Talk:Designer drug

message: A lot of this article should probably either be merged into Research chemical or deleted. 80.203.115.12 11:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this viewpoint should be discussed in the article should we find sufficient sources. It is possible this article could be merged with Research chemical but the fact remains that the term exists and has to be discussed somewhere. However, this article is in bad shape and I don't foresee improvement in any respect in the near future unless someone decides to take it up as a project. Sizeofint (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

text: NSI-189 is also being sold on the grey market, as "not for human consumption". Many designer drugs were originally trialed by pharmaceutical companies, for example the hundreds of Pfizer cannabinoids we see around currently. The information is accurate. However, I'll take a look at the substances you mentioned below. Aethyta (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

text: "Research chemical" ≠ "Designer drug" and I would oppose merging them. The difference is that a research chemical is not intended for human use (with the possible exception of controlled clinical trials) whereas a designer drug (albeit unapproved) is. A key phrase in the lead sentence is "functional analog".  While individual research chemicals and designer drugs may be structurally novel, they almost always are functional analogs of other known drugs.  It is rare for a chemical to have a novel mechanism of action and even rarer to have a novel mode of action. Chemicals with completely new behavioral or physiological effects are rarer still. The vast majority designer drugs mimic the effects of other known drugs or drug candidates.  Can you name a single example of one that isn't? Boghog (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is correct. However, designer drugs are frequently sold as research chemicals to get around the Analog Act which should probably be discussed in the article. Sizeofint (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In the phenylethylamine list would it be appropriate to add some of the other methylenedioxy- compunds such as MDA, MDEA...? cyclosarin 03:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List

message: 5-MeO-DMT is a natural occuring chemical.--69.117.117.172 05:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DMT

message: The redirect of (and wikification/interlinking at the RC disambiguation page of) research chemical to the designer drug article was a rather poor choice in my opinion. When I think of research chemicals I think of radiolabelled novel chemicals that haven't yet been distributed for even a chance at abuse, like the class of synthetic phenyltropane stimulants and such that are not found at all on the outside of a lab. When I think of 'designer drugs' I think of the more exotic of recreationally used and abused drugs, usually substituted amphetamines and the like. Would someone be willing to come up with a better link for "research chemical" or create a proper 'research chemical' article? I mean, research chemicals need not even be psychoactive or even related to biology / effects of chemicals on forms of life. Nagelfar (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research chemical ≠ Designer drug 

message: Would Methadone be considered a "designed drug"?? OlEnglish (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kirald alsotelep 6 2A0A:F640:1610:2F61:0:0:0:1 (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methadone 

message: completely uneccessary  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.100.104.81 (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  links to drug forums 

message: I'm now bored of deleting things from this article which are not designer drugs. It reads like it was written by a newspaper reporter or government minister, i.e. anything which has a vaguely psychoactive property is a "designer drug" including illegal ones like MDMA (which thankfully wasn't listed), prescription medications like diazepam (which was) and industrial solvents like GBL (which were used as a legal loophole but were in no way invented for that purpose).
Better yet, please modify the definition so it describes designer drug as "anything a newspaper or MP decides it is, usually because it has psychoactive properties" or don't spread the FUD. Thanks for your attention.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.212 (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Article not as bad as I implied, missed the bit about marketing, since drug laws vary widely listing some of these things is a mistake, it should really only contain things which are universally or nearly so legal, so I have removed diazepam (which is clearly not a designer drug, anywhere), phenazepam (because it's a controlled substance in many places) and the other benzodiazepine because it, like diazepam is controlled nearly everywhere. Please don't put these back it would be a mistake.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.212 (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your point is well made and by what you write, bath salts and plant foods which were never designed as drugs have no place in this article. However, please note a redirect from the Wiki article on Bath Salts  to this one which contains the legend "This article is about actual bath salts. For the psychoactive drugs inaccurately described as bath salts, see Designer drug#Misleading descriptions."--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you've got the wrong end of the stick (as well as the AP unfortunately, but that isn't the first time, see "myth 1" at the end of this for example). The so called "plant foods" and "bath salts" would be absolutely useless as these products and were deliberately designed to function as drugs. I added the bath salts info to this article, and have discussed it on my talk page, and copied it over to the talk page too. Annoyingly, we can't really add anything US specific, until some sources start to discuss about how they aren't bath salts and plant food. SmartSE (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awful article 

message: "The term "designer drug" was first coined by law enforcement in the 1980s..." should be changed to, "The term "designer drug" was first coined by U.C. Davis pharmacology professor Gary Henderson in the early 1980s." As a medical student at U.C. Davis in the 1980's I did research under Dr. Henderson, and I am sure that he coined the term. There are multiple citations to be found on the Internet that confirm this. One of these is a publication by the California Narcotics Officers Association (http://www.cnoa.org/N-05.pdf)
Ar15pistol (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  incorrect attribution under History section 

message: According to the history of this page, ClueBot has reverted a recent vandalism, but the change does not appear on the article. I do not see anything that suggests that the change is under review or is awaiting approval either. This is weird! See this diff. -  Subh83 (talk | contribs) 01:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not quite sure what you mean. Everything looks normal to me. SmartSE (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  media wiki bug?? 

message: :This 2011 report by the ACMD defines NPS as:
Psychoactive drugs which are not prohibited by the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs or by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and which people in the UK are seeking for intoxicant use.
Generally legally available, NPS fall, broadly, into four categories:
i) Products with names which give no indication of what they contain;
ii) Named and specific substances which are designed to be similar chemically and/or pharmacologically to known specific controlled, drugs;
iii) Substances related to medicines
iv) Herbal or fungal materials or their extracts
:At the moment the article mainly focuses on the second category i.e. designer drugs, but if we include all NPS then NRG-1, Ivory Wave ('bath salts') and Salvia divinorum, ergine. (Natural highs there is no article about these) would also be included. Does that seem like something we should aim for? SmartSE (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is where things become very challenging for us, since their own definition does not agree well with their term of choice. I think we should aim to cover all of what I would informally call "[recently] grey market" drugs in some form, but it is possible that not all of this coverage will be well suited to fall into the DD article. Already the more comprehensive listing of DDs in has me thinking a List of designer drugs article should be spawned in the  future, and equally I think it might be appropriate to touch on some "Herbal or fungal materials or their extracts" in this article but have a separate main article for grey market products of this nature. A lot of things are "substances related to medicines" after all! Testem (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is trickier than I had thought. On further reflection (and upon finding legal intoxicant) I think that it is best to keep this page confined to synthetic compounds even if they do not always exactly DDs. A seperate list might be a good idea, but only if this page becomes too long. SmartSE (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, think that this page should include only synthetic compounds. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Future scope

message: According to WP:HEAD,  Readers are used to seeing section heading bolded without color. The combination of bold and coloring is jarring and confuses readers. I personally think wiki links in section headings are ugly and I remove them on sight.  Furthermore I think the intention is to split out the list section of this article into a stand alone list. I have yet to see a featured list (that are considered to be the very best in Wikipedia) that contains wikilinks in section headings.
I previously removed the wikilinks for the section headings in this article, but I see these have now been re-introduced.  What do other editors think? Boghog (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the MOS guidance but I don't understand the reasoning behind it. Personally I feel that adding the link under the title is unnecessary clutter and that having the link in the title keeps things neat. I suppose the  template could be used if you feel the link in the title is unattractive or confusing but I feel that keeping things nice and compact is useful in an article with lots of content and titles like this. Testem (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a suggestion. Please see the edit that I just made at the top of the first section of the list, about opioids. It's pretty easy to write a brief topic sentence about each section, and then just move the link out of the header and into the topic sentence. That approach has two virtues: compliance with WP:MOS, and making that part of the page more encyclopedic by becoming at least a little bit less list-like. And, in that regard, I want to say that the list is getting rather out of hand, per WP:EMBED. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Tryptofish.  I agree that the length of this list is quickly getting out of hand.  I also agree that adding a short sentence to start each section would be preferable.  That is what I had started to do but not completed in my previous edits.  Finally I wanted to point out another style guide WP:LINKSTYLE which states  Boghog (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

text:  This script might be useful. Boghog (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  You don't need a script to change 10 links, for real! First we should decide how the page should look like. Short sentence that quickly explains each category sounds good to me. Also the goal is to have a good, easy understandable list, and not something fancy looking for style fetishists to appear on a featured list that no one cares about. Aethyta (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I use scripts because I am lazy ;-) But I would agree that it is more important to have a good introductory sentence for each section and no script can do that. Wikipedia style guides are useful in that they encourage consistency between articles and that consistency provides readers with fast visual clues as to meaning.  Also per WP:LINKSTYLE:  and .  I think this principle is even more critical for sections. Explaining a linked term is not practical in a section heading, but is possible in a section's introductory sentence that contains the link. Boghog (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Working on the intro sentences, with Testem. Aethyta (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks good!  Thanks. Boghog (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks from me too. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki linked section headings 

message: I find some parts of this article contradictory, most notably the initial definition of a 'designer drug', and the following mentioning of DOM in this context. A designer drug is initially defined as: 'structural or functional analog of a controlled substance that has been designed to mimic the pharmacological effects of the original drug, while avoiding classification as illegal and/or detection in standard drug tests'. DOM was not synthesised in order to bypass drug laws nor detection in urine tests, but was synthesised during Shulgin's structure-activity studies of mescaline analogues. I would advise that DOM is not referenced to in this article, unless it is stated that it was not synthesised by Shulgin to bypass drug laws, or the initial definition of a designer drug is changed...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdx92129 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOM