Talk:Methamphetamine/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archived old talk page

I archived the talk page to Archive 03, the talk page was long and 2 years old. I think it was long overdue. -C6541 (T↔C) at 21:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Crystal meth is not meth

Crystal methamphetamine is not the same thing as methamphetamine any more than crack is the same thing as powder cocaine. Someone should either remove the part where they are referred to as identical and rewrite a subsection about crystal, or start a new page on crystal meth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.240.94 (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Crystal meth is methamphetamine, methamphetamine does not come in a freebase (rarely it does but not in crystalline form) so your comparison between cocaine (hydrochloride) and crack cocaine (freebase) is not valid. Sincerally, C6541 (T↔C) at 15:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Crystal meth is methamphetamine in the form of crystals. It's more easily smoked and is assumed to be of greater purity, which I imagine it often is. The article should address this more clearly. 98.71.213.249 (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, crystal meth is methamphetamine. Sincerally, C6541 (T↔C) at 17:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Crystal meth is (dextro)methamphetamine hydrochloride. Crank is "racemic" (dextro/levo)methamphetamine hydrochloride. Methamphetamine base, whether dextro or levo (or both) rotatory is not a street drug because it is an oil insoluble in water and cannot absorb into the bloodstream. 71.59.195.54 (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

[Citation Needed] Seriously, it's the same thing, just in crystal form. It's like the difference between rock salt and sea salt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.120.21 (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Crystal meth vs. meth, agreed: It's the same thing. You need a citation? lol. Anyone that passed high school chemistry can tell you that. It has nothing to do with the specific enantomer. 'Crystal' simply means that the substance has been allowed to crystalize. Crank, typically, is powdered. Crystals being the sign of purity in the laboratory, also became the sign of purity on the street. However, again, it has nothing to do with which enantomer, or if it was racemic. Which, leads me to another portion of this article that is not correct: The section on who synthesized it first. Recrystalization is a step that follows reduction (of ephedra alkaloids) and gassing or titration with aqueuos HCL. There is no method, what-so-ever to synthesize crystalized methamphetamine one step. It is a volatile liquid! It must be bound to a mineral acid to salt it out! Finally, yes, it is available as the freebase. The freebase is commonly called 'snot.' It's difficult to handle and smells horrible; like a combination of ammonia and rotten fish. It is smoked. The epithelial cells in the lungs absorb nonpolar compounds such as methamphetamine freebase in exactly the same way that they absorb cocaine freebase.

Oh, one last thing: crystals are not the sign of purity that they once were. Methamphetamine is commonly cut with MSM. The crystals that form are larger than would normally form. They look beautiful, but they burn up right away. It can be removed with acetone. But, I doubt that wikipedia is the place for a blow by blow for cleaning up your dope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.36.53 (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

6 months protection

I got the article protected for six months. Let us improve it during that time, shall we? Sincerally, C6541 (T↔C) at 21:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Chemical structure

I'm not a master of IUPAC convention or anything, but wouldn't a more accurate chemical structure be one showing that the methyl on carbon 2 of the alkyl chain (the chiral center) be a mixture of stereoisomers...similar to how amphetamine is represented as a mixture of stereoisomers? Methamphetamine's stereochemistry is just as important but only showing the (S)-isomer [the illicit isomer] is kind of misleading. Or...maybe I'm just nitpicking... -Novaprospekt (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is a separate levomethamphetamine article, so I would imagine this article only deals with dextromethamphetamine (which is misleading because the article title is simply methamphetamine which implies a racemic substance), but if you can make an image representing the accurate stereochemistry of the racemic compound and can replace the current image with it, please do so. Sincerally, C6541 (T↔C) at 01:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I built a new structure using ACD ChemSketch but I can't seem to export it into a suitable format for wikipedia, i.e. the .svg format. I can only export as a .bmp, .gif, and .png which are quite small and crappy compared to the types already here. If you know of how I can do this, let me know -- I have the proper racemic structure ready. -Novaprospekt (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I see this problem was resolved, but now the IUPAC name and the space-filling model contradict the skeletal formula.Trueno Peinado (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the IUPAC name to N-methyl-1-phenyl-propan-2-amine. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Reference #6 for Pervitin is not correct

Reference #6 for use of methamphetamine by the German military in WWII as "Pervitin" is no longer correct. To start with, it was merely a Substance Summary page on PubChem (NCBI), where "Pervitin" is just mentioned in the list of "Depositor-Supplied Synonyms" (no particular connection with Nazi Germany was made there and "Pervitin" was a name for pharmaceutical methamphetamine after WWII in some countries, e.g. Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia). Secondly, even that page on PubChem got revoked by the depositor in 2006.

I don't dispute that Pervitin was used in Nazi Germany (I did come across it being mentioned before, but exact details escape my memory now) - but another, more up-to-date and informative, reference is needed. 212.58.193.36 (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This problem has been resolved. The new reference is a lengthy Spiegel Online article about meth use by the German military. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 11:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

False positives from OTC nasal decongestants?

I noticed that Phenylephrine, the active ingredient in the product Sudafed PE (non-drowsy), is not included in either the list of compounds that produce false positives nor the list of compounds that do not. Considering its prevalence, this seems like it would be relevant for inclusion. Does anyone know whether or not Phenylephrine produces a false positive? 67.40.184.142 (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No it does not as far as I know, although it shares a phenylethylamine structure with methamphetamine. I'll see if I can get citations for whatever the case may be and add it. Sincerally, C6541 (T↔C) at 05:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Chocolate has beta-phenethylamine in it. You have more chance of hitting a false positive from eating too many Hershey bars than you do from taking phenylephrine (useless chemical in my opinion.) Pseudoephedrine works very well. Methamphetamine works excedingly well for nasal decongestion (all of these chemicals are vasoconstrictors.) I didn't see anything regarding it, but there is a semi-true rumor that 'speed' can be extracted from inhalers. And, while it's true that the levorotary form can be removed with great difficulty. It is also true that it is prohibitively expensive, it is tainted with camphor, and it's not very useful for recreational purposes. I do not suggest it and that is why I do mention it. Using large amounts of the L-form can cause significant heart strain. I have heard of a method to convert chiral atoms to racemic mixtures via refluxing in a halo-acid. But, it seems like a tremendous amount of effort for something so insignificant. Drugs are boring. It's the people that are funny.

75.33.36.53 (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

New York Times article of 14 July 2009 refers to the "shake and bake" method

A New York Times article today: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/us/14meth.html?hp refers to the "shake and bake" method. Which one is that? Can somebody please add a little sentence identifying which method is the "shake and bake" method. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.200.175 (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Boy, that is propaganda if I have ever seen it. I really doubt methamphetamine caused those problems, more like a contamination with a byproduct of methamphetamine production. Methamphetamine isn't a gas so how would those kids developed breathing problems? Sincerally, C6541 (T↔C) at 21:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There are several versions of the "shake and bake" method. It's more formally known as a one pot synthesis. The most common version is reductive amination with lithium in a bottle. Though that's not a new method by any means. As for the article, it is possible for chemicals used in and around clandestine labs to cause such symptoms, but I'll believe it when I see a controlled study. 98.71.197.202 (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The shake and bake is largely media hype. It involved using ammonia salts to produce ammonia gas on the fly, and under pressure, theoretically producing liquid ammonia. The liquid ammonia is commonly used in what is known was the Birch reduction; aka solvated electron. It is more complicated that one would be led to believe with the name 'one pot synthesis.' The 'shake and bake' productions often explode because of an inability to contain the pressure (think busted soda bottle, not firey 80' TV explosion.) When using the Birch inhalation of ammonia gas is a very real possibility. And, it's a hazardous gas. In addition, it's cold. And can cause frostbite. Typically, any inhalation issues are going to be ammonia, phosphine, hydrogen chloride, or hydrogen iodide. None of them are too healthy. But the first two are the more dangerous (and completely avoidable if the synthesis is done safely.)

Yaa baa in Thailand

Hi sorry if I mess this up- just want to mention for Thailand- where most articles always say its "yaa baa" (which is true, in a way), the drug is actually called "ice". Thais speaking thai will call the drug "ice". "yaa baa" is meth sold in a pill form, with added caffeine and flavouring such as strawberry. It is not even smoked in the same way. It is really inaccurate to call this "meth in Thailand". Meth is Thailand is "ice", it looks just like the drug in europe or other parts of the world- like glass shards. Yaa baa is a orange or red pill a little smaller than a typical "E" pill. "yaa baa" is really so different to "ice" that it is inaccurate to report meth in Thailand as "yaabaa" despite the chemical simularities- as Thailand is afflicted with "ice" just like other countries but just so happens to also have the pill form in "yaabaa". You are more likely to be able to find "ice" in Bangkok or other major cities than you are "yaa baa". Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.136.1.142 (talk) 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. The article doesn't do a good job of explaining the various names and varities of methamphetamine. 98.71.197.202 (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yaba contains caffeine, in addition to methamphetamine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.36.53 (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please limit the nicknames

Please, methamphetamine has many many nicknames and we cannot just add them all. They must be notable, if you wish to add a new nickname add them to the <ref> note after where the nicknames are. C6541 (T↔C) 19:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note that "Yaa Baa" in Thailand named for Amphetamine pill not met, the word means "Mad Pill". Met also called "Ice" as it be.124.120.227.74 (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)13 September 2009 (Boonchai)

The problem is how to stop editors from adding new ones. If somebody would like to propose a "policy" for which nicknames are notable enough to mention, I will probably support it. Looie496 (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

For notability, we should use Google hits. Local, obscure, or erroneous nicknames won't make the cut. A more important issue is how we address nicknames. How do we most effectively make the distinction between meth, crystal meth, and glass? Use a dedicated section? Personally I'd like to see the article expanded/restructured to address meth consumption, from the gay community to students in Japan. Nicknames would fit nicely there. 74.178.201.247 (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, since when is methamphetamine a majority gay or Japanese drug? A drug is a drug, we don't need to go into details into who uses it it. C6541 (T↔C) 04:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"Speed" is the US/Canada nickname for amphetamines, not methamphetamine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.131.199 (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Meth with respect to society, culture, and the law is certainly a relevant topic, but probably a topic of its own. I think it justifies its own article, perhaps as a subset of drug culture. There is no denying the neurological connection between drugs and behavior, so perhaps a discussion article should be formed for research on the Wikiversity.John Bessa (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)--

Dosage amount

According to erowid.org, an intraveneous dose of 100 mg of methamphetamine is extremely strong. A single dose of one gram is likely to kill even an addict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.218.152 (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I am pretty sure an amphetamine overdose resulting in fatality is not very likely, anyway you are correct, when someone says they are using a gram of methamphetamine it is always cut street methamphetamine. Methamphetamine's recreational dosing tends to fall under 100 mg. C6541 (T↔C) 03:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Amphetamine, and methamphetamine are two distinctly seperate compounds. The former has a more physically profound effect whereas the latter has more of a psychological effect. That being said, overdosing on methamphetamine is rare. However, someone believing that they have overdosed is not so rare. Toward the top end of the dosage scale euphoric effects diminish and a significant amount of discomfort sets in, along with anxiety. There is also the matter of tollerance. A relatively new user obviously would not use a large amount. However, I know of persons that have used in excess of one gram (iv..) The person in question looked like a pterodactyl on the verge of having a seizure. Very jerky/exagerated movement and a loss of fine motor control. Gas chromotography testing later showed the methamphetamine injected proved to be in excess of 96% pure. Oh, and not that it has any place under doseage, can we get rid of the references to methamphetamine as addictive? It is in fact non-addictive. It is most certainly habbit forming. But, to call it addictive is to cave into the mass error that we know as the media. Yes, you read that correctly. Methamphetamine is not medically addictive. The W.H.O. used to enforce the meanings on medical words. Now it allows any 'Jerry Springer' upstart to induce hysteria and make up 'facts' as they go along. Med school taught me the difference between addiction and habbit. Working at a rehab set it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.36.53 (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You, sir, are a complete idiot. I don't know what "med school" you went to, but you might want to inquire about getting a refund. You can't even properly spell common words associated with addiction (tolerance, dosage, habit), yet you try to pass yourself off as some kind of specialist? Is this some kind of joke? Needless to say, the "information" you posted is dangerously inaccurate and, for the most part, complete garbage. In the future, please refrain from commenting on topics that you know absolutely nothing about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.3.39.141 (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Fliegerschokolade (Airmen's Chocolate)

In the article for Fliegerschokolade in the German Wikipedia, Methamphetamine is not mentioned at all (Actually, Fliegerschokolade is still sold in Germany). So I think we need a citation for the claim that Airmen were handed out chocolate with Methamphetamine. All the References I found with Google do not cite their sources, in fact it seems as if they use wikipedia as their source. Just to be clear: I do not doubt airmen and tank crews were given methamphetamine in WWII, I just have seen no verifiable source about chocolate with Methamphetamines handed out. This concern has been raised previously in the Talk Archives as well, but it seems not to have been resolved. Salzbrot (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the sentence about meth chocolate. If proper sources ever materialize, we'll put it back in. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this a joke?

" Predictably, restrictions on laboratory equipment have caused clandestine laboratories to switch from flasks and beakers to mason jars and plastic kitchenware." --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like one. So far as I know, the typical "meth lab" set up in the United States is single pot and involves something like a soda bottle. But I don't think this is the result of legal restrictions on glassware (though I do know that glassware HAS become less accessible). I'll look into it and if it doesn't shake out I'll remove the claim. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing to support the claim, so I've removed it. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

New post:

Not sure If I'm doing this according to protocol. There are no prohibitions on glassware in the US. There are prohibitions on what you put in the glassware. You can have a chem lab in your house, Just not a meth or bomb lab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.242.184 (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In some states, possession of glassware will certainly warrant investigation by the authorities. I have heard that it is particularly prominent in Texas. In Australia / New Zealand, I have spoken to numerous people who have been investigated or reported as a result of buying glassware. One individual was in his early teens and had bought some beakers. He was visited by the police soon after. Drug labs will avoid glassware for that reason, but also because it's expensive and the methods involving it are often more complex. It is extremely common to find household items in both illegal drug labs and even those being used by amateurs for legal hobby experimentation; again, due to the cost of blown borosilicate. Raids on suspected drug labs can mean removing everything from the house that could be used as a stand in for lab glassware. That includes measuring jugs, jars, funnels, buckets, plastic containers, gas cylinders and so on. I have heard of people using plastic fizzy drinks bottles for pressurised reactions before. It is effective for catalytic oxidations, which require around 1/4 of the rated burst pressure of the container. I have also heard others speculating about low pressure hydrogenation. Of particular concern would be this 'Shake and Bake' meth synthesis, which is a simplified version of the birch reduction that requires dry ice and anhydrous ammonia. Instead, the dry ice is being substituted by containing the ammonia as it boils off. In the two other methods I mentioned, catalytic oxidation and hydrogenation, gas is added to the bottle to a set pressure, and potentially absorbed. In this, the gas is generated inside the bottle and, looking at the vapour pressure chart, it could pop the bottle. The contents of the bottle are an excellent mixture for a fireball; lithium, flammable solvent, hydrogen gas, possibly some oxygen from capping it, all under pressure. To add insult to injury, the bottle needs periodically venting.

Synthesis section

Is it a violation of Wikipedia policies to include a detailed, graphical presentation of the various methamphetamine synthesis techniques? I don't mean pictures of clandestine meth labs or tutorials; I mean mechanism boxes with reaction diagrams.

Related observation: subsuming a scientific topic under the headline "Illicit Production" undermines all possibility of a neutral point of view.Trueno Peinado (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Reaction diagrams are not a violation of policy, but the article and the synthesis section are both very long. It might make sense to remove the synthesis section from the illicit production section, but I don't think there's a POV issue. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible factual error?

I was wondering about this, and mailed someone at Wikipedia. He suggested I explain the problem here. This is the email I have written him/her:

---

Good day,

I am not, even when signed in, able to edit the page on methamphetamine, which contains a factual error - the article states that methamphetamine is a S5 drug, which is in fact untrue, all amphetamines are S9 Prohibited substances in South Africa. I understand that Schedule 5, outside South Africa implies that the substance (whether it is regarded as a drug or not) is prohibited. Hence this might be nitpicking - drugs in South Africa are Scheduled from S0 (such as paracetamol [acetaminophen] ) up to S7 (including medicine that may be prescribed such as morphine ) and after that, S8 and S9 prohibited substances (such as the amphetamines, cannabis, methaqualone, etc. ) which are only made available for research purposes (but needless to say, abused widely).

Thank you for a great service provided to us. I wrote this, you can fix it if you want, or leave it as the 'international' S5.

This is an excerpt from the article found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine

South Africa In South Africa, methamphetamine is classified as a Schedule 5 drug, and is listed as Undesirable Dependence-Producing Substances in Part III of Schedule 2 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act, 1992 (Act No 140 of 1992).[91] Commonly called tik,[6] it is mostly abused by youths under the age of 20 in the Cape Flats areas.[92]

---

As I said, this might just be me, but I am certain that South Africa includes all the amphetamines in the Schedule 9 list ( which appears to be equal to Schedule 5, as written in the article, which makes my complaint/observation/statement redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobusswart (talk • contribs) 23:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Both amphetamine and methamphetamine are schedule 7 according to the Medicines and Related Substances Act of 2003. Amphetamine and dextroamphetamine are also schedule 8, but there is no schedule 9. Unfortunately, I can't find anything explaining what these schedules mean. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 04:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead Section - OR and unreferenced information

I suggest removing the following unreferenced information and WP:OR interpretations from the lead section.

• "cascading release" - unreferenced
• "highly active in the mesolimbic reward pathway" - "mesolimbic action" is unreferenced and "highly active" is OR interpretation
• "intense euphoria" - intense is OR interpretation
• "monoamine reuptake inhibition" - unreferenced
• "Methamphetamine addiction typically occurs when a person begins to use the drug illicitly, most often in its crystalline form (crystal methamphetamine) for its powerful enhancing effects on mood and energy." - unreferenced. "power enhancing effects" - OR interpretation The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Who cares? Not one of those items belongs in the lead, in my opinion. And I don't mean to be rude, but if your presence here has something to do with a Wikiwar with Editor182, it's not appreciated. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Your opinion that "not one of those items belongs in the lead" is correct, but on its own it does not count for much. You have to argue rationally in its favor. I appreciate that you are in a Wikiwar with Editor182. However, I have an interest in phenethylamines, and my edits to Bupropion, Selegiline and MDMA can testify for that. I have this page on my watchlist, and although I could never get to improving it, it was painful to watch that a nice and clear introductory section you wrote gets reverted out of spite. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Methamphetamine addiction does not exist. Please remember that the World Health Organization tried to make the distinction between 'addiction' and 'habbit' known. One of the measures was to 'invent' psychological addiction aka habbit. True physical addiction with methamphetamine, again, *does not exist.* Yes, there are changes from usage, yes there is cravings, but those are from the *habbit.* The WHO eventually gave up on trying to make that distinction, and incorrect usagage prevails. That is why you have every yahoo, druggie, and nit-wit using the term 'addiction' for anything under the sun. But, this is *suppossed* to be a factual encyclopedic forum. And, it is *fact* that physical addiction DOES NOT OCCUR! Instead of running with the incorrect masses, why don't the people that know better stand up for once? No matter how many people swear that 2+2=5, it *does not make it correct!* I would love to cite my sources. Unfortunately, doing so would kill multiple drug trials, would breach patient rights, and would get me fired. I suggest if you doubt what I say, you look up the history of the word 'addiction' with the World Health Organization. @Skeptical Chymist: You sound like someone that would be very interesting to talk to. You are interested in PEAs, huh? Ever heard of methy-MDA?

75.33.36.53 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Methamphetamine,anxiety and sympathomimetic effects in the lead

Taking methamphetamine reduces anxiety; it is withdrawal that is accompanied by anxiety. In my version of the lead I simply re-phrased an authoritative book "Neurochemistry of abused drugs" (2008), Chapter 4 Neurochemical and Neurobehavioral Consequences of Methamphetamine Abuse, p 55:

• "Acute METH intoxication results in powerful stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system resulting in mydriasis (pupil dilation), hypertension, tachycardia, diaphoresis, and hyperthermia.The reinforcing or positive effects of acute administration include euphoria, increased energy, heightened attentiveness, hypersexuality, and decreased anxiety."

An average reader would not understand the word "sympathomimetic"; therefore, if we want to include it at all, these effects have to be explained and expanded right there. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that we leave anxiety out of the lead altogether. The more important effects should be listed, though what's important is debatable. Alertness, appetite suppression, and euphoria come to mind. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Legality

What's the need for having two sections on legality? "Legal restrictions" and "Legality" - Rest of World —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.159.154 (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no point. Legality is important for the history section, but it doesn't need to be more than two or three sentences and it doesn't deserve its own section. I'll see about combining it with the post-war use section. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Overdose by methamphetamine ?

My Brother was recently and mysteriously killed or died suddenly,I really want to know if it is possible to die from an Methamphetimine/amphetamine overdose,is it possible with constant regular use that the drug will cause death,what would the dose rate be and the duration period of taking the drug be, his death certificate simply states he died from amphetamine toxicity please if someone could shed some light that would be much appreciated.

R.Beaumont NZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.198.133.41 (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly you can die from (methyl)amphetamine toxicity, you can die from water too, the dose makes the poison. Constant use can lead to death, but amphetamine psychosis, sleep deprivation, and malnutrition are the biggest worries with chronic use. Everyone reacts differently to drugs so I cannot tell you what the dose or rate is required for death. C6541 (T↔C) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Fatal overdoses are exceedingly rare (I've had no luck in pulling up hard numbers) and I suspect that rarely do they have anything to do with acute toxicity. The most likely scenario seems to be heart failure, where the heart is previously ravaged by drug use. If heart failure is the actual cause of death, the death certificate should reflect it. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Going to have to disagree with you, there. I work in a forensic toxicology lab and we see many cases of methamphetamine overdose. While deaths due to meth overdose may not be as common as, say, car accidents, I wouldn't classify it as "exceedingly rare," either. 206.194.127.112 (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind sharing with us the criteria for identifying fatal methamphetamine overdose? I'd also be interested to see any real-world numbers for such cases. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The ld50 for methamphetamine is about 15 to 20 mg/kg*. For a 70kg adult that's between 1 and 1.5 grams. That's maybe possible, but it is an utterly astounding dosage (about 50 or so time a recreational dose). From that I'd at least think that overdoses wouldn't be as nearly as common a cause of death from methamphetamine as it is from, for instance, heroin. *cite: http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/pharm/pim334.htm - ctrl-f and search "ld50")98.95.204.174 (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any rigorous epidemiology except in Asia, but see for example PMID 9456521. Looie496 (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Opening paragraph deconstruction

• alertness
• energy

high doses:

• euphoria
• enhance self-esteem
• increase sexual pleasure

abuse:

• psychological reward system
• dopamine
• norepinephrine

FDA approved:

• ADHD
• exogenous obesity

I would state that methamphetamine belongs to a class of stimulants, and then show what these stimulants do from the perspective of someone looking at a methamphetamine user.

Having seen the effects of abuse in various environments around me, I think that supporting material needs to be located so that the enhanced self-esteem reference can be replaced with narcissism, which is what I have seen. Linked to narcissism in this context is cynicism and paranoia as the effects of the drug include changes to neural activity that separate the user from reality--and especially from the needs of people surrounding the user.

Energy, biologically, is the chemical conversion of matter that allows for life; here it is used to described neural changes that trick a higher organism into thinking it has more energy than it has, allowing the organism's probably defectve mind to push itself beyond its limits. I have seen televised evidence that the al Qaeda uses this type of drug for this purpose, which is typically suicidal; as does the US military, which is at very least homicidal.

There is no question about psychosis leading to extreme violence as with similar drugs. I think the term used to describe all of this is "arousal," but in such an extreme degree that homicide can be a result.

Mincing of words here dilutes the real meaning of this, and similar drugs; it is lie.

I don't think a discussion about psychoactive drugs is complete without some material about their effects on the underlying neurology, and how that affects behavior. Here the discussion skips right to neurotransmitters, which are a subset of neurology. It creates an incomplete, and hence irrelevant, picture. Once again, I would touch on this from the external perspective, and then, later in the article give a sparse structure of the underlying on-goings, and then point the reader to material in depth.

Somehow I think that the FDA view of the drug is irrelevant. I cannot see how a drug that can be shown to be so addicting and prone to creating violent psychosis could be legal for any use; certainly there are less dangerous stimulants. It deserves mention, but its actual relevance needs further discussion. (In fact I thought until now that it was completely illegal.)

I imagine one can easily guess how I feel about the drug in the environment, but what I am looking for here is accuracy. I believe that inaccuracy here actually supports the opposite cause: people who, for a variety of reasons, want this drug to further spread throughout the environment.--John Bessa (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you're talking about an accuracy problem. I think you want the lead section to portray methamphetamine as being ruinous (granted, it often is), but that's never going to happen. See WP:NPOV. That said, the lead section is incomplete. Among other things, I think it should be expanded to briefly discuss the most important aspects of both abuse/addiction and medicinal use. This would include things like what it's prescribed for in various countries and that methamphetamine abuse is widely recognized as a serious and growing problem in some areas. Things that aren't essential to the discussion of methamphetamine, like neurological effects or particular social attitudes, don't belong in the lead. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV can be applied to you as well. The article should reflect reality, not misconception. From my view, you seem to want to protect misconception, which cannot be allowed. For instance, your statement that meth is a "serious and growing problem in some areas" should read, "abuse was widely epidemic when it first studied, and has since grown by factors." You might add "internationally."

Your support for separating neurotransmitters from neurology, and the drug itself from the effects it has, is actually suspect as it appears to deliberately disable the proper construction of Science knowledge. I mean this as critical inquiry, for both you and the article, but experience has shown that you will very like use a variety of predictable strategies starting with WP:NPOV to protect your information, which you see as unbiased--but then everyone rationalizes their biases unless they discipline themselves to think openly, myself included.--John Bessa (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Methamphetamine was not considered a problem when it was first studied. It did not see significant abuse until the 1930s. If you're intent on introducing your slant to this article, please make sure you are at least factually accurate. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am going to say outright that your statements "was not considered a problem when it was first studied" and "did not see significant abuse until the 1930s" are so irrelevant to anything I may have said that you have forced me to believe that you don't have the ability to understand what I am saying. It is common knowledge that extreme stimulants such as meth and cocaine cause sociopathic conditions in users by destroying key neurons, specifically the empathic mirror and spindle cells. I absolutely cannot help but notice that the "handle" you are using here as the word meth in it, and I honestly have to wonder if it does not mean "ButOnMethYouAreOn." Your conception that I want to "introduce" my "slant" seems to me to be paranoia on your part--a typical symptom of meth use. After watching the effects of meth and related drugs in the environment around me, I know that this article describes it nearly purely inaccurately, and I want to see that changed so that people are not mislead by it.--John Bessa (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Got any sources to support that "common belief" that stimulants destroy mirror and spindle cells? I don't see how this could be, since it hasn't even been definitively established that humans have mirror neurons. Also I would strongly suggest that you resist the urge to accuse people of things -- that is virtually never a productive approach. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Looie496 writes "it hasn't even been definitively established that humans have mirror neurons." All primates, elephants, and whales have higher empathic neurons; whales have an even higher set of connective neurons that are analogous to computer neural networks (de Waal and many others). Many humans don't have a full set of functioning empathic neurons, and the percentage may be as much as 20%. This high percentage explains the extreme resistance to their existence, as those without the neurons cannot conceive of having them. In fact they cannot conceive at all; they can only rationalize, which means thinking purely sequentially-based on many tiny calculations, or ratios: causal thinking. In nature these defectives are marginalized, and hence prevented from reproducing. But because of the intellectual nature of human empathy, which tends to anthropomorphism, these anti-empathic defectives are actually encouraged to reproduce as part of well-intentioned attempts to bring meaning to their lives: the human flaw of attempting to teach kindness to those who cannot conceive of it. Those who may be in this category cannot accept the neurological sense-based explanation for empathy.--John Bessa (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Several things there seem dubious to me, but maybe it's best to stick to the main point: where is the scientific evidence that methamphetamine destroys mirror neurons or spindle cells? I've never seen any publication that makes such a statement. Looie496 (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Many more than several things seem dubious to me about this article; it gives a complete misconception about this drug. (Here I start at the beginning.) There is nothing in this article from the social perspective that resembles anything I, or any one I know, has experienced in real life. It has failed common scrutiny and therefore must be mostly lie. (I have discussed this issue with friends and they all showed surprise at the facts presented here.)

I think the simple fact that the prison population in the US has increased in factors over recent years specifically because of sociopathic behaviors caused by this and similar drugs is fact enough to present a case here on the talk page forcing a complete re-write of the article so that it actually reflects the reality of the drug, and not the POV of people who, for whatever reasons, support a rosy picture of the drug.--John Bessa (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you and your friends should get together and come up with some concrete proposals. Why don't you outline your ideal lead section so we know exactly where you're going? It doesn't have to be polished, but completeness is important. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Routes of Administration section

I'm of the opinion that this section should be reduced to one or two paragraphs. Almost all of it is unreferenced and there are entire articles dedicated to each route. These articles should be wikilinked and only the most important and notable aspects of administration should be included. Trivia and original research should be avoided. I think the revised section should cover at least the following points:

• The high is related to bioavailability and peak blood concentration
• Different types of users use different routes (oral is casual/medicinal, IV is hardcore)
• "smoking" is vaporization, not burning
• HIV/hepatitis is associated with (common) needle use
• Lung damage is associated with meth use, but not smoking per se

Comments? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Prop Dope"

I know an old school, 72 year old, amphetamine abuser who says the current crystal meth doesn't have the rush and onset as the old "prop dope" and he said it was a different drug prior to 2000. Doing a google search, I only find that a racemic (dextro & Levo) methamphetamine, yielding from "phenyl-2-propanone" to be what they called "prop dope", whereas modern U.S. crystal meth is made from pseudoephedrine and purely a dextro-rotary, single isomer form of methamphetamine. Can anyone confirm from a colloquial interest here in this discussion page whether racemic meth has more of a rush at onset than dextro-meth? 70.59.142.154 (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea, being pretty much clueless about drugs, but there's a much better place for you to ask! We have virtual reference desks, where lots of knowledgeable editors and inveterate googlers hang out, answering questions. See here for the different categories available; guessing you'll either want science, or possibly humanities (for more of an original research slant). Hope that helps. Maedin\^talk 09:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's well established that there is a subjective difference between racemic meth and dextro meth. So far as I know, we only have anecdotal accounts like yours. I'm not aware of any reliable sources on the subject. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I know I get more of speedy "rush" with racemic amphetamine, although it has more unpleasant peripheral side effects. With dextroamphetamine I have less of that speedy energy, it's more of a head high. I'm assuming there is enough of a similarity between amphetamine and methylamphetamine to apply that tidbit about the racemic form having more of a rush to methylamphetamine. C6541 (T↔C) 11:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, L-amphetamine is more active in some parts of the brain than D-amphetamine. L-meth on the other hand is not considered active in the brain at all and has no recreational potential by itself. You may be onto something, but I think it would be a mistake to apply information about racemic amphetamine to racemic methamphetamine. If you really want to put this in the article, racemic vs dextro meth is probably well documented in a few animal studies. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about putting it in the article, I was just relating experience. I would like to see some information about l-amp being active in the brain, I thought it didn't readily cross the BBB. Cheers. C6541 (T↔C) 05:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

L-amphetamine is most definitely centrally active, though on the whole it's not as active as D-amphetamine. If you want to know more, I remember reading a paper last year that suggested that P-glycoprotein (I think) is involved in the transport of L-amp, D-amp, and D-meth across the BBB, but not L-meth. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

So is L-meth metabolized to L-amp and that responsible for any central nervous system activity additional to racemic methamphetamine? (Would D-meth + L-amp be a superior mix therefore of sorts?) Nagelfar (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ask Dr. Shulgin Online: Ice, Crank, Speed, Methamphetamine

I found this as proof that the crank/prope-dope form of Methamphetamine, racemic form, is always powder, whereas dextro only is crystal meth: ...The white powder form has classically been taken orally or injected, whereas the "ice" crystalline form is usually smoked. This product is always the optically active "d" isomer -- efforts to make large crystals from water solutions of the dl-racemic methamphetamine have always failed.... 14:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Your reading is incorrect. It wouldn't surprise me if most or almost all crystal meth on the street were 100% D-meth, but what Shulgin said is that efforts to make large crystals from water solutions have always failed. If you want to show that D,L-meth is genuinely unsuited for crystal meth, you should start with the crystal structure. But even if we assume that it is, so what? Surely someone is selling tiny D,L-meth crystals. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Separate article on legal status

The legality section is very big and there's nothing stopping it from getting bigger over time. I think the solution is that the country-specific information should be split into a separate article and that the legality section in this article should consist of a brief global view of the subject. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Information on the substance itself (and ramifications of its use) is a different topic from the way in which various jurisdictions respond to use, users, and real or perceived ramifications of its use. Steveozone (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've completed the split. The legality section now requires expansion. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Popular culture

Should we have such a section? This usually devolves into unencyclopedic trivia rather than notable information. See Heroin's section. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Request

Someone on IRC submitted a request for an article with Articles for creation. He/She did not see this article. Could an expirianced user look at merging Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/smoking meth with this article. I haven't looked it over, and I just don't have the time right now to do it. I might contain stuff that has issue with Wikipolicy. Thanks for your time. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 18:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Physical description?

The article currently lacks any sort of physical description of the chemical. Is it a solid, liquid or gas? Is it colorless, white, blue, green, whatever? If it's a solid, is it a powder, crystal, or glassy, amorphous mass? What is its solubility in water and various other solvents? This kind of basic stuff is usually present on a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS). Sure, there are vague descriptions of impure forms of the chemical synthesized with improvised equipment, but not what a certified factory might produce. (I guess this was overlooked by all those enthusiastic editors who piled onto the article because of the lurid subject matter, which is actually just a side show, since this is basically a pharmacology and chemistry topic.)—Quicksilver^{T @} 09:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sexual Behavior Factual Accuracy Dispute

This sounds like anti-drug scare talk, and what I'd like to see on the article is factually accurate information backed up by referenced material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.19.246 (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the lack of reliable sources, what specifically do you find objectionable? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at sexual behavior and it's riddled with unreliable information and claims. We all know that methamphetamine increases the libido and sexual pleasure, it's mentioned in the lead and under psychological effects. Furthermore, this information is listed under "Health issues" - Meth mouth, Hygiene, Use in pregnancy and breastfeeding, and Public health issues are facts and effects of methamphetamine - suggesting sexually promiscuous behavior and unprotected sex is an effect is ludicrous, if someone is prone to such behavior, methamphetamine may exacerbate this, but that's common sense. Suggesting "forgetfulness" as an effect of methamphetamine and contributing to this problem is equally ludicrous. Moreover, there are no sources. If there are no objections, I'll remove this section. If it's to be reinstated, it would require reliable sources. Editor182 (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected sex and other risky behavior is strongly associated with stimulant use and many people consider it to be a serious problem. See party and play. Additionally, sex with a vasoconstrictor doubtlessly can lead to higher rates of disease transmission. An effort should be made to reintroduce material with reliable sources. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at party and play and there's some valid points there, but the section was exaggerating the problem in the least. Methamphetamine does allow people to have prolonged sex, causing abrasions, bruxism could increase the risk of STDs as a result of oral abrasions, so perhaps reintroducing the section under a title like "Increased risk of sexually transmitted disease", as oppose to "Sexual behavior", and with reliable sources. There's no doubt that the section was misleading, people aren't always mindless sex maniacs when they're on this drug, they may prefer to pull apart their car, etc. Editor182 (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

And then get distracted and start tidying the kitchen for 27 hours. :P On a more serious note, why would vasoconstriction lead to a higher rate of disease transmission? If you're talking about blood transmission, constriction is going to reduce the amount of crossover. Users also tend to have reduced mucus production (cotton mouth), which would also seem to be beneficial in terms of reducing transmission. I believe the problems to be (as others have pointed out), unprotected sex, promiscuous sex, sex with people who are swapping needles, open cuts in the mouth (as a result of chewing their cheeks and lips) and more aggressive and longer duration sex (combined with less mucus production, leading to a higher probability of blood transmission). Some users will also have open cuts on their skin, as a result of picking at spots, scars or 'meth bugs', although that isn't stricly sex related.

Methamphetamine - "Alabama high tech"?

I can't find any reference to "Alabama high tech" being the slang term for methamphetamine anywhere on the Web or in the several books on methamphetamine I have. Neither have I ever come across it in the press. Perhaps it should be removed? Because my feeling is that it was added as a joke, "just for a laugh"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.130.7 (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it. Even if it's not nonsense, it doesn't belong in the lead section. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk with a researcher

I had a colloquial conversation with an erudite professional individual about the longterm effects of methamphetamine, and she claimed she had spent years researching medical journals, and though could not cite me a source, claimed that it takes 4 years to recover all your DAT (dopamine active transporters) that you lose from internalization in your body. Can someone source this if true? (Another positive of dopamine reuptake inhibitors over releasers if true) 71.59.195.54 (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Chromatographic separation unnecessary for detection of Amphetamine, Methamphetamine, MDA & MDMA.

"Quantitation of Amphetamine, Methamphetamine, and Their Methylenedioxy Derivatives in Urine by Solid-Phase Microextraction Coupled with Electrospray Ionization−High-Field Asymmetric Waveform Ion Mobility Spectrometry−Mass Spectrometry"... So what then does this say of the ionic properties of these amphetamine class drugs otherwise and their effect in the brain? Is this ionic charge greater than most salts imbibed as an abusable substance that readily crosses the BBB? How does it, if at all, elicit radicals with its affect, and would those radicals have any radiological properties with resultant waveforms that would be read as an increased radio signal made in the image of ones existent brain signaling pathways extended outward? No 'MK Ultra' experiment implication intended. ;-P Nagelfar (talk) 05:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing trivia

These sections are way too prone to having useless tidbits added to them constantly. I'm going to try and incorporate any notable entries into the article itself.

Original section below:

Methamphetamine in popular culture Advertising The Montana Meth Project (MMP) is a Montana-based non-profit organization founded by businessman Thomas Siebel that seeks to reduce methamphetamine use, particularly among teenagers. The main venture of the MMP is a saturation-level public-service advertising campaign of television, radio, print, and internet ads that graphically depict the negative consequences of methamphetamine abuse. Music Crystal meth is mentioned and "taking bumps" is alluded to in Third Eye Blind's "Semi-Charmed Life". The whole song in general talks about meth use and the dangers/euphorias that come with it. The song "Burnt Ice" on the album "United Abominations" by Megadeth is written about Dave Mustaine's friends and associates who are/have been addicted to Crystal Meth. The lyrics read; "He said he'd try just a little bit/He didn't want to end up like them/And now he blames the voices of a toothless wonder" (referring to 'meth mouth', a common side effect of meth abuse). On Bruce Springsteen's album 'The Ghost of Tom Joad' the song 'Sinaloa Cowboys' deals with a pair of Mexican brothers who are employed cooking crystal meth until an accident destroys the factory. The song highlights the helplessness of the immigrant in their slide into criminality. Books David Sheff is the American author of the New York Times best-selling memoir Beautiful Boy: A Father's Journey Through His Son's Addiction. In 2009, Sheff was included in the Time Magazine Time 100, "The World's Most Influential People". Tweak: Growing up on Methamphetamines by David Sheff's son, Nic Sheff, is a 2009 book that became a New York Times bestseller. Methland: The Death and Life of an American Small Town is a 2009 book and New York Times bestseller that chronicles the rise of methamphetamine abuse in rural U.S. Film SPUN is a movie about an out-of-control speed freak (Jason Schwartzman) who was introduced to his drug of choice's creator (Mickey Rourke) by his dealer (John Leguizamo). A massive three-day adventure ensues (with Patrick Fugit, Brittany Murphy, and Mena Suvari in tow). Montana Meth is a 2007 documentary film about the debilitating impact of methamphetamine use that premiered at the Big Sky Documentary Film Festival in Missoula, Montana in 2007. Mother Superior is a 2005 documentary film about methamphetamine use in Utah. "The Salton Sea" is a Val Kilmer movie made about methamphetamine. Television Crystal Darkness is a documentary about methamphetamine use that was broadcast simultaneously on 12 Las Vegas television stations in June 2007. Breaking Bad is a show about a struggling high school chemistry teacher who is diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and begins manufacturing methamphetamine to provide for his family after his impending death. The show mentions several methods to synthesize methamphetamine and goes into explaining the methamphetamine trade.

Thanks a bunch. The only notable item I see is the Montana Meth Project, which should be mentioned in some discussion of the "meth epidemic". Of course, someone will have to write that section first. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd also salvage David Sheff, and maybe Breaking Bad as notable in relation to meth. -- œ^™ 16:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

"Invitation to edit" trial

It has been proposed at Wikipedia talk:Invitation to edit that, because of the relatively high number of IP editors attracted to Methamphetamine, it form part of a one month trial of a strategy aimed at improving the quality of new editors' contributions to health-related articles. It would involve placing this:

You can edit this page. Click here to find out how.

at the top of the article, linking to this mini-tutorial about MEDRS sourcing, citing and content, as well as basic procedures, and links to help pages. Your comments regarding the strategy are invited at the project talk page, and comments here, regarding the appropriateness of trialling it on this article, would be appreciated. The trial will commence on 15 September, once semi-protection has expired. Anthony (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The list of articles for the trial is being reconsidered, in light of feedback from editors, and should be ready in a day or two. If you have any thoughts about the Invitation to edit proposal, they would be very welcome at the project talk page. Anthony (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

both d and l enantiomers of methamphetamine are stimulants and addictive

In the pharmacology section, it states that the levo enantiomer of methamphetamine is not addictive nor a stimulant. Actually, l-methamphetamine is stimulating, but at higher doses than the d enantiomer mendelson et al., Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2006 Oct;80(4):403-20. Further, l-methamphetamine fully substitutes for d-methamphetamine at a higher dose in rat self-administration studies Desai and Bergman, J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2010 DOI:10.1124/jpet.110.173773.

These statements need to be clarified.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.100.99.39 (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

strawberry quik

Strawberry quik is probably a myth, caused by overactive police imaginatons and strange fears about kids being tempted to take drugs, the playground dealer idea. In fact the snopes page to which the article links says there is no evidence for such a thing. The section should be removed or should explain that hysterical mothers believe such a thing exists and its probably nonsense. Let's face it most drug dealers have a surfeit of punters, the last thing they could be bothered to do is lurk around children and hand out free flavoured samples.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Doktordoris (talk • contribs) 20:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Long-term effects

I have spent the past couple of days adding in information about the effects on mental and physiological health associated with long-term methamphetamine use/abuse. I came to this article to see what it said about the damage methamphetamines can cause and was surprised that essentially there was no information on the long-term effects. Given the drug is so neurotoxic and probably one of the most destructive drugs of abuse currently abused, I would have expected that there was a full article, such as long-term effects of methamphetamine use on the subject but rather I found even in the main article these issues were not discussed, only a section on acute "side effects". Anyhow, I do not have a huge amount of time to expand on this important area but if any editors have the time if the harms associated with methamphetamine could be added and eventually split out into a dedicated article this would be great. I am not sure though if there are any motivated editors watchlisting this page interested in improving it? Hopefully there is; it is a very important article topic and needs improving and expanding.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact I think SSRIs cause much more long term effects than methamphetamine use, ask anyone who has used them for a long period of time and suddenly stopped. Calling methamphetaine the most destructive drug of abuse is ridiculous considering the death toll from tobacco and alcohol far far overshadow's any death toll from an amphetamine. C6541 (T↔C) 18:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You are talking to someone who has experienced a cold turkey SSRI withdrawal. :) Rather nasty but not even close to being the worst experience of my life. I know lots and lots of people who have had problems with a wide range of illicit drugs and prescribed drugs,,,, and I am not trying to minimise the severity of SSRI withdrawal but honestly the people who say SSRIs are the worst drug to come off of often have not experienced withdrawals from other drugs. I have not used methamphetamine before, thank God but I know people who have got addicted to it. SSRIs do have quite profound withdrawal symptoms but so do most psychoactive drugs. Smoking tobacco typically takes decades for its consequences to manifest, but I am not denying smoking is carcinogenic so not sure of relevance. Its consequences are different,,, so apples and oranges to compare the two. Methamphetamine can cut someone down within a matter of months, destroying their brains,,, it has a very long-term recovery,,,, prolonged psychosis is quite common,,, is very neurotoxic (just read the extensive research if you don't believe me). You say "amphetamine",,, but if you compare say dexamphetamine or even non-amphetamines stimulants such as cocaine to methamphetamine,,, methamphetamine comes out worse due to its profound and rapid development of neurotoxicity (central nervous system brain damage), prolonged post-withdrawal, neuropsychiatric syndromes etc.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Also you are talking to the person who has done the most work on wikipedia documenting the harms of alcohol, including brain damage, physical damage to body organs, association with violence, addiction etc,,, just look at binge drinking, long-term effects of alcohol and alcoholism so I am not in denial over the serious consequences of alcohol abuse.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have references to the medical literature which says that SSRIs are as bad or are worse than methamphetamine we can discuss their relevance.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Caption reads like advertisement.

"Using whole body imaging, the TSA at Los Angeles International Airport discovered a pound of methamphetamine on a passenger." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.7.104 (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I edited this caption to make it more concise and relevant to the article (removing the role of the agency and method of detection). Another consideration is whether the photo belongs under the "addition" section, when it might be more appropriate for a distribution or trafficking section. 71.72.221.244 (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Methamphetamine → Meth — Even among, myself included, Meth identity is much more popular and well-known. This article's lead would described by most almost everyone as showing Meth, not Methamphetamine. Macr86 (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Drug articles are named by the pharmaceutical name of the drug with extremely rare exceptions. Methamphetamine is a widely used name for this drug, in the media, academia as well as the general public. Also searching for meth in search engines brings up this page as the first result so most people would realise and could tell from reading the lead sentence what this page is about and if it is what they are looking for.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Its actual name is "Methamphetamine." "Methamphetamine" is used in all academic journals and textbooks about this substance. "Methamphetamine" is also frequently used in common parlance. "Meth" redirects here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Colloquialism. The current name is the WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Per above. Also, from the name Methamphetamine, it is relatively easy to deduce the alternative name Meth, while the reverse is more difficult. Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. To me and many, the first meaning of "meth" is as an organic chemical word root meaning "containing one axial carbon atom": see meth-. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose As above. Also after reading Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide, shouldn't this page be named metamfetamine per its INN? Mr Bungle | talk 07:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support metamfetamine as move target per above. Amphetamine should be moved to Amfetamine as well, by the way. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Really??? I've never seen it spelled with an "f". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Hm. The article is about the racemic and the (+) forms per the hatnotes, and metamfetamine is the INN only for (+)-methamphetamine, so I suppose it is better as it is. I'll clarify this in the lead. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose while 'meth' is well known slang for methamphetamine, it is a colloquialism. We should be following the nomenclature listed in the sources we use for reference, not general use by the public. As far as I know, no pharmaceutical journal would call methamphetamine simply 'meth'. Wikipedia articles should reflect popular consensus, not spark nomenclature debates that would definitely arise if we became the first encyclopedia to drop the '-amphetamine'. DubiousIrony ^yell 15:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the many reasons above, not much more I can add. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Cheers Lethaniol 21:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose As all the points above. Would make WP seem unprofessional and lead to degradation of its encyclopaedic register. Brammers (talk/c) 08:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose this sort of thing before someone suggests changing cocaine to "coke" as well.... Nick Cooper (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Rates of use

I'm not good at editing articles, but there should be an article about usage rates, not only America but also in other countries where use is significant. I'd also like to know what environmental factors would drive people to meth addiction.74.98.216.96 (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Anon

Does anyone have a reliable source for the level of usage in the States? In the UK, the 2009/10 British Crime Survey (England and Wales only, not including Scotland or Northern Ireland) estimates 309,000 people aged 16-59 had used methamphetamine at least once in their lives, 16,000 who had used it in the previous year, and 6,000 in the previous month. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

scientific findings on receptor activations which reduce/reverse methamphetamine sensitization which otherwise occurs from with repeated administration

Sigma (σ) antagonist BMY 14802 prevents methamphetamine-induced sensitization "Abstract We have demonstrated for the first time that the σ antagonist BMY 14802 prevents the development of behavioral sensitization induced by repeated administration of methamphetamine. Rats received an intraperitoneal injection of 15 or 30 mg/kg BMY 14802 followed by 2 mg/kg methamphetamine 30 min later. Unlike dopamine antagonists, BMY 14802 did not induce major changes in the acute motor effects of 2 mg/kg methamphetamine. Repeated administration of methamphetamine induced progressive augmentation of stereotyped behaviors and resulted in behavioral sensitization. However, repeated administration of methamphetamine in combination with BMY 14802 at either dose produced no increase in the intensity of stereotypy when compared with the first treatment. After a 7-day abstinence period, a challenge test with methamphetamine alone revealed supersensitivity of methamphetamine-sensitized rats to subsequent methamphetamine, whereas rats pretreated with repeated methamphetamine in combination with BMY 14802 exhibited no difference in the intensity of stereotypy from rats pretreated with repeated saline. These results suggest that σ receptors play a crucial role in the induction of methamphetamine-induced sensitization." ... Nagelfar (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but it is just one rat study, so not sufficient to add to this article. If it gets included in a review paper at some point we could maybe add it to the article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Routes of Administration

The Routes of Administration section is full of unreferenced medical folklore that could be dangerous. I have tried to clean it up in the past, but to no avail, it was simply put back. I have tagged what I could as unreferrenced. I deleted the Suppository section because it seemed to be the most dubious section, see both the notice at the top of this Talk page about not using personal expericence and also the Doubtful and Harmful clause of Wikipedia:References#Dealing_with_unsourced_material. I've personally seen enough tweakers turned into husks; we don't need Wikipedia giving them advice that can lead to overdoses. Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the following

"Methamphetamine found on the street is rarely pure, but adulterated with chemicals that were used to synthesize it."

Whilst it is highly likely that it is not fully cleaned up, this is a statement made about just about every illegal drug with no reference or statistical figures. It is often used in a misleading fashion, e.g. it is apparent from reading comments from members of the public that not only a large number don't understand what this means, but some of them believe drugs are a mixture of all these different chemicals, not a specific molecule.

As far as I am aware, after a significant amount of searching, there is very little (barely any) material from a qualified resource that has done a detailed, broad study of contamination by reagents for any synthetic drug. The closest I have seen was one by the Australian police for Ecstasy, who where not using the reagents but the by-products as a 'finger print' for batches, so they could potentially identify if two samples found in different locations where from the same synthesis. From memory, I seem to recall that the group did not investigate what these other products where, merely their distribution.

Whilst I agree with the statement, as it should be fairly obvious to those with some experience with chemistry that an average drug lab is not all that interested in washing, extracting, recrystallising, distilling and loosing yield, I believe the converse effect, of unsubstantiated fear, is not the correct way to inform people of the dangers.

The word 'adulterated' also implies intentional contamination.

Keep in mind that a number of perfectly legal products are sold with contaminants in them from their production process; a number of polymers leak carcinogenic or hormone mimicking compounds. Yet these are widely accepted as safe despite there being substantiated evidence of their presence and the compounds' biological effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.249.152 (talk • contribs)

Structural question

Just out of interest, why methamphetamine? It looks like a substituted amide to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.223.159 (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The source of your confusion isn't immediately obvious, but it's called methamphetamine because it's N-methylated amphetamine. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Images

These images are so similar I do not see the reason for both. I have no strong feeling which one we should go with.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Blue Crystal Meth .jpg

Methamphetamine.jpg

Free images of crystal meth are generally poor in quality, these are rare quality contributions by a private author, so I think it's unnecessary to remove either one, as there are currently very suitable sections and room available for both. Editor182 (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not necessary, but you have to ask yourself what having two images of the same crystal adds to the article. For the same reason we don't have a popular culture section anymore, we shouldn't keep both of these images on the article. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I see, however, if you take a look under the Illicit production & History headings (where they both are as of now), as well as the image captions used, they're both illustrating different text of the article within their respective sections. In my opinion it's worth keeping the two, they're both significant contributions to the article, and as I'd previously mentioned, if it weren't for these contributions, there would be no quality images of crystalline methamphetamine for the article at all. One is certainly better than none, but two is still better than the one. It remains that there shouldn't be any strong incentives at all for having one of the two image removed from the article, rather the opposite, as they both illustrate different text and are not redundantly displayed on top of one another or illustrating the same text. That's my two cents. Editor182 (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not use the same image twice? Because that would be silly, right? So why use a different image of the same exact object? And what does a picture of crystal meth add to the history section anyway? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

As the image caption says; "Crystal methamphetamine was first synthesized in 1919 by Akira Ogata". That adds to the history section and is not silly at all. Editor182 (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I get that it illustrates a single sentence, and the caption paraphrases this sentence, but if that's your standard of inclusion you could put pictures of that one crystal in in a dozen different sections. You have to account for how multiple pictures of the same subject, distinguished only by lighting, makes for a better article. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll add another 2 cents to say that I see where you're coming from. However, I think it's unfair to say it's no better than using the same image, as it's obviously not a duplicate image posted in two different sections in the same article, instead it provides a second different image for illustration in two sections of the same article. In terms of looking at the sole appearance or layout of including both images, it appear more detailed, for the simple fact it adds more illustration. As in most articles, information (text) is often repeated, though in a different context, and this same principle also applies here. In going back over what was mentioned above in more detail, these images of methamphetamine in crystalline form are of course not an item, product or drug which is legally available anywhere in the world, in addition, it's perhaps the most taboo of any illicit drug in modern culture. Therefore a person willing to contribute two high-quality photographs of the drug in this form to Wikipedia/Commons or the public domain, although perhaps not unprecedented, is at the very least extremely rare, as common sense suggests a lack of interest in doing so by most users or dealers, in addition to potential concerns of drawing needless attention to evidence of their possession. As also mentioned previously, the PD images from government sources are far less superior in quality and often inferior, as shown in the current and earlier versions of the article. To conclude, having both images is more a contribution to Wikipedia users, the image left floating around Commons where the majority students researching the topic for assignments and presentations (slide shows) etc., will more than likely not come across it, which they may want to add to their work, as two is better than one, as the more information and illustration in the project, the better, and this principle shouldn't be different at the Wikipedia project. Editor182 (talk) 04:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Dead Sources

Source 102 needs a new link to validate the cititation. " Mexico says pseudoephedrine case signals breakdown in port security in U.S., China[dead link] AP, The Telegram (The Canadian Press), July 26, 2007. Olga R. Rodriguez" is now invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.187.100 (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Forking the slang section to Wiktionary

Translations and all but the most common slang is quite clearly in the domain of Wiktionary. The content could be moved either to the methamphetamine article or to its own appendix article if more complete coverage is desirable. After the move, the section would consist of discussion of how methamphetamine is referred to rather than a list of words. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

My first impulse is against this, but the section clearly had a bit of kudzu DNA. I've reduced it all to straight text. I haven't checked through references or confirmed the terms - it needs that, plus some secondary sourcing, and after that... maybe some of the stuff could be moved. Covering every possible translation of a word is a bit above and beyond the call for Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

tradenames (company of name)

For the freebase there's Norodin (Endo), for the hydrochloride form: Amphedroxyn (Lilly); Desfedrin; Desoxyfed; Desoxyn (Abbott); Destim (Central Pharm.); Doxephrin; Drinalfa (Squibb); Gerobit (Gerot); Hiropon; Isophen (Knoll); Madrine (Langley); Methampex (Lemmon); Methedrine (Burroughs Wellcome); Methylisomyn; Pervitin (Temmler); Soxysympamine (Ferndale); Syndrox (McNeil); Tonedron (Grimault) 66.243.226.11 (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Solubility of the HCl?

Does anybody know the exact solubility in water, mg per ml, for both the dextro- & racemic hydrochloride salts? 66.243.226.11 (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

2 Contradicting sentences right next to each other

The first line in the Hostory section (Methamphetamine was first synthesized from ephedrine in Japan in 1893 by chemist Nagai Nagayoshi.[85] T) and the caption of the photo right next to it (Crystal methamphetamine was first synthesized in 1919 by Akira Ogata) are obviously in direct contradiction of each other. I'm not sure which is right and don't have time to check, but I though I'd point that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.48.79 (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Both sentences are correct. The second sentence refers only to the crystalline form of methamphetamine. I'll try to clarify that. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 11:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)