Talk:Methamphetamine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

South Africa

Methamphetamine abuse is huge in South Africa, particularly the Cape Flats area in Cape Town. It's street name is Tik in South Africa, because of the sound it makes when being smoked. The article Tik should it be merged into main Methamphetine article.

This drug is now the most widely abused in South Africa, but because it is commonly known by another name, many people do not realise that it is the same as crystal meth.

Here are so news articles:

• IOL: Tik pandemic driving people 'insane'
• Health24: Tik: Is your child at risk?
• Science in Africa: Tik, memory loss and stroke

I am not a drug expert but maybe somebody involved with Science In Africa website can organise that an expert adds South African context this article.

Yeah, the Tik article should be merged with Methamphetamine, and Tik redirected to the methamphetamine article. Certain parts of it can be trashed altogether - like how it is used (Sprinkling on Tin Foil, etc). Good call --Ddhix 2002 02:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging of tik article

What would be the best way of merging tik into this article, should we create a section called 'Regional differences' (a good name won't come to me at this moment), and then add the South African way of doing it, will other regions add their method.

Richardwooding

New Zealand Usage

As the South African point of view is requested I feel that there needs to be a New Zealand section under the title "P". In the last 5 years usage has grown exponentially mainly due to the ease of manufacture compared to E and importation of Cocaine... I believe. Maybe how the cheap manufature in countries that don't have a easy supply of other drugs leads to usage of this drug. This is similar to the creation of "Homebake" in New Zealand in the 1980s a home made version of monoacetyl morphine when the supply of Herion was cracked down. There is plenty of literature out there of this subject in NZ.

Regional differences

The regional differences I am more concerned with are not associated with the means of ingestion. People who use the substance all over the world seem to react differently by region. Immediately after WWII, huge stockpiles of crystal methamphetamine left by the Japanese military are said to have helped fuel that nation's physical re-building. My point is that methamphetamine use is worldwide, and some populations seem to have a much more frequent occurance of bad reactions. Adulterants, maybe?

adulterants, impurities and administration methods. the 'crackdown' on pseudoephedrine supply has led to an increasingly impure product being made by smaller producers, contaminated with polymers, antihistamines and various products of the reaction upon these impurities in the precursor. since the supply lines are different in different regions the product has a local characteristic contamination. genetics may play a part too, for example it is known that japan has the highest number of narcoleptics per capita and use of the drug is more common there and a correlation is plausible although i would not assert it as a fact.

Also, the bad effects are more pronounced at high (recreational) doses, or are related to addiction. Not all users are recreational, including illicit users. Some (many?) illicit users use the drug for productivity enhancement. Using speed as a study aid is quite common on college campuses, though (anecdotally) that mostly consists of ritalin and adderall, not meth. It would not surprise me at all if a lot of the post-WWII Japanese usage fit this pattern. Evand 04:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Tooth Decay??

I've never taken any methamphetmine's, but the effect of tooth decay because of hygeine negligence seems a little absurd. How is this an effect soley from this drug? You can't assume everyone who takes this is going to make meth, either. I don't see the point of this. BigMar992 06:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Xerostomia can and does cause dental problems. Anecdotes aren't proper material for wikepedia, but I assure you that a dry mouth is hazardous to the health. I spend US$30/month for special toothpaste, mouthwash, and gum gel to avoid it, and its worth every penny. --Puff65537 04:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I should note that I don't take meth, but d-amphetamine in normal prescription dosage. --Puff65537

-- I agree with the above statement re: hygeine. To suggest that personaly hygiene is a direct cause of the effects of methamphetamine is highly misleading. While it no doubt can lead to an increase in unsanitary conditions at home as well as decreased attention to diet, oral hygiene, and physical health, this is in no way a direct effect of meth use. While there is almost certainly a correlation between the amount of meth use and levels of personal hygiene, it is strictly a correlation and not a causal effect. Deteriorating hygiene is a secondary effect of meth use. While common to meth users, it is not a direct effect of meth use, but rather a result of the many powerful effects of meth on the psyche.

-Methamphetamine (d-methamphetamine or racemic amphetamine makes no difference) causes the noticeable side effects of bruxism and xerostommia, the former being the main cause of tooth decay. Bruxism is jaw clenching and practically is the MAIN CAUSE of tooth decay/tooth issues. Lack of hygene due to the drug's effects and dry mouth have more to do with infections rather than tooth decay itself.

Bruxism is usually very present when on the effect of the drug and many people on methamphetamine rarly realize they are doing it (a somewhat involuntary action.) Bruxism is a persistant side effect with amphetamines in general. Benzodiazepines and magnesium suppliments help with preventing bruxism. John Cho 10:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

sulfates of derivatives of amphetamine can replace phosphates in the teeth. their solubility is much higher, so they create small decays usually not readily visible to dentists.

There is the possibility that meth cooks themselves could get "meth mouth" more readily due to the chronic exposure to hydrogen chloride gas, which can erode tooth enamel. Significant quantities of this gas can be generated during the conversion of methamphetmaine oil to methamphetamine hydrochloride salt.--Erikjanus 03:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

-Smoked methamphetamine probably directly etches the tooth enamel because when the HCl salt vapourises, it essentially becomes a gaseous mixture of HCl gas and methamphetamine freebase, one of which being water soluble will then adhere and mix with saliva and acidify tooth surfaces, which of course leads to cavities and general decay.

-That's such a load of bullcrap, I won't even dignify that with a correct response. Look up some basic chemistry to understand what happens to salts when they're heated. Secondly, meth almost never comes in a salt form. El Diablo Volador Sunday, October 15, 2006

G (slang name)

The article for the letter G says that "G" is a slang name for methamphetamine; but it is not listed as one on this article itself. Can somebody either verify that G is a common slang name (and include it on this article), or alternatively if it is not commonly used please remove it from the G article (under "English slang" section). Thanks --Dmeranda 18:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

G is not a nickname for methamphetamine but rather a slang term for another recreational drug, "GHB".

G is, without a doubt, NOT a slang name for methamphetamine. We could go through the entire alphabet to compare each letter to a drug.--Ddhix 2002 23:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"G" is 99% of the time used to refer to GHB but... "G" is a term used primarily on the west coast when in reference to methamphetamine to refer to meth when it is in a crystalized state and resembles GLASS. August 14 2006-Daytona Beach

Effect Duration

How long do the effects last? Doesn't seem to be in the article, and it's a common addition to most of the pharmacology pages.72.81.21.248 20:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC) Duration is hard to say since it is not commonly created at pharma grade. Garage-lab grade stuff has wildly different duration.

-The duration of effects of the drug is controlled by dose, available neurotransmitters and the exact composition of the chemicals. Frequently there is traces of pseudo/ephedrine, methyl phenyl aziridine (an autoreduction product that occurs in high temperature/low water cooks) and phenyl 2 propanone, as well as residual hydriodic acid and sometimes a bit of iodoephedrine (the latter is very unstable and generally reverts to ephedrine/pseudoephedrine rapidly). Since many sources of precursors are now by legal mandate only the mixed blends, there is often traces of antihistamines and whatever it is that the reaction does to them (many antihistamines are halogen bearing molecules and these react with hydriodic acid etc). Anyway, to answer the question, generally the initial 'peak' of the effect lasts about 3-4 hours and depending on dose can continue for 8-12 hours and several days depending on dose, it is metabolised in a similar way to alcohol, the chemical basically has to be sent to the kidneys and out the bladder to have it eliminated, very little can be done to degrade and inactivate it in the body. The effects vary depending on impurities, cuts and methods of administration. Oh i think it should also be noted that injection gives an onset time equal to smoked, the difference being that about 30-40% of the drug is lost via pyrolysis, it is not, as the current state of the article says, faster than injected.

Australian harm reduction

Sources need citation that the Australian government takes an active role in methamphetamine harm reduction. That's very dubious.

- They do provide free injection equipment but that was instituted originally because of heroin addicts sharing needles.

Yeah, I thought it was pretty dubious and a wee bit POV and I realised that the section was legal status and none of the information actually pertained to that at all. So I deleted it and replaced it with the actual legal status of meth in Oz. It could have some more info but I don't have time. Bizarro 193.133.69.201 14:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hitler

"Adolf Hitler received three IV injections of methamphetamine and steroids from his personal physician." Is this in his life time, or daily, or what...

- there is a story which goes around the scene that it was daily, i've never heard he only had 3 in his life... i don't know whether this story is true or not but it would certainly explain some of his psychotic behavior

Every mention I've heard was that it was daily. Ever noticed how he always tightly gripped his belt buckle with one hand? That hand had serious tremors if held loose. That's a symptom of meth use, IIRC. Umlautbob 00:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that is a symptom of Parkinsonism, one which is alleviated by dopamine agonists, amphetamines (including methamphetamine) and so forth. The fact itself seems highly irrelevant to the article, unless a section about famous users is introduced (anything else is just Reductio ad Hitlerum). Especially since it may very well have been used for a legitimate medical purpose. Zuiram 06:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Production

The production section is extremely disorganised and should be structured somehow. There is actually many many routes to the product, hundreds even, but it could be condensed to a set of simple things. The main routes are p2p related or ephedrine related. In commercial production the most common p2p routes are phenylnitropropene (via benzaldehyde and nitroethane) reduction, phenylacetic acid, acetic acid and calcium destructive distillation, the amination step is separate and arbitrary, there is many ways to attach amines to ketones. Since the article is specifically about the subject of methamphetamine and the production section should reflect the main production methods in use presently and historically with more concise mention of the more uncommon or mainly theoretical methods. I'm not sure how that would look but the production section is a mess. Whinge.

- Also shouldn't it be mentioned in Production, thanks to the illegal uses, how annoying it is now days in the USA to buy the legal drugs with Pseudoephedrine? Congress passed a law a year back or so to crack down on the production of meth using legal drugs like Sudafed decongestant, and now they are available only from a pharmacist, you have to show your driver's license, can only buy so much per day in grams, have to sign your name on a form, pay for them there... as if buying one stupid box of children's decongestant should be this hard. Alauda 20:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

True indeed, and this winter should start seeing the results of the decision. I already note the ads on TV for (i forget what) stating that their competitor (i also forget what) NO LONGER CONTAINS A DECONGESTANT. Well, you know that the average druggist can't be trusted to distinguish the housewife buying a box of benadryl from the meth addict buying twelve cases. Gzuckier 16:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

ChemicalSources

I removed the chemical sources template (This: "{{ChemicalSources}}") from the article page. It looks like it's some kind of customizable search page with links to various chemical databases, but it needs to be set up with CAS numbers and other identifiers before it will work. Right now it's just a list of links. KonradG 16:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, we are working on that, for now it is a way of removing commercial links. Hence, it has it's purpose. I replace it on the page (it is on a lot of chemical pages). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

For those interested, see here. As soon as that works, I will start cleaning up the template and work on some other small changes to get the page working (see here). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

General

I searched for Crystal Meth and was sent here. That should have its own article. This article does not flow well, blurring the lines between what people take for ADHD, ADD, Narcolepsy, etc and what people smoke out of a glass tube. This article looks like it was written by someone ON crystal meth. (Unsigned comment by 71.68.1.132)

Meth generally refers to the racemic mixture of L- and D-methamphetamine. This is not used for any medical purpose. The only brand of methamphetamine licenced for sale is Desoxyn, which contains only the D-isomer (to e.g. maximize the effect-to-sideeffect ratio, IIRC). Which is why Desoxyn, like Dexedrine, should remain in an INN article (Dextromethamphetamine, like Dextroamphetamine) that is seperate from this one (vide amphetamine vs dextroamphetamine). Zuiram 06:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Chemistry doesn't change just because you put something in a glass tube. The drug is the same and has the same effects on the body. KonradG 02:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. And so what if it was written by someone on Crystal Meth? --Donnie from the mean streets of Boston, KY 02:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Methamphetamine is methamphetamine any way you put it. There is absolutely no difference between crystal meth, and methamphetamine. The only difference there might be is purity - and even quite a few skilled clandestine chemists have the aquired skill to produce perfectly 'pharmaceutical grade' methamphetamine.--Ddhix 2002 07:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Levo-methamhpetamine

I noticed someone added info about l-meth and its use as a decongestant. This article is titled "methamphetamine", which would technically include both the l and d forms, but it's almost exclusively about d-meth. I think anything about l-meth should be clearly seperated out from the rest, since it's pretty confusing to simply state "decongestant" as a medical use of methamphetamine. Strictly speaking, it's true, but it's very confusing. KonradG 16:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, medical use should be covered in dextromethamphetamine and levomethamphetamine, while this article should only cover non-medical use, with a reference to those articles included. Non-medical use of meth is a significant topic in its own right, and distinct from the medical use. The medical use is distinct by isomer. Zuiram 06:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

meth is a perfect example of deviancy amplification spiral

why remove?? (Unsigned comment by Portillo)

My understanding of the See Also section, is that it should be things that would be helpful for a reader who is interested in the general topic of the article, to see what else is closely related. Someone looking at this article is very likely to be interested in more general topics, such as the war on drugs or sympathomimetic stimulants. But it shouldn't be a collection of links to anything which has any connection to the topic.KonradG 12:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Asia...

Didn't the use of Meth as a drug originate in Korea, or something? National Geopraphic Explorer showed that in 2003, Korea (pretty sure it was Korea) tried to exterminate all Meth dealers and users, and there was also things about managers giving Meth to employees to keep them working. Also, isn't Meth really popular in Bangkok, or somewhere like that? Abby724 02:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Neurotoxicity

I think it would be a really good idea to add a section on methamphetamine related neurotoxicity. My understanding is that as well as there being neurotoxicity related to overdose, methamphetamine is toxic to dopamine neurons at recreational doses. This neurotoxicity can lead to decreased dopamine levels in the brain as long as three weeks or more after administration, and is probably related to hydrogen peroxide being produced when dopamine breaks down. It is probably related to feelings of listlessness, depression, and attention defecit problems reported by methamphetamine users.

Of course a section on neurotoxicity will need to be very well referenced. Woood 04:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a review of lot of material on neurotoxicity here. That's a good place to start, if you feel like summarizing it. Just be careful with comparing animal and human doses based on body weight (mg/kg): this works for acute toxicity of a single dose, but not for multiple doses spaced out over time. For that you need to correct for metabolic rate and it gets more complicated. KonradG 15:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that the recreational dose interval and the therapeutical dose interval have a fairly small overlap, and the neurotoxicity is dose-related. Also, there are ways to prevent the neurotoxicity, although it is rarely done in clinical practice. This is presumably because the level of neurotoxicity in therapeutic use is very limited. And don't confuse up/down-regulation, plasticity, dopaminergic neurotoxicity and glutamatergic neurotoxicity. Zuiram 06:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured article candidation

Facable! Miserlou 04:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Also, PR. Miserlou 04:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Synthesis

Wikipedia needs to have much more extensive, explicit data on synthesis of various chemicals. Even if it just means linking to off-site sources that provide more info than us (at first). That is why I felt including a link to erowid's synthesis was valid in my last edit. Thoughts? Miserlou 00:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Meth is toxic

I removed the following from the article due to a WP:NPOV issue:

It is considered dangerous and highly toxic to humans.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

While the statement is technically true, it's also true for bananas, potatoes, and plain water, as all of these are toxic in a certain quantity. The job of this article is to state how toxic meth is at what quantities, not to make a blanket statement that "meth is toxic". Otherwise it reeks of scare-tactic anti-drug rhetoric which is a POV all its own. Reswobslc 23:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

of course ur statement is true...everything and anything can be toxic in large enough quantities...yet the "dangerous and highly toxic" isnt really there as of its specific LD50...many sources state it as dangerous and toxic...both scientific articles and government sources...yet besides this...and anyways... it is typically abused and used in toxic concentrations...and many peoples lives are messed up as of it...ive even met many ex users that say so...only maybe alcohol can i say the same for that ive actually met ex abusers that say it wrecked their lives...ive even hung out with people that are current users...watched them shoot up...and tell me quite plainly "this stuff is crap" "its ruining my life...dont ever try this stuff"...of most any abused chemicals this is one that can objectively get this label...maybe tobacco...and maybe alcohol too...besides these theres not too much else that can objectively get such a label...ive seen some coke addicts maybe near as bad...yet thats a whole nother league...the minor leagues compared to meths potential impact on society...yet i agree we dont want "scare tactics"...even for something that clearly does some serious harm, as people have cried wolf on too many other drugs for severe admonitions to work at all on something that actually might deserve to be called out as seriously harmful...so im going to put a "many" in there..."many consider it dangerous and highly toxic"...which they do...and so which is true...and then u have some links right after this sentence to go look up some sources of this claim urself ( i only put one gov. link...and weeded out some of the more ridiculous gov. links i could have used)...i think thats reasonable...and pretty neutral...regarding something that is overwhelmingly thought of this way, and even by many people that use all sorts of other drugs...and i do feel justified in leaving it the way it was, as i do believe there is a broad scientific consensus that its nasty...and i dont really know of a strong pro-crystal meth lobby as i do for many other "drugs" out there...and further down in the article i did add in the note from a study that claims with large amounts of vitamin C its not quite so neurotoxic...perhaps ill pull it up higher to the intro...wanted to try and find some more info first...yet as well tho it will still have its problems even if people take vitamin C with it...its not so much the LD50 and the specific neurotoxicity...a lot has to do with the behaviors involved with it that make it dangerous and highly toxic...people taking it engage in dangerous & toxic lifestyles...its why i was hesitant to put that V-C thing higher up...i didnt want to encourage people that its no big deal if u just eat some oranges too...it has such a highly addictive nature...a couple tries and many people are hooked in a bad way right off...so...im willing to have wikipedia in these lead sentences making it clear that "many consider it dangerous and highly toxic"...and...comparing bananas and crystal meth...is like comparing apples...and oranges laced with addictive arsenic...i dont really consider ur statement NPOV...yet i get ur point...and its a good one that we dont want ridiculous scare tactics...if i wanted i could really go all out on this one...theres enough info there to really damn it if u present it a certain way...ive tried to maintain restraintBenjiwolf 00:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the "Meth is toxic" statement is an obviously biased anti-drug message. I could go into a million reasons but they should be self-evident. Should someone here edit the fructose page and go off about how toxic it is, especially to diabetics? I'm not a methamphetamine user myself, but this is without a doubt the most biased article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Please clean the intro up to scientific standards. 66.92.187.113 04:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits by user Benjiwolf

Recently Benjiwolf added the following to the lead:

Many consider it dangerous and highly toxic to humans.[1][2][3][4] It is considered to promote violent behaviors sometimes, and in San Diego County 1/8 of all homicides in 1987 involved meth. Special procedures have been established to deal with and clean up clandestine meth labs, as the residues are poisonous and can negatively impact children and women especially. It has been reported, however, that meth may shrink the male testicles somewhat, so even entering the room where a meth lab has been, is questionable for anyone without protective gear.[5] Statistics show that the purity level has been increasing and predict greater deleterious effect from this. It is illegal to use and is placed in the greatest threat level of drug category. Users are sometimes referred to as "tweakers" as a result of twitching and other behaviors sometimes observed. The american dental association puts out specific guidelines to deal with the negative impact crystal meth has on the mouth [6], and a term has been coined long ago to characterize the often horrendous state of a meth users teeth as "meth mouth".[7][8] In addition it has been shown that meth can act in tandem with the HIV virus to cause even greater neurotoxic effects than with meth alone.[9]

Much of this simply repeats claims that have already been removed from the article before, or flat-out contradicts what is written in the body of the text. Re-inserting deleted material occasionally is understandable, since no one is going to read through the entire edit history, but this is a significant re-write of the lead, filled with contentious statements. If you're going to do that, you should at least read the article to see if there is some consensus regarding your claims. Since it disregards the consesus views shown in the article text, and since it's clearly not NPOV taken as a whole, I'm removing the entire paragraph. What follows is a point-by-point explanation for each removal:

• "Highly toxic" is meaningless. The dangers of meth are cause by its addictiveness, which tempts people to take dangerously high doses. There is nothing unusual about its toxicity.
• No cite for "1/8 of all homicides" statement.
• "Poisonous meth labs" - The cite given doesn't back up the statements. Meth in pregnant dogs cause cause delayed descent of the testicles of the pups. That's a little different than saying "meth may shrink the male testicles somewhat, so even entering the room where a meth lab has been, is questionable for anyone without protective gear".
• "purity level has been increasing" - Read the DEA document I linked to for meth prices. It shows purity has only gradually and inconsitently increased over several decades, not that it even makes a difference for something which is already fairly pure. There's certainly nothing so signifcant about this trend that it deserves a mention in the article lead.
• "illegal to use and is placed in the greatest threat level of drug category" - As the article clearly states, meth is schedule II. Schedule I is reserved for the really deadly stuff like marijuana. Perhaps that should tell you something about how much the data from these agencies relates to real life, and how much is done for political reasons.
• Tweakers - Great, but why is this in the lead? It's really not that important, and already mentioned later on.
• Meth mouth - As you can see, other editors, including myself, are currently discussing the meth mouth and we have not yet come to a consensus. Until that happens, it's probably not a good idea to take only data from one side of the issue, put that in the lead, while ignoring the rest.
• Meth and HIV - This is not even significant to be mentioned in the article. Should not be in the lead.

You're welcome to put back changes you feel should go back. But make them in the appropriate sections first, so you can at least see what other editors have to say about it and why. The main text is where we have room to go into detail and work out specific points of contention. And please use paragraphs when you write your comments. It makes it easier to read. KonradG 04:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

please read notated references konrad G

• (1)in fact meth is placed in the highest threat level in the UK, i dont live in america, where its all crazy with stuff like this, i used to, ill add that the crazy americans consider it less harmful than marijuana & place it schedule 2..& i knew that...yet i left it with the UK rating instead of the US..to make a point as i knew itd get noticed...if id left it from the american point of view and said its not placed in the highest threat category it wouldnt have been noticed...yet i wanted to make the point that ur encylopedia is not NPOV...its heavily skewed towards american bias...thats fine in many cases...yet not in all...
• (2)tweakers is a broad term, and the common term to refer to meth users and should be included in lead
• (3)homocide stat is from link 1
• (4)go to the DEA website and ull see they have noted a consistent rise in meth purity...didnt want to link the DEA pages as it puts so many people off...yet now it goes in next to that stat...ive mainly tried to include scientific study links and medical links...not ami government links...i just put in one federal gov. link & so it had representation...yet ill throw the DEA page in there i suppose now
• (5)(meth & HIV)...if its not in main body of article it should be...this is a highly relevant, interesting & important fact, and we can add several links that show this
• (6)if yall american users want to extoll the virtues of meth thats fine...yet ur consensus on this one is pathetic and not suitable for an international encyclopedia if u remove the fact that meth is dangerous and highly toxic to humans...in fact meth would be a bit/obscure pharma article if not for the fact that this was true
• (7)there is linked that one of the testicles shrinks in rats given meth...and as well the fact is that the people that go in to clean meth labs always use protective gear...as its a very toxic environment...houses where it has been manufactured are closed off from the public until they are sufficiently sanitized
• (8)its highly addictive nature is part of its chemical nature...thats a fact...and even if this werent so it would still be considered, in practicality, dangerous and highly toxic, & even if it were just random happenstance that recreational users typically became addicted and abused it leading to dangerous and highly toxic effects... yet it is its basic chemical nature that makes it highly addictive and leads it normally to be used dangerously and with highly toxic effect
• (9)u can argue that everything under the sun is toxic in the right quantities...the fact is most things none the less arnt dangerous and highly toxic to humans...even many illegal drugs arent...meth has clearly demonstrated negative impacts under normal circumstances...its basic nature is to be dangerous and highly toxic...the basic nature of the banana is not thus...a small few may indeed experience toxicity from a normal serving of bananas...even die from it...yet the basic nature of the banana is that its an edible fruit and isnt dangerous or highly toxic...yet i could add that the manufacturing process for bananas can be dangerous and highly toxic...the substance itself: the banana... is not though...so when the colorado department of health & environment leads in its article that meth is highly toxic...i think they are justified in doing so, and not just as of the highly toxic manufacturing process, and in fact they said it was so as of the basic chemical nature of crystal meth and its effect on humans...they are not a drug patrol organization...they are acknowledging the commonly held consensus that it is highly toxic...
• (10) i have tried to insert my edits from the perspective of a medical officer and not a drug patrol person...people can use what they want in my opinion if its with some responsibilty and doesnt severly impact others...i am reflecting the view of the medical profession, (and incidently from sort of an american medical viewpoint as currently its most dangerous and highly toxic in america)...i have reflected the view that it is medically dangerous for the human, that it is becoming more of a problem to the medical profession, that its use is increasing, that the problem is spreading and continues to worsen...meth is severly impacting the medical profession...excepting in bangladesh, its more of a threat than arsenic to the human...cocaine was a step up...meth is "the poor mans cocaine"...and u get what u pay for...its much nastier for the medical profession to have to deal with...we may even have to treat the people that clean up the sites where its made and the children that live there...Benjiwolf 12:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. You're making contentious edits with a disregard for the consensus view of other editors, a violation of official Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Consensus). You've kept doing so even after you were warned about it, and by looking at your user talk page, I see this is not the first time. Adding cites which support your views and saying that proves they are a "commonly held consensus" does not relate to the consensus of the editors here.KonradG 17:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

toxicity and evolution

yet as to the absolute toxicity of meth to the human being this is another issue...and it evolves...with the state of the human evolution in america it is clearly dangerous and highly toxic to the humans from this area of the globe...yet just as with lactose intolerance...the humans have evolved off in their own directions with some things...some things arent as toxic as others to certain populations of humans...some populations experience few to no problems with milk...some populations may have a natural resistance to meth toxicity...perhaps part biological resistance...perhaps part cultural resistance...and all populations may eventually evolve to being highly resistant to meth toxicity...at which point we could then remove the fact that it is dangerous and highly toxic to humans...currently it is...the resistance of populations outside the states to meth toxicity is currently being tested...(an uncontrolled random experimental design i might add)...my prediction is that some populations may have worse effects from meth than the US...and others will experience far less harm from this dangerous and highly toxic substance...for varying reasons...Benjiwolf 12:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent

Thanks for keeping Wikipedia up to par with other good references. I would like to add that the link to reference 9 is a dead link. PS - This Benjiwolf character probably wrote that on a meth binge--or at least that's what it seemed like, ironically. 66.92.187.113 04:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

random user 66.92.187.113 is likely an american & a closet meth user i would suppose...near 100% on the first of these...yet in any case i will now throw in a slew of references to the aids and meth connection...unfortunately that linked page reverts to the sites home page and not the very nice study that examined meth increasing aids virus neurotoxicity, yet that estrogen may help block this increased neurotoxicty...and yes...for the record...i am naturally...wired...i dont really need meth to be so...and i consider the possibility that one can "mentally adjust ones neurochemistry somewhat" thru several means that dont necessitate actual direct chemical involvement...yet if i was on some 2 or 3 day mission with no possibility of sleep i might consider a small amount of amphetamines...depending on the mission (ie. life & death, vital, requiring rapid reaction time, & just a few occurences)...a sleepless mission longer than a couple of days tho and i wouldnt...id go with heavy quantities of vitamins, antioxidants, and minerals, and as much food & water as possible...Benjiwolf 13:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Your assertion of "... likely an american & a closet meth user ..." appears to violate both of these official policies, and do not add anything constructive. I see someone else commented that you have been warned for infractions against these in the past, and hope this is a misunderstanding or somesuch. Zuiram 07:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)