Jump to content

Talk:Heroin/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Withdrawn Request withdrawn by proposer; non-admin close.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

{{movereq|Diacetylmorphine|Heroin is an old trademark name for diacetylmorphine, it's not appropriate for an encyclopedic page title. Just as the drug "[[Ritalin]]" leads to the Wikipedia page title "Methylphenidate", "Heroin" should lead to the Wikipedia page title "Diacetylmorphine". This applies to all Wikipedia articles, the chemical name of the drug is the articles page name, and any trade names may be mention within.}}

Heroin → Diacetylmorphine — Heroin is an old trademark name for diacetylmorphine, it's not appropriate for an encyclopedic page title. Just as the drug "Ritalin" leads to the Wikipedia page title "Methylphenidate", "Heroin" should lead to the Wikipedia page title "Diacetylmorphine". This applies to all Wikipedia articles, the chemical name of the drug is the articles page name, and any trade names may be mention within. Editor182 (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • Why perpetuate ignorance? What does it matter if nobody knows what diacetylmorphine is?

Nobody knows what "Methylphenidate" is, but everybody knows what "Ritalin" is, but when someone does a search for Ritalin using a search engine, the search result for Wikipedia returns "Methylphenidate" in the lead, with "Ritalin" listed in the search summary, and if someone typed "Ritalin" in Wikipedia, they would get directed straight to "Methylphenidate". The same principle applies here and to all other popular brand name drugs.

Nobody would get lost looking for information on Wikipedia for Zoloft or Prozac, because they don't know what sertraline or fluoxetine is. Nobody would get lost or unable to find Heroin on Wikipedia because they don't know what diacetylmorphine is. This is an encyclopedia, and as such, it should be formally using chemical names and not trade names in the titles of its articles without exception to Heroin. Editor182 (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

General discussion

Unless anyone feels like making another move request, this withdrawn one should be closed, and bottomed so that the page isn't green.

On the general point: What other encyclopedia does always use chemical names? The Britannica titles the articles in question aspirin and heroin (subscription required). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that a generic substance should not be listed under one of its trade names (such as Ritalin/Zoloft). However, heroin and aspirin are genericized trademarks and the WP:COMMONNAME. jonkerz♠ 18:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't comparing Wikipedia to other encyclopedias, rather trying to improve the formality and context of this unique encyclopedia. As with the majority of relevant articles; chemical name in the title, trade name in the article, and this should be applied consistently regardless of false public perception or how historical a trade name is, it is still a trade name, a brand given to a drug for marketing purposes, not the chemical name given to the drug for informational purposes, and of course, the article is addressing the drug, the chemical compound. As it has been brought to discussion, I do think the "Aspirin" article title should be changed to "Acetylsalicylic acid", as with ANY other articles using trade names instead of chemical names in their title.

Due to early opposing comments, it became apparent that an easy transition wasn't going to happen and it wasn't worth pursuing. It's not a major detriment to this or any other article using an unconventional title, however, perpetuating popular misinformation to appeal to the majority is not in anyone’s best interest. Cocaine's chemical name is benzoylmethylecgonine? I didn't even know that until I read the article more carefully, even though I've edited it several times before! I would have like to have known that the first time I visited the article, but alas; perpetuation of common incorrect knowledge. Regardless of what drug is better known as what, as with most trade name drugs, especially Heroin, it lets the readers know what the chemical name of the drug actually is before they read, or perhaps overlook, the chemical name in the article.

"Meth" is a genericized trademark for "methamphetamine", but we haven't listed it under such an article title, although diacetylmorphine is perhaps more colloquially known as Heroin, but not significantly so. What's erroneous is that people in general don't capitalize the "H", they think "heroin" is the name of the drug, the chemical name. They wouldn't have a clue that it was sold as "Heroin", a trade name, just as I didn't know cocaine should have a capital "C". What are genericized trademarks? They're colloquial terms. What is a colloquial term? "Characteristic of informal spoken language or conversation", but does that sound appropriate for page names of Wikipedia articles? It's not.

Colloquial terms should be left for the article body, but the formal name should be the article name. People will have no problem finding the pages they're looking for, direct links will take readers to the article, just as if you were to search for "Zoloft", so that's not the issue. Most importantly, I think it would help correct the public misconception at large, not perpetuate it. I see no hope for change, as I see how well accepted and used the "characteristic of informal spoken language or conversation" for Wikipedia article titles have become. Anyway; these are just titles, misleading titles nonetheless, but the body of text underneath the title is what makes the article. I just didn't know how well accepted this was, but with my opinion said, I see no reason for me to discuss this matter any further. Editor182 (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Heroin-assisted treatment made permanent in Germany

German parliament has approved a law that moves heroin from Schedule I to Schedule II of the german narcotics law (BtmG) making it precribable by a doctor. At the same time the law adds the prescription of heroin to the catalogue of services provided by the compulsory health insurance fund. The decision has been preceeded by a 6-year trial phase that allowed six german cities to open heroin-clinics for a total of about 1000 participants nationwide. The study concluded that for longterm addicts, prescription of heroin was more effective in improving their health and social circumstances than was methadone.

http://www.euronews.net/2009/05/29/german-parliament-approves-heroin-law/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.75.221.98 (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

methadone aka hitler's drug could be useful for some stagaes of the addiction, now this is scedule 2, proves my point on different worldwide views!
im not using my chemistry/physics account since 2008 so wikidiots aka wikingrates dont suspend it, but i contributed great deal!lol!

EDIT BY READER: ....what is this crap?

"There are many cases happening nowadays that people are getting drugged without knowing about it. Some Mean people put it in various foodstuff that you buy from stores or in my case an Ice - Cream Store."

sure, maybe in nightclubs with rohypnol. but are you suggesting that people are now becoming addicted to heroin from "mean" people spiking their ice cream with it, and then, assuming that actually happened, they became so strung out and addicted to the opiate from that single dose that they required heavily-assisted rehabilitation? Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about, or any credible sources for this information? Not only is all this bollocks impossible, it's just plain ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.213.155 (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Price

The price of heroin is known to vary from region to region in the United States. Other factors such as quantity, quality, and location contribute to the overall price paid by the end users. Based on data collected from each US county, the average price of Heroin in the United States is $111.67 per low-quality gram.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dopestats (talk • contribs) 06:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Deerhunter

In this movie, it is shown to the audience in the last scene that the character 'Nick' is a heroin abuser, and this makes him play Russian Roulette every night. Should this be included? --ScythreTalkContribs 11:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Long-Term effects

I read the sources on the long term effects of heroin use picture and most if not all the physical side effects listed are from other agents cut in to the heroin or from poor hygiene. None of those effects are from the drug itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.71.21 (talk) 05:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That's because natural-based opioids are considered "relatively safe" in terms of long term effects and organ-toxicity. However, I would argue endocrine disorders and disorders of the pain-endorphin system do crop up that can be quite serious. Long exposure to the histamine makes an individual, clean for weeks, have uncontrolled sneezing fits, increased instance of nocturnal emission in males, moments of body pain radiating from the kidneys, and all over a more "sensitized" CNS relation to physical sensory convulsive input which in long term use and last unexpectedly for years thereafter; I heard colloquially of a user who had used/abused opiates/opioids for 15 years; after 30 years of being clean he would still have moments where he would, on a random day, keel over in pain and hot/cold flashes, goosebumps and sweats, and within 30 minutes or so resume normal sensory input. Indicative of a long term endocrine rewiring/disorder. 70.59.139.4 (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

diamorphine as infobox 'synonym'

besides the very article name controversy; should a "brand name" such as "diamorphine" be listen among synonyms in that area of the inforbox? I say not. Brand names run too many and I believe only generic synonyms (as the rest of the names given currently are) should be included. (indeed: the "dia-" element alone is not a properly informative scientific name of its chemical structure unlike how "di-(twice) -acetyl (acetalated) morphine" is. As for what the morphine type is.) 98.246.62.216 (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Diamorphine is not a brand name, it is the BAN synonym for diacetylmorphine. C6541 (T↔C) 06:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Heroine

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change Heroine to Heroin

Heroin (the drug) is misspelled as Heroine (the female hero) in at least one place.

Can this be fixed please? (Sadly, it has made the Heroin page #1 on Google UK for Heroine)

Dorward (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

checkY Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Pregnancy cat.

In the information side thing near the top, it says 'Pregnancy cat.' under the section Therapeutic considerations. I think that this should be called 'Pregnancy CATEGORY' instead to avoid confusion; I thought of a feline when I first read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.57.153.134 (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Press Hype

The history of prohibition needs expanding here. Read Flat Earth News by Nick Davies. He contends that the drug is benign and UK users were minimum in the UK until the press hyped it up and the UK Government piggy-backed Regan's war on drugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.253.176 (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Becoming addicted

Could a knowledgeable editor add to the article the answer to the simple question, "How many injections of heroin would it take for a new user to become addicted?" The answer is presumably going to be complex, but the article currently only alludes to the answer. Prompted by a questioner at the Science Reference Desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a completely subjective question. Some may say it was on the first time they injected, others may say the "addiction" didn't start until after slowly increasing dosages. I don't think there is going to be a definitive number of shots you inject before addiction sets in. jlcoving (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The question is indeed quite irrelevant. There are reports of people using it often, but not in an addicted way (say: every few weeks, just when they feel about it) and do not get addicted, while others say: o well, one time using it was enough! On physical basis, even, heroin is quite inaddictive, other than popular belief. There have been reports showing that a big part of the addict-effect is placebo, where people that said to be addicted received water/salt solutions instead of heroin and felt good, while others received full dosis heroin but were told it was half dosis or quarter dosis instead: they screemed as if they were dying. The heroin-addiction is a lie that is helt alive because it suits so many: the pharmaceutical companies most of all, for methadone - the believed-to-be-addictionkiller - (which is far more addictive), is produced by them and they fare well on it; the addicted themselves, because they lack the will to stop - it is easier to blame the strength of a drug than the lack of will of yourselves -; the doctors, because they have work because of this addiction, or worse, because they dont see the lies - which happens quite often because addicts are geat liers -; and the newspapers, because it is a nice story. Do not see me wrong: you can get addicted. But throwing up, fainting, that kind of stuff... no. Only while quitting in combination with other drugs might this happen - like: alcohol, methadone etc - but not heroin itself. You can get addicted in the way one gets addicted to weed, just somewhat heavier, and only weak minds continue their bad habit. Anyone willing to stop can stop in a few days: he will just feel... well, annoyed, irritated... it is not dangerous. Just a hard process that might need some professional help to keep from the heroin, just like some women need help to keep from buying new shoes and some men to keep from buying sex magazines: they will get irritated, annoyed and when given the chance, will buy new; that is all that is to it. Stein, 14:55, 6 september 2010

Bad grammar in the etymology section

{{editsemiprotected}}

The etymology section contains the passage "However it was chiefly developed as a morphine substitute for the coughs..." I would propose that the "the coughs" is clumsy and should be replaced with "cough suppression" or something like that.

--TechnoDanny (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Done Replaced with [[cough medicine|cough supressants]] -Optigan13 (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

--

I wouldn't say it's bad grammar, it could depend on the location of the poster. In the US we would say "he went to the hospital" yet in the UK they would say "he went to hospital." It could be this case, the original poster being from a different country where they may state things in a way that we are used to.

This is one of the joys & banes of the internet. You can get views from people from all over the globe, yet some people get upset if a poster if the language/grammar is different. Kielhofer 20:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request, in the literature section there are 2 bands missing

{{editsemiprotected}} bands like guns and roses were on and off heroin users, and wrote a song, "Mr Brownstone" about it the rolling stones were also heroin users and wrote a song about it called "brown sugar" about their beloved drug

58.167.229.137 (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources.  Chzz  ►  10:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Movies - French Connection 2?

Excuse me, I don't know how to post. But isn't "French Connection 2" centred around portrayal of heroin addiction & withdrawal, and should certianly be mentioned in Movies section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.111.78 (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 72.214.122.146, 6 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

72.214.122.146 (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. BejinhanTalk 02:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Howie Epstein

of the Heartbreakers fame ought to be in here, from what I understand. Vranak (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Withdrawl experience

As a Psychologist who has worked with narcotic addicts and received a post-degree diploma in pharmacology I have to try strongly to disabuse people of this common view re-cited in the article: "Frequent and regular administration is associated with tolerance, 'moderate' physical dependence, and severe psychological dependence."

This is a robust thorn in the paw of persons caught in addiction as well as a adamantine wall to proper assistance of such persons toward recovery. I refer to the mistaken idea that even M.D.'s often hold that the physical dependence caused by diacetylmorphine/heroin is "moderate"' I do not know if this idea is so diasporadic because of a lack of knowledge in those who should by all means hold such knowledge or if it is an artifact of social judging. Withdrawl, most especially "cold turkey" withdrawl from heroin is a physically violent experience with profound acute health consequences for the individual. Common reactions from a large dose addiction ( the mean of street addicted patients ) withdrawl include:[1]

  • Serious Dysentery [2]
  • Projectile Vomiting

( These two leading to serious dehydration, electrolyte imbalance leading to arrhythmia and/or seizures )

  • Clonic, or Tonic-Clonic seizures [3]
  • Neuralgia, Myalgia, headaches and arthritic pain
  • ( intense pain, modified by the lack of all buffer systems which inure one to, and allow one to cope with, pain )
  • Serious abdominal cramping and pain
  • Cardiac arrhythmia [4]
  • Piloerection and cold-sweats [5]
  • Vertigo, sometimes severe [6]
  • Profound psychological distress including serious panic attacks. [7]

This is a short list. The usual quote is " heroin withdrawl is like a medium flu ", in reality it is more like having the Norwalk virus after getting hit by a load of bricks plus the chance of seizure while undergoing panic-attacks. I feel this minimalization of the effects causes persons undergoing this process whether out of accident or of self assertion to be denied appropriate medical care. Appropriate medical care of someone going through this hell would, IMHO, include:

  • Ringer's Lactate drip [for hydration and electrolyte balance]
  • Loperimide (anti-diarrhoeal)
  • Painkillers ( NSAIDS are too hard on the stomach, so tylenol, or ever mild opiods such as tylenol #3 or darvon )
  • IBS medication such as the bromide drugs
  • Powerful anti-emetics
  • mild exercise like walking
  • vitamins and supportive nutrition

AND- a caring, helpful attitude. Imagine all the people going through this physical and psychic hell who are denied simple care because this mantra of "Heroin withdrawl is just like having the flu". Yes, maybe the true Influenza, with the dangers associated, but not the common cold as most lay-people and even medical doctors seem to imply or believe. The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin_withdrawal explains the experience well,

This is a good article but from experience I feel I need to combat the misinformation of "a mild to moderate ache and sniffle" for the good of those healing. Many people delay or refuse treatment BECAUSE then are aware that the doctors are going to under-treat them. Imagine you had a knife in your gut and you knew the hospital would just yank it out and put a band-aid on it thinking this was an appropriate and comprehensive protocol. Would you go to the hospital, or would you find 'other assistance'?

Thank you for listening to me.

Drew Beckett, BSc, MA, PhD (Candidate) Αγαθος και Σωφος, Σωφος και Καλος, Καλος και Αγαθος (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In comparison to sedative-hypnotic withdrawal eg barbiturate, alcohol, benzodiazepine, I feel opiod withdrawal is moderate. Heroin withdrawal if done using a tapered detox with a drug like buprenorphine it can be made a lot easier (but still is difficult and unpleasant). Electrolyte disturbances would not be due to the direct effects of the withdrawal, but would be secondary effects. The article does not say anything about flu and you are welcome to add sourced withdrawal effects of heroin. Also at least a third and up to two thirds of heroin addicts also abuse and are dependent on alcohol and benzodiazepines (often high doses) and it is not unusual to have a dual withdrawal syndrome going on which is not always recognised.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Recreational use / Sentence correction question

I made a minor edit to correct a typo in the following sentence: "Heroin in the US is most commonly its hydrochloride salt, requiring just water to dissolve."
My "fixed" sentence is as follows: "Heroin in the US most commonly has hydrochloride salt, requiring just water to dissolve." Although grammatically correct, I'm not sure if it is scientifically correct or if this was what the original author had in mind. The previous sentence in the article states: "Heroin base (commonly found in Europe), when prepared for injection will only dissolve in water when mixed with an acid...".
Perhaps the sentence in question should read: "Heroin in the US is most commonly based in hydrochloride salt...". While this sounds the best, it would be pure speculation on my part. Please advise.
Thanks Soundcomm (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. It doesn't contain hydrochloride salt, it is the form of the heroin itself -- diacetylmorphine hydrochloride. Just like pharmaceutical morphine is usually found as morphine sulfate, oxycodone is usually found as oxycodone hydrochloride, and hydrocodone is usually found as hydrocodone bitartrate, most of the heroin found in the United States is heroin hydrochloride. This is opposed to freebase heroin. Jersey emt (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 203.129.63.224, 17 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The article refers to a "Sydney supervised heroin injecting room". This is wrong in that it is not just a supervised injecting room for heroin. Other drugs can be injected in the room.

203.129.63.224 (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

An edit request should request a specific change in wording, not just complain about something. What ought to go there instead? Looie496 (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree. I've delisted the request for now; once you rephrase it, feel free to relist it. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Jargon . . . and more jargon.

So the article on heroin has "multiple issues", has it--one of which is said to be the use of "too much jargon"? Just what is the phrase "has issues", if not jargon?70.253.165.145 (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

THE DERIVATION OF THE WORD "HEROIN" IS GREEK

In the paragraph "Etymology" you mention: "The name (heroin) was derived from the German word "heroisch" (heroic), due to its perceived "heroic" effects upon a user." I have to inform you that the word heroic (and heroin too) comes from the Greek word "Ηρωικός" that means someone very brave.I would very much appreciate it if you corrected it. Thank you very much!

Eleftheria Giannakopoulou,
Athens, Greece.195.167.36.70 (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The German word is of course Greek in origin, through Latin heroicus; but that is off topic for this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The name origin is a bit more complicated.

There were many wars during the 19th century, most of them 'modern' wars with improved weapons and mass casualties. Improvements in battlefield surgery and the introduction of opium-based analgesics (morphine, laudanum, codeine)improved survival. It also increased the number of soldiers that came home addicted to opiates. Even though opiates were not controlled drugs - available over-the-counter at almost any apothecary - there was a stigma attached to being addicted. Opiate addiction was even called "The Soldier's Disease." Bayer decided to create the trade name 'Heroin' for diacetylmorphine because Bayer claimed it would treat or cure opiate addiction, and make a hero out of the addicted soldier. The use of the suffix -in was in keeping with the times. Biochemistry was discovering new proteins and amino acids and their importance in physiology. This was fairly well known among the public, so the -in suffix was added to many medications, nutriional products and patent medicines to make them more appealing and marketable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvwoolner (talk • contribs) 02:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.4.219.93, 19 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} There is a paragraph near the beginning where a few countries are listed as places one cannot produce, sell, etc., heroin without a licence. I suggest listing the countries where this IS allowed instead, if there are any, as the list of all the countries where it is illegal (without a licence) would be awfully long...!--Ronja R (talk) 01:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


24.4.219.93 (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)heroin is bad

Not done: elektrikSHOOS 22:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Relaxation versus Euphoria

I have added a wikilink to the word relaxation since there is a brewing debate as to whether it and the word euphoria are synonmous. In order to avoid an edit war that could get wikieditors caught by the three-revert rule, and subsequently blocked from editing this or any other article at Wikipedia, those wikieditors that are invested in this article should try and arrive at a consensus regarding relaxation versus euphoria. Once a consensus is arrived at, then a final edit should be made to the article. — SpikeToronto (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Brewing debate? I haven't seen one debate. Anyways relaxation is the state of being relaxed and euphoria is a state of great elation and wellbeing. C6541 (T↔C) 22:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Im not going to war over it.. but if a drug is euphoric, obviously it is relaxing? sounds a bit... repetitious. If he wants both, fine but it just looks redundant. Tdinatale (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Euphoria is induced by a release of dopamine in the brain, and is often correlated with the use or abuse of addictive substances. Opiates are ranked by two major effects: (1) euphoria and (2) analgesia. I would associate relaxation more with analgesia than the euphoric aspect, so no, I disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.149.84 (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Price

Why is there a price section for heroin, but not marijuana (which is by far more popular) or even cocaine? Tdinatale (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Errr, because that's the way Wikis work. Someone's got round to adding a section on cost/price. If you know any info on the cost of marijuana or cocaine then please add it to the relevant wiki pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.104 (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It almost seems as if user Tdinatale has some personal issues that make this a conflict of interests. I don't see why anyone would complain about cost being displayed, especially on the argument that marijuana should have a section for it first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.149.84 (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Figures for Annual Global Production Weight and Value

It would be good to have weight and value of annual production, law enforcement seisures and end use if these are all available. Quick search produced: http://www.globalcollab.org/Nautilus/australia/afghanistan/opium-prod "in 2007 Afghanistan produced an extraordinary 8,200 tons of opium (34% more than in 2006), becoming practically the exclusive supplier of the world's deadliest drug (93% of the global opiates market)" Loads more info on that page. --131.111.8.104 (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"90% of diacetylmorphine is said to be produced in Afghanistan.[4]" Article cited is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8540726.stm Article's actual statement is: Victor Ivanov said at least 30,000 people died in Russia every year from heroin, 90% of it from Afghanistan.

Clearly this statistic is meant to be Russia specific, the note in the article implies world-wide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.249.116.202 (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Routes of Administration

87.180.193.240 (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)The passage which I believe needs urgent correction currently reads as follows:

"Thus, with both higher the dosage of diacetylmorphine used and faster the route of administration used, the higher potential risk for psychological addiction."

As it currently stands, this sentence makes hardly any sense and/or is ungrammatical. The author (whom I suspect is a non-native speaker/writer of English) is probably attempting to argue that the route of administration of injection harbors a higher potential for psychological addiction than other routes. Specifically, the author offers two possible justifications for this conclusion: 1) those who prefer to self-administer heroin by means of injection tend to inject doses larger than the doses users administer to themselves by other routes; and 2) Heroin thus injected enters the user's system faster via this route (as compared to other routes, e.g., insufflation, oral administration, suppositories, etc.)

But the first justification is without evidence: Nowhere is it stated that injected doses tend to be larger than doses administered in other fashions.

However, the second justification (faster uptake) is intuitively understandable. I therefore request that this sentence be "cleaned up" grammatically and that the remark concerning "higher dosage" be either deleted or supported with evidence.

Musicians who have used heroin, or written about heroin use

I'm not a big fan of that section, I think it's too long and slightly useless, and yet...There are some big names missing. Billie Holiday, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, these are some pretty notable people whose use was well documented... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.23.204.53 (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget John Lennon and Jimmy Page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb4427 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


Lanye Staley is also missing, I meaan he O.D.ed on a speedball. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.7.162 (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Musicians who have used heroin, or written about heroin

I have removed the uncited claims as there where quite a few, if anyone wants to cite them and replace them please feel free to do so, they are here Talk:Heroin/Archive 3 - Personally I would say the whole section is trivia and distracts from the value of the article and the article would be better without it. Off2riorob (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I totally disagree that it detracts from the value of the page and will add a cite to the musician I added: Jerry Garcia. jlcoving (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to disagree but there appears to be a degree of support that it is a trivial tangential list as in WP:NOTDIR . It is so obvious that people do not come here to this article wanting to know anything about musicians that have used heroin. Off2riorob (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think... it's fine. Musicians and music has a more than tangential relationship with drugs, particularly heroin. There is a lot of output from the area of music relating to the drug. I'd prefer to see an article on it, but in the mean time (till someone wants to write that) this seems reasonable --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 21:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

To reiterate my first post on the subject: I agree with Tmorton. As he said, drugs, in particular heroin, have more than just a passing connection with music. As he said, if it could be made into a separate article, great. But until then, I think it adds value to the article. jlcoving (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Dave Mustaine from Megadeth should be added to the list of musician users. He writes about it also in his autobiography, "Mustaine: A Life in Metal" 222.153.90.139 (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Crack heroin

There is mention of "crack heroin" a high purity, crystalline form of the drug being used in Iran here [8] there's been a BBC news report that refers to it too: [9]. It's also mentioned in this article [10] Does this deserve a mention here? Smartse (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

individual countries & their use of certain substance is not important, also there are different rules to what degree something is controled substance or not or under what circumstances!

Illegal brown heroin often is already a free base. Crack just refers to the stabilized "free" base of cocaine. The illegal heroin contains mostly the diacetyl form of morphine and also monacetylcodeine and -morphine as well as free morphine, but NOT often in form of the hydrochloride salt, unless it comes from certain sources (such East Asia and India) from diverted pharmaceutical infrastructure. The illegal brownish powder, crudely acetylated from the morphine base (which is obtained these days mostly from Afghani opium) is only partially a salt of heroin, the rest is heroin base, essentially, and can only be solubilized in low pH aqueous solutions . Hence, through a number of forms of consumption (smoking, snorting, injecting), it acts quicker (and even more addictive), particularly in the case of insufflation or smoking, it is much easier absorbed than the pharmaceutical form, the diacetylmorphine HCl (the salt of heroin). There are only a few remaining legal laboratories (for example in France) that produce diacetyl morphine HCl for the pharmaceutical market. But this substance acts quite differently compared to the illegal form of heroin, which is again partially present in its free base form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.3.234.176 (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The UK Department of Health's Rolleston Committee report in 1926

{{editsemiprotected}} This is an important report!

Please change: The UK Department of Health's Rolleston Committee report in 1926
To
The UK Department of Health's Rolleston Committee Report in 1926[2]2829VC (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Done So, that was just the capitalization on the word "Report", right? If so, it's done. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


No, sorry, first it's in bold and secondly I've added a reference to http://www.drugtext.org/Table/Rolleston-Report2829VC (talk) 08:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

We do not use boldface except in very special circumstances; you can see those laid out at MOS:BOLD. I will, though, add the reference. Qwyrxian (talk)

Strange, I've used bold elsewhere without without drawing comment, it seems natural for the title of something2829VC (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Also there's going to be a Rolleston Report2829VC (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference to The Brain Committee

{{editsemiprotected}} Can this be changed please: The failure changed the attitudes; in 1964 only specialized clinics and selected approved doctors were allowed to prescribe diacetylmorphine to users.

To:

The failure changed the attitudes; in 1964 only specialized clinics and selected approved doctors were allowed to prescribe diacetylmorphine to users. See The Brain Committee.2829VC (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't write sentences that explicitly say "See Article X". If there is a clear way to work that term into this article, we can add it, but not in a "meta-writing" style. Alternative, we could add a link in the See Also section, although I'm not sure that we should, because this is just one committee in one country that studied the problem, and there are many such studies, so I don't think it's important enough to include there; if we did so, we'd have to add dozens of others, and it would go beyond what a See Also section is supposed to do. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok (this paragraph is uk specific, please note) try this please:
Can this be changed please:
The failure changed the attitudes; in 1964 only specialized clinics and selected approved doctors were allowed to prescribe diacetylmorphine to users.
To:
The failure changed the attitudes; in 1964 the Brain Committee recommended that only selected approved doctors working at approved specialised centres be allowed to prescribe diacetylmorphine and benzoylmethylecgonine to users.2829VC (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
That works for me. I did, however, remove the "The failure changed the attitudes;" as that doesn't seem to be adequately supported by the references, and isn't grammatically correct. I think the idea is still adequately expressed just starting from "In 1964..." Qwyrxian (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, yes I agree about 'the failure...etc, and it's not clear whose attitudes! 2829VC (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Heroin → Diamorphine — British Approved (generic) Names are preferred over brand names on Wikipedia; everyone knows that Heroin is a trademark of Bayer, and that the real name of this particular anodyne is diamorphine or diacetylmorphine, because it's got two acetyl groups bolted on top of a morphine molecule. Nmatavka (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

  • WP:COMMONNAME. No way could this be considered an uncontroversial requests.--18:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The above move request is a contested request from WP:Requested moves. The above are taken from that page. Dpmuk (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

UK Medicinal control

Heroin is indeed a class A drug (as is stated in the article). However, for medicinal use it is a Schedule 2 Controlled Drug per the Misuse of Drugs regulations 2001 as listed here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/3998/schedule/2/made RMX Insanity (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Request to Unprotect "Heroin" Page

I would like to request unprotection from the "Heroin" Page so that I can add a section for school-related purposes.

You may request to add to the article by placing {{edit semi-protected}} followed by your request. —GFOLEY FOUR— 02:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected}}

I would like to add to the existing "Heroin" page on Wikipedia. This is an assignment for a class I am taking at Northeastern University and I would like to add a "Structural Analysis" portion to #4,Usage and effects in the Contents. The portion will be numbered 4.4:Structural Analysis and will have these subtitles: 

                                4.4.1 Theories
       	   	         4.4.2 Subculture
                                4.4.3 Social Controls

The lead that I added to the existing entry is bolded and I would like to add it after the phrase "which may develop into addiction" in the heroin introduction.

Heroin (diacetylmorphine (INN)), also known as diamorphine (BAN), is a semi-synthetic opioid drug synthesized frommorphine, a derivative of the opium poppy. It is the 3,6-diacetyl ester of morphine (di (two)-acetyl-morphine). The whitecrystalline form is commonly the hydrochloride salt diacetylmorphine hydrochloride, though often adulterated thus dulling the sheen and consistency from that to a matte white powder, which diacetylmorphine freebase typically is.[3]90% of diacetylmorphine is thought to be produced in Afghanistan.[4] As with other opioids, diacetylmorphine is used as both an analgesic and a recreational drug. Frequent and regular administration is associated with tolerance and physical dependence, which may develop into addiction. Social Theories are used to explain the external forces that lead to heroin usage such as Strain Theory (also known as Anomie) by Robert K. Merton. Merton states that the mode of adaptation for heroin users is through retreatism. These users are criticized for their participation in such a subculture and some may confuse them as a counterculture. Internationally, diacetylmorphine is controlled under Schedules I and IV of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.[5] It is illegal to manufacture, possess, or sell diacetylmorphine without a license in Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Iran, India, the Netherlands, the United States, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Pakistan, the United Kingdom and Swaziland. Under the chemical name diamorphine, diacetylmorphine is a legally prescribed controlled drug in the United Kingdom. It is available for prescription to long-term users in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Germany and Denmark alongside psycho-social care,[6][7] and a similar programme is being campaigned for by liberal political parties in Norway. Some countries allow the government to sell or donate high-quality seizures of drugs and precursors which are otherwise legal for medicinal use to pharmaceutical manufacturers for use in preparing licit supplies of medical drugs and research chemicals; this was the case in Croatia prior to 2007.[8]

Here is the rest of the entry that I have completed, using valid sources and would like to add:

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ______________________________________________________________________________


THEORIES: Robert K. Merton’s Anomie Theory is a social and cultural explanation for deviance. It is described as a normal response to social pressures that are inflicted upon individuals. According to Merton, anomie, or strain, is caused by the commonly accepted goals and the means to achieve them. In regards to heroin usage, many users are raised in impoverished communities, which lack social control and legitimate opportunities [1]. In Righteous Dopefiend, a notable ethnography written by Philippe Bourgois and Jeff Schonberg, drug addiction in contemporary United States is described in detail [2]. They primarily focus on the indigent community of Edgewater, San Francisco, and discuss the internal and external factors that contributed to their deviant conformity, such as violent homes and parental neglect. The lack of emotional, social, and financial support causes strain and influences individuals to engage in deviant acts [2]. These deviant acts infiltrate heroin usage.

Retreatism is a mode of adaptation that is described by Merton as rejecting society’s cultural and institutionalized means of achieving them [1]. Efforts are taken away from earning money legally and priority is given to committing illegal acts in order to support their habits. Retreatists don’t see opportunity in anything and cannot find acceptance in society’s legitimate groups [2.] Heroin users, such as those described in Righteous Dopefiend, focus on supporting their habit, instead of attempting to gain an education or acquire a job. Deviant acts f heroin users consist of stealing from local stores and residents, reselling syringes to make a profit, and begging on street corners [2]. Merton states that the lower class is more prone to suffer from “aspiration-opportunity disjunction”, meaning they lack more opportunities than the middle and upper-level classes, restricting them from achieving their goals [3]. This is used to explain how the status of many heroin users is the cause of delinquency and leads to drug involvement.

(diagram of Robert Merton's Theory on Retreatism inserted here) Retreatism: Rejects society’s Cultural and Institutionalized means of achieving goals.

Subculture ______________________________________

Philippe Bourgeois & Jeff Schonberg’s ethnography “Righteous Dopefiend” indicates the social structure of the heroin users subculture. Within their subculture is a hierarchical social order among these users. Individuals with the most money and power are at the head of their internal structure. Success and power is based upon materialistic properties such as: the amount of drugs each hold, if they have a shelter or lean to or personal ownership of materialistic norms such as cars. The most “successful” users are viewed upon with respect by the lesser in hopes of one day becoming their running partner or to get “gifts” of leftover heroin. There is a continuous struggle for power and achievement just as there is in any existing society today. Although a struggle for power exists among the heroin users, there is a familial bond between them. These users are victims of symbolic violence due to personal backgrounds in physical/emotional/sexual/economic troubles from their past. Such hardships eventually lead to the use of this drug as well as severe alcoholism. Because of these troubles, the group forms a bond and will take care of each other as long as they are true to one another and equally share “gifts” (hit of the drug). [2]


(picture inserted here)Four members of the Heroin community in Edgewater, San Francisco, express their comradery. [2]


(picture inserted here)A couple from the heroin community of Edgewater, San Francisco share the drug with one another and shows the bond that it brings.


Social Controls ________________________________________________

Formal social controls affect the lives of heroin users the most. In fear of the law and its enforcement for having paraphernalia on them, users revert to unsanitary locations as well as injection processes (multiple use of needles). In turn, this risky behavior leads to the rampant spread of diseases such as AIDS and Hepatitis C. Because of issues in illiteracy and lack of resources among users, knowledge of their disease does not help to restructure shooting habits to a healthier, more sterile one. [2]




________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Abadinsky, Howard. Organized Crime. 8th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2007. Print. [2] Bourgois, P., & Schonberg, J. (2009). Righteous Dopefiend. Berkley: University of California Press. [3] Thio, Alex. "A Critical Look at Merton's Anomie Theory." The Pacific Sociological Review18.2 (1975): 139-58. JSTOR. Web. 16 Mar. 2011. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1388629>.


--Tashap12 (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


It reads too much like an essay, rather than an encyclopedic article. Read WP:BETTER. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Tashap12, a first question: Does Merton discuss Dopefiend or Bourgois & Schonberg in his book? Or does Thio does the two of them together? If not, we can't put the two of them together in the article, because of a part of our policy on original research called synthesis. This is probably weird if you're not used to Wikipedia, but it's essentially the opposite of how we write for university research. In university research, it's generally considered to be ideal to make connections between very different pieces of research to show how their are connected or contradictory. Unfortunately, doing that on Wikipedia is forbidden because it's a form of original research. So the first thing is to figure out if the fundamental basis of this proposed section is summary (good) or original research (bad). Once we figure that out, we can work on the "essay-like" problem that User:This, that and the other talks about. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Since the issue is under discussion, and will take some work, I'm untranscluding the edit request, as we're going to need consensus to make that change; this doesn't mean, Tashap12, that we're not doing the change, just that it's being investigated and discussed here, so no need for the special notification. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, Thank you for your response and feedback. I am going to look over everything today/tonight and answer all of your questions by tomorrow so we can hopefully progress to the next step.--Tashap12 (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Followup

Qwyrxian, 1) We're working on making the entry sound less like an essay and more encyclopedic. What suggestions do you have to make it sound less like an essay? Are there any specific parts of the entry that stood out as more of an essay? 2) There's no original research involved—I think you confused the authors. Robert K. Merton developed strain theory in 1938. He didn't write "Righteous Dopefiend". The authors of Righteous Dopefiend are two anthropologists, Philippe Bourgois and Jeff Schonberg. They related strain theory to their research and our proposed section is a summary of that. 3.) What does untranscluding mean?

Thanks! --Tashap12 (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

My key question, which I think I know but I want to be sure on, is did Borugois and Schonberg explicitly discuss strain theory in their research? If so, then this will be a possible addition, we just need to rephrase parts. I was worried that, in fact, the Merton and Bougois & Schonberg were wholly separate, and you were the one connecting them. Once you confirm this question, I'll figure out how to reword it.
Sorry about "untranscluding". That just means I changed your edit request (note how it now appears in plain text and doesn't have that big orange box). The reason I did that is so that your request doesn't show up in a special administrative category; it doesn't need to now, since editors are currently discussing the issue here. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, Yes,Borugois and Schonberg explicitly discussed strain theory in their research. Merton, Borugois and Schonberg were not wholly separate.Thanks for the explanation on untranscluding, it makes more sense now. --Tashap12 (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, What is the next step in the process? How can I make it sound less like an essay and more like an encyclopedia article? Thanks!--Tashap12 (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot about this. Okay, next step: cut out every part of that discussion that isn't directly related to heroin. This is not the page to discuss, in general, social theories of drug use. That info would probably go onto Substance dependence, or possibly another page. That means that 1) You shouldn't discuss Merton's theory directly, but just mention briefly that B&S use the theory to explain heroin addiction in a California community. 2) everything else needs to be phrased specifically in terms of heroin and heroin communities, not drug communities in general. Let's see how that goes. Probably the easiest place to do this will be in a sandbox in your userspace. I'm going to create just such a page at User:Tashap12/Sandbox, and copy over your work from above into that space. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I just checked what you copied into User:Tashap12/Sandbox and it's not the updated entry that I posted into the Heroin page. I had revised this entry and eliminated two of the images that I had originally inserted from the book that I cited. I also edited the entry to make it sound more like an encyclopedia. Should I copy and paste the edited entry into the sandbox page? Thanks--Tashap12 (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Qwyrxian,
I was able to edit the Heroin page and add the revised entry to be reviewed by Wikipedia. Did I post it correctly? I tried to edit it so that it sounds less like an encyclopedia and more like an essay. If you could please give me some feedback, I would appreciate it. Thank you!--Tashap12 (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I removed that "helpme" because that can only go on your talk page. See my note above above. I had to revert your change to the article, because you basically duplicated the entire text. The information isn't ready yet to go into the article, because it's not focused enough on Heroin, specifically. I can do the editing myself in your sandbox, but that may interfere with your school project. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean it will interfere with my school project if you do the editing yourself? I have about another week before it's due so the more editing I can get, the better it will be. Thanks again for all of your feedback.--Tashap12 (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
What I mean is, normally, what I would do is go in with my editorial sword and start cutting away at your suggested addition myself, helping you prune and improve the writing, since Wikipedia editing is collaborative in nature. What I'm worried is that, if I do that, your prof might be bothered by the fact that you didn't actually do the work yourself. But, if you want, I can start that process in the sandbox I made; I should be able to get to it in the next few days. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I am encouraged to get all of the assistance I can in editing the entry for the assignment. The entry you added to the sandbox page is not my updated entry. I made a few major revisions to make it sound more encyclopedic. I will post my edited entry to the sandbox page and if you could read and edit through that, I would really appreciate it. Thanks again!--Tashap12 (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Libel

I don't think you are supposed to be accusing people of drug abuse without evidence so perhaps Slash (musician) and Trent Reznor should be removed from the musicans list. Fugyoo (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing; I have removed them. Once you're confirmed (a few more edits from now), you should always remove any such possible violations of WP:BLP immediately. Qwyrxian (talk)

Image long-term effects

I've changed it once already but it was changed back. The long-term effects listed in that image next to medical use only apply to long-term i.v. usage of heroin. Somebody smoking heroin will certainly not suffer from collapsed veins and abscesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hisredrighthand (talk • contribs) 19:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There is a very large difference between using any opiate intravenously vs. oral/intranasal/rectal administration. Unfortunately, in this case, the problem is the source:
"Chronic users may develop collapsed veins, infection of the heart lining and valves, abscesses, and liver or kidney disease. Pulmonary complications, including various types of pneumonia, may result from the poor health of the abuser as well as from heroin’s depressing effects on respiration. In addition to the effects of the drug itself, street heroin often contains toxic contaminants or additives that can clog blood vessels leading to the lungs, liver, kidneys, or brain, causing permanent damage to vital organs." (1)
Heroin cannot cause collapsed veins or 'clogged blood vessels' unless it is injected. The risk factor for many other side effects is also decreased if the user doesn't inject. Unfortunately the source doesn't make this distinction. I favour keeping the change made by Hisredrighthand simply because he's correct. Then again, WP does operate on the policy of 'Verifiability, not truth' (WP:V). Essentially, we need to find a source that examines the subject matter in better detail. I would also venture to say that while publications by U.S. Government are great resources for certain matters (CIA's World Factbook comes to mind) they cannot be a wholly independent source on this issue because it is in the Government's best interest to strongly discourage the use of drugs such as heroin (see: War on Drugs). DubiousIrony yell 03:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree, I'd even say any government publication on this matter are WP:POV since governments have to fulfill treaty obligations such as the Single_Convention on Narcotic Drugs. --Hisredrighthand (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Name change

Someone recently changed the all the words 'heroin' in the article to diacetylmorphine. This doesn't seem to really fit. I mean, heroin isn't really slang; it just denotes a rather... negative connotation. However, diacetylmorphine just seems unnatural, forced, and nonsequitorial. I think we should change it back to heroin. For example, in the article about Aspirin, it is refered to as Aspirin, not acetylsalicylic acid. They were both invented near the same time, by the same company, and are both not patented. 69.142.35.12 (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur; Shadowjams put it back to heroin. I feel like this issue was discussed before; do any of the regular editors remember? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I actually did a fair amount of research into this before making the change. I don't remember exactly, but there was an earlier discussion years ago where there was, in my opinion, no consensus to make that change. However at some point (I don't remember when... although I may go back and try to find it again) a single editor changed almost every instance of "heroin" to "diacetylmorphine." I'm of the opinion that the context is important. The most obvious analog is Cocaine, which has a chemical name of benzoylmethylecgonine. However most of the article refers to it by its commonly used name. There are plenty of other examples. I was conservative in changing many of the instances, there are a few more that could easily be changed. The only places where using the chemical name makes sense is in the pharmaceutical context. For instance, prescribed heroin should probably referred to as diacetylmorphine. I also think it should remain the chemical name when describing, for example, the creation process. However, by and large, the name should match the article title, and moreover, it should match the common usage in the common context. This is not a technical chemistry text (and even in those instances the common name is used overwhelmingly); wikipedia would be unreadable by those outside the field if we took the technical-name approach to all subjects. Shadowjams (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Grammar

I couldn't edit the article directly, so I see no other option but to mention this triviality on the discussion page... Under "Film and Television", the sentence

The 2000 American film, Requiem for a Dream, depicts, among other things, the diacetylmorphine addiction of young couple.

misses an "a" before "young couple".

15:20, 17 March 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.206.127.102 (talk)

Thanks! I've made the change. In the future, if you add {{editsemiprotected}} at the top of a section like this (when you see a change that needs to be made on a semi-protected page), it will call attention to the request and list it on a special noticeboard for people to respond to. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yitzachmmeyer (talk) 07:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC) 12:24, 30 June 2011. As I too cannot edit the article directly, I would request another grammar fix. The section on suppository administration uses the word "you" in a second-person form. I would suggest that rather than, "...You get a rush from the drugs..." that something akin to "Users experience a rush from the drug..." I hope I notated all this correctly. Thank you!


Done. Also, in the future, please make new edit requests at the bottom of the page, where they're more likely to be noticed by other users. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It is Not Libel if There is Evidence to Support It! (Please Re-Add Slash to the List)

Actually, according to page 142 of Slash's autobiography, both Slash, and his band-mate, Izzy Stradlin, have claimed to have heavily abused heroin, and even expressed this in the lyrics of one of their songs. Please re-add Slash to the list. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.104.90 (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Please provide the exact page number and a quotation to verify that statement. Since this is a highly contentious claim, we need to be completely certain of what it says before adding. Note that song lyrics are never reliable sources, given that there is no particular reason to believe any given lyric is true. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
According to page 142 of Slash, by Slash with Anthony Bozza, "Ironically, one of the first songs we worked up there was 'Mr. Brownstown', a track that was concieved under much dimmer circumstances. Izzy, his girlfriend Dezi, and I were up at their apartment one night when we came up with it. They had a little dinette set that we'd sit around cooking up our shit and then we'd just jam. We were sitting there complaining, as junkies do, about our dealers, as well as just complaining about being junkies, and that's where that song came from. It basically described a day in the life for us at the time."
As you can see, he makes several references to drug addiction, and being that he claims to have based the lyrics of "Mr. Brownstone" off of this experience (brownstone is slang for heroin), we can assume that he was indirectly referencing heroin use, even though he never mentions any specific drug.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.104.90 (talk • contribs)
Without the drug specifically named we can't use it. If he had said "we were cooking up our brownstone", we could include it, but here the reference isn't clear enough, at least in my opinion. Anyone else have input? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Aha! Qwyrxian, I have found the specific verification that you were looking for: according to page 280 of Watch You Bleed: The Saga of Guns N' Roses By Stephen Davis, "Slash was also adjusting to becoming, as he later put it,'a major heroin addict.' His beloved grandmother had died in the summer, making matters even worse for Saul Hudson. Heroin helped him get through this shattering loss."
Now, please re-add Slash to the list. Thank you for your time.--67.186.104.90 (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

John Phillips

Please change the link for John Phillips from the disambiguation page to the specific page for John Phillips (musician) of The Mammas and Pappas.

Thank you. --EarthboundEngineer (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, fixed it myself. I just figured out that the page is only semi-protected. :D --EarthboundEngineer (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Routes of Administration - INJECTION

"As with the injection of any drug, if a group of users share a common needle without sterilization procedures, blood-borne diseases, such as HIV or hepatitis, can be transmitted."

Must be changed to "WITH OR WITHOUT sterilization procedures. The current wording suggests that sharing a needle won't cause any harm if it's sterilized firstt - impossible. It's possible for a non hep-c positive person to give themselves Hep-C from the environment if they mess with new needles.... let alone used ones. 121.73.249.90 (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying it is impossible to sterilize a needle? One way or the other, can you provide a good citation to back up what you are saying? Looie496 (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Image long-term effects (again)

  • I am removing the illustration labelled "long-term effects of heroin" as it contains some clearly false information (see the discussion above). Apparently, earlier attempts to remove it were reversed because no other authority was given. The Merck Manual - Fifteenth Edition, pp. 1484-5 says: "Many but not all complications of heroin addiction are related to unsanitary administration of the drug.... Some neurologic complications are thought to be due to allergic responses to the heroin-adulterant mixture. Other complications include superficial cutaneous abcesses, cellulitis, lymphangitis, lymphadenitis, and phlebitis from contaminated needles." So, these are not effects of the drug use itself, but of using adulterated heroin or unsanitary needles. Someone who smoked or took the drug orally would not get these effects (though certainly, there are other serious side effects from the drug itself). The Merck Manual is one of the most respected medical texts available and later editions (including the latest available, the 2006 18th edition) say very similar things - but I don't have a copy to hand. The next edition of the Merck Manual is due to be released soon, so maybe some editor can get hold of a copy and update this note if necessary when it becomes available? Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I restored it, and added a note, pending discussion. If heroin cannot be got without the adulterants, and if circumstances force use without asepticness, then to most people they are an integral part of the heroin. To many people "heroin" is the contaminated illegal drug, and "diamorphine" or "diamorph" is the pure medical drug. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I have just added the phrase: "and contaminated needles" to your caption. I would like to see more discussion about all this because I believe false information about drug use leads to increased abuse (eg. scare tactics - like those in this diagram seem to make many people just laugh at all warnings) and, also, they may well scare off people using the drug legally to deal with severe chronic pain. Heroin is still by far the most effective drug to control such pain and allows such patients to be alert and responsive to family and friends almost up to the time of their death. Trying to control such severe pain with morphine (the next strongest painkiller) means having to dope the person out so much they cannot communicate properly - an act I feel is a form of totally unnecessary institutional cruelty. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Additional note

The Merck Manual of Home Health Handbook - 2nd edition, 2003 - states on p. 2097, that: "Opioids [which include heroin] do not cause many long-term complications other than dependence. However, many complications can result from sharing needles with another person and frrom unknowingly injecting other substances with the opioid...."

Songs

There are many songs that reference heroin use or addiction.

Two more to consider for that short bullet list are Under the Bridge by Red Hot Chili Peppers (possibly the most famous song that references heroin/cocaine use) and Time Out of Mind by Steely Dan (the "chase the dragon" song).

First, Wikipedia guidelines strongly prefer that we don't just include "Trivia" sections--i.e., collections of times something is mentioned in pop culture. Do some articles have them? Yes. Should they? Generally, no; and when they do, we often limit them to creative works bigger than a song. The second problem is that we would still need reliable sources. Does everyone know that "Under the Bridge" is about heroin? Yeah, probably if they were listing to alt rock in the 90s. But does the song actually say heroin? No. We would need a reliable source that explicitly stated that the song is about heroin for any which didn't use the exact word. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Production

The referens does not seem to say that 90% of illicit diamorphine (heroin) is thought to be produced in Afghanistan as it is in Wikipedia article. Reference seems to say that 90 % of heroine used in Russia comes from Afghanistan. Ivo (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I think I've fixed the problem, by rewording the sentence and changing to a different ref. (I also did a major copy-edit to the whole paragraph while I was at it.) Looie496 (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Times has moved "First murder charge over heroin mix that killed 400" into archive with "http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article619947.ece" being the new url. The old url currently linked in the page does not work anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.175.73.204 (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect

"In the United States, diacetylmorphine is a schedule I drug according to the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, making it illegal to possess without a DEA license." I'm a Citizen of the USA, and have lived in my country and been familiar with its laws for all my life. Schedule I substances are illegal, period, end of discussion. There is no such thing as a DEA license for legal possession. I'm going to correct this. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong. Scientific laboratories can work with schedule 1 drugs if they have the required licenses. I have undone your change. If you feel that clarification is required, I might well agree -- but please take a look at our Controlled Substances Act article first. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Moreover, there are possible medical uses as the article discusses, although I don't know if those are used in the U.S., but as Looie says, the article was correct before. Shadowjams (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Merck Manual

It is availabe online (can't edit refs now), for example: http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/special_subjects/drug_use_and_abuse/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikvolf (talk • contribs) 15:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible Title Change

I would just like to point out that other articles involving drugs on Wikipedia are generally named after the chemical name of the drug, such as MDMA, which 'ecstasy' redirects to. Has anyone considered the idea of renaming this article to 'diamorphine' or 'diacetylmorphine' and having heroin as a subcategory? Since diamorphine is regularaly used as a strong painkiller in the UK without being referred to as heroin - heroin, despite being the original Bayer patent name for the drug no longer really refers to the pure chemical itself, but only to the drug as sold on the street with all contaminants and associated risks. A large number of people have complained, stating this article is biased as it lists many harmful effects of the drug that would not occur if it was in its pure form - therefore, if this article was renamed it would be possible to have a seperate section relating to adulterated 'street' heroin and the associated risks caused by adulterants and unsafe injection techniques could then be treated seperately from pure diamorphine, which is considerably safer. I feel there is a great deal of ignorance surrounding this drug - many people, particularly journalists (who may well use Wikipedia as a reference for their articles) seem to have the belief that heroin itself is somehow chemically different and more dangerous than other opiate painkillers, when in fact its effects are essentially identical (To quote an example, a fairly recent Daily Mail artcle stated that poppies can either be used to produce life-saving morphine or if used in the 'wrong way' by criminals can produce the 'deadly drug' heroin! - this is potentially dangerous misinformation and it also implies that morphine is perfectly safe, when it is essentially the same chemical as heroin...) What would other editors think about renaming this article? D. Dinneen 04:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

On a typical day, between 50 and 100 people access this article as "diamorphine", and another 50 to 100 as "diacetylmorphine", but over 5000 access it as "heroin". Thus around 98% of people who come to this article are looking for information about "heroin", and we can best serve our readers by using that as the article title. Regarding the other points, I think your facts are partly incorrect, but if you can show reputable published sources to back them up, please do so. Looie496 (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


Firstly, the fact so many look up the chemical under a certain name is redundant, espescially considering it redirects to the article anyway. Thousands more users probably search for the word 'Shit' to view the 'Faeces' article but that certainly does not mean we should name it to this. This article is specifically about the chemical (& drug) diamorphine and heroin, as I understand it, refers not to this but to an impure street drug containing anything from 0 to 100% diamorphine and a whole host of other contaminants.

Secondly, which facts do you specifically disagree with? It is unfortunately the case that there will always be a fair degree of political bias within a given article, particularly on a site such as Wikipedia and this is certainly the case with the heroin article as it exists at present. Anecdotal reports stemming from over 100 years suggest, that despite being extremely physically addictive diacetlymorphine is relatively benign in all other areas - I can easily find a host of anecdotal reports backing this up. For one, my grandfather was both a GP and an opiate addict using large amounts of pharmaceutical diamorphine daily for over 50 years, eventually passing away in 2006 aged 96 from old age. He had few health complaints and was a mentally stable, socially functioning individual. (Compare this with a street heroin user or long term alcoholic and the outcome would, in the majority of cases, be quite a different one). I certainly agree that anecdotal evidence is far from ideal, however your request for statistical evidencce to back this up is to a large extent redundant - scientists are, at present, forced to bow to the current political climate to a fairly major extent, no matter how much we would wish to avoid it - those who carry out research into the positive effects of illegal drugs soon tend to find themselves shunned by their peers and written off as academics and denied funding (particularly if the government funds their research, as is often the case!) - the result is that few of these reports exist on this side of drug use, even if a great deal of anecdotal evidence exists to suggest the expected findings to be correct. Any scientist knows that politics should have no bearing on findings but even in a democracy this is hard to acheive, particularly with the current hysteria and media hype surrounding drug use. Please take these factors into account before you consider whether or not this article is biased. D Dinneen (talk) 11:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It's true, according to the literature, that people given free access to heroin will eventually stabilize at some dosage level and can maintain it indefinitely with limited side-effects (although there are some, such as constipation). It's still a dangerous drug though in the sense that the level causing a fatal overdose is not a great deal higher than the effective level. Also such a person is living on the threshold of the abyss, with dreadful consequences if there is any interruption of the supply. In any case, the main statement that I disagree with is that pure heroin is safe -- with uncut heroin it is very easy to accidentally produce an overdose. But above all I believe that this article must not give the impression that heroin is something a person can safely experiment with: it has a high tendency to produce addiction, and a person addicted to it who does not have a reliable uninterrupted supply is going to live a miserable life. Looie496 (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the issue of politics and sources--Wikipedia does not and will never consider factors like that when considering what to include in an article. We will never replace reliable sources, especially in a medical article, with anecdotal reports. If the vast majority of scientists say something in published scientific literature, then we are not going to say the opposite just because of some unpublished (or not reliably published) claims to the contrary along with vague hand-waving about political bias. If we took that kind of tactic, we'd never be able to decide what to write in Wikipedia, because anyone could claim that the "official story" is nothing other than politics and their own pet/conspiracy theory was obviously the truth based on anecdotal/personal evidence. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"Where a compound has a WHO International Nonproprietary Name (INN), this should be used as the article title. Exceptions would be where the pharmaceutical use of a certain compound is secondary to other applications (commodity chemical, synthetic intermediate, etc., agriculture or industry)." There you go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.106.235 (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME.--Peter cohen (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

water solubility

Apparently, the water solubility of heroin freebase is 1+1700. The drugbox template requires it to be in mg/ml though. It should also have the HCl. Nagelfar (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing Content without Discussion

I have twice added the songs "Sister Morphine" by The Rolling Stones, "Happiness is a Warm Gun" by the Beatles, "The Scorpion" and/or "Poison was the Cure" by Megadeth, and most prominently, "Hand of Doom" by Black Sabbath, but someone keeps deleting them. I understand that art is always up for interpretation, but please, if you disagree with their meaning, consult the discussion page and state your reasons before you just impulsively delete them. Personally, I don't think "Master of Puppets" should be mentioned, since it is so vague, but I will leave it. However, a few of the songs I mentioned are much more direct. I am definitely going to re-add "Hand of Doom", but I will leave the other songs up for discussion. --EarthboundEngineer (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You can see why it was removed in this case by consulting the edit summaries in the page history. The problem is this: Wikipedia doesn't work by a bunch of editors deciding on the talk page whether or not songs have this meaning. Instead, it works by verifiability - in effect, a reliable source must have stated that the song has that meaning. You are welcome to re add them after finding such a source; I will not personally remove it as it seems plausible and does little harm if it is incorrect but I expect it will be removed by the editor who removed it last time. I hope this helps. Also, I have moved this discussion to the bottom of the talk page for you where it is conventionally kept. Egg Centric 21:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Egg centric is correct. Unless the song in question explicitly uses a phrase like "I injected myself with heroin", it can't be in the article. Happiness is a Warm Gun is, in fact, a great example of why this is the case, since John Lennon has explicitly stated that, in his opinion as the author of the song, the lyrics have absolutely nothing to do with heroin whatsoever. Now, I don't know "Hand of Doom", but I just looked up the lyrics, and they absolutely do not refer to heroin. They refer to some sort of injected drug, but there's lots of those...or the phrase "push the needle in" could even be metaphorical. The whole point is that, per WP's rules, neither you nor I are qualified to interpret the meaning of those lyrics. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I understand. Thank you for the explanation. --67.186.104.90 (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 February 2012

Footnote no 21 is false. "Retreatism" in terms of "anomy theory" has not been "first described" by Howard Abadinsky in 2007, but by Robert King Merton in 1938!!! Abadinsky simply refers to Mertons anomy theory!

90.3.20.221 (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Not done: Please express the change you would like in a 'please change X to Y' degree of detail. If the sentence is incorrect, how should the sentence read? The facts in the sentence need to be supported by a reliable source, if they are not already supported by reference 21. Thanks, [User:Celestra|Celestra]] (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • It han been speaked tahat in many countries de Eurpa anda Australia guves diacetilmotphine for adictis. In Andalicía )Spain) The juntsaa of Andalucía has delivery a preogran to suministrate diacetilmorphine intravenous unstead of methadne, to persosns which lives in bad condictionns social, pero hasta ahora el plan es derucido yo creo que debería extenderse a rodos. 12:13, 4 May 2012‎ User:217.217.197.24

As title2829 VC 00:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate it. It is quite amusing that they at that time did not want to criminalise drug users as it was seen as a middle class problem. Just goes to show how ridiculous some of the motives behind the drug war is, eh?
Having said that, as a middle class opioid addict I do think that would have been at least a bit better than criminilising me as well. I know what direction to pass the port, what what Egg Centric 00:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Heroin is not really a prodrug

Heroin is converted into morphine, so is technically a prodrug, but heroin itself it 10 tomes more potent as an opioid agonist than morphine. The introduction really should reflect that. It is a little misleading to call it a prodrug without stating that it's conversion into morphine REDUCES it's pharmacologic effects by a factor of 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalkyl (talk • contribs) 14:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Heroin itself is an active drug, I have corrected the opening paragraph. In fact, the journal article cited by the misleading sentence states that heroin is an active drug. Heroin is converted into morphine, and that makes morphine an active metabolite, which is quite a common occurrence in pharmacology. However, heroin is definitely not "10 times" more potent than morphine. The most reliable sources say heroin is 1 to 1.5 times as potent as morphine, and some sources say 2 to 4 times. Several articles with these figures are linked in the references of this Wikipedia page.
Fluoborate (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.dopestats.com/template/drug/36/
  2. ^ http://www.drugtext.org/Table/Rolleston-Report/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heroin/Archive_4&oldid=1142763350"