Talk:Methamphetamine/Archive 01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Chirality

The differences in chirality between d/l methamphetamines is not mentioned in the article. While I do not have sources, I was under the impression the chirality of the molecule changes its effects, like the comparison of d-amphetamine (dextroamphetamine) and l-amphetamine . The synthesis methods are likely racemic, producing equal quantities of both d/l, however, the d-isomer is more potent. The molecule image does not represent the chiraliy of the molecule. Barring any objections, I would like to include these facts (and references) in the article and change the image to represent the d-isomer of methamphetamine. ~~davidknippers

...Further research has revealed that brand name desoxyn is a (S)-enantiomer (dextro). I'll change the image to represent the dextro isomer and add an appropriate exploration of the difference in chemistry soon. ([1]) ~~davidknippers

Aphrodisiac?

I recently heard that extc does not enhance sexual feelings. Is this accurate? I personally have felt that while on speed or meth or extc that i get more sexually aroused. ~~Portillo

Please note that Wikipedia does not advocate drug use. If you're looking for information on successful usage of crystal meth, I suggest you visit a website like Tweaker.org. Hopefully you can find the help you need there. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 19:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I still think its a reasonable question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Portillo (talk • contribs) 10:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
And my answer was reasonable. I hope you find what you're looking for. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 14:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Portillo. The purpose of the wikipedia is to provide objective information. If Methamphetamine does indeed enhance the sexual exprience, shouldn't that be in the article somewhere? --205.206.139.41 14:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Only if there is a non-Wikipedia, non-original research reference, article, or other published factual source to draw from. This is as per the Wikipedia:No Original Research policy. Evand 23:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Current Controversy

Wikipedia should not be used for selfish political opinions. Please remove the content in the paragraph titled "Current Controversy". Drug abuse in the United States is a serious problem. The attack on the Bush adminstration in "Current Controversy" lowers the integrity of Wikipedia!

It's POV to claim that drug abuse in the U.S. is a serious problem, or to imply that drug abuse in the U.S. is a problem that should be solved by government intervention. 64.105.253.69 06:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


Is there a way to write about the manufacturing process that sounds less like War on Drugs propaganda (which is POV)? I don't know enough about the process, nor am I confident I wouldn't go too far the other way. --Calieber 20:14, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)


I'm just a tad concerned about the (for lack of a better word) unprofessional attitude that comes across in the following passage:

Just to put a bit of a more even slant on this article, it should be pointed out that the small scale labs and small time operators do not account for very much of the production in most places, most meth is actually made from bulk diverted pills or even pure crystal, likewise for the other reagents, these new legislations will simply shift some of the bottom end of the market back to the gangs and the corrupt law enforcement and customs agents who get paid to let this stuff through. It's pretty easy to see when you actually look at it they are restricting OTC pseudoephedrine simply to bring back the more, for the law enforcement, manageable situation of a smaller number of big labs which require as much forensics work as the little labs, but net a much bigger public relations score for the police.

The only thing that bothered me about this article is that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should not be about opinions; rather, it should be as factual, accurate and neutral as humanly possible. I treat information I find on this website as seriously as information I find in the Encyclopedia Britannica - any sides of a multi-faceted issue are presented, but, unless I'm much mistaken, they are not argued.

--MrSparkle847 04:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

MrSparkle, I've edited those paragraphs and hopefully moved them a bit more towards NPOV, although it'd definitely help if someone could find some citations to back them up.

--Oh James 05:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Spacing

Can someone please fix the spacing on the page, there's a large gap, clean 'er up.

I assume you were refering to the one before the history section, which i've fixed. the tag has been removed accordingly. If this wasn't what you were talking about i apologize and you should pop that tag right back up there. --Heah 22:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Directions?!?

There are many different recipes for conversion which can be found on the internet.

This almost sounds like the author is instructing people to cook meth according to recipies found on the Internet. First of all, cooking methamphetamine is a VERY dangerous process, and one that can result in property and environmental damage, and potentially death. Second of all, as all ingredients involved in the production of methamphetamine, one mistake can be fatal. I would not trust my life or the lives of naive Wikipedians to a recipe taken from the Internet. Every person that I have ever met that has been involved in the production of methamphetamine has either been an expirienced chemist or has learned how firsthand from one. However, I am not encouraging or discouraging methamphetamine use or production, as that would represent a POV. But I do think we should emphasize the dangers of production and the importance of learning how from someone with expierience. DryGrain 12:50, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Never mind, I fixed it....DryGrain 12:14, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

please touch up entire production area. should it even be at the top? I dont think so. I attempted to correct what I thought was a serious POV problem in that 'its ok to cook meth if you learn from someone that knows' or 'the chemicals involved are only moderately dangerous'. as such i added alot of ancedotal information regarding recent rise in meth labs, why cops are busting them like crazy now (serious public safety issue) mobile meth labs, waste etc. I realize my changes are anonymous, but this is mainly for legal, employer, family reasons and in no way an attempt to hide my identity from wikipedias or any other improper reasons (as long as google is around I cant take the risk) Feel free to edit as you please, I just wanted to include additional material to really qualify how dangerous it is. dry: Almost every person i've ever met with that has been involved in the production of meth is suffering from some type of insanity / brain damage / mental defect. They did not start that way. Dont forget to learn about what is likely to become of you when you are learning how to cook. If this doesn't sound like the people you know, congradulations.

  • I think you went to far in the other direction with this. You point out some of the problem yourself when you describe the information as "ancedotal." I don't think it is ever a good idea to include unsupported statements. Deffinate POV issues here. Osmodiar 03:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Baby laxative?

What is the mysterious "baby laxative" which is invariably mentioned in the context of "cutting" drugs? -- The Anome 17:18, 4 May 2004 (UTC)


It's possible that it's a myth, but I'll try to find out. DryGrain 05:02, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

This search for "baby laxative" gives interesting results. -- The Anome 23:19, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Could they mean mannitol, I wonder? -- The Anome 22:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think that there might be a confusion of words and or substances. Maybe someone is refering to the teething of babies and how to reduce the pain affiliated with it. I thought about novocaine or similar drugs. Olaf Fritz 22:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm fairly positive what you're thinking of is "inositol". --Skrewler 21:46, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is inositol. Mannitol is used for cutting cocaine, but I don't think it's used very often to cut meth. Another cutting agent added (usually sold to people who inject the drug) is Epsom Salt (magnesium sulfate). When drug dealers cut drugs, they try to find chemicals that are easy to get, have similar physical properties as the drug itself, and are non-toxic. Drug dealers usually don't like to use toxic substances at cutting agents, because if a drug user dies, that's one less customer to sell to. Then again, there are plenty of dealers who couldn't care less if someone dies, and will use whatever's around the house.
--ZZYZX 09:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

repetitive behavior

The part about repetitive behavior should be expanded because that is a major part of meth's effects. The slang word for it is "tweaking".

- I was just at a meth workshop with the RCMP and "tweaking" is the behaviour when some is experiencing after a "crash" - basically someone, called a "tweaker", is having withdrawl symptoms.

Maybe the slang is different in different parts of the country/world. I have always been under the impression that "tweaking" occurs while the person is high on the drug, not during or after the crash. Tweaking is recognizable because the user/addict stays up for days at a time, and does repetitive tasks, which can manifest as anything from vacuuming the house five times in a row to building multiple unfinished projects at a time. After the crash, the person usually sleeps for days on end. Upon awakening, the addict begins craving the drug again.
--ZZYZX 10:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

is the dosage correct?

I read 0.2 grams in 3 ml water by injection. This corresponds to 200 mg injected.

An active dose would seem to be about 20 mg (2 Desoxyn tablets). The dose in the text would correspond to 10 times the active dose.

I would have to say .2 grams is indeed *way* more than anything I know of people normally injecting. People often will snort or eat .2 grams (closest street measurement is a quarter gram. Not a huge quanitity, but still a substantial ammount.) The people who I've spoken with regarding injection (I have no experience myself) have told me that you use less than you normally would. Its normal for someone to snort or eat maybe .1 of a gram. In other woods .2 grams is quite a bit, especially if injected. Also, 3ml of water? Doesn't that make it a pretty huge syringe? The only ones I'm familar with are diabetes syringes and as far as I know the biggest size is 1 ml. I'm not sure most users would know where to get larger needles as they generally seem to go for insulin needles because of the ease of aquisition, it being plausible that they may have diabetes and take insulin. Compare with a 3 ml needle. I have no idea what drugs would be administered by a 3ml syringe but it would be a lot in my opinion

Injection doses usually range from about 100mg to upwards of 1 gram. Injection use is typically more intense (subjectively), so people new to IV use might use less. Some of the addicts I've known would shoot as much drug as they could dissolve in a .5ml insulin syringe. Being a salt, street meth is quite soluble in water. I don't know the exact solubility, but it's probably around 1-2 grams per milliliter.
Also, it's worthwhile to note that the amount of drug an addict uses is going to be a LOT higher than anything used in medicine, so even though the highest tablet strength of Desoxyn is 15mg (time release), one can expect a drug addict to use at *least* ten times that amount per dose, and that's for a relatively new user. The same is true for any other street drug that is also used in medicine.
Another thing to note is that tolerance to meth is a major deciding factor to street dosage. After long periods (usually years) of use, the dopamine/norepinephrine receptors in the brain become more difficult to activate, so the dose used goes way up.
--ZZYZX 23:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
A relatively new user is not going to ingest 150mg of pure methamphetamine. Even daily users develop relatively little actual tolerance. Any increased dosage is mainly an attempt to overcome dopamine depletion. Take supplements to boost dopamine production and suddenly the required dosage is drastically reduced.
100mg is a lot of methampetamine, even for a new user. Intranasally that is a huge dose. Intravenously it would insane. Intravenous users and smokers will typically use lower doses than oral or nasal users.
An active dose is 5mg - enough to make someone alert. 10mg will produce mild euphoria.
In all cases I am referring to doses of pure methamphetamine. You can't judge quantities based on street methamphetamine since you cannot determine the extent to which it has been cut.
Agreed. Those high doses must be with heavily cut street methamphetamine. Even a seasoned user could not manage an entire gram of pure methamphetamine. Furthermore the tolerance wears off extremely quickly. I've encountered quite a few long-term users and they were not using megadoses. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.11.195.197 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
As someone who was in a long-term relationship with a methamphetamine dealer, I have got a good idea what is street-cut and what isn't. It is not unheard of for experienced users weighing between 170 to 190 lbs, to use an entire 250 mg in one IV shot, of relatively uncut, fresh-from-the-lab methamphetamine. This is based on personal experience. I have seen grown men use 300-350mg in injection. This was done after the men in question had been "on a run" for several days.
I have personally used nearly a full 250mg dose of uncut high-quality crystal methamphetamine several times. This was toward the end of 2000, and once in 2001. I don't recommend it, but it is common enough among experienced, heavy users.
I can cite my personal experience as facts as well... for anyone who is interested. The methamphetamine dealer is presently at the end of his sentence (arrested in 2002 for possession WITD of 690g of lab meth). Not hiding any secrets here. I just would rather our given names not be available in any sort of search for "methamphetamine". ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 22:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Tina?

I don't know why the term "tina" redirects to here Flora 02:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


sorry you really meant Tina as in Christina as in slang for Crystal Methamphetamine (see http://www.tweaker.org/tweaker_arc/Tina.html)

Adverse Effects

Reanal and hepatic failure are listed. Are there studies to support this? Osmodiar 07:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about hepatic failure. AFAIK, the liver doesn't play much of a role in metabolism, since most of the drug is excreted unchanged in urine. I have heard reports of IV use causing kidney (renal) failure, though it's unclear whether this is caused by meth or some kind of adulterant. I don't remember where I read this though, so I can't give you any references.
--ZZYZX 23:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Abbott

I assumed "Able Laboraties" was a typo, as Abbott is a well know manufacturer of methamphetamine. I am not sure if they produce a generic or just Desoxyn. Osmodiar 10:41, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cocaine

Cocaine seemed a bad example of physical addiction as tolerance does not develop and there is not really an acute physical withdrawl syndrome. I substituted alcohol, which has quite powerfull physical withdrawl symptoms. Osmodiar 10:43, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Tolerance doesn't develop from cocaine use? Have you ever used cocaine? Where do you get your information from?

"Another aspect of addiction to cocaine or other agents is tolerance, defined as a reduction in the response to the drug upon repeated administration." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=neurosci.box.413

We can hardly rely on a .gov source for reliable information on the topic of drugs.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.11.195.197 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Also, read:

E.J. Nestler. Molecular mechanisms of drug addiction J. Neurosci. 12: 2439-2450. 1992.

a good review article on physical/psychological addiction. if you don't have journal access email me skrewler@gmail.com and i'll send you the .pdf

The Nestler research confirms that there is no long-term build-up of tolerance to cocaine. Initial use might produce a stronger response, but the adaptation is rapid, then stable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.11.195.197 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No doubt there are permanent or near-permanent changes in the brains of addicts, as Nestler describes. This is not the same as tolerance. Cocaine remains a very poor choice for an example of physical addiction.

Osmodiar 06:20, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He describes them as non-permanent.
One failing point in this research is I don't see much about testing for brain changes due to other pleasurable activities. It is also possible, perhaps even likely, that you have to have certain genetic traits to get addicted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.11.195.197 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Forgive me if other references have talked about it, but apparently cocaine also has the potential to effect the expression of a gene related to endorphins. This has long term effects if not permanent on not just brain chemistry or genetics, but also emotionally and with regards to relationships. There are more than the following references, and I belive you will have to find one if you want to know about how the genetic changes effect you socially and emotionally. http://cocaine.org/health/cokeopioid.html
  • Did you read -- "Another aspect of addiction to cocaine or other agents is tolerance, defined as a reduction in the response to the drug upon repeated administration."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=neurosci.box.413

The main problem I had was this "Cocaine seemed a bad example of physical addiction as tolerance does not develop and there is not really an acute physical withdrawl syndrome." The link above states blatantly that it does, anencdotal experience also shows that without a doubt that it does.

My issue wasn't really whether or not you think alcohol a more suitable example, it does fit. So do a lot of others, though. I would pick benzodiazapines if I was writing the article, but I'd rather just make comments and suggestions.

Yes, I know physical addiction is not the same as tolerance, did I say that? If you read Nestler's paper, the common theme he comes back to is physical/psychological addiction overlap, the precise reason why I referenced it.

I apologize for any mistakes or lack of editing, as I'm new at this. There must be a better way to quote things previously said. --Skrewler 20:29, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree that benzodiazapines would serve as a good example of a drug with a well defined physical withdrawl syndrome. Cocaine users do not develop tolerance in the same way users of alcohol, benzos, or opioids do. There is even some evidence that there is a "negative tolerance" effect. I disagree with Purves's use of "cocaine" in that sentence from his textbook for the same reasons I though it was a poor example here. Osmodiar 07:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Nestler's research appears to confirm the possibility of increased sensitivity. The mechanisms he describe definitely don't point to steadily increasing tolerance as seen with depressants. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.11.195.197 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, ok. If it's not already done, there needs to be some solid definitions of terms that are going to be used. Tolerance (and the apparant different types), physical/psychological dependence, phys/psych addiction. I think I know where you're going with the "negative tolerance effect". I was recently reading a paper who's theory was the more and more times cocaine is administered, each time there are less euphoria/well being/physical effects. At the same time, the drive to do more and more of it, even though the user gets no gratification from the drug, becomes stronger and stronger each time. I'll have to dig this up.


Not that anyone asked me, but I'll give you my opinion on this subject anyway. I think cocaine is the best example of the type of tolerance/dependence caused by meth unless we're going to use something like d-amphetamine. Amphetamines do cause a withdrawal syndrome, but it's nothing like the w/d syndrome we usually see with physical dependence. Alcohol and benzo withdrawal can kill via seizures. Opioid w/d is *extremely* unpleasant. The meth w/d syndrome is most like cocaine w/d. Similarities include:
  • Tiredness/oversleeping (sometimes for days or weeks)
  • Dysphoria/depression
  • Extreme craving for the drug, even in absence of other w/d symtoms
  • Low brain dopamine/norepinephrine/serotonin levels
None of the other options (alcohol/benzodiazepines/opiates) cause anything like this, so IMO cocaine is the best example of this type of dependence (though not a perfect example). Neither cocaine nor meth has a well-described withdrawal syndrome, and it is still debatable whether the apparent w/d syndrome is a true w/d or is just the result of long-term high-level CNS stimulation. Note that these same symptoms are experienced by bipolar patients after a manic episode, and we don't call that a w/d syndrome.
Furthermore, as a general rule, one can assume that the withdrawal effects (both physical and psychological) of a drug will be similar to the opposite effects of the drug. For example, meth/cocaine are CNS stimulants that cause extreme wakefulness and euphoria, so we would expect to see a w/d syndrome that includes sleepiness and depression - and that's what we see. The same can be said of alcohol and benzodiazepines, which are CNS depressants. The drugs cause sleepiness and decreased anxiety. The w/d effects of these drugs include overstimulation of the nervous system, anxiety, and hallucinations, as we would expect. So, I think that comparing meth withdrawal to any non-stimulant drug to would be a mistake.
Yet another reason to use cocaine withdrawal for comparison (aside from similar drug effects and similar withdrawal effects) is that the two drugs work the same way, i.e. monoamine reuptake inhibition. This cannot be said of opiates (opiate receptors), benzodiazepines (GABA receptors), or alcohol (membrane changes).
As far as a definition for tolerance goes, the standard definition is that the user must increase the dose over time to get the same effect out of the drug. This is perhaps most obvious in heroin users who can inject 50 times the normal lethal dose, or cocaine users who can go through $500,000 of cocaine in a year. Tolerance doesn't necessarily mean physical dependence, though. People who drink alcohol regularly (say, several times per week) may have to drink two or three times as much as someone who doesn't drink to get the same effect, and this is often observed in the absence of any w/d syndrome. So just because a drug causes tolerance doesn't mean it must cause physical dependence. I used alcohol as an example because most people have some experience with it, not because it's a drug that doesn't cause physical w/d (it does), but the situation I described is one where there is no physical withdrawal.
--ZZYZX 23:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
There are physical withdrawal symptoms from any level of alcohol tolerance. The severity depends on the level of tolerance.
Cocaine and methamphetamine work similarly, but differently.
Compulsive use does not necessarily point to tolerance.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.11.195.197 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sudafed

I changed this because if read as if Sudafed was a source for more than just the pseudoephedrine.

Physical Addiction

Is the assertion that methamphetamine is not physically addictive a simple, incontrovertable fact? It seems counterintuitive to me. --AStanhope 04:45, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is not physically addictive in the same sense that opiates, benzodiazepines and (to some extent) alcohol are. There is no severe physical withdrawl syndrome upon abrupt cessation as with those other drugs. There, of course, are unpleasant psychological effects. Cocaine is not physically addictive either, but the severe psychological addiction more than makes up for it. --Bk0 19:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The fact is, crystal methamphetame does, in fact, cause particularly physical withdrawals, which may be erroneously classified as psychological, because of the neurological nature of the withdrawal. Seizures are a common withdrawal symptom associated with meth use. The confusion rests in the fact that the physical symptoms are not as pronounced or as apparent as opiate or alcohol withdrawal, but are, ultimately, no less physical in nature. --Bastique 18:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. See my explanation under "Cocaine" above. I'm also not aware of meth withdrawal causing seizures. I do know meth use is associated with seizures, but not meth w/d. If there are studies showing this association, I would be interested in how long after the last dose of meth these seizures occurred. If it was within 72 hours, it was likely caused by the drug, not the w/d.
--ZZYZX 00:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I also disagree. To the extent that there is a neurological correlate to a given mental state (withdrawal, in this case) methamphetamine and other stimulant withdrawal is physical, but as someone else above pointed out, the same physiological changes can be seen when someone with bipolar disorder comes off of a manic phase. Simple chronic sleep deprivation can also cause many of the same symptoms as abruptly stopping stimulant usage. Just because there are physiological changes associated with the cessation of methamphetamine use doesn't necessarily imply that those changes are (1) pathological or (2) the simple result of cessation alone. I am also skeptical of the claim that methamphetamine w/d causes seizures. Given that methamphetamine can be epileptogenic in its own right, any seizures are probably the result of the drug and not the withdrawal.
Porkchopmcmoose 20:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Seizures and strokes are not symptoms of methamphetamine withdrawal. They can occur during use.
Having experimented with sleep deprivation I can confirm that being deprived of sleep produces many of the effects typically considered to be directly caused by methamphetamine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.11.195.197 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Inventor

From the the lead

Methamphetamine was first synthesized in 1919 in Japan by chemist A. Ogata.

From the History section

Methamphetamine was first synthesized in 1887 by German chemist L. Edeleano

They can't both be first...

I can assure you with 100% confidence that A. Ogata was the first one to synthesize methamphetamine. L. Edeleano is the one who first synthesized Amphetamine (which he called phenylisopropylamine). I will delete L. Edeleano and add it to the AMPHETAMINE entry.

So, A. Ogata synthesized Methamphetamine in 1919, and L. Edeleano synthesized Amphetamine in 1887.

--Ddhix 2002 07:21, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments on a couple of glances.

It does go by tina in the south east us... I have never heard christina. I guessed the origin however.

About the discovery date; I was discovered by a nazi scientist working for merck pharmaceuticals in 1887. METHADRINE was discovered in 1919 by the Japs.

No wonder this encyclopedia is free.

"a nazi scientist" ... "in 1887". Yup. That's correct. Maybe YOU aren't exactly the kind of person wo should complain about the inaccuracy of an encyclopedia. --84.172.218.27 13:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Um, Yeah, that's why I changed it. Someone posts bad information, then someone who knows better makes the change.

--209.163.199.15 22:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whoops! Forgot to sign in, lol -- messed the signature up.

--Ddhix 2002 22:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And don't forget that Methadrine is a brand name, not a chemical name!

--Dudepal 1:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Decline in use? =

I would like to see recent statistics of a decline in use, as California studies of drug users related to Proposition 36 and drug related emergency room statistics indicate there are twice as many meth users as heroin and cocaine/crack users combined in the state. Other western states' data also indicate very high usage. Any claims of victory over the meth crisis seem to be War on Drugs propaganda.

Drug-related emergency room statistics are worthless as a measure of a problem with any particular drug. If you come in after a satellite falls on your head and they find methamphetamine in your blood or you mention being on it, it gets recorded as methamphetamine-related.

Proposition 36 is an anti-freedom measure. Being a drug offender merely means you were caught with illegal drugs, not that you have a problem with drugs or need anyone's help. Admittedly being forced into going to rehab is somewhat better than going to prison for something as trivial as drug possession.

There is no meth crisis. It happens to be popular at present. Although it's popularity may actually be a consequence of the war on some drugs being that it is an easy drug to produce locally. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.11.195.197 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Breaking up

imo this page should be broken into subpages, it's getting quite large which is no good for people who don't know about firefox . . . but it's also just too long, it loses fluidity and just gives too much info- but all the info deserves to be here on the wikipedia. It seems that much of the "production" section and the "effects and use" section can be split into subpages. thoughts?? --Heah 02:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

reorganization

i've reorganized the page. none of the info was removed, although some is no longer so in depth; the several paragraphs discussing rotting teeth were cut down, for instance, taking into consideration the lack of any clinical testing on the matter. the "military use" section was removed as it was already covered in history; the brand name of the drug used during the war was merged into history, if someone is attached to to anything from the military use that was deleted i'd recomend they pop it back into the relevant place in the history section. hopefully it is better organized and easier to read now, but as i said above, i think it should be split into sub articles. --Heah 02:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where is Hamilton?

Near the end of the ==Production== section the article states "Hamilton police reported in 2003 of a case of a mobile meth lab" but I don't think it mintions where Hamilton is. —TeknicTalk/Mail 19:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't find any sources for this info so I'm removing the sentence. —TeknicTalk/Mail 16:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Hallucinations

I believe the article fails to mention hallucinations an an effect of the drug. It talks about stimulant psychosis hallucinations and sleep deprivation hallucinations, but not acute hallucinations caused by hyperactivity in the visual cortex immediately upon consumption. This is a pronounced primary effect of high doses. —TeknicTalk/Mail 19:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

  • There is a lot of data in this that is either incomplete or outdated. I had actually missed that portion of it. With modern chemist's techniques, street methamphetamine is becoming purer, and many of the symptoms are more pronoounced.
  • Additionally, I reiterate that I would like to see the withdrawal portion of the article upgraded to specificy that methamphetamine does possess specific physical withdrawal symptoms, most especially with concentrated use over an extended period of time. The broad statement that methamphetamine purely psychologically addictive is being proven to be a fallacy. The physical changes that methamphetamine causes in the neurological systems of its users is proof against this. --Bastique 21:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Please provide references for these neurological changes. Meth is known to be neurotoxic after chronic administration but that is very different from the classic withdrawl syndromes produced by opioids, benzodiazepines and ethyl alcohol. --Bk0 23:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
'Classic' withdrawal symptoms notwithstanding, It does not matter. The therapeutic community is moving away from terms such as "physical" addiction because the addiction spectrum is entirely broad. ℬastique▼talk 01:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The 'therapeutic' community live in their own little fantasy world. They've been spouting boneheaded rubbish for decades so they're hardly a reliable source.

We don't yet know what, if any, real negative consequences there are from any neurological changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.11.195.197 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you've completely eradicated any hope of validity for any of your statements with your strikingly POV comment above. Furthermore, do you check dates? This debate is over a year old. Start a new one at the bottom. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 21:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Homosexual promiscuity and the use of dirty needles

User Bastique reverted edits by Googuse and myself incorrectly. I have since reverted his changes.

  • The claim that homosexual men are more sexually promiscuous as a group is inflammatory POV that doesn't belong here. It is bigoted and incorrect. Googuse was justified in editing that preposterous claim out of the article.
  • The use of dirty needles by IV drug users (which includes meth addicts) is a huge contributer to the spread of HIV and STDs. The title of the section is "Effects" and goes on to describe the factors that cause meth use to be associated with HIV/STD infection. Use of dirty needles is both relevant and informative. Do not edit that out again simply because you apparently want the article to focus on the alleged promiscuity of gay men.

--Bk0 23:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

  1. There was no claim that gay men are more promiscious.
  2. Heterosexuals do not experience the sexual compulsion that gay men do on methamphetamine. This is due to the method of introduction of crystal meth into our subculture is tied in with sex. I am gay and I doubt that you are. This is not a bigoted remark.
  3. Gay men are experience a rapid rise of HIV and syphalis (which cannot be transmitted introvenously) becuase of methamphetamine use. This is 1) important to the article and 2) a fact.
  4. You've broken the three revert rule.

ℬastique▼talk

If you're gay then how are you qualified to comment on the sexual compulsion or lack thereof in heterosexuals on methamphetamine? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.11.195.197 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have re-edited the section. The problem with sexual compulsion, which is not the same thing as promiscuity, has been amended to refer to gay and bisexual methamphetamine users. I have removed dirty needles once again because it's not pertinent to this paragraph. You can write a paragraph on HIV and Hepatitis C transmission if you like in which you discuss dirty needles. The simple facts are:
  • An inordinate amount of gay and bisexual men are using crystal meth.
  • They are experiencing a rise in HIV and STD transmission because of the "pig-sex" in which they participate while on it, and rarely from exchanging needles. Most gay men who use crystal these days are smoking it.
  • I can cite many articles if you would like, as well as the rise in outreach programs toward gay men about methamphetamine and sex.
  • No amount of sugar coating and pretending the problem doesn't exist will make it go away.
  • Getting honest about it will make it go away. I would like to see the problem go away, because I care about my community. ℬastique▼talk 01:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason to use specific slang terms such as "barebacking". Just calling it unprotected sex is easier to understand and removes the emphasis from him being homosexual, to him not using protection.- 128.113.195.139 13:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

saliva

I removed the following sentence: "It has been demonstrated clinically that methamphetamine use dries the mouth, and saliva combats tooth decay by washing bacteria off the teeth" for a couple of reasons. It is true that as a sympothetic agonist, methamphetamine can cause xerostomia, and it is true that xerostomia can cause tooth decay, but the mechanism is not as simple as washing bacteria off the teeth. It is also not clear that methamphetamine use causes periodontal disease by this mechanism. We need to cite sources to include this statement.


Agreed. Besides, if dry mouth alone caused tooth decay, we would expect to see most marijuana smokers with rotting teeth. The tooth decay thing is definitely associated with meth (and to a lesser degree, cocaine). The etiology of this has always interested me. To my knowledge, no one knows why it happens.
--ZZYZX 00:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Smoking methamphetamine causes tooth decay. Methamphetamine vapor is acidic, and some of it is deposited on the teeth, causing enamel loss and decay.

Drugs in Oregon

Meth is a huge problem in Oregon, and I added the section about the pharmaceutical restriction law. I'm not 100 percent positive I got everything, but I got the gist of it. I feel that this article does not cover the near epidemic that meth is causing, especially among low-income areas.

Nasal septum

I removed the line about deviated septum for two reasons. One, Deviated septum is unrelated the injury caused by snorting drugs. Two, it is the well-known vasoconstrictive effects of cocaine which lead to ischemia and necrosis of the septum. Amphetamines are not commonly associated with this sort of damage so this claim really needs a citation.

Anything that is snorted through the nose can cause a deviated septum, especially in the case of "unrefined" methamphetamines with impurities. Direct physical trauma (chemicals, cutting agents) can cause it, aside from any effects on the blood vessels. There are also cases of folks snorting "meth" that isn't really methamphetamine.

Desoxyn Tablets

I just verified that Abbott Pharmaceuticals owns the patent for Desoxyn (not Ovation Pharma as listed in the article). I'm going to change that. For more info see this page:

http://www.drugs.com/PDR/Desoxyn_Tablets.html

Also, the wikipedia link Desoxyn states this.

--ZZYZX 04:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I do believe that Desoxyn is (at the least) manufactured by Ovation Pharma these days as Abbott has sold the rights of the drug to Ovation (in their attempt to move away from the production and distribution of conrolled substances.)

Refault 02:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Regional bias in the Production section

This section of the article gives great examples of production that is found in the United States, but fails to mention anywhere else in the world other than Mexico. Evil Monkey - Hello 03:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, methamphetamine is hugely popular in the United States, which accounts for the superlative examples. I see your point, nonetheless, and am without the data to supply this article with information pertaining to the production of, say, Yaba tablets. If some - Non-American - Wikipedians with such data would put something up, then I'm sure we would all be more than happy to read and enjoy. I have yet to visit any other country - and navigate their illegal drug scene - so I honestly couldn't tell you one iota of information about the production in such locations. Sorry man, but the data will be up there just as soon as someone with the data is willing to put it up.

Maybe you could help broaden this scope for a more worldwide view? --Ddhix 2002 11:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Methamphetamine production and abuse is huge in Southeast Asia. Kind of like how the Colombian cartels started making heroin when they figured out it was easier than making cocaine and equally if not more profitable, SE Asian drug cartels started producing methamphetamine because it was easier than making heroin. Eastern Europe is also a center for methamphetamine production as well as other synthetic illicit drugs. The lack of controls on pseudoephedrine and the other chemicals involved in methamphetamine synthesis across most of the world also has made its production more appealing to clandestine manufacturers compared to other drugs (eg: MDMA, cocaine, heroin) whose precursors are more tightly controlled.
I would put this in the article now but I don't have the cites rustled up yet. If anyone else can build on this, please go right ahead. Methamphetamine use and abuse is not strictly a North American phenomenon.
Porkchopmcmoose 20:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Suicide isn't always possible?

"and a prolonged depression, during which suicide is possible" (p. 1593 - ch. 195)."

Isn't suicide always possible?

--

Seems to be.--Ddhix 2002 03:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

ingridiants of meth

    • NO COMMENT FROM POSTER**

---

How about instead of talking about (this is funny:) "ingridiants," we talk about chemicals and laboratory procedure? I mean, just considering the fact that methamphetamine is not a narcotic cocktail of drugs that make some 'super mutant drug stirred in a stock pot for 5 hours.' --Ddhix 2002 03:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Half Life

I suspect the elimination half life is incorrect. Most of the literature suggests it is between 10 and 20 hours, with a shorter half life when urinary pH is low.

Chemical Structure

I think that saying that Methamphetamine is chemically structered similar to that of other stimulatns is misleading. It has a benzene ring, their are soooooo many compounds that have benzene rings. In fact, you could say that Methampetamine is structured similiarly to aspirin. I though I would post here before I changed it in order to get more input on my feelings toward the first sentence in the "Production" section. I'm new to wikipedia so perhaps this is not the correct course of action and if that is the case i apologize. ~~davethegnome

I do not agree that it is misleading. Sure, the structure is not similar to caffeine, or cocaine, but the similarity with other stimulants goes beyond just having a phenyl group in common. Actually, if you start with phenethylamine, you can start adding functional groups, substituting the ring, and otherwise tweaking the structure and you will end up with a menagerie of psychoactive drugs, including, of course, methamphetamine. Osmodiar 08:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Then should it not say that it belongs to the class of drugs known as phenethylamines ? Then you could reference the other psychoactive drugs instead of just lumping it in with various stimulants. Furthermore you could also bring into discussion the book Pihkal. Just a thought atleast. davethegnome
The word "amphetamine" is a contraction of "alpha-methylphenethylamine", clearly it is a phenethylamine so I'm not sure that explicitly needs to be said. Regardless, your criticism can be addressed by simply saying methamphetamine is structurally similar to some other stimulants. --Bk0 (Talk) 03:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
One could, of course, extend this line of thinking and redirect methamphetamine to the article for amphetamine to which a section about N-methylamphetamine (and other analogs) can be added. After all, that single methyl group doesn't change the drug's mechanism of action and psychopharmacological effect at all, merely the pharmacokinetics of the compound.
Absurd. Also I'm not sure that's true, methamphetamine does not appear to have identical pharmacology as amphetamine. --Bk0 (Talk) 14:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
While I personally agree with you, Bk0, telling another user that his/her assertions are "absurd" is neither polite nor civil, and has the potential of intensifying stress and conflict. Please read WP:CIVIL (even if you're already familiar with it. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 15:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I apologize, it was not meant in an uncivil way although I agree I shouldn't have worded it that way. Thank you for correcting me. --Bk0 (Talk) 16:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
With regard to "structural similarity", the most important issue here is that it's structurally related to dopamine and (nor)adrenaline, which allows it bind to the presynaptic transporter for these two amines. The addition of the methyl group to phenethylamine's alpha carbon is merely done to allow amphetamine to resist extremely rapid breakdown by MAO-B & co. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.180.9.10 (talk • contribs) .
I don't really understand what you're arguing for. Make whatever edits you feel are necessary to the article, they'll be adjusted as needed to reach a consensus version we're all happy with. --Bk0 (Talk) 14:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Messy, messy

Why are there two "Effects" sections? This article needs a complete cleanup. I'll start as soon as I get some time. Fuzzform 22:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Legality

The first county in which I have noticed the prosecution of meth 'cookers' for environmental offenses and child abuse relating to meth manufacture is Branch County, Michigan, which may not be the first. I cannot state that sentences of persons convicted of drug manufacture and either environmental offenses or child abuse/endangerment will serve terms consecutively as convicted and sentenced; sentences could be appealed and reversed.

I did not mention the jurisdiction in the because the community is relatively small, because I do not seek to give free political endorsements to any elected officials, and because I have no desire to claim that the county is first to do so or that the practice is limited to that county or to Michigan. I refuse to speculate on the spread of the practice to other jurisdictions because of the limitation of my knowledge on the matter.

Persons have been convicted of environmental crimes, child abuse or endangerment, and theft of anhydrous ammonia, in addition to the manufacture of meth.

--66.231.41.57 07:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Military Use

Shouldn't the current military application of this substance be included in this article? I don't have the sources on hand to add the information myself, but my understanding is that methamphetamine is still used regularly (at least by the American military) by pilots and certain ground units for increased productivity in the field. It might be worth mentioning. --Matthew Cohen (Tccmod: user / talk / contribs) 12:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC) 12:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that it is currently used by the US Military, which I believe it is not. I think that at most, amphetamine would be currently in use. But even then it wouldn't be used to increase productivity in the field, but rather for use in an emergency situation. If amphetamine(s) is still in use, I would assume it would be reserved for special forces (like Navy Seals)--Ddhix 2002 22:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Amphetamines are used by the military, given mostly to pilots that must go on long missions. They are commonly referred to as "Go-Pills" in the military. There is also another pill given when the pilot returns to help him sleep. However, I highly doubt that they are given methamphetamine. Dextroamphetamine or amphetamine salt are much more likely to be what's found in those "Go-Pills".

Comments

  • "It has become one of the world's most prevalent illicit drugs." - This isn't true. Only certain countries have a meth problem, the main one being the United States. I can see why the worldview tag is on this page.
  • "Inert" does not mean the same thing as "non-psychoactive." Using in this way is as confusing as it is incorrect.
  • I've removed the following paragraph:
"A decline of recreational use of methamphetamines is seen by some as a natural consequence of abuse, given the difficulties of stemming its use through law enforcement; the damage done by the chemical has been so great that some choose to avoid the drug as a result of either direct observation or word-of-mouth concerning the drug's effects. Nevertheless, many feel that methamphetamine abuse in the U.S. still constitutes an epidemic."

Recreational use is (by its very definition) abuse. The sentence after that is completely baseless; if there is a reference for it, then please add it. Otherwise, do not add this statement back into the article. The last part may be true, but it doesn't say who thinks that. Add a reference.

  • Methamphetamine should never be referred to by any of its nicknames - this is an encyclopedia, not a blog.
  • Please place information in the correct section. Information about laws should be in the "Legal issues" section, not the "Production" section.
  • Please don't insert opinions or any other unreferenced material. It will be either deleted or marked with a "Citation needed" tag (the latter only when it seems plausible).
  • Don't make judgements. Present the facts, and let the reader make the judgement. For example, it would be pointless to say "Hitler is evil", when presented with the fact that he killed millions of people.
  • Regarding burns caused by methamphetamine labs: "...accounting for over 30% of cases in some parts of the nation" was deleted, due to lack of reference.
  • Try not to repeat information that was already presented earlier in the article. It is already longer than is desirable.

More edits to come,

Fuzzform 20:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


I agree with everything you have said. Thanks for helping clean up this stupidly-edited article. I wholey disagree with your view on how recreational use is 'by definition' abuse. This idea is baseless. Only you can decide what is abuse - for yourself. If you feel that smoking marijuana one time is abuse - that is your own personal definition. Recreational Use and Abuse are defined by the user. What is a problem for you is not a problem for me, and vice versa.

Recreational use, by its very definition, is recreational use.--Ddhix 2002 07:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, given that abuse is defined as a variety of things, part of the definition used by the medical community of abuse is using the drug in ways that it was not prescribed. The vast majority of meth as used by meth users are in ways that no doctor would ever prescribed. Recreational use of illegal drugs is a separate issue, but using is clearly abuse by that definition (since Meth is rarely prescribed by a doctor and created at times from prescription drugs).

Having seen what this stuff can do, all use is abuse - there's no such thing as 'recreational'use. 203.223.35.160 11:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
excuse me, are you stupid? ^

gay community

i read (albeit in the rotten library) that there is something of a meth epidemic amongst gays. does anyone have any references for this?Joeyramoney 03:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

this is true. I believe mainly because of its stimulatory effects on the sex drive. Don't have any references for it, though. I do know that they like to mix it with viagra, as well.--Ddhix 2002 06:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I haven't heard of any reports that meth has become an "epidemic" among the gay population. If you've heard of any of this in the news media or elsewhere, please provide the link or reference. You might be confusing methamphetamine with the popular MDMA (also known as ecstacy or XTC). Both drugs are CNS stimulants, and MDMA especially, has a strong stimulant effect on the sex drive, both for gay and straight people. In other words, it's commonly used regardless of sexuality. You should also avoid confusing the term "gay" with "addicted to sex." Dr. Cash 04:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
There has been a good deal of attention in the media to the "gay meth epidemic" [2] but many gay activists have countered that it's sensationalist and stereotypical. In truth few studies have been done, and while research does show meth has "infiltrated" many gay subcultures, little hard evidence points to it being disproportionate. However since the gay community has "reformed" due to the HIV crisis, I would argue that better, proactive education is responsible for the visibility. Heterosexuals don't have as structured a system in place for recognizing and eliminating social crises. There are no "straight meth support groups." There are no "straight" support organizations dedicated to eliminating STDs and unsafe behavior in "their" community. I don't mean to make this an "us vs. them" but point out that because there is a "community," there is a "crisis." Further, saying gays are more likely to tweak is akin to saying gays are more likely to be pedophiles. In the absence of evidence, the statement becomes inherently homophobic. Rainman420 20:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Urethra?

"Methamphetamine can be swallowed, snorted, smoked, dissolved in water and injected,inserted anally (with or without dissolution in water), or into the urethra." Urethra? Since when? No sane person would administer meth urethrally. The only drugs administered urethrally are for erectile dysfunction. Where's the evidence of people actually doing it for desirable effects? I mean, you can insert meth into your urethra if you want to, but you can also insert it into your ear, eye, vagina, belly button or armpit if you want to. There's just no reason to. --158.104.77.173 21:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it can be inserted into the urethra, just like cocaine. It produces an intense concentration of methamphetamine. Doing this with cocaine is considered dangerous, same goes for this. Your comment about a sane person using meth urethrally. . . No sane person would smoke meth to the point of delusional parasitosis, or to the point of amphetamine psychosis - but they do it anyway. So there, that deflates THAT particular part of your argument. SOME people who use methamphetamine do stupid stuff, get it? You ask: "Since when?" Since people discovered it works, thats when. Then you ask for evidence. Evidence? Here you go BUD:
Ellison, J.M.; Dobies, D.F. Ann. Emerg. Med., Vol 13, No 3, pp. 198-200 , have a look at the journal article for yourself - or were you too busy jumping to conclusions before looking at the data that these doctors wrote for you? A man inserts methamphetamine into his urethra (a large amount), which results in mechanical and pharmacological trauma. Inserting these drugs into the urethra works, and is dangerous because it works TOO well. But it still works, and produces desirable effects if the user is careful. On a more personal note, a friend of mine used to this this with his wife during sex.--Ddhix 2002 11:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Dry mouth worse than acid in terms of tooth decay?

How on earth can dry mouth be worse than acid vapors? Look at the pictures on rotten.com, the teeth look melted. 69.168.21.138 11:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Acid vapours are a cause for 'meth mouth' in a clandestine laboratory setting. The reference to dry mouth is specific to users - not cooks in a bad laboratory. Many things cause the tooth decay. Mainly though it is the dry mouth and grinding (and just bad hygiene, period). Not all meth addicts cook meth, you know.--Ddhix 2002 01:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
From the article "The HCl salt of meth can be vapourised in a glass pipe or smoked with cannabis or other materials because it dissociates into HCl gas and gaseous methamphetamine freebase at approximately 190 °C." Im no scientist, but to me, that quote means a user is inhaling acid along with the drug 69.168.21.138 06:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I am a scientist, and must admit right here that I jumped too quickly to a response supporting that it is methamphetamine alone that causes 'meth mouth.' Depending on purity (and how acidic the methamphetamine is) depends on how much HCl gas is created upon vapourization of the drug - but HCl gas is still evolved, even if in minute amounts. But actually, the vapour of the drug alone is enough to rot a tooth to its core. Many other (nasty) chemicals are created when it is vapourized. So really, depending on the method of use, hygeine, etc, depends on the severity of tooth decay. Say a user was to only snort the drug, dry mouth would probably be the main cause. Really it just depends. But yeah, HCl gas vapours is going to do its damage - it is highly corrosive. But also, methamphetamine itself is pretty corrosive. In a lot of cases, its just everything put together that causes such horrible dental effects.--Ddhix 2002 15:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention whatever else is found in street methamphetamine.

Good citation source

Anyone looking for citations (regarding the US) should poke around the Des Moines Register and other Midwest newspapers, the Register in particular has run many different series on these issues (including a recent article about meth mouth). California may have been the Meth capital in 1986 but today, it's the Midwest. Many state laws have been passed restricting pseudoephedrine, so the thousands of meth labs are starting to give way to an explosion of trafficked crystal meth, apparently bringing a surge of heroin traffic with it. (She swallowed the spider to catch the fly) Rainman420 20:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Re-write?

Some of the information in the addiction section doesn't seem very clear.

For example, "Former users have noted that they feel stupid or dull when they quit using methamphetamine. This is because the brain is adapting a need for methamphetamine to think faster, or at what seems to be a higher level"

That last sentence doesn't make any sense. Also needs a reference to back it.

Also, "With long-term methamphetamine use, enough dopamine will have flooded the brain to cause chemical cell damage".

Surely this needs a reference too. I've heard of glutamate causing cell damage through excitotoxicity, but dopamine??

83.245.88.120 21:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Steve A.

Yeah that dosen't sound too good. I heard some things about 5-HT binding to DA, which causes toxicity.

The whole article is a mess and does not represent anything "encyclopedic." A much re-vamp is needed overall.-- Refault 04:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Japan

Hi, I'd tried to rewrite a section relate to Japan, but my English is quite limited. So could someone help to rewrite an article?

My suggestion is about Japanese streetname of the drug. 'Shabu' is a street name which is used by Yakuza, that name was not popular before ban of the drug. Before methamphetamine ban, 'Philopon' (ヒロポン) was the most popular name. 'Philopon' is a trademark of Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma (http://www.ds-pharma.co.jp/), former Dainippon Pharma (大日本製薬). And there are ads of Philopon which was sold over the counter (http://www.warbirds.jp/heiki/42000.htm).

Methamphetamine is the still number one illigal hard drug in Japan. Most common street name is 'speed' or 'S', and usually used by smoking. Methamphetamine regulation is very strict and difficult to use for medical purpose. (ADHD is treated with methylphenidate.) --Blooms 12:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to point out the first paragraph, which is obviously inappropriate. "Methamphetamine is good if you want to get high. I strongly recommend meth if you are looking to start taking drugs. Its not that expensive either!!!!!" Please restore to the original introduction.

I think that the person who wrote that paragraph made a good point! I mean meth will get you high and it is not very expensive... come on where's the beef???

Should there be tips on how to make good quality meth - less impurities. Impurities are dangerous you know

Are you sure meth is called speed, because they are two totally different substances.. --193.190.88.130 14:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"Speed" is a common street name for methamphetamine hydrochloride. And um, no, there shouldn't be tips. Lets leave that for TOTSE and WetDreams. This isn't an underground "cooker" site.--Ddhix 2002 06:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)