Talk:Poppers

Clean-up tags

There are now two clean-up tags in the article which I feel the team of editors in this discussion topic should work to remove.

Trivia

The less controversial one is the trivia tag. I feel there is some value in having some material on poppers in culture, (popular or otherwise,) with an indication that it appeared in works from the 1970s onwards, often ones with a sexual theme (Score, Queer As Folk etc.) What is not needed is a collection fancruft like the reference to them in the first line of a NOFX song - one of my favourite bands but it's trivia - unless there are no other references to poppers in songs after 2000 and there is a source looking at nitrites going out of vogue.

The trivia section should probably stay as is since it's probably reasonable to expect people to try to dump such stuff in the article over time. It'll be easier to make them park that kind of thing here then to try to add it to the article somewhere else. Munatobe7 20:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Munatobe, if the article is to contain a trivia section, it at least needs to be written up as a proper section of uses in popular media. I suggest limiting it to major books and films, rather than just anything that mentions poppers. Thus, for example, the notes on mentions in the press would go. On the talk page of most films and books, there is a rating of the importance of the article to Wikipedia (for example, Great Expectations is of top importance, whereas Verdigris Deep is of low importance). If nobody else does, I'll try and rewrite it at some point after next week (damn exams!). me_and 09:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Studies come first! :-) Scientistdoc 09:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd vote to eliminate the trivia section entirely. It doesn't add anything meaningful to the article and IMO the article be better without it. Scientistdoc 10:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the article lacks much of a sociological perspective. I used to have a copy of Tyler's Street Drugs, which was good on that sort of thing, but it has been "borrowed" permanently. I think a culture section which dientifies the sort of works and scenes within those works include poppers might cover the gap. --Peter cohen 11:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The lack of a sociological perspective seems to me to be the last remaining area in the article that needs work. I'd agree that the section entries should be limited to major books and films.

Peter, I'm not sure what you envision as being important enough to be included in a cultural section but Meand's idea of using a rating system goes toward creating a standard to go by. You're right that a culture section which identifies the sort of works and scenes within those works that included poppers makes a great deal of sense.

Andrew Tyler's Street Drugs has a good reputation for telling it like it is. Do you know what the book has to say about poppers?

There's a quote taken from E.M. Brecher's book from the Consumers Union, "Licit and Illicit Drugs", where Brecher says that while he personally found amyl nitrite sexually unrewarding, a lady friend told him that: "For me, an orgasm is like a hippopotamus. But with amyl nitrite, it is like a whole herd of hippopotami."

I remember seeing Nunsense on Broadway and watching the nun hold up a bottle of RUSH while an entire scene was played out around poppers.

It also seems important from a sociological perspective to include the scene in the HBO adaptation of Randy Shilts' book "And the Band Played On", where Lilly Tomlin encounters poppers in a gay bathhouse in San Francisco and they're discussed in the context of the AIDS crisis.

Just some thoughts. Munatobe7 18:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that my copy of Street drugs went missing long enough ago for me not to remember how much space he gave to poppers. And there's been another edition since the one I had. But Tyler tended to give good historical and sociological backgrounds. I can remember his talking about things such as the opium wars and the golden triangle and crescent in the chapter on heroin.

I searched CSA Sociological Abstracts earlier. They had twenty to thirty articles on poppers, mainly looking at them as a gay or youth drug. Much covered the discussions on sexual context, allegations re AIDS etc we had already discussed. Some stuff on how poppers are seen by some users as just another form of pleasure seeking and some on hwo young users are more likely than their non-using peers to be delinquent. I'm not sure how many of the full articles I have access to. I think a description of the types of cutural works that feature poppers would actually cover similar grounds as the works tend to be concerned with subcultures, sex and gays. I'll add a couple of bits in the main article. --Peter cohen 21:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

In looking around at various Wikipedia articles for examples of 'popular culture' sections, I came across rimming, giving me a whole new perspective on the Clinton/Lewinsky affair. :-)

But I think a popular culture section for the poppers article is essential, and if done carefully, could be an important component. However, beware, such a section could easily get out of hand and become a dumping ground for all kinds of material. It would require monitoring. Munatobe7 19:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The trivia section is not really trivia at all, just a list of pop culture references. Why not just rename it 'Poppers in popular culture'? --Karuna8 19:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge tag

The votes are in and the winner is: "No merge". Is it time to get rid of the 'merge' tag, too? Scientistdoc 23:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done me_and 09:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV=

As far as the NPOV tag on the health section is concerned, I feel the article is currently neutral. Are there any issues highlighted in systematic reviews in peer-reviewed journals or by medical or pharmacological references of the nature of Merck that are not included in the section? With one-eyed material being published by both pro- and anti- authors, I feel it reasonably to set the bar at this level on what to include. --Peter cohen 18:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right Peter. The NPOV tag can finally be removed. The article seems very stable now.

Good job team! Especially to Mean, John T Folden and Peter Cohen for bringing some sense to the debate while adding a dash of discipline by holding people's feet to the fire on support for their statements.

One example of something that could also be added to this section is that Lilly Tomlin, playing a health official, encounters poppers for the first time in a gay bath house in San Francisco as depicted in the HBO movie "And the Band Played On", based on the book by famous AIDS reporter Randy Shilts of the San Francisco newspaper. Munatobe7 20:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I know many think the article is at NPOV, and I think it's close. But I have a suggestion that could help the article some more.

There should be a mention of the most current data which shows no link between popper use and unprotected sex amongst HIV-positive gay men in Sydney . This is a major study, the only one of its kind in the world, designed specifically to look at the matter. That fact, along with the results of the study which show there is no link between unsex sex leading to HIV/AIDS and poppers, makes it worthy of being included in the Health Issues section IMO.

This seems an important addition to the overall attempt to get Health Issues section to NPOV. I think this study's link at AIDSMAP should be a reference in the Health Section at a minimum, and maybe even mentioned in the section. Scientistdoc 23:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The free full text access on the internet for the Journal Of Neuroimmune Pharmacology "Ks - Poppers Connection" review article.

two options: www.springerlink.com/content/t57j471321784061/fulltext.pdf

www.springerlink.com/content/73h7w882j6616514/fulltext.html

Also, note many of the references cited in this review were not cited in the Romanelli review. Both reviews have strengths and weaknesses. Romanelli failed to cite any of the studies finding immunosuppression.

note in contrast to the Australian article is the Drumright LN et al. 2006 Review article on club drugs and HIV transmission risk behavior. PubMed ID 17002993

and the Ostrow DG case control study of HIV transmission PubMed 6562964

I earlier posted 9 other PMID recent studies showing popper use related to risky sex....in contrast to the Australian article.

Also, the Australians found no association between crystal meth and risky behavior in contrast to US studies.Hankwilson 08:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 08:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Scientistdoc, I'm not convinced the article you cite says anything that hasn't already been said in pro-popper research; I'm concerned that attempting to include it would start another "citation war". me_and 09:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right. It's like playing poker always trying to one-up the next guy. First there's the Australian study, then we're reminded about other studies finding differently, and it goes on and on. Scientistdoc 09:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay I have now added those bits and run out of articles I can access online from my search. --Peter cohen 22:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice touch Peter! I added the bit about sales to minors to help round it out. Munatobe7 22:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Your addition worked out quite nicely given that I had just discovered very different published rates for young people in the UK. --Peter cohen 22:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

At one point I was not allowed to record my changes directly and I thought something was broken; but it turned out you were editing at the same time. Isn't it time for you to go to bed! :-) Munatobe7 23:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Re the articles suggested by Scientistdoc and HankWilson. First, the Australian findings. Here's the abstract:

• Background: Illicit drug use among gay men is common and is associated with behaviours that are at high risk for HIV transmission.

• Methods: We explored illicit drug use within an ongoing cohort study of gay men living with HIV in Sydney, Australia. Most (84.3%) of the 274 New South Wales participants interviewed in 2004 for the Positive Health Cohort of HIV-seropositive gay men had used illicit drugs in the 6 months before their baseline interview.

• Results: One in six men (17.8%) used 'party drugs' at least monthly. At 12 months' follow-up, in 2005, these patterns of illicit drug use were similar. Being younger, participating in gay 'party scenes' and engaging in 'esoteric sex practices' at baseline were associated with any and more frequent use of party drugs, both in 2004 and 2005. Illicit drug use was, however, not associated with condom use at the most recent sexual encounters.

• Discussion: Illicit drug use appears to be highly contextual among these gay men living with HIV, and the association with risk behaviour may reflect participation in sexually adventurous subcultures as much as a direct causal effect.

It adds nothing to what is already in the article about a correlation between poppers and certain higher risk behaviours.

Next Drumright et al.

• We reviewed medical and psychology databases for articles published between January 1980 and August 2005 demonstrating associations between HIV/Sexually Transmitted Infection risk and club drug use. Seventy-four articles were reviewed, of which 30 provided adjusted risk ratios for associations between HIV/sexually transmitted infection risk and club drug use among men who have sex with men. Definitions and lists of club drugs were broad and inconsistent. We constructed a conceptual framework of biologically plausible pathways for causation. Using Hill's criteria to examine club drugs as causal risk factors for HIV, we found the most evidence for methamphetamine and volatile nitrites; however, more studies are needed.

There's a clear publication bias in how they describe their review. The summary of findings is too vague to be clear but it probably is worth mentioning that some authors are looking for biological pathways.

I'm still wary of the Journal Of Neuroimmune Pharmacology "Ks - Poppers Connection" review article as a) it was invited and b) does not describe any sort of systematic search methodology, c) was by authors with an already clear perspective on the issue.

Ostrow is just one study and quite small.

If you have access to Romanelli et al and their methodology, I'll be interested to see it.--Peter cohen 09:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Good perspective on each of the articles. Impressive input. I agree with your comments on each article. Scientistdoc 10:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the additional edits about KS. IMO editors here should be careful not to let the article go off on a tangent and become an article on Kaposi's sarcoma, where BTW there is no mention of poppers as causative or even recognized as a factor. Scientistdoc 10:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive comment. I inserted the one extra sentence in line with the comment I made under Drumright. I think a fair summary of the state of play is "There is a correlation; some researchers explain it by what else popper users get up to; others think that there is mileage in looking for causal mechanisms." I think that is now what the article says.--Peter cohen 11:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I am removing part of the description of the Senate review as it is superceded by later reviews already mentioned in the article. --Peter cohen 09:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I reinserted that because I thought it had accidently gotten deleted. No problem with your edit. It makes sense. Scientistdoc 09:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That's OK. --Peter cohen 10:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter, I thought for fairness and better balance it made sense to note that the Congressional investigation actually also included a finding on Kaposi's sarcoma in addition to HIV/AIDS. I hope you agree. These are two separate (though related) issues. Munatobe7 19:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. Let's have another go at agreeing that we have achieved NPOV. I vote yes. --Peter cohen 10:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• NPOV Reporting for duty, my vote is YES on NPOV achieved. Scientistdoc 10:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• NPOV Much work but great results. My vote is "yes". I agree we're at NPOV. Munatobe7 18:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• NPOV Yes, NPOV has been attained. Nospinhere 22:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Remove tag. I'm not sure if the article has achieved NPOV, or even if I am qualified to say whether it has or not. However, I think the article is sufficiently stable and well-referenced to remove the NPOV tag.

Not a forum

I have just archived most of the conversations on this page; the vast majority had very little to do with the article. It already says this above, but if editors could please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum. Per the warning template at the top of this page, it is acceptable to delete comments that are devoted to the discussion of the benefits and risks of poppers. Saying that the article should say x as cited at y is acceptable and encouraged. Saying that poppers are fun/dangerous/whatever does not contribute to the article and only serves to make the talk page harder to follow for other editors. me_and 09:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well said. --Peter cohen 09:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed! Go to the head of he class. Scientistdoc 09:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to archive all that conversation. It's good for history, but what a mess.

Your reminder that Wikipedia is not a forum, and that its standards allow for deletion of comments that are merely devoted to the benefits or risks of poppers, provides valuable support for responsible editors to help keep both the article and this talk page clean. But it will require vigilance.

Is the article at a point where it could be nominated for even the minor award of being "good" yet? Munatobe7 18:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty close. Wikipedia:What is a good article? gives the criteria. I think the trivia section needs to be dealt with before we apply. And the issue on the pictures copyright mentioned on your tlak page needs to be cleared up. --Peter cohen 19:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• I am trying to improve the article by adding graphics where appropriate. In the process of learning how to do this it became clear we must be careful about trademarks and brand names. As a result, I've added '®' where appropriate.

I am not a graphics designer, so if anyone has any suggestions about changes, don't be shy about saying so. :-) Munatobe7 03:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The pictures make the text look better, but I've noticed the query on the copyright status on your page. --Peter cohen 19:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the pictures make the entire article look much better. Other well-done Wikipedia articles are similarly sprinkled with pertinent photos and/or graphics.

The copyright issue is important and I didn't handle it properly. Thanks to Meand I'm fixing that. Of the three photos I added, one has been removed: Leonardo's Sphincter Muscles (I agree it really didn't fit the article); one is ok: The use of the graph is permissible, with attribution, per the owner's copyright notice and I've fixed that on the image page.

The third image is the one at the top of the page. I scoured the web looking for an image that would show some of the many brands and sizes but which were not already opened/used (like the previous image). I came across a static, one-page site, that oddly has no contact info. I'm not sure what it's for. I grabbed the image from this site.

Should I send an email to 'info' at the URL and see if I can get permission to use the image? Or do you know of another 'legal' image that could be used to illustrate current-day 'poppers' at the top of the article? Munatobe7 20:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I forgot. I did four images. Sorry about that. The amyl nitrite image from the Mandate add also needs to be dealt with. Not understanding the copyright tags I hastily chose the one that says I created the work.

I've found the Mandate magazine website. Should I email them to see if we can have permission to use the image? Munatobe7 21:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Going through my collection of old men's magazines produced several advertisements for RUSH and other popper brands. I replaced the one with the copyright ambiguity with one that I felt qualified and which also seemed appropriate for the section. My collection goes as far back as the mid-1970's. Let me know if you want any others. Nospinhere 00:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I object to the photo. 1.It looks promotional and has appeared in promotional ads. 2. The photo promotes specific products and brands. There should be a generic picture, brandless if any.3.

The sales in the United States are illegal. The brands shown have chemical formulas which are illegal to sell and distribute as poppers.Hankwilson 01:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 01:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

An issue with the pictures is finding a free to use one or one in the public domain. If you have a brand-free one that meets these criteria, let us know. --Peter cohen 01:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition to Peter's comment, I'd like to point out that "looks promotional" or the legal status of the product is not in itself a reason to remove a picture, imo. It's obvious that marketing and selling poppers is not the intention of this article. These are there for clarification of the text and for historical reasons (as in the case of the advert). I'm not sure what their status in the US has to do with anything, either. --John T. Folden 00:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am researching the Prestage study from Australia and will be challenging some of the information presented on this discussion board. Also researching another study which was dismissed because of having less number of participants, when in fact it has more. This was a misrepresentation of which may affect the article.Hankwilson 01:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 01:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Prestage study has not been included in the article. Therefore, as this is not a forum, there is no need to discuss it further here unless you or someone else coem up with a reason for inclusion. For the other point you need to be more specific. And you should raise it as a comment to where it is discussed, instead of here. --Peter cohen 01:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism -- major deletion attempt by anonymous editor

I just caught an attempt by an anonymous editor (apparently located in the Denver, Colorado area) to completely delete an entire section, with no good reason given. Please do not delete sections from this article without discussion and consensus first.

An international team of editors has worked diligently for quite some time to bring the poppers article into compliance with NPOV, and to futher enhance and improve it. Please do not make arbitrary deletions. It is requested that you give these hard-working editors the respect they deserve by discussing your concerns and proposed changes to this article on this talk page before making any significant changes.

Depending on the nature of your edit, disregarding this request may result in a reversion of your edits without discussion and/or a report of vandalism.

Thank you for your cooperation. Munatobe7 01:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter, I note the upset editor earlier today who deleted the "Users" section. I think I know why he's upset.

I've closely read the TIME Magazine and Wall Street Journal articles on poppers and it's clear that the use of poppers is not confined primarily to gays and drug-users. I suspect that the 1988 study you found was biased due to the fact that it was undertaken in an area known for high crime and drug use in general -- the Baltimore-Washington DC area, which is still true today.

Both the TIME and Wall Street Journal investigations found that popper use was spread across a wide spectrum of people, from construction workers ("I carry a bottle with me all the time," 28 year old California carpenter Ron Braun told TIME), to a "trendy East Side NYC couple at a chic NYC nightclub, to disco dancers, and from a "Los Angeles businesswoman in the middle of a particularly hectic public-relations job" who confided to the WSJ author that "I could really use a popper now."

I've taken the liberty to edit only the first paragraph in the Users section to better accommodate the upset editor and to more fully describe the results of the media's investigation. Munatobe7 06:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering that my additions were referenced, despite the claim they weren't, and were based on scans of two academic databases, the deletions were most certainly vandalism. Perhaps the association with gay men and general drug users are in the mind of academics but a scan of, for example, ZETOC for poppers shows that research is largely published in journals concerned with gays, AIDS or health in general or general drug use. (That is once you ignore all the reference to Karl Popper also shown up.) Thanks for reinstating my text.

Munatobe, can I suggest that you include a reference to specific issues of Time and WSJ or to your source which references them. --Peter cohen 10:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the lapse. Munatobe7 17:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I now notice that the articles you reference were the two in the trivia section. I'll remove the mention from there, as it was already suggested that they should go. --Peter cohen 19:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hank Wilson's Objection to Images in the poppers article

I hope this doesn't turn into a big deal, but I though it best to separate the images issue just in case it does. It'll be easier to keep it all in one place on the Talk page.

Hank, your objection to the images in the article are noted. But it's difficult to do justice to a description of the history of poppers in an encyclopedia or on Wikipedia, without mentioning RUSH® or Locker Room® just as you can't describe the history of automobiles, soft drinks or toothpaste without mentioning Chevy® or Ford®, Coke® or Pepsi®, or Crest® or Colgate®. RUSH® and Locker Room® are the brands most often mentioned in the media reports of the time. I think the RUSH® image (which is a decades-old promotional advertisement in a major men's magazine), instead of the amyl nitrite image I'd first used, is a much better example of the "aggressive marketing" that is being reported on by the TIME and Wall Street Journal articles referenced in that section.

I have to say, I think your objections ring hollow. In searching for appropriate images to use, I discovered that on sites where you are either affiliated or where your anti-popper book is promoted, there are numerous images or photos of branded poppers, including past advertisements for various brands. In fact I took the "amyl nitrite" ad directly from this site (Which is one of the reasons I did not know how to account for its copyright status). On this page on that same site there are at least 16 other images of past promotional advertisements for branded poppers.

The entire editing team (including moi) has spent a lot of time and undertaken a lot of hard work to get this article to a point where it's stable and a potential nominee for a Wikipedia "Good Article" award, and we have been sensitive to your many complaints and suggestions. But, with all due respect, your close relationship to this subject, as a well-known anti-popper activist, and your apparent lack of objectivity, seems to be making it hard for you to accept a NPOV in this article. None the less, if you have constructive criticisms they are welcome, and if you have any images you think might be appropriate for the article we'd like to see them. Munatobe7 03:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind criticism of my edits if based on sound reason. The 1980 Penthouse advertisement shows the "aggressive advertising" reported by the two mainstream papers. I don't see how this is any different then all the old advertisements you've apparently presented at meetings and Symposiums going back to 1981.

That site, by the way, is full of outrageous statements and misinformation and shows you have a proven bias against poppers dating back to at least 1981 (a quarter century). The co-author of your anti-popper book claims you've been "ignored" by the press for years and have even been "attacked" by the press ..."for criticizing poppers". (Why would the press attack you for criticizing poppers?)

One of his most dramatic claims implies that he's even had his life threatened by a gay physician over your anti-popper collaboration: "I began collaborating with Wilson in 1983. We published a series of pamphlets and, in 1986, a little book, Death Rush: Poppers & AIDS. In 1983 I spoke out publicly against poppers for the first time, at a meeting of the New York Safer Sex Committee. I was savagely attacked on the spot by a gay physician (now dead from "AIDS"), who waved his arms and screamed at me like a maniac. That evening I received a death threat. The phone rang. It was a woman who said, coldly and professionally: "Don't be surprised if you don't wake up in the morning. 'CLICK'"

That sounds a lilttle far-fetched to me, but if you claim it happened, it must be so. NPOV requires a bit more reason and consideration to a subject. Nospinhere 19:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I found that article quite, shall we say, interesting, can I just point out that "this is not a forum"? --Peter cohen 23:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Congress banned sales of isotbutyl nitrite in 1988 and then banned sales of alkyl nitrites...the broad class of poppers..in 1990.

The federal ban on sales of alkyl nitrites went into effect in 1991. A reference is needed for that and it could be one of the existing references...2002 CPSC memo might. Hankwilson 18:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 18:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't find a pointer to 1991 but have found a press release giving 1990. --Peter cohen 19:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I added to the sentence about the 1969 reversal of the FDA to include recreational use because it's my understanding that was the reason for the change. That they were concerned about so many people buying it OTC and using it for increased sexual pleasure. Scientistdoc 23:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

UK

I've reverted the edit about the UK until discussion takes place. I looked at the page linked to but cannot find anything that says sale is prohibited. Can you lead us to the text that shows that sales are prohibited? Also, do you have any idea why sales still allowed? Perhaps it's due to various formualtions?

Also, we're trying to clean up the article and are listing support as references/footnotes, not inline links to the articles. If this info is to be included it should be woven into the text. Munatobe7 21:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is listed as category C2 in Schedule 2. That category is discussed in the section referenced. I'll look at how the text is put together, particularly referencing but I expect to be at least partially undoing your revert --Peter cohen 22:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. I didn't have time to rewrite the section to include the information at the time. Your insertion works well. I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of weaving it into the main paragraph a little differently, and also noting that retail sale appears to be 'technically' prohibited, not 'effectively' prohibited given that retail sale is widespread. This may be more of a legal question of some sort. It's interesting that the compound is classified in this manner, considering that there appears to be no evidence to support such a classification. Munatobe7 01:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence that supports poppers classification as a carcinogen: See PMID 12594527

"NTP Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Isobutyl Nitrite (CAS No, 542-56-3) in F344 Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Inhalation Studies) in National Toxicology Program Technical Report Services 1996 July; 448:1-302. Hankwilson 07:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 07:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It is probably worth having a brief reference such as this specifically to Isobutyl nitrite in the health section now that it is mentioned in the legal one. --Peter cohen 09:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this one of the studies looked at in the old references list that used to populate this article? It seems to mimic others in the sense that the dose is excessive. I note also that the authors report that "Exposure of rats to isobutyl nitrite by inhalation for 2 years resulted in decreased incidences of mononuclear cell leukemia in males and females" and that "The increased incidence of thyroid gland follicular cell adenoma in male mice may have been related to isobutyl nitrite exposure." The word "may" suggest no firm conclusions. Munatobe7 13:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I also spotted a mention of an age limit on one of the UK sites, but I haven't currently got the time to follow it up.--Peter cohen 09:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Age limit for what, Peter? As in age under which one may not buy these products, or shelf life of the products? Munatobe7 13:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Minimum age for the person --Peter cohen 15:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the European Trade Only publication, ETO, isobutyl nitrite is now listed as a toxin, and as of 8/24/07 is illegal in the UK and Europe: http://erotictradeonly.com/content/news/article89.php?id=1

Their article states that the legislation, the 29th amendment to 76/769/EEC of the EU Directive, now classifies isobutyl nitrite as a toxin, which means it will be illegal to sell publicly in Europe and the UK.

The article also says that a leading UK manufacturer is now making isopropyl nitrite instead, and is recalling any isobutyl nitrite poppers.

online fulltext free at www.springerlink.com/content/73h7w882j6616514/fulltext.html reference to VEGF should be in KS part of article.

i suggest that a separate paragraph be devoted to ks and poppers which includes a reference to the Ho-leung Fung "VEGF expression" finding which was referenced in the article "Effects of inhalant nitrites on VEGF expression; a feasible link to Kaposi's sarcoma/" journal of neuroimmune pharmacology. For consideration the fulltext online available free at

www.springerlink.com/content/73h7w882j6616514/fulltext.html

Hankwilson 19:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 19:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We were reminded last week, Hank, that Wikipedia and this article are not a forum and that it's acceptable to delete comments that are devoted to the discussion of the benefits and risks of poppers. I didn't want to arbitrarily delete your post without discussion though. I also wanted to point out that Fung has a history of obtaining grants to do work on nitrites, none of which has confirmed any connection to nitrites and KS. In fact one of his studies produced findings that would support a role for nitrites in actually depressing tumoricidal activity. (Keilbasa and Fung (2000) Nitrite Inhalation in Rats Elevates Tissue NOS III Expression and Alters Tyrosine Nitration and Phosphorylation. Biochem and Biophysic. Res. Comm, 275:335.)

The reference to this recent work doesn't seem to add anything to the article, either. Especially when he notes in his abstract that a link is "purported" and "may be explained" by inhalation.

The existing article does a great job of encapsulating the currently understanding about any possible association between nitrites and KS. Munatobe7 21:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Article should include a section on the enforcement/non enforcement of the federal ban on sales of poppers.

i will be submitting some information on the enforcement of the ban, the prosecution, fines, etc for violators of the ban on sales in the United States. Soliciting feedback prior to adding to article. Hankwilson 19:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 19:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think it's in the best interest of the article to have detailed sections on the legal status of the product in numerous locations. This type of info, if overdone, strikes me as being un-encyclopedic. --John T. Folden 20:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The legality issue is already addressed in the "Availability & Legality" section. I fear "Overdone" may turn out to be an understatement. Munatobe7 21:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Summary style indicates to me that the US subsection is quite big enough already for a top-level article on poppers. After all this is an international encyclopaedia. There is a potential to spin off a separate article on the law on poppers around the world. Obviously if people from various countries start popping up and supplying info on the law where they are to the detail we have on the countries discussed so far, then we would have to do so and keep a summary that describes the types of variation that can occur. Issues concerning systemic bias would require similar treatment to be allowed to that which the current countries receive. There is also the possibility of a separate article on the law on poppers and enforcement in the US, but that would depend on how things are seen on the grand scale of things. I can imagine some people wanting to delete such an article as not satisfying Wikipedia:Notability, but I'm not familiar enough wiht how it is implemented to know one way or the other. --Peter cohen 21:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter, thanks for the note about Wikipedia:Notability. Having just read it, it's hard to imagine poppers even being notable enough to make it onto Wikipedia, given that such a tiny portion of the population has ever heard of them, or maybe more importantly, has ever used them (Per the US Senate, "...less than 3% of the population has ever used"...poppers). IMO a separate article on a subsection for legality seems sufficiently obscure as to undoubtedly fail the Wikipedia Notability test and deletion could be expected. Munatobe7 23:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is the way that notability applies. Less than 3% of the population of the world have visited Rwanda, watched the ballet, know any speakers of any numner of languages, etc. Poppers are notable but more specialist articles may not be. --Peter cohen 23:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I hadn't looked at it that way.Munatobe7 00:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter, just read your edit to the legality section. Well done. Thanks. (Hate to ask, but have you given any thought to how to deal with the trivia section?) Munatobe7 23:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe someone else had volunteered for this. --Peter cohen 23:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I realize we're all volunteers and I didn't mean to imply anyone was dropping the ball or anything. I'd just like to see that section either cleaned up or deleted (I don't think it makes sense to try to weave that stuff into the main article; just mho). If left to me, I'd delete it, but I'm not sure it's my place to do that. I'm still of the opinion that the article is getting good enough to nominate for a Good Article citation. Munatobe7 00:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hank, the changes you were attempting to make today, and then reversed because you want to include even more information, serve as a reminder that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum.

Also, we'd already pretty much agreed that it's not a good idea to begin to muddy up the article with the minutia of the smallest detail about this and that relative to enforcement, etc. John T Folden reminded us that "This type of info, if overdone, strikes me as being un-encyclopedic".

Also, as Peter Cohen pointed out a few weeks ago: "Wikipedia:Summary style indicates to me that the US subsection is quite big enough already for a top-level article on poppers. After all this is an international encyclopaedia. There is a potential to spin off a separate article on the law on poppers around the world. Obviously if people from various countries start popping up and supplying info on the law where they are to the detail we have on the countries discussed so far, then we would have to do so and keep a summary that describes the types of variation that can occur. Issues concerning systemic bias would require similar treatment to be allowed to that which the current countries receive. There is also the possibility of a separate article on the law on poppers and enforcement in the US, but that would depend on how things are seen on the grand scale of things. I can imagine some people wanting to delete such an article as not satisfying Wikipedia:Notability, but I'm not familiar enough wiht how it is implemented to know one way or the other."

As written, the article currently does a good job of telling the story in an encyclopedic manner. If you want to make substantial changes, such as those in your reversed edit today, would you mind not making changes or adding things without first discussing on the talk page? That would be very much appreciated.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Munatobe7 02:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

KS and HHV8

I backed out an unreferenced insertion of new information.

A quick google suggests that HHV8 infection is a necessary condition for KS. But that is too weak a claim to definitively take poppers out of the picture. My understanding is that HHV8 is an opportunistic infection that takes advantage of weaknesses causes by other factors, notably HIV infection. The dispute is whether poppers are one of the factors that give HHV8 an edge. --Peter cohen 13:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)