Talk:Heroin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Heroin is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Archive of past discussions


Contents

[edit] etymology

Interestingly, the dictionaries give different sources for the name Heroin: Merriam Webster Collegiate attributes it to a trademark of that name from 1898, whereas the Shorter Oxford has: "German, formed as HERO (from its effect on the user's perception of his or her personality)"; Concise Oxford has: "C19: from Ger. Heroin, from L. heros 'hero' (because of its effects on the user's self-esteem)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.72.44 (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Side effects lacking citations

death! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.158.46.200 (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No sources are provided for any of the side effects, for all we know half (or more) of them could be untrue or extremely rare. This is especially likely given the amount of poor research and misinformation spread by the government about various illegal drugs. To me this almost seems grounds for deletion of that entire side-bar until proper citation can be given. Also, it seems to me that the rarity of the side effects should be noted as well. Thoughts? -- itistoday (Talk) 13:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as there hasn't been a response for over a week now I've added the relevant tags to the sections; a 'citation needed' to the words "Side Effects" in the box, and a box atop the "Risks of non-medical use" section. -- itistoday (Talk) 18:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suicide *or* Physician-Assisted Suicide?

a) I agree with previous note! The causal link between concealability and profitability is too tenuous to be stated as it is; that heroin is potent contributes to its profitability, surely, but that's not the only factor. The strength of the cravings its users have seems equally important -- the example by comparison of LSD (not physically addictive) is a good illustration.

b) As of now, the article says "The drug can be used for suicide or, as in the case of Sigmund Freud, physician-assisted suicide." This makes it sound like physician-assisted suicide is a discrete category outside the universe of "suicide." Would distinguishing rather between "suicide" and "euthanasia" be an appropriate change? Also, a link merely to "Sigmund Freud" doesn't explain Freud's connection to physician-assisted suicide. Did he practice it on patients? Did he ask his own doctor for an overdose?

timbo 17:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Tolerance may be more important for profit than anything. 5mg of pure heroin may get a new user really high, but an addict might need as much as a few hundred milligrams per day to be 'well'. If addicts only needed say 10mg per day, then the demand in weight would be far less and thus be far less profitable for safe. Peoplesunionpro 21:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The sigmund frued reference is also out of place as morphine and not heroin was administered to him.

[edit] bad link

Link [2] gives The Page you requested is unavailable. --MikaelRo 23:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename to "Diamorphine"

This article was moved from Heroin to Diamorphine without any apparent discussion or consensus so it has been reverted. As far as I can tell, "heroin" is the older and more established name for the drug while "diamorphine" is used primarily (or exclusively) in the UK as a generic prescription name. This would be analagous to having the THC article renamed to "dronabinol". The unscientific google test shows about 200,000 hits for diamorphine and over 17 million for heroin. --Bk0 (Talk) 17:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Diamorphine is the proper name in britain where i am from but since International Nonproprietary Names are supposed to be used it should be Diacetylmorphine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Right Honourable (talk • contribs).

No way. WP:COMMONNAME is very clear - use the most commonly used term as the article name. Diacetylmorphine may be the most commonly used term in British naming institutes but what about the other 99% of the world's population? Bk0's Google report above is quite clear. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Totally agree w/ wknight. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 14:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Its diamorphine in the UK, diacetylmorphine is the INN, issued by the World Health Organization, which has English, French, Russian, and Spanish variants of the word. So it is the correct unambigious medical name for most of the world though for WP the article should be at Heroin.GraemeLeggett 16:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, whilst diacetylmorphine is a recognised synonym for heroin/ diamorphine, an INN does not exist for the molecule.193.129.185.28 14:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. If we are to call this Heroin, then there should be Valium and Viagra... but no, instead we have Diazepam and Sildenafil. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.113.123.1 (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Popular opinion?

Should this article maybe also include a mention of popular opinion about heroin? As far as I see, there is no detail about it having a huge stigma in the highly developed world. Peoplesunionpro 00:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's a mess

This article is a rambling mess! It spans pharmacology, medicine, and popular drug culture. The drug culture needs hived off from the pharmacology/medicine into a separate article. Possibly "diamorphine" for the pharmacology and "heroin" for the drug culture? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.127.78.107 (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Agreed. This article could also be edited for grammar. There are quite a few long run on sentances that take up a few lines of text. Bbitu 02:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Why is there a paragraph devoted to one guy's oddball conspiracy theory regarding the CIA and an alleged link to drug syndicates? (uncited of course)? Deleted!

Hey guys...I third this idea. I see its been worked on a bit as far as separation goes, but I plan on going through at least the pharmacology section to fact check, add additional info, and try to section off the subject matter to make sure things are as coherent as possible. This is a very important article, since heroin affects so many lives, and I definately think it needs to be as informative as possible w/o being confusing. I'll post again when I go to make changes, and then I'll ask for feedback on what I did. Peace. Ohnoitsthefuzz (talk) 06:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heroin name question

(copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology) May I ask why the Wiki article is called Heroin instead of Diacetylmorphine, per naming conventions here? If you enter Valium you're redirected to Diazepam; why is the reverse true here? Jeffpw 08:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've wondered about this before, and I think I agree. Diacetylmorphine is the INN. The counter-argument, of course, would be that "heroin" is much more widely used (there's a brief discussion on the heroin talk page where WP:COMMONNAME is cited). It's not a current brand name, and would be better likened to aspirin/acetylsalicylic acid than Valium/diazepam, *except* that aspirin, while a genericized trademark like heroin, is now the INN. The naming conventions aren't set in stone, but I think this is at least worth discussion. --Galaxiaad 20:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Does anyone know of any country outside the UK where heroin still has a licenced medicinal use? (Not harm reduction) If it is not used as a medication elsewhere, I don't think there is much of a rationale for using the INN. Fvasconcellos 22:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I haven't found one explicitly named (but then, I may have to use a foreign word for "cancer" in a Google search). A search for "Diacetylmorphine cancer countries" brings up a US bill that states "diacetylmorphine is successfully used in Great Britain and other countries for relief of pain due to cancer;". Also, this news report claims it was approved in the US for cancer in relatively recent history. The word "heroin" is used in this and this paper discussing its use for cancer care. It appears that both lay and medical use of the word "heroin" is common, and yes, it is more commonly thought of as a drug than a pharmaceutical. Using the word doesn't promote one manufacturer's brand, in the way that Valium does. Colin°Talk 23:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's an interesting commentary re. Ireland; "Heroin for medical use is not available in Ireland though there is nothing in the Misuse of Drugs Acts that prohibits the prescribing of heroin. This is because, in an effort to reduce the availability of heroin, licences are not issued which would allow the drug to be imported into the country.". I think that clarifies the position for many countries. Also, see this for further European history - Alison☺ 23:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a little off-topic, but there's little medical reason to use diacetylmorphine today. Fentanyl is at least as effective with a much higher therapeutic index. Even oxycodone is probably roughly as effective quantitatively as heroin at relieving pain and is more effective orally. --Bk0 (Talk) 01:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
So is the rationale for using the chemical name instead of the trade name to avoid promoting a particular brand? if so, I can live with the page name as it stands (although Heroin was a brand name at one point). I was just curious, is all. Jeffpw 23:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the reason is usually that there are many brand names in different countries (and within the same country), but the INN is used everywhere, so it's a good place for the page to be located. Probably the advertising thing too though. --Galaxiaad 00:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think use of INN in lieu of a brand name is primarily to discourage advertising; INNs are internationally unambiguous, and unambiguous article names are in WP's best interest :) Galaxiaad hit the nail on the head—it's a good place for the page to be located. However, given heroin's far wider recreational use, I'm not sure moving the page to "diacetylmorphine" would be a good idea; I can almost read the "what gives" messages on the Talk page already. Any ideas? Fvasconcellos 01:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It is also good if the article name matches what people would use in other articles when referring to the drug. Mostly, we prefer the INN name for both the article, and also any references to the article. To rename it diacetylmorphine might give the impression that that is WP's preferred name everywhere. There are only 8 article-space links to diacetylmorphine, 15 to diamorphine, and over 1500 links to heroin! You can be sure most refer to non-medical use. The phrase "diacetylmorphine addict" doesn't even return one full Google page of listings. Colin°Talk 08:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with Galaxiaad. Should we copy this to the Heroin talk page? --Selket Talk 08:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Copied. My only other question is would a redirect from Heroin to diacetylmorphine be appropriate? Jeffpw 09:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Did you mean diacetylmorphine to heroin? It's already there. --Selket Talk 09:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
No. I get that the most popular name is Heroin. But the anal retentive part of me still thinks the correct name is diacetylmorphine. So I was wondering if the article should actually be titled diacetylmorphine and anyone typing heroin would be redirected to the article. I am happy to bow to consensus; I just want the consensus to say "We know it's technically incorrect but we're doing it anyway". Jeffpw 09:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Such redirects happen automatically when an article is moved/renamed. Have a look at Wikipedia:Requested moves if you want to pursue this. For such a significant article, which has impact outside of just this WikiProject, you'll need a strong consensus for moving it. I suspect you won't get this, regardless of any merits. A wider discussion may do no harm, though. Colin°Talk 10:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Re It is thought that heroin's popularity... comes from its somewhat different perceived effects: What does perceived effects mean? Effects on perception during usage? The effects it is believed to have? Please make this clear. RedRabbit1983 13:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requiem for a Dream

Why isn't this movie mentioned in the Culture section where it talks about movies about heroin addicts? 4.234.39.21 19:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter? Unless the movie is culturally significant (it has had a lasting influence on the genre or people's perception of junkies), any reference to the movie in this article is trivia. RedRabbit1983 12:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
As it was an award winning film adapted from a book by an award winning novelist, it does seem culturally significant to me. I'll add it in and wikilink to the article about it.


Actually, the drug they use is never mentioned and most people assume it to be heroin. One effect of heroin is pupil constriction, in this movie though they clearly show the people's pupils being dilated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.180.26.168 (talk) 02:17, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

The drug in the movie is clearly heroin. The acute subjective effects and the withdrawal shown are consistent with heroin, and inconsistent with any other abused psychoactive drug. Furthermore, it's referred to as "skag" several times, which is a common street name for heroin. Several drugs are used in the movie, and in one scene it's possible that cocaine is used (hip-hop montage shows a white powder sniffed with a dollar bill), but heroin is the clear focus of the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.166.166 (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Everything in the movie, from the injections, side effects, language, high(s), and withdrawals, point to Heroin. The one thing that does not, is they show pupils being dilated instead of constricted (mistake?). They might have wanted to go the 'general' route with the movie, but as the user before me said, many drugs were used in the movie but the primary focus was clearly Heroin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.51.3.194 (talk) 17:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect pharmacology

I removed a line saying that addiction and tolerance formed because endorphin receptor densities increased under opiate stimulation. This is definitely incorrect. First the mu-opiate(endorphin) receptor is a g-protein mediated receptor which means its pharmacology doesn't follow the standard ionic-channel model of up-regulation and down-regulation of channel densities. Second even if it did follow the classical model receptor densities would decrease, that way it would take more drug to produce a similar effect. The synaptic gap follows the probabilistic rules of brownian motion, meaning more receptors increases the probability that a ligand will bind a given number of receptors and fewer decreases this probability. What matters is the total number of receptors bound not the proportion of receptors bound.

Read this, we should probably even find a way to work this in as a reference. [[1]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.138.164.152 (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Symptoms of withdrawal or not?

This bit:

"though occasional use may not lead to symptoms of withdrawal. It should be noted that withdrawal symptoms from heroin can be felt after as little as three days of continual use"

is quite contradictory. Youlookadopted 04:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Occasional use may not lead to withdrawal symptoms; however, it can. Certainly someone will not experience heavy withdrawal symptoms after 3 days of continual usage, but rather feelings of anxiety, and the urge to use the drug.
--Tins128 18:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manufacturing section LSD info wrong

"Unlike drugs such as LSD, the production of which requires considerable expertise in chemistry and access to constituents which are now tightly controlled, the refinement of the first three grades of heroin from opium is a relatively simple process requiring only moderate technical expertise and common chemicals." LSD absolutely requires considerable expertise in organic chemistry, if not more so than the production of heroin.

The passage you quoted agrees with you, but I can see where that comma trips up readability. It could use some rewording :) --Klork 06:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Street Names

The list of street names is a little ad-nauseum, so why dont we relocate the extensive list to a sub-section of Culture, or something like that, and leave only the short list as seen on erowid.org: Dope; Junk; Smack; H, in the intro. Or the article could do away with the extensive list, and provide links to pages with more names, eg: http://www.intheknowzone.com/heroin/street_names.htm MrPMonday 17:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cocaine causing necrosis

In the current version of the article, under Usage and effects, in the paragraph about speedballs it states that cocaine can cause necrosis. however, this isn't mentioned in the cocaine article. if it is true it should be added to the cocaine article, if it isnt true it should be deleted.124.184.70.211 08:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Half life?

Every source I've come across states the half-life of heroin to be 2-8 minutes, NOT hours. Is there a source that claims the half-life is 2-3 hours? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.88.214 (talk) 09:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you please cite your sources for 2 - 8 minutes? You're being reverted when you change it because you aren't giving us any references and people are assuming that it is vandalism. So it would be really good if you could give the sources you have which say the half-life is 2 - 8 minutes. Thanks, Sarah 23:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
2-8 minutes is clearly wrong. see [2]. - Nunh-huh 07:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, 2-3 hours that is currently in the articles appears to be wrong as well and seems to be confusing it with morphine. There's also this [3] which says, "Following acute i.v. administration, heroin appears transiently in blood with a half-life of about 3 min. The half-life of heroin exposed to blood or serum in vitro is 9-22 min, indicating that organ metabolism is involved in blood clearance as well." The half-life cited in the article you found might be in vitro. Sarah 07:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I suspect, looking at the article/infobox, that lots of things have been confused. For example, we give data on bioavailability (which relates only to an oral dosage, not intravenous administration), so perhaps dosage forms have been mixed together and the data muddled. (And an in vitro half-life really makes very little sense!). Also probably not being kept separate are plasma half-life vs. duration of action (heroin continues to produce effects after it's been metabolized, so the plasma half-life (the time it takes to produce an active metabolite) has little to do with the duration of the drug's effects. - Nunh-huh 07:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I've checked with a few pharmacology people off-WP and they generally agree with around 15-30 minutes, so I think the 3 hours previously here is pretty clearly wrong. I've changed the article to read "up to 30 minutes" and used the article you found as the cite for now, but User:Ryan Postlethwaite is going to try to find us a better source to use as the cite. It would be really good to get some pharmacology people to work on this article because it seems to be a total, confused, mess, which is really unfortunate given it is probably among the more commonly read pharmacology articles. Sarah 01:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I have a Goodman & Gilman in my basement, and it would be ideal...sadly, I haven't the foggiest idea where it's got to. -Nunh-huh 02:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usage and Effects

This section currently has a tag that says it requires attention from an expert in the subject. What does that exactly mean? Someone with a past or present heroin addiction that can describe the precise ways of usage and the effects perceived? Or does it go around the line of chemistry and biology? Vicius 01:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Chemistry, biology, medicine and even sociologically. We can't publish original research (which is what first-hand accounts would be). But if someone with past experience wishes to work on that or any other section, they are most welcome to, however, they will need to cite reliable sources to verify their edits, rather than simply relying on their own first hand experiences. Sarah 23:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


Hey all, I posted a couple paragraphs above, but I figured I'd put something down here too. I'm a doctor of pharmacy student, and in exchange for robbing me blind so that I can barely afford to eat, my school provides me with a huge amount of information resources. I plan on doing some digging in the coming month, and hopefully revamping some of the pharmacological aspects of this article, as well as contributing info to the culture/recreation use areas from my own experience and clinical evidence I have to support it (I know, no OR, I'll make sure I don't add anything that could be construed as that, and feel free to let me know if any edit I make isn't appropriate...I'm still kinda new to the whole WP thing, so I appreciate the help). Peace. Ohnoitsthefuzz (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Kurt Cobain was listed as a victim of a fatal heroin OD. Removed. (he died from a shotgun blast to the head.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.24.57 (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regulation in the United States

Why is there no discussion of the regulation in the US in the Regulation section? Cardsplayer4life 22:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Error in structure model.

I think I've encountered a minor error in the structure model. The bottom right bond should be double instead of single. Compare to the ball-stick model, and morphine's structure model. Unfortunately I don't have the necessary tools to make a new image, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.224.68.29 (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Thanks for catching it. I've switched to an existing image that is correct. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Triangle?

Is it appropriate to label the production section "The Golden Triangle", when production has never been limited to Southeast Asia, and has more recently crossed halfway around the world to Mexico and Columbia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malichai (talk • contribs) 18:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metabolism

In the article, under the "Usage and Effects" section, it states "Once in the brain, heroin is rapidly metabolized into morphine..." and "Taken orally, heroin is totally metabolized in vivo into morphine before crossing the blood-brain barrier..."

So, which is it? Is it possible to get an academic reference here? 64.230.37.202 (talk) 05:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's both actually. Heroin taken orally, as with any drug, is absorbed by the intestine and enters the hepatic portal vein, where it is taken to the liver. Depending on the drug, it may be completely metabolized by liver enzymes, not metabolized at all, or somewhere in between (which is the case with most drugs); this is called first pass metabolism, or just first pass. After it exits the liver, the drug goes up the inferior vena cava through the heart, lungs, etc, and finally to the brain. Once it crosses the BBB, cells in the brain take up heroin, and heroin also binds to surface receptors on the outside of cells. Heroin that enters cells in the brain is metabolized. Almost all cells (I think all of them...) are capable of metabolizing drugs with enzymes in the endoplasmic reticulum, but hepatocytes are better at it because of the P450 and other enzymes present in their ERs. When heroin is injected, it goes through the heart and lungs, then into arterial circulation, where it crosses the BBB and the same thing happens. This however leads to a much higher level of exposure to the drug, creating the rush that so many users seek. Eventually, as the drug continues through the vascular system, it reaches the liver and hepatic metabolism begins. As far as bioavailability goes (just for reference), bioavailability (F) is the total fraction of a dose that is availabile in the systemic circulation, defined by fa (fraction absorbed from the site of administration, eg gut, IM injection site, transdermal site) times ffp (fraction that makes it past first pass, i.e. the fraction that is NOT extracted and broken down). For injection, F is by definition equal to 1, since you're dumping drug right into the circulation. I hope this is helpful, and I apologize for writing so much, I just wanted to provide what info I could. If there are any more questions, lemme know, I'd be happy to answer. Payce! Ohnoitsthefuzz (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Addicitive mechanism and withdrawal effects

The present article text attributes "dependence" and the symptoms of abrupt withdrawal syndrome to reduction in the production of endogenous opioids, i.e. endophins/enkephalins. The is incorrect or at least a seriously flawed explanation. It is not that the body reduces or eliminates production of endorphins, but rather that the body adapts to the much higher levels in blood and brain of opioid (it seeks and reaches homeostasis, one of the body's "prime directives"), and when the external source (heroin, oxycodone, or other) is cut-off after the body has reached homeostasis, it is now again out of balance. Over days or weeks the body again seeks and finds homeostasis, now with the lower, endogenous level of opioid/endorphin. This homeostasis mechanism is what produces tolerance and dependence (the particulars are complex, as they usually are) to opioids as well as many other drugs. Simply the body learns to live and function with a certain level of a substance, and then must re-learn that comfortable level when the substance is withdrawn. It take a very long time for opioid abuse to result in serious reduction in endorphin production, typically a year or more of daily use. Tolerance develops in a week or so, dependence (as characterized by a substantive withdrawal symptomology) a few days to a week behind it and are the clearest indications of the mentioned homeostatis having formed.

Chronic opioid addicts thus have a hard time staying clean because their endocrine systems are not putting out normal endorphin levels and they often have long term mood disorders and suffer a host of aches and pains and sleeplessness. It is possible that in some cases endorphin production may never return to normal, and it can take more than a year (long after classic withdrawal symptoms are gone) in cases where endorphin levels do return to previous levels before heroin abuse began.

This is a fairly good article overall, but like most articles on 'recreational' drugs of abuse there are still a lot of user/addict myths and pseudo-science and mis-understood science peppered thoughout. This type of article should be edited by two people--an experienced user and a trained specialist/scientist, working together.


I agree with whats being said here for the most part, but I'd like to add that a significant portion of the pharmacological mechanism of dependence has to do not so much with endogenous opioid peptides, but with dopamine levels from the mesolimbic pathway in the ventral tegmentum. The brain becomes accustomed not so much to the higher level of opioid, but to the higher level of dopamine present. This is supported by the fact that all physically addictive drugs activate the mesolimbic dopamine system in some way, and that drugs that do not (eg LSD, psylocin/cybin) are not physically addicting. I know it seems like I'm mincing words, but its an important concept to include in the discussion of dependence/withdrawal pharmacodynamics. When a person is using opioids for a period of time sufficient to produce physical withdrawal, current research seems to point that the symptomology of W/D is induced by a deficit of dopamine, producing the opposite of the effects of the dopamine release brought on by using opioids (pleasure), which is dysphoria and pain. Research also supports that upon cessation of the drug, the body actually seems to produce higher levels of certain endogenous opioid peptides, specifically very high levels of dynorphins. Dynorphins are agonistic at the kappa opioid receptor, and activation of this receptor produces intense dysphoria, hyperalgesia (literally, lots of pain), and some of the other unpleasant effects of withdrawal. This is by no means the only cause of W/D symptoms, but it seems to play a big role in how much withdrawals SUCK, lol. Like I said above, I'd be happy to contribute addition support to this article, and I invite anyone to feel free to ask me questions, I'll be happy to find the answer. Take care. Ohnoitsthefuzz (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Addicitive mechanism and withdrawal effects

The present article text attributes "dependence" and the symptoms of abrupt withdrawal syndrome to reduction in the production of endogenous opioids, i.e. endophins/enkephalins. The is incorrect or at least a seriously flawed explanation. It is not that the body reduces or eliminates production of endorphins, but rather that the body adapts to the much higher levels in blood and brain of opioid (it seeks and reaches homeostasis, one of the body's "prime directives"), and when the external source (heroin, oxycodone, or other) is cut-off after the body has reached homeostasis, it is now again out of balance. Over days or weeks the body again seeks and finds homeostasis, now with the lower, endogenous level of opioid/endorphin. This homeostasis mechanism is what produces tolerance and dependence (the particulars are complex, as they usually are) to opioids as well as many other drugs. Simply the body learns to live and function with a certain level of a substance, and then must re-learn that comfortable level when the substance is withdrawn. It take a very long time for opioid abuse to result in serious reduction in endorphin production, typically a year or more of daily use. Tolerance develops in a week or so, dependence (as characterized by a substantive withdrawal symptomology) a few days to a week behind it and are the clearest indications of the mentioned homeostatis having formed.

Chronic opioid addicts thus have a hard time staying clean because their endocrine systems are not putting out normal endorphin levels and they often have long term mood disorders and suffer a host of aches and pains and sleeplessness. It is possible that in some cases endorphin production may never return to normal, and it can take more than a year (long after classic withdrawal symptoms are gone) in cases where endorphin levels do return to previous levels before heroin abuse began.

This is a fairly good article overall, but like most articles on 'recreational' drugs of abuse there are still a lot of user/addict myths and pseudo-science and mis-understood science peppered thoughout. This type of article should be edited by two people--an experienced user and a trained specialist/scientist, working together.Googlyelmo (talk) 09:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usage and effects

I have a problem with the opening line "Heroin is used as a recreational drug for its intense euphoria". It seems to me that describing the motivation of individuals as deciding to use Heroin simply because it feels so good despite the long-term consequences is both largely incorrect and oversimplifies the issue. The example I would give is that people barely making ends meet will often spend a great deal of money to continue acquiring the drug. The initial euphoria due to the use of the drug fades fairly quickly, leaving the user with a feeling of peace and apathy that lasts several hours. In other words, the drug changes the person into a needless being, physically but more importantly psychologically. A person who is not having their emotional needs met--a person who feels depressed and trapped--is far more prone to use and continue using Heroin than a person who is happy because to them, the risks are inconsequential to the benefits they experience. So rather than euphoria, it seems that profound stress relief is what grants this chemical its lasting appeal in that the drug can be used repeatedly to maintain a managable state of mind, or in other words, to allow a person to feel closer to normality.

In contrast, a person who has been prescribed large amounts of opiate drugs to deal with severe pain, due to cancer say, may in fact experience much of the rush and pleasurable effects of their medication, but often find it relatively easy to be wiened off their medication once their condition has been treated and has passed. This is provided that they are returning to a relatively normal existence free of extraordinary stress. So put simply, the allure of heroin, accurately described, is that it is dramatically more pleasant than the alternative for those who seek it out.

Kst447 (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where is the Chemistry?

I see very little, if no chemistry data whatsoever. Most chemical or drug pages have at least a reaction process that say morphine takes to get to heroin via acetylation; there isn't even a reaction process. The "Production & Trafficking" section covers essentially nothing. I am starting a Chemistry section in this article, more should be added.--Ddhix 2002 (talk) 06:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] slash

uh you should add in the cuture/literature/music section the book slash becuase basically all the book is about slash and getting heroin and how he needs it to write etc and eventually how he gets off it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.66.110 (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] cost

Economic impact and general cost of buying heroin / selling could be useful Sanitycult (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, in australian capital cities, one "standard unit" of heroin is $50. The cost of heroin almost never changes, but rather the purity of these units. Changing the price over such a black market would be near impossible, with dealers further down the distribution chain claim that prices had gone up, when in fact they might be increasing their share. It's hard to prove decrease purity, compared with increased prices. What sort of evidence could we use/find to support this? --rakkar (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Television section

What about Isaac Mendez in Heroes? He can only use his superpower when he's high before he figures out how to do it without heroin.75.68.246.87 (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Glyco-Heroin"

How come it says "Glyco-Heroin" on so many Heroin bottles from the 1800's? Is this a name that should redirect to the heroin article, or is it a different type that should have it's own article or section? 67.5.156.91 (talk) 08:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

According to this page from the SUNY Buffalo Addiction Research Unit, it appears that glyco-heroin is just a mixture of heroin with a little glycerin and sugar to improve the taste. I made a redirect to this article accordingly. St3vo (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asian heroin numbering system?

How come there is no mention of the widely used heroin numbering system? It is mentioned briefly, but not explained, in the black tar heroin articles at Black tar heroin#Variations. From what I understand #4 heroin is the kind found in the United States (both China White from South America and Black Tar from Mexico), and that is heroin hydrochloride. #3 heroin is the kind out of Afganistan and that is the kind found in Europe, which is freebase heroin. Can anybody with knowledge and sourcing add mention of this? 67.5.156.165 (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Musicians

The list of artists who wrote about/used heroin is commendable, but the list could go on for pages. I see that there is a page on the Social effects of rock and roll but this has come to the point where the subject of drug use and artists in general (musicians, painters, writers, designers, etc.) warrants its own article, at the very least a stub. I would do this all myself, but I have never done so. But if anyone has the knowhow then feel free to start and I will give a hand where I am able. Poppyzbrite (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Krecker, human -- but not famous overdose victim ?

Why on earth is Joseph Krecker, son of a suburban Chicago police officer, linked with Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Layne Staley... it seems an attempt to memorialize this unfortunate kid, who if Googled, comes up only in citations of this article.[4]82.239.57.15 (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Miriam, not a wikipedia registered user...

[edit] LD50

Isn't LD50 usually expressed in mg/kg? What is the baseline for this measurement, kg or 75kg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.49.140 (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I fixed up the reference after seeing your question; if you take a look you'll see it says between 1 and 5 mg/kg. Bazzargh (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)