Talk:Methamphetamine/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

WP:NOTHOWTO

Why does this article have an "Illicit production" section? Is there any good reason this article gets an exemption from WP:NOTHOWTO? Most articles on synthetic drugs don't have such a section. Selery (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is just laugh out loud funny. There is an illicit production section because there is an illicit production epidemic with methamphetamine. "Most articles on synthetic drugs don't have such a section." Maybe that's because most synthetic drugs are not made illicitly, even if they have a potential for abuse, you cannot illicitly produce most synthetic drugs yourself. This is a methamphetamine phenomenon, and what's laughable is that you think it's some sort of instruction manual? I can't dignify that with an answer, and I shouldn't even have dignified this with a response. It's a ridiculous notion that you have introduced, and I suggest you do some more research to educate yourself. I wasn't trying to be rude, it's just offensive to the people who have contributed to the whole article, and that includes this section. Editor182 (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are upset and offended, but yes, I do think the synthesis descriptions act as a basic instruction manual. Would you object to rewording the section in less procedural terms, on principle? Selery (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That policy says that an article should not read like a how-to manual - it's not a call for censorship but a matter of style. We don't say "first add this, then this, shake, wait 15 minutes". We do explain the process conceptually. I've looked up this article just now because I saw perhaps the same AP article you did, namely http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501367_162-57363650/ap-impact-meth-fills-hospitals-with-burn-patients/ . This makes the shake-and-bake method notable and appropriate for Wikipedia to cover. The current version is indeed woefully incomplete. What makes it moral to cover this is if we use the opportunity and do our job of getting comprehensive information to those who request it, namely, explaining to the would-be soda pop bottle rebels exactly how their procedure can turn into a nightmare. (Have you ever seen Trauma: Life in the ER? It looks like someone shaving meat for a döner...) Now there are indeed how-to sites out there, such as [1] (incidentally, I would not recommend joining in that conversation, as some of the questions seem phrased so as to support a conspiracy charge). There are little nuggets of joy in there like

"Brace yourself for a blowout of biblical proportions. Do yourself a favor.. While your standing there with the bottle still in your hand with your ears ringing so scared your afraid to look at your hand b/c your not sure you still have one. (This happened to me 3 times) When you realize your hand is still intact b/c its still holding the bottle with a gigantic fucking hole in it this is when you have roughly 3 minutes to grab a shitload of kitty litter before the lithium firework display starts. THUD THUD THUD THUD. Fire here, fire there. Oh shit.. now the sodium/potassium nitrate is on fire!!! Panic... throw water on it... j/k.. but I know ppl who freaked out and did just that. Long story short... one guy in particular was burnt so bad his gf took him to the ER b/c they were afraid of LE intervention calling 911. Guess what they came home too?? Punch line... What home!"

Now of course we can't cite a bunch of meth heads gabbing on a forum but we can see if we can use the leads we find in such ways to get to solid sources about how these things go wrong. Chemistry is not innately doomed to blow up; you just have to treat the would-be chemists with respect and foster an adult understanding of what they are contemplating, even if it doesn't seem very wise. Wnt (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with deletion of unsourced statements pertaining to ingredients and precursors and no longer have any concerns with the section in particular.

I do have some general concerns that if we're going to talk about synthesis, we should make an effort to link to authoritative external harm reduction-based guides, but I would prefer that we not talk about the precursors and synthesis process at all. I ask others to join me in keeping an eye on this, and if consensus develops for replacing precursor information or including detailed synthesis information (which I still believe is against WP:NOTHOWTO) that we link to guides specifically designed to reduce harm in production and use. They are not hard to google. Selery (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"They are not hard to Google" is a terrible excuse. The point of Wikipedia is to make information free, not under the copyright of some private corporation. If you haven't noticed, Google keeps buying up vastly important Internet companies one after another. If you run NoScript, half the sites you visit won't work unless you enable Google scripts on the page. We have no guarantee that one day they're not going to announce from on high that from now on you have to pay a subscription fee every month or else no searches, no scripts, no YouTube, no Yahoo, no maps, no translators. Wikipedia is supposed to be an alternative - a free source of information, not under anybody's lock and key. And by keeping it free, keeping it useful, keeping it competitive with private search engines which, to me, seem largely overlapping in function, by doing so we help reduce the chance such a scenario will develop.

The other issue is that a desperate meth head may be satisfied with the first hit that gives him a simple recipe, without bothering to look on for other pages that might talk about safety issues. Let's make his first hit a good hit.

Hmmm, looking at this again there's a chance I misunderstood you - "replacing" is one of those words with two equal and opposite meanings. Could you link an example of a "guide to reduce harm in production" so I get what you mean? (And more sources are always a good thing) Wnt (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I may be mistaken. I've seen some over the past year which look to have been taken down. [2] says, "Erowid was the only website in this sample to contain detailed information on methamphetamine synthesis," but [3] is clearly not a harm reduction site. Nor is it a reliable source, having apparently been composed from monograph e-mails. Selery (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, you seem to be replacing informal synthesis instructions sourced to news stories. Do you mean to do that? Would you agree to requiring peer reviewed secondary sources for this sort of thing? 67.6.179.197 (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

So far I've been looking at the section more as news than as science - the fact that there are a bazillion ways to make this simple compound is of some chemical interest, but mostly it becomes notable on account of the burns, explosions, environmental contamination, and the remarkably large and ever-expanding child's chemistry set of compounds now banned to the public because somehow they can be used to make it. I'm sure there are better sources; my philosophy is that one source is better than no source, two are better than one, three... etc. It's very hard to look up technical details about something until you know what you're looking for. So for example, at the moment I don't understand why using mercuric chloride would lead to environmental lead contamination - but a source says it, and until proven wrong my guess is that there's some reason.

I actually wasn't aware that I was "replacing" anything; I'll have to look over the history to see if there are goodies there I can work with. The only recent removal I noticed before was a small unsourced bit. Wnt (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and as for "peer reviewed secondary sources", that's a standard that can't be met here, because we're not speaking of a scientific study but rather a sort of crime. It's not submitted for publication. We have to rely on sources like reporters and police and firefighters for their accounts of what they're run into, because nobody shows up at a meth-maker's doorstep says he's from the local university and he's taking a representative statistical survey of manufacturers and he'd like to start by asking whether the synthesis uses mercury chloride... Wnt (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I just looked at that paper you mentioned. That is quite possibly the worst publication I have ever seen on PubMedCentral. Their experiment involved running a total of nine Google searches, looking at the first 20 hits, and concluding from them a long list of non sequiturs such as that parents can reduce drug use by using netnanny software and Erowid methamphetamine instructions are a threat to public health. I think that there could be some excellent social science done here, by someone willing to work - e.g. to track down a large number of people actually suffering severe burns from these attempts and figuring out what methods and specific reagents they used and seeing if they can explain what went wrong. Wnt (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Selery. The instruction section does not belong in the article. Chessofnerd (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Seperate page for Desoxyn or medical use?

This article is not vary informative in regards to Methamphetamine's use as a prescription drug for the treatment of ADHD. Almost all the information in the article is mostly relevant to abuse or use as a recreational drug. Should there be a second article or at least a section on medical use to make the article as informative as other pages on pharmaceutical drugs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.115.29.186 (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that it is a very rarely prescribed drug, I don't think it is justified to create a separate article. I do like your suggestion of creating a section for medical uses/therapeutic uses. A few sentences or paragraph in the lead/intro summarising therapeutic uses would be good as well.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That article did exist at one point, but has since been deleted or merged. This article has had a medical use section for years and it's hardly changed so if you have something to add to it, please do. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Archive 4

Archived all talk from 2009-2011 to Archive 4. C6541 (T↔C) 21:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone vandalized the 1st paragraph.

The first paragraph says "Methamphetamine , japaneses and germany make this medicine of bad killing people , in oosaka japan methamphetamine making city do kill japaneses self from 1883 1888 1943 1945 1947 1952 2012 with making 731 unit"Stopde (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Who gives a shit? Just revert it. 203.97.127.101 (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Methamphetamine2.png

Looking at this ball-and-stick model of the chemical, why is there a triple carbon-carbon bond in the ring? Shouldn't it only be a double bond? Chris857 (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me as if the benzene ring contains the correct alternating double- and single-bonds. Perhaps the "shininess" of the bonds is making it look to you as if there is a triple bond that is not really there? -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Oooh... you are right. I guess there are only 2 bonds, but the reflections (which are less pronounced on the other two double bonds in the ring) made it look different. No problems here, then. Chris857 (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

What About Really Early History of Methamphetamine?

It mentions nothing about its use in Japan or the rest of the world in its earlier years before it became illegal. Why does the history in this article start in the 1950s?75.133.90.126 (talk) 03:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: I know it mentions a few things, what I mean is that the recreational use section starts in the 1950s rather than covering recreational use beforehand. I know "shabu" was quite a hit in Japan even in the 1920s at least within some social circles. Why no mention of this?75.133.90.126 (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I beleive there is an error in the text here:

"while levomethamphetamine is a non-prescription over-the-counter nasal decongestant." Please specify what countries you are talking about, or else I beleive this is referring to pseudoephedrine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.162.113 (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Minor Correction in "Thionyl chloride synthesis" scheme

The final product shown in the synthetic route to methamphetamine by the thionyl chloride route is labelled incorrectly - it is methamphetamine, not amphetamine; amphetamine has no methyl group off the nitrogen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amwilson2000 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

"Tik"

Sentence one: "also known as... tik [citation needed]"

Well here's some citation for any diligent editor to put in:

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/tik-meth-in-cape-town.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.126.176 (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect information

"Over 20% of people addicted to methamphetamine develop a long-lasting psychosis resembling schizophrenia after stopping methamphetamine. The condition persists for longer than 6 months and is often treatment resistant.[26]" This is false, looking at the source it says of those who develop psychosis from MA 20% get those kinds of symptoms, not that 20% of addicts do. Very big difference, someone please change. 83.180.236.136 (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I've given the source a close reading and the text now reflects what the paper actually says. Thanks. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 February 2013

Please change "dextromethamphetamine" to "methamphetamine hydrochloride" as found in the FROM/TO sections below.
FROM: "Although rarely prescribed,[4] dextromethamphetamine is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of ADHD and obesity under the trade name Desoxyn"
TO: "Although rarely prescribed,[4] methamphetamine hydrochloride is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of ADHD and obesity under the trade name Desoxyn."
REASON FOR CHANGE, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND SOURCES: The referenced article does not make any mention to "dextromethamphetamine." I believe this is a typo/oversight. (PDF link to Journal article found below.)
Desoxyn is known as methamphetamine hydrochloride; the chemical name is "(S)-N,α-dimethylbenzeneethanamine hydrochloride." This name may also be referred to as "metamfetamine" in the EU using International Non-Proprietary naming or "methylamphetamine" in the United Kingdom.
ADHD medications in the United States include:

• amitriptyline - Elavil, Levate
• amphetamine/dextroamphetamine - Adderall XR, Adderall
• atomoxetine - Strattera
• bupropion - Wellbutrin, Zyban, Budeprion SR, Aplenzin, Buproban, Wellbutrin SR, Wellbutrin XL, Forfivo XL
• clonidine - Catapres, Catapres-TTS, Duraclon, Jenloga, Kapvay, Nexiclon XR
• dextroamphetamine - Dexedrine, Liquadd, ProCentra
• guanfacine - Intuniv, Tenex
• lisdexamfetamine - Vyvanse
• methamphetamine - Desoxyn
• methylphenidate - Ritalin, Ritalin SR, Ritalin LA, Concerta, Daytrana, Metadate, Metadate CD, Metadate ER, Methylin, Quillivant XR
• nortriptyline - Pamelor, Aventyl
• pemoline - Cylert

Here is a pdf file to the inline citation [4]: .
The citation [4] is a link to the abstract information but not the full journal article. I included a link to the full PDF file only so you can verify the contents and see that the information cited is mis-cited and the reference supports my change request.

Here is a pdf file to the Desoxyn medication guide: .

ChemistryWikiWiki (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)ChemistryWikiWiki ChemistryWikiWiki (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)ChemistryWikiWiki

Done Thank you! Vacation9 02:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 February 2013

REMOVE THE FOLLOWING LINE: ", while levomethamphetamine is a non-prescription over-the-counter nasal decongestant."

REASONING: This is unsubstantiated. The source referenced does not state that levomethamphetamine is an OTC nasal decongestant. The source does not contain the word "levomethamphetamine" nor "nasal" nor "decongestant."

Perhaps the author intended to write "levmetamfetamine" is a non-prescription over-the-counter nasal decongestant.."

If the author is trying to reference the levorotary enantiomer for "methamphetamine," simply adding the prefix "levo" is not the proper use of chemical nomenclature.
Levmetamfetamine - Substance Summary (SID 841240):

• Also known as: L-Methamphetamine, l-Methylamphetamine, (-)-Methamphetamine, Vicks Inhaler, d-Methamphetamine, (-)-Deoxyephedrine, R(-)-N-Methylamphetamine

Note that "L-Methamphetamine" does not mean levorotary. It is using L/D notation. The L/D systems relies on the chemical correlation of the configuration of the chiral center to one of the sterospecific enantiomers. The compounds which can be correlated without inverting the chiral center are named D (capital D), those correlated to its enantiomer are designated as L (capital L).

Here is a comprehensive list of OTC drugs listed by the FDA: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/UCM135691.pdf. You can search and find "cough/cold" under Monograph and "nasal decongestant" under Sub-category. This FDA list of OTC medications in the United States contains two entries for "levmetamfetamine" .

Please remove the end of the statement as requested above, as it is incorrect.

Thank you. ChemistryWikiWiki (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)ChemistryWikiWiki

Done Thank you! Vacation9 02:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request, February 7th

Please either remove the line "It has been demonstrated that a high ambient temperature increases the neurotoxic effects of methamphetamine.[82]" or change it to one of "It has been suggested that a high core temperature increases the neurotoxic effects of methamphetamine.[82]" or "It has been demonstrated that a high core temperature is correlated with the neurotoxic effects of methamphetamine.[82]"

REASON: The referenced article does not support the claim. Here is the relevant quote from the abstract: "At the temperature range examined, the higher ambient temperature did not significantly enhance METH-induced hyperthermia or METH-induced dopaminergic neurotoxicity, although there were trends toward increases."

The abstract does support a similar statement about core temperatures, but it is clear that causation has not been demonstrated: "Acute METH-induced increases in core temperature correlated highly and directly with subsequent decreases in striatal dopaminergic markers." and "These results [...] suggest that, as in rodents, core temperature can influence METH neurotoxicity in primates."

So the present wording is simply not supported. It should be eliminated or replaced with one of the weaker conclusions about core temperatures.

I agree that the wording was not supported by the cited references. I have altered the wording according to your suggestion. ChemNerd (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Dead Link

Reference 88 seems to be a dead link to http://elkhorn.unl.edu/epublic/live/g1748/build/g1748.pdf 61.18.190.92 (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

L-methamphetamine effects

Regarding the following claims:

Dextromethamphetamine is a stronger psychostimulant, but levomethamphetamine has a longer half-life and is CNS-active with weaker (approx. one-tenth) effects on striatal dopamine and shorter psychodynamic effects. At high doses, both enantiomers of methamphetamine can induce stereotypy and psychosis, but levomethamphetamine is less desired by drug abusers because of its weaker pharmacodynamic profile.

The reference for stereotypy and psychosis is a study of rats with stereotaxically implanted guide cannulae in their skull. Makes me wonder how one would recognize psychosis in rats...

The conclusions regarding psychostimulant effects in humans come from a trial involving twelve methamphetamine "abusers":

The elimination half-lives were longer for l-methamphetamine (13.3-15.0 hours) than for d-methamphetamine (10.2-10.7 hours).

l-Methamphetamine, 0.5 mg/kg, was psychoactive, producing peak intoxication (46.0 +/- 35.3 versus 30.3 +/- 24.9) and drug liking (47.7 +/- 35.1 versus 28.6 +/- 24.8) ratings similar to 0.5 mg/kg d-methamphetamine, but the effects of l-methamphetamine dissipated more quickly (approximately 3 hours versus 6 hours). The effects of 0.25 mg/kg l-methamphetamine were similar to those of placebo.

At high doses, l-methamphetamine intoxication is similar to that of d-methamphetamine, but the psychodynamic effects are shorter-lived and less desired by abusers.

The effects of 0.5 mg/kg are stronger for l-meth than d-meth, but at half that dose, l-meth shows no difference with placebo? And despite it's longer half-life, the effects dissipated more quickly.. This look more like a psychological phenomenon than anything else, perhaps associating the physical effects with methamphetamine use, and anticipating the desired effects, which never came. I guess the authors themselves realized that, seeing as they use the term "psychodynamic effect", for which google only returns psychotherapy related links.
I doubt two animal studies (one about deprenyl, not amphetamine) and one study with 12 addicts, all three primary sources, meet WP:MEDRS criteria. Ssscienccce (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to revert it back to the version saying levomethamphetamine is CNS inactive throughout the article without any citation, primary or otherwise. Although, personally, I don't think advocating the safety of a neurotoxin to midbrain dopamine neurons (i.e. meth) is a good idea. Seppi333 (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 July 2013

Possible cutting agents/substitute ingredients may include cyproterone acetate(Birth Control Pill) or the medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA, the base ingredient in Depo Provera) for male impotence and hidden mobile phones for auditory hallucinations whhich can cause anxienty and as a result production of adrenaline by user. The lack of stimulant properties may also induce anger in the user and therefor also assisting the production of adrenaline by user. Fear and Loathing, Lol...

139.218.218.187 (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't even understand that -- but I'm sure that if I did, the answer would be "no". Looie496 (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 July 2013

Please change X to Y because X (the current Wiki entry) is a racial pejorative against Germans & improperly uses sensationalized magazines as citations!

X says: One of the earliest uses of methamphetamine was during World War II, when it was used by Axis and Allied forces. The company Temmler produced methamphetamine under the trademark Pervitin and so did the German and Finnish militaries. It was also dubbed "Pilot's chocolate" or "Pilot's salt". It was widely distributed across rank and division, from elite forces to tank crews and aircraft personnel, with many millions of tablets being distributed throughout the war. Its use by German Panzer crews also led to it being known as "Panzerschokolade" ("Panzer chocolate" or "tankers' chocolate"). More than 35 million three-milligram doses of Pervitin were manufactured for the German army and air force between April and July 1940.

Y says:

One of the earliest uses of methamphetamine was during World War II, when it was used by Axis and Allied forces. The company Temmler produced methamphetamine under the trademark Pervitin and so did the German and Finnish militaries. It was also dubbed "Pilot's chocolate" or "Pilot's salt". It was widely distributed across rank and division, from elite forces to tank crews and aircraft personnel, with many millions of tablets being distributed throughout the war. Its use by German Panzer crews also led to it being known as "Panzerschokolade" ("Panzer chocolate" or "tankers' chocolate"). More than 35 million three-milligram doses of Pervitin were manufactured for the German army and air force between April and July 1940.

However, according to Werner Pieper’s book, Nazis on Speed, the Nazis deliberately distributed the drug freely, intending to subdue the public and increase productivity. This claim has been cited and recited time and again, without a single shred of evidence. If such a grand conspiracy were true, an endless bureaucratic paper trail would have survived in the German archives - typical of the Wehrmacht was endless record keeping - including: endless lists of people who were to receive the drug on a regular basis, fixed distribution points for the public, a sophisticated logistical apparatus which would transport the drugs from depots to these distribution points; and if not that, at least an order from the central health authorities instructing physicians to prescribe the drug to their patients. Aside from an estimate of how many pervitin tablets were manufactured by the pharmaceutical company Temmler Werke, nothing has ever been found to substantiate this claim. In all, the German military did not receive many pills; certainly not enough to have the entire military high for the duration of a five and a half years war.

During the Second World War, German military officials and the medical authorities debated the effectiveness of pervitin, especially for pilots. In the end, it was decided on October 25, 1941 that the drug should be put under lock and key. Official use continued in the military, but with extreme caution.

Pervitin was not banned in Germany. In fact, the German drug law (known as the Opium Law of 1929) did not prohibit any type of drug, be it an amphetamine or another. Instead, drug use remained legal in Germany, but possession of drugs without a proper prescription was considered a misdemeanor. Whereas the military limited the use of pervitin the fall of 1941, for civilians, dolantin (an opiate), pervitin (crystal meth), and benzedrine (‘bennies,’ an American amphetamine popular at the time) were included in the sixth amendment of the drug law a few months earlier on 21 June 1941. The reason, according to Oberregierungsrat Kärber of the Ministry of Health, was the addictive nature of the drugs, not pilot experiences in the Luftwaffe.

It must be clearly stated: the amendment did not constitute a ban; instead, a prescription was needed to obtain the drugs, and if the prescription was given for a long period of time, a record had to be sent to the proper authorities. In spite of the amendment, pervitin consumption ostensibly rose so rapidly that Oberregierungsrat Linz of the Ministry of Health predicted in 1942 that more extreme measures would have to be taken against the drug, even though it had acceptable medical uses in treating vascular diseases. Such measures were never implemented, perhaps because the German police only knew of 84 pervitin addicts in 1942.

Bonventre88 (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

That's far too long for this article, and it is also completely lacking in source information that could be used to verify the statements. I have no idea why you call this a "racial pejorative" -- I'm of German ancestry myself, and I see nothing offensive in it. Looie496 (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Molecular Weight Appears Wrong

The current mol wt is 149.2337 - I think the value should be 149.237 carried to three places based on the atomic weights for C, H and N in wikipedia for formula C10H15N — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esbboston (talk • contribs) 19:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Some heavy editing requested

This article is a disaster. I've read it before at least a year ago but wow... Did it get vandalized and people were too lazy to revert it?

   Although rarely prescribed,[9]

the frequency in which this drug is prescribed isn't particularly relevant and this sentence is what made me curious to finish reading. the entire article seems to be written by someone who has a very clear anti meth agenda.

   by triggering a cascading release of dopamine in the brain characterized as Amphetamine/Stimulant psychosis.

[citation needed],... the therapeutic/recreational effects of this drug is not called amphetamine psychosis. I'm not a medical profession but amphetamine psychosis is caused by staying up for 4+ days while high

   Because methamphetamine is highly abused for negative purposes such as selling the prescription to others, or overdosing (which c  ontributes to very dangerous side effects) than using the medication medically ... "

Ok. Which is it? Is it rarely prescribed as said in the lead or does everyone who gets a prescription (mostly people with narcolepsy, i'd imagine) going off and selling their pills? [citation needed] and that entire paragraph including the black box warning excerpt could stand to be rewritten or flat out deleted.

   Desoxyn may be prescribed off-label for the treatment of narcolepsy and treatment-resistant depression.[21] "

The study linked is from 1994 and is not relevant to this claim. I'm certain this sentence is correct but a better cite is needed imo

   Methamphetamine is used as a recreational drug for its euphoric and stimulant properties. "

lol. as if this section is needed when the entire article is devoted to demonizing this drug

   Moreover, methamphetamine use is associated with an increased risk of Parkinson's disease due to the fact that uncontrolled dopamine effluxion is neurotoxic.[14][34] "

[jargon] ...

I propose that "Uses" section be totally reserved for "Medical Usage" and the title changed accordingly. Recreational use section is completely redundant as is the "Effects" section. All of that information repeats itself below under "Adverse effects."

I honestly am done with this. This article is a lost cause right now. Really disappointing that this article can be protected and be so clearly vandalized and not immediately fixed. Maybe one day I'll torture myself and get those stupid 5 edits or whatever so I can fix shit like this... Mister Infamous (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 August 2013

personal attack collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
ya some asshole fucktard added something completely off topic and unrelated. its a disgusting photo. i simply just want to take it off and block the uploader.

Tyson.kaemmer9411 (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything. Can you be more specific? Paris1127 (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done:. The image appears to be on-topic and very much related to the subject of the article. "Disgusting" is in the eye of the beholder, and Wikipedia isn't censored, so you'd need to persuade other users that the whatever deficiencies you find in the image outweigh its value to the article. The way to do that is most certainly not to namecall. Incidentally, the image is hosted on Wikipedia Commons, an affiliated site over whose content Wikipedia exercises no control. Rivertorch (talk) 07:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Burn unit closures due to "Shake 'n Bake"

"this method of synthesis has been blamed for the closure of hospital burn units and a cost to taxpayers of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars."

Source given is About.com which in turn gives this 2012 AP story as source: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46104151/ns/health-addictions/#.Uixi19e-6CF They write: "At least seven burn units across the nation have shut down over the past six years, partly due to consolidation but also because of the cost of treating uninsured patients, many of whom are connected to methamphetamine."

Five years earlier, in 2007, we had this report: "Associated Press interviews and an examination of official figures found that the shrinking number of beds is a growing cause for concern in this post-Sept. 11, 2001, world. The number of burn centers in the United States has dropped from 132 in 2004 to 127"

In 2010, there were 124 burn units, in 2012 there were 125 (ABA NBR Annual report).

Two units that closed between 2007 and 2012 were:

• Chattanooga, Tenn. Erlanger hospital 2008: The burn unit’s former medical director, Dr. Lesley Wong, left in February for family reasons. Her departure prompted hospital physicians and officials to reevaluate the capacity of the burn center and to acknowledge the unlikelihood of recruiting a new medical director to oversee a relatively small unit, Erlanger CEO Jim Brexler said. (http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1470803/chattanooga_erlanger_officials_explain_burn_unit_closure/ )
• Carondelet St. Mary’s Hospital 2008: Carondelet St. Mary’s Hospital announced Friday that without a full-time medical director to oversee its burn unit, the hospital will have to close that portion of its Burn and Wound Care Program. ... She said the hospital initially looked at expanding the burn unit into a verified burn program with a full-time burn care medical director and specialized physicians. However, when recruitment failed, the next option was to close the program. Officials also cited a decreasing patient population – an average of two patients per day – as one of the factors leading to the closure. (http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/2008/08/23/94600-st-mary-s-closing-burn-unit-on-sept-1/ )

So two burn units closed in 2008, for reasons that have nothing to do with meth patients or what AP calls "a crude new method of making methamphetamine". In summary: 2004-2007: 5 closures, 2007-2010: 3 closures, 2010-2012: one opening. Stating in 2012 that this new method is causing burn unit closures seems a bit of a stretch. Ssscienccce (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Split sections

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The discussion concluded with a consensus to merge the content

---

For the same argument on the amphetamine page (copy/pasting what I wrote from that talk page, with some edits):

The current page has information on methamphetamine from a medical/chemistry standpoint, a historical perspective, and a socio-cultural standpoint, so I think moving some of the material to a page on the collective history and socio-cultural aspects of amphetamine and methamphetamine would help to broaden the scope of Amphetamine: History, Society, and Culture (this will need to be renamed after the split to incorporate the material on meth) and reduce the excessive size of the current article. I'm proposing this for the following policy and article-quality related reasons:

• WP:SIZESPLIT suggests cutting an article when the size reaches 100k. As of writing this talkpage entry, the article is at 113k.
• The content in several sections (Meth mouth, Public health issues, Risk of sexually transmitted disease, routes of administration, Natural occurrence, History, Illicit production, and Slang terms) are equally or more relevant to a socio-cultural context than the medical/chemistry context of this article. Because of this,, I think WP:CONSPLIT also provides guidance on dividing the article into its medical/chemistry component and the aforementioned components, which have a content/context (socio-cultural and historical) overlap with the material in Amphetamine: History, Society, and Culture.
• I don't see this article achieving a higher rating from the chemicals/medicine/pharmacology wikiprojects without some action being taken to address the size and scope of the article.

Because every section contains a lot of overlapping medical and recreational ("socio-cultural") components, components of several sections will need to either be removed or copied. I'm not certain about which sections to copy and which sections to remove when making the page split at this point; any feedback would really be appreciated, as this split isn't going to be as clear-cut as recent one on the amphetamine page. Tentatively, my thoughts on what to do with these sections is as follows:

• Recreational use - move entire section
• Meth mouth - copy
• Illegal laboratories - move entire section
• Ambulance attendances - move entire section
• Risk of sexually transmitted disease - copy
• Routes of administration - move entire section
• Natural occurrence - move entire section
• History - move entire section
• Illicit production - move entire section
• Slang terms - move entire section

Comments would be greatly appreciated!
Seppi333 (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Do it. Seems like a good idea to me. The article is indeed overly long. 99.153.64.179 (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Retrieved chemical sections

The sections on the illicit production and distribution of the drug, including forensic analysis of impurities, belong in this main article because they are about the chemistry. The other article says rather explicitly the chemistry belongs here in the note at the beginning of it, and these things are simply not "history", "society", or "culture", but scientific in nature. Therefore I've brought them back. I've also moved a little section on present legality to that article, because it doesn't make sense (WP:RECENTISM) to separate the modern-day legality from the historical legal status. Wnt (talk) 07:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there's chemistry-related content in that section, but I'm kind of confused as to why you don't think that's entirely in the context of illicit methamphetamine culture. I'm not going to revert your edits, but instead just point out that if you really want that chemistry information devoid of a cultural context on this page, use Substituted_amphetamine#Synthesis. That material definitely contains a lot more content relevant to illicit drug culture than synthesis information, so I personally think it belongs on the other page. Seppi333 (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, you could say the same thing about a paragraph like "Methamphetamine is sold under the name Desoxyn, trademarked by the Danish pharmaceutical company Lundbeck.[14] As of January 2013, the Desoxyn trademark had been sold to Italian pharmaceutical company Recordati.[13]" is also "culture". Everything is kind of society or culture, because it happens in the context of society or culture. So that's not really a workable distinction. I think that bits like the closing of burn wards can be transferred to society because they're only social consequences, rather than about the drug itself, but I think that tangible facts about the drug itself (not just the theoretical mode of synthesis, but how much in what form is made where) belong here. Put it this way: this article still needs a section detailing the legal synthesis of Desoxyn in the same way, describing the synthesis route used, what companies make it, how much they make and how many people it is prescribed to, etc. Would you put all that in the article about "society, history, and culture"? Wnt (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess I should probably just explain what I had in mind when making the split. Both this and the amphetamine article are more or less structured like a combination of a chemical data sheet and medication guide for healthcare professionals - that's what I envisioned the two articles to look like after the split. The idea was to omit everything that didn't fit well into that layout and move it to a new page, since one page is simply too big for all that information. Consequently, there would more or less be 2 pages on the same topic from different perspectives. A small amount of redundancy would therefore be inevitable, but it would be a lot less redundant than, for example, dextroamphetamine and amphetamine, which are virtually the same topic.

Also, now that you point it out, that information should probably go on the other page as well. I'll need to make another small split in the future to gather things I missed from the first split. Seppi333 (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that splitting the article was a bad idea in the first place, and splitting it according to "history, society, and culture" was a worse one. But using an article with a specified title as an unofficial grab bag for "everything that doesn't fit" absolutely isn't going to wash. Nobody but you can ever know what you think doesn't fit - there's no way any reader is going to guess that pharmaceutical trademarks and production would go under the title you've come up with. I think at this point it may be best to go back and come up with a brand new idea for how to split it, if at all, based on monophyletic classifications. By monophyletic, I mean, any sub-articles are about one particular topic and branches of that topic. So we could end up with articles like Methamphetamine slang or Methamphetamine production and distribution. Again, I'm not sure about even those splits. Wnt (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

In that case, make your proposition, leave it open for a full week like I did, and propose it to WPMed and WPPharm like I did. I received a total of three message of positive feedback, 1 neutral, and 0 negative during the split discussion. IE this was a fully discussed, highly visible, 100% consensus split - so you seem to be alone on that one.Seppi333 (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC) I should also add that Amphetamine: History, Society, and Culture is disjoint from Methamphetamine and Amphetamine; i.e. none of those are sub-articles of one of the others.Seppi333 (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't normally do things in such a formal way - for one thing, the WikiProjects don't have any formal authority; they're just places to round up some editors. Certainly I can and have split articles in the past without looking for support in advance. But the sections you propose moving under your title don't have anything to do with it - you have to recognize that's not going to work. (To illustrate that your move was not really that carefully looked over, no matter what projects weighed in on it, note that your new title doesn't even follow the standard rules for no-capitalization) Wnt (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Given that methamphetamine is a highly visible article and content moves are likely to be contentious, I did it the formal way as suggested in WP:PROSPLIT, Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing a merger, and H:M in such cases. This is a contentious enough move to require discussion simply because I disagree with you. Moreover, you should probably take the time to read Talk: Amphetamine: History, Society, and Culture (as well as archived discussion in WPMED) before you make more assertions about the lack of oversight. I did find the comment amusing though.Seppi333 (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Organizational idea

I would suggest that if the article is split, it should be into three branches. I'm thinking the breakdown would be roughly as follows - though some sections, especially those for history, would need to be split up almost sentence by sentence.

Methamphetamine as an ingested substance

Methamphetamine use and health effects M Medical use M Effects M - 2.1 Physical M - 2.2 Psychological M - 2.3 Withdrawal M - 2.4 Long-term M - 2.5 Tolerance M 3 Adverse effects M - 3.1 Addiction M - 3.2 Psychosis M - 3.3 Meth mouth M - 3.4 Pregnancy and breastfeeding M - 3.5 Risk of sexually transmitted disease M 4 Pharmacology M - 4.1 Pharmacokinetics M - - 4.1.1 Detection in biological fluids A - 2.2 Military use A - 2.3 Medical and legal over-the-counter sales A 6 Recreational use A - 6.1 Routes of administration A - 6.1.1 Injection A - 6.1.2 Smoking A - 6.1.3 Insufflation A - 6.1.4 Suppository

Methamphetamine as a chemical or industrial product

Methamphetamine production and trade M 5 Illicit production of methamphetamine M - 5.1 Synthesis M - 5.2 Production and distribution M - 5.3 Impurities and adulterants A - 2.1 Discovery (Missing) Legal production and distribution of methamphetamine

Laws, social reactions, and consequences of methamphetamine

Methamphetamine and society A - 2.4 Recreational use and prohibitive regulations A - 2.5 Present legal status A 3 Society and culture (amphetamine) A - 3.1 In literature A - 3.2 In music A - 3.3 In film A - 3.4 In mathematics A - 3.5 Smuggling A 4 Society and culture (methamphetamine) A - 4.1 Risk of sexually transmitted disease A - 4.2 Ambulance attendances A - 4.3 Illegal laboratories A - 4.4 Burns A 5 Slang terms

Each branch should have a more specific article, and each specific article should be summarized in the main article. The idea is that all aspects of the drug should be summarized in the main article, rather than delegating some and not others. Wnt (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Question Just to make sure I understand, you're proposing to put amphetamine content under a methamphetamine title (Methamphetamine and Society), after raising the issue an hour ago that the (formerly) Amphetamine: History, Society, and Culture title didn't fit well with content on methamphetamine? Seppi333 (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to strike those items out. Done now. Also the reason why I keep saying it's the wrong title isn't even because of the amphetamine/methamphetamine part, rather the second part seems to rule out chemistry and industry. Wnt (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support After thinking it over, I think breaking it down into sub-articles is a suitable idea if you want to do it that way. Go ahead and make the split if you're still interested; just be sure to use the copied template when you do. That said, what do you propose for the remaining content on amphetamine from that page? Seppi333 (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd likely leave the unwanted bits where they are until someone thinks of something for that end. I'm not going to rush to do this split right now - I'm amazed that an article like this that must have a high readership doesn't get more opinions on its talk page, but I should see if more comments come up. Wnt (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

opps Sorry

I accidentally removed the info box from here instead of the article I thought I was starting. Nick Beeson (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Dummy section for reflist talk closure

22:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

References

old and new

old way--50 miles from anywhere -- it stank new way--the motel room next to you

there is a big difference it may be the dextro vs levro

i have intimate experience -- gave it up when the old stuff was gone .......ck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.170.54 (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

North Korean Epidemic

I'm swamped with school work at the moment, but this article could really use a brief discussion of the purported epidemic in North Korea: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/21/how-north-korea-got-itself-hooked-on-meth/ http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/30/world/asia/north-korea-drugs/ Exercisephys (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It's probably more suitable for History and culture of amphetamines at this point. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, Seppi333. Why do you think this? The lack of emntion of North Korea in this article is, IMO, systemic bias♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Major rewrite + content re-split underway

Over the course of this week, I'm going to rewrite and resource this article to mirror the layout and formatting of amphetamine and subsequently GA-nominate this article upon completion. If anyone has an objection to any of my changes, I'd ask that you bring up your concerns here instead of immediately reverting.

@Boghog: In the event you have time, I'll probably need your expertise with the synthesis section again.
@Sasata: If you're not too busy at the time that I GA-nominate this article (sometime within the next 7 days), you'd probably be the ideal reviewer due to your familiarity with amphetamine and its layout. I don't plan or want to take this article to FA-class, so hopefully it won't be as much of a burden on you if you decide to take on the GA-review.

Regards,Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible images to use in the synthesis section

• File:Methamphetamine from ephedrine with HI en.png
  

  
• File:Methamphetamine from P2P en.png
  

  
• File:Methamphetamine from ephedrine via chloroephedrine en.png
  

  

Pre-formatted sources for inclusion

• Desoxyn Dec 2013 label info
• Drugbank Methamphetamine (Toxicity excerpt censored)
• Pubchem Methamphetamine
• Metabolite citations for the amph pathway
• TAAR1 review
• VMAT2 review
• Methamphetamine synthesis
• Supplemental Amphetamine pharmacodynamics for comparison section
• Amphetamine psychosis section w/ Cochrane ref (See source)

References

Slang / Other Names

There should be a list of slang and other names for Meth added Mudak568 (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

-- My question would be- how to keep this list reliably referenced. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

There is such a list at History and culture of amphetamines#Slang terms. —C.Fred (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I added an abbreviated list of these in note 1 (note in 1st sentence). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Radical (IMHO) deletions

This edit [4] was improperly reasoned: edit summary claimed failure of MEDRS, which is false on its face. Both sources have excellent bona fides. --Lexein (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This isn't really relevant now that I'm done editing that section. In any event, both sources were way out of date for a medical secondary source (WP:MEDDATE - 5 year limit for areas of active research. 10 years is pushing it.) Half of each paragraph was uncited (Fails MEDRS by default). I didn't state this in my edit summary, but the following uncited sentence was entirely wrong (and non-sequitur due to use of "neurotransmitter" in place of "dopamine"), since meth's neurotoxicity in human dopamine neurons involves transporters (DAT and VMAT2) as opposed to the enzymes involved in catecholamine synthesis: "Short-term tolerance typically lasts until neurotransmitter levels are fully replenished; because of the toxic effects on dopaminergic neurons, this can be greater than 2–3 days."

Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

References

• Ok, thanks. I missed the 5/10-year deadline. Better edit summaries in future, or simultaneous mention on Talk of planned deletions & rationale, would be quite helpful. On the subject of this material, is it not still of historical interest, as in, "As of 2002, it was though that (brief summary), but research in the 2010s showed that (case) was a more accurate model." ? Best, --Lexein (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the idea, but it might be difficult for me to assess what the scientific consensus at some point in the past compared to the present. Even so, if there is a notable/interesting difference in consensus, I'll likely add it when I get to the history section. Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Photos and Other ideas for new section

I noticed that the only photos avalible here is the white legal pills. Should there not be a photo for each illegal form? what about adding a section dedicated to overcoming meth addiction and cravings? There is also no metion of the fact that Ice is 80 - 90% pure compared to Speed which is 50 - 60% pure. Thorghts on adding these ideas and photos? (Mudak568 (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)) Mudak568 (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I was planning on using the crystal shard image in recreational and an image of the free base (if I can find one) in chemical/physical properties. If you have a ref handy, I can add the purity info to the recreational section now. I'm still in the process of re-framing and adding relevant parts of the split content though. Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

More or less done

Besides some minor issues, I'm more or less finished with editing. How's it look? Before – After. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a question, but does the Recreational section need to focus on only one source talking specifically about people who are gay who use it? I at least feel it could be a violation of NPoV due to the focus. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy to add more material, but I really don't have a decent secondary source on hand to document other groups of users. I expect more will be added in time if I don't come across any while I work on related articles (for comparison, there's literally nothing comparable to that documentary available on recreational amphetamine use). In any event, the coverage of meth use in the gay population is mainly due to meth's differing neuroendocrine effects on male/female sex organs and libido (the explanation is rather technical); in a nutshell, men are far more likely to experience hypersexuality/hyperarousal symptoms than women. Unfortunately, that puts gay methamphetamine users at greater risk for pathological use than heterosexual or other LGBT meth users. In the event you want to see it, there's several copies of the complete documentary on youtube, e.g., like this one. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Ha, ok... I just realized why it might seem homophobic on the face of it without additional knowledge of that sub-culture - let me know if this edit addresses your concern. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. I took a look at your edit to the article and it does seem to help clarify what is happening, while also taking a neutral line on the issue. As long as there are no other users who object to the section, I believe that the issue has been resolved. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Not There Yet

Hi fellow Wikipedians, kudos to you all for tackling this topic! It seems to still have some problems, however. At least - here are my two cents for what its worth (if naything). First and foremost: treating the "meth" entry as just another pharmacological article squanders a HUGE opportunity for Wikipedia to reach its readers. I can ASSURE you that 95% (if not more) of the people coming to Wikipedia to read more on "meth" are interested in it as a street drug and the history related to it's rise as such. Case in point: I went to Wikipedia to research "meth" after I started reading the excellent NF book, "Methland: The Death and Life of an American Small Town," by Nick Reding.

I wanted to gain a clearer picture of the different "types" of meth. ("Biker meth" versus "crystal" meth, which I gather are actually from different starting materals &/or methods of synthesis, so may be different chemicals entirely, but are nonetheless related culturally, and, thus should be discussed in concert, at minimum.) Astute viewers of "Breaking Bad" (the popularity of which has no doubt greatly increased traffic to this page!) will realize that the different processes are a key plot point of the show. Those coming to Wikipeia hungering to understand more will be sadly disappointed by the dryly scientific and technical article they encounter here. IF the cultural (i.e., "street" aspects of the drug are discussed elsewhere, then THAT link needs to be made MUCH more prominent. It was not discernable in my quick scan of the disambig. page!) Anhow, a few other specific comments:

(1) NPOV violated by phrase, "Entirely opposite to the long-term use of amphetamine, ..." (This phrase is gratuitous; not necessary to the topic at had which is meth effects on brain, NOT differences between meth and other types of amphetamines.) Particularly as no citation given.

(2) NO CITATIONS indicated for any of the first three paragraphs! MUST be fixed, as very specific assertions are made.

(3) To have "meth" diambiguate to here is a huge disservice, as there is almost no cultural info. on "meth" here. It's all chemistry, which even makes MY eyes glaze over, even WITH my minor in chemstry!

(4) If you can find it online, the book Methland makes repeated mention of a groundbreaking series of articles on the spread and scourge of meth that appeared in the newspaper, The Oregonian, by journalist Steve Sou, "An Unnecessary Epidemic," Oct. 2004.

Lastly, I really don't want to embroil mysef in a highly technical edit of a highly viewed page. So, I hope my comments will be taken as helpful, rather than trollish. And, sorry for the typos -- I'm on my iPad, in bed, sick with th flu (and hopped to the gills on legal drugs, ironically!) (That's why I'm in the Talk pages and not doing actual edits! lol)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynthisa (talk • contribs) 04:48, 6 February 2014

Hi Cynthisa, I'll probably copy/paste the relevant citations from the body to the lead to address your citation concerns. The source contains comments after each lead paragraph that the relevant sources are attached to the corresponding sentence in the body (the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body). As for the specific issues you raised:

• (1) I included it mostly because it's a surprising fact, both are Rx'd ADHD medications in the US, and very few people understand the pharmacological (particularly pharmacodynamic) differences between amphetamine and methamphetamine. The relevant passages from the body, with citations, are included in item 2.
• (2) As noted in the censored comments in the lead, the citations are coupled to the equivalent statements in the body of the article - every section except contraindications was summarized. As for the more controversial statements related to adverse effects and amphetamine vs methamphetamine, the associated text (including refs) from the body is the following quotes.

Article quotes

From Methamphetamine#Neurotoxicity Unlike amphetamine, methamphetamine is directly neurotoxic to dopamine neurons. Moreover, methamphetamine abuse is associated with an increased risk of Parkinson's disease due to excessive pre-synaptic dopamine autoxidation, a mechanism of neurotoxicity. Similar to the neurotoxic effects on the dopamine system, methamphetamine can also result in neurotoxicity to serotonin neurons. It has been demonstrated that a high core temperature is correlated with an increase in the neurotoxic effects of methamphetamine. As a result of methamphetamine-induced neurotoxicity to dopamine neurons, chronic use may also lead to post acute withdrawals which persist beyond the withdrawal period for months, and even up to a year. From Methamphetamine#Pharmacodynamics Although all of the mechanisms are not fully understood, methamphetamine is a known neurotoxin in both lab animals and humans. Beyond neurotoxicity, magnetic resonance imaging studies on human methamphetamine addicts and abusers indicate adverse neuroplastic changes, such as significant abnormalities in various brain structures. In particular, methamphetamine appears to cause white matter hyperintensity and hypertrophy, marked shrinkage of hippocampi, and a reduction in gray matter in the cingulate cortex, limbic cortex, and paralimbic cortex. Moreover, there are adverse changes in various metabolic markers of metabolic integrity or synthesis in methamphetamine abusers, such as reductions in N-acetylaspartate and creatine as well as elevated choline and myoinositol levels. From Methamphetamine#Comparison to amphetamine pharmacodynamics In contrast to the adverse neuroplastic effects evident in methamphetamine addicts and abusers, long-term use of amphetamine or methylphenidate at therapeutic doses appears to produce beneficial changes in brain function and structure, such as normalization of the right caudate nucleus.

• (3) Feel free to change it; I don't really care about the DAB pages mentioned in hatnotes.
• (4) That's probably more suited for History and culture of amphetamines, but I'll look into it for that article.

Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 16:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

References

Thanks for taking the time to respond, Seppi. I shall hold off on my comments (if any) till later, since clearly these pages are in flux. Cheers! Cynthisa (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Reader feedback.

Note to self: link to the relevant section on history and culture of amphetamines after copyediting it.

76.206.202.48 posted this comment on 19 January 2014 (view all feedback).

I also wonder if any study has been done on toxic substances that unscrupulous drug dealers add to 'crystal meth' to stretch their inventories. One additive that I know of (methylsulfonylmethane) does not seem to bother 'snorters' or 'slammers', but causes 'smokers' to suffer headaches, abdominal discomfort, and other symptoms of acute poisoning. Possibly heating the mixture to over 300 degrees Celsius while subjecting it to a blast of air in the 'meth pipe' creates a more toxic product.

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Neurotoxicity of amphetamine and cocaine

[5] and [6] show that data on the neurotoxicity of amphetamine is inconclusive and needs to be studied more, while it is listed as fact that amphetamine and cocaine are not neurotoxic. (I found an abstract on cocaine neurotoxicity but I lost it)

Muchotreeo (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply! This issue is actually in discussion at talk:amphetamine, but more or less the issue is whether or not the compounds are direct neurotoxins (usually analogous to saying that a substance is neurotoxic - these terms are loosely defined). All substances are indirectly neurotoxic at some (possibly extreme) dose or during unusual circumstances - e.g., water intoxication  • salt intoxication  • catastrophic brain damage from a water/salt interaction. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 15:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Pictures

How legal is it to have that image of a person holding meth as in the Recreational Use section? It must mean possession because how else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingeroscar (talk • contribs) 02:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It could be a DEA image, but it doesn't matter because have pictures isn't illegal. Muchotreeo (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Muchotreeo, having pictures provided they do not contain children engaged in sex acts, is perfectly legal, hence while the picture may cause government authorities to start enquiring into the personal life of the uploader it is of no concern to us as users of said image. Brenton (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 14:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Its illegal to possess a drug like meth. It is not illegal to take a photo of said drug though provided it is not in one's possession and even then taking the photo would not be illegal. And besides while wikipedia likely has a moral duty to help enforce laws agaionst child sexual exploitation I think it would be highly controversial to argue that wikipedia has a duty to enforce drug prohibition laws♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

During World War II, methamphetamine was used extensively by the Axis forces for its stimulant effects????

It current says "During World War II, methamphetamine was used extensively by the Axis forces for its stimulant effects". The reference is a book about the Germans using it. I don't see any mention of it anywhere being used by the other Axis powers. Anyone got a reference for that? Dream Focus 20:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what the issue is here. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

page 3 discusses Japanese use during the war briefly, and this discusses its use by several major combatants. Roberticus talk 01:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

What about Italy? There are three Axis powers. Was it "used extensively" for all three of them, or just extensively in Germany, and somewhat in Japan, and not in Italy at all? It says everyone used it for their pilots at times. Was Germany the only one who used it for ground soldiers though? Dream Focus 02:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It currently says "During World War II, methamphetamine was used extensively by the Axis forces for its stimulant effects.[83]" "The Axis forces" is nonspecific language; it's not saying just one, all, or a particular combination of the associated countries in that alliance. Feel free to specify it though - I don't really care how it's written. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I, for one, agree with dream the wording is just bordering on inaccuracy and hence I can see his reason for editing it. Extensively, generally means that every part of the Axis powers would be using it, at least to some extent. But my agreement isn't strong enough for me to do anything about it, I'll leave it to him/her to fix this problem. Brenton (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 14:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Illegal Synthesis

Under synthesis, there should be a link to the illegal synthesis section of History and culture of amphetamines, like there is on amphetamine. I'd do it myself but my account is new.

As Cynthisa pointed out, a lot of people are coming here to learn more about "street" meth. If the synthesis section of this article isn't going to cover the stereospecific reduction of l-ephedrine/d-pseudoephedrine to d-methamphetamine, it should at least provide a link to one that does.

BlackstarX (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 22:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)