From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Pharmacology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Chemicals (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of psychoactive and recreational drugs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Designer drug[edit]

How can one effectively source the claim that methoxetamine is a designer drug? This wikipedia page (with the - dubious anyway, apparently - definition at Designer drugs) is claiming that methoxetamine was "created (or marketed, if they had already existed) to get around existing drug laws"? One could (if to do so didn't seem both irresponsible and possibly unencyclopaedic) link to a website selling the chemical, but then the website selling the chemical probably wouldn't make it clear for what purpose the chemical was created (or marketed). If one cannot source it, perhaps the claim should be removed, and the page should just say that methoxetamine is a "chemcial of the arylcyclohexylamine class". But then, I think we all know that it probably is a designer drug, but I'm not sure that's good enough to warrant inclusion of that claim: our deduction that it is being marketed to get around existing drug laws smells somewhat of original research to me. So I'll add 'citation needed', and seek others' views on this... GoVaLe2 (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't be pedantic. There's no mention of this chemical in scientific literature. It appeared out of nowhere on vendor web sites which openly refer to it as a replacement for ketamine. It's clearly a designer drug... what do you want, vials of it to come with designer labels like jeans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ironically enough, it does come with designer labels on the packaging to signify authenticity, they are small rectangular holographic stickers that say METHOXETAMINE TM, and are only present on "official" batches.--Valerophenone (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The Lednicer paper says nothing about MXE, or any related arylcyclohexylamines behaving as opioid pro-drugs, where did that come from? It is my suspicion that vendors repeatedly edit this page to insert false information about MXE's rumored opioidergic effects in order to boost sales. Editors should be aware of this.

Substance of Abuse[edit]

I would suggest that categorisation as such is a matter of subjective opinion.

Since no one understands the mechanism by which ketamine causes cystitis it is reckless to suggest this ketamine-derivative does not cause bladder damage. This article is perpetuating a potentially dangerous myth since both ketamine and methoxetamine are clearly heavily abused drugs all around the world. There is not enough research on methoxetamine to suggest it does not damage the bladder. The only article on Pubmed is not freely available. (Cavebloke (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC))

Nobody ever said "does not cause." It says "lessons the risk" which is almost certainly true as the dose is lower. The fact that no instances of bladder toxicity have been reported does not confirm this fact and only time will tell, but I think saying there is lessoned risk is a reasonable assumption, in any case that is what the creator "M." thinks.

Since the creator of Methoxetamine has not performed any toxicity testing and has reported no safety data for the drug I do not believe he is qualified to comment on direct tissue-specific toxicity in the bladder (I believe anecdotally that his background is Chemistry and not Toxicology). Since this is a blackmarket drug with no control over dosage I think there are dangerous implications to suggesting this drug lessens the risk to the bladder. In my opinion, this appears to be a commercial move by the creator/manufaturers of Methoxetamine who want the many global ketamine users with bladder problems to switch to Methoxetamine. I have edited the wiki to remove the statement on cystitis because the citations used were not relevant to the bladder and contained no pertinent information on cystitis. I hope you will all agree this is the safest thing to do under these circumstances. Please suggest a reference which supports the bladder safety of this drug if you disagree. (Cavebloke (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC))

To my knowledge, there is no such reference. Two pubmed articles now exist and both indicate that further verification is needed to assess whether MXE is more "bladder-friendly" than ketamine. This is not surprising, given the paucity of clinical data regarding MXE toxicity (after all, the two sources I've linked only present a total four clinical cases). Pmillerrhodes TalkContrib 05:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I've updated the article and hopefully phrased this ok. Let me know if you think it could be better. SmartSE (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

If MXE was designed to be used as a grey-market recreational drug, you couldn't really say using it to get high is ab-use, as this is the drugs intended purpose... (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Most (all?) nations restrict recreational use of chemicals, so any personal use (of this drug) would be considered abuse by them.MartinezMD (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
By definition, using mxe recreationally is not ab-use, as recreational use is its intended purpose. Abuse "to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
But people wouldn't end up in hospital if you didn't abuse it would they.... SmartSE (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes they might, e.g. if a user were to take a carefully measured anesthetic dose and then be found unconscious by someone unaware of the drug and its properties this could be mistakenly considered an overdose and would result in an unnecessary hospitalization. This is often the case, actually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The fact that it was designed for recreational use does not exclude the possibility of abusing this substance. For instance, chronic use of MXE (as opposed to nonproblem, recreational use) could be considered abuse. Pmillerrhodes TalkContrib 12:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
What it all comes down to is how you define "abuse". I can't access the source right now, but I thought it was designed with the intention of treating the chemist's phantom limb syndrome, not for "recreational use" and certainly not with grey market distribution in mind.Testem (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
This source? The article says, "[The chemist] has popularized and discovered numerous novel drugs for gray-market distribution." I agree with you that it all comes down to the definition of "abuse", but the source indicates that, regardless of its potential therapeutic use, it was designed for gray-market distribution.Pmillerrhodes TalkContrib 13:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Swiss case report[edit]

I've removed this source because it states that the patient had "a history of multiple drug abuse, psychosis, depression, and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder" and that "his medications were bupropion (150 mg/day), aripiprazole (15 mg/day), and chlorprothixene (80 mg/day)." which I don't think makes it acceptable to use as a reference, since we can't be sure the hospitalisation wasn't caused by an interaction between drugs. They'd also injected MDMA two days prior to it as well. WP:MEDRS tells us to be wary of primary sources like this one and we already have better sources for the more general fact that people have been hospitalised. I've also rephrased a bit to hopefully make it clearer that nobody really knows anything about its toxicity. SmartSE (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


Is this drug the same as Roflcoptr, which is a "party drug" (although what I've read is mostly causing hallucinations, panic attacks and involuntary defecation) currently pretty wide spread, mainly in the UK? Vivo (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It is - see [1]. I had previously included it, but just notice someone removed it without explanation. I'll replace it. SmartSE (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


I think it is presumptive to say that MXE is definitively covered by the Federal Analog Act due to being substantially similar to PCP. Legal search engines Westlaw and LexisNexis return no hits for methoxetamine, indicating that there has yet to be any US case involving the substance. It is well established in the relatively scant case law involving the Act that the prosecution has the burden of proving the 'substantially similar' prong of the test in U.S.C. § 802(32)(A)(i) and must also prove that the substance in question does not meet the exception in U.S.C. § 802(32)(C)(iv), which exempts substances "not intended for human consumption." While perhaps arguable from a scientific standpoint, is purely speculative to claim that MXE is a PCP analog for the purposes of the Act, so I don't think Testem's current version warrants inclusion as is. It should also be noted that MXE is not specifically scheduled federally or in any state, though such a point might be uncitable as it is trying to prove a negative. Postvegan (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Postvegan (talkcontribs) 01:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree - there were previously reports that mephedrone was illegal under the analogue act, but the more recent coverage of 'bath salts' in the US suggests that they are not. I'll also remove the Australia info since it's original research to interpret the primary source in that way. SmartSE (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
It isn't original research, nor an ambiguous interpretation. The "research" is in the document, I am simply restating it and how it relates to methoxetamine.Testem (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Exactly - you are using it to reference something which the source doesn't actually say - a perfect example of OR. No reliable sources say it is legal in Aus, so we shouldn't either. SmartSE (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think it's a shame we can't use the original source, but so be it. Is there any way we can link to the original data, perhaps adding my wording now there is another source to corroborate it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testem (talkcontribs) 16:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean by "now there is another source to corroborate it"? SmartSE (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Prosecutors have tried to argue that methylone and mephedrone are methcathinone analogs for the purpose of the Act in at least one case, see U.S. v Sullivan, 2011 WL 3957425, though I'm not sure what became of that case i.e. whether the argument was successful. Now the DEA has used its emergency scheduling powers to schedule the substituted cathinones - - so there is no longer a need to use the Analog Act for those substances. The point is that no case has dealt with MXE, and it not scheduled anywhere. I don't know if we have to lose the entire legality section though, I just though Testem's version was too strongly worded. Postvegan (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that info, but I was only using that as an example to demonstrate that the legality of substances like this is a bit of a grey area, particularly when analog acts are involved. Testem left me a note asking what is required to include information about its legal status. I would like us to at the very least, have primary sources which directly mention methoxetamine. Whilst we can search acts and legal databases and see that it isn't included / no prosecutions have been made, that is original research which isn't allowed - we have to interpret those sources to be able to write something in the article. Even in the UK where most of the coverage so far has been, we need to be careful with how we phrase it. There is now a good source we can use to say it isn't in the MoDA, but that doesn't make it legal in all situations - see the info about 'plant food' in Mephedrone#Legal_status. We can't include anything like that here yet, but it demonstrates that we need to be cautious. SmartSE (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Antidepressant properties[edit]

The information regarding the (potential) antidepressant properties is, at the very least, poorly sourced (see WP:RSMED). I'm removing it. I haven't thoroughly scanned the literature regarding ketamine's antidepressant properties, but at least one review article refers to ketamine as a model for future drug development: "...using ketamine as a starting point to explore improved therapeutics for MDD (Major Depressive Disorder) can stimulate the continuous development and testing of new fast-acting antidepressants displaying increased selectivity. For instance, initial results with specific drugs that have fewer side effects than ketamine, such as NR2B antagonists, are promising."[1] I'm not sure that ketamine itself is being considered as a acceptable antidepressant. -Pmillerrhodes TalkContrib (sorry, forgot to sign)

  1. ^ Machado-Vieira, R; Salvadore, G, Diazgranados, N, Zarate CA, Jr (2009 Aug). "Ketamine and the next generation of antidepressants with a rapid onset of action.". Pharmacology & therapeutics. 123 (2): 143–50. PMID 19397926.  Cite uses deprecated parameter |coauthors= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
Good call - I agree that it wasn't appropriate sourcing. SmartSE (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Appropriate sources[edit]

For something like solubility data why is a forum inappropriate? It is no less reliable than any other website which someone can put together. It may not be peer-reviewed, but let's be honest, nobody is ever going to write a paper on mxe solubility and for the time being the data is suitable and useful. Testem (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC) And let's be honest, half of wikipedia wouldn't be here if we removed all the information from unreliable sources. That is what the tag is for.Testem (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

@Edgar181: Please see the comment above. I am interested to know why you find the data dubious given the similar solubility in ethanol. Perhaps a compromise would be to omit the specific value from this source but leave the comment about general solubility? Testem (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I hadn't seen the comments here before reverting. I think it is an exaggeration to say that half of wikipedia wouldn't be here if we removed all the information from unreliable sources; but even so, that's not what's at issue here. If information is both disputed and from an unreliable source, it should be removed. That is the gist of one of Wikipedia's core policies, Wikipedia:Verifiability. Even if that means removing lots of content, I think Wikipedia would be better off without unreliable information. As for the specific data at hand here, it's not a big deal to me, and I don't think it's a big deal in terms of article content, so I'm not going to try to remove it any further. To omit the specific value from this source but leave the comment about general solubility, as you suggest, sounds like a good compromise to me though. The reason that I think the solubility data is wrong is that I have worked in the lab with this and related chemical compounds and know their properties well. The data in the Cayman Chemical MSDS is written as just an estimate and unlikely to be an upper limit on solubility anyway, so I don't think there is an apparent contradiction. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Right you are, I will remove the value. If your lab wanted to publish solubility data then that would be welcome, I'm sure! I agree that half is an exaggeration and disputed information with unreliable sources ought not to be included, but I don't feel this is strongly disputed, unless your experience suggests that the comment about its low solubility is totally incorrect? Testem (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)