Talk:Benzylpiperazine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Benzylpiperazine article.
Article policies
Benzylpiperazine 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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance for this Project's importance scale.
Good article Benzylpiperazine has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
January 1, 2008 Good article nominee Listed


Contents

[edit] Duration, eating, drinking, empathy and snorting

I have taken this drug a number of times. With two or three pills, there is an initial rush sensation and intensity that last four to six hours after taking them, as stated. Some people count this as the entire experience. But if I take three between six and nine at night, I will unquestionably still be awake the next morning between nine and twelve before I can start falling asleep - it is physically impossible to do so before, you simply lie in bed awake. Like MDMA - the first intense set of sensations are not all this drug produces. The majority of the experience won't be composed of that intensity, and this is good in a way as the intensity is also often accompanied by spontaneous but rapidly disappearing sensations such as nausea, depending on the amount consumed - if you feel sick, a lot of it can just be you convincing yourself you feel sick and ignoring it, changing position or location will make it disappear. MDMA and BZP have definite stages to the experience, the intial intense rush (4 - 6 hours), the longest stage brings a wish to focus on things and understand, and then a falling off which will merge onto the end of the latter. I have taken up to six BZP pills in the space of three or four hours. Overall duration is not a great deal longer and neither is the ultimate intensity, but the first few hours of intensity are longer lasting. This quantity is also much more likely to make you feel sick if not carefully taken and, for me, produced a strong headache the next day, although I would accompany a large part of this to being too interested in what I was doing to drink more than a can of coke in the space of the night. My friend suffered a headache after just three and it became apparent to him after around six to nine hours. Hospital strength cocodamol had little effect in removing this for him - although it is possible a percentage of it was psychologically induced. I have experienced more intense migraines spontaneously appear before I began using drugs than I have with intense BZP use.

Drinking and eating in themselves do not become problems, there is simply no wish to do so. You should purposefully buy some cans of soft drink and sweets before hand and put them somewhere obvious so you'll remember. You won't feel the urge to eat or drink them, but the sensation of doing so can be rewarding. Don't try to eat dry foods - we had a bowl of popcorn last over 12 hours, each piece taking minutes to swallow with a dry mouth. Buy high energy things you normally might not let yourself eat. You won't eat a lot, so it's fine for them to be things like chocolate.

The intense effects may only last 4 to 6 hours, but the remainder will last around 18 before you begin feeling closer to normal.

BZP is unlike MDMA in that it lacks the intense emotional depth. You feel relaxed and more connected with people, but there isn't the same willingness to explain yourselves and feelings to each other.

I have never tried snorting raw BZP, but the party pills containing them are not suitable. They produce an intense peppery, burning sensation. Due to the large amount of binder and other ingredients, they take a lot of effort to snort even one. Having inhaled less than one, I developed a minor nose bleed from rubbing my nose so much.

I've heard from people that small amounts of pure BZP can be insufflated but produce intense burning and irritation/sneezing. This is all anecdotal. --Bk0 (Talk) 02:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Never drink alcohol in combination with piperazines or MDMA. Not only is it potentially dangerous but will entirely detract from the experience. Take the piperazine first and you will not feel the need for alcohol - drink first alcohol then take the piperazine and you'll feel or be sick.

[edit] Duration ref?

Does anybody have any authoritative ref on the psychoactive duration of BZP? Anecdotally it is reported to be 4-8 hours, but I haven't been able to google anything more substantive than that. Pubmed doesn't yield any definitive kinetic studies and even the DEA website doesn't say anything re: duration. --Bk0 (Talk) 18:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I have data just need to track it down - I believe from memory it's half life is 4 hours (I've been researching for my new product V12 - will get back to you on this asap Glen Stollery (My contributions) 18:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Hope this helps!

"BZP and TFMPP are central nervous system (CNS) stimulants. For BZP, doses of 20 to 100mgs produce euphoria, wakefulness and increased vigilance. The duration of action is 6 to 8 hours (Erowid, 1997). A combination of BZP and TFMPP is reported to produce effects similar to MDMA (Bedford, 2001), a substance that is sometimes referred to as an “entactogen”, (meaning ‘to touch within), (Nichols, 1996). Dehydration may be associated with BZP therefore risks of over re-hydration may be present. This effect is not discussed in the literature. However, anecdotes from the community suggest that it can be problematic if used in conjunction with alcohol. The duration of action for a 100mg dose is 6 – 8 hours. However, information from one user/distributor suggests that if 500mgs is taken, then wakefulness can last up to 48 hrs, however such a dose is likely to also cause nausea."
THE EXPERT ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON DRUGS (EACD) ADVICE TO THE MINISTER ON: BENZYLPIPERAZINE (BZP) Glen Stollery (My contributions) 22:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, it still circles back to the unsourced Erowid claim, but that's better than what we had before. --Bk0 (Talk) 00:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just experienced taking BZP and psychoactive effects were still present 14 hours after taking only 1 pill, the recommended dose. I now have the headache from hell and although I was able to sleep at various points during the day, I spent all the time after the first few hours wishing for it to wear off. re: the headache, http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/dailynews/3986354a7144.html indicates that demand is going down, at least in NZ. I'm in the UK and I bought some from an NZ site (which is clearly geared up to posting to anywhere) and it arrived after just 4 days. If my opinion were to be sought, I would *not* take this drug again; it's incredibly powerful and because of its status as a 'legal high', I really thought it would have little to no effect. I was overwhelmed by the effects (although the initial rushing was very nice), however the experience drags on and on to a kind of buzz that you can feel that won't go away. I'm in bed now (with laptop) 16 hours after taking it with a splitting headache, diminished cognitive ability, hunger is making an appearance today after not eating anything.. In short, it was unpleasant and I'm going to flush the other 3 pills down the toilet.


I am fairly familiar with just straight BZP and its effects, first hand. I have taken it mostly at the low end of the dose spectrum, 100-200mg, and I have found that 4-6 hours is a pretty good estimate, but it is dose-dependent. 100mg ususally lasts for about 5 hours for me, whereas 200mg will last more towards 7.5 hours. I am sorry that the previous poster had such a negative experience with the drug, as I rather prefer it to amphetamine due to the increased euphoria. I have found that eating a large meal with the pill(s) and staying hydrated throughout eliminates almost all of the side-effects, except for the temperature thing. Also, mixed piperazines tend to have more of a "hang-over" than just BZP. Mixing with alcohol is definately not a good idea, as well as taking APAP for the hang-over, both due to their hepatoxicity. Hope this was helpful, feel free to ask me about anything I have left out. --Gabethenerd(Talk)22:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BZP as a cattle drench

It is often claimed that BZP was first synthesised and/or patented as an anthelmintic in 1944. Can anybody find the patent?

Wellcome's 1944 patent 9828/44 from the London patent office related to a process for making a wide range of piperazines, not just BZP.

Wellcome states that the purpose of the patent was "to create new compounds" as well as "creating a new and novel way of making piperazine derivatives" there is no mention of application.

Staack RF, Maurer HH. Metabolism of designer drugs of abuse. Curr Drug Metab. 2005;6:259–74 says "BZP was originally synthesized as a potential anthelmintic agent" and provides no reference. Does anybody have other references for the "anthelmintic" rclaim to show that it is not an error? Stargateinternational 08:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It is commonly stated that “Benzylpiperazine was developed in 1944…” or “BZP was patented in 1944…” The primary reference used to support this statement was a paper published in 1973 (Bye et al, 1973).

A US Patent application number 2,415,785 dated 24 February 1943 refers to a method for making BZP, but we could find no patent application protecting benzylpiperazine itself. A paper received for publication in August 1943 refers to benzylpiperazine and references the removal of benzyl groups from piperazines as early as 1941.(Buck and Baltzly, (1941) cited in Feb., 1944) The fact that BZP is mentioned in this patent is evidence that it was a known substance prior to this date.

References to BZP in the literature predate interest in piperazines as anthelmintics. The earliest clinical trials in the literature relating to piperazine use as an anthelmintic are two articles in the British Medical Journal in 1953.

Bye’s 1973 paper is the only reference found linking BZP development to anthelmintic potential but it provides no reference to substantiate its claim. It is likely that in the early 1950’s all known piperazine derivatives were screened for anthelmintic use as they were for a number of potential treatments. Only a few, including piperazine citrate, and adipate salts were found to be useful and commercialised as both human and animal anthelmintics.

I'm adding a line to point out that BZP being first synthesised as a cattle wormer in 1944 is a myth.

[edit] Legality in the UK

Are we sure it's illegal to sell BZP in the UK? It's very easy to obtain online (prepackaged in gel-caps or compressed into tablets and sold as "dance pills"), and even in certain high-street 'headshops...' --Shalroth 12:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Piperazine based products are classified as Prescription Only Medicines (POM) in the UK. Any products containing salts of the ingredient, e.g. Benzylpiperazine (BZP) would be licensable under the Medicines Act and consequently anyone manufacturing and supplying it legally must hold the relevant licences to do so. Licensing records indicate that Benzylpiperazine has never been licensed by the MHRA as a medicine. Therefore, at present BZP pills would be classified as unlicensed and any advertising and sale would be in contravention of the Act. The MHRA has Enforcement powers and can take action against any organisations or persons found to be in contravention of the law.

--Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
Yes we are. Turkeyphant 02:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
How about buying/possesing/using (without perscription) is that legal in UK and Is it legal to sell it as a "diet supliment" rather than a "medicine"? 87.114.6.6 23:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
My understanding on the Act is that possession and import for personal use are still allowed under UK law. However, the main exporter of piperazine products is New Zealand which has made them schedule 4 meaning they can only be sold under strict conditions none of which are met. There is no loophole regarding the sale of piperazines as piperazines are now medicines by definition in the UK. Turkeyphant 23:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The UK MHRA may have based some statements on a false premise: that BZP is a salt of piperazine. It isn't. Unless a product also contained a salt of piperazine their statement holds no value. This doesn't mean that it can't be classified as a medicine though due to its physiological effect, but not as a salt of piperazine. I cannot see any "strict condition" under NZ's MOD Act that prohibits an offshore sale at the present time. Stargateinternational 23:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can we have some more info on other stuff.

I was wondering if anyone knew anything about other piperazines like "flippiperazine", "paraperazine", and "fluopiperazine". They are in many party pill brands but I can't seem to find anything about them - not even their chemical formulae, let alone details of their pharmacology. These may have to be in separate articles.

Ironically even tho it appears to be difficult to find out what they are, a lot of people take them without second thought :-P Nil Einne 03:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah i have now written pages on "flippiperazine/fluoperazine", pFPP and "paraperazine", MeOPP...should be pretty accurate, i was a consultant pharmacologist for some of these party pill companies when all these drugs first came out back in the early 2000s! 198.142.36.18 08:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think fluoperazine may be a name for TFMPP, flippiperazine is definitely a Stargate tm for pFPP. ;) Stargateinternational 08:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link

May be useful [1]. I always remember a New Scientist article a while back which should also be useful. Nil Einne 03:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

New Scientist story is now in the external links. Many of the facts are wrong though.222.153.163.109 06:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

Before I do the formal review, there are some points that need to be addressed which I picked up on a first quick read through.

  1. I fixed a couple of typos/MoS errors but there are more, the article needs careful copy editing - journals and books should be in italics too
  2. Similarly the bit about NZ in "History" is hard to make sense of - at least one "their" should probably be an "it"
  3. As it stands, there are lots of "citation" tags, and it will fail on this alone if they are not fixed or the unreffed claims removed

Jimfbleak (talk) 08:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Second read-through
  1. It still needs careful editing - on this readthrough, I picked up at least five errors that I fixed - be particularly careful with its/it's, number agreement it/they, and caps in headings. I know that there are still other errors. Popular/popularity is overused in the history section. "cropped up", "don't" etc., are too informal for GA
  2. "toxic effects" and "addictive effects" better as subheading of "Effects", "tolerance" just a stub, merge into previous section
  3. last sentence of "history" needs references or losing, there may be other unreffed items, so please check carefully
  4. Footnotes - ref 1 is an url, so why is it unlinked? ref 2 is formatted as url whereas eg ref 26 is the better [url name]. Need consistency. Ref 37 needs a date of legislation
I'll do the formal review within the next two days. At the moment it's pretty borderline. In addition to the specific points above, please read through carefully for grammatical errors and for general readability. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Jim! I'll give it a good going-over before you do your final review. Miserlou (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this is starting to look pretty good..Miserlou (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs)

[edit] Attributed deaths

Over 20 million pills containing BZP have been consumed in New Zealand...

Citation for this please. Requesting in talk page first - hopefully prior to any need for cite tag in the article. Thanks --SallyScot (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Placed a cite in the article, the number is provided by the party pill industry rather than any official count (which would probably be impossible to get). Mr Bungle | talk 22:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Zealand Bias

This article has a noticeable NZ bias to it, probably because of the recently introduced ban. Maybe someone can make this article more "global". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.217.76.77 (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)