Jump to content

Talk:Mephedrone/Archive 1

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

Other Slang Words

More info on this? For example, where I live (the South Wales valleys, UK) lots of people (myself included) call it "magic". There must be many more regional slang terms all over the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.52.2 (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


comment

The reason that I created the article for this compound is that it has recently (July 2007) been found by a government approved laboratory to be the active ingredient in a supposedly legal recreational drug product, which has been sold internationally by an Israeli company and exported to a range of countries including Israel, England, Australia, New Zealand and the USA.

I have worked with the laboratory in question previously, they are the official government laboratory used by the Police for analysing seized "Ecstasy" pills in the jurisdiction in which they are based, however I am unsure whether the laboratory wishes to be publically identified at this stage and so I feel that it would be inappropriate to reveal which laboratory carried out the testing.

The reason that I felt this compound to be notable is that it has been sold to and used by at least several hundred people around the world, if not over a thousand, and since it has not been formally tested in animals or analysed in any scientific studies, the fact that this compound has been (and I believe still is being) sold to the general public over the internet, presents a significant public health issue. If any deaths had resulted from this compound and its existence found in a toxicology screen by the coroner then it would certainly have been reported in a journal by now, so essentially the argument for lack of notability of this drug rests on the fact that no-one has died from it yet.

It is my understanding that the researchers who conducted the analysis of the products containing this compound intend to publish their results in one or more academic journals once their study is completed, and at this point the compound will certainly satisfy the wikipedia criteria for notability, so if this article is deleted at this stage, it will simply have to be rewritten once the compound has been formally reported in the scientific literature.

Designer drugs are a significant public health concern at the present time, and many of these compounds become subject to a significant degree of recreational use prior to becoming sufficiently widely known to be mentioned in journal articles by researchers in the field. While this compound may not yet have been widely studied or mentioned in journal articles, given the large number of people who have consumed the products sold by the Israeli company in question, the prevalence of recreational use of this compound exceeds that of many other designer drugs such as 4-MTA or BDB, which are held to be sufficiently notable for inclusion in wikipedia merely because their longer history of use has resulted in their being mentioned in journal articles. Meodipt (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: this research has finally been published. Camilleri A, Johnston MR, Brennan M, Davis S, Caldicott DG. Chemical analysis of four capsules containing the controlled substance analogues 4-methylmethcathinone, 2-fluoromethamphetamine, alpha-phthalimidopropiophenone and N-ethylcathinone. Forensic Science International. 2010 Jan 13. PMID 20074881 Meodipt (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks for posting the link and adding the reference. You don't by any chance have access to a full copy of this article do you? From the way it is referenced in the recently published paper, it looks like mephedrone was first identified as a possible psychoactive drug in 1994. It would be good to add this to the article but I'd need to read the original paper. Smartse (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

November 21 (unregistered user) - I have removed several of the sources and citations, as they linked to forums and personal accounts that were not appropriate as scientific evidence. I also slightly edited the Deaths section, as though the case should remain in the article, implying that there was a good chance of 4-MMC to be involved in the fatality, with no evidence whatsoever, seems to present a bias against the drug. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.42.144 (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Lots of edits undone, www.Erowid.org is a reliable source and information the article clearly states "Toxicology reports however remain inconclusive on the cause of death". Please do not add your own bias and try to support it by deleting references. Simply put; unless you can reference it for sure undeniably was not 4-MMC then it will remain as it with the current authority speculations. No editors personal feelings are allowed to effect the article - if you feel it is not neutral, I would be glad to discuss this. Good day.--Astavats (talk) 06:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, accidentally deleted references. However, quite a few of them were simply linking to forums and personal opinions. At the time, I was also constantly trying to revert edits by someone else constantly vandalizing the article, with a bias a lot stronger than any one that I had. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.191.24 (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

New info, yay or nay?

I added in an effects section, and a side effects section as I have have read most of the reports of this drug that are available online, and feel its prudent to include a side effect section as many users are of the opinion this 'legal' research chemical is without health consequences. The best archive of user reports is at Drug Forums.Com, in which they ask for more deatail than most places and so receive quite well written comprehensive reports. If needs be, I could assemble a thread there with just the informative reports in without the discussions being had between reports, if this would better meet the criteria for a reference here to back up the effects and side effects section. These reports are all we have to go on until the scientists get their move on, which may take a very long time, like it has for various other chemicals.

As David Pearce mentions in his very well written and informative article http://www.mdma.net/: "Likewise, the empathetic euphoriant mephedrone (4-Methylmethcathinone; 2-Methylamino-1-p-tolylpropan-1-one) can be acutely rewarding; but it is a short-acting stimulant whose pharmacokinetics and toxicology are unknown. Alas our knowledge (2008) of its properties comes wholly from user reports rather than peer-reviewed scientific journals." AdamNailor (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
As much as I want to see this article expand I must say forums that discuss trip reports and personal bioassays tend to violate the Wikipedia no original research policy. Scientific human trials may be out of reach however if a reliable source (Erowid.org, etc.) discusses its human use and effects it can used without necessity of bending or breaking any policies. 4-MMC has it's own Erowid Vault so as soon as they update we can add information with proper referencing. If forums continue to be the main reference for important details in the article in the coming time I will be forced to tag it (original research), however I won't delete it. If anyone else decides to remove it altogether please leave a note a here. If there is a better compromise feel free to suggest it. Best regards.--Astavats (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I think web forums are inappropriate as reliable source in a Wikipedia article. I understand the interest of giving as much information as possible in the article, but I think we should restrict the scope to information supported by reliable sources. The Erowid Vault source is also not reliable in my opinion ([[1]]) - for example it has an anonymous editor. I guess we can find newspaper discussing side effects - these should be reliable sources if one wants to include the possible side effects of the substance. Ulner (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Erowid quotes drugs-forum.com, so it makes little sense to quote Erowid in turn, when drugs-forum has a series of descriptive experience reports outlining side effects. Erowids experience reports are practically the same as forum experience reports. The only difference is the way Erowid displays their page. I've searched Google news for articles about mephedrone side effects, but there simply are none. There is no scientific research available whatsoever. Without it, vital information about serious and potentially life-threatening side effects that have been reported by a substantial number of people is not possible in this article. And the same goes for the analysis of Neo-Doves on bluelight.ru mentioned under the History chapter. --Malkuth101 (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Nay. The side effects section is highly opinionated original research. It cites no reliable sources. And it does not even attempt a value neutral perspective -

"users of the drug reported a feeling of eery and artifical happiness" [sic] "One of the darkest sides to Mephedrone is the disturbing pschycological after-effects" [sic]

The entire section on side effects should be deleted. 75.180.9.94 (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I did that earlier, the info you were talking about had only been added earlier in the day. 86.7.19.159 (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

the deaths section

it says this after mentioning the 18 year old swedish female: It should also be noted that descriptors of mephedrone that were published regarding this death, stating that mephedrone smells like seafood[8], are blatantly inconsistent with the properties of 4-Methylmethcathinone.

in the swedish largest internet forum www.flashback.info, which has a lot of mephedrone users, it's considered a fact that it smells like shrimp. (raw? you know, those frozen pink ones) it could be an impurity or something, i'd just like to point this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.216.46.218 (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

uh, just a thought, i'd like to know a little more about this smell of prawns?, perhaps this "shrimp smell" is actually referring to the chlorine/bromine/iodine commonly used to sterilise these frozen shrimp, as that is a dominant chemical smell present in small frozen peeled shrimp.

i've read elsewhere that after exposure to moisture or if not kept sealed and dark it can degrade to a brownish earthy smelling substance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.92.34 (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.9.94 (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

query re: relaibility of sources

hello. I was thinking of adding a bit more to this article regarding the drug and its effects, however, most of the sources I would use are rather informal blogs and personal websites detailing individual experiences. Would these be considered suitable sources? Or will some other editor just go and delete all my work? thanks Coolug (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I really would like to express my gratitude for your work on this article - but I don't think personal websites/informal blogs are reliable sources? Or should we sometime clearly state in the text that "according to the site SSS, the drug is yellow"? Would that be acceptable? A discussion about this would be most welcome. Ulner (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Some blogs can be pretty authoritative. Just because something is a blog doesn't mean it has nothing reliable to say. The synchronium blog (http://www.synchronium.net/2009/12/03/mephedrone-the-facts/) has been quoted by several news articles already. The author has also given several interviews to the press, including DrugScope and the BBC. I would say this is a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.148.111 (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Even if a blog is authoritative, they shouldn't be referenced. Looking at the site you mentioned I can't see anything that is mentioned there that isn't in the article, while there is a lot mentioned in news stories that isn't mentioned on the site. I agree that newspapers are often sensationalist but try to tone any of this down when adding information to the article. If you think the article is too sensationalist feel free to be bold and edit it. Leave an edit summary if you can so that others can see your reasoning. Smartse (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I suggest the removal of all content without reliable sources. Erowid and Crew 2000 (http://www.crew2000.org.uk/news-2/news-latest.html) are in my opinion not reliable sources. Ulner (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The section "Dosage and Duration" has as a reference the site "Crew 2000" which seems to aggregate information from users of the drugs (or from other websites). I think "Crew 2000" is not a reliable source, and this section should be deleted. Ulner (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the whole section, other articles that are about much older drugs don't mention what a dose should be so I don't see why it should be included. Regarding the "crew" reference I think that it is better than having no references for information and as there is so little information on it this will do for the moment. I do agree thought that the article really does need some more reliable sources if these can be found. Smartse (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I've scoured google news for sources and added any that I can. Still not ideal but I think it's an improvement. Smartse (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Smartse - Thanks for the good work removing unsourced material! I think that it is better that Wikipedia only say things which have reliable sources - and for this case material with the source "Crew 2000" should be deleted - "Crew 2000" seems only to aggregate original research from different users of the drug. For the same reason Erowid is not a reliable source. Furthermore, we have to be a bit careful with reports from ordinary newspapers as well. Ulner (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
While I agree that erowid does contain a lot of original research that should not be considered authoritative they also often times link to or mirror the text of actual scientific studies conducted by professional chemists, pharmacologists, and other scientists with PHDs that definitely would be authoritative. If the general erowid vaults themselves(the basics, effects, dosage, etc. sections) should be included is debatable and the individual experience reports certainly shouldn't be. However something like this: http://www.erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/ephedrone.html certainly seems authoritative to me. Personally if I need information about a drug erowid is one of my first stops and I consider *most* of erowid to be valid and reliable information for my own needs, I'm not an encyclopedia though. 99.135.26.129 (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Can I just point out the obvious that news articles are not reliable sources for a topic like this. A lot of the news sources say things which are plain nonsense, like 'mephedrone is just one molecule away from ecstasy'. The journalists have little understanding of the chemistry, as well as a massive desire to sensationalise to sell news papers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.80.221 (talk) 09:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

They certainly aren't ideal but they are the best we have at the moment. I'd normally turn to google scholar to find some references for an article like this but there isn't even one mention on there. I understand about the sensationalism too, hopefully the article isn't even if some of the sources are. It's worth pointing out that information must only be verifiable and that this isn't necessarily the same as being correct. If you've got any ideas for more references please add them. Smartse (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with 87.194.80.221 that we have to be really careful with the reliability of regular newspapers. Furthermore, I think all information from Erowid and Crew 2000 should be deleted. The information on those sites are aggregated user experiences - it is impossible to know if those reports are correct or not. I believe no information is better than uncertain information - it is essential that you should be able to trust that all information on Wikipedia are supported by reliable sources. I'm interested in reading comments from other contributors regarding this policy: "better no content than content not supported by reliable sources". Ulner (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
(I'm the same person as 87.etc) Well personally I feel that the information gained from reading a large number of user reports on drugs-forum for example, is more reliable information (at least about the effects and pharmocology of the drug) than anything you find in newspapers. I recognise wikipedia policy doesn't like that sort of information, but I fail to see how a source becomes more reliable purely because it is regurgitated by a newspaper journalist. (eg, "The Guardian reports compulsive redosing", even though this information plainly comes from internet forums.)87.194.80.221 (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
It is a bit stupid I admit, but that's what the core policies of WP:RS and WP:V say we should do. There's not really any other way of dealing with it. Smartse (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if this edit is in the wrong section, this quote " It generally sells for a higher price than MDMA but is cheap to produce meaning that manufacturers are making "huge amounts of money" from selling the drug." The article states it sells for a higher prices than tablets of ectasy, MDMA is quite different, MDMA coming in at around £40 a gram (equal to 8 or so 'hits), pills coming in at about £2-3 for a pill. Mephedrone bought online is around £10 a gram, on the street it is normally £20. This paraphrasing though chemically correct (Ecstasy's main chemical being MDMA) does not apply in the real world where Ecstasy pills are much less pure than MDMA powder. I just don't think this part of the article is very impartial as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.70.113 (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Appearance

Counties? I guess you mean countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.240.118 (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out. Smartse (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Toxicity

In my opinion the last paragraph was little to do with mephedrone and the evidence used to back up points made was based upon drugs with similar structures. I have therefore deleted it. I would like to make the point that similar does not mean the same.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8930215 the compound studied is methcathinone which is not the same as mephedrone.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15677348 it's referring to amphetamine analogs (of which mephedrone is not) are inorganic compounds.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1726189 the MDMA analogue (of which mephedrone is not) is MDAI. Mephedrone is not mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psilfy (talk • contribs) 23:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Why list a couple of illegal drugs in reference to serotonin syndrome instead of the legal medications that cause it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.234.204.166 (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Meow meow

There is no evidence, aside from news reports surrounding the death of this 14-year-old girl, that mephedrone is called "meow meow". I must point out that these reports are almost certainly unreliable. Some of them use sensationalism and refer to ketamine as an "animal transquiliser" for example, but ketamine was developed for human use and is not a tranquiliser, but a dissociative anaesthetic. As such, I have removed this from the article, pending some unbiased evidence that it is a common nickname for mephedrone. 194.46.228.43 (talk) 11:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that, it's generally best to keep slang terms out of drug articles as there are so many, having one in the article only encourages more people to come along and add their slang name for it too. I removed a bunch of unreferenced ones from the "appearance" section a while ago. Smartse (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Can any one add some information on the origin of the common names? It will be nice if there are some references. What is the relation with "plant food"? What are "recreational drugs", and a list of common "recreational drugs" with street names? At least in the History section? Am I asking for too much?59.161.185.103 (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I read somewhere that the meow meow name is either because of it being a cathinone or because it is from the plant, khat. If I remember correctly the article said that it was pure speculation however so I'm not sure whether it should be included. Recreational drugs are any drugs taken outside of a medical context. Common names are the same as street names. Does this explain things? Smartse (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
As has been noted, "meow meow" as a supposed slang name seems routed only in recent press coverage. "Meow" (singular) was certainly in use previously, and it seem accepted that it comes from a contraction of the "catinone" element.Nick Cooper (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Not a single user I've ever spoken to calls it anything but mephedrone. I honestly think it was a Chris Morris fan interviewed by the press who decided to troll them and is laughing every time this appears in print. Even more evident, in my opinion, with the claims of "M-cat" as this is all to similar to the fake drug name "Clarky Cat" used in the Brass Eye "Drugs" episode. -Sunyavadin 10:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.197.117 (talk)
It's better than that. Private Eye (issue 1259) has Wikipedia as the source for the "miaow"/"meow" name! Fact-checking? Wossat? Rd232 talk 20:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The best bit of the article: "Had hacks checked [Wikipedia] on 17 November, when the entry for the drug claimed it was commonly referred to as 'Mugabe', [...] we could be seeing some very different headlines indeed." Also quite funny that an old-fashioned outfit like PE picked up on this before, say, Wikipedia Review. Hadrian89 (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I haven't seen the PE article but I checked the history myself and as far as I could tell "meow meow" was only added with a reference to the Daily Mail in November. "meow" had been included in the article for months before November. Are you sure PE are correct about this? Smartse (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) As far as I can see, the first time that 'meow' was added to the article was in this unreferenced revision made on November 2nd (a few weeks before the death that propelled it into the mainstream media), but I may have missed something. Can you show me a diff? Hadrian89 (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC) p.s. I should point out that PE were claiming Wikipedia popularised the use of 'meow' at all (asserting that the name had previously been applied to mephedrone only very rarely), not specifically the duplicated 'meow meow'.

In any case, the reference given in the intro is simply to the wikipedia page about private eye, with no other explanation. It doesn't make sense without reading this page too. I don't think it's of sufficient note to belong in the intro, maybe in another section about alternative names. 129.169.141.58 (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Is your P.S. missing a word somewhere? It doesn't make sense to me... You are right though that that is the first mention in the article - I should have checked a version in October rather than starting right at the start of November! I'm personally still doubtful that this came from nowhere though - the user who added it states that they work in "psycostimulant services" on their userpage and the rest of the edit was referencing a document by Crew2000. The current version of that online calls it meow and it may well have done so already in November. I've dropped Relum Evets a note to see if they can shed any more light on this. In the meantime, is it most sensible to remove PE reference until we can be sure meow really originated here? If it is kept I think we should make it clearer that the Daily Mail seem to have coined meow meow (at present it sounds like PE have also attributed that to WP). Smartse (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I've tweaked it, I don't think it gives that impression now. And saying that the Mail coined "meow meow" would be WP:OR without a source. You might want to look at a story I drafted for next week's Signpost, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-04-05/In the news, giving more detail. This could be adapted for the article body. Rd232 talk 12:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
This is no way a reliable source but it does demonstrate that meow was in use before it was added to the article in November. It look like PE may be wrong and the reference should therefore be removed until we are sure. Obviously if PE are wrong, then I'm not sure whether it should be in signpost. Smartse (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
As the Signpost draft makes clear, PE said it "hadn't caught on", and that the original attempt to create this name dates back to an online seller. So the claim isn't that the Wikipedia editor invented the term, it's that the press adopted the virtually unknown term as the street name based on that edit. Rd232 talk 15:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I've added a quote from the PE piece that, hopefully, helps put this in context, so I have left in the paragraph about the various uses in UK newspapers (although it could be left out if brevity is a concern). It does show that the term had cropped up but hadn't caught on until the newspapers picked it up from here (if anyone wants to see the original piece I'm sure a scan can be rummaged up just so we are all on the same page). So as circular as it seems meow has to really remain in the lead as it is the main name now being used in the press, despite the fact the press picked it up from here without a source or any further checking. (Emperor (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC))
Thanks. What makes this even more ironic is that PE falls into its own trap:

"...the new product, which has the chemical identity dimethylmethcathinone..."

which is one methyl too many!Trueno Peinado (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean? "4-methylmethcathinone" is what WP calls it. Rd232 talk 12:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Exactly - it is not dimethyl, just methyl. If I remember enough chemistry, if it was a dimethyl it would have to be called something like 2,4-dimethylmethcathinone. Smartse (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the quote, it makes things a lot clearer. Smartse (talk) 10:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The reference given is to Private Eye, which isn't online (available in shops now!). The footnote includes a link to the Private Eye Wikipedia entry. It's a judgement call whether the "meow" thing belongs in the lead - but given that miaow miaow now redirects here, maybe it does. Rd232 talk 11:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A cursory check with Google Groups doesn't show - amongst the "false positives" - any usage of the doubled "meow meow" until September or October 2009. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Smartse - which bit of my p.s. is it needs decoding? I read it back and it's admittedly not my finest bit of prose... Also, if the journalists did check Wikipedia for facts after the death in question and (obviously!) before the article was published, then they would've been looking at a revision (I'll insert the diff shortly) without the word 'meow' anywhere in it - so I think PE is wrong on this one after all. Hadrian89 (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are the promised diffs: the girl who created all the media frenzy died on Saturday 21st November, so the earliest possible revision journalists could have seen (I'm assuming that they don't look at old page revisions - if you're dedicated enough to do that, surely you're dedicated enough not to do your research on Wikipedia...?) is this one, which makes no mention of meow/miaow. And neither do any of the revisions after that one but before the article is published. Hadrian89 (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's true that the unsourced street names section including "meow" was removed on 17 November diff and was re-added as "meow meow" sourced to the Daily Express on 26 November.diff, story published 25 November [2]. The Sun published a story on 26 November calling it "meow meow".[3] The Mail on Sunday also had a story on 25 November[4]. I've also found a Mirror piece from 15 September giving "meow" as the street name. (KILLER DRUG MEOW HITS IRISH STREETS; Warning over Cheap and Legal Web Supplies. The Mirror. September 15, 2009. Page Number: 16.) So it looks like the Eye was wrong. Rd232 talk 20:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Random new section

Did a little searching, here's what I found:

So MMCAT likely comes from the chemical name as said in section below, but dunno about miaow and variations. 91.110.168.208 (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Surely the slang names which appear in blogs etc are the most authoritative source as they would be the terms used by the people who are actually taking the drug? Thus if you encountered a conversation with the use of phrase, you would actually know what they were referring too? As opposed to what random people who disagree with what the wikipedia page dictate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.87.181 (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are far from "authoritative". Anyone can write a blog without editorial control, this kind of source is incompatible with the core Wikipedia policy of Verifiability. If a name is notable enough to be worth reporting it would be easy to find a citation from a reliable source. If you want someone to understand what drug you and your friends are talking about you can use Wikipedia to found out the chemical and notable slang names. If you want to popularise an obscure name you and your friends use, a blog would be the place to do it, not an encyclopedia. Grim23★ 22:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Please explain to me a verifiable source for a slang name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.87.181 (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

MCAT

The name MCAT means MethCAThinone. Mephedrone is 4-Methyl-Meth-CAThinone and therefore 4-MMC or MMCAT. Its a matter of chemical make up and therefore mephedrone can not be MCAT. Like with the name Meow Meow, this is another example of journalists not getting their facts right. Unfortunately many journalists turn to Wikipedia for their facts. So while they use wiki as a reference, wikipedia uses them as a reference. This circle should be broken and correct names should be displayed. IMHO the article should make this clear.

Thanks for your input. I agree - this circular references are a big problem. We would need references to academic articles or other trustworthy sources. If you find information which you think is false you can remove it from the article (with a edit comment explaining why). Ulner (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Bubbles

Bubbles and bubbleluv are commercial brands names of products which contain mephedrone. But there are many brands.

Do you have any source for this statement? Would be good to add source to article. Ulner (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

References [4] and [7] are to the same document. Does someone know how to link these two references? Reference [8] link appears to be broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwenchin (talk • contribs) 22:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi! See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ref#Combining_Ref_family_templates_with_the_alternative_referencing_style for how to link two references; use label to define a name and then use the same name again. Good that you saw this problem in the list! Ulner (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Deaths

I'm not sure whether we should aim to list every death reported that has been associated with mephedrone. There is no mention on MDMA of any specific deaths caused by MDMA and as far as I can tell there are no sources which even suggest that mephedrone was the cause of death in any of the cases listed. I'm not trying to suggest it is 100% safe or anything just ensuring that we don't misreport speculative news reports without any toxiclogical data to back them up. Any opinions? Smartse (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No comments against doing so, so I've removed all of them except the Swedish death for which there is specific toxicological details for the cause of death (reference 2). I'll add a hidden note asking for further additions to only be made with similar evidence to back them up. 86.7.19.159 (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC) (Smartse logged out)
I agree that we should wait for toxicology results rather than immediately putting up speculation.WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper Grim23★ 07:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's unnecessary list individual deaths - unless there are particularly outstanding/unusual circumstances surrounding them. However, if there are lots (e.g. 10+ confirmed deaths) caused by mephedrone, then it would be helpful to state that fact. Otherwise, the article gives the wrong impression re. the potential lethality of this substance. Nabokov (talk) 08:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is difficult to work out how to deal with this. There have been ~10 cases in the UK recently of people dying after using mephedrone but none of these have been confirmed via toxicology reports as the Swedish death has. I think it might be original research or synthesis to state that there have been several deaths where mephedrone has been implicated. The article does perhaps downplay the risk but we can only go on what sources have said - there is strong evidence that one person has died so readers can clearly tell that it is potentially lethal. We should definitely wait to add the info regarding the two most recent deaths in the UK for now. Smartse (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for adding the most recent deaths - I was planning to clarify that toxicological tests hadn't been taken at the time of my addition. I do agree that it is difficult to judge what to add to Wikipedia. Although there may have been ~10 deaths in the UK, today's reports are certainly the most high-profile. I am surprised that the MDMA page doesn't list any specific fatal cases. The heroin page also doesn't list any deaths, although the cocaine page does list some celebrities whose deaths have been attributed to the drug. Perhaps it is best to try and be consistent across pages on similar topics and not list deaths, except perhaps where there is substantial public interest in the person, rather than the death? 139.166.244.163 (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for trying to improve the article. Unfortunately saying that there have been no toxicological tests performed yet would be original research which isn't permitted on wikipedia. I'm not sure we can use other drug article as a basis for what to do here - as it is such a new drug it is important to state whether it is potentially lethal or not. We are not here to speculate about causes of death as the media do so often, and can wait until there is confirmation that they died directly as a result of mephedrone before adding it to the article. Personally, I haven't seen any reports of deaths where only mephedrone was used and the fact that someone used 4g and survived would indicate to me that by itself it is not that toxic. The Swedish death is relevant because it resulted in mephedrone being made illegal in Sweden, if something similar were to happen in the UK then it might be worth including. Smartse (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I found a source stating that there have been other deaths where there has been speculation, but not confirmation that mephedrone has been involved in deaths. Seeming as anons keep on adding death info it seems like a good idea to make some mention of it. Feel free to revert if you think otherwise. Smartse (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Listing individual deaths or even total number of deaths is highly prejudicial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.234.204.166 (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Meerkat

We always caalled it meerkat, in Suffolk England —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.70.95 (talk) 08:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Legality

Does anyone know about it's legal status in France? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.79.135 (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've had a quick search and can't find anything. There are plenty of sources stating where it is illegal and none mention france but adding that it is legal in France would be original research. Smartse (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'ts been classified as a 'stupefiant' but this doesn't mean that its use has penal implications yet. However, it will be soon after studies lead by the french DGS (direction générale de la santé) that will study the effects of the drug and define the penal implication. So for now, in other terms, the situation is a little bit the same as the cannabis in the netherlands : prohibition but tolerance. Again, this is going to change soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.243.117.66 (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, I'm working on finding out what the situation with it is in France at the moment and will update the article once I find out. Smartse (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, from what I can gather it is illegal in France. The French wikipedia article fr:Stupéfiant links to the English narcotic article and these by definition are illegal. Even if there are no penal implications, it is still illegal. I've google translated a fair few articles from June and many state it is illegal. I've asked a francophone friend to check this out too, just in case I'm wrong.

A real mess

Presumably because of recent media attention, the article is currently thin on facts, and full of questionable, media-hyped anecdotal evidence. --Smithers123 (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you be more specific as to what you find problematic with the article? I agree that it is thin on facts - unfortunately this is because there is literally nothing known about mephedrone at the moment. We've written most of the article using news sources because this is pretty much all there is to go on, I've tried to keep any sensationalism to a minimum (e.g. ignoring the Sun's scrotum ripping story which has been followed up all over the place) but if you think anything needs to go please suggest what. Thanks Smartse (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
No mechanism of action, no receptor target, no pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics, no information on CYP450 induction and so on. Look at an entry on any other drug e.g. codeine and you will see how these entries are supposed to be written up.

--121.209.161.19 (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody knows this yet - that's why there is nothing about it in the article. I think there is a lot of ongoing research at present and that more will be known in the next few months. Until then there is nothing we can do but wait. Smartse (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


Example of "sensationalism":

Whilst the evidence is anecdotal, researchers, charity workers, teachers and users have all reported widespread and increasing use of the drug.

That is from an academic source, written by a member of the ACMD. Are you suggesting that there is/was not "widespread and increasing use of the drug"? Having the information before it places the information in context, it is better than just saying that "there is widespread and increasing use of the drug" in my opinion. Smartse (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

ACMD report

The ACMD's report on the cathinones is now available as a pdf here. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I've added it as a reference. There didn't seem to be a great deal of stuff in it that we don't already cover but there might be something if someone feels like properly scouring the report. Smartse (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference to broken DOI

A reference was recently added to this article using the Cite DOI template. The citation bot tried to expand the citation, but could not access the specified DOI. Please check that the DOI doi:10.1136/emj.2010.09228 has been correctly entered. If the DOI is correct, it is possible that it has not yet been entered into the CrossRef database. Please complete the reference by hand here. The script that left this message was unable to track down the user who added the citation; it may be prudent to alert them to this message. Thanks, Citation bot 2 (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Smartse (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some uncertainty surrounding the legal status of mephedrone in Canada (e.g. this blog and several unsourced comments that have been added to the article. The uncertainty appears to be about whether or not it is considered an analogue of amphetamine or not, as this determines whether or not it is legal. I can't find any official sources about this either way, but as reliable sources are reporting that it is illegal (or at least they are seizing it) (e.g. [5], [6] and [7]) I think it is best to err on the side of caution and stick with what they say. We don't want to say it is legal if it isn't. Smartse (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a reasonable case can be made that mephedrone falls outside the scope of the Schedule III Amphetamine analogue provisions. I think accepting Health Canada's off-the-cuff interpretation of the law is disingenuous, considering they could change the law and remove all ambiguity in short order if they really wanted to. I think police may be charging people based on the strong implication made here that mephedrone is illegal, which is unconscionable since its status is far from clear. Finally, I think the “analogue clause” is itself so overly sweeping that it could easily collapse if tested in court: there are hundreds of thousands of "amphetamine analogues”—are they all illegal? In short, I wanted to balance the entry by focusing on the letter of the law and the ambiguity of mephedrone's legality. Tillbury (talk) 05:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The situation is clearly ambiguous at present, but for us to say it is legal would be original research - it's not up to us to decide what analogues are considered illegal and which are not. I've modified the section again, making it clear that whilst it isn't listed in the CDSA, the police are seizing it and many reliable sources have said it is illegal. As the situation is unclear I think it is ok to have the last sentence to make readers aware that this is the case. It would be great if you could add a reference, once it has been challenged in court, I don't follow the Canadian news so I'm unlikely to notice it. Smartse (talk) 10:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I did not and do not claim mephedrone is legal. I am claiming its legality is unclear.
I agree with you--it's not for us to decide which analogues are legal or not. Nor is it up to to the police, the CMA or Health Canada. It's the job of legislators and the courts. In the CDSA, "“analogue” means a substance that, in relation to a controlled substance, has a substantially similar chemical structure." Health Canada has claimed that ketamine is an analogue of phencyclidine and thus illegal.
Does this ketamine look "substantially similar" to phencyclidine
But they later changed the CDSA to explicitly ban ketamine. That would seem a waste of time if it were already covered as an analogue of phencyclidine. Perhaps there was some ambiguity?
The CMA’s analysis you cite itself cites unnamed “experts” who say “cathinone and an analogue, methcathinone, are grouped with other amphetamines as Schedule III controlled substances.” That is only partly true. Cathinone and methcathinone are Schedule III substances; they are not grouped with other amphetamines.
The amphetamine analogue provisions apply only to Section 1, and I note that none of the 21 amphetamines listed is substituted at the beta carbon, unlike all the cathinones including mephedrone. To me, that suggests the cathinones where listed outside of Section 1 for a reason.
Allowing the law to be conjured up by the actions of the police is both illegitimate and dangerous. I would guess a substantial percentage of North Americans think buying and selling cannabis seeds is legal In Canada because the police largely permit it. Some are adamant about it, but they are wrong [8]. Selling viable cannabis seeds is a serious crime. Conversely, because police arrest someone for possessing a substance that “smells … like mothballs” doesn’t makes the substance illegal, or for that matter, mephedrone. It was likely alpha-Methyltryptamine, legal in Canada. Since the cited stories contain many unsubstantial claims, can they really be judged reliable?
Finally, consider the DEA's evaluation of mephedrone. The US analogue law is a blanket covering everything, not selective like Canada’s. Yet the DEA says “The core chemical structure of mephedrone identifies it as a phenethylamine” Not an amphetamine. Becuase of their law, that distiction is unimportant to them, but in Canada, the whole matter my turn on just such a distinction. Tillbury (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
No, not really, but all we're doing is reporting what people have said regarding its legal status so it doesn't matter who decides what constitutes an analogue, we just regurgitate what reliable sources have already said. People can decide for themselves based on what is written as to whether it is legal or not. Wikipedia probably isn't the best place to find out either way, and that's why the article needs to make it clear that whilst it is probably considered illegal, there are some doubts. Smartse (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Although the cited stories may not be totally accurate, they are more reliable than an analysis such as the one you've conducted above (in terms of our verifiability policy). I'm not really sure what there is left to discuss - we'll just have to wait now until a ruling is made, one way or the other. Smartse (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I admit I haven't assimilated the Wikipedia guide to the construction of reality, i.e. the “rules.” After a quick glance at what verifiability means, I concede your point--the argument I make above is fairly much superfluous. So, having patched up the formatting here a bit, I'll now shut up and wait too. Tillbury (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for taking the time to read it. Indeed we will have to wait and see. Smartse (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mephedrone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Smartse, I've signed up for this review. I remember reading Kinetic's posts on The Hive all those years ago, and was pleasantly surprised to see this appear at GAN. The review may take me up to a week, as stuff is piling up on my Wiki-plate. Sasata (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's got to be the quickest ever someone has signed up to review an article! It's a pity that all of The Hive's archives are dead so we can't link to it. I did just find a copy of what they posted in a much better reference than Vice though so I'll add that to the article. Suddenly you being the mushroom expert makes a lot more sense. Smartse (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies about the delay, I'm on vacation, and was expecting to be able to work on this during my trip. However, the hotel internet connections have been spotty, with frequent disconnections. I will post my full review on Monday. Sasata (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment, questions, and suggestions

  • checkY"According to the EMCDDA" probably best to spell out the acronym the first time it's used in the article
  • checkY"They posted on the site…" why "they"?
  • checkY"Their research suggests that the drug first became available in 2007." Clarify "became available" - on the street?
  • is a pounds to dollar conversion required? Not sure what the conventions are in these cases
Per Wikipedia:MOS#Currencies I think it is ok as it is. Smartse (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • checkY"…with it being freely available at music festivals, head shops and on the internet." suggest "freely" swapped with "readily"
  • checkY"Whilst the evidence is anecdotal, researchers, charity workers, teachers and users have all reported"
  • checkY"The drug's rapid growth in popularity was believed to be related to both its availability and legality." Statements claiming that something "was believed" should be cited directly or else it sounds weaselly
  • checkY"Criminologists also believe" all of them?
  • checkY"97% of users said" Don't begin sentences with a number
  • checkY"On 30 March 2010, Alan Johnson announced" who?
  • checkY"Consequently, the mephedrone debate has led to a general questioning of UK drugs policy." Source?
Removed - can't find a source for this. Smartse (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • checkY"which has been found to contain MDPV which was made illegal at the same time as ephedrine." repetitive which
  • checkY"When tested, some products sold 6 weeks" 6->six says
  • checkY"According to the company Crew2000" who?
It's actually a charity as well as a company, I've changed this to "According to the drugs advice charity, Crew2000,". Smartse (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • checkY"The study was scrapped in August 2010" scrapped -> discontinued (more neutral, encyclopaedic tone imo)
  • checkY"According to the Darlington Drug and Alcohol Action Team…" who?
I changed this to "According to drugs counsellors on Teesside, UK,". Smartse (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • checkYI noticed when reading the side effects section that other than the lead, it's not explicitly stated how the drug is taken; I assume at least a couple of those side effects only occur when the drug is taken nasally
I've clarified this by moving nose burns + nose bleeds to a separate section. Smartse (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • checkYteeth grinding is called bruxism in the history section, while in the side effects section its called "gunning", with a link to bruxism
I've changed all of these to teeth grinding, as this is the most understandable and least slangy term. Smartse (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • checkY"The charity Lifeline recommends" who are these people and why should we care about their recommendations?
Changed to "The drugs advice charity". Think this is sufficient. (we should really have an article on them as they are "one of the oldest non-statutory, non-residential drugs agencies in the UK"). Smartse (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • checkY"Writing in the British Medical Journal, psychiatrists stated" how do we know they are psychiatrists?
Two of the authors are from the "Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London," Smartse (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Caption: "Proposed scheme for mephedrone metabolism" A more informative caption would be appreciated here, aimed more at the general reader.
I've expanded it to explain it is based on the analysis of urine, is it better now? Smartse (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Better. Sasata (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "At present, nothing is known about the potential neuro-toxicity of ephedrine." The rest of the section contradicts this initial statement. Perhaps change "nothing" to "little"; might want to reword to avoid using the quickly out-datable phrase "At present". Should neurotoxicity be hyphenated?
I've clarified it by adding "as of March 2010" the source states "we know nothing of its potential neurotoxicity" so I think it is best to keep nothing, rather than little. I've been keeping an eye on publications and there still haven't been any reports of the effects of mephedrone on neurons. Smartse (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I can see your point about it being contradicted by the rest of the paragraph, but the rest is mainly based on what people expect could be possible, rather than what has been found through experiments. Maybe we could change the first sentence to something like "there have been no reported studies on the neurotoxicity of mephedrone". Smartse (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I've switched the statement to your suggestion, as I think it's a more accurate reflection of reality. Sasata (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • checkY"They were treated…" why "they"; wasn't it just one case?
  • "0.2 g of mephedrone orally and 3.8 g subcutaneously." Eh? How is the drug taken subcutaneously?
Good question! The source states "Case report: A 22 year old man presented after oral ingestion of 200mg and subcutaneous injection of 3.8g of 4-MMC." This is an abstract from a conference, so I'll try to see if this has been written up properly. Smartse (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I've had a look to see if this has been published properly but can't find anything on google scholar. Smartse (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • checkY"Both enantiomers of methcathinone, which differs only in the lack of the methyl group on the aryl ring when compared to mephedrone has been shown to be toxic to rat dopamine neurones" grammar needs fixing
  • checkY"Gibbons and Zloh of The School of Pharmacy, University of London state" Other academics have so far been referred to by their first and last names; state->stated
  • checkY"Mephedrone has been implicated in the death of a 22 year old male, who had also taken heroin. Mephedrone was found in his blood at a concentration of 0.50 mg/L and in his urine at a concentration of 198 mg/L." what was the heroin concentration?
I've added it, it's actually the [morphine] as heroin is deacetylated by the body. It was 0.06 mg/L - I'm not sure if this is high or not. Smartse (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I've also added a ref stating what the average [morphine] is in overdoses where only heroin has been used for comparison. Smartse (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • checkY"It has a distinct strong odour." of what?
This is uncertain... This (already referenced) states "mephedrone is characterised by a distinctive, unpleasant odour (vanilla and bleach, stale urine, electric circuit boards)" but itself references websites selling it. Other references say it is fishy, others like glue or solvents. AFAICT the odours may well be due to impurities rather than mephedrone itself. What do you think would be the best way to deal with it? Smartse (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks good now. Sasata (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • checkYI think all of the legal status snippets should be complete sentences.
  • checkYThe "See also" section could be trimmed by removing links already used in the article
Personally, I'm not sure whether the others really belong here either. Any suggestions? Smartse (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply after first read through

Thanks for the first read through, hopefully I've addressed those points now. I'm not sure about the ones I haven't ticked so if you could take a look and make any more comments that would be useful. I've made a stab at the lead now as well (should have got round to that ages ago!) but if you think anything else should be mentioned in it, please let me know. I'm a little unsure about what to do about the Mephedrone#Side_effects; the first two sources used at the moment aren't exactly ideal but they are at least qualified as to who has reported them. There are other sources I could use but these again are not ideal - the EMCDDA report (ref 1) has a long list of side effects, but these are anecdotal and it warns that they may not be reliable. A paper just came out - doi:10.1136/emj.2010.096636 (think it's free) which lists some side effects noted in hospitals, but is based on a sample of 131 so again this isn't exactly ideal as only 7 symptoms were reported by >10% of users. Do you have any suggestions on which would be the best sources to use? Smartse (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Great improvements so far! I will think about these things and get back to you after I read through the article again (hopefully no longer than a couple of days). Sasata (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey Smartse, how do you feel about an FAC for this article? I think it's pretty close already in terms of coverage and general scholarship, but the reference formatting could use some tweaking for consistency. List-defined refs would be nice too... Let me know is this is something you'd be interested in, I could help give it a shove in that direction. Otherwise I'll just stick to the GA criteria, and we'd be done pretty quickly :) Sasata (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, it had crossed my mind but I'd thought we'd need to know some proper details on its pharmacology first. Having had a look at the criteria I can see that this shouldn't actually matter, so if you think it has a chance of passing then I'd definitely be up for it. I agree the refs are a bit messy, how would you suggest they are changed? I'm not quite sure what the benefit of list-defined refs are either and WP:LDR isn't particularly illuminating. Smartse (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
If the bulk of referencing has already been done (it has), LDR lets us put all the refs into one section so they are easier to maintain, modify, and ensure the formatting is consistent. It also makes the article text easier to edit (by removing all the lengthy references that disrupt the flow of text). All citations should also be in templates as well (not strictly necessary, but makes things easier if all are consistent). I will convert to LDR tonight as I go through the refs individually, or let me know if you're dying to do it yourself :) Sasata (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah ok, I'm not sure what the grouping part at LDR is about though... Could you give me an example of an article with the same format so I can take a look? I don't mind making a start on it myself (since I created the mess!), how long is it until your "tonight" begins? Smartse (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Try Suillus brevipes to see LDR in action. My tonight will begin about 10 hours from now. Sasata (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I've sorted out LDR, I haven't fixed all of the reference formats - that'll have to wait for another day. Sorting them alphabetically by hand was not particularly fun, especially when the internet connection dies just as you click save! Smartse (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm slowly making my way through the refs, checking facts and tweaking formatting. Here's some stuff that came up. More tomorrow. Sasata (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

  • checkYI cannot see where any part of the following sentence "Reported side effects suggest mephedrone may cause pronounced peripheral vasoconstriction, and consequently it has been speculated that some metabolites may be potent vasoconstrictors, as the compound 4-methylephedrine which is closely related to some mephedrone metabolites, is known to be a vasoconstrictor with significantly more cardiovascular toxicity than ephedrine itself" is mentioned in current ref #2
I've removed this. I had removed it before, but Meodipt replaced it. I've had a look to see if I can find a source for it but without any luck. Smartse (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • checkYI noticed there's a cite doi template used for Winstock et al. 2010, which has the convenience of doing all the citation stuff for you, but with the disadvantage that you're stuck with the output (unless you mess with the template). If you like the output for author names (eg. Winstock, A.; Mitcheson, L.; Deluca, P.; Davey, Z.; Corazza, O.; Schifano, F.) then it's ok, but all of the other refs should be made consistent with that format.
I've taken all the info out of the cite dois and put them in the article. Smartse (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Hamiton's Pharmacopeia will simply not fly as a RS
Ok, do you think it is ok to say that it remained an obscure product of academia until 2004, based on only the druglink article? I like this wording but it isn't explicitly stated in the druglink article. Smartse (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • checkYThe Druglink magazine sources should be put into journal citation templates, with authors given and page ranges
Thanks for the comments, I haven't got much time over the next few days to sort it out and am on a netbook which struggles with large pages. If you can carry on making a list of problems I'll sort them out on Monday. Smartse (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem, it'll take me a while to get through all the refs anyways. Sasata (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I've checked up to reference #80. Will do the rest tomorrow.
  • the document from current ref #69 (Sumnall, Harry; Olivia Wooding. "Mephedrone Briefing". North West Public Health Observatory. http://www.cph.org.uk/showPublication.aspx?pubid=614. Retrieved 18 March 2010.) downloads as ".aspx" format, which my computer doesn't know what to do with.. this format should be indicated in the template, or even better (is possible), the source replaced
Can you check this again? It opens as a pdf for me eventually, but the first time I tried it didn't work. I can probably find a different source like a newspaper, but thought this is more reliable. Smartse (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Still doesn't work for me, but that's probably to do with the file type not being recognizable to Mac. I'll take your word for it :) Sasata (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • some foreign-language sources have uninformative citations that don't tell much about the document, e.g. "Svensk författningssamling"; it would be worthwhile to get someone to help translate enough so that a proper cite template could be used (The Leftorium might be able to help in this instance) Sasata (talk) 09:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll get onto The Leftorium to see if they can do the Swedish ones and pester my friend to do the German and Hungarian ones. Smartse (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • in general, formatting of author names should be made consistent.
  • I've been changing accessdates to year-mo-day as I go through them, and left the publishing dates the same, but someone at FAC will inevitably want them all the same format.
  • It's difficult to gauge the reliability of some of the foreign language sites. Any extra information to fill in the cite templates would be helpful. I'm not concerned about it too much for GA, but it might come up later.
  • checkYthe site Salvia divinorum, psilocybe mushrooms are among hallucinogenic herbs banned by gov’t looks sketchy to me… where did that info come from?
I've asked Bine Mai about this and they say it is an RS, but have found a press release from the health ministry of Romania which I will replace once they have translated the title for me. Smartse (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
This says it is Berlin's most popular tabloid so we should be careful. I think it is ok for what it references though - I looked for other mentions of mephedrone in switzerland but couldn't find any. That said it wouldn't be a major problem to lose the sentence altogether. Smartse (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Having read through the article again, I see no reason to hold this up at GAN. Images all check out, most dabs have been fixed (still one at Fluoromethcathinone, wasn't sure which one that should go to). References and reference formatting are sufficient for GA, but more tweaking (and perhaps some replacements) would be required for FAC. Good job on this article, and I hope you'll take it to FAC sometime! Sasata (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your useful advice. I'll try to carry on working on it when I can. Personally I still think we should wait until more pharmacology is known before taking it to FAC, regardless of whether it is actually needed or not, but we'll see, if it doesn't come out soon (and it might not) then it would probably still be worth a try. Smartse (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Side effects - GCS

The article cites a BMJ journal article where the majority of patients under the influence of mephedrone had Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15 or above. The article states that the majority of the 15 participants in the study had a GCS of 15; Not 15 or above. The maximum score on the Glasgow Coma Scale is 15 (14 on the original) so above 15 is not possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenc22 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I've edited the article accordingly, as well as pointing out that a GCS of 15 means that someone is normal. Smartse (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Pre-FAC review

  • author format in refs needs to be made consistent (eg. Chaffey, N. vs. Chaffey, Nigel vs. Roy Greenslade)
  • I'm working on this. A couple of came up about other references:
    • Is |location=london any use? I'd say no but just want to check before removing them.
    • Vice Mag is still used (ref 8) do you think this an ok way to use it or is it definitely not RS?
    • Should journal + newspaper names be italicised?
SmartSE (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • other sources I found from Web of Knoweldge (haven't checked them, just not currently being used)
Title: LC Purity and Related Substances Screening for Mephedrone
Author(s): Singh, N; Day, P; Katta, VR, et al.
Source: JOURNAL OF PHARMACY AND PHARMACOLOGY Volume: 62 Issue: 10 Pages: 1209-1210 Published: 2010
I think this is only an abstract of a poster or something. I could email the author or the leader of the lab as I checked this out before, but I'm not sure if it has been published anywhere. SmartSE (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm strange, found this which is obviously related but can't find any journal articles published yet. SmartSE (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Title: Recreational use of mephedrone (4-methylmethcathinone, 4-MMC) with associated sympathomimetic toxicity.
Author(s): Wood, David M; Davies, Susannah; Puchnarewicz, Malgorzata, et al.
Source: J Med Toxicol Volume: 6 Issue: 3 Pages: 327-30 Published: 2010 Sep
I've used an abstract of this paper but hadn't managed to find the full text. Can you access it? I've lost journal access unfortunately : ( if not I can try emailing the author. SmartSE (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Title: Metabolism of Designer Drugs of Abuse: An Updated Review
Author(s): Meyer, MR; Maurer, HH
Source: CURRENT DRUG METABOLISM Volume: 11 Issue: 5 Pages: 468-482 Published: 2010
I haven't looked at this, but since I assume it is a review of many designer drugs, I don't think it will contain anything new to the current info, which was published by Meyer. SmartSE (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Title: The truth about mephedrone
Author(s): Fleming, N
Source: NEW SCIENTIST Volume: 206 Issue: 2757 Pages: 42-45 Published: 2010
This is strange, I think I've used that already: but the version has a different date to this one! SmartSE (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
The earlier date is when the article appeared on the website. The print issue it appeared in had a cover date of 24 April, so 21 April may be the date it was actually published. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Title: UK places generic ban on mephedrone drug family
Author(s): Morris, K
Source: LANCET Volume: 375 Issue: 9723 Pages: 1333-1334 Published: 2010
Looks useful, I'll look in more detail later. SmartSE (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Title: Home secretary bans mephedrone after taking advice from depleted council
Author(s): Kmietowicz, Z
Source: BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Volume: 340 Article Number: c1784 Published: 2010
Title: Mephedrone is an amphetamine "by another name," drug adviser tells MPs
Author(s): Dyer, C
Source: BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Volume: 340 Article Number: c1690 Published: 2010
I think I've read these before, but can't access them now. I don't think they contain anything substantially different, but it would be good if I could check, so if you can access them, like the 2nd article, a .pdf would be helpful. SmartSE (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Concerning mephedrone legality in the US the current article is somewhat confusing. In the last sentence in the header it says mephedrone is illegal due to being an analog of other drugs. Though, the last sentence in the article says it is legal unless sold for human consumption citing the Federal Analog Act. So it seems that it is legal as long as not sold for human consumption. This needs to be clarified in the beginning of the article as it does appear to be legal which contradicts the opening section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.243.142 (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It could perhaps be made clearer, but I'm fairly sure it is illegal regardless. The DEA say "... it can be considered an analogue of methcathinone (schedule I substance) under the analogue provision of the CSA (Title 21 United States Code 813). Therefore, law enforcement cases involving mephedrone can be prosecuted under the Federal Analog Act of the CSA." - that source which is currently the one at the end, doesn't say anything about human consumption so the article should probably be changed to reflect that. Unless you can find a "reliable source" saying that it definitely is legal to sell if not for human consumption, then I feel we should err on the side of caution and say it is illegal. SmartSE (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
There appears to have been at least one successful prosecution under a state analog act for importation of mephedrone into the USA 1 2 (although note neither newspaper article names mephedrone specifically, these were links posted on Bluelight.ru by people supposedly familiar with the case). So I think we can safely assume that this case would be used as precedent for a prosecution under the Federal Analog Act, therefore mephedrone can be considered to be a controlled substance analogue in the USA from this point forward, and hence illegal. Meodipt (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, the plot thickens - the LA Times say "The Drug Enforcement Administration has listed MDPV and mephedrone as chemicals of concern, but they remain legal at the federal level and in states that have not specifically prohibited them. 'At this point, we don't have the numbers to justify scheduling them; we're just looking at them,' DEA spokeswoman Barbara Carreno said." which would seem to suggest they are legal... any ideas about how best to deal with the ambiguity? SmartSE (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I've updated the article using the LA times article above. That says that the FAA only applies if drugs are sold for human consumption and that is why it is still legal at the moment in most states and is sold as bath salts etc. SmartSE (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Racemate?

2D structure does not show the configuration, is this a racemate? 3D structure is one specific configuration (one enantiomer). Either the 2D or the 3D structure is wrong. Best regards, --Jü (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right it is racemate (at least if made what is thought to be the main route) - there is a diagram of the two enantiomers at Mephedrone#Pharmacology which could be used in the drug box (the bit at the top) but you can't include captions underneath in that box, which is why I moved the image to the first place in the article where the enantiomers are mentioned. Are the first two images misleading? SmartSE (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The 3D structure in the box is not correct, as already mentioned (and agreed upon) Mephedrone is a racemate. The correct chemical structures of both enantiomers should be presented in the box. Best regards, --Jü (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I generally agree with Jü here. I don't see anything substantially more useful about a rotating small-with-large-margins gif of one enantiomer being "representative of the racemate", especially since we do have an enantiomeric-pairing in ball&stick form, which definitely is representative of it. I don't object to the nonchiral stick diagram, since it too does illustrate the actual topic of the article, which is not just a single enantiomer. But again, since we do have a pair of the two enantiomers, it makes sense to me that we would use them for clarity. Lastly, it's confusing when the two adjacent images do not even agree...one is either non-chiral in appearance (no geometric detail for lay readers) or an unspecified stereochemistry (if you know about this drawing detail), whereas the other does have chirality. {{Chembox}} supports separate caption for each image, I guess {{Drugbox}} does not? Personally, I find the animation in general to be distracting, but I know others think it is useful. DMacks (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jü. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Chemistry/Structure_drawing. I'm aware that some organizations prefer both structures (rather than "and enantiomer" or similar). On the English Wikipedia, we've decided to only show one, and discuss the other enantiomer in the text if required. I see your point about how the 2D- and 3D images don't agree. A suitable caption would help here ('One enatiomer of ...'). In any case, I am going to remove the 3D image because it adds nothing to the article. It spins too quickly to be more than a decoration. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

(copy of a comment about this that I left at WT:CHEM): It is neither wrong to show a racemate as a single 2D structure nor necessary to depict a racemate as its two distinct enantiomers. That is unnecessarily pedantic. For chemical compounds with a single stereocenter such as mephedrone, it is best to show one 2D structure with no stereochemistry specified such as the one currently in the article, File:Mephedrone.svg. This is the simplest and least confusing depiction. It is standard practice in chemistry databases, chemical catalogs, etc. to do it this way and there is no reason for us to depart from this convention. This is covered at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry/Structure drawing. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

More sources

For some time in the future:

SmartSE (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a regular Wiki editor (just created this account a minute ago), and to be honest I don't really have the time to be one. However, I'm a behavioural neuroscience researcher who works on studying mephedrone, and a while ago I put together a little summary of the current state of mephedrone research for another site that might be of use to you folks: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6789/is-mephedrone-as-dangerous-as-uk-government-advice-claims
Mostly what's there are my plain-language summaries of all of the basic science papers on mephedrone that had been published at the time (there have been a handful of new papers since then, but not many). Some of it might be seen as "original research" (well, all of it is technically, but most of it is already published in peer-reviewed journals), but at the very least it should be helpful to some Wiki editors when they're attempting to translate the scientific jargon into Wiki-appropriate form.
Craig Motbey (talk) 06:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Added these potential sources to the {{refideas}} template at the top of this talk page. Feel free to evaluate their potential for inclusion in the article, and remove them from the listing after citing them. Senator2029 (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources

[13] with page numbers. --178.176.129.48 (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

By definition, molecular weight is a mindless calculated result from the molecular formula. We don't need to cite "2+2=4". The other two statements in the intro-paragraphs merely summarize more detailed content later in the article, which appears to have multiple cites each. WP:LEAD says we don't need to re-cite that material, especially if it's not controversial. DMacks (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Neurotoxicity

A recent study has shown that Mephedrone does not cause dopamine neurotoxicity in the striatum, as it is the case with drugs such as methamphetamine or methcathinone: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-4159.2011.07632.x/abstract 178.200.99.240 (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

New Zealand Law

Under Part 7 of Schedule 3/Class C of the New Zealand 1975 Misuse of Drugs act, mephedrone would not be considered a controlled analogue (of amphetamine) because the β position ("the carbon atom adjacent to the benzene ring") is a carbonyl group rather than a carbon with a hydroxy radical.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1975/0116/latest/DLM436723.html

Starprizm (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Rationale for deleting part

Few days ago I have deleted a part that says:

"Several people have died after consuming mephedrone but some deaths the media attributed to the drug were later determined to have been caused by other factors."

It was added back with the excuse that it's WP:LEAD and thus it does not need citations. However, it's still full of WP:WEASEL and so generic that it could be inserted anywhere. For example, in an article about sugar: "Several people have died after consuming sugar but some deaths the media attributed to the substance were later determined to have been caused by other factors.".

Or about cars: "Several people have died after driving a car but some deaths the media attributed to the vehicles were later determined to have been caused by other factors.".

Or about offices: "Several people have died after working in an office but some deaths the media attributed to the place were later determined to have been caused by other factors.".

In addition, I have read the part about the lead section, and it says:

"The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. (...) there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads."

That excuse is therefore WP:BOLLOCKS and only used to promote a non-WP:NPOV. Deleting again. If you can find citations and specific examples that support it, put it back. If you can't, don't. Devil Master (talk) 10:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

As I explained in an edit summary this sentence attempts to summarise the information in mephedrone#UK. 'People have died after taking mephedrone' is intended to summarise "mephedrone had been alleged to be involved in 52 fatalities in the UK, but detected in only 38 of these cases". Likewise 'some deaths the media attributed to the drug were later determined to have been caused by other factors' is summarising "The death of a teenager in the UK in November 2009 was widely reported as being caused by mephedrone, but a report by the coroner concluded she had died from natural causes. In March 2010, the deaths of two teenagers in Scunthorpe were widely reported by the media to be caused by mephedrone. Toxicology reports showed the teenagers had not taken any mephedrone and had died as a result of consuming alcohol and the heroin substitute methadone". Both parts are important and should be mentioned in the lead and if you read the references you should realise that this is exceptional to mephedrone as deaths were over-reported and mis-reported by the media - comparisons with other topics are irrelevant. I agree that it is a bit weasely, but how else do you suggest that that section is summarised? WP:LEADCITE is very vague about whether citations are required and when I wrote the lead I erred on making it easier to read rather than ensuring that every fact was supported by a citation there (Wikipedia:Citation_overkill). I could easily copy the references from the main article to the lead for this sentence, but then someone will likely come along and complain that other sentences don't have citations... IMO this is a waste of time when readers could just find the relevant citations in the main body of the article. SmartSE (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

A note to myself really. Info on the legal status in the Netherlands was added here. SmartSE (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Meaningless

Diff User:ChemNerd Please explain what users' perception of "risk" means, if it is not in fact meaningless. zzz (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Diff Obviously that is impossible. Therefore I have put the word in quotes. I'll settle for that, but it would still be better to delete it since it was just a retarded meaningless question asked of the users, and this is a WP:GA. zzz (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Edited Also, note that the "risk" question has no possible bearing on "Intended effects" (the subsection heading). zzz (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Really I don't think this is a good article anymore. It is five years out of date in most sections. Sizeofint (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
@Sizeofint: Yes a lot of it is out of date unfortunately, but large parts are still fine and it is appropriate to keep out of date content sometimes anyway. Regarding structure WP:PHARMMOS states "The ordering of section may vary depending on the article type". It doesn't make sense to rigidly stick to a guideline that was intended for medical rather than psychoactive pharms. For this compound the rediscovery in 2003 and its spread in the following years is vital for the reader to understand the rest of the article e.g. the dates of when papers and reports were published. SmartSE (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that there is some flexibility, but in most recreational drug articles historical information is generally seen as less important than the pharmacological/effects/uses information. Sizeofint (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Subheading Incorrect

The sub-classification on the search listing says "dog" instead of drug. "Dog" also appears as a sub-classification in the header of the Android App. I don't know how to fix this. Can anyone help me? Trfeick (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

David Nutt comment regarding comparative harm of mephedrone

David Nutt stated in this article that:

> "Subsequently we have discovered that it (mephedrone) saved more lives than it took because so many people switched from cocaine and amphetamine to mephedrone that deaths from these more toxic stimulants decreased by up to 40%. Since mephedrone was banned in 2010, cocaine deaths have risen again and are now above their pre-mephedrone levels."

It might be a good idea to add this comment to the harm assessment section. Thoughts?

– Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It would fit better at the end of the Mephedrone#United_Kingdom_2 section, following on from the predictions made that this would occur before it was banned. The source isn't great by itself though - there should be some official figures to be found to back it up. SmartSE (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mephedrone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mephedrone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mephedrone/Archive_1&oldid=1250815786"