Content deleted Content added
→Coherent article prose: not a crystal ball |
Reverted 1 edit by Melissa jane carls (talk): Spam |
||
| (227 intermediate revisions by 80 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Skip to talk}} |
|||
{{Talk header}} |
{{Talk header}} |
||
{{DelistedGA|20:55, 26 May 2006|oldid=55312896}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Pharmacology|importance=high}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Neuroscience|importance=Mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Rave}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Chemicals|importance=mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Autism|importance=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Altered States of Consciousness|importance=High}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}} |
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}} |
||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Pharmacology|class=B|importance=high}} |
|||
{{WPNEURO|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|||
{{WPMED|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject PSYCHOACTIVE|class=B|importance=High}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Rave|class=B}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Chemicals|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=B}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Autism|class=B|importance=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Altered States of Consciousness|class=B|importance=High}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{DelistedGA|20:55, 26 May 2006|oldid55312896}} |
|||
{{Copied |
{{Copied |
||
|from = |
|from = Effects of MDMA on the human body |
||
|from_oldid = 629799567 |
|from_oldid = 629799567 |
||
|to = MDMA |
|to = MDMA |
||
| Line 21: | Line 22: | ||
|date = 17 October 2014 |
|date = 17 October 2014 |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{annual readership}} |
|||
'''Page views for the last 12 months''' |
|||
{{PageViews graph | 365 |MDMA| en.wikipedia.org}} |
|||
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
||
| age=2160 |
| age=2160 |
||
| archiveprefix=Talk:MDMA/Archive |
| archiveprefix=Talk:MDMA/Archive |
||
| numberstart= |
| numberstart=9 |
||
| maxarchsize= |
| maxarchsize=100000 |
||
| header={{Automatic archive navigator}} |
| header={{Automatic archive navigator}} |
||
| minkeepthreads=5 |
| minkeepthreads=5 |
||
| minarchthreads=1 |
|||
| format= %%i |
| format= %%i |
||
| archivebox=yes |
|||
| box-advert=yes |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
== Source for history section == |
|||
Stashing this here. Has some new details about Clegg and corroborates some of the details of the Austin Chronicle article. |
|||
http://www.playboy.com/articles/ecstasy-was-legal-in-1984-and-it-was-glorious |
|||
::Has blurb on current usage. http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36503623/danger-from-ecstasy-greater-than-ever-say-drug-experts [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 18:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::Additional source for history/spiritual uses to add if I can track down the original Guardian article. http://csp.org/practices/entheogens/docs/saunders-ecstasy_rel.html [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 20:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{cite journal|last1=Roger-Sánchez|first1=Concepción|last2=García-Pardo|first2=María P.|last3=Rodríguez-Arias|first3=Marta|last4=Miñarro|first4=Jose|last5=Aguilar|first5=María A.|title=Neurochemical substrates of the rewarding effects of MDMA|journal=Behavioural Pharmacology|date=April 2016|volume=27|pages=116–132|doi=10.1097/FBP.0000000000000210}} [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 08:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{cite journal|last1=French|first1=Larry G.|title=The Sassafras Tree and Designer Drugs: From Herbal Tea to Ecstasy|journal=Journal of Chemical Education|date=June 1995|volume=72|issue=6|pages=484|doi=10.1021/ed072p484}} [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 02:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::: [[DSM-5]] content can be expanded. 10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.dsm16 [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 06:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Can hone some points britannica makes https://www.britannica.com/science/Ecstasy-drug [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 20:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::<ref>http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8889454/Lewis,_Donald_00.html?sequence=2</ref> |
|||
Content deleted from John Lawn page, mostly redundant but some may be integrated here |
|||
{{reflist talk|section}} |
|||
===Role in the Criminalisation of MDMA=== |
|||
In January 1984, worried about increasing recreational use of [[MDMA]], the DEA prepared a document for scheduling MDMA as a [[Controlled_Substances_Act#Schedule_I_controlled_substances|Schedule I]] substance,<ref>http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8889454/Lewis,_Donald_00.html?sequence=2</ref> a classification for drugs seen as having a high potential for abuse and having no accepted medical use. Because MDMA was already in widespread use by psychiatrists, a group of psychiatrists and their lawyer filed a request for a hearing. The request was granted, although MDMA was scheduled on an emergency basis by the DEA before the hearings were heard anyway.<ref>Ecstasy : The Complete Guide : A Comprehensive Look at the Risks and Benefits of MDMA by Julie Holland</ref> On the basis of multiple witnesses testifying that there were medically accepted uses of MDMA in treatment, the administrative law judge in charge of the hearing, Francis L. Young recommended that MDMA be classified as Schedule III, a scheduling that many researchers, including [[Alexander Shulgin]] were willing to accept. However Lawn disagreed with the recommendation and ultimately MDMA was scheduled as Schedule I. The events were [[Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act|later echoed]] in 1988 when Lawn again overruled Justice Young who recommended for the reclassification of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III. |
|||
However, in 1987 the Harvard psychiatrist [[Lester Grinspoon|Dr. Lester Grinspoon]] sued the DEA, and the federal court sided with Grinspoon, calling Lawn's argument "strained" and "unpersuasive",<ref>http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/dll/mdma_scheduling_history.htm#_ftnref6</ref> and MDMA was unscheduled. However, less than a month later Lawn claimed that he had reconsidered the evidence and again classified MDMA as Schedule I. In his ruling Lawn claimed that evidence psychiatrists gave that they had administered MDMA to approximately 200 patients with positive effects should be dismissed as "merely anecdotal" as they were not published in medical journals. |
|||
{{reflist talk|section}} |
|||
== Oddly phrased sentance. == |
|||
== Edit request 19 July 2023 == |
|||
"There are numerous methods available in the literature to synthesize MDMA via different intermediates.[98][99][100][101]" seems this sentence is worded very poorly. It's redundant, essentially stating "There are many ways to make MDA" twice. I also don't think it needs the qualifier "in literature". I think a better sentence might be "There are numerous methods available to synthesize MDMA.[98][99][100][101]" |
|||
"Endogenous" is used in the introduction. It's neither linked nor defined. It's a $5 word. A $0.50 word would be better. Failing that, it would be helpful if it were a link to something - Wiktionary or an appropriate Wikipedia page. Thanks! [[Special:Contributions/108.64.118.44|108.64.118.44]] ([[User talk:108.64.118.44|talk]]) 00:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
--[[Special:Contributions/173.66.69.186|173.66.69.186]] ([[User talk:173.66.69.186|talk]]) 01:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:{{done}} --[[User:WikiLinuz|<span style="font-family:Optima;color:#292928;">'''Wiki'''<span style="color:red;">'''''Linuz'''''</span></span>]] {[[User_talk:WikiLinuz|<span style="font-family:Optima;">talk</span>]]} 01:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:I think the 'different intermediates' portion is to emphasize the different precursors (safrole, isosafrol, etc.). The "in literature" part can be cut. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 08:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== The BP in a medium vacuum should not be listed == |
|||
== Provenience == |
|||
The infobox currently lists the boiling point at 0.4 mmHg, which is a medium vacuum. It is not sourced, and it doesn't say whether this is the free base or what salt it is. This is nearly useless information and it isn't sourced, it should simply be removed. The melting points of the free base and any common salts, at atmospheric pressure, would be interesting data to add. Boiling point in a vacuum is silly. [[Special:Contributions/209.6.225.254|209.6.225.254]] ([[User talk:209.6.225.254|talk]]) 09:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Is MDMA a psychedelic or not? == |
|||
I had this crazy idea... How come people don't tell the truth and save everyone of the troubles arising from lies. Like: Mdma is extracted from sea shells... plain and simple. |
|||
*see also cocaine from ivory |
|||
The best source for this claim is that there may be 5HT2A agonism, which "supposedly contributes" to "mild psychedelic hallucinations" caused by "high doses" of MDMA. That's a lot of words to say that its status as a psychedelic is pretty flimsy. |
|||
[[User:Rgb.trouw|Rgb.trouw]] ([[User talk:Rgb.trouw|talk]]) 00:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
The other sources don't support that it is one, either, just that it's commonly referred to as one. This is similar to how cocaine is called a "narcotic," a legal stipulative definition that's quite different from the scientific one. |
|||
==US data in the lead== |
|||
As the US is the largest EN speaking country in the world IMO this "In the United States, about 0.9 million people used ecstasy in 2010.<ref name=Drugs2014/>" belongs in the lead. |
|||
I'm not arguing that MDMA isn't a psychedelic, but if these are the best sources we have I think it should be removed from the lead. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1017:B103:D814:CCC9:7381:FFDB:5A2D|2600:1017:B103:D814:CCC9:7381:FFDB:5A2D]] ([[User talk:2600:1017:B103:D814:CCC9:7381:FFDB:5A2D|talk]]) 17:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
The Persian version of the article should have the prevalence of usage in Iran the lead. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 19:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:I feel that this marginalizes the rest of the English speaking population by making Wikipedia seem US centric on articles that have a global scope. The 0.9 million number reflects a use level of ~0.3% which is in line with the global number we give. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 23:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:MDMA is not in any way, shape or form, a ''classic psychedelic'', meaning that it cannot be directly compared to [[LSD]], [[psilocybin]], or even [[mescaline]], but it ''is'' somewhat closer to mescaline than many other things that people consider to have psychedelic properties, such as [[cannabis]], [[ketamine]], [[salvia divinorum]], and even [[muscimol]]. The lead says it has "minor psychedelic properties", but that doesn't mean that it ''is'' a psychedelic. Perhaps we just need some clarification in the lead that while it has ''minor psychedelic properties'', it is not technically a psychedelic. [[User:Thoric|Thoric]] ([[User talk:Thoric|talk]]) 18:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist talk|section}} |
|||
== |
== Bruxism → Chewing Gum? == |
||
Should we add that some users chew gum in order to deal with grinding teeth? Since the article is semi-protected, I wanted to check before just adding it in (especially since finding a good source for this is trickier than I though). [[User:Niplav|Niplav]] ([[User talk:Niplav|talk]]) 13:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{U|Doc James}}, could you explain why we should emphasize that MDMA is not used medically in the intro paragraph? There is nothing substantial in the preceding sentences that hints at medical applications - that information isn't provided until the fourth paragraph - so the abrupt statement that MDMA has no medical use seems out of place to me. At that point in the lead the reader has no context in which to understand the non-use statement. I think it makes more sense to state this after the reader has learned about the ongoing trials. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 23:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::The lead often follows the same layout as the body of the text. We talk about non medical uses and than we mention that their are no medical uses. Flows very well IMO. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 23:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::Hmm, I see. Anyone else have thoughts about this? [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 23:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::Some are promoting it for medical uses. Thus mentioning that these are not accepted upfront is IMO important. Plus this is similar to the layout of [[heroin]] and [[cocaine]] were we discuss both medical use and recreation use in the first paragraph. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 23:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The difference between this and cocaine or heroin is that those drugs are actually approved for medical use, at least in some countries. If MDMA is approved I have no problem including this in the first paragraph. We could also compare this article to [[LSD]] or [[psilocybin]] which also have proposed medical uses but do not include a mention of non-use in their first paragraphs. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 23:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Agree with {{U|Doc James}} that the the non-use statement fits well. The first sentence of the article introduces MDMA as a recreational drug. Whether it has accepted medical uses is therefore a very natural question that should be clearly answered in the lead as well. [[User:Rgr09|Rgr09]] ([[User talk:Rgr09|talk]]) 00:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::I don't really see that by virtue of being a recreational drug the question of medical use becomes immediately paramount (if that is what you are saying). We have hundreds of articles on recreational drugs with no accepted medical uses on en:wp. This may be the only in which we have decided to place this non-use in the lead paragraph. The non-use mention is warranted - in my view - because of this particular drug's history and current research efforts, not because the medical usage status of every psychoactive drug is of utmost importance. The connection between this drug's history and its current non-use status is why I suggest this statement be placed in the last paragraph. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 01:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::THC has medical uses, so does cocaine, alcohol, and heroine. So in contracts to those MDMA does not. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 03:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:When we say "medical use", we're actually referring to "[[medical indication]]s", which is a slightly different concept. In the context of drugs, a medical indication for a drug is a form of medical use for treating a condition that has been deemed to have sufficient treatment efficacy and an adequate safety profile, particulary in relation to any existing alternative pharmacotherapies for the condition. For example, amphetamine is a very effective nasal decongestant and it was used several decades ago for treating nasal congestion under the brand name "Benzedrine". Nowadays, amphetamine isn't indicated for nasal congestion and I doubt that any doctor would prescribe it for that condition given that there are alternatives treatments available, like [[pseudoephedrine]], which have comparable efficacy and much fewer side effects (NB: the decongestant effect of amphetamine-type stimulants is mediated peripherally in the sinuses by noradrenaline). |
|||
:Since medical indications are listed in drug labels following regulatory approval, non-indicated uses are typically called "off-label uses". MDMA has no drug label since, internationally, it's not approved by any government for medical use. At the moment, MDMA is just an [[experimental drug]] which is currently undergoing clinical trials (i.e., an experiment) for the treatment of PTSD despite also being a globally banned substance. In other experimental drug articles, we don't say that the experimental uses of the drug are actual "medical uses", so we shouldn't do this with MDMA either until it receives regulatory approval for treating a condition (e.g., PTSD) and consequently acquires its first "medical indication". [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 01:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::This is true and I completely agree {{U|Seppi333}}. However, this is tangential to the point I am trying to make. My objection is to stating MDMA has no medical uses ''in the first paragraph''. I am imagining a reader completely naive to to this topic. As they read they see {{tq|3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), commonly known as ecstasy (E), is a psychoactive drug used primarily as a recreational drug. Desired effects include increased empathy, euphoria, and heightened sensations. When taken by mouth, effects begin after 30–45 minutes and last 3–6 hours. It is also sometimes snorted or smoked.}} So far so good. In the next sentence they read {{tq|As of 2017, MDMA has no accepted medical uses.}} At this point the reader might think to themself, "well obviously it has no medical uses, MDMA is a recreational drug. Why would anyone think it has medical uses?" It is not until the fourth paragraph discussing current research and history that this statement can have any meaning to the naive reader. My proposal is to move the sentence there so when the reader first encounters it they can immediately understand its significance. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 16:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::Oh, my bad. In that case, I agree with you. Putting medical indications in the first sentence/paragraph is only relevant to drugs that actually have one. Moreover, it's more coherent to place that statement in the fourth paragraph because it provides context. [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 08:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
We always discuss medical uses before research. Please get consensus before moving. The no medical uses has been in the first paragraph for a while. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 15:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree. This obviously doesn't apply to compounds with no medical uses though; I mean, we don't go into the [[hydrochloric acid]] article or more obscure compound articles like [[castalagin]] and say silly things like "HCl/Castalgin has no medical uses", right? [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 16:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::This is not an obscure compound. Restored the lead to follow the body of the article. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 16:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think it's fine to put things slightly out of order if it reads better that way. The order of content coverage in the lead isn't required to follow the same order as the body. It's just supposed to summarize it. [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 17:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::I think it flows better the way it was before so restored it. It had been in the prior layout for a long time. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 17:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I like how we present the lack of medical indications in [[Ibogaine]]. We place it immediately before the discussion on current research in the same paragraph. This puts the medical information first while also placing it near information that gives it context. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 20:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
===Break=== |
|||
*I came here from the note at [[WT:PHARM]]. I think that it's very appropriate to say that it has no medical use/indications, where it says that in the lead. This is a very prominent drug of abuse, and the distinction about medical uses is an important as well as informative one. (For example, in the US it's the distinguishing factor between Schedule I and Schedule II.) --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*Thank you for the message on [[WT:PHARM]]. To not mention [[MDMA]]'s lack of federal approval for any medical indication in the lead would be akin to tacitly claiming that it has one. However, I would change "accepted" to "approved," and clarify the identity of the approver. It may not be clear to the reader as to what regulatory bodies are formally responsible for accepting the intended medical use of a drug. Notably, the source cited for the statement in question specifies that MDMA "is listed in Schedule I of the United Nations 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances," and is "under international control." As a side note, there are no references to 2017 in the cited source, which should be updated. For the [[USA]], the [[DEA]] keeps an updated list [http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/orangebook/c_cs_alpha.pdf here] (last updated July 17, 2017). ―[[User:Biochemistry&Love|<span style="letter-spacing:1px"><span style="color:Teal">'''Bio'''</span><span style="color:seagreen">chemistry</span><span style="color:Teal">🙴</span><span style="color:firebrick">❤</span></span>]] 23:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::{{U|Tryptofish}}, {{U|Biochemistry&Love}}, thank you for your input. |
|||
::Trypotofish, I am curious about how you would apply your reasoning to other prominent recreational drugs. We do not currently do this on [[LSD]], [[psilocybin]], [[dimethyltryptamine]], [[Phencyclidine]], [[3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-ethylamphetamine]] etc. Do you think we should? If not, what makes MDMA different such that we should include this statement in the first paragraph? |
|||
::<s>Biochemistry&Love, By "lead" do you mean the first paragraph or the lead section? No one here is opposed to making this statement in the lead section. We're discussing where this statement should be place ''within'' the lead section.</s> [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 00:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::Just saw your response below. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 00:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{tq|To not mention MDMA's lack of federal approval for any medical indication in the lead would be akin to tacitly claiming that it has one.}} Following the same line of questioning as I ask Tryptofish, do you (Biochemistry&Love) think we should make a statement about non-medical use on the pages of other recreational drugs? [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 01:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::We comment on the medical uses of [[cocaine]] in the first sentence. Should we comment on it for the other ones? Yes I think that would be good. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 01:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I really don't think the cocaine comparison is valid because cocaine has approved uses. That a property is notable does not necessarily imply the lack of such as property is also notable. |
|||
:::::So it should become general practice that for any drug the ''absence'' of medical use is so notable as to merit mention in the first paragraph? I find it concerning that we are elevating medical information to such a level of pre-eminence for drugs that are not notable for their medical use. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 08:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: Yes, of course it is important to set the context in the opening paragraph of an article. For a drug that has medical uses, we should say so right there, as that is an important piece of information to set the scene for the detail that will follow later in the article. Similarly, for a drug that has ''no'' accepted medical use, we should state that equally prominently, for exactly the same reason. Notability is not the bar for inclusion of a fact in an article; it is the bar for ''an article on that topic'' to exist. [[WP:WEIGHT]] is the guideline that helps us determine how much importance we should give to a fact, and the EMCDDA source looks pretty solid to me, and especially its reference to the UN [[Convention on Psychotropic Substances]]. |
|||
:::::: It's important to differentiate between omitting a negative and omitting an unknown. If we do not know whether a drug has medical uses, then that is the time to stay silent on the issue; whereas if we have a good source telling us that a drug has no medical uses, then that needs to be stated with the same sort of weight that we use for drugs that do have medical uses, because the sourcing makes it of equal importance. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 17:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::Thanks for the ping. Overall, I think that it would be appropriate to provide similar information at pages of other drugs of abuse that have no recognized medical use, but I also think that there is a [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] argument that what we decide here need not be the same as at all other pages – this is not a MOS-level issue. I also agree with RexxS that this is a case where leaving it out is omitting a negative rather than an unknown. I'm unconvinced that there is any harm in including the information. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== The role of Danny Leclère in the production of XTC as partydrug == |
|||
* I saw the note at WT:MED. I don't support saying "It has no medical uses". Outside of the tiny fraction of people who understand medical jargon, this means "it doesn't work". We don't know that; in fact, we have some suggestive evidence that it might be useful for some cases of PTSD (enough that the US FDA just approved a Phase 3 trial on that question). I would, however, support a more precise statement: {{xt|"As of 2017, no governmental drug regulatory agency has approved the use of this chemical as being a safe and effective treatment for any medical condition.}} I'm also willing to just omit this information from the lead. <br />On the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS question of whether to say this in other articles, I'll note that [[Alcoholic drink]] doesn't say that "there are no medical uses", even though that recreational drug (a) also has physiological effects that could be favorable to a small number of medical issues, and (b) also has no approved indications. The same can be said about [[Nicotine]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:: And I'll note that [[Alcoholic drink]] is a poorly summarised article and competes with [[Alcohol]], [[Ethanol]], [[Alcohol (drug)]], [[Alcohol and health]] and [[Alcohol (medicine)]], the last of which is pretty clear about the medical uses of alcohol as an [[antiseptic]], [[disinfectant]], and [[antidote]]. The risk/benefit is not clear-cut and we have sources such as http://alcoholresearchuk.org/downloads/finalReports/AERC_FinalReport_0015.pdf that contrast benefits and harms. It's not susceptible to a single-sentence summary. Perhaps the lead should state that. |
|||
:: As for [[nicotine]], its use in [[Smoking cessation]] is not only well-documented, but stated in the lead. None of that applies to [[MDMA]]. Apples and oranges, I'm afraid. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 19:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::About "no medical use", I think that the underlying logic of MEDRS (that we do not want to mislead readers about health-related information) means that it's OK to imply that "it doesn't work" as a therapeutic agent, even if it does "work" as a recreational drug. But I also think that there is a sort-of [[WP:CRYSTAL]]-like case to be made that this phrase should really mean "no known medical use", and it actually might be a good idea to add the word "known". --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::In this case, it sounds like it would be more accurate to change "no known medical use" to "no accepted mainstream medical use". And I still think that if we're going to include it, we should date the statement and specify that we're talking about regulatory approval rather than whether or not some psychiatrists in some places actually prescribe(d) it for medical conditions. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC) |
|||
I have a proposition to add some text regarding [[Danny Leclère]] who developed in the 1990's a formula to produce "pure XTC" as party drug and set up a worldwide illegal network to have the drugs distributed. It's because if him XTC became popular in nightlife. The formula of Leclère is still the most used in the manufacturing of (illegal) XTC. Valid/Trusted references can be found in the article about [[Danny Leclère]]. I think a short topic in the article of MDMA is advisable due to Leclère his role in production/distribution of illegal XTC. [[User:Ino mart|Ino mart]] ([[User talk:Ino mart|talk]]) 15:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Coherent article prose == |
|||
:is "pure XTC" MDMA? [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 15:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Does anyone besides Doc James think it's a bad idea to cover each significant topic only once in the lead, or should we keep the coverage of medical use scattered and make the 1st and 4th lead paragraphs redundant? [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 17:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::According the documentary "Bad, Bad Belgium" the term "pure XTC" refers to the formula by Leclère: it is the first XTC-formula which only contains MDMA as drug. At that time, MDMA-drugs also contained other ingredients such as meta-Chlorophenylpiperazine and para-Methoxy-N-methylamphetamine. |
|||
::One is medical uses, the other is research. They are two separate topics and generally we keep them as two separate topics. It is a ongoing problem that people try to position tentative research as confirmed medical uses. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 17:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::The 4th paragraph is discussing an expedited drug approval process which would result in an MDMA having an "accepted medical use". That's not research. [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 17:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::That is an early step "setting it on a fast track for review and potential approval" per [https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/ecstasy-could-be-breakthrough-therapy-for-soldiers-others-suffering-from-ptsd/2017/08/26/009314ca-842f-11e7-b359-15a3617c767b_story.html?utm_term=.24d02f564395] That is NOT approval. There is always a lot of hype around research. We need to keep that separate from the more sedate world of actual medical uses or the lack of such as it is easy to have the hype around research mislead people. |
|||
::::If / when it is approved by the FDA, that will be a big deal and would than belong in the first paragraph as a medical use. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 17:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The two topics are connected though. It would only occur to the reader that MDMA might have medical use ''after'' being informed of its past use by therapists and the current clinical trials. We jump the gun by placing this information in the first paragraph. The medical use of a substance is a notable fact. The ''lack'' of medical use of a substance is not by itself notable because most substances do not have medical uses. It is only becomes a notable fact within a context that would lead the reader to believe it might have medical uses. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 20:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Re: what Sizeofint said. [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 21:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::We could have a RfC I guess. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 06:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Sure. Options are to move para 4 above the current paragraph 2, move that sentence about medical use to the end of para 4, or keep it as is. [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 17:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::*I would rather '''keep it as is'''. The sentence about medical use essentially functions as a clarification for the first sentence, which defines [[MDMA]] as a [[recreational drug use|recreational drug]]. I imagine that the thought process of the first-time reader goes: while it may be used for recreational purposes, it has not been officially recognized for having any medicinal purposes (indications). ―[[User:Biochemistry&Love|<span style="letter-spacing:1px"><span style="color:Teal">'''Bio'''</span><span style="color:seagreen">chemistry</span><span style="color:Teal">🙴</span><span style="color:firebrick">❤</span></span>]] 23:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}}*Agree with {{u|Doc James}}; Keep 'recreational drug' and 'no medical use' in lead, keep the application to conduct a research study below. [[User:Rgr09|Rgr09]] ([[User talk:Rgr09|talk]]) 00:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''agree''' w/ Rgr09--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 10:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC) |
|||
: I would much rather have us initially set the scene for MDMA by explaining to readers that it's a recreational drug that has no medical uses. We have sources that support that on world-wide scale. It's on Schedule 1 of the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances. Having research on its possible use against PTSD fast-tracked by the US FDA is an interesting fact in one country. It doesn't mean that the rest of the world is going to ignore the UN Convention, so there's still a long way to go before there's any possible legitimate medical use in sight. Much as the stoners would like our article to focus the slim possibility that one day, at some indeterminate point in the future, a putative medical use may be found and approved somewhere, the fact is that there is no accepted medical use right now, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 22:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 23:15, 19 March 2024
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Edit request 19 July 2023
"Endogenous" is used in the introduction. It's neither linked nor defined. It's a $5 word. A $0.50 word would be better. Failing that, it would be helpful if it were a link to something - Wiktionary or an appropriate Wikipedia page. Thanks! 108.64.118.44 (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
The BP in a medium vacuum should not be listed
The infobox currently lists the boiling point at 0.4 mmHg, which is a medium vacuum. It is not sourced, and it doesn't say whether this is the free base or what salt it is. This is nearly useless information and it isn't sourced, it should simply be removed. The melting points of the free base and any common salts, at atmospheric pressure, would be interesting data to add. Boiling point in a vacuum is silly. 209.6.225.254 (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Is MDMA a psychedelic or not?
The best source for this claim is that there may be 5HT2A agonism, which "supposedly contributes" to "mild psychedelic hallucinations" caused by "high doses" of MDMA. That's a lot of words to say that its status as a psychedelic is pretty flimsy.
The other sources don't support that it is one, either, just that it's commonly referred to as one. This is similar to how cocaine is called a "narcotic," a legal stipulative definition that's quite different from the scientific one.
I'm not arguing that MDMA isn't a psychedelic, but if these are the best sources we have I think it should be removed from the lead. 2600:1017:B103:D814:CCC9:7381:FFDB:5A2D (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- MDMA is not in any way, shape or form, a classic psychedelic, meaning that it cannot be directly compared to LSD, psilocybin, or even mescaline, but it is somewhat closer to mescaline than many other things that people consider to have psychedelic properties, such as cannabis, ketamine, salvia divinorum, and even muscimol. The lead says it has "minor psychedelic properties", but that doesn't mean that it is a psychedelic. Perhaps we just need some clarification in the lead that while it has minor psychedelic properties, it is not technically a psychedelic. Thoric (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Bruxism → Chewing Gum?
Should we add that some users chew gum in order to deal with grinding teeth? Since the article is semi-protected, I wanted to check before just adding it in (especially since finding a good source for this is trickier than I though). Niplav (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
The role of Danny Leclère in the production of XTC as partydrug
I have a proposition to add some text regarding Danny Leclère who developed in the 1990's a formula to produce "pure XTC" as party drug and set up a worldwide illegal network to have the drugs distributed. It's because if him XTC became popular in nightlife. The formula of Leclère is still the most used in the manufacturing of (illegal) XTC. Valid/Trusted references can be found in the article about Danny Leclère. I think a short topic in the article of MDMA is advisable due to Leclère his role in production/distribution of illegal XTC. Ino mart (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- is "pure XTC" MDMA? Bon courage (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- According the documentary "Bad, Bad Belgium" the term "pure XTC" refers to the formula by Leclère: it is the first XTC-formula which only contains MDMA as drug. At that time, MDMA-drugs also contained other ingredients such as meta-Chlorophenylpiperazine and para-Methoxy-N-methylamphetamine.