Talk:Methoxetamine: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by 68.225.88.31 - "→Designer drug: " |
|||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
How can one effectively source the claim that methoxetamine is a designer drug? This wikipedia page (with the - dubious anyway, apparently - definition at [[Designer drugs]]) is claiming that methoxetamine was "created (or marketed, if they had already existed) to get around existing drug laws"? One could (if to do so didn't seem both irresponsible and possibly unencyclopaedic) link to a website selling the chemical, but then the website selling the chemical probably wouldn't make it clear for what purpose the chemical was created (or marketed). If one cannot source it, perhaps the claim should be removed, and the page should just say that methoxetamine is a "chemcial of the arylcyclohexylamine class". But then, I think we all know that it probably is a designer drug, but I'm not sure that's good enough to warrant inclusion of that claim: our deduction that it is being marketed to get around existing drug laws smells somewhat of original research to me. So I'll add 'citation needed', and seek others' views on this... [[User:GoVaLe2|GoVaLe2]] ([[User talk:GoVaLe2|talk]]) 11:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC) |
How can one effectively source the claim that methoxetamine is a designer drug? This wikipedia page (with the - dubious anyway, apparently - definition at [[Designer drugs]]) is claiming that methoxetamine was "created (or marketed, if they had already existed) to get around existing drug laws"? One could (if to do so didn't seem both irresponsible and possibly unencyclopaedic) link to a website selling the chemical, but then the website selling the chemical probably wouldn't make it clear for what purpose the chemical was created (or marketed). If one cannot source it, perhaps the claim should be removed, and the page should just say that methoxetamine is a "chemcial of the arylcyclohexylamine class". But then, I think we all know that it probably is a designer drug, but I'm not sure that's good enough to warrant inclusion of that claim: our deduction that it is being marketed to get around existing drug laws smells somewhat of original research to me. So I'll add 'citation needed', and seek others' views on this... [[User:GoVaLe2|GoVaLe2]] ([[User talk:GoVaLe2|talk]]) 11:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
Don't be pedantic. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.225.88.31|68.225.88.31]] ([[User talk:68.225.88.31|talk]]) 03:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Don't be pedantic. There's no mention of this chemical in scientific literature. It appeared out of nowhere on vendor web sites which openly refer to it as a replacement for ketamine. It's clearly a designer drug... what do you want, vials of it to come with designer labels like jeans? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.225.88.31|68.225.88.31]] ([[User talk:68.225.88.31|talk]]) 03:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== Substance of Abuse == |
== Substance of Abuse == |
Revision as of 03:15, 18 January 2011
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Methoxetamine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Pharmacology Stub‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
|
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Chemicals Stub‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
|
Designer drug
How can one effectively source the claim that methoxetamine is a designer drug? This wikipedia page (with the - dubious anyway, apparently - definition at Designer drugs) is claiming that methoxetamine was "created (or marketed, if they had already existed) to get around existing drug laws"? One could (if to do so didn't seem both irresponsible and possibly unencyclopaedic) link to a website selling the chemical, but then the website selling the chemical probably wouldn't make it clear for what purpose the chemical was created (or marketed). If one cannot source it, perhaps the claim should be removed, and the page should just say that methoxetamine is a "chemcial of the arylcyclohexylamine class". But then, I think we all know that it probably is a designer drug, but I'm not sure that's good enough to warrant inclusion of that claim: our deduction that it is being marketed to get around existing drug laws smells somewhat of original research to me. So I'll add 'citation needed', and seek others' views on this... GoVaLe2 (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't be pedantic. There's no mention of this chemical in scientific literature. It appeared out of nowhere on vendor web sites which openly refer to it as a replacement for ketamine. It's clearly a designer drug... what do you want, vials of it to come with designer labels like jeans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.88.31 (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Substance of Abuse
I would suggest that categorisation as such is a matter of subjective opinion.