Talk:Methadone/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

(untitled)

July 25, 2006 --

I feel this report should be thoroughly overhauled in an effort to more clearly distribute the known and most important facts, with references to appropriate links so that gaps can be more easily filled in by the reader - and to reduce (or elliminate) what appears to me to be an attempt to disseminate this subject matter on a slightly opinionated slant. Also, the writing as it is now for sure leaves a little to be desired in terms of clarity, continuity and being easy to read - again without the author's bias.

I must reveal that I am a methadone maintenance patient (as I have been for the last 2 1/2 years), so I myself do have some definite opinions - both positive and negative, but I also know how important it is to search for and convey truth - even if I personally find the truth disagreeable (here, I don't really find any of the facts disagreeable). One thing, being a patient does give me some insights that only a patient can have - while at the same time of course bearing in mind that I am only one of a great many.

I think perhaps the history should be explained, at least briefly (as it already is). I think the pharmacology should be explained (as it already is, somewhat). I think that all of the common uses - and some uncommon uses if they exist should be addressed. I think that both the benefits and the downside of methadone use should be explained - in an unbiased way. I think that relevant legal issues & facts should be addressed (in regard to state, national and international concern). I think that the links indicated at the end of the report should be non-redundant in nature and should address any important topics that people could possibly be looking for. Methadone evokes the topics of: 1. Legitimate medicine (obviously, chronic pain and opiate dependency treatment) 2. Drug abuse (abuse of opiates in particular - not much reason to branch away from opiates (in my opinion)) 3. Law (relevant - state, national, international) 4. The future of ... 5. Statistics 6. Where to find more information 7. Other

What do you guys think ? ML Houston, TX

P.S. To the person who keeps deleting everybody's info - You brain no working good? No, you brain no working good.

> > >

---

Methadone is perhaps the most effective narcotic analgesic for the treatment of diabetic neuropathy. It is also indicated in the treatment of "phanthom limb pain". Its low price, low abuse potential and long-term analgesic effectiveness makes it an ideal analgesic for the treatment of chronic pain.

---

The "External Links" on the Methadone page are there so people can get the information, help and support they need. It would be MUCH appreciated if whoever is randomly deleting them PLEASE STOP! Thank you. SEE "CHANGING EXTERNAL LINKS" BELOW.

---

Certain links are simply not suitable. Support groups and messaging boards exist by the truckload on various levels, and I do not see why any particular one should be advertised on Wikipedia. Perhaps national frameworks would qualify, or the ones that are particularly notable. Otherwise leave it to Google. JFW | T@lk 12:07, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are ZERO resources for Methadone Anonymous online. If you actually looked at the forum you would see that we have listings of local MA meetings. It is a COMMUNITY of support, but also has MUCH information on Methadone Anonymous. In the next couple of days the address will change and it will be one of the ONLY websites for Methadone Anonymous... MethadoneSupport.org. Speaking of search engines.....go to any of them and input Methadone Anonymous and you will come up with my website. So you understand....I have gotten NUMEROUS people from this website that have come to get support and have finally found meetings in their state. PLEASE do not put it upon yourself to remove places of support because you may not like them. Methadone Anonymous has taken off like wildfire in the last couple of years...please do NOT take away one of the only resources online. Thanks!.....Carol (MethadoneAnonymous@neo.rr.com)

Is it nationally active? Taking off like a wildfire is not quantitative. I am not removing links because I don't like them. I remove them because this is an encyclopedia and not a web directory. External links should ideally be used for reference only. JFW | T@lk 04:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes...Methadone Anonymous is indeed Nationally active! I have meeting listings for the states and Canada and in the process of getting more from across the world. Jeff...I just wrote you an email....please read.....Chava

4/24/05 - Hi, Doc....not certain where to write to you, but hope that you see this note. First of all....a very happy Pesach to you and yours. I just wanted to thank you much for our link that we have here. We have links on countless websites, but the link(s) here bring in MORE people than most... looking for info and support. If you would like...I'd be happy to reciprocate and put the link to this website on my resource/links page. Do you have a logo....banner or some sort of graphic to use? I'll check back here....or my email is MethadoneAnonymous@neo.rr.com. Again.....thanks for all you do! Smoooooch....Chava/Carol

6/17/2005 - there's a bunch of correct stuff that isn't really about methadone but about treatments for opiate addiction. Should it be moved somewhere? Henry Troup 03:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Possible Changes

This page is great, very unbiased. However, I would like to propose some changes and additions:

1. Methadone has a typical half life of 24 hours or more, permitting administration only once a day in heroin detoxification and maintenance programs.

• I wonder if people will now what "maintenance programs" are? Perhaps a short description should be included? I see that there is a separate page for Methadone Maintenance (though it is literally one or two sentences) - maybe a link should be added?

• Also, methadone is not only used in the treatment of HEROIN addiction -- a growing number of people are seeking methadone treatment due to their addiction to painkillers, such as Oxycontin.

2. Some heroin addicts feel that it is actually harder to quit methadone than heroin itself.

• Likewise, perhaps the word heroin should be replaced with "opioid" or "opiate".

3. Considering the fact that buprenorphine and LAAM are also mentioned on this page as similar treatment medications, I think that the two doctors (Dr. Vincent Dole and Dr. Marie Nyswander) who are credited with being the pioneers of methadone maintenance treatment in the United States should be mentioned as well. They began treating addicts with methadone in the mid 1960s (1966 I believe).

4. Here is a link that I think would be a great addition to the links you already have at the bottom of this page. http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/research/methadone.cfm This site provides some basic information about methadone (specifically as used within drug treatment).

Thanks for considering my suggestions.

They all seem like good ideas. Feel free to edit the article yourself since this is a wiki. Be bold! --Bk0 04:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Chirality

I notice one chiral centre in the methadone molecule, occurring at the C attached to an N,N-dimethylamino group. Can someone denote the correct stereochemistry?

From what I can tell, pharmaceutical methadone is racemic, as I can find no reference to the separate stereoisomers. The Rxlist monograph for methadone does not mention stereoisomers and my 2003 PDR has no entry for methadone, oddly. --Bk0 23:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

This is confirmed by the Merck Index. However the l-form has been marketed as Levadone and L-Polamidon. -- ElBenevolente 01:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, l-methadone is the optically active isomer, the dextromethadone version being essentially inactive as far as opioid receptors go. Dextromethadone is a theoretical cough suppressant, in much the same way dextromethorphan corresponds to levomethorphan or racemethorphan. -drewamer

Methadone Clinics article

"Methadone Clinic" redirects here; a Methadone Clinics article was started last year. I'll leave it to others to decide how to proceed with redirects or merging, etc. If a clinic article is kept it should probably be moved to "Methadone clinic" per naming conventions. --Malepheasant 20:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Changing external links

BEWARE, FOLKS....someone is going into the external links on the Methadone page, Buprenorphine, Addiction and self help groups....deleting links they don't like and replacing them with their own. My link has been here for about ONE YEAR....for "methadone Anonymous". I noticed today that my website was getting no traffic from here. I came here and have changed the info back to my website at least TEN TIMES already in the last hour...sigh. FINALLY...I just put my website as "Methadone Anonymous SUPPORT"....so hopefully they will leave it alone. It's very sad when people that are SUPPOSED to be working for the same causes think that it's all about recognition and competition. "Methadone Anonymous World Services"....shame on you! .....Carol@MethadoneAnonymous.info

I have removed the external links to addiction/recovery support groups from this article, because as pointed out above by others, they are not appropriate here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a real shame...because what was NOT said above was that it was straightened out in email...ask "JFW". My link was there for almost a year before it was removed and REPLACED the other day. The ONLY people that are going to suffer are the HUNDREDS of folks that came to my website for much needed help and support. Some of these folks...it's a lifeline for them...and the only support that they get. 12 step groups are not for profit....not for recognition of any one person or organization. They ARE about support...and this situation is very sad.

--- DATE: 7/24/2006 NOTE! I WILL VOUCH ON THE SUBJECT OF SOMEBODY TAKING IT UPON THEMSELVES TO DELETE VALUABLE INFORMATION. I ADDED SOME VERY VALUABLE LINKS EARLY THIS A.M. (JULY 24, 2006) THAT WERE DELETED WITHIN 3 HOURS. ONE OF THE LINKS WAS A U.S. DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES LINK TO LOCATE CLINICS. THIS PERSON SIMPLY DELETED TEXT WITHOUT CONVERSTATION I'LL FIGURE OUT HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN A CONCENSUS (GOOD IDEA, OF COURSE). I WOULD BET THIS PERSON "HANGS OUT ON THIS WEBSITE/TOPIC", JUST WAITING FOR CHANGES. YESTERDAY WHEN I WAS ADDING INFO I DIDN'T EVEN HAVE 1 MINUTE TO CORRECT WHAT I WAS WORKING ON WHEN SOME TEXT WAS CHANGED.

Methadone and Fertility

The Scottish Drugs Council stated recently that methadone improves fertility (this was part of a parliament debate about whether oral contraceptives should be prescribed/strongly advised alongside methadone). How does this work? Has it ever been considered in any dose as part of fertility treatment? Also has it ever been prescribed for treating endometriosis (morphine and other strong opiates are commonly prescribed for this)

Please bear in mind who we are and what we do. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a web directory, an advocacy organization, a referral service, nor a community action center. See WP:EL for our link policy. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Links

I will be happy to commment on your P.S., ML. My link was under External Links for almost a solid year.....until another organization decided to delete my link and REPLACE it with theirs. This is NOT some sort of competition, folks....it's about information AND support....for those that really need the help. I would like to know why one advocacy group can be listed....while another not? One information/educational website listed while another is constantly deleted. I can probably tell you why....because SOMEONE is coming here on a DAILY basis that is most likely affiliated with someone with a similar link.....and this is rrreally, really very sad.....and wrong.

To ML....if you'd like to see these things on the Methadone page...register and then ADD them yourself. Just be prepared to keep seeing them deleted...sigh. --Chava 07:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Chava, your link keeps getting reverted because you are violating established guidelines and official policy. Firstly, under WP:EL Links to be Avoided:

• "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research."- I have been through your site several times and it is loaded with unverified original research and unencylopedic content.
• "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link"- You repeatedly add links to your own website, this is not acceptable.

Also, please see WP:NOT. In addition, this article is not, as you claim, "about information AND support," it is purely and simply about building an encylopedia. It is also not about increasing traffic to your website.

Your claims that any editor here who removes your link is part of some conspiracy by your competitors is ludicrous. You are encouraged to add content to articles but please stop treating us like an obligated provider of traffic for your website. And adding your links to other articles like pregnancy, which has no single mention of methadone, is ridiculous link spamming behaviour. A number of different editors have reverted your links citing "link spam" and from what I can see from your edit history, that is all you do. I couldn't find any edits where you contributed anything to an article except links to your website. Please reconsider your editing behaviour here. Thanks. Sarah (Talk) 17:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sarah.....you are not only MISINFORMED....but totally OUT OF LINE! There is NOTHING inaccurate on my website and am in the midst of being accredited by "honcode" as we speak. How DARE you imply that I am trying to get "traffic" to my website. Sarah...what exactly do YOU do to help people....except to leave unfounded messages on a subject that you most likely know nothing about? My organization/website is totally funded by myself. I was sent to the AATOD Methadone Conference by CSAT (Center for Substance Abuse Treatment - gov't)...to cover it for my "inaccurate" website...that is as close to outside funding as I get. I receive over 100 emails each and everyday....the phone rings from morning until night....with people looking for help....some of them fighting for their lives. I bend over backwards to help these people and if I can't do it....I point them in the correct direction. What exactly are YOUR credentials regarding medically assisted treatment....methadone in particular? Could YOU perhaps have an agenda here? And yes....I go all over the web to leave my link for anyone that just might need some help. I have experts affiliated with my website that are the tops in their fields....they take time out of their busy CRAZY schedules to come to my website and try to help as well. WHY is one link given your blessing and others not? "conspiracy"...lol...you tell me. My link was here for a very long time....until another organization with similar content removed it and replaced it with theirs...not once...but countless times. Now we have YOU...who deems my hard work not acceptable, lol....it would be funny if not so sad, Sarah......Chava

The word "inacurate" in my comment above was quoted from WP:EL, it was not my word and nor did I apply it to your particular site. In fact, I was quite careful about the words I used to describe your site. I said it contains unverified original research. And it does.

If you're willing to compromise, I will not remove your link from THIS article if you agree to stop spamming other articles. Sarah (Talk) 13:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sarah, ...ohhhhhh please don't remove my link from this article.....please, please, please?? I don't know if I'll be able to keep the doors of my website open if you do (lol).

c'mon, Sarah...you can say anything you'd like here, but we both know that does not make it true. I have NEVER "spammed" ANY article here or anywhere else. do you think I perhaps get paid for every "hit" on my website?? I'm not looking for "traffic", Sarah....I'm getting the word out so that more and more folks can get the support that they need....PERIOD.

REally, Sarah...I would be THRILLED if you could delete any conversation having to do with me or my website from this page, but it was my understanding that it was not allowed. Be that as it may....know that you have MY permission....I find it nothing but an embarrassment.

Keep up your important deletion work here and I wish you the very best....Chava

Bad, and biased link

First off, this section clearly violates Wikipedia's rule/standard of 'No Personal Attacks' and is wasting plenty of space which could be used for more legimate reasons ie.. talking about the document, not posting reason upon reason for deleting text or telling the world how each individual person is the most respected person in the world on drug use, etc... Get a grip people. All we care about is good clear information, to include being able to look on this page and see what has been changed, not your opinion as to why your link was terminated. Not to sound rude, but please do that on your own personal space (website or blog). Plenty of articles need to be better or with links. As well, no reply with ranting will be tolerated; if you have a legimate concern or would like to chat about this, I am open to all ears. Thanks!Tidus011 18:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)tidus011

The link ^ Buttnor, Al. "The Drug Problem: How It CAN be Solved". Freedom Magazine (vol. 4, iss. 1) p. 15. Retrieved Apr. 7, 2006. should be removed.

The article is simply an unsupported opinion piece and quite clearly has an agenda. Not only that, but it is incorrect in just about every factual statement it makes. Why was this piece of trash included in the first place? The inclusion of this article is not at all "neutral" and it degrades the content of the Wikipedia article. It is not a reference piece, it is a diatribe.

Let me also note, for the record, that I posted a link to a reference on the early history of methadone. It was an actual, good, research link, with real information. My link was deleted because it was "spamming" while the above link has been preserved. Someone is pursuing an agenda with this article.

Wolfman97 12:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Clifford A. Schaffer, Schaffer Library of Drug Policy = http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer (post moved to bottom of page, see header Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC))

The reference follows the sentence "The claim is still presented as fact by Church of Scientology literature", so I guess the article is telling the 'thoughts' of the Church of Scientology. References have to support the statement, the info it presents does not necessarily have to be true. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You retain this link which is crap from beginning to end only to prove the minor point about what the Church of Scientology thinks. Yet, when I posted factual links, with far better information, on the early history of methadone -- links that came from one of the most widely used textbooks on the subject -- those were deleted because they were "spam".

The only external links on the page allowed are the ones to the ONDCP (hardly a "neutral" source on drugs), one that leads to a wildly inaccurate list of drug treatment facilities, and a link to a twelve-step organization. Not one single external link to actual research on the subject. Is that where we are right now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wolfman97 (talk • contribs) .

Why do you insist on doing this? All you need to do is post a link to the page you want listed and an independent editor will look at it and list it if they think it is beneficial to the article. This is all per guidelines, as you know. You weren't just trying to list one link; you were spamming numerous articles. Honestly, the amount of time and energy you are expending on this agro ranting is a complete waste when you could achieve your goal very simply. And just so you know, this is my last reply to you, so there is no point in replying to me with more ranting. If you want a link posted, you know what to do. Sarah (Talk) 14:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, Wolfman97, you are attacking a totally legitimate link and try to defend it with a reason which is besides the point of your initial statement. You are right, there are many references that could be added to this page, but there is nothing wrong with this particular link. As I sayd, references should support the statement, and don't have to be true (this is NOT the medium to discuss the correctness of the external data, send an email to the webmaster of the server that is hosting the external link, or the author of the article). I have nothing to do with deletions of your links, you can add them, provided you follow established manual of style and policies and guidelines on the Wikipedia. Nobody keeping you from adding peer reviewed references to statements that needs them. So if you think certain things should have a reference, just add a {{reference needed}}, add them yourself, or, if you are not sure if the reference is covering the data, or there are other reasons why you should not add a link (to name a few reasons: per WP:SPAM or WP:No original research), add a subject to the bottom of the appropriate talk page with reference and reason why you think it should be added, sign the post, and wait for reply. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Yes, you are correct about my attacks on the links. However, you should know how this started.

I assume you have been around a while and, if you have been, you will know who I am. I am the largest publisher of the major drug poliicy research in history. My work is referenced at literally hundreds of colleges and universities around the world. When my site went down because of technical issues earlier this month, I received frantic e-mails from university profs wanting to know if druglibrary was down forever. If it was, they would have to revise their courses. It is fair to say that I am regarded as something of an authority on related subjects.

I DID post relevant links on a number of subjects, including this one. On the Harry Anslinger page, I posted a link to the largest online collection of Anslinger's personal documents. I also posted a link to the full text "The Traffic In Narcotics" - a book he wrote. Mind you, my link was posted directly below a link to an article "The Traffic In Narcotics" that was redacted from that same book. Just so you know, those same Anslinger documents have been linked in Wikipedia for years under the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act page.

On the Glue Sniffing page, I posted a link to the only history of Glue Sniffing.

On this page, I posted links from one of the most widely used textbooks on drugs about the origins of methadone treatment in the US.

In every case, and more, the links were deleted by our friend above. The explanation she gave is that I was "spamming" my site. Never mind that those very same documents have been linked for years from other Wikipedia pages and all I did was post them on another relevant page. Never mind that my site has been the "gold standard" on the internet for such information since 1994. She then explained to me that if I (me and me alone, apparently) wanted to post such things, I would have to come to the Discussion page. So here we are.

Now there is lots of information in Wikipedia that should be corrected or expanded and -- if you want to poll the university professors around the world, I would probably be high on the list of people who should do it. Unfortunately, according to our friend, I am prohibited from doing so. I gotta pass the link over to her and see if she likes it.

So you tell me. How do we get this done in an orderly manner?

BTW, did I forget to mention that on the Anslinger page I went to the Discussion page as she had suggested and found that others had already copied and provided links to my documents during the time my site was down. I didn't have to suggest it, other people had already said those documents were critical to the article. Then I am told that I can't post those links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wolfman97 (talk • contribs) .

I am around for some time, but my interests are (probably) quite different from yours. At the moment I am mainly monitoring chemical pages (and pages that interest me), the former mainly because of spam links, and getting them into a common format, getting things aligned (see User:Beetstra/Chemicals for what I try to get around to in the near future). For that I am monitoring something like 2700 chemical pages (and their talk pages), trying to change things to the better (not touching any subjects I do not know anything about, except for rephrasing, maybe), removing and adding {{importance}}, stub marks, etc. etc. I hope I do not offend you, if I say that I do not know you.

The point you are rising is indeed a bit difficult. I guess the point to follow would be WP:No_original_research#Citing_oneself (on the abovementioned WP:No_original_research). So to get around it, there are two ways, edit the page/section, and and change things that need to be changed (keeping a neutral point of view), and put in references to sources in peer reviewed articles (preferably not your own, I am sure you know a lot of them). If there are things where you think the only reference would be to own work, or where your work would be a good addition, I'd suggest a discussion on the talk page, along with the addition of a {{Reference needed}} at the end of the statement on the actual page.

I think everybody who goes further in academics runs into the same problems when editing on Wikipedia on subjects related to their own work, it is sometimes difficult to edit certain pages unbiased where you know a lot, and things are obviously wrong. Hope to see you around, and happy editing. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for your good advice but I don't think you really got the situation.

I didn't offer any of my own comments in those links. I didn't rewrite anything at all. Everything I linked was an original source. Not one bit of it was my own work. There wasn't any bias about it, either. I posted links to some stuff that I personally didn't agree with -- just because it is relevant to the subject. You know, a collection of Anslinger's original documents linked from Anslinger's page.

All I did was add an external link to what is widely recognized as the best available research on the subject.

I LINKED TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS. NONE OF IT WAS MY OWN WORK.

Check out the major link for this page yourself http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm

That book has been a standard textbook in colleges and universities for the last 34 years. I had nothing to do with writing it. Likewise with every other link I posted.

The links got deleted. Then I got told to go to the Discussion section of those pages and suggest those links. I found that some of those links were already recommended by other people before I even got there. In fact, the SAME DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN LINKED FROM OTHER PAGES FOR YEARS. I DIDN'T WRITE ANY OF THOSE DOCUMENTS, EITHER.

The only connection between those documents and me is that I put them on the net -- full, unedited text. They are the same documents you would find in a good university research library. In fact, that's where I got many of them.

Please re-read the situation and see if you get the same idea I have -- that one particular editor is pursuing a personal agenda that is not in concert with the best interests of Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfman97 (talk • contribs)

I have looked around a bit, and I would suggest:

---

Statement.

References

---

I guess this is the original source of the book. And this would be similar for all other books linked (anywhere in Wikipedia). If you host the only website where this book can be found online, one could argue to put the link to your page, though hosting of links can be biased (both commercial and non-commercial, and if you see my edit history, and comments on pages, you will see that I remove many of them, and am very busy in a process of removing external links from pages about chemicals). I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, but

In all cases of links I have posted, I originally put the document on the net. If the document is elsewhere then you may be sure that someone copied my long, hard work. There are numerous examples of that already on Wikipedia. In many cases, the secondary posting the pieces were incomplete, or had other issues.

The book above has been out of print for more than 25 years. If you are lucky, your local library may have one copy that is now falling completely to pieces. In other cases of the documents I posted, you would have to go to extreme lengths to get them. Many of them were only published in a handful of copies, or never really published at all. Some of them were sent to me by their original authors, asking me to publish them to the world, shortly before they died.

I posted the complete text of that work -- the same as you would find in any library that might still be lucky enough to have a copy. All of the things I have posted on my site were done the same way -- complete text of the original document, without my edits or comments. Some of the things I posted I don't even agree with myself.

Like, for instance, the link to the Anslinger documents on the Harry Anslinger page. Those are his personal documents. I put them there. In many cases, those documents have never been copied anywhere else so YES, my site is the only place they can be found. Furthermore, previous readers had already gone to the trouble to post notes in the discussion section about where they could be found.

Let's take this one really slowly and everyone let me know if I have missed something here. A link to Anslinger's own documents on Anslinger's own page. A link to a book -- written by Anslinger (only place on the web you will find it), from which an already linked article was taken.

Now, am I missing something here or is a link to a XXX's personal documents on XXX's page perfectly appropriate, and even "obvious" or not?

Am I missing something here or when an editor calls something "spam" that has already been linked for many years from another page -- and happens to be the original source documents -- could we say anything about that decision other than that it is severely wanting for logic?

I really don't see the bias in that, unless the local librarians could also be accused of bias.

If you can see some bias in what I did, or why the best research in the world should be considered "spam" because I happened to be the first person who realized it was important and put it on the web, I hope you will endeavor to explain it.

And let me state for the record that, if the editor in question has any better source material, I would love to see it. So far . . .— Preceding unsigned comment added by wolfman97 (talk • contribs)

Just to give you the complete facts on one incident.

Here is the Wikipedia Harry Anslinger page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Anslinger

You will note that, down at the bottom, it references an article titled "The Traffic In Narcotics". I posted the following links:

"The Traffic in Narcotics" by Harry Anslinger http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/people/anslinger/traffic/default.htm If you would, compare this link with the "Traffic in Narcotics" link that is already there.

The largest online collection of Anslinger's personal documents and speeches -- many of which are not on the net anywhere else. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/people/anslinger/index.htm

Most of those same documents have been linked from years from 1937 Marijuana Tax Act. There are numerous other examples where my web site is linked from Wikipedia. In some cases, my web site has the only links for the article.

Those links were deleted.

Now you tell me, in your own opinion, are those links:

1) "spam" or,

2) Perfectly appropriate and obvious for the page.

Thanks again.—Preceding unsigned comment added by wolfman97 (talk • contribs)

Let me add one more thing. First, your suggested method would be useless as a real reference. Most of these documents simply cannot be found elsewhere. Second, there are no such ISBN references for many of the documents. Never has been. If you want to read them anywhere but my site, you will have to go dig them out of the boxes of personal papers of Harry Anslinger at Penn State. You either link them from my site or Wikipedia pretends that those papers simply don't exist.

What say you now?

Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by wolfman97 (talk • contribs)

First of all, also for the other links I would argue to change them to a proper reference, whether or not they are in public domain, not in print anymore, commercial or non-commercial: link to the original reference. The book has an ISBN, so the book can be found (or the book must be really old and not have a ISBN). The copy in the library may fall apart, but still, the original book may be there (I am in a university building now, but the library is closed, alas). And this goes for many documents, there is an original somewhere, link to that.

I already argued that we could argue about putting in the link to your site, if you are (and apparently you are) the publisher of the only online copy. But, in that case, why not make sure your site is listed on Wikipedia:Book sources, and you will get your link via the ISBN. As I also argued, I am against external links, to commercial and to non-commercial sites (commercial links get money by selling things, non-commercial sites get money from other sources because they provide info, if you link one, another one does not provide info, and hence does not get money), if they can be avoided. However you turn it, it is biased, and another solution should be found. So under that philisophy, also those links are spam (see also WP:SPAM, specifically Wp:spam#How not to be a spammer), even if they are already there for xxx years. And I am sorry if it offends you, but if I would put that link there, I would not be a spammer (in the definition of WP:SPAM), if you do, that would be spam. And probably my addition would be deleted as well, but it sometimes does not happen (in the case of your site, I count roughly 50 links, excluding many talk-pages).

I am sorry, but as I see it now, you are not trying to find consensus, you want to be right, and seem to be unwilling to find other solutions. Things on wikipedia are not by definition right, some things are put there in good faith, until someone trips over it. That your link gets denied, may indeed mean that other links should also go (and that another solution has to be found to refer to the work). These things deserve some discussion, and then maybe should be changed (if the consensus is to change it). (note that I am against immediate deletion, until another solution has been found). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect

I am sorry that you didn't quite get it yet but take your own advice and go to any library within two days driving distance of you and see if you can find most of those works. It ain't gonna happen. I am taking bets on that, if you care to wager.

Let's start with something simple like the hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act. Dig that one up for me at the local library, if you will. I appreciate your good intent but you are simply laboring under an erroneous assumption.

There is no advertising on many of those pages, and never will be, so that argument wouldn't hold. And there is no competition between sites for most of it because, as already stated, my site is the only place where they can be found. If someone else comes along and complains that their site isn't getting the proper revenue you let me know and we will work it out when it happens. But they would have to be claiming credit for my work in the first place, so I don't think that will happen.

So name another solution that makes sense. I am all ears. You already gave one but that doesn't work. In most cases, that is the same as "pretend it doesn't exist" or "something you will never find." People can -- and have -- make up anything about those documents because they know they can't be found.

As I already stated, many of those documents don't have an ISBN so I am not sure what good an ISBN link would do.

And did you completely glide over the fact that some previous readers (other than me) had already requested these documents be linked? The discussion had been done. The readers were already complaining on those Wikipedia pages that my site was down.

But you missed the important part of the discussion. You called for it and then didn't quite participate. You didn't give us your personal opinion on whether those links are appropriate (no matter who posted them). I suspect the reason you didn't answer is because you would probably agree that they ARE entirely appropriate, and even essential to the subject.

Do I suspect correctly?

Just trying to get your vote, you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by wolfman97 (talk • contribs)

For the link that we are discussing here: I win .. About two hours drive .. maybe two-and-a-half: Oxford university, UK (and it was the second link I clicked, biased, I confess, expected Oxford to have the document). But maybe also Bath or Bristol has it, or Birmingham, but these links were more quickly available.

You claim your document is the only one, but as I said, if you get the link, Oxford does not get it!

For all the rest, I still say, refer to the original document. And then make sure that that document can be found. Get your link added to the booksources page (I found the ISBN which you did not provide). For the other documents, still, refer to the original documents. And I did not say, that your documents could not be linked from the cite-template, I have therefore a) given in to the point that these documents could be relevant (I am a bad judge, I am an organometallic/organic chemist, not a pharmacist or a lawyer), and b) I have given a good solution (there are many cite-templates, there must be one for 'letters', or writings or someting). I do believe there is a difference between linking directly to a website, and giving a reference, which also has a link to an online-copy.

And still, Susans option is also still there .. give an explanation on a talk page, why the link is relevant, and when consensus is reached, the link can be added (you could even say, that when you have not heard anything withing, say, 14 days, that you could add the link yourself, apparently nobody objects). So now you have three solutions, yours, which gives some bad feeling to some people, Susans, but you seem to have troubles with that solution, and mine, which would give you the possibility to add the reference yourself (by the way, even if there is no link in the reference to your page, people will know the document exist, and [google] it, hmm .. there is no ISBN on your page?). So with that people will have enough data to find your page, or other places to find the book.

Just to be complete, another solution is to upload the documents to the Wikipedia commons, and link it there. The book is not copyrighted anymore (30 years, right?), so anyone could type it in and upload it.

So technically, I have some problems with the first and second solution (which result in a direct link to your page), the third one without link would not have that 'problem', one could discuss to also add the direct link to that, and we now have a new one. I think I have given enough options now, we have no consensus on both ends, maybe it is time that you propose a solution to the problem?

Could you please sign your additions to talk-pages, just type ~~~~ at the end? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, in the beginning of this year, Amazon even had three copies in stock. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Pricing

The initial prices documented are incorrect, at least for the eastern coast of the United States. A monthly supply of methadone was listed as costing $240. Methadone is much cheaper as I just paid cash for a month's supply perscribed for chronic pain (80mg daily) for $22 (240 tablets). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.122.240 (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Unclear text

The law stipulates clinics may provide at most one week's worth of methadone, (two weeks in the USA) except for patients...

What country does this sentence refer to? 82.139.115.120 (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved part of the Methadone Chronic Pain section to Abuse section

Clearly the person who wrote this is trying to make a point on the subject and statisics for "death due to Methadone". That is in inappropriate section in which to put a series of anit-methadone propaganda. The coverage of actual methadone treatment for chronic pain is so incomplete that it would be better off being called a Stub. I'd invite the original author to follow conventional Wikipedia formatting and place such writing under a new section called "Criticism". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.89.8.11 (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

I'd happen to agree....that the "abuse" piece is nothing but a bunch of propaganda that is taking the internet by storm about methadone. The mention of Stewart Leavitt of "Addiction Treatment Forum" was INAPPROPRIATE and unnessary....and should be removed! I would like to see resources from this "writer" (I use that term lightly). I notice they didn't reference back to the mortality study from SAMHSA that says that the methadone diversion does NOT come from methadone clinics. Methadone SAVES lives, not the other way around. I was so disappointed to come here and see that this propaganda had reached Wiki, but certainly not surprised....Carol --Chava 08:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

i have a question about this.

it says under the buprenorphine section that buprenorphine is a schedule 3 drug and so can be used in outpatient programs, where as methadone cannot.

i am in an outpatient methadone program.

so that obviously refutes that.

i didnt know if things have changed since that was written.

and by things i mean laws. 70.160.42.69 02:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)joe

Thanks for that. I've removed that sentence pending verification. It seems to me to be false, but I don't have experience with American programs. I've emailed someone involved in American methadone and asked them to comment. Cheers, Sarah (Talk) 03:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Buprenorphine (as Suboxone, or less frequently Subutex) is classified as Schedule II and can be prescribed for maintenance therapy by any physician who has undergone a few weeks of addiction management education. One month of medication may be prescribed at a time (no refills, as with other narcotics), and this prescription can be picked up at any pharmacy. Methadone (also Schedule II), however, may not be be prescribed for maintenance purposes in this way (though it is prescribed for pain in the same fashion as other narcotic painkillers.) This is why methadone programs require patients to show up daily at their program and slowly earn "take homes," up to a maximum of two weeks of medication per visit. MMT programs have the prescribing physician employed on-site, and act as both "prescriber" and "dispenser" -as doctor and pharmacy. Both treatments are "outpatient," but there is obviously a difference in degree. As of today, I know this information to apply specifically to the state of Maryland - other states usually have minor regulatory differences. This information applies to the USA only, and once more some practices may vary from state to state. I hope this clears up your questions, and please correct me if I have misstated any information. Cheers! Spiral5800 (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Buprenorphine is a schedule III drug not schedule II. Dr. Robert Oelhaf, MD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.86.167 (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Dangerous Advice

I removed the sentence for the Abuse paragraph

"That said, however, methadone can be snorted to achieve a faster and more pronounced euphoric effect."

This is not only wrong but very dangerous.

Paragraph removed and line cut

I removed the original paragraph which quotes a British "AA"-type recovery program which denigrates methadone treatment. It was pure opinion and not even a common opinion at that. Modern studies have, in general, found methadone to be the most effective means of treating opiate addiction available. While nothing works for everyone, methadone works for more people than any other treatment. Abstinance programs have been found to have a particuarly high failure rate. All this is, of course, my opinion. But it is here (in Discussion), not presented in a factual encylopedic article. I also removed the sentence "There is no evidence that methadone use decreases dangerous sexual behavior, crime, or psychiatric illness nor does it improve family stability or likelihood of employment." On the contrary, almost every study ever published shows that people in methadone treatment show marked improvement in being able to hold a job, mending damage done to their families by their addiction and cleaning up their legal act. Once again, this isn't true for everyone in methadone treatment but, again, there is no single treatment that works for all and nothing has been as succesful as methadone. Citations? I don't have them in hand but I'll research it. In the meanwhile, that sentence was so completely at odds with the truth that it had to be removed. Finally, the previous poster notes that the part about snorting methadone "was not only wrong but very dangerous". I agree completely.

Nitpicking

Under the section entitled "Efficacy" it reads "Methadone is a strong opiate that induces analgesia." Technically methadone is completely synthetic and therefore it is not an opiate. Instead it should be labled as an opioid. Bundleofstix 06:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed "Abuse" section.

In the abuse section, it stated that street methadone sells at............or $25-35 for 100mg or over, which will give you a comfortable high.

100mg is more than enough to overdose someone who does not have a tolerance to opiates. Typically, methadone doses for chronic pain are 10-40mg. Methadone for maitenance from opiate addiction is 40-120mg, sometimes higher depending on tolerance. There have been many documented cases where individuals on a maintenance dose leave their medication unattended where someone close to them gets it, takes it, and overdoses.

63.231.161.179 03:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)JP

Not to nitpick here, but just an FYI that the standard therapeutic dose range is 80-120mg. --Lisamarie 03:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? They've been giving me 10mg for chronic pain for years now; I'm pretty sure that I would throw up if I tried to take much more than that at once. Dumb kids kill themselves with a single 10mg dose (normally by combining it with benzodiazapines and/or alcohol, with predictable resulting respiratory depression). 12:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI on "average dosing". The 80-120 mgs is the "average" dose for treatment of ADDICTION. It can be much lower for pain. --Chava (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No, he's right. 10 mg is the standard dose for chronic pain. They use higher levels for heroin addicts, but I can hardly imagine anyone taking 100mg. I take 10 mg for pain and it makes my head very unclear and slows own my breathing excessively. 100 mg would and has caused people without an opiate tolerance to die because they stop breathing. Check out this site www.erowid.org. It has some very insightful information about the topic.70.129.184.133 (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)AR

HARMD link incredibly inappropriate

In going thru this page, I have got to point out that I believe the link to HARMD extremely inappropriate. This site is run with people with a very clear agenda, and the things they say on their site are uncited, and, as far as I know, largely untrue.

For those who are not familiar with this site, I suppose I would categorize it as a tribute page for those people who have died from methadone-related causes. The organization apparently wishes to make methadone regulations more strict. I think it is also worth pointing out that the majority of the "victims of methadone" they pay tribute to had drug problems themselves. I only point this out to demonstrate that the site's premise is, in my opinion, faulty at best.

I don't want to step on anyone's toes and just remove it, but I think this link has no place on this page...at the very least this is worth discussing. Thanks in advance. -Lisa 71.226.227.190 13:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This drug can kill people and it has. The HARMD site contains links to many films and reports and documents on the topic. I understand the rules of neutral posting, but just because someone has a bias towards something doesn't mean it's not actually true. Since this drug stays in your system a lot longer, it's easy to overdose by trying to chase the high, as many recreational drug users often do. The same could be said for someone chasing pain relief and trying to supliment their dose in increments. Also, some people are not opiat tolerant and require much less to overdose. If the reader is intelligent they will form their own opinion based on the materials and references on hand. Propaganda is meant to mislead people and make them believe something that is not true. I don't believe mentioning the fact that methadone is dangerous and can kill people is propaganda. There are verifiable statistics. Oh, and why again is any opinion Scientology (or Tom Cruise) has relevant to any serious article on the academics of a particular drug or medical topic? Why do we care what they think about Dolphine or Adolphine as they call it? Guitardude6969 02:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Fastball

Methadone is used by Charlie in Fastball's song "Charlie, the Methadone Man". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.43.245.131 (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Hence the name? 62.6.180.130 13:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

External Links haunted?

Hi everyone....hope I'm doing this in the right place, never have been too good at this! My website has been under "external links" for a couple years now, give or take. I was wondering why all of a sudden it has been removed? We have some exceptional support ....experts, info etc. and have grown by leaps and bounds. We are now part of CSAT/SAMHSA Patient Support and Community Education project (PSCEP) as well. I could go on and on, but won't torture you. I am HOPING that my "fan club" from HARMD is not responsible in any way....sigh. I tried putting it back, but as it was removed again thought it would be more appropiate to make this post. Hope this finds everyone doing well....regards to Sarah! (I KNOW I'm going to sign this wrong!)--Chava 07:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC) (Carol)

hello people how's is everyone doing i a man that lives in maine and i am takeing methadone for opiates —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.135.132.33 (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

qualification for interesting statement

Please notify if there is a reference available to qualify the following statement:

"Individuals maintained on methadone for long periods of time may in fact find it more difficult to give up methadone than people who go directly from heroin use to abstinence."

I have no inclination either to doubt or believe this statement, but I would very much like a reference so that I may further investigate.

Regards, RS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SteelRegn (talk • contribs) 20:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC). hi i am a methadone user from england. i became addicted to heroin last year and me and my girlfreind were aprox. using a gram a day.It all came to a head at christmas wen our unborn baby died as my girlfreind would not get help because she already has a kid and to scared they'd take her away. she then went off to live with her mother and i was left depressed,severly depressed ,i was clucking so badly and all i wanted was a hit of gear to make me feel better but my family would not let me out the house as they saw that all the stuff happened coz of gear so why shud they let me get further into a world that had already taken a precious life. so they got a doctor out and he prescribed me methadone 40ml, i was on that for months up to last month and yeh it is true that it does make u feel better ,but the want for a buzz is still there, and the mission of walking down to the chemist everyday starting to withdraw from yesterdays meth does ya head in so much. once someone stole my methadone for the sunday wich i pioked up on the sataday. by sunday 4pm i felt like i was clucking off heroin accept not as intence, but thats it, methadone might be less intencely withdrawls but i have "freinds" who have detoxed from methadone dew to there script being stopped or whatever and they have been ill for 2 weeks, not intencely but still "ill" and then theyve had to put up with the not sleeping for a further 2 weeks. a heroin "cluck" can last up to a week, and maybe you wont sleep for another week, i tell ya now, if i'd been told what the program "mmt" actually consisted of then i would of just sat in or in a field in a tent with food , magazines and tobbacco, and rode the cluck out. methadone is for a long time, i managed to force them to detox me, and that took a hell of a lot of persuading, its like they want you to be on it. i am now on 10ml and dropping down 2ml a week, surely the clever scientists can cum up with a drug thats less addictive. for gods sake they can have pregnant men and cloned everything now, or maybe they need people on it, coz i dont know 1 heroin detoxer on methandone who has a job, think theres over 500,000 people on methadone opiate detox in this country, another 500,000 heroin addicts, thats a million jobs they would have to find, can u see that happening.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.33.164 (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Methadone and paracetamol

If methadone is so much less addictive than shorter acting opiates such as codeine, morphine and heroin, why isn't there mixtures of small amounts of methadone with paracetamol? they do it with codeine.202.161.5.252 08:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Because for the patient who has zero opioid tolerance, methadone is so powerful that it could easily kill them, even if they didn't intentionally overdose. The amount needed to provide analgesia comparable to codeine would be dangerous for many people. That's the technical reason. The likely reason is that I SERIOUSLY doubt any gov't wants powerful narcotics freely available where people can be abused or extracted from their preparations and concentrated/sold. Kel - Ex-web.god 05:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted inaccurate reference to methadone use in Australia

I attached a 'citation needed' to the statement "Australians have recently utilised methadone to treat amphetamine addictions in the hope of reducing foetal harm among aboriginals." Having left it there for the last month and followed up with local research I can find no evidence of this assertion and will delete it. The use of methadone for this purpose is contrary to the Australian Methadone Guidelines (apart from not having no evidence base whatsoever). I suspect it is just another peice of anti-methadone propoganda. DISEman 05:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Adverse Effects + Burroughs

First of all, the way the article puts it--"When combined with other drugs, however, methadone can cause death"--makes it sound as if methadone by itself cannot. This is obviously not true, but that's just how the writing makes it sound.

Next, the adverse effect list as it is right now is mild, and missing a couple of things. Such as vomiting, drowsiness, and dizziness. Also possible are delusions/paranoia, a vague but persisting sense of panic and fear, extreme depersonalization, and mild-to-very-extreme depression with suicidal thoughts. These things (especially the vomiting/drowsiness/dizziness which I know are more common than maybe some of the other adverse effects I mentioned) are not in the list which to me seems to play-down the reality.

I've never edited anything and haven't read the rules, plus I don't have sources--I just know what I went through--but if someone could put this in, that might be helpful to someone who say might want to try the drug for "fun" because the side effects seem like child's play. Nausea is like level 3.5 but there's something like level 8 when you're wobbling into the ER, vomiting every five minutes into a cardboard bucket and mentally bargaining with God to let you live.

OK, then the Burroughs thing. I know Burroughs was a big junkie and all, but I don't know if anecdotal sources are appropriate in an article like this considering how different each person's withdrawal experience ultimately is. Specifically, I have a problem with the implication that opiate withdrawal is somehow 'short-acting'. Whether or not it's more pleasant in comparison to barbiturate withdrawal (which by the way is totally irrelevant to the subject of Methadone), the anecdote from Burroughs makes opiate withdrawal sound like a cakewalk. Well fine, but here's another anecdote:

Cold-turkey: It's one week before you finally can walk to the kitchen. You still haven't slept and you'd blow your head off if you just had the damn energy. Week 1-and-a-half you shower out of pure necessity but standing and moving is torture; you're still sneezing every 30 seconds; your mind is on raiding the whole house for some misplaced pill or bag but again, you don't have that energy. Week two you could probably physically operate a vehicle but you "can't" as far as you're concerned; you're shivering; you look at normal people, jealous at how they can do simple things like stand up for more than 40 seconds and are on an unrealistic level confused at how anybody can laugh. Two months and you kind-of feel normal again, but still not completely. I am aware the drug is 'cleared out' of your system well before then but that doesn't mean you still don't feel like hell; and I don't think Burroughs' experience outweighs anyone else's just automatically because he was like the king of opiate abuse. Regardless of some facts about drug properties that might come into play, the withdrawal experience is relative for it depends on a whole multitude of factors (thus, as interesting a man as he was, I don't see how the Burroughs thing is helpful).

Well peace out you crazy clowns. 67.42.233.138 (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sudden death

doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2007.10.009 methadone (used mostly for pain control) seems to have increased the risk of sudden cardiac death in an autopsy-based trial. JFW | T@lk 08:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A Request

Can someone please add a section regarding the Financial Costs of Methadone Maintainence for the individual addict?

I am on a "Financial Detox" right now (and feeling it BAD!!) because I am not eligible for Medicaid here in CA and have literally depleted my savings paying the $300 per month for the clinical treatment (dosing and counseling only)....I noticed that there is NO MENTION of these clinic fees and the ability or dis-ability of "patients" to afford treatment for themselves......please add a section discussing the high cost per individual and/or the criteria for Medicaid participation in support. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.145.171 (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Costs vary widely; in the state of Maryland some programs offer daily medication, walk-in counseling, weekly group meetings, and so on for $70/week - before private insurance/medical assistance/Medicare/Medicaid, of course. Other programs offer "sliding scales" based on income and insurance from almost $0 to approx. $50 per week for the same services. Yet other programs offer different pricing for different services. The great variation across a single city - let alone the whole country - might make the section you propose inaccurate to impossible. That said, social services and hospitals are beginning to offer options to the uninsured (anecdotal - no citations available at the moment), and perhaps someone could make such a section work. I hope this helps. Good luck and best wishes, Spiral5800 (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I just added a section yesterday because I too noticed it was lacking. The financial and social issues around this drug are substantial, as we've seen. Clinic fees are a real burden on participants and a barrier to recovery for some. In America (regardless of what city you're in) there's a two-tiered cost structure: patients who take it for pain control pay a paltry $20-30 for a week's worth... while treatment programs frequently charge over $100 per week (plus the cost of required daily travel). [note: I drive 60 miles RT] Unfortunately, patients just entering treatment are often in bad financial situations, having long ago spent all their savings. Losing jobs means losing insurance, and state Medicaid often excludes people for various reasons. We've all heard of MMT patients, desperately trying to avoid forced detox, who falsify Medicaid applications so that they can continue in treatment. This is not greed or laziness, this is a last resort... meanwhile the programs make millions of dollars off a population that has no real representation and not much public sympathy. For methadone advocates, cost has become the #1 issue. 69.131.102.87 (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)freelance critic

Why green?

The article does not explain it's distinctive colour. 86.139.239.58 (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Recreational Use

This article lacks any information regarding the non-medical use of methadone. Information about this should be put in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shade11sayshello (talk • contribs) 03:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Methadone Dependence

Even though Methadone is used to treat Heroin addiction, it's still addictive. From what I've read, Methadone can be more addictive than Heroin while at the same time have more severe withdraw symptoms. --shade11 | (Talk • Contribs) 07:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to precisely define "more addictive." I hear it often, but it kinda depends on what you mean. In general, 'fast-acting' drugs like heroin have short time frames:

- enters the central nervous system within seconds of injection, within minutes snorted
- are quickly metabolised (half-life of 4-6 hours)
- form tolerance to regular use within several days, and dependence within a week
- when discontinued, withdrawal happens within hours
- withdrawal is largely over after a week, user is "normal" in about two weeks

With methadone, a much longer-acting opioid, everything takes longer:

- enter the central nervous system within 45-60 minutes (orally)
- metabolic half-life is around 24 hours (drug is stored in tissue for many months)
- dependence occurs after at least a month
- when discontinued, withdrawal builds over several days
- complete withdrawal takes several months, users may not feel "normal" for a full year
- a structured medical taper is measured in months or years

So which is "more addictive"??? Three days of methadone won't get you addicted. BUT, if you are, it takes much longer for your brain to re-adapt. If forced to choose, I would use the term "addictive" to describe the ONSET of dependence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.102.87 (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Opiates does not damage organs

Please remove this nonsense. All opiates maybe with the exception of meperidine are metabolised and excreted just like any other drug. They do not have any toxic effects on their own. Body and organ damage is a result of injection behaviour and impurities. Btw, methadone is transparent and colourless, any colours is caused by dyes. 83.92.26.209 (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Methadone treatment of (resistant) leukemia

A lot of information about methadone treating resistant leukemia is showing up recently, maybe this should be mentioned in the article? Seems worthy of adding. Sources; AACR (American Association for Cancer Research), Science Daily, etc.--Astavats (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been added, thank you. Though it needs to be touched/cleaned up a bit.--Astavats (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

morbid seek orientation

The phrase does not appear outside of three wikipedia articles on various opiates, and random blog/forum postings quoting those articles and each other. I am guessing whoever came up with it wanted to say something like, people get addicted, desperate, and fixated on obtaining the drug to the point where nothing else matters. I am removing the phrase from the other articles where it appears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.41.22 (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Critisism?

Why is there no section on critisim of methadone treatment for opioid addiction? I know there is... C6541 (talk) 06:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Because that belongs on the Scientology page or the Narconon page or the Quackwatch page or Religious Sect page, not on the Methadone page. 70.137.154.157 (talk) 06:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hormonal Effects of MMT

Decades of evidence have again and again demonstrated the miraculously low toxicity of methadone and most opiates/opioids on the body's organ systems. That said, new research is showing that long term opiate/opioid therapy can alter the normal functioning of the hypothalamic-pituitary axis (HPA) in the brain. This can lead to hormonal imbalances - which explains some of the reports given by MMT patients of an increased risk of gynecomastia, etc. These can be treated by hormone replacement therapies, and so far it seems that HPA malfunction dissipates upon cessation of MMT. Just do a search on Pubmed For "Methadone HPA" or "opiates (or opioids) HPA" for more info. This is all very new and rather preliminary information and should dissuade noone from seeking MMT if they need it - even if all of these claims are true, which remains unclear in humans. Compared to the toxicity of heroin/opiate/opioid addiction - social, economic, and personal toxicity in addition to the damage done to the body by "shooting up" and self-neglect - the HPA hormonal effects I've mentioned are extremely minor and take a great deal of time to develop. The last thing I want to do is give anti-methadone fanatics more ammunition, but this information is out there for everyone to read and consider. I hope you all find this interesting if not helpful. Cheers, Spiral5800 (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

methadone sounds wondeful after reading this...

but it's not. if you've ever known anyone who goes to a methadone clinic you know this is a lot of crap. it is trading one addiction for another. simple as that. my brother is up to 120mg a day and still buys some on the street to get a high. the clinics are filled with people paying 7 dollars a day to get high. he is so high when he leaves the clinic I constantly fear for his life. he can't function, he can't stay awake, he is moody and seems extremely drugged for the first 6+ hours after 'dosing'. that is just the dose they give him. he is still an addict. he still can't get off this drug. the only difference is he is so depressed he just lives to go to the clinic every morning and get more methadone. so no, he isn't on the streets as much or robbing people anymore...he is just in his own hell. methadone is super for this purpose. he would love to stop taking methadone but can't get passed the horror stories of withdrawal from everyone he knows and his own brief attempts. i am not into Scientology, i understand it helps people stop taking OTHER drugs but this is a realistic opinion based on real life experiences.

I also used to abuse methadone for fun with my brother. it's easy to get a weekend "take-home" dose and share with your friends. It almost ruined my life. It is just as addictive as heroine. 166.216.160.76 (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)friend

methadone and drug testing

I would like to know more about testing urine for methadone. Does it show up in a random 5 panel urine test? Or does it have to be tested for specifically? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.85.116 (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)