Talk:Fenethylline

Effects?

What, exactly, lead it to be listed as a schedule I banned drug? What makes it so deleterious? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It was listed by the WHO, and the US took it from there. Volker Siegel (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

But in 2018 the WHO, like other organisations of that kind, was still controlled by the US. I would not see that as an independent decision. From what I have read is that Captagon is very helpful in the low right dose, but quite lethal in larger doses. That must have been seen as dangerous and someone must have concluded that abuse is unpreventable, as indeed it now is, leaving only the illegal trade. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:1111:CF3C:B4E0:25BF (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Appearances/smuggling

Recently bags of that stuff have been washed in greece shores possibly as a result of a failed smuggling operation into europe. Newspaper article here: https://www.kathimerini.gr/society/561672934/rodos-entopistikan-ekatontades-chiliades-chapia-ton-tzichantiston-mesa-se-syskeyasia-me-svastika/. Maybe worth keeping here as reference if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:40:430:DD7F:5AEB:F4CD:FEA7 (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The seizures section is highly repetitive. Most of the seizures (except possibly those from high profile individuals) would be best listed in a bullet list, or even a table (Date, Location, Quantity etc.) Mikejcc (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Captagon fighters?

I'm a pretty new Wikipedia editor and I'm not certain how I would change this section, but it seems very much out of tune with Wikipedia's writing standards, could someone take a look and assess? I'd be willing to help with whatever changes are needed. Qhacim (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Synthesis section comments

Today's edits were the result of hitting roadblocks of understanding while reading this section, of then seeking understanding through the cited sources, then finding discrepancies between the text and those sources. Here are important points, in rough priority order:

• Use of the You ZY, et al. 2008 source. This appeared originally with the Scheme, and then two more times, once in each subsection. On our checking, none of the content appearing could be rightly attributed to that source. The issues included:

= The figure uses a different dihaloethane reagent than the You paper.

= There is no mention of "Benaphyllin, Eupnophile" in the You paper.

= There is no discussion of mechanism in the You paper.

= Etc.

• Because of this citation misuse, the description of "overall transformation" now lacks sources—because neither the German nor the patent sources presented with the Scheme have URLs allowing one to see full text. (I.e., the one source presented that could be verified, You et al. 2008, had been misused, and the other two, likely valid, could not be verified.) So, someone with access to those documents needs to do a follow-up, (i) making sure the Figure corresponds to the two remaining, indicated sources, and if not, change those citations, and (ii) re-edit "the overall transformation" paragraph, from the correct source, so that the description of the synthetic method fully follows both the Figure and the source.

• Likewise, with regard to the subsection on "Reaction conditions", now entitled "Preparative conditions". You et al. 2008 was again mis-cited (method differs—different dihaloethane reagent [dichloro vs bromochloro], use of a deuterated reagent, presumed difference in method and scale required for a deuterated prep, etc.), and so all of the details appearing earlier remain suspect. This description of the "Preparative conditions" needs to present conditions that are consistent with the "overall transformation" text, and that is true and correct to that source, whatever it might be. (It is not You et al. 2008.) So, as above, please re-edit this subsection from an actual valid, cited source.

• Likewise the opening text purporting to discuss the mechanism from a source, all of which has been hidden from sight:

"7-(2-Chloroethyl)theophylline forms a three-carbon ring substructure by displacing the remaining halogen leaving group in an intramolecular substitution reaction. The three-carbon ring substructure is deformed by the primary amine in amphetamine..."

None of this is in the earlier cited You et al. 2008, so there is no way to check what might have been intended. As it is unsourced, and as we could not sort what was meant—possibly an aziridine intermediate, rather than "a three-carbon ring"?—we hid from view all of the mechanistic discussion. Put something back in, on mechanism, please, but only from a clearly identified, verifiable, correctly used source.

• The Synthesis section follows after 12,000 characteers on "Abuse and..." illegal production, raising the expectation that the next section might address illicit chemical synthesis. It appears clear that what is presented is, rather, academic / industrial laboratory syntheses, from research reports and patents. It would help to make the matter of what's-being-presented-where very clear at the opening of the Synthesis section. This issue prompted a {{what... tag in the subsection title, until we clarify what the "Reaction sequence" Figure pertains to, and from where it was drawn.

• Minor, hopefully non-controversial points:

= Added a subsection on the "Synthesis of stable isotope derivatives", from You et al. 2008, so that source would not have to be dropped.

= Corrected the dihaloreagent mentioned as "2-bromochloroethane [sic.]", to the formal correct name of "1-bromo-2-chloroethane". (Used Aldrich in fact-chacking, since the synthetic source originally used was inaccessible.)

= The names "7-(2-chloroethyl)theophylline" versus "7-(β-chloroethyl)theophylline": Feel free to return the "2-chloroethyl" if it is authoritative (from the literature). As it stood, using "7-(2-chloroethyl..." appeared to us to introduce noncanonical numbering (since 7- is based on xanthine ring numbering, wherein a 2- also appears), so the non-authoritative β-chloroethyl was substituted, on hunch.

In summary, in two places, the earlier appearing inline citations to You et al. 2008 were hidden, as was some mechanistic text (both with some explanation), and then tags were added to replace the mis-used citation.

We invite deletion of the tags and notes in the text, as our observations are checked off here (and we will try to contribute, e.g., beginning with trying to find a copy of the German patent, as we can read that). Au revoir, nos amis. 98.206.30.195 (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

We have added the version from Great Britain of the German patent cited in the Scheme in the Synthesis section. The German patent lacked the cover image, which made sense of the patent abstract's abbreviations regarding structure. Note, from those two abstracts, we would now suggest that the patents from DE and GB are improper sources for that scheme, as (i) they focus only on the second step, and (ii) present conditions for the second step that do not appear to match the reagents and conditions indicated in the Scheme and text. We will leave both citations there, for the moment, to allow others to review. 98.206.30.195 (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)