Talk:Stimulant use disorder

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tobacco and nicotine as stimulants

The DSM-5 categorizes tobacco use disorder as a distinct disorder from stimulant use disorder. I'm not sure if this means that a chronic smoker would qualify for tobacco use disorder and stimulant use disorder, or if he would qualify simply for tobacco use disorder. A separate article could be made for tobacco use disorder. Further thoughts? Michipedian (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have since created the article for tobacco use disorder. In the DSM-5, tobacco use disorder is not a stimulant use disorder; rather, it is an independent substance use disorder. Tobacco and nicotine should not be discussed as stimulants in the context of stimulant use disorder. I now consider this issue resolved. —Michipedian (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was past year the 1992?

Article states:

""" Approximately 200 million Americans have used some type of stimulant in the past year alone.[2] """ Quoting printed source from '93[2],

0) encyclopedic texts probably should not use terms like 'past year', especially without providing explicit reference point in time. [And not only implied in references]

1) there is no chance that at any point in Wikipedia's lifetime this '93 source was accurate description of 'past year', therefore it's either obvious mistake of balant copyright infringement of material published in '93-94.

2) assuming that both tabaco and caffeine from coffee (but not tea?) are considered stimulants in this context 200M seams right for '93 (77% of US population at the time). Given the context of the article one might assume that 'stimulants' reffer to substances not as benign as coffee. In such case, 200M unique users last year in US alone seems doubtful. Even if that's a correct number it might prompt reasonable doupt in mind of a reader trying to get a first glimpse on the subject (such as myself just 5 minutes ago!). It might be advised to review this statement and if it's correct to add some explanation that contextualises such a high number. 178.235.51.79 (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]