Talk:Methamphetamine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Methamphetamine is part of WikiProject Pharmacology, a project to improve all Pharmacology-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other pharmacology articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Methamphetamine article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Peer review Methamphetamine has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.



Contents

[edit] Meth mouth image

My reasoning for removing the meth mouth image:

  • All it shows is advanced tooth decay. There's nothing that distinguishes it from decay caused by anything else.
  • Tooth decay requires bacteria and an acidic environment. No amount of meth will cause tooth decay with proper hygiene. Thus, it's not fair to say that the image shows the effects of meth, any more than it shows the effects of not brushing your teeth and not going to the dentist.
  • Meth can promote tooth decay. It can dramatically speed it up. But it can't be "the" cause, since there is no single cause.

Miserlou, I don't see any previous discussion about this image. What were you referring to in your edit comment? KonradG 04:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Meth Mouth is a very real condition, there is a full article about, it is noted by the American Dental Association, it is featured in all of the documentaries about meth, and the picture in question, if you look at the description, is of an actual case of meth mouth. The picture is used in the meth mouth sub article and should definitely be used in the meth main article as it clearly illustrates actual effects of prolonged meth abuse. The picture itself isn't unnecessarily shocking, it is simply real. Wikipedia is about truth and should not be censored because you happen to think an image is for "shock value", when in fact it is provided for encyclopedic illustration.
Miserlou 07:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
You've reverted someone else change with the comment that the image has been discussed on the talk page. So I'm asking for the second time where that discussion is. As far as I can see, there is no consensus that this image is appropriate.
KonradG 05:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because Meth users are too irresponsible to brush their teeth does not infer Meth is the cause. Only the individual choice to ignore dental hygiene would be the genuine cause. Horrifying reality is for those who can't handle drugs. Heartless drug war (or any other war) supporters constitute the epitome ignorance.

If we know prohibition doesn't work (proven for more than 80 years) and only creates a street market for crime, violence, child addiction, and destruction of innocent lives (prohibition creating anarchy), to continue the drug war madness (reminiscent of witch hunt days) means we are either stupid or irresponsibly greedy or both. Profit gains are far more promising than allowing people an education.

Meth Mouth? More like irresponsible mouth, similar to the crap people spew in discussion with few exceptions. Alphaquad 17:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isnt arguing for or against prohibition in this article and that has no bearing on the "meth mouth" issue...even if one was for canceling the prohibition on meth use one could still argue and present evidence that it was harmful...anyways its not wikipedias place to argue for or against prohibitions on meth...while specific editors may have opinions, thats fine, and is appropriate for the talk pages...so u are jusitified in bringing ur concerns to the talk page and bringing the subject up...wikipedia articles, however, are for factual information...and ur are correct that wikipedia should put out the most accurate info on the topic and doesnt want to get caught into falsehoods...the fact is there is much info out there decrying meths effect on the teeth...the article even specifically addresses this point that the effect of the drug in general is what causes the associated tooth decay and not merely direct chemical effect...yet as it dries the mouth out and reduces saliva cleansing and buffering of the teeth that is indeed a direct effect...the article does explain as well though that behaviors associated with meth use are a prime factor in causing meth mouth...and if all it was is that meth altered behavior consistently that led to tooth decay...then indeed it would cause or promote tooth decay and it should be mentioned even if there was no "direct" effect...however if u can find information and studies showing that meth users have no excessive problems with tooth decay wikipedia would want them...if there is indeed scientific controversy over this we would wish it known...so find some reliable studies that show us that these concerns, of those such as the american dental association, are unfounded, and give us some links...other wikipedia users are fully justified putting up their links to pages like the american dental association, and letting the ADA's concern that meth is a problem for the teeth come into the article on the subject...just as u are justified if u can find organizations and scientific studies that point out meth has no harmful effect on teeth...i read an article saying the meth mouth thing was exaggerated in many peoples articles on it, so i know the arguments, and this article still did acknowledge that at least behaviors caused by meth can lead to the tooth problems and it mentioned the dry mouth and lack of saliva issues too... the other articles i read consistently said it was a concern...and explained the reasoning...i am adding the NY Times article that explains a dentist saying there isnt much study into the issue yet, but dentists have themselves been noting a serious problem here with this...from what i see wikipedia is justified in mentioning it and placing up the photo from the ADA...the ADA isnt a drug policy organization...they just want healthy teeth...and after reading an article critical of exagerrations of meth mouth in articles i dont feel wikipedia has made those mistakes...i think wikipedia has stuck pretty much to the objective facts on this issue and doesnt exaggerate it...plus it takes no stand pro or against prohibition on meth...just is putting info on it up...look to some other more important cause than defending meth against accusations of tooth decay...theres plenty out there...yet if u want give us some links to some pro-meth studies...bye...Benjiwolf 01:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed text

I have removed the following piece of text:

Many consider it dangerous and highly toxic to humans for many reasons, when not used in a legitimate medical setting.[1][2][3][4] In addition to reported neurotoxicity it is considered to promote violent behaviors sometimes, and in San Diego County 1/8 of all homicides in 1987 involved meth. Its effects on reproduction vary, with definite negative impacts on users, yet few reported impacts on fetuses besides higher aggression levels reported in the children later on, but it is passed through the breast milk and this may negatively impact the children of users as well. Special procedures have been established to deal with and clean up clandestine meth labs, as the residues are poisonous and can negatively impact children and women especially. It has been reported, however, that meth in addition to other harms may shrink the male testicles somewhat, and a single dose in the neighborhood of a human dose of 500mg to 1 gram elicted this. So even entering the room where a meth lab has been, is questionable for anyone without protective gear, houses where it is made are blocked from the public until they have been remediated, and those entering meth labs to clean them do in fact use protective gear to protect from the various toxic chemicals used in its manufacture and from meth itself.[5] Statistics show that the purity level has been increasing and predict greater deleterious effect from this. It is illegal to use and is placed in the greatest threat level of drug category in the UK & Canada, and in schedule 2 in the states (as of its sometimes limited temporary medical use in small amounts). Users are sometimes referred to as "tweakers" as a result of twitching and other behaviors sometimes observed. The american dental association puts out specific guidelines to deal with the negative impact crystal meth has on the mouth [6], and a term has been coined to characterize the often horrendous state of a meth users teeth as "meth mouth".[7][8] In addition it has been shown that meth can act in tandem with the HIV virus to cause even greater neurotoxic effects than with meth alone.[9][10]

First of all, it is disputed, two editors add and remove this over and over. That dispute is somewhere else on this talkpage, my concerns are different.

This text contains weasel words: "Many consider it dangerous ..", "..few reported impacts on fetuses.." Furthermore, some sentences are illogical: "Its effects on reproduction vary, with definite negative impacts on users, yet few reported impacts on fetuses besides higher aggression levels reported in the children later on, but it is passed through the breast milk and this may negatively impact the children of users as well."; the sentence starts with 'effects on reproduction', whereas the next half of the sentence describes fetuses and then children, what is the subject of this sentence? The whole sentence is not referenced, which is also a problem. Moreover, the whole paragraph is not wikified.

I suggest that after the discussion above has settled, and when addition seems to be the conclusion, this section gets rewritten, wikified, etc., before it gets readded again. Happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Has the dispute about this section been settled yet? I couldn't find the discussion about it? Also wanted to note that the location of the NYT article referenced for "meth mouth" has changed [11]. From what is written there and mentioned in the ADA report this doesn't seem to be directly caused by meth, but a side effect of the user stopping to take care of personal hygiene? 84.61.221.250 10:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Found it. Sorry for messing around editing so much. 84.61.221.250 10:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Heard on Loveline, 2/18/07, approx 11:10pm Dr. Drew stated that meth is highly concentrated in semen. I don't think it can transfer a high though. Just for drug testing. Possible side effects.

Remind me not to take a shot in the mouth and drive next time ;-) Timeshift 07:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slipping quality

The quality of this article is slipping. What is happening to the medical section? Other info is clumped in there randomly now. Miserlou 06:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Part of the issue is due to the constant vandalism that occurs with this article. Perhaps an anonymous block on the article might help cool peoples heels for a while. It's just a drug, if you (like me) don't consume it, then don't feel the need to vandalise it. Timeshift 15:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I just did that a few days ago, but the block has expired now. It seemed effective, so go ahead and request another (maybe longer) one. KonradG 16:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Pharmacology Section

I removed the Pharmacology Section(Which I am preserving below):

Methamphetamine is a potent central nervous system stimulant which affects neurochemical mechanisms responsible for regulating heart rate, body temperature, blood pressure, appetite, attention, mood and responses associated with alertness or alarm conditions. The methyl group is responsible for the potentiation of effects as compared to the related compound amphetamine, rendering the substance more lipid soluble and easing transport across the blood brain barrier. Methamphetamine causes the dopamine and norepinephrine transporters to reverse their direction of flow. This inversion leads to a release of these transmitters from the vesicles to the cytoplasm and from the cytoplasm to the synapse, causing increased stimulation of post-synaptic receptors. Methamphetamine also indirectly prevents the reuptake of these neurotransmitters, causing them to remain in the synaptic cleft for a prolonged period. Serotonin levels are only weakly affected (ratio NE: DA = 2:1, NE:5HT = 60:1).[1] It is a potent neurotoxin, shown to cause dopaminergic degeneration.[2][3] The acute effects of the drug closely resemble the physiological and psychological effects of an epinephrine-provoked fight-or-flight response, including increased heart rate and blood pressure, vasoconstriction (constriction of the arterial walls), bronchodilation, and hyperglycemia (increased blood sugar). Users experience an increase in focus, increased mental alertness, and the elimination of fatigue, as well as a decrease in appetite.

I removed this section because the section was not specific to which enantiomer it was refering to. From now on I propose that this entire article be only about information pertaining to mixtures of the enantiomers, it turns out that any of these mixtures would be considered illicit in every country, so basically this article will be about "street meth" or "ice". However because this article is titled, 'methamphetamine', there shall remain a very small section on medical uses of the two methamphetamine enantiomers and links for readers to follow to easily reach each enantiomer(which IMO doesn't need to be expanded past what that medical section contains riht now right now).

I am preserving the Pharmacology information here because I did not write it and I believe it could possibly be used in the methamphetamine entantiomer articles, whoever feels they have a good understanding of the cites in the above preserved information should apply information to the appropriate entantiomer. [User:Edward Bower] (wiki wont allow me to log in for more then a few seconds from this location so i have to be an IP right now)69.19.14.35 03:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you should have waited for agreement from other editors before removing the infobox!
Ok sorry bout that
Ben 11:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that meth does not generally refer to a racemic mixture. It may have been simpler to make both l and d forms in the 60s, when the P2P synthesis was common. But even that was just a matter of convenience for illicit producers operating in the US in that particular time. It's not a defining characteristic, and I think you're creating an articifical distinction. KonradG 01:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I think I understand what you're saying however I did not say it was a racemic mixture i said it was a mixture of enantiomers. People purchasing something called "meth" anywhere but in a pharmacy will probably get a mixture of enantiomers. Why would clandestin chemists concerned with profits care the least about their product being of one enantiomer, especially when its more costly and time consuming to do so?User:Edward Bower66.82.9.46 04:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Methamphetamine produced by the most common methods (reduction of ephedrine/pseudoephedrine) results in d-methamphetamine exclusively. Therefore it can be assumed that the majority of illicit methamphetamine is the d-enantiomer along with various adulterants and diluents. The l-enantiomer is not considered to be particularly addictive or abuseable compared to d-methamphetamine. --Bk0 (Talk) 04:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Although that method be the most frequently practiced, is it the method employed to produce extremely large quantaties for distrobution? A mixture containing some of the R enantiomer would extend the period of being 'high' for the abusers. If mass quantities also have been synthesised quickily, and contain some R enantiomer, for distrubtion and consiquently it would have a longer 'high' life for the buyers. Anyway this is all asuming that reduction of ephedrine is not how the majority of 'meth' weight has been produced....You could be correct Bk0 but theres better ways then ephedrine, right?User:Edward Bower66.82.9.58 08:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Separate Enteries Kept in Wikipeida for different enantisomers

Wiki has a page for the R enantisomer. I assert that this page is not about the S enantisomer and a page should be kept for the S enantisomer because this page contains information about illicit methamphetamine, illicit methamphetamine is not regulated and not controlled and therefore does not contain only the S enantisomer. I request that other reasons for and reasons against keeping a page which is exclusively about the S enantisomer. Discussion on this topic will hopefully now commence below: Edward Bower 18:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That was ostensibly the reason for keeping the Desoxyn article, though I think it should be renamed to something like "Medical Use of Methamphetamine", since it isn't actually about the brand. See sections 3-5 of Talk:Desoxyn.
On a related note, I have nothing against a separate article specifically about medical use, but let's not pretend this is about enantiomers. Two people already explained to you that illicit synthesis usually only produces one enantiomer. Even if it did, many, if not most, illicit drugs contain fillers or impurities. So what? Nobody pretends that medical cocaine is a different drug from "street cocaine", even though the latter is often *mostly* filler. KonradG 22:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The substance they ephedrine is now controlled, so I need to be provided with a cite acknolging that ephedrine is now controlled and how this has impacted illict synthesis. I have a source which was written while controlling ephedrine was being debated that speaks of possible consquences and impacts.Edward Bower 03:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Try [12] and [13]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KonradG (talk • contribs) 16:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Levomethamphetamine

All references to L-Meth and the Vicks Inhaler were deleted! Why?! That was very important! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Miserlou (talk • contribs) 01:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC).Miserlou 01:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it because, apart from a few sentences, the entire article is specifically about d-meth. I realize it's called "Methamphetamine", which technically includes both, but presumably that's only because titles should follow the convention on common names. That's why I added the disambiguation at the top. P.S. Since you've popped up again, where is that discussion on the meth mouth image, which you previously mentioned? KonradG 18:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
How many of the sources cited on the methamphetamine page are about d-methamphetamine? Why does this page warrent a disambiguation saying that it is about d-methamphetamine and not l-methamphetamine? Edward Bower 03:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meth Not Deadly ?

I have heard of people dying from using Meth, you telling me its not deadly is lies to me ! Gunnaraztek 04:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Who ever said you could not die from 'Meth'?.Edward Bower 15:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pharmacology section needed

I see that a Pharmacology section was removed last month, but this article desperately needs one - this article is more a social history of the drug than a real encyclopedia entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.6.213.236 (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

This page isn't about pharmacologicals its about an illegal drug.Edward Bower 05:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
No it's not. That statement doesn't even make sense, since all drugs have pharmacological properties. KonradG 11:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
So since it's illict then what are it's pharmacological properties, completely side effects?Edward Bower 19:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It's got nothing to do with legal status. Pharmacological properties refer to the drug's effects on the body. What you consider a therapeutic property rather than a side-effect is compeltely up to you. KonradG 22:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/t/Talk%7EMethamphetamine_f967.html"