Jump to content

Talk:Temazepam

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

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

[edit]

Sorry don't really know how this works but just wanted to say that temazepam is a schedule III drug, and class 2 (sorry don't know the system but i think this is right) however in the UK the class system that is referred to in the article is the police system for classifying drugs not the pharmaceutical and decides the conviction for possession or supply. The schedule system is used in the UK by doctors and pharmacists and it is this that refers to the safe storage, prescribing and dispensing of the drugs from the misuse of drugs act. There are also a number of different regulations that only apply to temazapam in the MEP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.66.155 (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's freely available in UK, and there are no restrictions what's so ever. See I found online selling it rn. 37.111.128.99 (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I think I remember trying to discuss this previously, but anyway:

Temazepam is indeed included under Schedule III, but is obviously excluded in the Misuse of Drugs Regulations (2001) from Regulation 15 on form of prescriptions.

Subject to the provisions of this regulation, a person shall not issue a prescription containing a controlled drug other than a drug specified in Schedule 4 or 5 or temazepam unless the prescription complies with the following requirements…

It does not require a special Controlled Drug form (if indeed such a thing exists?) nor even the signature of the 'Collectors of Schedule 2 & 3 CDs' box on the standard pad form.
However is there is a later reference in Regulation 16 to the (amended in 2001) National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1992, requiring that electronic forms also include the date of supply. But this is still irrelevant to the claim of 'special' forms.
Similarly the claim that it is legal to posses any other benzodiazapine in the UK without prescription is similarly random. This may result from a misunderstanding that some (Part II) of the Schedule 4 list may be possessed when in the form of a medical product without prescription. However many benzos are found in Part I of the list and are still subject to Regulation 5 and hence prohibition remains prohibited.
P.S. I wish legislation was better laid out. Zetetic Apparatchik (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to fix any inaccuracies to the prescribing requirements. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not confident enough. ;) I'd like someone to challenge me first! I've just never heard of this requirement as regards Temazepam. There might be a handwritten signature requirement, but if so this doesn't seem to be taken very seriously by pharmacists. Zetetic Apparatchik (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I have removed the line "Unlike with other benzodiazepines, possession is illegal without a prescription."

This is incorrect.. if you have unauthorised Diazepam, Zopiclone, Zolpidem, Barbiturates etc in the UK, it is also illegal as they are ALL considered 'Class C' controlled substances under the Misuse of Drugs Act', and you will be arrested for possession without a prescription. Dvmedis (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--

Also, I have removed "tempazepam is a schedule III.. etc.. and therefore is more heavily controlled than other benzodiazepines which are schedule IV."

Huuuuh??? There is no such thing here in the UK as 'schedules', let alone 'III and IV' (or at least not in the way the article means).. we have Class A, Class B and Class C for all illegal drugs (this is all defined in the 'Misuse of Drugs Act'). All Benzo's in the UK are Class C's to my knowledge without prescription (Class A's when prepared for injection), and I have adjusted the article accordingly. It would appear the UK legal status bit may have been written by someone not from the UK, just copying and pasting things they don't wholly understand.

I am dubious about the 'special prescription' thing too.. but I have no knowledge either way (although I've certainly never heard of it!!).. but I've left it in.. for now.. Dvmedis (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are incorrect. The UK actually does use the dug Scheule I, II, III, IV system. It uses it in addition to the ABC system. I don't fully understand it but I think that the ABC system is used more by criminal law and the schedule I, II, III and IV system is used by medicine and pharmacy although perhaps it is more complicated than that, I would need to read up on it. Midazolam and flunitrazepam in the UK is schedule III and I believe temazepam is as well.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australia - Controlled Drug

[edit]

Temezepam is not a schedule 4 controlled drug in australia, it is a schedule 4 (prescription only) drug, this is the same schedule as antibiotics, blood presure medicines, heart drugs etc. Australia has only one schedule for controlled drugs, that being S8

121.209.52.159 (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Jonathan[reply]

You are incorrect it is not the same as antibiotics, there are restrictions on the volume that can be prescribed.[1],[2] Australia also subscribes to international drug regulations which class benzodiazepines as a controlled drug. According to this site, benzodiazepines as well as other controlled drugs that "It is an offence to possess these drugs without a prescription, or make false representations to obtain a drug or a prescription for a drug or to fill a prescription from an authorised person."[3] According to this site temazepam has actually been upgraded to a schedule 8 controlled drug. "In Australia, temazepam has recently been placed on Schedule 8 (controlled drugs) and UK experience suggests this will be successful in preventing harm."[4],[5]--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find where it says its S8, can you show ref? 70.137.167.75 (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is on page 40 of the last reference. It is a PDF file, you can search it by putting in a couple of keywords. Search "controlled drugs" and you will find it. You can also zoom in using adobe PDF reader if the text is too small to read. I hope that this helps.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality, repetitive imageof 10 mg tablets

[edit]
Closing.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
File:Temaze (temazepam).jpg

Editor182 insists on keeping a poor quality image of 10 mg temazepam tablets. This image is frankly a detriment to a very good article. It is over exposed, out of focus and done with a flash. Moreover, he wishes to remove photos which are not of a brand familar to him - however, the article is on the compound temazepam and NOT any given brand of it. Please arrive at a consensus regarding removal of the image. Note that there is already a better quality image of 10 mg tablets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristoferb (talk • contribs) 19:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image has been removed from the article for the following reasons:
  • It does not meet the proposed guideline on image quality:
    • 1) Tablets are out of focus;
    • 2) Image is over exposed.
  • There is already an image of 10 mg tablets which fully conforms to the Guidelines present in the article. The non-conforming image is therefore, additionally, redundant.

The Guidelines state: If the picture is too dark, too light, blurry, or has other issues that cast doubt upon this recognition, the image should be removed from the article, and in some cases, may be deleted.

In pursuance of the foregoing Guideline, the image is removed from the article and a notation made in the edit log. --Kristoferb (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not remove images without a consensus from other users. Kristoferb has a strong personal vendetta against images that I've contributed. None of my images have had issues with other users in the past, only Kristoferb appears to 'coincidentally' have had a problem with five of my images on four articles within the past 48 hours.
  • Irrespective of prejudice by Kristoferb, I do not agree with any of the reasons given for the removal of this image.
  • On the contrary, I am not for the removal of any images, the current image layout of the article is suitable.
  • On the contrary, Kristoferb recently replaced this image with one of their own.
  • I did not remove the image contributed by Kristoferb when reinstating the unjustified removal of this image.
  • I didn't agree with their image being in the lead, and the current layout of the article (which contains four images) is in best interest of the article.
  • The image in the lead is not my own, in fact, when I analyses the layout, I placed the image uploaded by Kristoferb second to the lead, as this is what suited the layout of the article. I placed this image further below, which has been in this article since March of this year without any issues from other users.
  • Any input from other users on this personal crusade brought forth by the user is welcome.
  • I do not agree with any of the 'reasons' given for the removal of this image.
  • Finally, I do not care about who uploaded what image, I care about the quality of the article.
  • Kristoferb is driven by none other than vindication. Their actions are not in best interest of the article.Editor182 (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your justification for keeping it is irrelevant: no one cares who's image it is. The point is THIS image is poor quality and repetitive. It is the worst of two similar images. It therefore must be removed. Out of focus and bad lighting are OBJECTIVE attributes. Your image is both of these bad things. The fact that you do not acknowledge reality is irrelevant. --Kristoferb (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many of the images you have uploaded are poor quality and repetitive. This alone is the reason they are progressively being replaced with better quality images. If you do not have the skill to produce images which conform to the image Guidelines, then please don't be surprised when other people with such skill replace your images. --Kristoferb (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Image quality is acceptable.
  • 10 mg dosage is standard, all images have it.
  • There is nothing repetitive within the article.
  • We have two different brands of capsules and tablets.
  • You're not presenting an adequate argument any level.

You've made your point. Please wait for input from other users. Editor182 (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • Proposed replacement image: All in focus, proper lighting. Can clearly see the tablets and the box. Contrast this to the disputed image above which is over exposed and blurry.
--Kristoferb (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to replace or propose. This image is already included and welcome in the article. The present image layout of temazepam has been carefully set out to fit the context of the article. Neither of these images are in the lead, or pending proposed replacement. The argument you're presenting is to remove an image without cause. This is the proposed image layout in the article you're seeking to reimpose. [6] Users interested in this dispute may now compare both versions.

Note: The above link displays the latest revision to the article (June 17) which predates the dispute commencing June 26. Editor182 (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radical idea: Keep them both. They're both good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are NOT both good. Read the Guidelines. Look at the pictures.--Kristoferb (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're an extremely hard, irrational person to deal with, Greg talked with you for 5 minutes and was done with you. Hopefully, soon, Wikipedia will be done with you too. Editor182 (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kristoferb, your behaviour is unacceptable; that said, that is a very poor picture. Editor182, most of your other pictures aren't an issue to me, but this particular one is really bad. Maybe take another one, sans flash, from a different angle, then include both? {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 00:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the obstinacy Editor182 has shown in accepting the poor quality of this image, I see no issue with my behaviour. As you note, the images are objectively poor quality: a simple fact Editor182 is unable to accept. --Kristoferb (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about that, and about their persistence in pushing their images. I am just asking that you be slightly more patient. That said, the pictures suggested below are excellent. What do you think about adding one of those instead? {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 08:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the images below are quite nice to be sure. But I do not see any reason for choosing images based on placation of Editor182 or protection of his feelings. The image I proposed is similar to those below and if it were not for Editor182's disruption, it would no doubt be suitable for inclusion in the article. With that said, I want the best photo to be included - whichever that one is according to objective standards of appraisal.--Kristoferb (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the one you suggested is all right, but I quite like #2 below. It has a warmer tone quality; the one you suggested is quite grey. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 04:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - see the solution I suggest below. --Kristoferb (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside party's image opinion

[edit]

File:Temaze (temazepam).jpg is VERY poor quality and needs removed. I sourced the following 3 images from Flickr, they are high quality. — raeky (talk | edits) 07:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with that free photo that you're griping about. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of Kristof's complaints is that the current photo is "out of focus". It's no more "out of focus" than your second and third examples. It's pretty hard to get every element of the photo in focus when you're doing a closeup. And you're first example doesn't even show the pill, so it's out too. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree that is no better than File:Temaze (temazepam).jpg. File:Temaze (temazepam).jpg looks like the label is home made and is a horribly compressed low resolution cell phone image. is a 10mp image, has the resolution to be down-sampled to make the image sharper and still be high resolution. They both have blown out highlights, but appears to have a much better white balance then File:Temaze (temazepam).jpg which is too warm. — raeky (talk | edits) 08:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temazepam 10mg tablets
Temazepam 10mg tablets
Temazepam 10mg tablets
Temazepam 10mg tablets
I agree with 182 here by his removal of the second image, the closeup of the tablets isn't necessary since the first image shows them both. Btw this is a UK packaging, so if you want to add that little (UK) thing you can. — raeky (talk | edits) 16:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was my initial thought too, but the tablets in the first image are out of focus. I personally dislike the idea of images of tablets where you can't see the tablet, but if it is the consensus then I am fine with it. --Kristoferb (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then we can switch to File:Temazepam 10mg tablets-1.jpg, and I tend to agree with the admin on the ANI, that tablet pictures should be preferred and packaging pictures avoided. — raeky (talk | edits) 17:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No argument from me. Regards, --Kristoferb (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's just removed a huge amount of material but I'm not qualified to judge whether it's a good or bad thing...

[edit]

...so I'll just make you aware of it: diff for big edit. --bodnotbod (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the reversal of a huge insertion of unsourced material and misrepresentations of sources, which has already previously removed in a rollback and now reinserted by a now blocked IP. 70.137.130.133 (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change in amount

[edit]

Just wondering if you have changed the amount in the capsules as I find there is only half the previous amount? Or have you concentrated? 99.192.71.31 (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Temazepam&oldid=1205591722"