Talk:Methamphetamine

North Korean Epidemic

I'm swamped with school work at the moment, but this article could really use a brief discussion of the purported epidemic in North Korea: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/21/how-north-korea-got-itself-hooked-on-meth/ http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/30/world/asia/north-korea-drugs/ Exercisephys (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It's probably more suitable for History and culture of amphetamines at this point. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, Seppi333. Why do you think this? The lack of emntion of North Korea in this article is, IMO, systemic bias♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Major rewrite + content re-split underway

Over the course of this week, I'm going to rewrite and resource this article to mirror the layout and formatting of amphetamine and subsequently GA-nominate this article upon completion. If anyone has an objection to any of my changes, I'd ask that you bring up your concerns here instead of immediately reverting.

@Boghog: In the event you have time, I'll probably need your expertise with the synthesis section again.
@Sasata: If you're not too busy at the time that I GA-nominate this article (sometime within the next 7 days), you'd probably be the ideal reviewer due to your familiarity with amphetamine and its layout. I don't plan or want to take this article to FA-class, so hopefully it won't be as much of a burden on you if you decide to take on the GA-review.

Regards,Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible images to use in the synthesis section

• File:Methamphetamine from ephedrine with HI en.png
  

  
• File:Methamphetamine from P2P en.png
  

  
• File:Methamphetamine from ephedrine via chloroephedrine en.png
  

  

Pre-formatted sources for inclusion

• Desoxyn Dec 2013 label info
• Drugbank Methamphetamine (Toxicity excerpt censored)
• Pubchem Methamphetamine
• Metabolite citations for the amph pathway
• TAAR1 review
• VMAT2 review
• Methamphetamine synthesis
• Supplemental Amphetamine pharmacodynamics for comparison section
• Amphetamine psychosis section w/ Cochrane ref (See source)

References

Slang / Other Names

There should be a list of slang and other names for Meth added Mudak568 (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

-- My question would be- how to keep this list reliably referenced. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

There is such a list at History and culture of amphetamines#Slang terms. —C.Fred (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I added an abbreviated list of these in note 1 (note in 1st sentence). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Radical (IMHO) deletions

This edit [1] was improperly reasoned: edit summary claimed failure of MEDRS, which is false on its face. Both sources have excellent bona fides. --Lexein (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This isn't really relevant now that I'm done editing that section. In any event, both sources were way out of date for a medical secondary source (WP:MEDDATE - 5 year limit for areas of active research. 10 years is pushing it.) Half of each paragraph was uncited (Fails MEDRS by default). I didn't state this in my edit summary, but the following uncited sentence was entirely wrong (and non-sequitur due to use of "neurotransmitter" in place of "dopamine"), since meth's neurotoxicity in human dopamine neurons involves transporters (DAT and VMAT2) as opposed to the enzymes involved in catecholamine synthesis: "Short-term tolerance typically lasts until neurotransmitter levels are fully replenished; because of the toxic effects on dopaminergic neurons, this can be greater than 2–3 days."

Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

References

• Ok, thanks. I missed the 5/10-year deadline. Better edit summaries in future, or simultaneous mention on Talk of planned deletions & rationale, would be quite helpful. On the subject of this material, is it not still of historical interest, as in, "As of 2002, it was though that (brief summary), but research in the 2010s showed that (case) was a more accurate model." ? Best, --Lexein (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the idea, but it might be difficult for me to assess what the scientific consensus at some point in the past compared to the present. Even so, if there is a notable/interesting difference in consensus, I'll likely add it when I get to the history section. Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Photos and Other ideas for new section

I noticed that the only photos avalible here is the white legal pills. Should there not be a photo for each illegal form? what about adding a section dedicated to overcoming meth addiction and cravings? There is also no metion of the fact that Ice is 80 - 90% pure compared to Speed which is 50 - 60% pure. Thorghts on adding these ideas and photos? (Mudak568 (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)) Mudak568 (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I was planning on using the crystal shard image in recreational and an image of the free base (if I can find one) in chemical/physical properties. If you have a ref handy, I can add the purity info to the recreational section now. I'm still in the process of re-framing and adding relevant parts of the split content though. Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

More or less done

Besides some minor issues, I'm more or less finished with editing. How's it look? Before – After. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a question, but does the Recreational section need to focus on only one source talking specifically about people who are gay who use it? I at least feel it could be a violation of NPoV due to the focus. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy to add more material, but I really don't have a decent secondary source on hand to document other groups of users. I expect more will be added in time if I don't come across any while I work on related articles (for comparison, there's literally nothing comparable to that documentary available on recreational amphetamine use). In any event, the coverage of meth use in the gay population is mainly due to meth's differing neuroendocrine effects on male/female sex organs and libido (the explanation is rather technical); in a nutshell, men are far more likely to experience hypersexuality/hyperarousal symptoms than women. Unfortunately, that puts gay methamphetamine users at greater risk for pathological use than heterosexual or other LGBT meth users. In the event you want to see it, there's several copies of the complete documentary on youtube, e.g., like this one. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Ha, ok... I just realized why it might seem homophobic on the face of it without additional knowledge of that sub-culture - let me know if this edit addresses your concern. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. I took a look at your edit to the article and it does seem to help clarify what is happening, while also taking a neutral line on the issue. As long as there are no other users who object to the section, I believe that the issue has been resolved. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Not There Yet

Hi fellow Wikipedians, kudos to you all for tackling this topic! It seems to still have some problems, however. At least - here are my two cents for what its worth (if naything). First and foremost: treating the "meth" entry as just another pharmacological article squanders a HUGE opportunity for Wikipedia to reach its readers. I can ASSURE you that 95% (if not more) of the people coming to Wikipedia to read more on "meth" are interested in it as a street drug and the history related to it's rise as such. Case in point: I went to Wikipedia to research "meth" after I started reading the excellent NF book, "Methland: The Death and Life of an American Small Town," by Nick Reding.

I wanted to gain a clearer picture of the different "types" of meth. ("Biker meth" versus "crystal" meth, which I gather are actually from different starting materals &/or methods of synthesis, so may be different chemicals entirely, but are nonetheless related culturally, and, thus should be discussed in concert, at minimum.) Astute viewers of "Breaking Bad" (the popularity of which has no doubt greatly increased traffic to this page!) will realize that the different processes are a key plot point of the show. Those coming to Wikipeia hungering to understand more will be sadly disappointed by the dryly scientific and technical article they encounter here. IF the cultural (i.e., "street" aspects of the drug are discussed elsewhere, then THAT link needs to be made MUCH more prominent. It was not discernable in my quick scan of the disambig. page!) Anhow, a few other specific comments:

(1) NPOV violated by phrase, "Entirely opposite to the long-term use of amphetamine, ..." (This phrase is gratuitous; not necessary to the topic at had which is meth effects on brain, NOT differences between meth and other types of amphetamines.) Particularly as no citation given.

(2) NO CITATIONS indicated for any of the first three paragraphs! MUST be fixed, as very specific assertions are made.

(3) To have "meth" diambiguate to here is a huge disservice, as there is almost no cultural info. on "meth" here. It's all chemistry, which even makes MY eyes glaze over, even WITH my minor in chemstry!

(4) If you can find it online, the book Methland makes repeated mention of a groundbreaking series of articles on the spread and scourge of meth that appeared in the newspaper, The Oregonian, by journalist Steve Sou, "An Unnecessary Epidemic," Oct. 2004.

Lastly, I really don't want to embroil mysef in a highly technical edit of a highly viewed page. So, I hope my comments will be taken as helpful, rather than trollish. And, sorry for the typos -- I'm on my iPad, in bed, sick with th flu (and hopped to the gills on legal drugs, ironically!) (That's why I'm in the Talk pages and not doing actual edits! lol)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynthisa (talk • contribs) 04:48, 6 February 2014

Hi Cynthisa, I'll probably copy/paste the relevant citations from the body to the lead to address your citation concerns. The source contains comments after each lead paragraph that the relevant sources are attached to the corresponding sentence in the body (the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body). As for the specific issues you raised:

• (1) I included it mostly because it's a surprising fact, both are Rx'd ADHD medications in the US, and very few people understand the pharmacological (particularly pharmacodynamic) differences between amphetamine and methamphetamine. The relevant passages from the body, with citations, are included in item 2.
• (2) As noted in the censored comments in the lead, the citations are coupled to the equivalent statements in the body of the article - every section except contraindications was summarized. As for the more controversial statements related to adverse effects and amphetamine vs methamphetamine, the associated text (including refs) from the body is the following quotes.

Article quotes

From Methamphetamine#Neurotoxicity Unlike amphetamine, methamphetamine is directly neurotoxic to dopamine neurons. Moreover, methamphetamine abuse is associated with an increased risk of Parkinson's disease due to excessive pre-synaptic dopamine autoxidation, a mechanism of neurotoxicity. Similar to the neurotoxic effects on the dopamine system, methamphetamine can also result in neurotoxicity to serotonin neurons. It has been demonstrated that a high core temperature is correlated with an increase in the neurotoxic effects of methamphetamine. As a result of methamphetamine-induced neurotoxicity to dopamine neurons, chronic use may also lead to post acute withdrawals which persist beyond the withdrawal period for months, and even up to a year. From Methamphetamine#Pharmacodynamics Although all of the mechanisms are not fully understood, methamphetamine is a known neurotoxin in both lab animals and humans. Beyond neurotoxicity, magnetic resonance imaging studies on human methamphetamine addicts and abusers indicate adverse neuroplastic changes, such as significant abnormalities in various brain structures. In particular, methamphetamine appears to cause white matter hyperintensity and hypertrophy, marked shrinkage of hippocampi, and a reduction in gray matter in the cingulate cortex, limbic cortex, and paralimbic cortex. Moreover, there are adverse changes in various metabolic markers of metabolic integrity or synthesis in methamphetamine abusers, such as reductions in N-acetylaspartate and creatine as well as elevated choline and myoinositol levels. From Methamphetamine#Comparison to amphetamine pharmacodynamics In contrast to the adverse neuroplastic effects evident in methamphetamine addicts and abusers, long-term use of amphetamine or methylphenidate at therapeutic doses appears to produce beneficial changes in brain function and structure, such as normalization of the right caudate nucleus.

• (3) Feel free to change it; I don't really care about the DAB pages mentioned in hatnotes.
• (4) That's probably more suited for History and culture of amphetamines, but I'll look into it for that article.

Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 16:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

References

Thanks for taking the time to respond, Seppi. I shall hold off on my comments (if any) till later, since clearly these pages are in flux. Cheers! Cynthisa (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Reader feedback.

Note to self: link to the relevant section on history and culture of amphetamines after copyediting it.

76.206.202.48 posted this comment on 19 January 2014 (view all feedback).

I also wonder if any study has been done on toxic substances that unscrupulous drug dealers add to 'crystal meth' to stretch their inventories. One additive that I know of (methylsulfonylmethane) does not seem to bother 'snorters' or 'slammers', but causes 'smokers' to suffer headaches, abdominal discomfort, and other symptoms of acute poisoning. Possibly heating the mixture to over 300 degrees Celsius while subjecting it to a blast of air in the 'meth pipe' creates a more toxic product.

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Neurotoxicity of amphetamine and cocaine

[2] and [3] show that data on the neurotoxicity of amphetamine is inconclusive and needs to be studied more, while it is listed as fact that amphetamine and cocaine are not neurotoxic. (I found an abstract on cocaine neurotoxicity but I lost it)

Muchotreeo (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply! This issue is actually in discussion at talk:amphetamine, but more or less the issue is whether or not the compounds are direct neurotoxins (usually analogous to saying that a substance is neurotoxic - these terms are loosely defined). All substances are indirectly neurotoxic at some (possibly extreme) dose or during unusual circumstances - e.g., water intoxication  • salt intoxication  • catastrophic brain damage from a water/salt interaction. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 15:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Pictures

How legal is it to have that image of a person holding meth as in the Recreational Use section? It must mean possession because how else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingeroscar (talk • contribs) 02:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It could be a DEA image, but it doesn't matter because have pictures isn't illegal. Muchotreeo (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Muchotreeo, having pictures provided they do not contain children engaged in sex acts, is perfectly legal, hence while the picture may cause government authorities to start enquiring into the personal life of the uploader it is of no concern to us as users of said image. Brenton (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 14:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Its illegal to possess a drug like meth. It is not illegal to take a photo of said drug though provided it is not in one's possession and even then taking the photo would not be illegal. And besides while wikipedia likely has a moral duty to help enforce laws agaionst child sexual exploitation I think it would be highly controversial to argue that wikipedia has a duty to enforce drug prohibition laws♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

During World War II, methamphetamine was used extensively by the Axis forces for its stimulant effects????

It current says "During World War II, methamphetamine was used extensively by the Axis forces for its stimulant effects". The reference is a book about the Germans using it. I don't see any mention of it anywhere being used by the other Axis powers. Anyone got a reference for that? Dream Focus 20:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what the issue is here. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

page 3 discusses Japanese use during the war briefly, and this discusses its use by several major combatants. Roberticus talk 01:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

What about Italy? There are three Axis powers. Was it "used extensively" for all three of them, or just extensively in Germany, and somewhat in Japan, and not in Italy at all? It says everyone used it for their pilots at times. Was Germany the only one who used it for ground soldiers though? Dream Focus 02:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It currently says "During World War II, methamphetamine was used extensively by the Axis forces for its stimulant effects.[83]" "The Axis forces" is nonspecific language; it's not saying just one, all, or a particular combination of the associated countries in that alliance. Feel free to specify it though - I don't really care how it's written. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I, for one, agree with dream the wording is just bordering on inaccuracy and hence I can see his reason for editing it. Extensively, generally means that every part of the Axis powers would be using it, at least to some extent. But my agreement isn't strong enough for me to do anything about it, I'll leave it to him/her to fix this problem. Brenton (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 14:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Illegal Synthesis

Under synthesis, there should be a link to the illegal synthesis section of History and culture of amphetamines, like there is on amphetamine. I'd do it myself but my account is new.

As Cynthisa pointed out, a lot of people are coming here to learn more about "street" meth. If the synthesis section of this article isn't going to cover the stereospecific reduction of l-ephedrine/d-pseudoephedrine to d-methamphetamine, it should at least provide a link to one that does.

BlackstarX (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 22:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Amendment to the first sentence

Hi, I think the first sentence should instead read like: "Methamphetamine^{[note 1]} (pronunciation: /mɛθæmˈfɛtəmin/; contracted from N-methyl-alpha-methylphenethylamine) is a neurotoxin and potent psychostimulant of the phenethylamine and amphetamine classes, that is used medically, in some countries, to treat resistant cases of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and obesity, but is better known for its role as an infamous drug of abuse."

Note: I have ignored much of the formatting in this sentence, the bolding and hyperlinking of the words and letters I think is fine the way it is.

Now my reasoning for this suggested change is that most people don't know it's used to treat ADHD or obesity, even there it's only used in some countries (mostly North American countries) and even then only in resistant cases, hence it might be more helpful to mention this and the fact it is well-known drug of abuse. I would just edit it myself, but I felt as this is a good article a consensus should be reached on something as important as the first sentence. Thoughts and opinions will be welcome by anyone. Even people I tend to ruffle the feathers of as I do still value their opinions as Wikipedia is still a democracy. Brenton (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 14:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems a bit long. How's this? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 19:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I think that's better than my suggestion due to my lack of concision. Brenton (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 19:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

neurotoxicity

I like how it says that meethamphetamine is much more toxic than ritalin and amphetamine. This makes no sense. At low doses toxicity would be absolutely the same. I am not even saying that it compares meth additcs to schoolers on ritaline by 18mg. Higher toxicity is achievable only at large doses due to more powerful output capabilities of meth. Extreemator (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The article states that meth is neurotoxic even at low doses in humans – and amphetamine and methylphenidate are not – because that's what the citations say. The article compares the neuroplastic effect of high dose meth to those of low dose amph because that's as much as could be said from neuroimaging reviews wrt those drugs in humans.
I'd suggest reading the sources if you want an explanation about a statement. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Levmetamfetamine as a USAN

@Fuse809: I'm fairly certain that levomethamphetamine doesn't have a USAN, since it has never been a pharmaceutical drug in the United States. I've read elsewhere that manufacturers (e.g., Vicks) use the INN on their packaging primarily to avoid the stigma associated with the term "methamphetamine". In any event, I'd normally just remove a clause I find dubious, but I figured I'd ask first: do you have a ref for the levmetamfetamine USAN? Nevermind, it's apparently in the very same ref I used to cite the INN... I'm clearly very perceptive. >.> Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarity on freebase vs salts

It's obvious to me why the melting point is listed as 3*C but that's likely to seem very weird for the majority of the population. Should it be made clearer that many of the chemical properties are referring to the freebase oil and not the more commonly seen hydrochloride salt?

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2014

"Unlike amphetamine, methamphetamine is directly neurotoxic to dopamine neurons.[39]" Source 39 is bogus, the authors do not cite any research to support this statement, it seems to be no more than an opinion. "Methamphetamine also inhibits VMAT1, has agonist activity at all alpha-2 adrenergic receptor and sigma receptor subtypes, and is directly toxic to dopamine neurons in humans, whereas there is no evidence of acute amphetamine toxicity in humans.[39][44][57][63]" None of the cited sources support the statement that there is no amphetamine toxicity in humans. That statement should be removed or supported by valid sources. 70.80.73.24 (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS for what constitutes a valid medical source. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Off-label use of prescription methamphetamine?

Is there any off-label medical uses for prescription methamphetamine other than ADHD and obesity? Probably narcolepsy, idiopathic hypersomnia and depression but without sources this is just a guess. Clr324 (say hi) 08:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I imagine all of those are, but I doubt I can find a source that says that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That just sucks. :( I'll look for sources anyways just in case there is any. Edit: Easier than I thought. Clr324 (say hi) 03:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

New image

@Boghog: Hey, hope it's not too muxh to ask, but can you draw a new structure diagram for this article as well when you get a chance? I'd like to keep the Dbox images consistent across articles. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I have updated the structure so that it is consistent with the one used in amphetamine. Boghog (talk) 09:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Require sources

Recreationally, methamphetamine is used to increase sexual desire, lift the mood, and increase energy, allowing some users to engage in sexual activity continuously for several days straight.