Talk:Dimenhydrinate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Other Uses
From a stupid personal experience I can attest that taking too much Dimenhydrinate has additional side-effects: complete loss of balance (cannot sense up from down) and a significantly extended duration (my "trip" lasted 3 days).
[edit] Moving Abuse section to new article
The "Abuse" sections in this article and Diphenhydramine are largely identical (minus my recent edits here), probably a cut-and-paste between the two. The Abuse sections should probably be moved to their own separate page, titled something like "Abuse of Dimenhydrinate and Diphenhydramine" or "Antihistamine Abuse".
The majority of people who abuse these drugs are younger (as with most drug abuse, I suppose) and have found out about the delerient effects of the drugs from the Internet, sometimes with falsely grandiose information. I'm looking for a reference but is this not obvious enough that it doesn't need to be strictly sourced? --Bk0 13:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hi there. I'm sure a lot of children get info on the internet about deliberately overdosing on antihistamines and then do so, but I don't quite see how its obvious that many of them do so mistakenly, hoping for a "psychedelic" experience. It seems to me that children so inclined to seek out information on drug abuse on the internet are likely aware of what the difference in these drugs are. I may certainly be wrong, of course, and if do you in fact find a reliable reference (ie, news agency, journal article, and not erowid) for this fact, then by all means include it with a citation.
- Indeed, a good case can be made for separating these articles. My suggested title would be, as you said, "anti-histamine abuse" as there are several drugs of this class that are potential candidates for misuse. RJSampson 22:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Recreational dosage
Threshold hallucinogenic dose of 20-22 pills? That is quite a large dosage. I have heard of people getting fairly strong 'trips' off only 8 pills (400 mg.)
- Perhaps you're getting dimenhydrinate and diphenhydramine confused. The former has half the potency of the latter. --Aramգուտանգ 21:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Based on Erowid Expirience Vault I've lessened the threshold dose. --krampus 01:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is almost entirely nothing but a primer on how to overdose on dramamine. ---
- That doesn't particularly matter. It's still relevant information. The article could be expanded, of course.--134.10.121.56 08:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I personally think the (over)dosage information should be removed unless a better source than Erowid can be found. We could put the erowid link in an "external links" section at the end of the article, but Iobitussin think relaying anecdotal and unverifiable dosage information here is unencyclopedic and possibly dangerous.--Eloil 22:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I removed the entire section
On recreational use, due to the fact that it is completely without a reliable source and was very "try this"ish. I don't think it was relevant at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.32.135.219 (talk • contribs).
- Your effort at improving the article is appreciated, however the wholesale deletion of content isn't ideal. I agree that the tone of the section is not as encyclopedic as it should be and it definitely needs refs, however let's not just remove it completely. Feel free to be bold and improve it through editing. --Bk0 (Talk) 23:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- The recreational use section certainly does need references, but the last thing it needs is to be deleted. The information presented there may just prevent some naive individual from actually attempting a deliberate overdose. I've changed the language to reflect the fact that recreational use of this substance is particularly unpleasant and dangerous. The article as a whole, however, could use a section on the pharmacology of these two substances (Though this information can be found on the two substituent articles (diphenhydramine and theophylline), there is little information on the pharmacology of dimenhydrinate. One would assume that it is merely a combination of the two pharmacological profiles.). The side effects of this drug at a normal, non-recreational dosage are not mentioned (they are largely the same as the overdose side effects, but not as extreme). Also, the overdose side effects are a result of both drugs, but the article treats them as if they were caused exclusively by diphenhydramine. My guess is that myocardial infarction is mainly a result of theophylline overdosage (although it could be due to the combination). The number one priority for this article should be the acquisition of references (other than Erowid.org, which is not the most reliable or objective of sources). Fuzzform 02:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
[Davepl] I came to the discussion page because upon reading this article, it really seemed to be heavy on the recreational use. Isn't it enough to state that it is abused, do we really need to offer guidance on what the "recreational" dosage is?
For now, I'm going to change the section name to Abuse rather than "Recreational Use". I'm sure someone will revert it anyway, but "Recreational" has a definate POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.75.69 (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I thought I made it sufficiently clear that using this drug recreationally is a bad idea. The "abuse" vs. "recreational use" controversy continues. I prefer the latter term, as it is non-offensive to drug users - who will undoubtedly be the ones reading this section. Doesn't it make sense to use language that doesn't make them think "this article isn't true, it's biased against drugs"? Why do you suppose that doctors ask patients if they use recreational drugs, rather than asking if they abuse drugs? I agree that both terms have a POV, but I think "abuse" is slightly different than "recreational use". You can abuse a drug without using it recreationally, and you can use a drug recreationally without abusing it (but I bet the hardline anti-drug people will disagree with the latter statement). The two terms are not synonyms - they have distinct meanings, though there is a point of crossover. Certain drugs have no medical uses, and are only used recreationally, so is all use of such a drug considered "abuse"? And where does the term "misuse" fit in? The point of Wikipedia is to provide information, not to pass judgment on specific groups of people. I'd be willing to bet that those who favor the term "recreational use" view drug dependence, etc. as an illness, whereas those who prefer "abuse" see all non-medical drug use as a moral failure. Fuzzform (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Or how about a compromise such as calling it "misuse", without the negative connotations carried by the word "abuse". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seven of Nine (talk • contribs) 22:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Redid
I redid the whole recreational section, based it on diphenhydramine as both are similar, whoever wrote the last one, that was awful, sounded like a manual saying "take x pills". C6541 (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
