Talk:Amphetamine/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Source citation

  • I'm kinda new to Wikipedia but I found a site to support the claim that "Tolerance is developed rapidly in amphetamine abuse, therefore increasing the amount of the drug that is needed to satisfy the addiction" in the addiction sub-section. The link is below, thanks.

http://health.discovery.com/encyclopedias/illnesses.html?article=2794

Mustard29 02:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Mustard29Reply[reply]

  • this is too far fetched, if abuse is determined as i.e. using it to elevate the learning curve or having fun on weekends, then there might not be an increase of the dosage, also addiction isn´t even the right term, in the sense that amphetamine is unable to create a physical dependance, it might become a habit with some neurotransmitter depletion, that can´t be overcome by increasing the doasge, usually the user has to stop it and will do so, to loose some of the tolerance he developed.
  • Most users don´t even develop a tolerance, the longer the substance is used, they´re getting to a safe and more hedonistic usage in order to get most of the positives and no negative sides of the ("ab")use, which again is an argument against an addiction, because they´re not forced to do so, they determine when and why and if they want to, so the "addiction" with amphetmaine ould well be seen as a transition to a normal use, as it is seen with alcohol -most teenagers or young people fullfill the defintion of alcoholism at some points of their lives, but most of them will return to a "normal" drinking habit. IMHO it is important to divert these facts of addiction and adoption to use a substance,

it´d be like ignoring a functional group in a molecule that would alter the name of the whole molecule.

  • Try telling the many many people who look thirty years older than they are, are missing most of their teeth, and can't even get out of bed without hitting their methpipe. You've obviously never seen "methmonsters" or had to do a line before going to work on monday because you've only slept 4 hours since thursday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.145.128.201 (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • hello I have added a ref in legal issues. It is to source the maximum penalties for possesion and supply in the UK. However, i am new here so I think it is in the text ok but at the bottom of the page it seems to be in red. If you spot it and you know how to do it please repair it. I think it is 13 or 14 and it is the uk home office site. Thanks this site is great. Delighted eyes 18:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Um.... amphetemines cause your chemical lvls in your brain to go hay wire... it exauhsts you physically... and it pumps your adrenal gland dry...... do some research before you make any argument about amphetimines not being addictive... u take it once and you could be addicted... its a very potent chemical that does a number on the body an brain
  • What the hell? They don't cause your brain neurotransmitters (dopamine, seritonin I would assume you meant) to go haywire, it only exhausts you if you binge, and it does not pump your adrenal gland dry. This is what happens to kids when they have Above the Influence around C6541 (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discovery

Does anyone know who discovered amphetamine and when? -- Leocat 14:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i know meth was invented by the germans to give to soildiers for some war...

Bioavailability

Why is bioavailability expressed in L/kg? It is a dimensionless quantity. -- Leocat 13:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bioavailability is currently listed as 25% for oral route. That is incorrect. The Wiki article on Dextroamphetamine lists the correct availability of "over 75%"; this article should be edited to match accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.99.220 (talk) 08:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know oral bioavailabiity for amphetamine is very good but it was quite hard to find a good reference, so what I put in now will have to do for this time being. Please help find a better one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.67.210.252 (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

it looks ridiculous to list the oral bioavailability as 'good' better than 75% is a lot more helpful, and im sure its accurate. also how hard can it be to find that info its one of the most widely prescribed adhd meds. ill look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.89.39 (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anxiety

Maybe the link between stimulant abuse and an increase in anxiety could be talked about. I dont have any sources but I know from experiance that Amphetamines can increase anxiety quite a bit. This could be a good warning for those thinking of using it recreationally to combat social anxieties. Avskum --65.94.253.155 03:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Amphetemine abuse gave me GAD


One component of ADHD is anxiety. Adderall (dl-Amphetamine) is superior to Ritalin in that it has anti-anxiety effects. I was very surprised to read that amphetamine's after effects included anxiety. I find, and psychiatrists everywhere know, that the after effect of amphetamine is anti-anxiety, calm, sleepy. I suppose that's only if you take a normal dose of like 10-20mg. If you take a recreational dose, you'll definitely be twitchy etc for awhile. EITHER WAY THIS ARTICLE SOUNDS LIKE IT WAS WRITTEN BY SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T KNOW SQUAT ABOUT DOING AMPHETAMINES.

Maybe you don't know people who use amphetamine for recreational use, on binges the anxiety can become overwhelming. Norepinephrine is known as the flight-fight response chemical, which is raised with amphetamine use (more with levoamphetamine as opposed to the dextro or racemic amphetamine) and with a lot of other phenylethylamines, though the euphoria helps ;). Remember, no drug has 'one' use. Oh, and even with ADHD, it does NOT make one sleepy, I previously used it for medical purposes for my ADHD and had insomnia for a few days on 20 mg Adderall XR. C6541 (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cleanup?

I'm not sure I should slap a cleanup tag on this article, but it sure is cluttered and unorganized. The information relating to recreational use (and other abuse) should be in a seperate section, not interspersed throughout the article. That just makes it hard to read. I'm going to start reorganizing this article (like I did for diazepam) when I get some time. Fuzzform 20:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


the pic of the chemical formula is wrong, because there is a free valence indicated at the alpha carbon and it should be a methyl (straight line).

The picture is correct, the "sqiggly line" indicates that the methyl group is not stereo defined. I'd leave it as the squiggly line structure, it indicates that the page is discussing both enantiomers and also reminds readers of the stereogenic centre at the position. Difference in stereochemistry greatly changes the biological effects of the chemical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.169.245 (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Legal Status

Before I go crazy chasing down any linked pages and such, Amphetamines are listed as schedule III at http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/agency/csa.htm ... even though throughout wikipedia someone has categorized them as schedule II. can i fix this or is there a reason for the confusion? Is this a continuation of the (meth)amphetamine battle? -- Alphachimera

The article was made in 1996, I do believe it is either an error or the DEA has updated the list since then.-- Refault 04:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


there definatlly schedule 2.... mostly cause i just read a label on a bottle of dexedrine that said they were —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.119.175 (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Red links

There are a bunch of red links under "physiological effects" that could, with a bit of effort, be made to direct to pertinent articles. "Greasy skin," for example, could, using the |, be made to point to something related to sebum production, et cetera. Maybe I'll do it sometime. --swaly 08:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The section was unorganized previously and I had to add a title between the Physiological and Psychological effects (as previously there was no title for the section "Psychological Effects.")

I glanced at the red links and laughed at the simplicity of the terms. I might get around to cleaning things up soon if needed.-- Refault 04:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pharmacology

Release and uptake inhibition (blockade of the carrier molecule) oppose each other.

The release mechanism comprises three steps:

  1. uptake of (d)-amph into the presynapse via the transporter
  2. transmitter release from the storage vesicles into the cytosol
  3. functional inversion of the cell membrane transporter, resulting in an active outflow of the transmitter from the inner into the outer cellular space (synaptic cleft).

That means that for the release the transporter itself is the vehicle for the transmitter. And a complete block of the carrier molecule (by classical reuptake inhibitors), would also completely block the transmitter release. And the inward flow of amph into the cell would also be blocked. A partial blockade (by amph itself) results in something in-between. The transport is a oneway road, so the inversion of the transporter prevents an inward flow, but it should not be called a blockade. Indeed, amph might inhibit reuptake by binding at and forming a complex with the carrier molecule, but I can't imagine the binding affinity to be very high. Without precise data, the mechanistical significance remains unclear. --84.136.203.5 02:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Particulars on Toxicity

It strikes me as odd in the Toxicity section of this article that hyperpyrexia, hyperthermia and the use of cooling blankets are listed in this section as side effects when hypothermia is such a commonly reported side effect. If there is a reason for this switch from cold to hot, could anyone explain this?


First, as relates to Ectsasy: the subject feels cold but is actually hyperthermic. Not sure if that applies to classic amphetamine or not. Second, hyper and hypo thermia depend on the serotonergic vs. the norepinephric response. As both transmitters are not always depleted equally (e.g. with chronic abuse), are not affected equallyh in all subjects, and are likely to be influenced by co-ingested substances, it is likely subjects can vary in response and can swing from one to the other. I am not a doctor or pharmacist, but i seem to recall that the significant anitcholinergic effect has something to do with this as well.--Tednor 13:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


amphetemines give you the cold sweats... feel cold but actually have a fever. most likly because it speds up your metabolism and tenses your muscles which would heat your body temp but the amphetemines probably numbs out the warmth like it numbs out how sore you should really be when ur on stimulants

Military "Go pills"

The article for the so-called "go pills" used by a small number of special mission flight crews redirects here, yet there are no entries for it. See the B-2 Spirit article for a brief portion on go pills. FFLaguna 00:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

see dexamphetamine 82.32.203.68 21:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is Germany described as "notorious" for using methamphetamine, while other countries are described as using amphetamine "to fight fatigue and increase alertness among servicemen"? Sounds like a double standard to me.--Eloil 20:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


germany produced the first form of methamphetamine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.119.175 (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The notoriety stems from excessive methamphetamine use by German soldiers, which, from both staying up so long and the effects of the drug itself, would require full days of recovery for a soldier. This effect isn't seen in the amphetamine used today by the military, since it was recognized as detrimental to both the health and fighting ability of the soldier. The Third Reich leadership also seemed to have one big fat meth problem; I know Hitler was a near daily user, and I can't remember who else, but quite a few other very high ranking officers used as well (Goering was a morphine addict, but I don't recall if he was addicted to meth too). All and all, between the plentiful supply and the wide acceptance of use (plus the fact that it works), it becomes more clear as to why Germany was reknown for meth. As for the word "notorious," I'm guessing that stems from the general view on the subjects...there aren't many things scarier than Nazis all tweaked out on free crank. Ohnoitsthefuzz (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

agree with user eloil, it has always been that way =

Thats why I dont see the possibility of my registering in the foreseeable future. - xxxxxz

= chlorpromazine abuse inflicted by [mainly usa] docs in the name of "treating" recreational- drug bad trip

When there was no clonazepam, there was some justification. Now there is none. Bad trips of Speed [incl amphetamine], Acid, STP, ... can be stopped much more safely and pleasantly by clonazepam.

- xxxxxz again

-thanks

Akira Ogaberlandierita?

I just added a link from the name "Akira Ogaberlandierita" to "Akira Ogata", and used the Methamphetamine article as reference. However, when I google "Akira Ogaberlandierita" the only result I get is this Wiki-page. Can anyone verify that this is indeed his name?

- Hli 02:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sterochemistry

I'm getting confused by the two enantiomers of amphetamine, from what I've seen l-amphetamine is only used in a racemic mix in some medication and I don't know the extent to which the article refers to both or one in particular. Is it worth creating a levoamphetamine article? cyclosarin 05:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Much of the material here duplicates dextroamphetamine without specifying whether it applied to one or both. It might be better to have this article be a disambiguation page, since amphetamine is such a broad term. KonradG 00:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CAS Numbers

I added three more CAS numbers for racemic amphetamine and its salts, but the chembox thing seems to mangle them for some reason. I'd be appreciative if someone who knew how could fix this.

The CAS Number URL for the hydrochloride and sulfate forms are invalid. They come up with "No Term found." at the nlm.nih.gov page. --Shplongl 20:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Addiction: Section needs clarification/correction

Excerpt from the addiction section: "Only a few brands of amphetamines are still produced in the United States which are prescribed for narcolepsy, hyperactivity in children, or for extremely obese people." This statement seems unrelated to amphetamine addiction, and there isn't anything linking country of origin with addiction in the rest of the section. Is it trying to say that the other brands (Biphetamine, etc) were produced in the United States? - Mizi 17:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beta methyl ampetamine

does anyone know if beta methyl amphetamine (Alpha,beta dimethyl phenethylamine) would work?

sex is bad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.244.41 (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Beta-methyl-phenethylamine. Fuzzform 03:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

beta-methyl-phenethylamine and alpha,beta-dimethyl-phenethylamine are two different molecules. The article about the former has no information about the latter. 68.63.215.207 (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greenies

The greenies page links here when referring to the anphetamine, but there is no mention of the phrase "greenie" here or any reference to baseball players and greenies. 69.219.231.173 16:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See this article. Fuzzform 04:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contradiction

"While continuous dosing with amphetamine causes tolerance, intermittent use can produce "reverse tolerance" or sensitization to some psychological effects.[10][11][12][13][14] As a result, regular use commonly results in a quick decrease of unwanted side-effects, but without an equivalent loss of its stimulant properties."

The "but without an equivalent loss of its stimulant properties" part seems to directly contradict the sentence before it. Thoughts? - DMCer 10:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


ya that makes no sense.... amphetemines metabolize fast they dont stay in your system like some SSRI's or MAOI medication... so if you just took it iintermittenlly youd eventually become addicted and start withdrawels without even taking the meds daily —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.119.175 (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article needs restructuring and additional sections

http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=WP:MEDMOS#Drugs --scuro (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adverse Effects Section

There seems to be a large number of unreferenced claims here such as "effects can include...epidermis around penis to shrivel up" as well as a lot of redundancy and general sloppiness (ex: insomnia is mentioned as a symptom three times here, twice under the same sub-heading). Ideally, Id like to revert this entire section to what appears to be the last coherent version (180049239) and work from there. Let me know if anyone has any objections. Black Platypus (talk) 09:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I havent heard any objections so Im going to restore the previous version of this section before cross checking with the below source and adding it as a reference. Black Platypus (talk) 09:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Might I recommend:

Toxic effects of amphetamines are more variable in children than in adults and appear to occur over a wide dosage range. Practitioners should be alert to the signs of excessive dosages or overdose which may include: angina, anxiety, agitation, biting, blurred vision, delirium, diaphoresis, flushing or pallor, hallucinations, hyperthermia, labile blood pressure and heart rate (hypotension or hypertension), mydriasis, palpitations, paranoia, purposeless movements, psychosis, sinus tachycardia, tachypnea, or tremor.
Minor manifestation of any of these symptoms during prescription use indicates a need for dosage reduction or discontinuation. Severe manifestations of amphetamine overdose include cardiac arrhythmias including heart block, circulatory collapse, rhabdomyolysis, seizures, coma, and death. Isolated reports of cardiomyopathy, stroke, and myocardial infarction have been associated with chronic amphetamine administration. Sudden cardiac death has been reported in association with CNS stimulant treatment at usual doses in children with structural cardiac abnormalities. Although some structural cardiac abnormalities alone may carry an increased risk of sudden death, stimulant products should not be used in children, adolescents, or adults with known structural cardiac abnormalities.
Prolonged use of amphetamines may lead to habituation and psychological dependence or physiological dependence. Historical use of these agents as anorectics has been associated with both tolerance and dependence. Tolerance may be manifest as frequent requests for prescription refills or requests for dosage increases. Signs and symptoms of chronic amphetamine abuse include occupational or social deterioration, choreoathetosis (chewing or grinding of the teeth, and unusual movements of the tongue or lips), oral ulceration, paranoia, auditory and visual hallucination, and psychosis with features indiscriminate from schizophrenia. Abuse and habituation is more likely to occur with smokeable and injectable street forms of the amphetamines versus careful oral administration via prescription. Abrupt withdrawal of amphetamines after chronic administration may unmask severe depression symptoms or symptoms of overactive behaviors, dysphoric mood, anxiety or suicidal ideation, psychomotor agitation, insomnia or hypersomnia, agoraphobia and EEG changes. Patients should be carefully observed during drug discontinuation; gradual reductions in treatment have been recommended. Major physiologic withdrawal symptoms are not normally noted and as such may not necessitate gradual dosage reductions in all patients. --source [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foiltape (talkcontribs) 22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I dont have an account with MD Consult, but this is an article rather than a proposed edit with source attached correct? It might be worth pursuing a request for copyright for, although I am doubtful it would be granted. Black Platypus (talk) 09:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The Need for Speed"

About a half an hour later from when I put the tagline "'It's what you call the need for speed'!" in the the "Addiction" section, I recieved a message saying that the tagline was deleted because it was "unconstructive." I put that tagline in because I thought that it was a clever tagline for that particular section and I just wanted to put a smile on people's faces when they read it. I mean, come on! Lighten up for a bit! I mean, I know that wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia but wikipedia doesn't need to be serious all the time. I know that it is a once in a while thing just to let you know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.29.227 (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

well guess what dipshit it's not "clever", it's lame —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.251.162.75 (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History

The following quote from this section is specific to the USA, but no mention of that country was previously made. It is as though the writer assumed that all readers are American: "After decades of reported abuse, the FDA banned Benzedrine inhalers, and limited amphetamines to prescription use in 1965, but illegal use became common. Amphetamine became a schedule II drug with the passage of the Controlled Substances Act in 1970."

Mechanism of Action Overhaul

OK, I've seen complaints of this page being cluttered, and it definately is, but a big chunk of this could be corrected with a couple changes. Most glaring is the inclusion of 2 mechanism of action sections, and then a pharmacodynamics section. The first MOA section had good intentions, but has several major errors, and I'm going to eliminate the section and replace it with the second. The second MOA section I hate...simply because I wish I wrote it, and I actually was before I realized it was there =). that section is very well written and completely accurate, but I think it should be moved to where the first one was as part of a comprehensive organization of this article. The next section titled Pharmacodynamics is redundant and unnecessary; the pharmacodynamic properties of a drug are defined by its interaction with receptors in the body, and the subsequent changes that take place from those interactions...its a fancier term for mechanism of action, and I think its more appropriate for a pharmacology article. That doesn't even take into account that the current "PD" section is a rehash of the first MOA section, and has the same inaccuracies. So, that said, I'm going to eliminate the first section, replace it with the second, and title it Pharmacodynamics. This is going to go in the first section after the discussion on the chemical properties of the drug. There will still be a MOA section where the second one is now, under the Addiction heading, but it will discuss the role of the mesolimbic dopamine system in amphetamine addiction. I'm gonna do this over the next day or so, hopefully I can finish tonight. If anyone would like to discuss my changes, ideas for changes, or disagreements regarding just the material I'm focusing on right now, feel free to post here and change whatever I've done...I just wanted to make some changes to tighten things up, and I figure if people think its good it'll stay up. Thanks guys. Ohnoitsthefuzz (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addition: Ok, I just finished what I was planning for now. I retitled the Effects section "Pharmacology" and split it into the basic definitional components of drug pharmacology: chemical properties of the drug (transferred the "Chemistry" section to this heading), pharmacodynamics (how the drug acts at the receptor level; transferred what was the 2nd MOA section to this heading and deleted the old one, no changes to the actual text were made), physical and psychological effects (both of which were left the same). I changed the titled of the Addiction heading to Dependence and Addiction, to include discussion on the mechanisms of each and the differences. i left the text the same for now until I get time to add more info and revamp it. My next goal is to add to the "Performance Enhancing Use" to include more examples, at which time I may change the title to "Off Label and Illicit Use" to include alternate prescribing indications not approved by the FDA that have adequate sources, as well as subheadings to talk about use in sports, studying, etc (all of which falls under the category of illicit use). I'm also going to change to the dependence/addiction section to clear up the existing confusion, misinformation, or unsupported claims, and provide a number of sources to support the section. This is an area prone to modification to fit people's preexisting misconceptions, moral self-righteousness, and various religious/political agendas, so if I change the section, its going to be objective and scientifically backed up, so any arguments regarding the changes have to be solely from a scientific angle. I'm not going to remove or weasel information to fit someone's agenda. Anyone reading this, please comment here on how the page looks, and let me know if I'm on the right track or if I've done anything wrong or could improve my changes. If you decide to totally dismantle what I've done and reverse things, I obviously can't stop you, but please at least leave a reason why. Thanks! Ohnoitsthefuzz (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Effects section

I redid the effects section and made sure it was a NPOV and included citations C6541 (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On bioavailability

IV bioavailability is listed as 100%. Perhaps I'm being pedantic here, but isn't any substance 100% bioavailable by defenition when administered intravenously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.3.108 (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amphoteric

May I point out that the use of the term "amphoteric" in the introduction is incorrect, as amphoteric means that it can both as a base or an acid and has nothing to do with chirality. Thank you. -Devvochem

Go for it C6541 (talk) 06:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Updated 27 September 2008. - BSRussell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.95.7.197 (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section on neuronal damage

This article seriously lacks in data from studies on neuronal damage from amphetamine administration. Several weeks ago I came across a study where chimpanzees were given doses somewhere between .1 to 1 mg per kg body weight. It is quite a range, but I can't remember specifics now. The were given the same dose for 6 day/week for 4 weeks. Cognitive function was measure immediately prior to the first administration, after the four weeks, and six months later. The study found that there was permanent damage from this low-dose, short term use of amphetamine. I believe the form used was either Adderall or the other dextro amphetamine pharmaceutical. Given that Wikipedia is such a critical first reference for the masses, I feel that it is our duty to present more specifics from studies that have concluded in significant neuronal damage being caused by amphetamine. Simply stating that mixed conclusions have been seen is not enough. I'll try finding the study again and adding much of its data to the article. XJeanLuc (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really regret not saving the webpage. If anyone is interested in searching for it - the page had an off-white/yellowish background. If no one says/adds anything, I'll probably be able to resume the search towards the end of next week.XJeanLuc (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Were therapeutic or recreational doses tested? Was the neuronal damage localized to a specific brain region or generalized? How was cognitive function assessed? Without such information, this is merely speculation. I'm interested to see the article, but please assess the methods and quality of the study before entering it into Wikipedia as fact. -Muugokszhiion (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]




BELOW: SOME DATA ON NEURONAL DAMAGE, for whoever might be interested. Alan2012 (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

long list of sources collapsed for readability
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Pharmacol Ther. 2003 Jul;99(1):45-53

Effects of amphetamines on mitochondrial function: role of free radicals and oxidative stress.

Brown JM, Yamamoto BK. PMID 12804698


Addict Biol. 2001 Jul;6(3):213-221

Adaptative response of antioxidant enzymes in different areas of rat brain after repeated d-amphetamine administration.

Carvalho F, Fernandes E, Remiao F, Gomes-Da-Silva J, Tavares MA, Bastos MD. PMID 11900599


Brain Res. 2006 Jun 30;1097(1):224-9. Epub 2006 May 30

Increased oxidative stress in submitochondrial particles after chronic amphetamine exposure.

Frey BN, Valvassori SS, Gomes KM, Martins MR, Dal-Pizzol F, Kapczinski F, Quevedo J. PMID 16730669


Toxicology. 1993 Oct 25;83(1-3):31-40

Depletion of total non-protein sulphydryl groups in mouse tissues after administration of d-amphetamine.

Carvalho FD, Bastos Mde L, Timbrell JA. PMID 8248948


Hippocampus. 2006 Jan 12; [Epub ahead of print]

Opiates, psychostimulants, and adult hippocampal neurogenesis: Insights for addiction and stem cell biology.

Eisch AJ, Harburg GC. PMID 16411230


http://nootropics.ipbhost.com/lofiversion/index.php/t470.html

J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2005 Oct;315(1):91-8. Epub 2005 Jul 13.

Amphetamine treatment similar to that used in the treatment of adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder damages dopaminergic nerve endings in the striatum of adult nonhuman primates.

Ricaurte GA, Mechan AO, Yuan J, Hatzidimitriou G, Xie T, Mayne AH, McCann UD. PMID 16014752


NIDA Res Monogr 1996;163:1-26

Cocaine addiction as a neurological disorder: implications for treatment.

Majewska MD (ABSTR Publication Types: Review Review, tutorial PMID 8809851, UI: 96405722


Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008 Oct;1141:195-220

Abuse of amphetamines and structural abnormalities in the brain.

Berman S, O'Neill J, Fears S, Bartzokis G, London ED. PMID 18991959


Addiction. 2007 Apr;102 Suppl 1:16-32

Structural and metabolic brain changes in the striatum associated with methamphetamine abuse.

Chang L, Alicata D, Ernst T, Volkow N. PMID 17493050


Addiction. 2007 Apr;102 Suppl 1:44-8

Methamphetamine-induced alterations in monoamine transport: implications for neurotoxicity, neuroprotection and treatment.

Volz TJ, Fleckenstein AE, Hanson GR. PMID 17493052


http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/24/26/6028

The Journal of Neuroscience, June 30, 2004, 24(26):6028-6036; doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0713-04.2004

Neurobiology of Disease

Structural Abnormalities in the Brains of Human Subjects Who Use Methamphetamine

Paul M. Thompson,1 Kiralee M. Hayashi,1 Sara L. Simon,2 Jennifer A. Geaga,1 Michael S. Hong,1 Yihong Sui,1 Jessica Y. Lee,1 Arthur W. Toga,1 Walter Ling,2 and Edythe D. London2,3,4

1Laboratory of Neuroimaging, Brain Mapping Division, Department of Neurology, Departments of 2Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences and 3Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, and 4Brain Research Institute, University of California Los Angeles School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California 90095


http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/54/6/1344

Neurology 2000;54:1344-1349

c 2000 American Academy of Neurology

Articles

Evidence for long-term neurotoxicity associated with methamphetamine abuse

A 1H MRS study

Thomas Ernst, PhD, Linda Chang, MD, Maria Leonido-Yee, MD and Oliver Speck, PhD

From the Departments of Neurology (Drs. Ernst, Chang, and Leonido-Yee) and Radiology (Drs. Ernst and Speck), Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA.


http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/full/17/13/1775

The FASEB Journal. 2003;17:1775-1788

c 2003 FASEB

Speed kills: cellular and molecular bases of methamphetamine-induced nerve terminal degeneration and neuronal apoptosis

JEAN LUD CADET1, SUBRAMANIAM JAYANTHI and XIAOLIN DENG

Molecular Neuropsychiatry Branch, NIH/NIDA, Intramural Research Program, Department of Health and Human Services, Baltimore, Maryland, USA


http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-04/uot-nmf040506.php

New mechanism found for neurodegenerative effects of amphetamines in mice


http://www.doctordeluca.com/Documents/MethNeuroToxicity.htm

Researchers document brain damage, reduction in motor and cognitive function from methamphetamine abuse

"Speed" shows more neurotoxic effects than heroin, cocaine, or alcohol


Life Sci. 2000 Mar 3;66(15):PL205-12

Systemic administration of d-amphetamine induces long-lasting oxidative stress in the rat striatum.

Wan FJ, Lin HC, Huang KL, Tseng CJ, Wong CS. PMID 11210722

The above posting contained copyrighted material, which has been removed. Please read and abide by Copyright violations and Talk page guidelines. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Surely the fact that copyrighted material is mentioned nowhere on the Talk page guidelines page should have clued you into the fact that Copyright violations are strictly applicaple only to mainspace.

Then there is the fact that Alan2012 credited every scrap of his material; indeed, to make your list of sources, you had to, hmm, plagiarize his list of credits? Or was it an homage? Deletors.

The original text added by Alan2012, from various sources; considerably more fully credited and with more complete information on the original authors' organizations and works, and how to find the sources of the information, than is given above. Anarchangel (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amphetamines

"Amphetamines" is not the plural form of "amphetamine". It does not indicate multiple molecules, tablets, etc. of amphetamine. One speaks of a person "using amphetamine", or "using amphetamines" - two different things. Strictly, the former means "use of amphetamine" (as in 1-phenylpropan-2-amine) and the latter means "using multiple amphetamine derivatives". When one says "amphetamines" to mean the use of 1-phenylpropan-2-amine, one is using colloquial speech - much like saying "baribituate" instead of "barbiturate". "Amphetamines" refers to the entire class of substituted amphetamines, many of which are quite different from the amphetamine begin discussed in this article. Though amphetamine is the basis for many other similar molecules, this article needs to avoid conflation of all the amphetamines with 1-phenylpropan-2-amine. Unless referring to the entire class of molecules, this article should stick to "amphetamine", without the "s". Fuzzform (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice work

Nice work on every one keeping this article clean and NPOV. Now methamphetamine needs some good workup too. Signed, C6541 (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Speed"

The fact that the common alternative name for amphetamines in its recreational form is "speed" is currently not mentioned anywhere in the article, at least not outright. I'd have thought this would be an important inclusion? -Kez (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diction/Spelling errors

Fixed a few minor spelling errors, as well as a very poorly written addition to the natural amphetamine section. Great work on the latest draft though, looks a lot better then it did a while ago.

Vague anatomical terms

As far as I can tell, the term "caudate putamen" refers to the "striatum" (thus my minor edit). The caudate and putamen are anatomically distinct, albeit physiologically related, nuclei. When providing references, it would be very helpful if such terminological subtleties were clarified.Fuzzform (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amphetamine proper versus group of related drugs

"Amphetamine and related drugs such as methamphetamine are a group of drugs that act by increasing levels of norepinephrine, serotonin, and dopamine in the brain.[3] It includes prescription CNS drugs commonly used to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults and children. It is also used to treat symptoms of traumatic brain injury and the daytime drowsiness symptoms of narcolepsy and chronic fatigue syndrome. Initially it was more popularly used to diminish the appetite and to control weight."

The paragraph conflates amphetatine proper with the group of related drugs.

Clearly the first "it" ("It includes prescription CNS drugs ...") refers to the group, not to Amphetamine per se. I'll go ahead and change "it" to "the group".

"It is also used to treat ..." may refer to amphetamine proper, or the group -- I don't know which, so I won't change this sentence.

Karl gregory jones (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Long-term neurological effects

I delted this section as it consisted of one sentence with three assertions not supported by the citation given. A section on long-term neurological effects would be nice, I might try doing one at some point. Pontificalibus (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In Television

Every example in this section relates to methamphetamine - surely they belong on that page? --134.226.83.42 (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]