Talk:Amphetamine

• Archive01 (through January 2006)

Source citation

I'm kinda new to Wikipedia but I found a site to support the claim that "Tolerance is developed rapidly in amphetamine abuse, therefore increasing the amount of the drug that is needed to satisfy the addiction" in the addiction sub-section. The link is below, thanks.

http://health.discovery.com/encyclopedias/illnesses.html?article=2794

Mustard29 02:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Mustard29

this is too far fetched, if abuse is determined as i.e. using it to elevate the learning curve or having fun on weekends, then there might not be an increase of the dosage, also addiction isn´t even the right term, in the sense that amphetamine is unable to create a physical dependance, it might become a habit with some neurotransmitter depletion, that can´t be overcome by increasing the doasge, usually the user has to stop it and will do so, to loose some of the tolerance he developed. Most users don´t even develop a tolerance, the longer the substance is used, they´re getting to a safe and more hedonistic usage in order to get most of the positives and no negative sides of the ("ab")use, which again is an argument against an addiction, because they´re not forced to do so, they determine when and why and if they want to, so the "addiction" with amphetmaine ould well be seen as a transition to a normal use, as it is seen with alcohol -most teenagers or young people fullfill the defintion of alcoholism at some points of their lives, but most of them will return to a "normal" drinking habit. IMHO it is important to divert these facts of addiction and adoption to use a substance, it´d be like ignoring a functional group in a molecule that would alter the name of the whole molecule.

Discovery

Does anyone know who discovered amphetamine and when? -- Leocat 14:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Bioavailability

Why is bioavailability expressed in L/kg? It is a dimensionless quantity. -- Leocat 13:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Anxiety

Maybe the link between stimulant abuse and an increase in anxiety could be talked about. I dont have any sources but I know from experiance that Amphetamines can increase anxiety quite a bit. This could be a good warning for those thinking of using it recreationally to combat social anxieties. Avskum --65.94.253.155 03:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup?

I'm not sure I should slap a cleanup tag on this article, but it sure is cluttered and unorganized. The information relating to recreational use (and other abuse) should be in a seperate section, not interspersed throughout the article. That just makes it hard to read. I'm going to start reorganizing this article (like I did for diazepam) when I get some time. Fuzzform 20:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

---

the pic of the chemical formula is wrong, because there is a free valence indicated at the alpha carbon and it should be a methyl (straight line).

Legal Status

Before I go crazy chasing down any linked pages and such, Amphetamines are listed as schedule III at http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/agency/csa.htm ... even though throughout wikipedia someone has categorized them as schedule II. can i fix this or is there a reason for the confusion? Is this a continuation of the (meth)amphetamine battle? -- Alphachimera

The article was made in 1996, I do believe it is either an error or the DEA has updated the list since then.-- Refault 04:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Red links

There are a bunch of red links under "physiological effects" that could, with a bit of effort, be made to direct to pertinent articles. "Greasy skin," for example, could, using the |, be made to point to something related to sebum production, et cetera. Maybe I'll do it sometime. --swaly 08:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The section was unorganized previously and I had to add a title between the Physiological and Psychological effects (as previously there was no title for the section "Psychological Effects.")

I glanced at the red links and laughed at the simplicity of the terms. I might get around to cleaning things up soon if needed.-- Refault 04:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Pharmacology

Release and uptake inhibition (blockade of the carrier molecule) oppose each other.

The release mechanism comprises three steps:

1. uptake of (d)-amph into the presynapse via the transporter
2. transmitter release from the storage vesicles into the cytosol
3. functional inversion of the cell membrane transporter, resulting in an active outflow of the transmitter from the inner into the outer cellular space (synaptic cleft).

That means that for the release the transporter itself is the vehicle for the transmitter. And a complete block of the carrier molecule (by classical reuptake inhibitors), would also completely block the transmitter release. And the inward flow of amph into the cell would also be blocked. A partial blockade (by amph itself) results in something in-between. The transport is a oneway road, so the inversion of the transporter prevents an inward flow, but it should not be called a blockade. Indeed, amph might inhibit reuptake by binding at and forming a complex with the carrier molecule, but I can't imagine the binding affinity to be very high. Without precise data, the mechanistical significance remains unclear. --84.136.203.5 02:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Particulars on Toxicity

It strikes me as odd in the Toxicity section of this article that hyperpyrexia, hyperthermia and the use of cooling blankets are listed in this section as side effects when hypothermia is such a commonly reported side effect. If there is a reason for this switch from cold to hot, could anyone explain this?

---

First, as relates to Ectsasy: the subject feels cold but is actually hyperthermic. Not sure if that applies to classic amphetamine or not. Second, hyper and hypo thermia depend on the serotonergic vs. the norepinephric response. As both transmitters are not always depleted equally (e.g. with chronic abuse), are not affected equallyh in all subjects, and are likely to be influenced by co-ingested substances, it is likely subjects can vary in response and can swing from one to the other. I am not a doctor or pharmacist, but i seem to recall that the significant anitcholinergic effect has something to do with this as well.--Tednor 13:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Military "Go pills"

The article for the so-called "go pills" used by a small number of special mission flight crews redirects here, yet there are no entries for it. See the B-2 Spirit article for a brief portion on go pills. FFLaguna 00:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

see dexamphetamine 82.32.203.68 21:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is Germany described as "notorious" for using methamphetamine, while other countries are described as using amphetamine "to fight fatigue and increase alertness among servicemen"? Sounds like a double standard to me.--Eloil 20:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

agree with user eloil, it has always been that way =

Thats why I dont see the possibility of my registering in the foreseeable future. - xxxxxz

= chlorpromazine abuse inflicted by [mainly usa] docs in the name of "treating" recreational- drug bad trip

When there was no clonazepam, there was some justification. Now there is none. Bad trips of Speed [incl amphetamine], Acid, STP, ... can be stopped much more safely and pleasantly by clonazepam.

- xxxxxz again

Akira Ogaberlandierita?

I just added a link from the name "Akira Ogaberlandierita" to "Akira Ogata", and used the Methamphetamine article as reference. However, when I google "Akira Ogaberlandierita" the only result I get is this Wiki-page. Can anyone verify that this is indeed his name?

- Hli 02:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)