Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
Sizeofint (talk | contribs)
DePiep (talk | contribs)
→‎Class: practical note: class= can be a list or descriptive.
Line 92: Line 92:
::::::Government agency - {{tq|Drug Class: Mild CNS stimulant, empathogen, entactogen, mild hallucinogen and psychedelic, appetite suppressant.}}<ref>{{cite web|title=Drugs and Human Performance FACT SHEETS - Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, Ecstasy)|url=https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/methylenedioxymethamphetamine.htm|publisher=National Highway Traffic Safety Administration|accessdate=19 December 2016|date=2001}}</ref>
::::::Government agency - {{tq|Drug Class: Mild CNS stimulant, empathogen, entactogen, mild hallucinogen and psychedelic, appetite suppressant.}}<ref>{{cite web|title=Drugs and Human Performance FACT SHEETS - Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, Ecstasy)|url=https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/methylenedioxymethamphetamine.htm|publisher=National Highway Traffic Safety Administration|accessdate=19 December 2016|date=2001}}</ref>
::::::{{tq| Members of the entactogen class of psychostimulants (drugs that produce an “open mind state” including feelings of interpersonal closeness, intimacy and empathy) have been less frequently studied in self-administration models. The prototypical entactogen 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA; “Ecstasy”) supports self-administration but not with the same consistency nor with the same efficacy as structurally related drugs amphetamine or methamphetamine.}}<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Aarde|first1=Shawn|last2=Taffe|first2=Michael|title=Predicting the Abuse Liability of Entactogen-Class, New and Emerging Psychoactive Substances via Preclinical Models of Drug Self-administration|journal=Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences|date=2 December 2016|pages=1-20|doi=10.1007/7854_2016_54|url=http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/7854_2016_54}}</ref>
::::::{{tq| Members of the entactogen class of psychostimulants (drugs that produce an “open mind state” including feelings of interpersonal closeness, intimacy and empathy) have been less frequently studied in self-administration models. The prototypical entactogen 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA; “Ecstasy”) supports self-administration but not with the same consistency nor with the same efficacy as structurally related drugs amphetamine or methamphetamine.}}<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Aarde|first1=Shawn|last2=Taffe|first2=Michael|title=Predicting the Abuse Liability of Entactogen-Class, New and Emerging Psychoactive Substances via Preclinical Models of Drug Self-administration|journal=Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences|date=2 December 2016|pages=1-20|doi=10.1007/7854_2016_54|url=http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/7854_2016_54}}</ref>
* FWIW: the {{para|class}} parameter takes & shows any text (unformatted). So one could use a list of classnames, or add a description/reference. I only hope it won't be too expanded, in an infobox. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 11:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

{{talk reflist|section}}
{{talk reflist|section}}

Revision as of 11:50, 19 December 2016

Page views for the last 12 months


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 Sizeofint (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sizeofint (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Roger-Sánchez, Concepción; García-Pardo, María P.; Rodríguez-Arias, Marta; Miñarro, Jose; Aguilar, María A. (April 2016). "Neurochemical substrates of the rewarding effects of MDMA". Behavioural Pharmacology. 27: 116–132. doi:10.1097/FBP.0000000000000210. Sizeofint (talk) 08:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medical indications

@Jbottero: It's not appropriate to remove adequately referenced material without reasonable policy justification. It's not at all apparent as to why a statement referenced by the EMCDDA would be NPOV, since that's quite an authoritative source from an EU governmental organization. Do you have any medical/governmental references supporting your assertion that this statement is not entirely true? Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The EMCDDA state not that ecstacy has no known medical use but that "MDMA once found limited use in psychiatric counselling, but its therapeutic use is now rare." If we are going to reference them we should at least quote them correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.167.134 (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paste content

Pasting here until the section can be expanded appropriately. Keep in mind that medical information needs to have WP:MEDRS content. Sizeofint (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC) ==Harm Reduction== Harm reduction, as stated by [[Harm Reduction International]], refers to policies, programmes and practices that aim to reduce the harms associated with the use of psychoactive drugs in people unable or unwilling to stop. <ref> What is harm reduction? https://www.hri.global/what-is-harm-reduction </ref> ===Supplementation=== ===Organizations===[reply]

No Theraputic Uses

Not accurate. Never was. The DEA scheduled it as a Schedule I substance without any basis in fact much like CPSC ruled on Buckeyballs (Which we now know was so deficient that the Judge had to "toss" most of Zen's arguments in their filing because they were only applicable (and hinted that most of them were) if the CPSC were...you know, competent, and did their jobs right...) It's classification by the DEA has flip-flopped twice and once of those was in defiance of court order. (See: https://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA-MAPS_DEA_Science_Final.pdf) The "limited" trials were for patients and situations like PTSD where it could help patients to restructure their brains. In fact, in recent times there have been decisions to move the scheduling to III on things and they have now started the process on a Phase 3 clinical trial for PSTD wherein it actually has really high rates of success in major improvement for the patients, compared to the other regimens. The descriptions for this need to be changed, guys. False but "accurate" is only for the mainstream media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.168.226 (talk • contribs)

MDMA currently has no accepted medical indications. We can't say otherwise until after the phase three trials finish. Sizeofint (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: what Sizeofint said. Also, the phase 3 clinical trial doesn't start until sometime in 2017. Seppi333 (Insert ) 00:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Class

What should we put as the class of this drug?

I propose psychoactive drug. User:Sizeofint proposes Empathogen-entactogen. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why? "Psychoactive drug" isn't a drug class. Seppi333 (Insert ) 05:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This book lists it as a "hallucinogen"[1] would be happy with that aswell. The DEA does not recognize "entactogen" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Causing hallucinations isn't really a primary effect of MDMA though. Even in this article we describe the hallucinatory effects as "mild". The primary effects of MDMA are on mood - not the modification of external stimuli. In that respect, it is more similar to an anti-depressant than a hallucinogen. Even "stimulant" would be a more accurate classification, though that also doesn't completely capture it. I'll look at a few reviews and see how they are classifying MDMA. Sizeofint (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even the authors of that book admit the term "hallucinogen" is misleading on page 289. Sizeofint (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the mid-1980s, based on the structure–activity relationships of MDMA-like molecules, Nichols (1986) proposed that the psychosocial effects of MDMA represented a novel pharmacological class, which he named “entactogens” to capture its apparently unique sensory and emotional effects. Data from rodent drug-discrimination paradigms (reviewed in Glennon, 1999; Nichols and Oberlender, 1989) suggested that MDMA was clearly distinguishable from hallucinogens, but shared many pharmacological, discriminative, and behavioral effects with prototypic amphetamine-like stimulants. Finally, in the 1990s, researchers began to conduct controlled studies to measure the psychosocial effects of MDMA in humans and to compare these to the effects of other stimulants.[1]
MDMA has a stimulant, hallucinogenic effect, and is also known to enhance mental factors such as energy, empathy and euphoria (12).[2]
Moreover, people can experience entactogenic effects and feel extremely connected with others and some even have mild hallucinations[3]
MDMA has been called an entactogen, meaning literally “to produce touching within”, referring to its tendency to enhance inner awareness and distinguishing it from classic psychedelic drugs such as psilocybin[4]
Because of this serotonergic component, MDMA exhibits some mental effects that differ qualitatively from other amphetamine-type stimulants (Schmid et al., 2014 and Schmid et al., 2015) and for this reason MDMA has been classified as an “entactogen”.[5]
Whereas phenethylamines without ring substitution usually behave as stimulants, ring substitution (as in MDMA) leads to a modification in the pharmacological properties. Ingestion of MDMA causes euphoria, increased sensory awareness and mild central stimulation. It is less hallucinogenic than its lower homologue, methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA). The terms empathogenic and entactogenic have been coined to describe the socialising effects of MDMA.[6]
A couple of books: Thought to be relatively save, in the mid-1970s it was proposed as an adjuvant to psychotherapy by Leo Zeff and other experimental psychiatrists who touted its ability to increase patient self-esteem, empathy and nondefensiveness and to facilitate therapeutic communication; thus its original classification as and "empathogen", though the term "entactogen" is now preferred.[2] Although entactogens and stimulants display similar stereoselectivity, when tested within their respective classes, the R isomers of MDA, MDMA, and MBDB substitute for MDMA and (+)-MBDB but not for (+)-amphetamine. [3]
Bolding mine. This is what I found on the first page of pubmed index reviews (at least from the ones I can access). The book results are admittedly more biased because I searched 'MDMA entactogen'. Most of the articles here emphasize how MDMA is different from typical stimulants and hallucinogens. Sizeofint (talk) 08:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This says the term "entactogens" is not recognized by the DEA.[4] "Some authors proposed that MDMA represented a novel class of drugs, the entactogens that were not hallucinogenic. However, the DEA did not accept this new classification" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This book calls it a "stimulant" and a "hallucinogen"[5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This paper calls it a stimulant and talks about how Nichols proposed the novel class "entactogens". I am not seeing that this is an officially accepted drug class. [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The DEA is a view - a potentially heavy weight one to be sure - but not the arbiter of what is and is not accepted classification for drugs. If the consensus in the scientific literature is that this is a valid classification - and that I think is what my initial survey of the latest reviews in PubMed suggest - then that is what we should go with regardless of the DEA's stance. To my knowledge, no scientist has the power to say, "this is now officially a drug class" so in that sense all drug classes are 'proposed'. It simply becomes accepted over time that this is indeed a valid drug classification. We can see this over at opioid. There isn't a single definition of opioid, only a set of 'proposed' definitions which are used until some more refined usage takes precedence. Notably, none of the reviews I read here disputed this classification. If they did dispute anything, it was the simple classification of MDMA with other hallucinogens and stimulants. Also, not all the sources I quote above use this 'proposed' modifier. Sizeofint (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources:
Not MEDRS but shows traction of the term - MDMA is the prototypical empathogen and entactogen drug[7]
Government agency - Drug Class: Mild CNS stimulant, empathogen, entactogen, mild hallucinogen and psychedelic, appetite suppressant.[8]
Members of the entactogen class of psychostimulants (drugs that produce an “open mind state” including feelings of interpersonal closeness, intimacy and empathy) have been less frequently studied in self-administration models. The prototypical entactogen 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA; “Ecstasy”) supports self-administration but not with the same consistency nor with the same efficacy as structurally related drugs amphetamine or methamphetamine.[9]
  • FWIW: the |class= parameter takes & shows any text (unformatted). So one could use a list of classnames, or add a description/reference. I only hope it won't be too expanded, in an infobox. -DePiep (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Bershad, A. K.; Miller, M. A.; Baggott, M. J.; de Wit, H. (25 August 2016). "The effects of MDMA on socio-emotional processing: Does MDMA differ from other stimulants?". Journal of Psychopharmacology. 30 (12): 1248–1258. doi:10.1177/0269881116663120.
  2. ^ Bora, F; Yılmaz, F; Bora, T (November 2016). "Ecstasy (MDMA) and its effects on kidneys and their treatment: a review". Iranian journal of basic medical sciences. 19 (11): 1151–1158. PMID 27917269.
  3. ^ Vegting, Yosta; Reneman, Liesbeth; Booij, Jan (28 August 2016). "The effects of ecstasy on neurotransmitter systems: a review on the findings of molecular imaging studies". Psychopharmacology. 233 (19–20): 3473–3501. doi:10.1007/s00213-016-4396-5.
  4. ^ Mithoefer, Michael C; Grob, Charles S; Brewerton, Timothy D (May 2016). "Novel psychopharmacological therapies for psychiatric disorders: psilocybin and MDMA". The Lancet Psychiatry. 3 (5): 481–488. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00576-3.
  5. ^ Mueller, F.; Lenz, C.; Steiner, M.; Dolder, P.C.; Walter, M.; Lang, U.E.; Liechti, M.E.; Borgwardt, S. (March 2016). "Neuroimaging in moderate MDMA use: A systematic review". Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 62: 21–34. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.12.010.
  6. ^ "Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA or 'Ecstasy') drug profile". European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Retrieved 18 December 2016.
  7. ^ "Stimulants: Background, Drug Enforcement Agency Classification System, Types of Stimulants". MedScape. 10 June 2016. Retrieved 19 December 2016.
  8. ^ "Drugs and Human Performance FACT SHEETS - Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, Ecstasy)". National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2001. Retrieved 19 December 2016.
  9. ^ Aarde, Shawn; Taffe, Michael (2 December 2016). "Predicting the Abuse Liability of Entactogen-Class, New and Emerging Psychoactive Substances via Preclinical Models of Drug Self-administration". Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences: 1–20. doi:10.1007/7854_2016_54.

Leave a Reply