Talk:Methadone/Archive 1

message: July 25, 2006 --
I feel this report should be thoroughly overhauled in an effort to more clearly distribute the known and most important facts, with references to appropriate links so that gaps can be more easily filled in by the reader - and to reduce (or elliminate) what appears to me to be an attempt to disseminate this subject matter on a slightly opinionated slant.  Also, the writing as it is now for sure leaves a little to be desired in terms of clarity, continuity and being easy to read - again without the author's bias.
I must reveal that I am a methadone maintenance patient (as I have been for the last 2 1/2 years), so I myself do have some definite opinions - both positive and negative, but I also know how important it is to search for and convey truth - even if I personally find the truth disagreeable (here, I don't really find any of the facts disagreeable).  One thing, being a patient does give me some insights that only a patient can have - while at the same time of course bearing in mind that I am only one of a great many.
I think perhaps the history should be explained, at least briefly (as it already is).
I think the pharmacology should be explained (as it already is, somewhat).
I think that all of the common uses - and some uncommon uses if they exist should be addressed.
I think that both the benefits and the downside of methadone use should be explained - in an unbiased way.
I think that relevant legal issues & facts should be addressed (in regard to state, national and international concern).
I think that the links indicated at the end of the report should be non-redundant in nature and should address any important topics that people could possibly be looking for.
Methadone evokes the topics of:
1. Legitimate medicine (obviously, chronic pain and opiate dependency treatment)
2. Drug abuse (abuse of opiates in particular - not much reason to branch away from opiates (in my opinion))
3. Law (relevant - state, national, international)
4. The future of ...
5. Statistics
6. Where to find more information
7. Other
What do you guys think ?
ML
Houston, TX
P.S.
To the person who keeps deleting everybody's info -
You brain no working good?
No, you brain no working good.
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methadone is perhaps the most effective narcotic analgesic for the treatment of diabetic neuropathy.  It is also indicated in the treatment of "phanthom limb pain".  Its low price, low abuse potential and long-term analgesic effectiveness makes it an ideal analgesic for the treatment of chronic pain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "External Links" on the Methadone page are there so people can get the information, help and support they need.  It would be MUCH appreciated if whoever is randomly deleting them PLEASE STOP!  Thank you.
SEE "CHANGING EXTERNAL LINKS" BELOW.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:Certain links are simply not suitable. Support groups and messaging boards exist by the truckload on various levels, and I do not see why any particular one should be advertised on Wikipedia. Perhaps national frameworks would qualify, or the ones that are particularly notable. Otherwise leave it to Google. JFW | T@lk 12:07, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it nationally active? Taking off like a wildfire is not quantitative. I am not removing links because I don't like them. I remove them because this is an encyclopedia and not a web directory. External links should ideally be used for reference only. JFW | T@lk 04:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (untitled)

message: This page is great, very unbiased.  However, I would like to propose some changes and additions:
1.  Methadone has a typical half life of 24 hours or more, permitting administration only once a day in heroin detoxification and maintenance programs.
*I wonder if people will now what "maintenance programs" are?  Perhaps a short description should be included?  I see that there is a separate page for Methadone Maintenance (though it is literally one or two sentences) - maybe a link should be added?  
*Also, methadone is not only used in the treatment of HEROIN addiction -- a growing number of people are seeking methadone treatment due to their addiction to painkillers, such as Oxycontin.  
2.  Some heroin addicts feel that it is actually harder to quit methadone than heroin itself.
*Likewise, perhaps the word heroin should be replaced with "opioid" or "opiate".  
3. Considering the fact that buprenorphine and LAAM are also mentioned on this page as similar treatment medications, I think that the two doctors (Dr. Vincent Dole and Dr. Marie Nyswander) who are credited with being the pioneers of methadone maintenance treatment in the United States should be mentioned as well.   They began treating addicts with methadone in the mid 1960s (1966 I believe).  
4.  Here is a link that I think would be a great addition to the links you already have at the bottom of this page.  http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/research/methadone.cfm  This site provides some basic information about methadone (specifically as used within drug treatment).  
Thanks for considering my suggestions.
:They all seem like good ideas. Feel free to edit the article yourself since this is a wiki. Be bold! --Bk0 04:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Changes 

message: "Methadone Clinic" redirects here; a Methadone Clinics article was started last year.  I'll leave it to others to decide how to proceed with redirects or merging, etc.  If a clinic article is kept it should probably be moved to "Methadone clinic" per naming conventions.  --Malepheasant 20:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Methadone Clinics]] article 

message: BEWARE, FOLKS....someone is going into the external links on the Methadone page, Buprenorphine, Addiction and self help groups....deleting links they don't like and replacing them with their own.  My link has been here for about ONE YEAR....for "methadone Anonymous".  I noticed today that my website was getting no traffic from here.  I came here and have changed the info back to my website at least TEN TIMES already in the last hour...sigh.  FINALLY...I just put my website as "Methadone Anonymous SUPPORT"....so hopefully they will leave it alone.  It's very sad when people that are SUPPOSED to be working for the same causes think that it's all about recognition and competition.  "Methadone Anonymous World Services"....shame on you!
.....Carol@MethadoneAnonymous.info
: I have removed the external links to addiction/recovery support groups from this article, because as pointed out above by others, they are not appropriate here.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing external links 

message: The Scottish Drugs Council stated recently that methadone improves fertility (this was part of a parliament debate about whether oral contraceptives should be prescribed/strongly advised alongside methadone). How does this work? Has it ever been considered in any dose as part of fertility treatment? Also has it ever been prescribed for treating endometriosis (morphine and other strong opiates are commonly prescribed for this)
: Please bear in mind who we are and what we do.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  It is not a web directory, an advocacy organization, a referral service, nor a community action center.  See WP:EL for our link policy.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methadone and Fertility 

message: ----
	
:I guess this is the original source of the book. And this would be similar for all other books linked (anywhere in Wikipedia). If you host the only website where this book can be found online, one could argue to put the link to your page, though hosting of links can be biased (both commercial and non-commercial, and if you see my edit history, and comments on pages, you will see that I remove many of them, and am very busy in a process of removing external links from pages about chemicals). I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Here is the Wikipedia Harry Anslinger page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Anslinger
You will note that, down at the bottom, it references an article titled "The Traffic In Narcotics". I posted the following links:
"The Traffic in Narcotics" by Harry Anslinger http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/people/anslinger/traffic/default.htm If you would, compare this link with the "Traffic in Narcotics" link that is already there.
The largest online collection of Anslinger's personal documents and speeches -- many of which are not on the net anywhere else. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/people/anslinger/index.htm
Most of those same documents have been linked from years from 1937 Marijuana Tax Act. There are numerous other examples where my web site is linked from Wikipedia. In some cases, my web site has the only links for the article.
Those links were deleted.
Now you tell me, in your own opinion, are those links:
1) "spam" or,
2) Perfectly appropriate and obvious for the page.
Thanks again.—Preceding unsigned comment added by wolfman97 (talk • contribs) 
Let me add one more thing. First, your suggested method would be useless as a real reference. Most of these documents simply cannot be found elsewhere. Second, there are no such ISBN references for many of the documents. Never has been. If you want to read them anywhere but my site, you will have to go dig them out of the boxes of personal papers of Harry Anslinger at Penn State. You either link them from my site or Wikipedia pretends that those papers simply don't exist.
What say you now?
Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by wolfman97 (talk • contribs) 
:First of all, also for the other links I would argue to change them to a proper reference, whether or not they are in public domain, not in print anymore, commercial or non-commercial: link to the original reference. The book has an ISBN, so the book can be found (or the book must be really old and not have a ISBN). The copy in the library may fall apart, but still, the original book may be there (I am in a university building now, but the library is closed, alas). And this goes for many documents, there is an original somewhere, link to that.
:I already argued that we could argue about putting in the link to your site, if you are (and apparently you are) the publisher of the only online copy. But, in that case, why not make sure your site is listed on Wikipedia:Book sources, and you will get your link via the ISBN. As I also argued, I am against external links, to commercial and to non-commercial sites (commercial links get money by selling things, non-commercial sites get money from other sources because they provide info, if you link one, another one does not provide info, and hence does not get money), if they can be avoided. However you turn it, it is biased, and another solution should be found. So under that philisophy, also those links are spam (see also WP:SPAM, specifically Wp:spam#How not to be a spammer), even if they are already there for xxx years. And I am sorry if it offends you, but if I would put that link there, I would not be a spammer (in the definition of WP:SPAM), if you do, that would be spam. And probably my addition would be deleted as well, but it sometimes does not happen (in the case of your site, I count roughly 50 links, excluding many talk-pages).
I am sorry, but as I see it now, you are not trying to find consensus, you want to be right, and seem to be unwilling to find other solutions. Things on wikipedia are not by definition right, some things are put there in good faith, until someone trips over it. That your link gets denied, may indeed mean that other links should also go (and that another solution has to be found to refer to the work). These things deserve some discussion, and then maybe should be changed (if the consensus is to change it). (note that I am against immediate deletion, until another solution has been found). --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just to give you the complete facts on one incident.

message: I am sorry that you didn't quite get it yet but take your own advice and go to any library within two days driving distance of you and see if you can find most of those works. It ain't gonna happen. I am taking bets on that, if you care to wager.
Let's start with something simple like the hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act. Dig that one up for me at the local library, if you will. I appreciate your good intent but you are simply laboring under an erroneous assumption.
There is no advertising on many of those pages, and never will be, so that argument wouldn't hold. And there is no competition between sites for most of it because, as already stated, my site is the only place where they can be found. If someone else comes along and complains that their site isn't getting the proper revenue you let me know and we will work it out when it happens. But they would have to be claiming credit for my work in the first place, so I don't think that will happen.
	 
So name another solution that makes sense. I am all ears. You already gave one but that doesn't work. In most cases, that is the same as "pretend it doesn't exist" or "something you will never find." People can -- and have -- make up anything about those documents because they know they can't be found.
As I already stated, many of those documents don't have an ISBN so I am not sure what good an ISBN link would do.
And did you completely glide over the fact that some previous readers (other than me) had already requested these documents be linked? The discussion had been done. The readers were already complaining on those Wikipedia pages that my site was down.
But you missed the important part of the discussion. You called for it and then didn't quite participate. You didn't give us your personal opinion on whether those links are appropriate (no matter who posted them). I suspect the reason you didn't answer is because you would probably agree that they ARE entirely appropriate, and even essential to the subject.
Do I suspect correctly?
Just trying to get your vote, you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by wolfman97 (talk • contribs) 
:For the link that we are discussing here: I win .. About two hours drive .. maybe two-and-a-half: Oxford university, UK (and it was the second link I clicked, biased, I confess, expected Oxford to have the document). But maybe also Bath or Bristol has it, or Birmingham, but these links were more quickly available.
:You claim your document is the only one, but as I said, if you get the link, Oxford does not get it!
:For all the rest, I still say, refer to the original document. And then make sure that that document can be found. Get your link added to the booksources page (I found the ISBN which you did not provide). For the other documents, still, refer to the original documents. And I did not say, that your documents could not be linked from the cite-template, I have therefore a) given in to the point that these documents could be relevant (I am a bad judge, I am an organometallic/organic chemist, not a pharmacist or a lawyer), and b) I have given a good solution (there are many cite-templates, there must be one for 'letters', or writings or someting). I do believe there is a difference between linking directly to a website, and giving a reference, which also has a link to an online-copy.
:And still, Susans option is also still there .. give an explanation on a talk page, why the link is relevant, and when consensus is reached, the link can be added (you could even say, that when you have not heard anything withing, say, 14 days, that you could add the link yourself, apparently nobody objects). So now you have three solutions, yours, which gives some bad feeling to some people, Susans, but you seem to have troubles with that solution, and mine, which would give you the possibility to add the reference yourself (by the way, even if there is no link in the reference to your page, people will know the document exist, and [google] it, hmm .. there is no ISBN on your page?). So with that people will have enough data to find your page, or other places to find the book.
:Just to be complete, another solution is to upload the documents to the Wikipedia commons, and link it there. The book is not copyrighted anymore (30 years, right?), so anyone could type it in and upload it.
:So technically, I have some problems with the first and second solution (which result in a direct link to your page), the third one without link would not have that 'problem', one could discuss to also add the direct link to that, and we now have a new one. I think I have given enough options now, we have no consensus on both ends, maybe it is time that you propose a solution to the problem?
:Could you please sign your additions to talk-pages, just type ~~~~ at the end? --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to let you know, in the beginning of this year, Amazon even had three copies in stock. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: With all due respect

message: The initial prices documented are incorrect, at least for the eastern coast of the United States. A monthly supply of methadone was listed as costing $240. Methadone is much cheaper as I just paid cash for a month's supply perscribed for chronic pain (80mg daily) for $22 (240 tablets).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.122.240 (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pricing

message: The law stipulates clinics may provide at most one week's worth of methadone, (two weeks in the USA)   except for patients...
What country does this sentence refer to? 82.139.115.120 (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear text

message: Clearly the person who wrote this is trying to make a point on the subject and statisics for "death due to Methadone". That is in inappropriate section in which to put a series of anit-methadone propaganda. The coverage of actual methadone treatment for chronic pain is so incomplete that it would be better off being called a Stub. I'd invite the original author to follow conventional Wikipedia formatting and place such writing under a new section called "Criticism". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.89.8.11 (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved part of the Methadone Chronic Pain section to Abuse section

message: i have a question about this.
it says under the buprenorphine section that buprenorphine is a schedule 3 drug and so can be used in outpatient programs, where as methadone cannot.
i am in an outpatient methadone program.
so that obviously refutes that.
i didnt know if things have changed since that was written.
and by things i mean laws. 70.160.42.69 02:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. I've removed that sentence pending verification. It seems to me to be false, but I don't have experience with American programs. I've emailed someone involved in American methadone and asked them to comment. Cheers, Sarah (Talk) 03:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Buprenorphine (as Suboxone, or less frequently Subutex) is classified as Schedule II and can be prescribed for maintenance therapy by any physician who has undergone a few weeks of addiction management education. One month of medication may be prescribed at a time (no refills, as with other narcotics), and this prescription can be picked up at any pharmacy. Methadone (also Schedule II), however, may not be be prescribed for maintenance purposes in this way (though it is prescribed for pain in the same fashion as other narcotic painkillers.) This is why methadone programs require patients to show up daily at their program and slowly earn "take homes," up to a maximum of two weeks of medication per visit.  MMT programs have the prescribing physician employed on-site, and act as both "prescriber" and "dispenser" -as doctor and pharmacy. Both treatments are "outpatient," but there is obviously a difference in degree.  As of today, I know this information to apply specifically to the state of Maryland - other states usually have minor regulatory differences.  This information applies to the USA only, and once more some practices may vary from state to state.  I hope this clears up your questions, and please correct me if I have misstated any information. Cheers! Spiral5800 (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Under the section entitled "Efficacy" it reads "Methadone is a strong opiate that induces analgesia."  Technically methadone is completely synthetic and therefore it is not an opiate. Instead it should be labled as an opioid.   Bundleofstix 06:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nitpicking 

message: In the abuse section, it stated that street methadone sells at............or $25-35 for 100mg or over, which will give you a comfortable high.  
  
100mg is more than enough to overdose someone who does not have a tolerance to opiates. Typically, methadone doses for chronic pain are 10-40mg.  Methadone for maitenance from opiate addiction is 40-120mg, sometimes higher depending on tolerance.  There have been many documented cases where individuals on a maintenance dose leave their medication unattended where someone close to them gets it, takes it, and overdoses.
63.231.161.179 03:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?  They've been giving me 10mg for chronic pain for years now; I'm pretty sure that I would throw up if I tried to take much more than that at once.  Dumb kids kill themselves with a single 10mg dose (normally by combining it with benzodiazapines and/or alcohol, with predictable resulting respiratory depression).  12:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed "Abuse" section. 

message: In going thru this page, I have got to point out that I believe the link to HARMD extremely inappropriate.  This site is run with people with a very clear agenda, and the things they say on their site are uncited, and, as far as I know, largely untrue.  
For those who are not familiar with this site, I suppose I would categorize it as a tribute page for those people who have died from methadone-related causes.  The organization apparently wishes to make methadone regulations more strict.  I think it is also worth pointing out that the majority of the "victims of methadone" they pay tribute to had drug problems themselves.  I only point this out to demonstrate that the site's premise is, in my opinion, faulty at best.
I don't want to step on anyone's toes and just remove it, but I think this link has no place on this page...at the very least this is worth discussing.  Thanks in advance.  -Lisa 71.226.227.190 13:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HARMD link incredibly inappropriate 

message: Methadone is used by Charlie in Fastball's song "Charlie, the Methadone Man". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.43.245.131 (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fastball 

message: Hi everyone....hope I'm doing this in the right place, never have been too good at this!  My website has been under "external links" for a couple years now, give or take.  I was wondering why all of a sudden it has been removed?  We have some exceptional support ....experts, info etc. and have grown by leaps and bounds.  We are now part of CSAT/SAMHSA Patient Support and Community Education project (PSCEP) as well.  I could go on and on, but won't torture you.  I am HOPING that my "fan club" from HARMD is not responsible in any way....sigh.  I tried putting it back, but as it was removed again thought it would be more appropiate to make this post.  Hope this finds everyone doing well....regards to Sarah! (I KNOW I'm going to sign this wrong!)--Chava 07:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links haunted? 

message: Please notify if there is a reference available to qualify the following statement:
"Individuals maintained on methadone for long periods of time may in fact find it more difficult to give up methadone than people who go directly from heroin use to abstinence."''
I have no inclination either to doubt or believe this statement, but I would very much like a reference so that I may further investigate.
Regards,
RS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SteelRegn (talk • contribs) 20:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  qualification for interesting statement 

message: If methadone is so much less addictive than shorter acting opiates such as codeine, morphine and heroin, why isn't there mixtures of small amounts of methadone with paracetamol? they do it with codeine.202.161.5.252 08:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because for the patient who has zero opioid tolerance, methadone is so powerful that it could easily kill them, even if they didn't intentionally overdose. The amount needed to provide analgesia comparable to codeine would be dangerous for many people. That's the technical reason. The likely reason is that I SERIOUSLY doubt any gov't wants powerful narcotics freely available where people can be abused or extracted from their preparations and concentrated/sold. Kel - Ex-web.god 05:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methadone and paracetamol 

message: I attached a 'citation needed' to the statement "Australians have recently utilised methadone to treat amphetamine addictions in the hope of reducing foetal harm among aboriginals." Having left it there for the last month and followed up with local research I can find no evidence of this assertion and will delete it.  The use of methadone for this purpose is contrary to the Australian Methadone Guidelines (apart from not having no evidence base whatsoever). I suspect it is just another peice of anti-methadone propoganda.  DISEman 05:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted inaccurate reference to methadone use in Australia  

message: First of all, the way the article puts it--"When combined with other drugs, however, methadone can cause death"--makes it sound as if methadone by itself cannot. This is obviously not true, but that's just how the writing makes it sound.
Next, the adverse effect list as it is right now is mild, and missing a couple of things. Such as vomiting, drowsiness, and dizziness. Also possible are delusions/paranoia, a vague but persisting sense of panic and fear, extreme depersonalization, and mild-to-very-extreme depression with suicidal thoughts. These things (especially the vomiting/drowsiness/dizziness which I know are more common than maybe some of the other adverse effects I mentioned) are not in the list which to me seems to play-down the reality. 
I've never edited anything and haven't read the rules, plus I don't have sources--I just know what I went through--but if someone could put this in, that might be helpful to someone who say might want to try the drug for "fun" because the side effects seem like child's play. Nausea is like level 3.5 but there's something like level 8 when you're wobbling into the ER, vomiting every five minutes into a cardboard bucket and mentally bargaining with God to let you live. 
OK, then the Burroughs thing. I know Burroughs was a big junkie and all, but I don't know if anecdotal sources are appropriate in an article like this considering how different each person's withdrawal experience ultimately is. Specifically, I have a problem with the implication that opiate withdrawal is somehow 'short-acting'. Whether or not it's more pleasant in comparison to barbiturate withdrawal (which by the way is totally irrelevant to the subject of Methadone), the anecdote from Burroughs makes opiate withdrawal sound like a cakewalk. Well fine, but here's another anecdote: 
Cold-turkey: It's one week before you finally can walk to the kitchen. You still haven't slept and you'd blow your head off if you just had the damn energy. Week 1-and-a-half you shower out of pure necessity but standing and moving is torture; you're still sneezing every 30 seconds; your mind is on raiding the whole house for some misplaced pill or bag but again, you don't have that energy. Week two you could probably physically operate a vehicle but you "can't" as far as you're concerned; you're shivering; you look at normal people, jealous at how they can do simple things like stand up for more than 40 seconds and are on an unrealistic level confused at how anybody can laugh. Two months and you kind-of feel normal again, but still not completely. I am aware the drug is 'cleared out' of your system well before then but that doesn't mean you still don't feel like hell; and I don't think Burroughs' experience outweighs anyone else's just automatically because he was like the king of opiate abuse. Regardless of some facts about drug properties that might come into play, the withdrawal experience is relative for it depends on a whole multitude of factors (thus, as interesting a man as he was, I don't see how the Burroughs thing is helpful).
Well peace out you crazy clowns. 67.42.233.138 (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Adverse Effects + Burroughs

message: methadone (used mostly for pain control) seems to have increased the risk of sudden cardiac death in an autopsy-based trial. JFW | T@lk 08:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sudden death 

message: Can someone please add a section regarding the Financial Costs of Methadone Maintainence for the individual addict?
I am on a "Financial Detox" right now (and feeling it BAD!!) because I am not eligible for Medicaid here in CA and have literally depleted my savings paying the $300 per month for the clinical treatment (dosing and counseling only)....I noticed that there is NO MENTION of these clinic fees and the ability or dis-ability of "patients" to afford treatment for themselves......please add a section discussing the high cost per individual and/or the criteria for Medicaid participation in support.  Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.145.171 (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A Request

message: The article does not explain it's distinctive colour.   86.139.239.58 (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why green? 

message: This article lacks any information regarding the non-medical use of methadone. Information about this should be put in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shade11sayshello (talk • contribs) 03:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recreational Use 

message: Even though Methadone is used to treat Heroin addiction, it's still addictive. From what I've read, Methadone can be more addictive than Heroin while at the same time have more severe withdraw symptoms. --shade11 | (Talk  • Contribs) 07:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Methadone Dependence

message: Please remove this nonsense. All opiates maybe with the exception of meperidine are metabolised and excreted just like any other drug. They do not have any toxic effects on their own. Body and organ damage is a result of injection behaviour and impurities. Btw, methadone is transparent and colourless, any colours is caused by dyes. 83.92.26.209 (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opiates does not damage organs 

message: A lot of information about methadone treating resistant leukemia is showing up recently, maybe this should be mentioned in the article? Seems worthy of adding. Sources; AACR (American Association for Cancer Research), Science Daily, etc.--Astavats (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been added, thank you. Though it needs to be touched/cleaned up a bit.--Astavats (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methadone treatment of (resistant) leukemia 

message: The phrase does not appear outside of three wikipedia articles on various opiates, and random blog/forum postings quoting those articles and each other.  I am guessing whoever came up with it wanted to say something like, people get addicted, desperate, and fixated on obtaining the drug to the point where nothing else matters.  I am removing the phrase from the other articles where it appears.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.41.22 (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  morbid seek orientation 

message: Why is there no section on critisim of methadone treatment for opioid addiction? I know there is... C6541 (talk) 06:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critisism? 

message: Decades of evidence have again and again demonstrated the miraculously low toxicity of methadone and most opiates/opioids on the body's organ systems. That said, new research is showing that long term opiate/opioid therapy can alter the normal functioning of the hypothalamic-pituitary axis (HPA) in the brain. This can lead to hormonal imbalances - which explains some of the reports given by MMT patients of an increased risk of gynecomastia, etc.  These can be treated by hormone replacement therapies, and so far it seems that HPA malfunction dissipates upon cessation of MMT. Just do a search on Pubmed For "Methadone HPA" or "opiates (or opioids) HPA" for more info. This is all very new and rather preliminary information and should dissuade noone from seeking MMT if they need it - even if all of these claims are true, which remains unclear in humans. Compared to the toxicity of heroin/opiate/opioid addiction - social, economic, and personal toxicity in addition to the damage done to the body by "shooting up" and self-neglect - the HPA hormonal effects I've mentioned are extremely minor and take a great deal of time to develop. The last thing I want to do is give anti-methadone fanatics more ammunition, but this information is out there for everyone to read and consider. I hope you all find this interesting if not helpful. Cheers, Spiral5800 (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hormonal Effects of MMT

message: but it's not. if you've ever known anyone who goes to a methadone clinic you know this is a lot of crap. it is trading one addiction for another. simple as that. my brother is up to 120mg a day and still buys some on the street to get a high. the clinics are filled with people paying 7 dollars a day to get high. he is so high when he leaves the clinic I constantly fear for his life. he can't function, he can't stay awake, he is moody and seems extremely drugged for the first 6+ hours after 'dosing'. that is just the dose they give him. he is still an addict. he still can't get off this drug. the only difference is he is so depressed he just lives to go to the clinic every morning and get more methadone. so no, he isn't on the streets as much or robbing people anymore...he is just in his own hell. methadone is super for this purpose. he would love to stop taking methadone but can't get passed the horror stories of withdrawal from everyone he knows and his own brief attempts. i am not into Scientology, i understand it helps people stop taking OTHER drugs but this is a realistic opinion based on real life experiences.
I also used to abuse methadone for fun with my brother. it's easy to get a weekend "take-home" dose and share with your friends. It  almost ruined my life. It is just as addictive as heroine. 166.216.160.76 (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  methadone sounds wondeful after reading this... 

message: I would like to know more about testing urine for methadone. Does it show up in a random 5 panel urine test? Or does it have to be tested for specifically?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.85.116 (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  methadone and drug testing