Talk:MDMA/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Capitalization of molly/Molly

This article usually (but not always) capitalizes molly/Molly like a proper noun. However, despite it being a name, people very rarely capitalize it in the outside world. I'm in favor of treating it like a common noun. Any objections? Exercisephys (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Lower case should be fine. Sizeofint (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

New age seekers paragraph

This:

MDMA has been used as an adjunct to New Age spiritual practices.

Seems like a strangely specific fringe group to mention in a very concise section of this article. Also, it's supported with a rather iffy source from 1991. Does anyone want to keep it? If so, can someone find a better source? (That might not be easy...) Exercisephys (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Originally it was a in subsection for spiritual use. I believe CFCF merged this into the recreational use section because it was short. It was also originally referenced to Pursuit of Ecstasy by Beck and Rosenbaum [1], which is a highly cited work on MDMA use in the 1980s. Another editor switched the references for some reason. I think it is worth keeping as a stub for a spiritual uses section. Sizeofint (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's sufficient reason to keep it, honestly. Someone can start a spiritual uses section whenever, but right now this ref is used in a one-sentence paragraph that has nothing to do with the paragraph and probably isn't encyclopedia-quality information. Maybe we can leave it in a comment? Exercisephys (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, fine by me. Sizeofint (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

"Mild hallucations" vs. more realistic phrasing

MDMA only extremely rarely causes classic elaborate hallucinations at normal doses. However, medical literature has a long history of over-using that term, conflating minor perceptual alterations with strong hallucinations. Some sources like "Gender differences in the subjective effects of MDMA" recognize this - that paper uses the terms "visual (pseudo)-hallucinations" and "hallucinogen-like perceptual alterations", and "elementary hallucinations". Other sources use the term "hallucination" without qualifying it.

Of course, we have to avoid WP:SYNTH here. However, we list "Mild hallucination" as an effect now, and I think we can phrase that better. Maybe a brief list of common visual effects (color changes, trailers) taken from MEDRS sources would help.

Thoughts? Exercisephys (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have thought that as well. I think it can't hurt to be more specific as long as the sourcing stays MEDRS. Sizeofint (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Global sassafras oil shortage

However, in part due to the global supply shortage of sassafras oil, substances that are sold as "Molly" frequently contain no MDMA and instead contain methylone, ethylone, MDPV, mephedrone, or any other of the group of compounds commonly known as bath salts.

Are we sure this is a reasonable thing to include? Which source describes this? The following seems more conservative and accurate to me:

However, because alternatives are sometimes less expensive and because sassafras oil can be difficult to obtain, substances that are sold as "Molly" frequently contain no MDMA and instead contain methylone, ethylone, MDPV, mephedrone, or any other of the group of compounds commonly known as bath salts.

Exercisephys (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd just cut out the reasons why other substances are substituted in; none of the print sources appear to discuss the motivations of producers to use other substances. I can't check the Drugs Inc. sources. Sizeofint (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Good point, I'll do that. Exercisephys (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It's covered in the first 60 seconds of this link, particularly this sentence.

Also covered in the first 3 minutes of this link, which covers the limited sassafras oil supply in more detail.

You'll have to deal with the shitty video quality - sorry. The previous links were higher quality. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC: How big should the "note" be after the first sentence?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Question: How big should the "note" be after the first sentence?

Asked by Doc James (talk · contribs) [2]

• Propsal one: Keep the note small. And put the rest of the content about naming in the body. List ecstasy as the common name in the lead. Example here Note below

MDMA contracted from 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine also known as ecstasy (shortened to "E", "X", or "XTC"), Mandy, Molly

References

• Proposal two: Have a bigger note and do not have the content in the body. Do not mention ectasy as the common name in the first sentence but instead stated MDMA is contracted from 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine Example here Note below

MDMA has become widely known as ecstasy (shortened to "E", "X", or "XTC"), usually referring to its tablet form, although this term may also include the presence of possible adulterants. The UK term Mandy and the US term Molly colloquially refer to MDMA in a crystalline powder form thought to be free of adulterants. "Molly" can sometimes also refer to the related drugs methylone, MDPV, mephedrone or any other of the group of compounds commonly known as bath salts.

References

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Support option 1 (short)

• Support If we use "notes" at all they should be kept small. We should not be filling the lead full of hidden text and the lead should not contain content not also in the body of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• support per reason given above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support simple version with the common names rather than longer version. QuackGuru (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support including the common names in the very first sentence and a short note in list format with a complete list of alternate names. IMHO it should be like this:

MDMA[note 1] (contracted from 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine), also known as ecstasy, molly (US), or mandy (UK), is a psychoactive drug that...

Note 1: MDMA (contracted from 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine), also known as ecstasy, molly (US), or mandy (UK), E, X, XTC, happy, etc...

PermStrump(talk) 14:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Finetuning terminology can be done in the article body. JFW | T@lk 16:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support yes keep it simple. Absolutely put street names for recreational drugs in Society and Culture. People want to load up the first sentence with a zillion names and it is just clutter / stoner spam. Jytdog (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

But the sentence does have multiple street names. (so, you say don't even write 'XTC' in the opening line?). -DePiep (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

We list more street names in the infobox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Users will arrive at the article from the db page Ecstasy. If they don't the see the name "ecstasy" in the opening sentence (preferably in bold, along with other bolded street names) they may be confused. Maproom (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Especially in the context of redirects and possible moves, 'Ecstacy' and other common names should be clearly visible at the top. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Here by Legobot. The first option keeps things clean and concise, and more nuanced material that needs more explaining would be in the body where it belongs. We don't need to cram everything into the lede. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Support option 2 (long)

*Support I prefer the format of the longer version. Davidbuddy9 Talk  04:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Support neither

• Leave as is with no note at all e.g. [3] this version which includes essential information that should not be buried in a note. That includes the most important street names, which goes to harm reduction, which saves lives (yes even "stoner" lives). Also chemical name probably belongs in the lede., but no strong preference as long as page is moved to align with other such "drugs with initials" articles (cf. below). If we do have an note I'd still favor keeping "(shortened to "E", "X", or "XTC")" in the lede and not in the note. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 04:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC) update version preferred 17:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC); strike & update 01:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Doc James Where is the consensus that the only two options are a short or long note? If there is no such consensus then RfC is malformed without (at least) a "support neither" option (cf. DePiep and Seppi333 below). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 04:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Seppi333 was the one initially supporting the note. People are free to add more options. These other names are in the lead just in the infobox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
      • @ Doc James -- OK I've looked at other articles and believe the right thing is to move the page; please see below. Whatever happens with the note is less of a big deal; will change my !vote accordingly. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 01:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• It includes the text " In the media "Molly" can sometimes also refer to the related drugs methylone, MDPV, mephedrone or any other of the pharmacological group of compounds commonly known as bath salts.[18]" ]]Molly]] does not even redirect here. This content is too tangential for the lead IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support At this point, I don't even care because IP editors are going to end up putting the street names back in the lead - it's how those terms got there in the first place. Frankly, the lead reads almost like

  Take MDMA PO TID for desired recreational effect

  which is a bit absurd since this is a globally banned substance and not a pharmaceutical drug. Moreover, given its status, its common name in the literature is not as significant as its primary street name, which happens to be Molly or Mandy, depending on the location, and Ecstasy or one of those two, depending on the drug quality/impurities. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Per WP:OTHERNAMES ecstasy (and other names if popular enough belong in the lead). It makes sense to put the chemical description in the lead as well. The more obscure names and other related drugs belong in the body. I don't see a need for a note at all. “WarKosign” 06:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The proposal all involve putting the popular names in the lead. The question is which ones are popular and were and how in the lead they should go. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support If we decide to include any note at all, it should be small, but I think it should be smaller than Proposal 1. The lead as it is already indicates that MDMA is the acronym for 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, so it's not necessary to state it again in the note. I strongly oppose taking "3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine" out of the lead text, as suggested with the examples. -Iamozy (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• I don't really have a preference either way. It would be nice for the reader to understand what the term "ecstasy" generally refers to at the beginning. Studies often focus on ecstasy tablets rather than MDMA and the health effects can differ based on the presence of adulterants. Perhaps move the "Names" section up to before uses? Sizeofint (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Allow me to oppose both. I think the question enters through the wrong door. I suggest we start with: "what should be in the opening line?" (the two examples vary really great in this, so the note-size is like not comparable). After that, the content of the note can be as large as needed. My main concern is that the opening sentence must invite any Reader. And The 5%(?) of them who actually click to the footnote, will know what they are doing and so can use much more info & links. -DePiep (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• I also oppose both. The lead was much better before Doc James came by and "simplified" (i.e. fucked up) the text (Special:permalink/712133073). There was no need to use a note OR a names section because the most notable alternate names were mentioned in the lead itself, as they're supposed to be. There are only 3, so I don't see the point in a names section. I also don't think the note is necessary because the text in that note would fit well in the lead. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand the purpose in creating simple, easily translatable leads. I do also prefer the old lead though. Sizeofint (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not particularly inclined to sacrifice text quality for ease of translation, especially since Simple:MDMA could be used for that purpose. Also, my bad for readding this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I don't know what you mean by "the old lead" (another variant in play?). IMO the RfC is not helpful by having two different leads for the same comparative question. I suggest OP Doc James, rephrase the quest? -DePiep (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

User:DePiep not sure what you mean. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Doc James I'll try to rephrase: 1. the question is about the footnote content only. But the note relates heavily to what is in the article's opening sentence. So I suggest that that sentence becomes part of the question. 2. The examples have different opening sentences (and more are mentioned). That makes comparing difficult. The notes would be better to compare and evaluate when their article sentences are similar. -DePiep (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes the two proposals involved a number of different things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The old lead is the version in the permalink that I linked to above (Special:permalink/712133073). The entire block of text that has been repeatedly moved back and forth between a note and a "Names" section was originally just the 2nd paragraph of the lead. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

A less cluttered lede is better. Too much names in the lede is a distraction to the readers. QuackGuru (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, but don't expect me to do a four-way discussion from a two-example question. Best would be to rephrase the Q. -DePiep (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Most meds / drugs have dozens of names and nicknames. The first paragraph does not need to list them all. A few is sufficient. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

That's what the current lede (Seppi33 revert 20:46, 2 April 2016) does: list only the most important. As you say there are lots of street names (here ca. two dozen): [4] --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 04:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Oops, not the current lede anymore. I mean this version. We shouldn't be editing the part of article pertaining to the RfC unless really necessary. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 17:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Agree everything in lede should be in body, though not necessarily verbatim. Per DePiep and Seppi333 prefer no note at all (cf. !vote above) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 04:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC) struck 01:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You are free to read & use my arguments your way ;-), but my own conclusion from them is different: I can't decide between the options provided, not that I don't want any footnote at all. -DePiep (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

"no "spin" intended :-); struck --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 01:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Lead discussion

• Comment -- RETHINK! The point of the lede is NOT to supply a synopsis of the article. It is NOT to inflict the substance of the article on the passing surfer who wants to know whether to read the article. All that stuff can go into body of the article, some of it perhaps into an introduction section, headed "Introduction", reflected in the TOC, and distinct from the lede. There are all kinds of irrelevant, counter-functional rules of thumb such as 25% of the article length, but all substantial article content should be inside the article. The function of the lede is to inform the baffled searcher whether they have reached an article they want to read or not. It should fit into the pop-up one may see by hovering over a link. The reader should be in a position to say either "Oh that, forget it!" or "Good grief.Let's see this..." Fail in that and you fail the user, and thereby fail WP. Now look at the current "lede": it deals with four distinct topics, three of which have no place in the lede. It is arguable whether they even should be in an introductory section rather than in the main body sections. The first paragraph might suffice as it stands, or might be doctored a bit, perhaps by inserting after the first sentence something like: "As such it is a subject of public concern and controversy." The material in the other three belongs respectively in appropriate body sections. The lede is not a discussion section. JonRichfield (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD "the lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or lede paragraph." Sizeofint (talk) 08:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

re JonRichfield: I don't think that is the best description of a lead. We being an encyclopedia, the first sentence should simply answer: what is it? Then the Reader can decide to read a second sentence, or even click to read more of the article. I'm fine with that. From this, we could go into details. -DePiep (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

By all means offer a better definition, bearing always in mind that the "best" commonly is the enemy of the "good". As yet you do not make it clear in which way you differ with the proposed compact lede format. Consider for example that it is not always practicable, much less practical, for the first sentence simply to answer: what is it? As you rightly point out, WP is an encyclopedia; you might have added that as such it deals both with simple and simply definable topics and with complex topics that are not definable in anything like a useful lede. Where I said "The function of the lede is to inform the baffled searcher whether they have reached an article they want to read or not", that commonly indeed takes the form of defining the topic, even of only simplistically, but sometimes all one can do usefully is to indicate the field of relevance. For example: "The Donning-Vrede theorem is a lemma in n-dimensional trellis theory; it is conjectured to be of relevance in the development of a proof of the anticapacitance conjecture." No one uninformed in the field is likely to understand more than a word or two, such as "theorem" and "lemma", but such readers will not generally have to read further to realise that they will be perfectly satisfied to abandon the topic forthwith, even though they still do not know what it is that they will not be reading about. Those who are concerned with recent advances in anticapacitance will need no more to alert them to the probable interest of the no doubt following, introductory section, which might well answer the what is it? question in a page or two, or alternatively explain why it is not (yet?) possible at all to say what it is. This even might apply in physical contexts, such as in defining cosmological dark matter, which also does not belong in the lede, as is well demonstrated in the current dark matter article, no doubt inadvertently. But none of this affects the question of what most of the material in this MDMA article's lede is doing in any lede at all. As I already have pointed out, the lede is not a discussion section, and I challenge anyone to demonstrate cogently that in making that assertion I have erred. JonRichfield (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

If you have a better formulation of the lead feel free to propose it. Sizeofint (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hang on -- shouldn't the page be moved to Methylenedioxymethamphetamine?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Seems to be Wikipedia convention to do it this way -- like this. Look at LSD and MDA (MDMA's parent drug) and THC -- those pages are named for the full, best-known chemical name (WP:CHEMNAME), with their abbreviations as redirects (where appropriate). For consistency across the project should we not do that here? That would resolve some of the problems in the RfC. (Granted we don't do that for 2C-I et. al. but that whole series of designer drugs is a lot more esoteric.) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 00:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC) + diff 00:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support Weak support as nominator --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 00:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC) -- changed to "weak support", because in MDMA's case the acronym appears to be used considerably more than the spelled-out form, moreso than is the case for LSD or THC. 13:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support - no one really says "Methylenedioxymethamphetamine" to refer to this drug outside of literature, but the expanded name is consistent with other articles. The title isn't fully disambiguated without the prefix "3,4-", but that probably doesn't really matter in this case. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

<*Oppose No one calls it "Methylenedioxymethamphetamine". I would support moving it to "Ecstasy" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"Ecstasy" (tablet form of MDMA) has largely been replaced by "Molly" (encapsulated powderized crystal form of MDMA) in North America. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

But "no one" calls LSD, MDA or THC by any of their chemical names either. Actually, agree, that's truer of MDMA than of LSD or THC --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 07:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC) struck, revise 13:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONSISTENCY. We don't abbreviate LSD or THC. I would not support calling this ecstasy because the meaning is less clear. (Is it MDMA or MDMA in tablet form or MDMA + adulterants or any pill sold as ecstasy)? Sizeofint (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally there are several naming discussions in the archives. Sizeofint (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Methylenedioxymethamphetamine is not the common name. QuackGuru (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The abbreviation is far more commonly used than the full name. Besides, as has been mentioned, there are other possible methylenedioxy derivatives of methamphetamine. The current title is the best option for the article. Roches (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@ Roches - But see THC -- by the exact same logic should that not also be changed? (Note how that article's lede handles other isomers) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 07:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I was about to support, but then I read the past conversations. Galaxiaad made some really good points 9 years ago... "the full name is almost comically unwieldy... There really isn't a convention that relates to this specifically, as far as I know, because there isn't an INN for MDMA. (Actually, heroin has the INN diacetylmorphine, but the page is at heroin. Go figure.) I think it would be *much* more helpful for readers, and no less accurate, to have this article at a less unwieldy title, either MDMA or ecstasy (drug)." Someone else also pointed out that if all drugs used their correct chemical name, fluoxetine (Prozac) would be "N-methyl-3-phenyl-3-[4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-propan-1-amine." Another reason for keeping MDMA is that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of consistency on the number of hyphens and capital Ns. Someone in a previous move discussion pointed out that there are at least 3 or 4 "accepted scientific" names in the various literature.[5][6][7] (Note there is a difference between 1 and 2).

Another valid point by The Sceptical Chymist 6 year ago, "WP:MEDMOS recommends "where there is a dispute over a name, editors should cite recognised authorities and organisations rather than conduct original research.". Examples for drugs are are International Nonproprietary Name (INN) given by the World Health Organization or United States Adopted Names (USAN). Since there is no official INN or USAN for 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, the most credible candidate for the name of the article is MDMA which is used by the World Health Organization, National Insitutes of Health (NIDA) and the US Government (DEA). Also the UN International Narcotics Control Board--lists MDMA as the "non-proprietary or trivial" name and "(±)-N,α-dimethyl-3,4-(methylenedioxy)phenethylamine" as the chemical name"

Also per WP:Naming conventions (chemistry):

• General rule: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
• UPAC recommends[1] the use of non-systematic names for some organic compounds, and these recommendations should be followed in article titles. Examples: lysine not 2,6-diaminohexanoic acid
• Drug related articles: Pharmacology naming conventions. 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).

• Wikipedia policy on naming convention states that, "naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." To that end, the World Health Organization International Nonproprietary Name (INN) forms the basis of this policy.
• See also Category:Infobox drug articles with non-default infobox title

• EXCEPTIONS: Even with the best will in the world, no set of guidelines can cover every case. Some articles on Wikipedia have non-standard titles through consensus that this is the most commonly used name (in scientific circumstances) for the compound concerned, whatever IUPAC or the other rules suggest. For example: Wilkinson's catalyst not chlorotris(triphenylphosphane)rhodium; Vaska's complex not carbonylchlorobis(triphenylphosphane)iridium.

PermStrump(talk) 09:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Commonname and all that relates to it (mentioned above). -DePiep (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Support per CHEMNAME, consistency with THC, LSD, etc. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Support for consistency reasons -- see the similar structure Methylenedioxyamphetamine, which is more properly called 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine, but nevertheless methylenedioxyamphetamine is the title. And of course there's Lysergic acid diethylamide, Tetrahydrocannabinol, etc... Garzfoth (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• The common name is obviously ecstasy. If there is going to be move it is going to be to ecstasy. QuackGuru (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keeping it as MDMA isn't bad, but changing it to "ecstasy" is a terrible idea. "Ecstasy" is ambiguous (it can refer to mixtures) and hence a vio of WP:CHEMNAME. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 12:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: arguing that this page should follow "Lysergic acid diethylamide/LSD" is an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. In short, one can equally strong argue for the opposite direction: move the LSD article. -DePiep (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • There's a balance to be struck between OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (an essay) and CONSISTENCY (a policy, specifically relating to article names), and here the latter obviously weighs more. Consistency in chemical naming is important, and I think it's good to avoid acronyms unless they're considerably more well-known than the full name (as with 2C-I etc.). But I now think that's actually the case for MDMA, hence !vote change above. And emember this is not a very big deal because of redirects (i.e., both Methylenedioxymethamphetamine and MDMA will get the reader to the same article no matter what its official name is). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 13:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    • It's not the Otherstuff essay in itself that weighs, but the argument from it: on the other page, the argument is exactly mirrored and so the logical outcome is undecided.

Now you invoke 'consistency'. Even with that, the arguments is mirrored ('let's change the other page for consistency' is equally valid). But here is an argument that does change the balance: WP:COMMONNAME favors one side. -DePiep (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• oppose per reasons given above (current article-title is best)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose move/keep at MDMA per WP:RECOGNIZABLE and the rest of the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. This includes In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article and Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) and Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. Also per WP:PRECISION, I would not prefer Molly or Ecstasy as they refer to street preps of the drug in different forms while MDMA refers to the active ingredient alone, and is the simplest, most-concise and most-recognizable term that does so. Zad68 14:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Piggy backing on what Zad68 said, I realize the literature uses ecstasy and MDMA interchangeably a decent amount, but in my personal experience, kids these days (at least in my local area) rarely talk about using "ecstasy" anymore, only molly, and they genuinely don't think ecstasy is the same thing as MDMA. To them, ecstasy refers to a specific mix of MDMA with other drugs. I know that's anecdotal, but the part that's not anecdotal is that street names for drugs change all of the time and professionals are notoriously slow at catching up, so this might not be reflected in the literature for a while longer. There's good reason to think MDMA will have more staying power than ecstasy. PermStrump(talk) 16:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion

If this does not go through should we propose renaming Lysergic acid diethylamide to LSD and tetrahydrocannibinol to THC since that seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME? Sizeofint (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

BTW did anyone of you guys ever notice there's a second article 3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-hydroxy-N-methylamphetamine?? It's just a stub. But we should merge them regardless of what we call this one. PermStrump(talk) 09:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind. I thought the article was saying this was an accepted chemical name of MDMA, but I guess it's something else. PermStrump(talk) 09:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe ... if so, we should publicize it pretty widely, and it might be good to have a general RfC on several compounds. But it shouldn't become a time sink; we don't need to be too rigid about consistency, imo. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 01:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Related but not decisive: what is the INN? -DePiep (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• The INN for THC is dronabinol and for LSD, it's lysergide (according to their wikipedia articles. Some people might be interested in this past discussion of moving that page to THC. Move request: Tetrahydrocannabinol→THC. No one really made any good arguments. They basically just gave brief one sentence opinions. I think dronabinol vs THC and lysergide vs LSD either of those make more sense than how those articles are currently titled, but I don't feel that strongly about it. PermStrump(talk) 11:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Sizeofint, no, I don't think so. I think those articles have been in the "right" place for a long time now. Even if we keep this one as-is, that is not a referendum on WP:CHEMNAME. If you really want to see THC and LSD moved, then I think the best place to raise that is at WP:CHEMNAME talk page or at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Style_guide#Naming_conventions. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I meant to ask: what is the INN for MDMA? -DePiep (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry hehe. I wanted to know the other answers I guess. Apparently MDMA doesn't have one, according to the previous renaming discussions. Mr Google doesn't turn up any results, so I guess that's the case. PermStrump(talk) 14:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Is what I found too. I adjusted the infobox into |INN=none. -DePiep (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Comparing ecstasy users

Heavy ecstasy users showed symptoms of paranoid ideation, psychoticism, somatization, obsessionality, anxiety, hostility, phobic anxiety, altered appetite and restless sleep. Lighter users showed results of significantly higher scores than controls on two factors and significantly lower scores than heavy ecstasy users on another two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katie.rose614 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks but this is a rather old study (with a small sample size) and it is a primary source. We have much better sources in the article now. Sizeofint (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

References

"MDMA is often considered the drug of choice within the rave culture and is also used at clubs, festivals and house parties".

This sounds more like the mediacreated hype, who ofcourse sold more, if "E" was an item, and similary is marketing for drugs.

Reality was not this however. Maybe in English culture we see more referances to "E", at the time. This usually is simpler music though. And a few years earlier, commercialized hallucinogenic substances were typical at "Gabber" parties in The Netherlands, due to being "legal" there. The tech-trance music though, was electronic music refined to more advancedness, where producers could not use drugs, often were even under 18, and made the defining elements, that later was known as "trance". So in that sense, actually completely straight activity is what defined it, and was the driving factor. Probably why it was so popular with athletics early on aswell.

It seems more like the media made it into a drug associated thing, and also rumours about "DJS using speed" to manage doing long sets. However that they also said speed still was not a partydrug, but rather made them calm, newspapers did not mention.

Many places and houseparties actually were mostly like club activity many places, where they drank beer, and even "pot" would be considered illegal, and unwanted.

But the hype witnesses of a phenomena, that should be identified and named something. "The drug-hype phenomena: Media-drug hype for newspaper sales attracts users to parties". To the point that "houseparties" themselves are probably not so relevant, as drugs are expected, and destructive to any people and economy around it.

The same really happened to "the hippies". Once they were worn down from drugs, the salestotem simply changed, to pastell colours, and some other group was the target. Obviously some 80s group, probably with wild hair, and later obviously "houseparty"-goers later. Where many "shroomers" then, and now indeed ended up in psychiatric wards.

There really is no such culture, and sensible people should rather prefer the more mainstream alternatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.164.8 (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

We'd need a reliable source WP:RS to change this. Sizeofint (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Medical indications

@Jbottero: It's not appropriate to remove adequately referenced material without reasonable policy justification. It's not at all apparent as to why a statement referenced by the EMCDDA would be NPOV, since that's quite an authoritative source from an EU governmental organization. Do you have any medical/governmental references supporting your assertion that this statement is not entirely true? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The EMCDDA state not that ecstacy has no known medical use but that "MDMA once found limited use in psychiatric counselling, but its therapeutic use is now rare." If we are going to reference them we should at least quote them correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.167.134 (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Harm Reduction

Harm reduction, as stated by Harm Reduction International, refers to policies, programmes and practices that aim to reduce the harms associated with the use of psychoactive drugs in people unable or unwilling to stop.

Paste content

Pasting here until the section can be expanded appropriately. Keep in mind that medical information needs to have WP:MEDRS content. Sizeofint (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

No Theraputic Uses

Not accurate. Never was. The DEA scheduled it as a Schedule I substance without any basis in fact much like CPSC ruled on Buckeyballs (Which we now know was so deficient that the Judge had to "toss" most of Zen's arguments in their filing because they were only applicable (and hinted that most of them were) if the CPSC were...you know, competent, and did their jobs right...) It's classification by the DEA has flip-flopped twice and once of those was in defiance of court order. (See: https://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA-MAPS_DEA_Science_Final.pdf) The "limited" trials were for patients and situations like PTSD where it could help patients to restructure their brains. In fact, in recent times there have been decisions to move the scheduling to III on things and they have now started the process on a Phase 3 clinical trial for PSTD wherein it actually has really high rates of success in major improvement for the patients, compared to the other regimens. The descriptions for this need to be changed, guys. False but "accurate" is only for the mainstream media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.168.226 (talk • contribs)

MDMA currently has no accepted medical indications. We can't say otherwise until after the phase three trials finish. Sizeofint (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: what Sizeofint said. Also, the phase 3 clinical trial doesn't start until sometime in 2017. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Class

What should we put as the class of this drug?

I propose psychoactive drug. User:Sizeofint proposes Empathogen-entactogen. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Why? "Psychoactive drug" isn't a drug class. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

This book lists it as a "hallucinogen"[8] would be happy with that aswell. The DEA does not recognize "entactogen" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Causing hallucinations isn't really a primary effect of MDMA though. Even in this article we describe the hallucinatory effects as "mild". The primary effects of MDMA are on mood - not the modification of external stimuli. In that respect, it is more similar to an anti-depressant than a hallucinogen. Even "stimulant" would be a more accurate classification, though that also doesn't completely capture it. I'll look at a few reviews and see how they are classifying MDMA. Sizeofint (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Even the authors of that book admit the term "hallucinogen" is misleading on page 289. Sizeofint (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

In the mid-1980s, based on the structure–activity relationships of MDMA-like molecules, Nichols (1986) proposed that the psychosocial effects of MDMA represented a novel pharmacological class, which he named “entactogens” to capture its apparently unique sensory and emotional effects. Data from rodent drug-discrimination paradigms (reviewed in Glennon, 1999; Nichols and Oberlender, 1989) suggested that MDMA was clearly distinguishable from hallucinogens, but shared many pharmacological, discriminative, and behavioral effects with prototypic amphetamine-like stimulants. Finally, in the 1990s, researchers began to conduct controlled studies to measure the psychosocial effects of MDMA in humans and to compare these to the effects of other stimulants.

MDMA has a stimulant, hallucinogenic effect, and is also known to enhance mental factors such as energy, empathy and euphoria (12).

Moreover, people can experience entactogenic effects and feel extremely connected with others and some even have mild hallucinations

MDMA has been called an entactogen, meaning literally “to produce touching within”, referring to its tendency to enhance inner awareness and distinguishing it from classic psychedelic drugs such as psilocybin

Because of this serotonergic component, MDMA exhibits some mental effects that differ qualitatively from other amphetamine-type stimulants (Schmid et al., 2014 and Schmid et al., 2015) and for this reason MDMA has been classified as an “entactogen”.

Whereas phenethylamines without ring substitution usually behave as stimulants, ring substitution (as in MDMA) leads to a modification in the pharmacological properties. Ingestion of MDMA causes euphoria, increased sensory awareness and mild central stimulation. It is less hallucinogenic than its lower homologue, methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA). The terms empathogenic and entactogenic have been coined to describe the socialising effects of MDMA.

A couple of books: Thought to be relatively save, in the mid-1970s it was proposed as an adjuvant to psychotherapy by Leo Zeff and other experimental psychiatrists who touted its ability to increase patient self-esteem, empathy and nondefensiveness and to facilitate therapeutic communication; thus its original classification as and "empathogen", though the term "entactogen" is now preferred.[9] Although entactogens and stimulants display similar stereoselectivity, when tested within their respective classes, the R isomers of MDA, MDMA, and MBDB substitute for MDMA and (+)-MBDB but not for (+)-amphetamine. [10]

Bolding mine. This is what I found on the first page of pubmed index reviews (at least from the ones I can access). The book results are admittedly more biased because I searched 'MDMA entactogen'. Most of the articles here emphasize how MDMA is different from typical stimulants and hallucinogens. Sizeofint (talk) 08:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

This says the term "entactogens" is not recognized by the DEA.[11] "Some authors proposed that MDMA represented a novel class of drugs, the entactogens that were not hallucinogenic. However, the DEA did not accept this new classification" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

This book calls it a "stimulant" and a "hallucinogen"[12] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

This paper calls it a stimulant and talks about how Nichols proposed the novel class "entactogens". I am not seeing that this is an officially accepted drug class. [13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The DEA is a view - a potentially heavy weight one to be sure - but not the arbiter of what is and is not accepted classification for drugs. If the consensus in the scientific literature is that this is a valid classification - and that I think is what my initial survey of the latest reviews in PubMed suggest - then that is what we should go with regardless of the DEA's stance. To my knowledge, no scientist has the power to say, "this is now officially a drug class" so in that sense all drug classes are 'proposed'. It simply becomes accepted over time that this is indeed a valid drug classification. We can see this over at opioid. There isn't a single definition of opioid, only a set of 'proposed' definitions which are used until some more refined usage takes precedence. Notably, none of the reviews I read here disputed this classification. If they did dispute anything, it was the simple classification of MDMA with other hallucinogens and stimulants. Also, not all the sources I quote above use this 'proposed' modifier. Sizeofint (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional sources:

Not MEDRS but shows traction of the term - MDMA is the prototypical empathogen and entactogen drug

Government agency - Drug Class: Mild CNS stimulant, empathogen, entactogen, mild hallucinogen and psychedelic, appetite suppressant.

Members of the entactogen class of psychostimulants (drugs that produce an “open mind state” including feelings of interpersonal closeness, intimacy and empathy) have been less frequently studied in self-administration models. The prototypical entactogen 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA; “Ecstasy”) supports self-administration but not with the same consistency nor with the same efficacy as structurally related drugs amphetamine or methamphetamine.

• FWIW: the |class= parameter takes & shows any text (unformatted). So one could use a list of classnames, or add a description/reference. I only hope it won't be too expanded, in an infobox. -DePiep (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

How about "stimulant (entactogen)"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James and Sizeofint: Based upon the unique psychoactive effects of MDMA relative to other substituted amphetamines that lack a methylenedioxy ring, I think "Empathogen–entactogen" would be the most appropriate drug class for this compound. I've seen MDMA (as well as other methylenedioxy- derivatives of amphetamine) classified differently than amphetamine and methamphetamine in almost every paper that I've read on the class of substituted amphetamines. In most cases, MDMA and related derivatives were referred to entactogens and/or empathogens, which is in agreement with the references which Sizeofint provided. I imagine that the DEA doesn't "recognize" these two terms as drug classes because MDMA is the parent compound for all compounds in this class, none of them are licit substances, and none of them have any current medical uses. In any event, the DEA isn't an organization that is involved in the classification of drugs or other biologically active substances.

The two most common classification systems for drugs are the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System (which assigns ATC codes) and Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine. MDMA has not been assigned a drug class in either of these systems. In some cases, these classification systems assign compounds to drug classes with rather technical names; for example, amphetamine's ATC code (N06BA01) assigns amphetamine to the class of "centrally acting sympathomimetics" (note: this class is a subcategory of psychoanaleptics and "psychostimulants, agents used for ADHD, and nootropics"), which essentially means "drugs which activate the sympathetic nervous system by stimulating the central nervous system". In lieu of this technical classification, I used "CNS stimulant" in amphetamine's drugbox, since it's almost the same classification.

I don't believe that listing "hallucinogen" alone is an accurate classification for MDMA or any other substituted amphetamine for that matter. "CNS stimulant" describes some of MDMA's drug effects, but does not encompass the pro-social, empathy-promoting (i.e., empathogenic) effects for which it is often used recreationally.

I think an adequate compromise would be to list "Empathogen–entactogen", "CNS stimulant", and possibly "Euphoriant" and/or "mild hallucinogen" as drug classes in the drugbox class parameter. Listing the first 2, and possibly one or both of the other classes as well, should adequately cover its classification. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe leave it blank than if it is not categorized by either ATC code or SNM Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• I saw the note at WT:PHARM, and it's an interesting question. In a sense, it's really just "miscellaneous". I'd say the most precise description would be "euphoriant, empathogen–entactogen". I edit conflicted with Seppi333, and this suggestion is similar to his. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

These proposals seem reasonable to me. Simply saying MDMA is a stimulant or hallucinogen is, I think, misleading. That MDMA isn't present in a formal classification system is likely just due to its lack of medical indications. I don't think not having an ATC code is a persuasive reason to ignore how reliable medical/scientific sources are classifying it. Sizeofint (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Section references

References

Addictiveness

Petergstrom, is there a newer source for the claim of non-addictiveness? 1999 is rather old. Sizeofint (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree

• Pentney, Alana (Sept 2001). "An Exploration of the History and Controversies Surrounding MDMA and MDA". Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 33 (3): 213–221. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Jansen, K. L. (7 January 1999). "Ecstasy (MDMA) dependence". Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 53 (2): 121–124. ISSN 0376-8716.

This source says "may not induce classical manifestations of physical dependence"[14]

Which is not the same to as saying no risk of addiction. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Ref says "MDMA users may encounter problems similar to those experienced by amphetamine and cocaine users, including addiction. MDMA damages brain serotonin neurons. Serotonin is thought to play a role in regulating mood, memory, sleep, and appetite. Research indicates heavy MDMA may cause persistent memory problems in humans; however, a 2011 study has reported limited cognitive decline in users of MDMA.1"[15]

NIH says "Research results vary on whether MDMA is addictive. Experiments have shown that animals will self-administer MDMA—an important indicator of a drug’s abuse potential—although to a lesser degree than some other drugs such as cocaine."[16] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

"With no reports of subjects who take large amounts of MDMA for long periods of time (Peroutka l 990a), indi­ cating that the drug is not addictive, " "It has been shown that MDMA is not addictive in humans (Beck & Rosenbaum 1 994; Peroutka 1 990a; Riedlinger 1 985),"

Petergstrom (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

All those sources are old and the never sources say something different. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I would disagree, saying that the sources are totally fine despite being over a decade old, but it smells to me like the consensus is on the other side so I guess thats that #RipmemesPetergstrom (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I think both statements should be cited, with the context. The NIH statement is more recent, but it refers to animals and that animals self-administer MDMA does not by default entail that humans will as well (also noted WP:MEDANIMAL). The older statements refer to humans but are, well, older, and may have been superseded by later research. On their own, none out-WP:WEIGHT-s the other. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

We have lots of other good sources that also comment on the addiction of MDMA include "There are no specific pharmacologic treatments for MDMA addiction" 2015 Nelson Textbook of Peds Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

We have a 2010 review that says "MDMA also modulates the activity of the dynorphinergic and enkephalinergic systems in several brain structures related to addiction, as it has been shown for other psychostimulants." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This 2013 review is even clearer "Users often consider ecstasy to lack the potential for dependence or addiction, but this is not the case." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

per [17]it is a review and quite clear agree w/ Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't have access to that, but to me it smells primary. So right now we have two old sources saying it is not addictive and one new animal source and a new primary source that says it is. And we have this: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)60464-4/abstract source from the lancet that suggests its psychological dependence potential(addictive potential) is lower than cannabis.....Looks pretty clear cut, we can't say wether to not it is addictive. Better to keep it at None to moderate Petergstrom (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah seriously? It is avaliable openly from PMC[18] and pubmed calls it a review article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Petergstrom — making up facts is not a good way to go. You have access and it is marked as a review.... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Woah carl thats hostile. I googled the title and the sites i visited recquired purchase. I read the article on pubmed and it mentions dependence but i cant find it explicitly stating addiction. I still think we should list as none to moderatePetergstrom (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources and dated sources are unacceptable. We stick to recent reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• User:Petergstrom Pubmed abstracts include a classification. Click on this link for the 2013 review discussed above: PMID 24648791. Scroll down to where it says "Publication types". click the double downward arrowheads to the right, to reveal what is in the field. You will see it says "review" there. The abstract at pubmed also clearly displays links to the free version of the article, which anyone can reach by clicking the hyperlink where it says in bold and brown font "Free PMC Article", which is here.

You have now had these extremely basic things about working with medical references explained to you

If you ever write things like this again (and I am recording the diffs): diff where you wrote: I don't have access to that, but to me it smells primary.. diff I googled the title and the sites i visited recquired purchase you will not be editing about health much longer in WP. Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog, woah, that that edit did not intent to discredit the source... I clicked on something and it asked for money, so I said I had no access. Someone could have just said, no you have access, its a review...and someone did, and I accepted it.Petergstrom (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

No. The diffs say what they say I don't have access to that, but to me it smells primary. when the pubmed abstract is free and obviously classifies the ref as a review. You demonstrated pure incompetence or tendetiousness and in the context of an edit war, and none of that is acceptable. I will not continue this discussion. I have warned you to behave and edit better and that is done. Jytdog (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Dated sources?

The discussion is still underway. I don't see consensus for this. Is there a good reason to use dated sources? QuackGuru (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Petergstrom, there have been loads of reviews published the last five years. I would think there should be some that include this content if it is still the scientific consensus. If they don't then it is highly possible new research has altered the consensus. We want this article to reflect current scientific opinion which might be different from the scientific opinion from eight or sixteen years ago. Sizeofint (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't own the book, but someone pointed out the source referenced WP:MEDANIMAL, and the quotation for the book does not mention addiction at all. I think both statements should be cited as someone mentioned above.Petergstrom (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Which statement? Sizeofint (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Updated the addiction liability with a newer source. Sizeofint (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how changing

Impairments in multiple aspects of cognition, including memory, visual processing, and sleep have been noted in humans;<ref name=Current2013 /><ref name=Pharm2014 /><ref name="Abstinent MDMA fMRI review" /> the magnitude of these impairments is correlated with lifetime MDMA usage.<ref name=Current2013 /><ref name=Pharm2014 /><ref name="Abstinent MDMA fMRI review" /> Memory is impacted by ecstasy use, which is associated with impairments in several forms of memory.<ref name=Current2013 /><ref name=Pharm2014 />

to the following is an improvement.

However these findings have been inconsistent have have been of small significance, creating controversy surrounding the causal role of MDMA in long term cognitive impairment.

Assuming the text adequately summarizes the sources, the old version has references five to eight years more recent than this new text. Sizeofint (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The article is slowing moving forward without the dated sources. Every 5 years we can do this again. QuackGuru (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The addiction liability of MDMA is based upon this ref and the ratings of similar dopamine releasing agents on Wikipedia. I don't see a compelling reason to change this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

If the newer source is as good quality we should prefer it. The desired effects of MDMA are mainly serotonergic so I would expect the usage patterns to be somewhat different from other dopamine releasing agents. Different usage patterns could affect the addiction liability. Consequently, I don't think we can necessarily expect MDMA to have the same liability. Sizeofint (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving it at moderate though since that seems an acceptable reading of the source. Sizeofint (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Petergstrom, why are you using older sources to overwrite content from newer sources? If the newer sources mention the evidence is low quality, why don't you just cite them? Also, you're over WP:3RR. Sizeofint (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

If i am over 3RR, so are you. Fine I will cite newer sources.Petergstrom (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

My count is I reverted twice, Quack another two times, and Seppi once. But in any case, thanks. Sizeofint (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

ill watchlist this article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not enough to cite newer sources. We can expunge the older sources now rather than later. Is there a reason to use dated sources? QuackGuru (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

If there is a newer source cited with them I think the old sources are harmless to keep. They'll eventually disappear by attrition. Actively hunting them down is more effort than it is worth I think. Sizeofint (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

In my drafts if a newer source is just two years and cites the same or similar claim I use the newer source. If the claim is similar with the newer source I make a slight tweak to the text. I always keep things fresh. Its that simple. QuackGuru (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

This 2011 review supports the NIH source and discusses research in human subjects:

All three drugs [methamphetamine, d-amphetamine, and MDMA] have addictive potential and can lead to varying degrees of drug dependence...approximately 15% of routine MDMA users recently fit the diagnostic criteria for MDMA dependence...Comparable results have been reported following MDMA abuse in the United Kingdom (McCambridge et al., 2005). Furthermore, MDMA and D-AMPH were reported to have similar reinforcing effects in people during a controlled laboratory study (Tancer and Johanson, 2003). Thus, there is some epidemiological evidence to support the addictive potential of MDMA as described in animal studies, although to a much lesser extent than that of either METH or D-AMPH.

—PermStrump(talk) 00:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Dependence and addiction are used together in this study...it doesnt seem very good.Petergstrom (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems more useful for quantifying the dependence liability than addiction liability. Haven't finished reading it yet though. Sizeofint (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The current classification of MDMA puts it on par with amphetamine and (and phenethylamine when it's coadministered with a MAO-B inhibitor) in terms of its addiction and dependence liability, while being less addictive and less prone to induce psychological dependence than methamphetamine or cocaine. This is in part based upon usage demographics (i.e., usage patterns and the doses administered), in part based upon clinical evidence, and in part based upon the molecular neuropharmacology of each drug. I'm not aware of any substituted amphetamines that have been shown/documented to induce physical dependence. Cocaine, which is a nonselective MA reuptake inhibitor, doesn't do this, so I wouldn't expect a nonselective MA releasing agent to cause this either. It is worth pointing out that amphetamine, MDMA, and methamphetamine directly affect glutamate neurotransmission in some cell types in the brain via internalization of neuronal and/or astroglial EAATs in addition to monoamine neurotransmission via several mechanisms that affect VMAT2/DAT/NET/SERT. Alterations in synaptic glutamate concentrations in the NAcc, which is one region where these drugs affect EAATs, directly affects the development and maintenance of an addiction as a result of changes in postsynaptic glutamate receptor signaling (case in point: altered NMDA receptor signaling in the NAcc is strongly implicated in the development of addiction to ketamine and phenylcyclidine). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

So, in a nutshell, I don't see a point in trying to look for refs to change this. These "liability" parameters are really just rather subjective ratings of how likely a drug is to induce addiction or dependence relative to other drugs which have addiction/dependence liability ratings on Wikipedia. Individual liability ratings IMO are fairly meaningless without context (i.e., comparison to other drugs which induce addiction or dependence). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, phenethylamine with an MAO is not anything that is researched. I have only hear anecdotes related to it so I don't know why you mentioned it. Secondly, "The current classification of MDMA puts it on par with amphetamine". Source? We have found sources that say a variety of things, some say addictive(no magnitude), and others say not addictive. Currently, there is no quantitive data on addictiveness, the 15% is meaningless (of what population? Context of use?). The only real good way to measure addictiveness is with progressive ratio self administration break point in the same lab setting, which hasn't been done with MDMA to my knowledge, I have only found studies comparing cocaine, nicotine, cathinone, morphine and methamphetamine. Given the inconsistency, I think that low would be the best classification for addiction liability on this page, a sort of compromise/average given the sources we have. It's really the best we can do, or we can remove the statistic from the chart overall....because its kinda of hard to quantify and kinda dumb.Petergstrom (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, phenethylamine with an MAO is not anything that is researched. You're correct.

I have only hear anecdotes related to it so I don't know why you mentioned it. - re: "...in part based upon the molecular neuropharmacology of each drug"

Secondly, "The current classification of MDMA puts it on par with amphetamine". Source? - amphetamine. I was referring to the current classification on Wikipedia.

I agree that studies with each drug which utilize a standardized reinforcement schedule which is appropriate for studying self administration would be the ideal sources to use set these parameters and cite them. I'm not aware of any body of research like that though.

I don't see any reasonable justification to set the addiction liability of MDMA lower than all other dopamine releasing agents based upon the current evidence. The only ref that we have which compares it to other drugs states that its liability is "relatively small", and "moderate" is "relatively small" compared to "high", which drugs like cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin are rated. Seeing as how those are the three most widely used recreational "hard drugs" globally, I have no clue what else the term "relatively" in the phrase "relatively small" would be referring to in that reference. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Well you cant base addiction liability on pharmacology on structure. Firstly, it is well known that the speed DA activity heavily influences the euphoria experienced, and therefore the addictive potential. Secondly, given that MDMA is largely a serotonergic drug, this should prevent addiction, as 5-HT acting drugs have a tendency to create a satiation of desire-kind of like having too much of a food you like. That is why although mildly euphoric, drugs like LSD and psilocybin are not addictive. So, no. You cant say "because MDMA is a phenethylamine, it is moderately addictive". Thats way too far of a jump, not in biology. Maybe in math, maybe in physics(although probably not), but not in biology.Petergstrom (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It's probably best to ask me what I have in mind when I said "in part based upon the molecular neuropharmacology of each drug" than to assume you know what I'm referring to. Just like other dopamine releasing agents, and as stated verbatim in the article: MDMA has been shown to induce ΔFosB in the nucleus accumbens. MDMA and amphetamine induce DA/glutamate release into NAcc D1-type MSNs, which necessarily triggers the exact same signaling cascade into those neurons to induce ΔFosB expression. Those neurons don't even express serotonin receptors, so the notion that it being a serotonin releasing agent somehow changes things is asinine. The fact that MDMA and amphetamine are structural or even functional analogs is also irrelevant - the only relevant neuropharmacological aspect of these drugs in relation to addiction is how they affect neurotransmission at synapses between glutamate/dopamine neurons and D1-type NAcc medium spiny neurons. And, FWIW, the ref above that states that MDMA induces NAcc ΔFosB expression also examined MDMA, cocaine, nicotine, and amphetamine on a progressive ratio reinforcement schedule and measured their break points:[19] [20]. There's a fairly clear consensus on this talk page not to change the addiction liability, so stop edit warring. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

What is asinine is think think of addiction solely from a biochemical viewpoint. Yes FOSB expression is related to addiction, but you are forgetting addiction is at its core a behavioral phenomenon. If 2 refs explicitly state MDMA is not addictive in humans, although old, they outweigh a newer ref that suggests it induces FOSB expression in the NAcc. That is ridiculous. Stop reverting to moderate. Best to remove it during this discussion, and I think if we cant come to a conclusion, given how it is impossible to quantify addictiveness potential and the stat is stupid as is, we should remove it.Petergstrom (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

"DESPITE THE IMPORTANCE OF NUMEROUS PSYCHOSOCIAL FACTORS, AT ITS CORE, DRUG ADDICTION INVOLVES A BIOLOGICAL PROCESS" - very first words of PMID 24459410; no emphasis was added - that all caps is from the source.

This very recent review on the role of ΔFosB in addiction states outright that the degree of ΔFosB induction by a drug is a biomarker that can be used to measure the addictiveness (i.e., addiction liability) of a drug. I'd suggest that you not offhandedly disregard a field of addiction research which is extremely relevant to this conversation simply because you don't know much about it. The notion that addiction isn't a brain disorder is simply outrageous to me; seriously, what do people who advocate otherwise actually think "thought" and "behavior" comes from if not neurons within the brain? The foot? Vacuum? A magical pink bunny in the sky? Nowhere - that it just simply happens without a mechanism? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

LMAO. I never said FOSB expression should be discounted entirely, nor did I say addiction wasn't a neurological disorder. I agree FOSB is an important in addiction. However, addiction is diagnosed by behavioral traits, not FOSB expression. The reason that FOSB expression is not used as a diagnosis tool is because there are more components to addiction than FOSB expression(that an measurement). If you want to put FOSB expression in the page, then do so, however dont use that as support for putting "Addiction liability:Moderate" down. That is pure ignorance. Don't discount how complex biology is because you don't have a good understanding. Petergstrom (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you put a colon before a paragraph the paragraph is indented. Adding a colon for each "level" of the discussion helps to keep the discussion organized. Last I heard, the reason FOSB isn't used as a diagnosis tool is because they'd have to do a biopsy of your brain tissue. This is somewhat difficult to do when the subject wants to remain alive/functional. The current diagnostic criteria are a bit screwed up at the moment if you've seen our DSM-5 article. FOSB is necessary and sufficient for addiction. The relationship between the two is so close that researchers are looking into medication that will treat addiction by reducing FOSB expression. In any case, I think all the current sources support a 'moderate' rating for addiction liability. Sizeofint (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Petergstrom, my issue with your 2007 sources is that you were using them to overwrite newer sources. WP:MEDDATE is a rule of thumb, not a hard rule. I don't think your recent edits are improving this article. Sizeofint (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The FOSB article would need a secondary source stating that this is equivalent to an indication of moderate addiction liability-an editor cant make that decision. The addiction liability stat needs to go, as the only sources that specifically state addiction liability in humans(which happen to be stated as zero) are too old to be used. Either a newer source specifically stating that the addiction liability in humans in moderate needs to be found, the older sources need to be used, or the stat needs to go.Petergstrom (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

We use the best available sources for any claim. There are multiple factors that determine quality - age is only one of them. Sizeofint (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Sizeofint Lots of research has been done in the last 10 years. We need to find those sources to implement them in the article. I am currently compiling some.Petergstrom (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Then why don't you wait until you have them before you start removing content? Sizeofint (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to the addictiveness. If there is no viable source for "moderate" rating, then why is it there????. It should be gone until we have a good source for it. An study on FOSB does not allow an editor to conclude "Moderate addiction liability". A study on FOSB, can go in the effects section, not in the side bar under addiction liability. We have older sources explicitly stating no addiction liability in humans, but they are too old, however we have no newer studies explicitly contradicting them. There is of course the study on dependence, but thats not enough. In the dependence section, that should be stated, but not in the side bar under addiction lability. I don't even see where the source on MDMA decision making states it is addictive. I see a mention that decision making may play a role in addiction, and that it(addiction to another drug) was an exclusion criteria for a study. Did I miss something. Furthermore, the quotation from the book only mentions neurotoxicity, did I miss something again? Also the FOSB study used rats...I mean if the studies suggesting addiction(albeit never saying "Moderate") are rat studies, or studies using old criteria and the term dependence, then I really don't think there is enough evidence to put down "Moderate" and "15%"Petergstrom (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I see these quotations from the 15% study

These observations further question the relevance of animal experiments that rely on self-administration to gauge the addictive properties of MDMA. As outlined earlier, MDMA is not readily self-administered, indicating that its rewarding properties are modest in comparison to d-AMPH or cocaine.

However, the results of animal behavioural and toxicity studies cannot be readily extrapolated to patients. This is particularly true for MDMA where major pharmacokinetic differences exist between commonly used laboratory animals. Thus, extensive longitudinal research in clinical settings is necessary to dissect confounding environmental factors such as polytoxicomanic drug use and pre-existing mental conditions from amphetamine-induced toxicity in the future. It is safe to predict that the availability of good data and reliable epidemiological evidence will also allow for a more temperate approach to the abuse and therapeutic use of amphetamines in the future.

Studies on ‘MDMA dependence’ in humans are often confounded by mixed sample populations of poly-drug users and typically rely on subjective user reports.

Few direct correlations exist between MDMA abuse and human disease states other than addiction.

All three drugs have addictive potential and can lead to varying degrees of drug dependence.

MDMA is clearly a reinforcer in animal studies, but the mechanism of MDMA-induced drug dependence is still under scrutiny.

You have to read through the information about limitations and pick out the nuggets of information the authors feel have conclusive support. The quote in the book is used to support a statement on neurotoxicity above. I'll see if I have access to the book. If there is no viable source for "moderate" rating, then why is it there???? Well the sources so far support a low or moderate rating. Seppi believes the molecular biology source is more in line with moderate. I don't have a strong feeling on this so I'm inclined to follow his judgement on this. Sizeofint (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Petergstrom that quote is talking about neurotoxicity which is not the same thing as cognitive impairment. Sizeofint (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

So then why is it listed as a source for moderate addiction? Also, the reason Seppi gave for a biological support of moderate is only FOSB expression in rats, and an editor cannot make that jump. The sources we have don't support anything...except the old sources which support none. Petergstrom (talk) 06:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The source with that neurotoxicity quote supporting the addiction liability is used in multiple places, one of which is the discussion of neurotoxicity. That is why the quote is there. Why do you think the 2017 source doesn't support at least a low rating? The best approach is to gather good recent sources (or at least sources as good or better than what we already have) to make a case. If sources conflict we may be able to compromise with Low / Moderate or similar. This reference, for example, states MDA and MDMA are less reinforcing than amphetamine... Sizeofint (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I completely support a low rating, but I support even more a none-low rating or removal of the rating in the sidebar, and rather a discussion below in effects. Petergstrom (talk) 06:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Im gonna sum up source

It's laughable that you think my comments on a talk page have to adhere to WP:MEDRS. This source has supported the addiction liability statement ever since I added it over two years ago. The statement that it makes isn't vague/ambiguous or open to interpretation. The parameter is set to "moderate" because this is the default rating that I've given to any addictive drug unless there's a reason to set it lower or higher based upon the sources that I've used to cite addiction-related content in the article or any relevant clinical evidence that I subsequently become aware of. In other words, if a drug is addictive, it's probably going to be rated moderate. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

For addictiveness liability

• https://www.drugs.com/illicit/mdma.html drugs.com is not MEDRS

I'm actually not sure whether or not we consider drugs.com MEDRS. I think in general we try to use better sources which are almost always available Sizeofint (talk) 08:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• http://www.eurekaselect.com/71315/article/cannabinoids-opioids-and-mdma-neuropsychological-interactions-related-addiction this source which pubmed provide two external links for, both costing 50-60 dollars. It does not state anything other than MDMA being concurrently used with other drugs may affect addiction

Doesn't look like I have access. Sizeofint (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3931692/ this source which as stated above uses the DSM 4, conflates addiction and dependence, and never explicitly states that MDMA is addictive, although does infer it.

Despite having a compulsive use factor, ecstasy dependence is not typically as profound as the dependence that can occur in heavy users of alcohol, cocaine, methamphetamine, opioids, and tobacco. Compulsive use corresponds to addiction. I think this supports a low to moderate rating. Sizeofint (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/mdma-ecstasymolly which refers to animal self administration WP:MEDANIMAL, and not to addiction

Yes, they just waffle. Not too helpful for our purposes. Sizeofint (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4497800/ this which, again, never explicitly states MDMA's addictive potential, although does conflate and indicate dependence
• Seppi claiming that FOSB expression in rats is sufficient to jump to a magnitude of addiction, which firstly relies on WP:MEDANIMAL and is an inference an editor cannot make

  It's probably best to ask me what I have in mind when I said "in part based upon the molecular neuropharmacology of each drug" than to assume you know what I'm referring to. Just like other dopamine releasing agents, and as stated verbatim in the article: MDMA has been shown to induce ΔFosB in the nucleus accumbens.[7] MDMA and amphetamine induce DA/glutamate release into NAcc D1-type MSNs, which necessarily triggers the exact same signaling cascade into those neurons to induce ΔFosB expression. Those neurons don't even express serotonin receptors, so the notion that it being a serotonin releasing agent somehow changes things is asinine. The fact that MDMA and amphetamine are structural or even functional analogs is also irrelevant - the only relevant neuropharmacological aspect of these drugs in relation to addiction is how they affect neurotransmission at synapses between glutamate/dopamine neurons and D1-type NAcc medium spiny neurons. And, FWIW, the ref above that states that MDMA induces NAcc ΔFosB expression also examined MDMA, cocaine, nicotine, and amphetamine on a progressive ratio reinforcement schedule and measured their break points:[12] [13]. There's a fairly clear consensus on this talk page not to change the addiction liability, so stop edit warring

  "DESPITE THE IMPORTANCE OF NUMEROUS PSYCHOSOCIAL FACTORS, AT ITS CORE, DRUG ADDICTION INVOLVES A BIOLOGICAL PROCESS" - very first words of PMID 24459410; no emphasis was added - that all caps is from the source.

This very recent review on the role of ΔFosB in addiction states outright that the degree of ΔFosB induction by a drug is a biomarker that can be used to measure the addictiveness (i.e., addiction liability) of a drug.[8] I'd suggest that you not offhandedly disregard a field of addiction research which is extremely relevant to this conversation simply because you don't know much about it. The notion that addiction isn't a brain disorder is simply outrageous to me; seriously, what do people who advocate otherwise actually think "thought" and "behavior" comes from if not neurons within the brain? The foot? Vacuum? A magical pink bunny in the sky? Nowhere - that it just simply happens without a mechanism? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Sources indicating no addiction

• Pentney, Alana (Sept 2001). "An Exploration of the History and Controversies Surrounding MDMA and MDA". Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 33 (3): 213–221. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Although old explicitly states ""It has been shown that MDMA is not addictive in humans (Beck & Rosenbaum 1 994; Peroutka 1 990a; Riedlinger 1 985)"

Riedlinger 1985 is some of the very earliest research on MDMA. I've use Beck & Rosenbaum extensively in the history section. It is a fascinating read but I don't know why the author would cite them for medical information. In any case, we have newer and higher quality sources so this doesn't hold much weight. Sizeofint (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Jansen, K. L. (7 January 1999). "Ecstasy (MDMA) dependence". Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 53 (2): 121–124. ISSN 0376-8716. describes rare cases of addiction criteria being met with a drug that is generally considered non-addictive, evidence for at least a low rating.

  Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) is generally described as non-addictive. However, this report describes three cases in which criteria for dependence were met.

Yes, we have newer better sources now. Sizeofint (talk) 09:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a mountain of sources cited for addictiveness, but none of them are substantial...The two(old) sources that we have that actually explicitly mention addictiveness in humans as addictiveness, not dependence, mention none potential. Petergstrom (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a good start. I'm still looking through some Google Books entries. So far the sources state the liability is less than amphetamine and alcohol - substances we currently rank as moderately addictive. Sizeofint (talk) 09:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

MDMA's addictive liability appears to be lower than that of other drugs of abuse.... Here the authors are mostly comparing MDMA to cocaine and methamphetamine, drugs we currently say have a high addiction liability. Sizeofint (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

In terms of evidence for dependence-syndrome-like patterns of use, and thus diagnosability of MDMA use, historically there has been little evidence for it; the drug is typically used weekly or less at a scale inconsistent with traditional notions of drug dependence.... I can't tell if they are conflating dependence with addiction or not. Sizeofint (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Any ref that covers diagnosis will have that issue. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The APA really screwed the proverbial pooch on this one. Sizeofint (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems to present a smaller addiction potential than cocaine or methamphetamine. Sizeofint (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• PMID 23627786 (already cited in the article, from 2013) says (extended quote since it is paywalled): "While MDMA appears to be a promising treatment for at least one psychiatric disorder when combined with psychotherapy, it also possesses moderate abuse potential. Rodents and primates will self-administer MDMA [75-77]. For instance, monkeys will regularly self-administer MDMA, though they will pay a higher cost in lever presses for amphetamine or methamphetamine [78, 79]. The mood elevation produced by MDMA can be experienced as rewarding [see for instance 64, 65, 74, 80]. A national survey found that an estimated 2.5% of youths aged 12-17 and 12.4% of young adults aged 18 to 24 report using ecstasy at least once in their lives [81] and 9.1% reported use upon a second follow-up. Of those, 0.6% of this representative sample of young people, [82] and a higher percentage of polydrug users [83], report developing ecstasy dependence, though estimates vary between nations and over time, with polydrug users reporting more abuse of ecstasy. Regular and heavy users will take ecstasy once or twice a week or once every two weeks rather than on a daily basis. However, some people report problems arising from their use. Hence, like psychostimulants and unlike classic psychedelics, MDMA is associated with some abuse liability." Jytdog (talk) 10:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Is abuse liability the same thing as addiction liability? Sizeofint (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't notice this question earlier. No, not necessarily. Abuse liability reflects a drug's potential to be "abused" recreationally. The recreational potential of a drug definitely is a factor that affects a drug's addiction liability since the recreational potential of a drug is reflected in usage patterns, and usage patterns directly affect the rate at which an addiction develops; however, abuse liability is not equivalent to addiction liability in part because some drugs of abuse are not actually addictive. For example, LSD and a number of other hallucinogens are non-addictive drugs of abuse. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the way the above ref is using the phrase "abuse liability" isn't consistent with what I've just stated. What I've explained above is simply the literal meaning of the phrase "abuse liability". Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

So has the evidence pointed at any point to a moderate addiction liability? No. The reverts were wrong given no consensus from talk, but from the evidence....that is a totally different story. The evidence presented before now has not said anything about addiction, accept the outdated sources, which say no liability. Sizeofint's sources mention that the addiction potential is less than drugs right now considered to have moderate and high addiction potentials at the moment, making it logically a low addiction potential. Is there a general consensus about that? User:Jytdogs new source mentions some abuse liability, but does not mention magnitude, relative magnitude, nor does it distinguish between dependence and addiction, rather overall drug abuse. I still think low is the best choice for addiction liability.Petergstrom (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Petergstrom (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

All sources admit an addiction liability lower than methamphetamine and cocaine. This certainly places the upper bar at moderate as we have already established. A few of sources, but not all, go further and state the addiction liability is lower than amphetamine or alcohol. I would support saying an addiction liability of 'moderate – low' based on this. Sizeofint (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Section references

References