|Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Desoxypipradrol.
|WikiProject Pharmacology||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Not Illegal Under USA Analog Act
It would not fall under the analog act in the United States as pipradrol is schedule IV and the analog act only applies to drugs similar to schedule I and II drugs. I don't know about Australia's or New Zealand's analog laws so I just took "the USA" out of that sentence.
- Wouldn't it still fall under the Federal Analogue Act according to "(ii) which has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II"?--Astavats (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- From what I understand, the courts have consistently interpreted the act to require subparagraph i to apply in addition to subparagraph ii. Subparagraph i requires a substance to have a substantially similar chemical structure to a schedule-I-or-II drug to be considered a "controlled substance analogue". The closest chemical structure to desoxypipradrol in schedule I or II is methylphenidate, which is missing an entire carbon ring compared with desoxypipradrol. Since "substantially similar chemical structure" is not defined by the act and is a rather vague, subjective notion (in the opinions of some legal scholars - unconstitutionally vague), and since the case law regarding this act is relatively sparse, it could be debatable whether this substance is an illegal analogue or not. In any case, it's true that its much more clear similarity to pipradrol cannot be used as a basis for considering it illegal in the United States.MattTweedell (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
There's absolutely no references and it's hard to really find much on it. This sounds a lot like someone speculating with a ton of original research. The use for ADHD is probably reasonable enough to stay, but I honestly think both those paragraphs should be gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdafolio (talk • contribs) 18:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Reversion from 22.214.171.124's edits
I reverted all of this. It was poorly written, unreferenced and contained a lot of opinion and original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testem (talk • contribs) 12:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)