Jump to content

Talk:Lean (drug)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


This whole article is complete horseshit

Purple drank is any non-carbonated grape flavored or purple colored sweet beverage.

Its a damn Liquor

Sizzurp should not be associated with the cough syrup, its actually a liquor, search Google Images...what pops up?? Green420jdubb (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

So? Someone saw a brand-name waiting for product to back it up and made one. That doesn't alter the slang used. Notice how the sizz in the article has a lower-case s? The only person associating Sizzurp with sizzurp is you and all the rest of the mugs who buy it for what it isn't. 81.157.42.138 (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Woohoo! Yet another wonderful gift to the world from hip hop culture. Along with other classy items like side shows and baggy pants.Arlesd (talk) 05:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Mariah Carey

is mentioning the drug in her 2005 hit its like that where she sings purple is taking me higher. But I dont know how to add it since the page is protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.220.59 (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

DXM containing cough syrups

Cnota 22:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

lots of cough syrups also have dextromethorpan hydrobromide, a cough supressant that when taken in large doses, along the order of a bottle or two of syrup, results in a significant hallucinatory and disassociative episode, on par with most illegal hallucinogens. This is definately also a factor in these experiences.

Actually, since the cough syrup used is usually a codeine-containing cough syrup, the use of dextromethorphan (DXM) in OTC cough syrups is usually not a factor in the effects of what is usually referred to as "purple drank." The effects of codeine and DXM are very different, with DXM being a dissociative (by way of NMDA antagonism) and codeine being an opiate. It is also important to note that many OTC DXM cough syrups also contain guaifenesin and/or acetomenophan which if used in large quantities can cause severe health defects. JAVIonics 21:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The Purplish Hue

Is in fact, not derived from codeine, but from added dyes to make the cough syrup more distinct in color.

--65.33.43.1 18:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Multiple Meanings

Designating a precise definition of "purple drank" could be deceptive. The black community is known for its celebration of beverages that are low cost and contain a lot of sugar (like koolaid and generic brand carbonated sodas). The grape flavors of these drinks are, of course, purple. When an urban person says "purple drank" they may well be referring to something more innocent. I cite Dave Chappelle's comments about a Sunny Delight ad in which the term "purple stuff" is invoked. He joked that had a black young man been in the commercial he would have preferred the “purple drank”.--Gtg207u 05:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

--65.33.43.1 18:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The term purple drank dates back much further in New Orleans, where it innocuously referred to purple colored drinks described above. Sodas were referred to by color, and there were several flavors. The term did not rise in Houston until after the influx from Katrina. This article is way off the mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.126.5 (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ability to cause blindness

As mentioned in the article, the syrup (assuming mixture of codeine and promethazine) is characterized as having the ability to cause blindness in larger doses. Can someone cite a source for this?

Needs more Grimace

The main article needs that infamous Photoshopped picture of Grimace, the purple McDonald's mascot character, holding a huge bottle of cough syrup and grinning, with gold teeth showing, and the large caption, "PURPLE DRANK, I'm-a grip and sip"

Seriously, is this Wikipedia, or is this encyclopediadramatica?

If the aforementioned picture is important to the concept then it isn't ridiculous. A picture of chicken sex is absurd in the mass consciousness but might be extremely contextual in a John Waters article. I say do what gets the job done as long as you're not stepping on copy rights.--Gtg207u 05:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one...

I'm sorry to disrupt the talk page like this, but am I the only one who finds the fact that "Lack of coughing" is listed in the article as an effect is incredibly funny? Calgary 06:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's just a vandalism edit. And yes, more clever than "I love jane". Eli lilly 16:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

How is this legal?

Not making a judgement call about those who drink it, but the opening paragraph of the article has me confused. It begins by stating that the drink is legal, but the description of it as containing prescription-strength codeine levels makes me question its legality. What are the loopholes that make this legal? If it involves OTC codeine syrups, then the "prescription-strength" claim is off-base. If it's prescription-strength, then prescription diversion (if not other things like scrip forgery) belies the "drink is legal" claim. Student Driver 01:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It was vandalism introduced two edits back, thanks for catching it. Eli lilly 22:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Codeine is always prescription only, dumbass —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.239.212 (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Except in the countries where it's an over the counter medicine, such as Canada and Australia.166.205.136.88 (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
And of course, prescription is not the same as illegal, only "illegal without prescription". there seem to be a lot of contributors who are unable to grasp this distinction. and yes, the whole world is not USA ... codeine and promethazine can both be bought without prescription in some countries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snaxalotl (talk • contribs) 11:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Sizzurp would be more accurate of an "official" name than purple drank

I have been recently dissecting the lyrics to several popular hip-hop songs that have mention of this concoction, and I would like to add some clarifications based on what I've been able to glean.

In the lyrics of the Three 6 song "Sippin on that Syrup"(pronounced sizzurp in the song), one of the rappers sings, "I got the wet promethazine, thick orange and yellow Tuss". Shortly thereafter he sings "Hydrocodone on that hands free phone" and then later "40 dollars for just one ounce ounce, Tussionex is how its pronounced". Even later in the song is "Nothing like that yella yella that will have you itching man". There is also a song by a rapper named "Chrome"(possibly Lil Chrome) who has a song entitled 1G 0z, the main chorus in which he sings "I got 16 ounces purple and yellow Tuss".

We already know that the original intoxicating ingredient in the beverage is a purple prescription strength cough syrup containing promethazine(an antihistamine, commonly used to relieve allergy symptoms) and codeine(an opium-derived pain medicine). However, there is another prescription-only cough syrup containing an antihistamine and pain-killer that can be substituted, and that medicine is currently under the brand name "Tussionex". Chlorpheniramine is substituted for the promethazine, and hydrocodone is substitued for the codeine. Both are commonly used to treat very severe coughing when over the counter syrups containing dextromethorphan are not enough.

Because I have been prescribed Tussionex, I can attest to the fact that it has an orange/yellow color. I think what the wikipedia article refers to as "purple drank", is a misnomer, due to the fact that the purple color is achieved by using only one of the two possible intoxicating prescription-strength syrups. When Three 6 Mafia coined the term "Sizzurp", its clear that in that particular song, they are referring to a drink made with either the (purple) promethazine/codeine syrup, OR Tussionex (yellow). Therefore, I submit that the main wikipedia article be renamed from "purple drank" to what I believe is the closest thing to an "official" coining for the beverage, "Sizzurp".

I may be able to add some citations later, if needed. Also, I believe I've listened to enough songs to be able to decipher most of the other possible ingredients for the beverage. The main one seems to be a citrus flavored beverage, such as Sprite or Lemonaid. Jolly Ranchers are often used to add flavor, since the mixture is often already sweet. This is commonly prepared with ice and in a Styrofoam cup(to chill and insulate). Any challenges to what I've posted here are welcome.

Ahh, i see so it is the "rappers" that are now defining the world of encyclopedias. I will make sure to keep my ear open when they start talking about the edownfall of the roman empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.236.174 (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
As it happens, until a few minutes ago the entire list of alternative names for this concoction was unsourced. I just now inserted citations to sources for some of the names. Users continually add more names. Names that lack reliable sources should be removed. --Orlady (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of pronunciation

I mean, isn't it just "purple drink" rendered in a thick accent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but the "purple drank" spelling is often used to specifically refer to the illicit beverage, while "purple drink" could be any cheap grape beverage.09:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Pimp C

Where's the heart failure part coming from? Every article I've read on his death since the tox report came back says that it was a combination of codeine and pre-existing sleep apnea. Codeine represses respiratory functions and combined with sleep apnea - in which you stop breathing during sleep - you get an accidental OD. Th 2005 (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge

This article's title "Puple drank" isn't appropriate for a wikipedia entry. Sure, all the street names should be mentioned and redirected to the entry, but shouldn't this be a subsection under Codeine#Recreational_use? Just like how Ice (drug) redirects to the methamphetamine article. Alvis (talk) 06:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - Merge the articles
  1. merge LightSpeed3 (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. I understand both sides of the debate, and support the merge. Purple Drank is, in my opinion, technically a recreational use of codeine. As such, it should be merged into this article.

Cameron K. (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Keep the articles separate
  1. I oppose the merger. Purple drank is not a form of codeine, but a drug of abuse that contains codeine and other active ingredients (notable promethazine), as well as colorant and various sweet liquids. Moreover, under its various street names, the drug is a subject of many cultural references. (For the record, I got involved in editing Purple drank because of a cultural reference to it in Nicknames of Houston. All I know about Purple Drank is what I learned here...)
    1. There is ample precedent for Wikipedia to have multiple articles about a particular recreational drug family, using street names. For example, consider the various articles about cocaine, such as Black cocaine, Brown-brown, Crack cocaine, Fishscale cocaine, Hollywood (slang), Paco (drug), and Ypadu. --Orlady (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Lean is a different drug and has different effects, as well as a large subculture. 206.55.190.99 (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. I oppose the merge; as opposed to the section 'recreational codeine use' which is still largely scientific, this article 'purple drank' is primarily concerned with sub-culture surrounding a particular means of ingesting recreational doses of codeine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.131.226.194 (talk) 08:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose and Rename - After looking at both articles, my opinion is that the Codeine article suffers excess information about the recreational use of the drug. Someone looking for information on codeine is probably more interested in it as a drug than as a recreational drug, and the article should focus on that. It should focus more on the drug chemistry, it's history, proper usage, side effects, etc. like many other drug-related entries here. The Purple drank article would do better renamed to Recreational use of codeine or something along those lines (not exactly sure of the preferred naming convention for such articles). Then, take that section out of Codeine and merge it into the newly renamed article. Purple drank could then be a section within the article, but the article could cover all aspects of recreational (ab)use of the drug. Within the codeine article, a see also entry could point to the newly renamed article. Problem solved. (Hopefully.) --Willscrlt (Talk) 08:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments
  • I just finished reading all of the example articles mentioned above for Ice (drug), [cocaine]], Black cocaine, Brown-brown, Crack cocaine, Fishscale cocaine, Hollywood (slang), Paco (drug), Ypadu, and, most importantly, the articles on Codeine and Purple drank. (Yes, it was a lot of reading about topics in which I have zero interest.) I have reached the same conclusion that 202.131.226.194 arrived at. The focus of the two articles are completely different. I really do not see how the Codeine article would be improved in any way by incorporating the largely social aspects of the Purple drank article, and vice versa. These really are similar to the Cocaine or Crack cocaine articles (each of which are completely different articles despite their nearly identical names and related topics) compared to Hollywood (slang), Paco (drug), or Ypadu. In the last three articles, the focus is on the culture using the drug, not really the drug itself. That is almost exactly the case here. And like here, I do not think that either of the cocaine article would be improved by merging the smaller cultural articles into the larger ones. I also do not think that any other combination of the drug articles would be particularly beneficial. Perhaps an all-inclusive article on the coca-leaf and cocaine socio-economic and cultural issues could pull it off. The same is true here. If someone could figure out a way to write an article that splits the socio-economic and cultural issues of ALL recreational use of codeine, then Purple Drank would be a good fit in there. Until, I think that leaving them separate as they are currently is best. I am not sure if my earlier suggestion of renaming the article is a good one or not. Given how the cocaine derivatives are named, I'm now disinclined to rename Purple Drank, unless it was to name it by a different common name. Syrup is used commonly throughout the article. I'd suggest someone run some Google stats and see what the most commonly used name is, and then go with that as the name for the article. --Willscrlt (Talk) 06:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just popping by - the merge was proposed in March and there's more opposition than support. I'm removing the merge tags. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It becomes useless information

I can't think of a reason for listing so many instances that Lil Wayne raps or references Purple Drank. One or two quotes is quite enough, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.92.211 (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Concoction" vs. "Brew"

Some anon users (possibly the same user) have been changing "concoction" to "brew" in this article. No explanation has been offered for this change. My guess is that "brew" is another colloquial term for "drank", "lean", etc. This stuff is not, however, a "brew" in standard English as it is not produced by fermentation (as with beer) or by steeping a solid material in hot water (as with tea and coffee). In contrast, "concoction" is a good description of what this is. --Orlady (talk) 04:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Simpsons Did It?

While there is a section for mentions in music, there isn't an "in popular culture" section.

Is it worth creating one just to mention that the "Flaming Moe's" episode of "The Simpsons" is centered around a drink which also uses cough syrup as a primary ingredient?

SicTim (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

So far, this is just unsourced trivia. Flaming Moe's indicates that the episode dealt with a non-narcotic cough syrup. It does not contain any indication of an association with codeine cough syrup. Furthermore, that episode (aired in 1991) probably predates the "syrup" culture in Houston. Do you have a reliable source (see WP:RS) indicating that the episode is a reference to "lean" or "purple drank"? --Orlady (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. The similarity is striking, but the only bits that even look like they might be causal connections are (a) the syrup culture (which already existed, but was obscure) took off after the Simpsons episode, and (b) Big Moe's name. Will we ever know whether he chose that as a Simpsons reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.145.232 (talk) 02:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that the Flaming Moe was purple in colour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.24.103 (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed text that cited a "nutritionist" as a competent source

There was text in this article saying something to the extent of "a nutritionist says not to mix this drink with antidepressants..." blah. Nutritionists are not MD's, nor are they PA's, nor are they NP's, nor are they even PhD's. Nutritionists aren't anything reputable and are a the biggest joke of the medical community. They have no place making comments on such matters like drug interactions. Thus, I removed that statement. DO NOT REVERT MY EDIT ORLADY. A quick look at your talk page shows that you are incredibly biased, and incompetent. Refrain from making pointless edits for no reason. Thanks you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.115.120 (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Since a quick look at my talk page shows that I am incredibly biased and incompetent, I don't guess that I will get real far by asking you to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks, but I'll say those things anyway, because they are important. The sourced content that you have removed twice now, without leaving an edit summary to explain your intentions, said:
In November 2009 a [[Lake Charles, Louisiana]], television news station reported cautionary advice on these drinks from a hospital nutritionist who said that their ingredients might be dangerous when used in combination with [[antidepressant]]s, [[anxiolytic|anti-anxiety drug]]s, or other medications.<ref>Britney Glaser, [http://www.kplctv.com/Global/story.asp?s=11451481 Special Healthcast Report: Downer Dangers], KPLC-TV, November 6, 2009</ref>
It appears to me (hopelessly incompetent as I might be, I did learn to read) that Wikipedia is not giving medical advice (note that Wikipedia is not a source of expert advice) or citing the nutritionist as an expert. Rather, Wikipedia is citing a TV news story that reported on the nutritionist's statement[1]. This is in a paragraph telling about how the commercial products have been criticized on various grounds. Would you feel better about this if the article also quoted the part of the TV news report that says the manufacturers "tell us their products are safe"? I would think that someone who works professionally in nutrition at a hospital probably would know more about drug interactions than the public relations staff of a soft drink manufacturer, but in either case Wikipedia would be using the TV station as its source, not the people they quoted. --Orlady (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Until there comes a day when you can say "a homeless man on the street lectured everyone about how dangerous oxygen was to the body", nutritionists have no place making medical statements. Stop grasping for straws and stop being overly verbose in every post you make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.115.120 (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is interested in verifiability, not in the professional credentials of the people who are quoted in articles. Moreover, this quotation is not intended to provide medical advice, but merely to describe the public criticism that the commercial products have received. I agree that nonmedical personnel should not be sources of professional medical advice, but that's not what's going on in this article. Seeing that your concern is based on mistaken impressions about the nature of the quotation and the article, I am restoring the text to the article. --Orlady (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree. This is relevant to the topic. It is not medical advice, but relevant commentary from a reliable source. The aggressive tone of IP 72... is not helpful either. --Leivick (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually it is pretty borderline. I don't like local tv news as a source as they are not all that reliable and the opinions expressed in this context have marginal notability. It would be better to have a national news or medical source for this to confirm that this a relevant issue. In any case it would be better to hash out the arguments here on the talk page in a calm manner rather than revert war over this. If IP 72... would show good faith and not revert until consensus is achieved it would be a great step to get the ball rolling. --Leivick (talk) 07:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm more than happy to show good faith, but the only hat your argument stands on, Orlady, is that your information is "verifiable". Whether your want to dispute that verifiability includes factual truth or not, is up to you. In my opinion, wiki is about verifiablility AND credibility. Anyone can verify anything, but that doesn't make it credible, nor does it make it correct. I could verify that my friend told his professor that the professor was wrong on a particular subject, but that does not mean that my friend was correct and the professor was wrong. Wiki is supposed to be a factual knowledgebase (ie it must be credible), which is verifiable (ie people can check to make sure that something is indeed factual). It would be one thing if the nutritionist were actually talking about codeine drinks when she made the statement that it was dangerous with other meds (even though there is no medical evidence suggesting that codiene cough syrup is dangerous to take with antidepressants. It may be dangerous with "anti-anxiety drugs" (the nutritionist used the word "anti-anxiety drugs" because she probably doesn't know what benzodiazepines are), but it is a commonly prescribed combination.. it is only dangerous in excess, like everything), but the fact of the matter is the nutritionist said that "over the counter commercial products like these are not safe with anti-depressants, anti-anxiety drugs, and other drugs". That is horse-sh*t and you know it. The "active ingrediants" in the over-the-counter drinks are valerian root and melatonin, which aren't dangerous at all and no medical literature will back that up. That's why they are OTC.. because they pose little to no harm when mixed with regular medications. I will say it again, you may be able to verify that the newscaster reported that information, but that DOES NOT MAKE IT CREDIBLE. Local news quotations should be prohibited from wiki as they are not professional and everyone knows that local news places don't ever check their facts. I'll wait a day and then I'm reverting it if no consensus has been reached because a local news quote from a nutritionist does not belong in the wiki article. The only relevant data in that quote (whether its credible or not), is the health effects mentioned by the nutritionist.. and those points should be covered in the dangerous or side-effects or contra-indications section... not in a "Commercial news" section. This seems very cut and dry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.115.120 (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The "factual truth" in the article is that a local TV station quoted a hospital nutritionist as saying that there might be dangers from some ingredients in these products if used in combination with various medications. Nothing in the article says whether or not her information was correct; it only says that the TV station quoted here saying these things. If there is a reliable source that declares that credible peer-reviewed research has conclusively shown that there are absolutely no risks from combining valerian root and melatonin with anxiolytics or antidepressants -- and anyone who says otherwise is irresponsible, then it would be appropriate to delete the statement entirely as a piece of nonsense that should not be perpetuated. However, contrary to your assertions that "valerian root and melatonin,... aren't dangerous at all" and that "they are OTC.. because they pose little to no harm when mixed with regular medications," this National Institutes of Health webpage about valerian root points out that valerian root is not regulated as a drug under U.S. law (i.e., it's not an OTC drug) and:
"Based on animal and human studies, valerian may increase the amount of drowsiness caused by some drugs, although this is an area of controversy. Examples include benzodiazepines such as lorazepam (Ativan®) or diazepam (Valium®), barbiturates such as phenobarbital, narcotics such as codeine, some antidepressants, and alcohol. Caution is advised while driving or operating machinery. In one human study, a combination of valerian and the beta-blocker drug propranolol (Inderal®) reduced concentration levels more than valerian alone. A brief episode of confusion was reported in one patient using valerian with loperamide (Imodium®) and St. John's wort ( Hypericum perforatum L.). An episode of agitation, anxiety, and self-injury was reported in a patient after taking valerian with fluoxetine (Prozac®) for a mood disorder (the person was also drinking alcohol). In theory, valerian may interact with anti-seizure medications, although human data is lacking. Valerian tinctures may contain high alcohol content (15-90%) and theoretically may cause vomiting if taken with metronidazole (Flagyl®) or disulfiram (Antabuse®). Valerian may interact with certain drugs metabolized by the liver or vasopressin."
'Nuf said. Regardless of the pharmacological situation, all that the current wording of the article indicates is that some people are expressing and disseminating certain criticisms and concerns about the products. --Orlady (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
If something isn't true, it shouldn't be on wiki, as it just adds useless information to articles. I know that valerian root isn't regulated, but it still is over the counter. It's sold as a health supplement and even if the FDA didn't classify it as "OTC", it is still for all intents and purposes OTC since anyone can go buy it over the counter at a health store. You post information that says "based on animal and human studies, valerian root *may* increase drowsiness of some drugs... *although this is an area of controversy*." You also say that one study showed that valerian with inderal reduced concentration more than just valerian alone... how do you know it wasn't the inderal (a blood pressure medicine) that was responsible? The study didn't test inderal by itself, just valerian by itself and then valerian with inderal.. for all you know the inderal by itself would have caused the same amount of drowsiness.. that's poor science. As far as the patient who took prozac with valerian, the side effects you cited are all just SSRI side effects, not valerian side effects. They can occur without the presence of another drug when an SSRI is taken. "In theory, valerian may interact with anti-seizure medications, *although human data is lacking*". "Valerian tinctures may contain high alcohol content (15-90%) and may cause vomitting if taken with metronidazole or disulfiram". Well, duh, since those drugs are directly contraindicated with alcohol because those drugs alone with alcohol will cause those reactions... without valerian root in the equation.
Basically you posted a bunch of stuff that is, at best, unverifiable and vague. Everything you posted was "it MIGHT be valerian root, but we don't know". And those assumptions are based on violating causality.. specifically the fallacy of questionable causality. (A+B), [(A+B)->C], therefore A->C. Thus, those arguments are all fallacies, and are illogical and violate causality. Correlation does not imply causation, plain and simple that data is wrong.
'Nuf said :\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.115.120 (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I quoted an official statement from the National Institutes of Health. If you want to nitpick their interpretation of the research, please go argue with the NIH, not me. As for why these substances are sold without restriction without being classified as Over-the-counter drugs, the lack of U.S. government restrictions on the sale of herbal supplements is not because of any scientific conclusion about their safety, but instead results from a political decision by U.S. Congress when it passed the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. --Orlady (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll argue with you instead of NIH because you're the one posting their information as evidence of something that shouldn't be in the wiki. I'm arguing with you because YOU chose to cite a poor source as evidence for a dumb claim. If research is wrong or done poorly, you can't sit there and say "I just cited them, go argue with them if the research is bad". You aren't supposed to cite whatever crappy research you can find, it defeats the entire point of credibility. As far as the distinction between herbal supplements and OTC labeled products go, I don't care at all. I don't know why you're still talking about it. Herbal supplements can be bought over the counter without a prescription. That was my point. I, again, don't care what reasoning the government has to selling herbal supplements without classifying them in a schedule. I only care that anyone can buy these products without restriction. Please explain why a quote from a nutritionist on medical interactions from a local news station should be allowed in this article? If you cannot support why it should be, and how a local news station is credible, or how a nutritionist is qualified to comment on drug interactions that are, at best, vague according to your own research, then I will be removing that quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.115.120 (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Orlady has a number of points which you can't seem to handle. You ask for her to respond to your questions and time and time again she does and then you throw a fit tossing around arguements that hold no bearing. The information should absolutely be included, not because it is verifiable or that wiki is certifying that the accuracy of the news report, but because the information is presented in a way to let the reader understand that there has been critisism. I am astonished that you have an intellegent arguement at points, and throw it away by calling a source "dumb" because you don't like the content of it. While the information provided by the NIH is limited, it is their current stance on Valerian Root and as such it needs to be used if that is deemed as a competent source for other medications. Unfortunately, as contributors, we don't get to decide that we will only use a sources information when we like it and it suits our cause. Orlady made it very clear that the information was just that information not fact, if you don't like the information then go find some crediable information to dispute it, otherwise take your hand off the delete key. Either way quit attacking people and throwing fits, berating people and organizations, with your superior intelect that apparently can discredit any scientific data with the stroke of key, that's not what this is all about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.24.80 (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Commercial Criticisms

Orlady continues to post poor information and cites local morning news broadcasts as her source.. which are not credible by any standard. I tried to have this discussion with her under the "Commercial Criticism" section, but she stopped responding and continues to revert edits without giving reason. Orlady, stop citing local news station morning reports as credible sources of information. I will continue to remove them. They are ridiculous and have no place in what we all want to be a credible article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.115.120 (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph in contention is about criticism of "Drank" and other commercial relaxation beverages that appear to emulate purple drank. In that context, I think it is entirely appropriate to include sourced statements about the criticisms presented in a TV news story (one that was broadcast in the region where abuse of "purple drank" is particularly widespread) in which the products were criticized. The statement does not quote the TV station as an authority on health; it merely states that it aired a story in which this criticism was made. However, as I've pointed out above, there are reliable medical sources that express similar concerns about these same herbal substances.
I don't know what the anonymous user's motivation has been for repeatedly removing sourced content from that section of the article, but I do know that repeated deletion of sourced content and personal attacks (such as the paragraph above and the allegations made on my talk page) are not a particularly effective way of making a point. This kind of behavior can even cause a user's account to be blocked! --Orlady (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Just stop. You haven't made any compelling points as to why your information should remain in the wiki. Since this has turned into a stupid pissing contest that you obviously have more time to devote to than I do, I'm going to not edit this page anymore. So unfortunately, irrelevant medical information will remain on the wiki which is sourced to a "nutritionist" from a local news station, and will give users the impression that mixing valerian and melatonin with benzos or antidepressants is really dangerous.. but fine, you don't care. Just because the news story was broadcast in an area where "abuse is widespread", does not make it more credible or anything. The medical sources above that you're referring to, were poorly written and very vague (as I showed you a few more posts up).. but you didn't respond to any of my critcisms of why those articles you cited were not competent. You just ignored what I said entirely, didn't respond to any of my criticisms of your "reliable medical sources" (which, as I showed, were not reliable at all because they came to no conclusion about anything and resorted to the fallacy of questionable conclusion to try to prove their point, they couldn't pass peer review and, as even the authors stated, the results were vague and poor). You cannot cite that kind of medical literature and call it reliable when even the authors of the study said "our study is not reliable". My motivation for repeatedly removing sourced (laughable) content from that section of the article was stated multiple times over and over but you just ignored it. I removed that content because it was flat out wrong, and the source was garbage. I told you that several times, so stop acting like you have no idea where the removals are coming from. Stop playing innocent and naive. I take such issue with statements like these because I'm a pharmacology major at a med school and know that such statements are false and have no basis in fact or medical literature. Some dumb nutritionist (undergrad degree) thinks otherwise because she's stupid, but has no background to make such claims. Whatever, continue spreading misinformation if it's so important to you. Stop trying to act like you're in some position of authority, you aren't, nobody answers to you. 72.200.115.120 (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I happen to continue to think that there is value in having the encyclopedia article describe the scope and breadth of criticisms that have been lodged against the commercial products. Are you contending that only criticisms from people with M.D. degrees are sufficiently valid to deserve being mentioned in the article, or are you concerned about the wording of the statement in the article? To jog your memory, the statement you object to said: "In November 2009 a Lake Charles, Louisiana, television news station reported cautionary advice on these drinks from a hospital nutritionist who said that their ingredients might be dangerous when used in combination with antidepressants, anti-anxiety drugs, or other medications," and it was sourced to "Britney Glaser, Special Healthcast Report: Downer Dangers, KPLC-TV, November 6, 2009".
For the record, I am indeed the one who added that particular statement to the article. This was after another user had added an advertising squib about one particular brand of "anti-energy" drink, sourced to the brand's website; I searched for reliable sources that could be used instead to describe the various different commercial drinks. It appears from the history that the reliable sources that I found and added to the article were all criticisms of the commercial products, including the Lake Charles TV station's story. --Orlady (talk) 02:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Platinum4, 9 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} NOBODY USES 7UP SPRITE ONLY. MAY WANT TO PUT UP SUGGESTED CONCENTRATIONS TOO (8OZ/L). Platinum4 (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Until we have a source for this, there is not a need to change the article. Please let us know when you have a good source, and we will make the change.
 Not done Avicennasis @ 06:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

mentions in music

u need to add three 6 mafia and UGK cuz they were lik the first ones to rap about it it the song sippin on some syrup not to metion other songs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.2.193 (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

They also mention it in "No Flex Zone!" by Rae Sremmurd Intel1113 (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{editsemiprotected}}

The note about the MC Chris song in the musical references section is inaccurate. MC Chris's song is not making fun of purple drank but rather discussing the use of over the counter products (such as Robitussin) containing DXM, a cough suppressant distinct from codeine. The MC Chris reference should be removed.

Done Dabomb87 (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Proof the world is screwed

See above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.129.228.224 (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Odours of codeine"

This phrase looks very odd, since codeine doesn't have an odour. The syrup containing codeine may have a particular smell due to other ingredients and flavourings, but the chemical itself does not. 85.228.209.104 (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That's what the source says. I put it in quotation marks. --Orlady (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

News flash: Cops lie on a regular basis (particularly about smelling drugs to obtain reasonable suspicion to make a cursory search or probable cause to make an arrest) and are rarely questioned by the court on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.52.117 (talk) 03:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Will Smith and Purple Drank

I can't think of any will smith songs referencing purple drank —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.73.146 (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that Will Smith's name should be deleted from the article? --Orlady (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Most important song of syrups history!!!

I stumbled upon this page and noticed the Music Reference section. The song "Otherside" by Macklemore is focused on and written about codeine cough syrup. The lyrics are all about the effects and history of "Purple Drank." If there has already been that much effort put into the music references, this song definately needs to be singled out and explained. References include the death of PimpC, quoting rappers who included the syrup in their songs, and a story about an addiction and eventual death caused by the syrup. Definately worth checking out!! Thanks

Jonnyboy1617 (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC) April/27/2011, Jon

Sounds interesting. Can you supply reliable sources that document the song lyrics? --Orlady (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Snurp

Purple drank is also referred to as the snurp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimgb4 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I cannot believe a article about Purple Drank is locked.

I cannot believe a article about Purple Drank is locked. This is what Wikipedia has come to now? Why is this article locked? So only Druggie Admins can edit this? I don't get it. And don't feed me Bullshit that its locked because of vandalism. If it has to be locked because of constant vandalism is the article even worth having? Or is this just another case of some Admin that lives in Mommy's basement abusing his admin powers to lock the article so only other Admins can edit it? I am starting to dislike Wikipedia more and more everyday,due to things like this. I guess "Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles" is not true. And this is disturbing "There are 15,098,498 registered users,including 1,544 administrators." Only 1,554 Editors out of at least 15,098,498 people? Wikipedia is like some kind of crazy cult.--99.177.248.92 (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Calm down. The article can be edited by any autoconfirmed user. --Orlady (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

paregoric

The historical use of medicinal syrups by drug addicts includes a vast amount of literature relating to the abuse of paregoric syrup. I suggest a section be added to this article. Nick (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a topic for a different article. In fact, it's covered in Paregoric. Another related (but different) article is Recreational use of dextromethorphan. --Orlady (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Other notable incidents

It should probably be noted in this section that codeine doesn't have an odor or any discernable scent. It's kind of lol that the police claimed they could 'smell' codeine, and it's notably erroneous. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

That's covered in a footnote -- see footnote 26 (footnote numbering from the current version of the article). --Orlady (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

"Purple Drank" mentioned in new NAS song...in a negative way

Hi, I just registered so I cannot edit/add anything . I'm hoping someone will approve this. NAS, in his song "The Don" says, "I don't lean, no codeine promethazine". Thank you! KnucklesKnuckels (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

editsemiprotected

Please add the hatnote since syrup (drug) redirects here:

{{redirect|syrup (drug)|general coverage|syrup|other uses|syrup (disambiguation)}}

"syrup (drug)" redirects here. For general coverage, see syrup. For other uses, see syrup (disambiguation).

Since medicinal syrups are covered in the main article, and there are other syrups on the dab page.

-- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Given that the "syrup (drug)" redirect only exists as a result of a link in one article, I'll just change that link to point directly to this article instead. --McGeddon (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Drank in My Cup

The song Drank in my Cup needs to be added due to it's popularity and extreme relevence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.46.175 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want this added to the article, you'll need to supply some more information about this song. Not everyone else knows what you know. --Orlady (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Mentions in hip hop - edit request

Can someone fix the "typo" of stomach (stomack is used in the article in section referenced in "headline" above). Thanks! 98.70.75.118 (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin

Trayvon bought, along with Skittles (commonly used in making "Lean") and an "Arizona Watermelon Juice Cocktail" (not Iced Tea, a common media distortion) and it is believed he bought these items to create a dose of lean. Screen shots of Trayvon's social media show frequent mention of Lean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bchguyx (talk • contribs) 00:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason that the "Other Notable Incidents" section doesn't mention Trayvon Martin? Isn't his abuse of purple drank (to the point of possible liver and brain damage) notable? I can't think of a more notable public figure at the moment.

What's your source? --Orlady (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Even though there is great evidence for Trayvon's use of the concoction. It is all circumstantial at best; so probably does not belong here. Diraphe (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a political hot potato. The mentions I have seen are being used to justify Zimmermann's action, based on Trayvon Martin carrying soda and candy. And the autopsy report (linked to from the Wikipedia article on Trayvon Martin) does not record any signs of liver or brain damage. All there is for this are unreliable media stories, nothing I would choose to rely on as a source. 85.211.74.143 (talk) 06:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I believe that autopsy report DID indicate liver, consistent with DXM use. Perhaps you didn't read it correctly? I'm talking about the real report and not the narrow commentaries of the report in news articles.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/05/17/trayvon.martin.autopsy.pdf?hpt=hp_t2
"Focal patchy yellow discoloration, due to mild fatty metamorphosis", while not absolute proof, is indicative of DXM usage. Then there are his facebook posts and tweets. Then there are the effects of chronic exposure to DXM . . .72.193.181.148 (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

On page 6 of the autopsy report, it says "LIVER: No diagnostic abnormality." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2E05:910:FCD8:F9C5:3314:93BA (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 July 2013

Another notable incident occurred in February 2012 when 17 year old Trayvon Martin was returning from a convenience store with Skittles and Watermelon Iced Tea, two known ingredients used in making lean. It was discovered that he had tweeted his intentions to procure the ingredients for the express purpose of making this street drug the night he was shot in a Sanford, Florida gated community Shadisidarous (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


Please add this to the "other notable incidents" section.

Here is the link to the published story: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c8c_1338159612&comments=1

Or, try this:


Please add this to the "other notable incidents" section.

Here is the link to the published story: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c8c_1338159612&comments=1

At minimum, is it not factual to say, "Travon Martin, a the time of his tragic death, was in possession of two of the three ingredients of Purple Drank: Skittles and AriZona Watermelon Fruit Drink Coctail. [not "Tea."] And, "Widespread speculation held that Travon's autopsy report, and other evidence, support the theory that he was returning from an errand that was part of his immersion of Southern hip-hop culture." This article is exemplary: http://thekansascitian.blogspot.com/2012/05/more-than-bag-of-skittles-trayvon.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof85 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: The sources proposed here consist of speculative statements made by Internet users in venues that are not reliable sources. Those sources are not a valid basis for Wikipedia article content. --Orlady (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Autopsy report shows he abused Lean. Ingredients he had were 2/3 of lean. Stop being part of the liberal machine and have some honesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.238.139.239 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Page 6 0f autopsy report says the following: "LIVER: No diagnostic abnormality." It says nothing conclusive, or even speculative, about codeine, or "lean."

Yeah, it's documented in autopsy reports and in terms of the items purchased that night, and in terms of text messages Trayvon sent and received, all of which are matter of public record. Perhaps MSNBC, et al. failed to report those details, choosing instead to peddle a pathos laden narrative of innocent "Skittles". Does that preclude such facts from prevailing? Revising historical events for wont of some personal politically correct agenda will be the downfall of Wikipedia yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.71.91 (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Page 6 0f autopsy report says the following: "LIVER: No diagnostic abnormality." It says nothing conclusive, or even speculative, about codeine, or "lean."

That's because the toxicology report was separate from the autopsy report. Check right below where it said "LIVER: No diagnostic abnormality". 173.19.112.195 (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's a "credible" source for you. Washington Times garners a certain level of "ethos" present in the junta of "acceptable sources": http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/crystal-wright-conservative-black-chick/2013/jul/30/who-cares-about-jay-z-don-lemon-right-about-blacks/ I strongly suggest whomever has decided to lord over this page, that they, perhaps begrudgingly, include this fact in the purple drank article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.93.99 (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Article referenced above is interesting on it's own merits, but says nothing whatsoever about "purple drank."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.93.99 (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Unable to verify assertions/implications in image description and caption

File:Purple_drank_advertisement.jpg, used in this article, is described as "English: Example of an advertisement for a 'purple drank'-type drink." and captioned here with "Advertising for one commercial product based on purple drank." I don't know what "purple drank-type" is intended to imply, but it needs clarification. I am unable to verify that the product is based on purple drank, and that assertion appears to contradict [2]. Unless the implications can be supported by a WP:RS, I suggest that the image be deleted. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Multiple sources describe that product as one that is marketed essentially as a legal version of drank -- and that likely serves as a gateway to the illegal drug. See [3] and [4] (both cited in the article). The caption does need attention, because the product is not actually drank, but the sources note that the company's marketing materials evoke drank -- IMO, they positively drip with the terminology of "syrup". --Orlady (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I guess it depends on what "drank-type" is taken to cannote. I took it as saying or implying that the compositions are similar or related and/or that the expected effects of consumption might be similar; you seem to be saying something like the marketing of the product (whatever its composition) draws upon a presumption by the marketer about the cultural popularity of Drank. I don't have a drum to beat about this, but thought that I would raise it as a possible concern. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Kerser - song "never change again"

hi aussie rapper kerser has a song called "never change again" it mentions "purple sprite bottles" in the lyrics beer and purple sprite bottles who says kerser is a role model.. i think this song should be added thanks --Hookalaya (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC) ref..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7Xf8DsTWgs&list=PLU8fMCs0n6ZNnYgUSoGU7H8lH0Lz0qsmz&index=7--Hookalaya (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2014

An additional song that references "sizzurp" is "Like a G6" by Far East Movement off the Free Wired album released 13 APR 2010. 204.115.183.4 (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBriTalk 23:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2014

Under the section 'Mentions in hip hop' please could the song 'Work REMIX' by A$ap Ferg be added? In this song French Montana raps 'I'm drinkin' lean, it help me sleep'. Lean is slang for puple drank. A source is http://genius.com/Asap-ferg-work-remix-lyrics Dynamic Destroyer (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Saying that something is slang for something else seems a little too WP:OR for an encyclopedia article. Perhaps you can find a real reliable source for this claim? — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 18:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Lean is the original slang... "Im leanin" shouldnt even need to have a reference. Does im stoned need a reference to prove its talking about weed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:332E:8790:223:6CFF:FE94:96AC (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

might be useful for reader outside the US who never heard about the product

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolly_Rancher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.75.139.64 (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Mentions in hip hop - Addition

Macklemore has a song called Otherside, Song is about the use of lean in the rap game and specifically shows example of Pimp C whos died overdosing on Cough Syrup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.162.16.12 (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No Mention of the Flavor?

Contrary to popular belief the flavor of activist is not grape nor watermelon the actual flavor of the original brands barre, alpharma, and activist is peach-mint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:332E:8790:223:6CFF:FE94:96AC (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2015

Please add "Macklemore X Ryan Lewis" - Otherside (2009) under the "Mentions in Hip Hop" section. 68.43.38.72 (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 19:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

On phrase "Manner inconsistent with the label"

This is a legal term meaning that while it is possible to legally own a substance it is not legal to use it in a way not proscribed on the label.

For instance here is the phrase being used by the EPA "it is unlawful to use any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling under FIFRA sec. 12(a)(2)(G)."

So we see one may own the pesticide but one may not legally try to use it to repel cats. You can see people have tried to use it in this manner by their next line "At present, there are no registered pesticides containing the active ingredients in moth balls that are approved for use in repelling cats."

So its legal to own the stuff and use it to kill rodents it is illegal under Federal law to use it to sicken or poison your neighbors cat regardless if your state or city has no local laws about killing cats. Here is EPA page: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/labels/labels_faq/lr_faq_8.html

For purple drank the issue is more complex because it is illegal under Federal law to possess codeine and promethazine without a prescription (unless your a doctor or pharmacist).

And under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act even if you have a prescription it is illegal to ignore the label that the pharmacist puts on the bottle that explains dosages, lays out warning about overdoses, and lists side-affects. This pharmacy label is not the brands label (which may list some of this stuff as well).

--Wowaconia (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link to a state law (North Dakota's) about what has to be on a Prescription Label, this is the type of label being referred to in the legal phrase and not a label with the company's logo and trademarks on.
http://www.legis.nd.gov/information/acdata/pdf/61-04-06.pdf?20150530193502
-Wowaconia (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)--

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2015

Danny Brown - I Will (2011)[1] AlligatorShoes (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done It is unclear what change you wish to be made. Please resubmit with format 'Change X to Y'. Thank you. --‖ Ebyabe talk - State of the Union ‖ 05:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://genius.com/458218/Danny-brown-i-will/Put-a-cup-up-put-a-four-up-in-it

Removed ingredients

I have removed the ingredients from this page, no they don't violate any specific policy that I'm aware of, however, putting the ingredients on the page, while not a recipe , would still give individuals knowledge enough to construct their own version of "Purple drank". That could get wikipedia into legal trouble, further even though it's not a straight up "how to ", it's borderline, thirdly it's not necessary to give the ingredients for the readers to understand what purple drank is. KoshVorlon 12:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

reverted per WP:CENSOR. Have trimmed fluff and left a couple of cite requests. Semitransgenic talk. 12:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
It's not quite WP:CENSOR, read the next sentance in that same link where is states Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view) or the laws of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted).. Listing the ingredients for Purple Drank, which is an illegal drug gives information that can be used to make it, thus putting Wikipedia in a potion where the laws of the land are being violated. Sorry, further, you gave no argument stating that the ingredients list at all enhance the article. Removed again. KoshVorlon 14:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
this is silly, it's not illegal if someone lawfully obtains the required prescription for the cough mixture and then mixes it with a fizzy drink. Semitransgenic talk. 15:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the section labeled "Ingredients" be removed?

Consensus against removal of ingredient information. Consensus and early close endorsed by the sole supporter. Alsee (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It is my contention that the section labeled ingredients should be removed, because :

  1. It adds no significant information , nor does the addition or removal of the ingredients help any reader to understand "Purple Drank" any better.
  2. Addition of the ingredients, even though not a recipe in the strictest sense, can be used as the basis of a recipe, thus it places Wikipedia in a position where the laws of the land are being violated (Purple Drank is illegal). Thus any mention of WP:CENSOR is superceded by this. (TL:DR - it's illegal, therefore Censorship can be applied to that section )
  3. While WP:HOWTO is not being violated , by the strictest sense of the word, it's spirit it being violated.

Because I've encountered disagreement, I am starting this RFC so that consensus will prevail. KoshVorlon 15:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


SUPPORT

OPPOSE

Discussion

not illegal if someone lawfully obtains the required prescription for the cough mixture and then mixes it with a fizzy drink. Semitransgenic talk. 15:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The substance is not illegal, only the off-label use. William Avery (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


Early closing

Atlan, can you explain why you chose to close this RFC so early (after 10% of the usual length)? For example, did someone ask you to do this, or is this unilateral action on your part?

In my (not inconsiderable) experience with the RFC process, if an RFC is going to end up as SNOWing against the OP, your best bet is to leave it open, because you've got nothing to fear in the end, and letting it run prevents the OP from asserting that the result would be completely different if only you hadn't closed it out of process, after only a couple of days, and then edit-warred to keep it closed.

It is typical to leave even the SNOWiest of RFCs open for at least a week, unless the OP voluntarily withdraws the question. It's not clear to me why this RFC should be handled in an atypical and contentious manner. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Although I oppose the removal of the disputed content, I agree that we do owe the editor the courtesy of allowing the RFC sufficient time to gather additional input, premature closure sends the wrong signals, RFC is an important part of concensus building so we need to respect the process. Semitransgenic talk. 05:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: I have taken the following things into acccount:
  • There is no usual length of time for RFC's, only a "default" time of 30 days, which is nothing more than a bot setting. If you look at the archived RFC's, they run anywhere from a few days to a couple of months.
  • This is not a contentious matter that would require a formal close, and I would say consensus is already apparent. In fact, I believe a regular talk page discussion would have sufficed and should have been attempted first before starting an RFC. To then force it open for a prolonged period is no more than an exercise in tedious bureaucracy.
  • I am familiar with KoshVorlon and his history of policy interpretations and a habit of subsequent process wonkery to enforce these interpretations. You state leaving the RFC open prevents the OP from asserting the result could have been different. I however, believe leaving it open simply encourages them to start more time consuming RFC's.
That said, I have already offered to re-open the RFC to KoshVorlon if he so wishes, just so he understands 30 days is not a minimum requirement for RFC's.--Atlan (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree that there is no required minimum time (I wrote the section of WP:RFC that says as much, after all), but there is a usual (as in, statistically normal) length of time, and the usual length of time is more than three days, unless the OP voluntarily withdraws it.
As Semitransgenic says, premature closure results in problems. Also, if you believe that no formal close is necessary, then why have you not only posted a formal close, but done it twice? I think you should revert your closure and leave it alone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Again, I have not observed any "usual" length of time in any of the RFC closes. They are all very different. I didn't do any math to figure out the "statistical normality" of closing it early and I don't think that should ever figure into any close. Either there is a set time for a discussion (like at RFA, AFD), or there isn't. If you think this causes problems, then simply rewrite WP:RFC again as it suits you. Also, I simply closed the discussion and explained why. I wasn't aware this made it "formal". I'm not at all impressed by your arguments or your twice asserted self-importance in all matters RFC, but since arguing about this even more rather defeats the purpose of closing the RFC early, I will revert my close.--Atlan (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Atlan closed this in good faith, consensus is against me by 4 to 1 (rough count, and very unofficial), so I request an early close, and support Atlan's closing of it as accurate. KoshVorlon 19:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Purple drank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

comma pls

"Purple drank is a slang term for a concoction which includes a prescription-strength cough syrup used in a manner inconsistent with its labeling as a recreational drug."

I doubt it's labeled as a recreational drug. Someone who can put a comma after "labeling" :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:1E40:12A0:ACC0:1FA:1FD6:5F91 (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Colour

The article says that the colour comes from the cough syrup. I guess there is only one purple syrup on the medicine market - so should not the name/producer listed in the article?! And also which dye is used in the syrup. --93.220.203.174 (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Lean

Wat doin 

Leair209876234 (talk) 03:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

"Purple drank" title should be renamed to "Lean"

"Purple drank" comes off a bit unencyclopedic. "Lean" seems like it would be much more fitting as a catch-all word to describe this drink.

NigeriaNoKamisama (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@NigeriaNoKamisama: I just asked myself the same question, for the French article. I wonder if the number of occurrences on a search engine is not polluted by Lean manufacturing. I'll start the change and see if it passes, I'll keep you posted. Lofhi (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
@NigeriaNoKamisama: done. I'll check if the page is still being watched so much. If not, the name change is not justified and I will cancel it. Lofhi (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I have moved the page back to "purple drank". There doesn't seem to have been consensus for the move. William Avery (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Lean and Purple Drank appear to be the same thing

Lean and Purple Drank appear to be the same thing and yet the article currently casts them as different. "Similar to lean, there are numerous slang terms for purple drank..." Based on the ingredients and origin it appears purple drank and lean are identical. Shouldn't the wording be changed to reflect this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.205.212 (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

You're right. Both "lean" and "purple drank" refer to the same drink. I think that's just a matter of poor wording. NigeriaNoKamisama (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2019

Change CYPD26 to CYP2D6 in the first line of second paragraph:

Promethazine induces a liver enzyme(CYPD26, similar to what Glutethimide did).... should read:

Promethazine induces a liver enzyme(CYP2D6, similar to what Glutethimide did)...

You can also link to the article on CYP2D6 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CYP2D6 Adfischer (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done, nice catch. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 27 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


Purple drank → Lean (drug) – "Purple drank" is a dated and unpopular term for this recreational drug. "Lean" has become the primary nickname for the drug due to hip-hop. "lean drug" renders 109,000,000 results, while "purple drank" renders 1/4 of that result with 25,500,000. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 21:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2020

Can I edit this fine article of yours? Bleached Strawberry (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Not until you're auto-confirmed. Until then, you can make specific, precise edit requests. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2020

174.80.141.69 (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)change purple drank to fart water lol
 Not done — Tartan357 (Talk) 06:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect pharmacology facts please remove quoted sentences

"Promethazine induces a liver enzyme (CYP2D6) that makes codeine much stronger than it is alone,[12] somewhat like the glutethimide (Doriden) and codeine combination that was popular on the streets from the seventies up to the early nineties when glutethimide was discontinued by manufacturers. A number of deaths have been attributed to this combination.[13]"

This is incorrect. Promethazine inhibits cyp2d6, it doesnt induce it. Codeine and promethazine therefore does not have the effect of codeine and glutethimide.

see: Inhibitory effects of H1-antihistamines on CYP2D6- and CYP2C9-mediated drug metabolic reactions in human liver microsomes. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11936702  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.56.141 (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Redundant sources

In the overview, the list of alternate names doesn't need to cite the same source multiple times in a row (source 3). I can't edit it myself, but I think it'd be best to only cite source 3 after purple jelly, not after each slang term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catmss24 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2020

It says that lean is a concoction of the syrup, soft drink and candy, but lean is the syrup itself. Lean is codeine, promethazine, acetaminophen and alcohol all in one syrup. Most of the time sold in pints(16 fl.OZ). There are many brands of lean(wockhardt, caraco, Pars, qualitest, ect). Though there is a desirable kind among “sippers” that is strictly hydrocodone, prescribed more to ptsd and chronic anxiety patients. 104.195.212.164 (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2020

Under the tab "Effects" it is stated: "Promethazine induces a liver enzyme (CYP2D6) that makes codeine much stronger than it is alone,[13] somewhat like the glutethimide (Doriden) and codeine combination"

This is referenced from to article 1, although I couldn't find any mentioning of it in that article.

All H1-antihistamines inhibits CYP2D6 rather than inducing it, according to article 2, that I've attached below



Articles:

1. Peters Ronald J. Jr; Steven H. Kelder; Christine M. Markham; George S. Yacoubian Jr; Lecresha A. Peters; Artist Ellis (2003). "Beliefs and social norms about codeine and promethazine hydrochloride cough syrup (CPHCS) onset and perceived addiction among urban Houstonian adolescents: an addiction trend in the city of lean". Journal of Drug Education. 33 (4): 415–25

2. He N, Zhang WQ, Shockley D, Edeki T. Inhibitory effects of H1-antihistamines on CYP2D6- and CYP2C9-mediated drug metabolic reactions in human liver microsomes. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2002;57(12):847-851. doi:10.1007/s00228-001-0399-0


Northernpoison (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Northernpoison (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the entire paragraph. Promethazine does seem to inhibit CYP2D6, so that reasoning doesn't make a lot of sense, as all that would do is increase the amount of codeine in the bloodstream and make its effects last longer. When I asked about this at the reference desk, another user confirmed my suspicions. The glutethimide sentence doesn't seem to be directly related to lean and is removed too. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Lil Wayne

The report about Lil Wayne having Lean-induced seizures comes from a celebrity gossip site and is contradicted by another source. Should be removed. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Thjarkur (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2019

Please State that Mac Miller Died because of use of purple drank. At the end of the "effects" section. Mac miller's wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_Miller 2606:A000:E207:5D00:8488:6EE9:2C6B:189C (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

He died of a mix of fentanyl, cocaine, and alcohol. None of these are ingredients in cough syrup. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Purple drank contains a very weak opiate in the actual syrup. Fentanyl would have bumped that off the receptors...... that’s what happens when you buy fake pills. Willkoz17 (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Wocky slush

What about the slush variation tho 2A00:23C7:3C87:3401:E089:50A4:E859:7E07 (talk) 07:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lean_(drug)/Archive_1&oldid=1171604972"