Talk:Amphetamine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] 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)Mustard29

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)

====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)



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

[edit] Discovery

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

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

[edit] Bioavailability

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

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)

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)

[edit] 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)


Amphetemine abuse gave me GAD

[edit] 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)

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).

[edit] 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)


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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


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

[edit] 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)

see dexamphetamine 82.32.203.68 21:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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)


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

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)

[edit] 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

[edit] = 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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

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)

[edit] 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)

See this article. Fuzzform 04:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)


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)

[edit] Article needs restructuring and additional sections

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEDMOS#Drugs --scuro (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)
  • 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 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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."

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)