User talk:Rbaselt

Welcome!

Hello, Rbaselt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Ervin C. ^talk 13:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opioids

In a functional definition opioids refers to substances reacting on the opioid receptor. This includes the opiates and the synthetic opioids unrelated to the morphine molecule. Insofar opioids is in this definition the broader term and inclusive. I believe the functional definition of the term is being used elsewhere in the wikipedia, see opioid. So we have to stick to this for coherence. 70.137.128.234 (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that the definition used by you, with the opiate being the broader term and inclusive, is the classical one, also used by older books e.g. Luellmann-Kuschinsky, I believe. So you are still perfectly right. But WP is consistently using the functional probably more modern systematics, which came up after a molecular definition of the receptors and their classification by sequencing became feasible. This was also leading to other changes, e.g. the sigma receptors not regarded as opioid receptors any more, because they turned out to be functionally/structurally unrelated to the other opioid receptors and to be an entity of their own. 70.137.128.234 (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is in contrast to the older definition, where so to say opiates were substances with morphine-like action and the true mechanism of action, the receptors and the endogenous ligands were not known. Here the definition centered around the capacity of substances to mimic the morphine action and the related SARs of such substances. I believe literature of the 60s and earlier uses this view. Now it is known that the morphine-like substances are just a special case of natural substances with action resembling the endogenous opioids, so the new systematic makes more sense. 70.137.128.234 (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amphetamines

Sorry for stalking, but maybe you could add some emphasis on detection in the US, which has absolutely to include chiral methods mainly to exclude a false positive from Vicks inhaler (l-Methamphetamine), which is OTC, and from its metabolites. 70.137.128.234 (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This means in the US detection of trace amounts by GC/MS without chiral analysis says absolutely nothing. 70.137.128.234 (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the reason why I was talking about trace amounts, given the sensitivity of GC/MS detection. 70.137.128.234 (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A case where the defendant simply sniffed "too much" on his Vicks inhaler will not hold up in court. 70.137.128.234 (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This will be in particular problematic with detection from saliva or sweat per your ref. 70.137.128.234 (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This will also be particularly problematic with visitors from the US in e.g. Europe, where chiral separation is uncommon and no such OTC Vicks is available or known. Could result in false allegations of illegal drug use. 70.137.128.234 (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that you can sniff your Vicks inhaler as much as you like because it is OTC. For a case of illegal drug abuse you have to prove that the positive is due to use of illegal methamphetamine, not due to whatever amount of sniffing on Vicks inhaler. 70.137.128.234 (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the label of Vicks does not list any driving impairment or the like and does not warn of any dangers when using it. Consensus is that sniffing this inhaler (not eating the content!) is not drug abuse. What the officer thinks is immaterial, FDA exempted topical decongestants from warnings. So you can use this in the work place etc. it is supposed to have no central action when used as intended, but it will give (and has given) false positives and lead to trouble due to sloppy work, namely missing the chiral resolution. 70.137.128.234 (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC) 70.137.128.234 (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point here is that e.g driving with measurable amounts of methamphetamines in the body is a crime, while driving after decongesting the nose with Vicks is perfectly ok. but will give a false positive without chiral resolution. 70.137.128.234 (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See here, differentiation from false positives for workplace testing. Vicks will show less than 20% of the d-isomer.

http://www.drugfreeworkplace.com/drugsofabuse/amphetamines.htm 70.137.128.234 (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Above link also says federal regulations call for separate isomer confirmation assay, just for this reason. This differs e.g. from European practice, where the problem does not occur and the l-isomer is not OTC. Insofar the legal situation for the US is special and different from other countries. It should be included in the articles, that federal regulations require chiral resolution. 70.137.128.234 (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See here for a military case, where isomer confirmation excluded Vicks inhaler, consequently the soldier was found guilty. This case shows the importance of isomer confirmation in US.

http://boards.law.af.mil/NAVY/BCNR/CY2001/08356-00.pdf 70.137.128.234 (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using Vicks inhaler at twice the recommended frequency over 5 days resulted in approx 1500ng/ml l-methamphetamine in the urine test, confirmed by isomer separation and GC/MS. This is a surprisingly high concentration and very far from detection sensitivity of GC/MS. It shows the importance of avoiding false positives by isomer confirmation.

http://www.amphetamines.com/vicks-inhaler/false-positives.html 70.137.128.234 (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I am not talking of obvious abuse of inhalers, like eating them or the like. There I completely agree. But according to previous ref use of the inhaler as intended during a cold can already produce (interpolated) a few hundred ng/ml concentrations in the test, far above detection sensitivity. And then it is absolutely necessary to avoid false accusations. (assuming linear relation for simplicity) 70.137.128.234 (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hey, I just wanted to say that you're doing a great job adding citations and information. You appeared in my watchlist and I just had to squee a little when I saw the other stuff you'd added, too. So here's a random thank you for you! :D Mirithing (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Self citation etc

If you are going to cite your own work, it is a good idea to make a statement on your user page about policy. Also your information on pentachlorophenol "Pentachlorophenol may be quantitated in .... usually performed by gas chromatography with electron-capture or mass spectrometric detection.. and 2 mg/g creatinine in an end-of-shift urine specimen." approaches WP:NOTMANUAL. You might check out WP:SECONDARY (WP prefers digested references, not J. Agr. Chem. type things, although primary journals are often inevitable). If you will be working in chemical areas a lot, here is a relevant guidance Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry)/Safety. In any case, best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI

Once again, please respond to my message. I encourage you to read WP:COI about self-citations. It seems that you are heavily citing yourself, and this activity should be discussed with the editors in the projects to which you contribute.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You had made over 100 entries to your book in Wikipedia

I received your note stating that "will be more careful in the future. I have always tried to add relevant and accurate information". You have already cited your own book in over one hundred articles. Quick work and disappointing behavior. If you have been so very active in promoting yourself, and if you are really dedicated to Wikipedia vs self promotion, then you owe it to yourself to make statement on your talk page about the potential conflict of interest. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]