprotectant at low doses when the dopamine level is kept just over normal so the supply doesn't run out. When the supply runs out is when you get all the oxidation of the dopamine receptors and stuff. Dopamine is an antioxidant, you can see for yourself. And no, ADHD has not been worsened by meth unless the dose is inappropriately high. It's frequent for doctors to use dextroamphetamine and other dopamine releasers/re-uptake inhibitors for ADHD when it gives symptomatic relief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.97.220 (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Meth Cook experiments

So far as I can discern from the scanty evidence, the most active and dangerous contaminant produced by meth cooks, as determined by experimental cooks done for research purposes, is meth itself as a vapor. This seems to me to be implied by articles such as: [15]

Other contaminants may be more prevalent (maybe) but are nothing like as neurotoxic in small concentrations.

That conclusion (or even possibility) isn't clear from what's here, although it's admittedly consistent with what's written here; still it may be important to note clearly for those who arrive here to find out what exposure to meth labs may have done to them.

I also don't see anything on hypersensitivity to sound. See such as: [16] Ndaniels 16:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hydrogen iodide can explode when treated with excess heat. Moderately pure phosphorus can ignite spontaneously in the presence of atmospheric oxygen. Both of these reagents are far more dangerous and volatile than any aerosol methamphetamine. Both the reagents and the contaminants are highly toxic, but methamphetamine itself is not the greatest threat in a lab. -Muugokszhiion (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Rearrangement

The article seemed like a bit of a mess, perhaps some people editing the page have been a bit scattered? :P I have tried to rearrange the page into a more logical order, with the more pharmacological sections next to each other. Tolerance and Addiction have now been included as part of Pharmacology. I hope the new arrangement is a bit more logical.

Please do not delete the section on Pharmacology! Yes there is some confusion which should be clarified a little further between dextro-methamphetamine and racemic methamphetamine, but because the activity of levo-methamphetamine is so much lower than methamphetamine it makes little difference. Because so much illegal methamphetamine is produced from pseudoephedrine, it is likely to be the dextro-rotationary isomer anyway. The fact that methamphetamine is both a pharmacological compound and an illegal street drug does not mean that it should not a section on pharmacology. Other illegal drugs with pages on wikipedia such as cocaine have sections on pharmacology and we should try to be consistent. Woood (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Illicit Synthesis

This section speaks very specifically, yet has no citations (aside from one). Can the author please supplement their work with references? Halogenated (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write the section, but the information is available from the various Rhodium Archives. I'll try to link to what I can, but the archives are constantly moving as Rhodium has been shutdown. Jeremiahbell (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Addendum: I know the information is (sickly) easy to get, but do we have some sort of social responsibility not to make is easier?

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 7, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article is very readable but is not in compliance with the Manual of Style in several places. For instance, why is "Legal restriction in the United States" a separate subject from the larger Legality section? Why is the route of administration after the reasons why meth is used and its health effects? The section order of the article needs to be given a second look. In terms of good prose, there are a lot of single, stand-alone sentences. These need to be consolidated in to normal-sized paragraphs for reasons of readability. Another issue is the use of the {{cquote}} template. According to the template and WP:MOSQUOTE, that is improper. Block quotes must be 4+ lines (or multiple paragraphs) and the cquote template is only for pull quotes. Another important issue related to MOS and good encyclopedic writing is phrases such as "See Methamphetamine and sex for further information on other risk factors". Self-reference is not okay in encyclopedic writing, and if you need to say "see also", then you need to use an appropriate {{seealso}} link.

2. Factually accurate?: The article has a major problem with providing sufficient inline citations according to the standards of GA. First, there are multiple {{fact}} tags present. These must be addressed. Additionally, there are some sections that lack citations entirely. Meth is a controversial topic that gets a lot of attention from the public, media sources and governments. Subsequently a higher than normal proportion of the content in the article falls under the definition of "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged..." that must be cited inline. Statements that assert the content of laws or the opinion of published sources without an inline citation are unacceptable, for just two examples from within the article.

3. Broad in coverage?: Covers all basic aspects and stays on topic.

4. Neutral point of view?: Gives fair and equal representation for all significant points of view.

5. Article stability? Not the subject of any recent or on-going edits wars.

6. Images?: Licenses and source information are provided for the images present.

Meth is an important contemporary subject in the study of drugs and drug culture. Such an article, to reach GA-class, needs to undeniably meet the basic standards of verifiability. As the quick-fail criteria of GA names "large numbers" of {{fact}} tags as sufficient reason for a quick-fail without a review, and this article contains three tags, I am not failing without an in-depth review. But I have also chosen not to provide a hold period, as holds are only for minor edits to what is basically already a GA-class article.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— VanTucky ^talk 00:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there any guidelines for wikipedia entries for pharmacological compounds? This article often seems like more of a mess than many others, including others that are used recreationally. I think this article needs a bit more consistency with how different sections are organised. Perhaps it should be organised into something like History, Pharmacology, Recreational Use or something like that. At the moment it's all over the place. Woood (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a style guide for Wikiproject Pharmacology articles here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide. I am not aware of a specific style guide for drugs which are primarily notable for their abuse, however, so this article might justifiably deviate a bit from those guidelines in my opinion, since desoxyn covers its legitimate medical use. St3vo (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that is very useful. I have been also looking the entry for cocaine which also has some legitimate medical use (as a local anaesthetic with vasoconstrictive properties) but is primarily notable for recreational use. Both the pharmacology style guide and the entry for cocaine seem better organised than the entry for methamphetamine. I think incorporating some of the entry into a 'recreational use' or 'illegal use' section might be useful. At the moment some information (such as street names) is ending up in the lead section because there are not any better places. Woood (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Validity of World War II statements?

The segment of this article that discusses uses during WWII has a couple of problems:

- The statement that "From 1942 until his death in 1945, Adolf Hitler was given daily intravenous injections of methamphetamine by his personal physician, Theodor Morell as a treatment for depression and fatigue" misquotes the reference source. According to the source, "...there is no doubt that he [Morell] gave intraveneous glucose and Pervitin (methylamphetamine) to Hitler on any occasion when he needed a boost..." [Page 3]

- The statement regarding air and tankmen's dosing of meth-laced chocolate has no source: "It was widely distributed across rank and division, from elite forces to tank crews and aircraft personnel. Chocolates dosed with methamphetamine were known as Fliegerschokolade ("flyer's chocolate") when given to pilots, or Panzerschokolade ("tanker's chocolate") when given to tank crews." I am unable to find a valid source for this statement on Google, and the only referenced source for any website is this Wikipedia page.

66.45.123.11 (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)KD 01/07/2008

There is no direct evidence of its use by Adolf Hitler, however, he is the magnet of myths by many authors, even historians, and academic professionals, who base their conclusion on weak evidence with ridiculous basis such as 1 sentence from a former Nazi officer/worker etc. of which many can't even be verified or the source is inexistent when scrutinized. Many Jews are successful authors and media producers/directors of whom many have been responsible for WW2 books, films and holocaust depiction. Due to Hitlers actions towards the Jews, it is understandable why the Jewish hate for him may result in exaggeration's and fictitious claims via books and other medias. The worst of the myths was a documentary that even claimed Hiter was a homosexual, event though Adolf Hitler had a strong resentment for homosexuals and sent homosexuals to concentration camps along side criminals and the Jewish people. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Epidemiology - Unclear section

Epidemiology of methamphetamine abuse

In the US methamphetamine use is the highest in Native Hawaiians and Pacific islanders (2.2%) and Native Americans (1.7%), lower among whites (0.7%) and Hispanics (0.5%), and much lower in Asians (0.2%) and blacks (0.1%). According to one study in large cities, 13% of men having sex with men used methamphetamine in the previous 6 months.[22]

This section has several problems. First, it states "abuse" in the title. Then it states "use" in the section. This needs to be made clear, because use and abuse are NOT the same. Secondly, there is no definition for "use" - does this include people who have tried it once only, or a few times, or someone who uses meth on the regular basis? This is a serious flaw. Especially when it follows with a statement of "13% of men having sex with men used meth..." - with no basis for comparison, these statistics are meaningless, and the last part thrown in in a very scurrilous manner.

Third, why does it automatically begin discussing usage patterns amongst amongst ethnic backgrounds - this is certainly not the definition of epidemiology! It would be better stated as Demographics, specifically that of ethnic usage patterns.

I would like to hear some feedback on this, otherwise I will unilaterally rewrite this or even consider deleting this nearly useless info.

Halogenated (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Meth Labs

A lot more could be done with this part of the articel. Andy REDDSON —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.120.45 (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

David Sheff

The first paragraph under "Related Health Issues" seems like it should be under addiction. Regardless, the author of that article is named David Sheff, not Schiff. David Schiff is a composer. In addition, David Sheff was not a user himself, it was his son, Nic. They both have recently published books about Nic's addiction. The article cited can also now be linked to, as the Times has done away with TimesSelect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.64.122 (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

He (David Sheff) did use drugs in his life but I don't know how serious that was.Miagirljmw14 (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Coming Down

The last sentance of the second paragraph is "Users of methamphetamine often take one or more benzodiazepines as a means of "coming down", do others think this should read "Users of methamphetamine often take one or more benzodiazepines as a means of easing the "come down""? I would argue the come down occurs irrespectively of benzodiazapine consumption and is used to lessen the "psychological load". Dmod (talk) 08:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Methamphetamine

The quote claiming hitler used meth daily still has NO sources. Just goes to show wikipedia's motto, Bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.212.200 (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean like "Doyle, D (2005). "Hitler's Medical Care" (PDF). Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. 35: 75–82. Retrieved 2006-12-28." ? May I suggest actually reading the paragraph next time? Best, St3vo (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Its a dead link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.37.248 (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Crystal Darkness

Should something be brought up about the PSA "Crystal Darkness"? Check it out at www.crystaldarkness.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.234.65 (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Addiction

The sentence

Abrupt interruption of chronic methamphetamine use results in the withdrawal syndrome in almost 90% of the cases. Withdrawal of amphetamine often causes a depression which is longer and deeper than even the depression from cocaine withdrawal.[21]

Could someone clarify for me the means by which the source given quantifies the second sentence?

Kst447 (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I do believe it needs to be cited too. I will try to find a source.Miagirljmw14 (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Mental vs. Physical withdrawal also needs to be clarified. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Routes of administration

Why is insufflattion (snorting lines) listed as an afterthought under subsection "Other methods"? I believe, though I can't cite references, that this is one of the more common methods of taking the drug -- especially among more affluent groups who want to avoid the stigma of smoking or shooting the drug. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.111.99 (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I would think it is, I'll see if I can reorganize it better C6541 (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure the readily water soluble 'hydrochloride' form (the form found both as a pharmaceutical and as a street drug: & on the street both as the powder/salt "crank" and the translucent rock-crystal salt "crystal/glass" forms, are HCl), which is usually highly water soluble since it is a salt/acid, is therefore capable of all common routes (any route/membrane that a water soluble substance can pass). I know that unlike cocaine, the freebase form is less solid rather than more (crack cocaine, versus the oil form of amphetamine class substances: both freebases), I do not know how freebase methamphetamine, as an oil, may be used, but I doubt any usual route would work without being added to an acid, like with freebase cocaine: oil and water still do not mix, it would not readily be injectable, snortable, etc. The hydrochloride of amphetamine however, is less hygroscopic than that of cocaine HCl, an easy way to tell them apart, and most likely why the subjective effects of pure cocaine (opposed to pure amp/methamp) when taken any way but IV is anecdotically said to hit harder, faster and be more euphoric; and probably a minute addition to the reason why it has a shorter duration (a very minute reason, the main of course being the incredibly quick metabolism of cocaine when compared to methamphetamine). 4.255.48.43 (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"Natural occurrence"

I've been checking back at this article for a while now, and have been bothered by the (what I view to be) biased view of the "natural occurrence" of methamphetamine. The section cites two things:

27: BA Clement, CM Goff, TDA Forbes, Phytochemistry Vol.49, No 5, pp1377–1380 (1998) "Toxic amines and alkaloids from Acacia rigidula" And: 28: Ask Dr. Shulgin Online: Acacias and Natural Amphetamine

I have read reference 27 many times over, and myself am completely unconvinced that the authors found this plethora of chemicals inside one plant. It's almost ridiculous to think that all of these illicit amphetamines (phenethylamines) and illicit tryptamines could be found in one plant.

Even Dr. Shulgin himself says what a huge discovery it could be. I myself am definitely not going to say that it would be impossible for the authors to have found all of the substances that they found; but it is unlikely. I've seen this one article criticised a lot, it just doesn't have a lot of validity. Maybe something could be added in there as to the controversy. Or maybe that the authors of the supporting article refused to get in touch with Dr. Shulgin when he inquired about the article (which is peer reviewed; Shulgin is a superior peer, maybe they didn't want to fess up to their peers, IMHO).

I just think that this one little section should be looked at a little more. A few choice words being added to this section would be perfectly fine; it just needs to show at least some of some people's doubt as to how this plant contains methamphetamine, at least. Pinkpanther2008 (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User 75.158.7.202 mentioned in his edit that "methamphetamine was only in the tree due to a contamination..." but did not give a source. Perhaps someone can confirm this? OlEnglish (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Has anyone noticed how much vandalism this article gets? Why are IP accounts allowed to edit this article? C6541 (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Other street names

Methamphetamine is referred to as "crack" in New Zealand (probably because of the absence of crack cocaine), you may wish to add this to possible street names along with "pure" and "p".

If you can find a good source that uses the name (for example, a magazine article or book), you can edit the article yourself. If the list gets too long, though, it will probably be necessary to change the format. Looie496 (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice work

Nice work to everyone reverting vandalism and fixing up the article in general, my kudos to you. C6541 (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you extremely for all of the important information on "Crystal Myth"; I needed that information for College and for myself. I couldn't find this information anywhere else except for Wikipedia. Actually, the entire class needed the information too, so you saved my life by giving me all this information. Many Blesses to you. Tammy C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.158.103 (talk) 07:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

removing paragraph

I am going to boldly remove a paragraph from the article, and would like to explain why. Here is the paragraph, from the Addiction section: The use of Haloperidol for either methamphetamine detoxification procedures or drug-free maintenance protocols is generally suggested against due to the synergistic toxicity of the two drugs used simultaneously. Together with methamphetamine it is hypothesized to be toxic to the substantia nigra and pars reticulata in the brain.[37]

Reasons for removing: (1) This is only likely to be relevant to physicians, who shouldn't be depending on Wikipedia for things like this; (2) it's badly stated at best and possibly flat wrong; (3) the authority of the cited source is doubtful. Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, and thank you for making this decision. I tried to reword the original statement because it appeared to me to be more opinion-based than factual. Plus I have no idea in hell how valid the statement is and it seemed out of place. 128.113.192.31 (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Nominee

Things to check before review?Miserlou (talk) 16:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Methamphetamine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article does not meet the good article criteria and has too many issues. It has therefore failed its nomination. Issues include but are not limited to:

• Too many [citation needed] tags, indicating that the article still needs more inline citations per WP:CITE
  • The second half of "Post-war use" needs references
  • Most of "Legal restrictions" need references
  • The lead to "Medical use" needs references
  • All of "Routes of administration" needs references
• "cases.[30]t his" – This doesn't look right

Questions and comments placed on this page will receive responses. Once these issues have been resolved, feel free to renominate the article. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Synonyms should only be generic names not trade names.

Trade names like desoxyn, pervitin, syndrox & anadrex should all be removed from that category on the side bar with only alternate generic names like methedrine & desoxyephedrine alone left on there. Nagelfar (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Theraputics" [sic] is misspelled on the page

But I can't fix it right now as an IP editor. 165.189.101.177 (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- OlEnglish (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Pregnancy and Breastfeeding section

This section is dangerously short and upbeat. While factually correct it gives the impression that there are no serious consequences when a pregnant or breastfeeding mother does meth.

Possible implications of taking meth while pregnant: include birth defects, mental deficits, pre-term labor, abortion and fetal death. Source: Maternal and fetal effects from substance use. Rayburn WF - Clin Perinatol - 01-DEC-2007; 34(4): 559-71, vi

While transfer of the drug to a breastfeeding child rarely requires medication this is largely due to the fact that there is no treatment other than supportive care.

Also, the rates of domestic abuse and child abuse in meth "labs" is staggering and should be discussed. Source: Dangers for children in the care of drug users. Bellemare S. CMAJ. 2008 Jul 15;179(2):164. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.13.218 (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The section is for actual biological dangers of the drug itself to a unborn child while a mother is using it, not your opinion of typical "meth mother" behavior. Sincerely and truly yours, C6541 (T↔C) at 20:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Uses of methamphetamine

In the other uses of methamphetamine, anal insertion is referred to, amongst others, as shelving. This is incorrect. The correct term for anal insertion is "shafting". "Shelving" actually refers to vaginal insertion of the substance. I am a researcher doing a study on methamphetamine use in GLBT populations in Sydney, Australia.

 Done, ok I updated the section, can you provide a reference? -- OlEnglish (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Signs of a possible meth lab

The Signs of a Possible Meth Lab are:

1. Stained coffee filters 2. Empty pseudoephedrine blister packs 3. Strong solvent or ammonia odors* 4. Acetone 5. Toluene 6. Denatured alcohol 7. Red Devil Lye 8. Red Phosphorous* 9. Lithium batteries 10. Anhydrous Ammonia* 11. Heet or gas-line treatments with methyl alcohol 12. Drain cleaner with sulfuric acid 13. Heat source* 14. Glassware (beakers or mason jars) 15. Coffee grinder with white powder residue* 16. Stained tubing* 17. Hypodermic syringes 18. Written recipes* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.132.217 (talk • contribs) 20:30, February 15, 2009

What the hell is your point? This is not a discussion forum! Sincerely and truly yours, C6541 (T↔C) at 20:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

orange mold?

Someone was telling me that it was "well known" that methamphetamine smoke produces "orange mold" after a time in a closed environment (living conditions) but I've found nothing of the sort via any sourced online information, anyone confirm or source? 65.102.55.107 (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

One thing to note

I am not sure if i am writing this in the correct area but you (or the people you qouted) are making some very ignorant and large assumptions about "meth mouth". It doesn't take a detailed scientific explanation to understand why this occurs just some research into the different types of ways that meth is used. This sort of decay will not be found present in pure IV methamphetamine addicts. It is the smoke that causes this problem. The user has to be a meth smoker for this to occur. That isn't to say that some problems what occur due to clenching which happens with all stimulants but the actual "meth mouth" is caused by a reaction to the smoke. I've seen this in many real life cases and it only happens to the smokers. Also, is that picture even from a meth addict? In most cases the teeth seem to break more rather than just lose the outer shell. Many times it occurs more in the back teeth but that is really more about where the addict holds the pipe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.116.9 (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Meth Mouth is caused by lack of hygeine, dry mouth, teeh/jaw clenching. -C6541 (T↔C) at 05:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"The poor man's Cocaine"

Meth has been refered to as "The poor man's Cocaine" (this name for Meth isn't given in the article but maybe should) but it isn't much cheaper than Cocaine (if at all or depending on where you live). Is this a supply/demand thing, does a gram of it last longer or are people who call it that misinformed? I noticed that the price of Meth is given as $150/g in the article. Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've heard it referred to as "welfare coke" hehe. I'm sure prices must vary widely everywhere, and I'm guessing it depends on the quality. I've heard of "dirty, bathtub meth" being sold for really cheap, with it being relatively easy to make it's not considered as "high class" as cocaine powder. But this is all original research. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 02:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's what they say about the price of cocaine at footnote #75 on the cocaine Wikipedia article: 75.^ "Pricing powder", The Economist, June 28, 2007, Prices: USA around $110/g, Israel/ Germany/ Britain around $46/g, Colombia $2/g, New Zealand recordbreaking $714.30/g. I did read in one of the Google search articles that a gram of Meth does last longer., i.e., a little goes a long way. I posed this question at a Meth forum. Not sure if I could use that as a reference though. Raquel Baranow (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The pharmacokinetics are different. Cocaine, administered by the same route, gives more of a "rush" than meth, and its effects don't last as long. Looie496 (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not really mixing apples with oranges and I'm not sure of the favored administration of Meth but I'm refering to Cocaine (not crack, which is a form of Coke that is smoked), insufflated and Meth usually? smoked or snorted. Point is: Meth is mentioned more often than crack as, "The poor man's Cocaine" . . . that's what I always thought it was. So far, most of the people who responded to my Meth-forum post agree, it's a "poor man's coke" 'cause a little goes a longer way. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Half-Life of 9-15 hours but I don't believe the ref supports that claim

Furthermore, Desoxyn (d-methamphetamine or dextromethamphetamine)is the prescription version (IR) with a half-life of 4-5 hours. See this ref and click the pdf labeled "Prescribing Information and Boxed Warning" and search the pdf for "half-life" and you will find that the FDA approved box warning says 4-5 hours, I believe is only prescribed in oral tablets and any reputable source will support this claim about Desoxyn. In one of the external links, it show the biological half-life also of 4-5 hours when administered orally making no mention of the prescription version.

The reference supporting 9-15 hour claim of the biological half-life which I believe to be the erroneous is here . First I don't believe that based on the information on this page that the half-life can be determined and second I feel that even if there were, a single study using one type of methamphetamine should not be enough support to a blanket statement about all methamphetamines considering the information available about Desoxyn.

I'm not sure how to change this as I'm a newb but I'd like to see how the previous contributor derived the half-life from that source. Also, I'd like to see the biological half-life adjusted to reflect the d-methamphetamine half-life range as well as the Levo and racemic versions. Thoughts? --Michaelbgrant (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The source states:

“ In our study, plasma METH half-lives were not dose dependent. METH half-lives averaged 9.3 ± 3.7 h after the low and 11.1 ± 7.2 h after the high dose, providing an overall mean half-life of 10.0 ± 5.2 h, in agreement with those reported previously (9.1 ± 2.2 h after ~10 mg/70 kg METH; 11–12 h, 11.8 ± 3.3, 13.1 ± 3.8, and 11.2 ± 3.7 h after ~15–18.5 mg/70 kg; 9.1 ± 4.0 h after 30 mg/70 kg; see Table 3 ) ”

That seems to match the article pretty well. Looie496 (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems like 9-15 hour half-life loosely describes what we see in the results, but the method in the abstract states...

“ Methods: Eight participants received four oral 10-mg S-(+)-METH hydrochloride sustained-release tablets within 7 days. Three weeks later, five participants received four oral 20-mg doses. Blood samples were collected for up to 24 h and oral fluid for up to 72 h after drug administration. ”

A sustained release dose is a dose designed to increase the biological half-life of the substance, perhaps this is where the discrepancy lies between the immediate release prescription version and the results in the referenced study. In any event, I'm not sure that using a study based upon the sustained release version of a drug should be used to quote it's actual half-life. Michaelbgrant (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hubris

Hubris??? Really?? That's a side-effect?!?!? C'mon guys, that's frickin' ridiculous. ClintJCL (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

Shouldn't this article be semi-protected again? When it was for 3 months a lot of the issues cleared up. -C6541 (T↔C) at 05:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)