Talk:List of designer drugs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Peptide Section[edit]

Not one of the substances in the section are analogues of controlled substances (Sermorelin for instance is even used clinically). It's not the only section that has this issue either. It seems to me that someone might have conflated "designer drugs" with research chemicals or am I mistaken? —Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "designer drug" has never been very good here. The term novel psychoactive substances (NPS) is much better, includes everything psychoactive sold on the grey market as not for human consumption. No doubt etizolam has been one of the most popular designer drugs ever, before it was banned in most countries (still legal in UK and US though!), yet it is used as pharmaceutical in some countries. The WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence recently discussed its worldwide scheduling. Aethyta (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some designer drugs are research chemicals but of course not all research chemicals are designer drugs. I agree that CJC-1295, Sermorelin, and Tesamorelin should be removed from the list because they are (or at one time were) approved drugs and hence fall outside the definition of a designer drug. Investigational drugs like GHRP-6 are a grey area. Since they are new, routine tests for their presence may not yet be available, hence some of these agents may be used to avoid detection. Hence effectively they are designer drugs. The problem with the term "novel psychoactive substances" is that it is European specific definition and doesn't cover non-CNS drugs (e.g., designer steroids). The term designer drug, while started in the U.S. has since become widely used around the world including the popular press in Europe. Boghog (talk) 11:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, Etizolam, one of the most popular designer drugs, is no designer drug. Well yeah. Feel free to redirect the page to List of Novel Psychoactive Substances... Aethyta (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the discussion here - none of the terms are very well defined but this one is being used because it's most popular. Talk:Designer_drug Testem (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phenazepam[edit]

So why phenazepam is considered to be the so-called designer? It was synthesized long ago in USSR and used very widely (personally, as a psychiatrist in residency, I use it almost every day for psychomotor agitation) in psychiatry for years, long before alprazolam was born. So it's definitely not a "designer" drug. But 3-hydroxyphenazepam is, indeed. It never been sold and used in Russia, unlike our lovely phenazepam. Vaccinationist (talk|edits) 00:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2, 3, 4. You should also read this EMCDDA report on medicine being abused as designer drugs, NPS, legal highs, whatever your preferred name is. Aethyta (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :з vaccinationist (talk|edits) 20:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selflinks[edit]

Is it possible to sweep the drug name links here for those which redirect here; they don't seem constructive to me. I removed one mentioned on WP:ANI, but I don't see any of them as constructive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think there are that many - if any more at all. Of course you could just restore said article if it bothers you that much. Aethyta (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the entry isn't constructive; I'm saying the link isn't constructive. (The entries are often unsourced, so could probably be removed. The question of whether the drugs in question are "designer drug"s, and whether that term has a sensible definition, are questions for another section of this talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The things I added that have been removed[edit]

Each one of them has been trialed on humans and either has existed or still does. The stuff is very well hidden, so the best sources I can privide are either leaked internal documents (which would put me or my sources at risk of being sued since their ndas expire in 5 years or so) or or a sample or two (which I can only do if anyone can guarantee it wont fall into the wrong hands (aka law enforcement..... after all you need to know the exact structure and activity before banning something and that is against my interests as I would prefer as many of them were available legally and the illegal ones would become legal and sold in specialized shops held to the same standards as pharmacies are and with the ingredients/doses/effects clearly indicated), or in the case of 4-meo-mipt and some others a link to a vendor long gone, lots of forum threads about it, lab test results from various labs, various journal articles obtained via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub (which have been likely obtained illegally), tihkal/pihkal articles. links to the vendors, .....

If I wanted to post things that exist only in my head I would have posted (just some examples) https://imgur.com/a/9PAtZ/all

Oh, and if you are going to remove things that exist on paper only or were only made in very small amounts, then you should also remove 3-fa. 3-fma and 6-mapb which have only been made in extremely small amounts, and produced effects similar enough to other fluoroamphetamines/methamphetamines or 5-mapb while costing much more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benzo expert (talk • contribs) 17:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, why do you keep removing 4-meo-mipt? It's in tihkal - https://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/tihkal/tihkal39.shtml has it's own wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-MeO-MiPT and just google it, it's around?

Same for isophenidine...and more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.164.21.107 (talk) 07:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpected, undiscussed and unreasonable page move?[edit]

@Mario Castelán Castro: could you please explain this? There is a large difference between designer drugs (rather specific) and psychoactive drugs in general (extremely broad). This page move doesn't really make any sense at all, especially without any discussion on the talk page beforehand. @Meodipt, Testem, Boghog, Edgar181, and Sizeofint: any input? Aethyta (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fairly clear distinction of recreational designer drugs as a subset of all psychoactive drugs I agree, merging the pages is not a good idea. It would be acceptable to include the subset on the superset page but the subset page should still exist in its own right. Testem (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is defintely the type of change that should be discussed beforehand to get consensus. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think this list is intended to have a rather narrow scope. There may be use for a One Drug List to Rule Them All or maybe more simply a list of lists but I think it might be better to start that on a different page. A comprehensive list would be gigantic with content from at least the following:
We also already have Category:Psychoactive drugs. Sizeofint (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not to forget ergoline, lysergamides, arylcyclohexylamine, list of phenyltropanes, substituted phenylmorpholine, nonbenzodiazepine, NMDA antagonist and others besides. Also what about nootropics? aphrodisiacs? pheremones? What definition of "psychoactive" are we using here. The legislatures that have attempted to define this have hardly narrowed it down precisely... Meodipt (talk) 05:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(There was a harmless edit conflict with Sizeofint's reply) Aethyta: I performed the move to set the foundation to reduce redundancy. I found that there is a lot of redundancy while organizing articles of psychoactive drugs. There are many places that list highly overlapping sets of drugs. We have list of drugs in the pages:
Here is some of the redundacy:
  • All substituted cathinones are substituted amphetamines
  • All substituted phenethylamines are substituted amphetamines. All substituted amphetamines are substituted phenethylamines (fixed).
  • All DOx are substituted amphetamines.
  • All 2C-* are substituted phenethyamines.
  • Most substituted benzofurans are substituted PEAs.
  • Many empathogens are hallucinogens, but few hallucinogens are empathogens.
There may be a legitimate reason for having one category, one navbox and one list that cover the same scope. However, having several lists or several navboxes or several all with almost the same scope is counterproductive. With the current setup, methylone would have to be listed in:
My concept is that we unify all of this into 1 or 2 lists: “List of psychoactive drugs” and possibly “List of psychoactive drugs by chemical structure”. Very big subcatgories like opioids would be in their own list linked from these master lists. We currently have “List of opioids” which is compatible with this concept. Instead of the current redundant lists founds in the articles of 2C-*, DOx and subst. cathinone/benzofuran/phenethylamine/amphetamine/methylenedioxyphenethylamine/tryptamine, these articles would point to the relevant section in “List of psychoactive drugs by chemical structure”.
Moreover, the boundary between psychoactive designer drugs and psychoactive drugs in general is very blurry. I believe that this is obvious to most (if not anyone) interested in this page. Think of, say 6-APB, mephedrone and 2C-B. These can be considered either designer drugs or not. By defining the scope of this list to be “designer drugs” we are inheriting the vagueness of the term “designer drug”. This implies that the former scope of this article (before I moved and adapted it) was doomed to vagueness starting from its former title.
As for non-psychoactive designer drugs (E.g.: anabolic steroids): They can easily fit in more specific existing lists like “List of anabolic steroids”.
Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The problem is a lot of these drugs aren't perfect subsets of each other. Drugs can be listed by structure, effect, use, origin, etc. It is further complicated because drugs often have multiple effects, uses, and structural categorizations. For instance MDMA is an empathogen (effect), stimulant (effect), Substituted amphetamine (structure) and Substituted methylenedioxyphenethylamine (structure). Mescaline is a hallucinogen (effect) an entheogen (use), recreational drug (use) and could potentially be a medicine (use) in the future. That said, yes, I do agree we have too many lists to adequately maintain. It also seems we are replicating the work of the categorization pages. (Side note: Pretty sure all substituted amphetamines are substituted phenethylamines, not the other way around). Sizeofint (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sizeofint: Yes, I am aware that there are many ways to list drugs. Hence that I was thinking of possibly 2 root lists of psychoactive drugs, one classified by chemical structure (tricyclics, subst. amphetamines, subst. benzofurans, etcetera) and one classified by effect (empathogens, stimulants, etc.).
Classifying by chemical structure is easy (but still a lot of work because there are so many psychoactive drugs). On the other hand, classifying by effect is a bit problematic because there is very little information on many psychoactive drugs. For example, many drugs have been presented in scientific papers and sometimes assayed against 5-HT2A but the researchers did not try them on themselves (Shulgin would not be proud of them!). It is not clear what to do regarding the effect-based classification of those drugs. Is it “better” to take a guess based on in vitro assays, and if none, on SAR (e.g.: assume that subst. tryptamines are psychedelic) or just leave them out of the effect-based lists?. What about anecdotal reports found in the open web from research chemical users (e.g.: https://bluelight.org/)?. Any suggestion?.
Apologies for the mistake of subst. amphetamines and subst. phenethylamines. I know what each category means but I made that mistake when writing. I was trying to reply as fast as possible to avoid edit conflicts.
Any other feedback?.
Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I would say for classification we have to use the best reliable source available and leave it out if none are available. Forums don't generally count as reliable sources. What do we do about drugs that have multiple effects and/or multiple ways of being structurally classified (e.g. Many but not all entactogens are also stimulants, many but not substituted methylenedioxyphenethylamines are also substituted amphetamines). List them in both sections? Sizeofint (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly see the benefit in having master lists of "psychoactive drugs by chemical structure" and "psychoactive drugs by pharmacological mechanism of action" or similar, but it would be better to have these in addition to the existing categories, not merge all the existing ones in to them. The main issue is that there are just so many of these compounds, there must be close to 1000 or so compounds that have been reported as "new psychoactive substances" and are banned in some jurisdiction, and with that many compounds to deal with it is helpful to have many different ways to categorise them. Those various "lists of" pages may have a lot of overlap in some cases, but each of them also has at least some unique entries. If you merge them all without losing content then the resulting master pages will be so large that they would right away generate that warning message that says "this page is too big and should be split up", and we are back to where we started. So the master pages should probably more just be summaries of the main compounds from each class with links to the full list. There is probably the most overlap in the phenethylamine area and some of this should probably be merged, but I'm not sure what the best way to do it would be. Certainly can't see much need for separate pages for substituted phenethylamine and substituted methylenedioxyphenethylamine though for instance. Meodipt (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sizeofint: I am not sure. Maybe it makes more sense to list compounds by effect in the single class that "best characterizes" them. It seems easier to classify compounds as "mainly empathogen"/"mainly stimulant" than "empathogens"/"stimulants"/"stimulants and empathognes". Many, if not all, empathogens are norepinephrine and dopamine releasing agents to varying degrees. In any case, very few compounds are explicitly referred to as "empathogens" in the literature; moreover, it is common to see papers calling a drug an empathogen without any evidence or even pointing to self-published anecdotal user reports.

Meodipt: I understand your concern that the list would be huge but I disagree that we would be back where we started. I think that the priority must be to reduce redundancy or in other words, to unify listings as much as reasonable while keeping an useful separation between structure and function. It seems like we will have a “List of psychoactive drugs by chemical structure”. Then my idea is to split big sub-categories into their own sub-lists when necessary (e.g.: a page for “list of benzodiazepines”), but keep it conceptually a single list.

Here is a rough sketch of a possible organization of “List of psychoactive drugs by chemical structure”:

Substituted phenethylamines (PEAs) (including subst. cathinones/amphetamines) are by far the biggest class. The above way of splitting subst. PEAs (in this broad sense) mostly keeps each of subst. PEAs/amphetamines/cathinones/benzofurans as a single sub-tree. Notably, subst. MDPEAs have been split between β-keto and non-β-keto. I think that this is fine. This splitting roughly corresponds to a difference in activity. Within substituted amphetamines, β-keto analogues of releasing agents typically are reuptake inhibitors; their releasing activity is highly attenuated.

I have experience with the above approach of splitting subst. PEAs by ring structures and subst. tryptaines by amino substitutions from editing Empathogens/entactogens and Hallucinogens respectively. Note that in some sense, tryptamines and ergotamines are substituted PEAs (they include a beneze ring joined to an amino group through a chain of 2 carbon atoms), but we consider them separate as a matter of convention.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Ping @Seppi333: he's pretty active on substituted phenethylamine and substituted amphetamine. Sizeofint (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's 2 editing guidelines to keep in mind before merging content like this. The first is WP:NOTABILITY as an independent topic; if a subtopic is merged into a parent topic, like subst. amph → subst. PEA, the former still needs to be independently covered on the target page. The second is the WP:SIZE of the target page if all potential subpages are merged into it. E.g., if subst. amph. + subst. cathinone + subst. MDPEA are merged into subst. PEA, the resulting page would probably be very large even after cutting out the redundancy. Also, keep in mind that some of these articles like List of cocaine analogues are already very long.
Creating the page List of psychoactive drugs by chemical structure as a list of lists of psychoactive drugs by structure is a good idea IMO; the resulting page can then be listed on List of lists of lists. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah exactly, an overarching "list of psychoactive drugs by chemical structure" page is a good idea that will help to organise everything, but it has to be a list of lists and not go into too much detail, otherwise it will be far too large and hit the page size limits. The suggested organisation above makes sense, but just at a glance there are still a lot of categories missing, what about dissociatives and deliriants? Opioids that are neither morphinans or fentanyls? Depressants that are not benzodiazepines, barbiturates or simple alcohols or alkyl halides? Synthetic cannabinoids? (which has a large number of sub-categories in its own right). Phenyltropanes? (another huge class, even if only a handful have appeared as RCs). One issue with changing the page name from list of "designer drugs" to list of "psychoactive substances" is that "designer drugs" is essentially limited to those compounds which have actually appeared on the illicit market somewhere. "Psychoactive substances" on the other hand is now a legal term of art since the passage of the Psychoactive Substances Acts in NZ and UK (and Ireland too I guess), which encompasses all those compounds that might be expected to produce drug-like effects, regardless of whether they have actually been marketed as such. So you are not just proposing the merge of all these smaller categories, but also massively expanding the scope of coverage at the same time. I certainly think WP:SIZE is going to be a barrier here. Meodipt (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I'm in favour of reverting the move as well as these "new scope" edits. A list of list of drugs article is a good idea though. Aethyta (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the problem of page size. I have been saying since several messages ago how I intend to deal with it. I intend to have one or a few master lists. Currently the best idea seems to be to have 2 master lists: List of psychoactive drugs by effects and List of psychoactive drugs by chemical structure. Only sub-categories that are big enough would be split to their own pages. Small sub-categories like racetams or substituted adamantanes would be in their own section in the master lists. I do not see what is the point of splitting all sub-categories. List of psychoactive drugs by effects can be started by moving this page to that title, then adding content and spitting big sub-categories into sub-lists when appropriate (like List of psychedelic drugs, List of stimulant drugs, etc.).

Replying to “The suggested organisation above makes sense, but just at a glance there are still a lot of categories missing, [...]”: Well, I missed some chemical categories like phenyltropanes. Remember that it a rough sketch. However, I excluded intentionally dissociatives, deliriants and opioids as such, because that sketch of hierarchy was for List of psychoactive drugs by chemical structure. Drugs with “unique” structures will be either excluded from List of psychoactive drugs by chemical structure or in a section “Other”; currently I do not have a favored option on that.

I insist that I do not see any point in having a page “List of designer drugs” because being a “designer drug” is not a property of the drug in any meaningful way but a property of legislation. Furthermore, what is a “psychoactive designer drug” is somewhat ill-defined (more ill-defined than “psychoactive drug”). In addition to my previous examples (namely: 6-APB, mephedrone and 2C-B), I think that some racetams are used medically in the Eastern Slavic countries and have been researched for the treatment of Parkinson's disease but in America (continent) are unregulated and sold under the label of “nootropics”. Modafinil is in a similar situation (sold for medical use and unregulated use as “nootropic”). Should we consider these compounds to be “designer drugs”?.

To Seppi333: Right, I will keep those Wikipedia guidelines in mind. I am not very familiar with cocaine and its analogues. List of cocaine analogues seems to be doing its job well. I think that I would just include a link to it from List of psychoactive drugs by chemical structure.

To Meodipt, Aethyta: I realize that the changes have the implication of massively increasing the scope of this list. The only significant problem I see with this is the resulting page size; but I just described above how it can be addressed. As for the issue of what constitutes a “psychoactive compound”: what a particular legislation says needs not concern us at all in general. We need only care about lawmaker's deliriums in talking about the legal status of drugs in particular jurisdictions (as in List of Schedule I drugs (US) and the legal sections in many drugs articles, e.g.: 2C-B#Drug prohibition laws). You know, lawmakers are always wrong. They can't even get what the word “narcotic” means. We better not listen to them.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Lawmakers may often be ill-informed and misguided in this area, but the consequences of the laws they pass are no less serious, and certainly are encyclopaedic in this context. It's worth noting there are quite a number of compounds which are legally controlled in some jurisdiction due to structural similarity to previously controlled substances (and so are "designer drugs" by most definitions), but subsequent testing has found them not to be psychoactive. With this being expanded to include compounds that are pharmacologically similar, the scope is expanded vastly. Every compound known from in vitro studies to be an agonist at μ-opioid or 5-HT2A receptors for example could presumably be deemed a "psychoactive substance" under UK law now, even though not all such compounds are actually psychoactive. Indeed the definition of "designer drug" has more to do with how such drugs are viewed by governments, and the intentions of the people using them, rather than their chemistry or pharmacology, or where they originated from. Meodipt (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To Meodipt: I agree in that I acknowledge the importance of the legal status of drugs. I am not sure if you are saying that legislation is a source of problems for this list. I do not see how the legal status of drugs is relevant to this page given its current title.
Wikikpedia has lists of compounds by legal status like the aforementioned ones and Drugs controlled by the UK Misuse of Drugs Act. More lists like this can be created to cover other jurisdictions. However, I have neither the knowledge nor the interest to contribute to any such list. I think that any such list must be clear in regards to what jurisdiction it is about. The former title and scope of this list (List of designer drugs) was not at all specific in which jurisdiction it was about.
I am not sure if you are describing any particular problem with this list. If that is the case then I am not understanding. If you have a concern or see a problem, could you please phrase it another way?.
Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The point I was trying to make in my message from 22:43, 20 August 2016 (2 indentation levels above this message) is that we should not pay any attention to legislation in determining whether a substance is a psychoactive drug or not (nor in deciding whether to include such a substance in this list or not). That is what I meant when I said “We better not listen to them.”. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The problem is with the renaming. Sure, make a page for "list of lists of psychoactive substances" or "list of psychoactive substances by chemical structure". Both would be useful pages for navigation and organisation. But they should be new pages, not a renaming and modification of the "list of designer drugs" page. This page is for compounds that fall within the set of "designer drugs", and while the definition of that may be somewhat nebulous, I think the discussion above shows consensus that this is a separate and not entirely overlapping set from those compounds comprising "psychoactive substances".Meodipt (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I get what you mean now. The problem with having a page List of psychoactive designer drugs or just List of designer drugs is that: (1) its scope is very vague (2) it is yet one more place that further duplicates the listing of psychoactive substances. I think that all parties that cared to express their opinion have already done so. Obviously I am opposed to reverting since I did the move in the first place. It is not clear to me if there is “consensus” to keep or revert. In Wikipedia, getting “consensus” effectively means playing a game of words, seeing who gets bored first or who can get more support. I propose a non-binding (i.e.: “straw”) poll for the users that participated in this discussion already.

Non-binding poll[edit]

Ping to Sizeofint, Seppi333. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Option 1: Keep the scope of this list as psychoactive drugs in general. Leave open the option to rename to List of psychoactive drugs by effect (as described in the discussion above) in the near future (possibly days to months), with the corresponding change in content.

  • Support: Per the reasons exposed above. Summary: (1) What is and is not a “designer drug” is vague and irrelevant to the properties of the drugs themselves. (2) Regarding legal status of drugs, it is more useful and precise to create more jurisdiction-specific lists like List of Schedule I drugs (US) rather than one list on a vague concept encompassing in principle all jurisdictions of the world. (3) Having a list of “designer drugs” gives Wikipedia yet one more place in which to list drugs, largely duplicating the existing lists of psychoactive drugs which are already redundant. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Option 2: Revert the scope to designer drugs (including non-psychoactive drugs) and revert the title to “List of designer drugs”.

Oppose Definitely have to vote for Option 2. Revert this to "list of designer drugs" and try come up with a more robust and specific definition for what a "designer drug" is so the inclusion criteria are not so vague and arbitrary. Then make a separate page for "list of psychoactive substances by chemical structure", which by necessity due to size limits will largely be a list of lists. However that's not to say these lists can't be condensed some, personally I think all the substituted phenethylamines and amphetamines lists could be condensed to a single page, though I would leave the cathinones separate as the SAR is quite different (both in terms of activity and in what substitutions have been explored). Meodipt (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • revert: A list of designer drugs is definitely not redundant. Jurisdiction-specific lists aren't "sorted" by chemical classes or even CNS activity. Not only is it extremely time consuming to create and update that many lists because of the low amount of editors in the drug space and language barriers, but also they wouldn't solve your problem at all: side effects include duplicating Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 185 times. The list of designer drugs used to be a part of the designer drug article until its growth in recent years, and while the introduction could certainly be improved, the term "designer drug" is well supported in the scientific community and used by pretty much all governments, a quick pubmed search finds a few thousand studies on the subject, hardly "irrelevant". Currently there are over 10000 articles covered by WP:PHARM, of which a decent percentage are about psychoactive drugs. It's simply not practical to list them all in the same article due to size and readability, but even if you still wanted to attempt it against all odds, please start from scratch in your sandbox instead of hyjacking and repurposing the "list of designer drugs" into an entirely different "list of psychoactive drugs of which 2% happen to be designer drugs". You're probably right that certain lists such as substituted methylenedioxyphenethylamines and substituted benzofurans could be merged into substituted phenethylamines/amphetamines/cathinones, however that really should be discussed on the respective article talk pages, not here. Aethyta (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: The many scientific articles one can find by searching for “designer drug” or “novel psychoactive substance” in PubMed and similar literature search engines are rarely about the concept of “designer drugs”. They are almost always about the biological effect (not legal status) of a specific drug and they use the term “designer drug” only as a side remark about the drug they are examining. Searching for “"designer drug" OR "novel psychoactive substance"” in PubMed sorted by publication date gives an example of this research phenomenon as the 1st result. Therefore, the existence of these studies is not evidence of the importance of the concept of “designer drugs”.
In reply to “It's simply not practical to list them all in the same article [...]” (emphasis added): Nobody in this discussion has proposed that. See the discussion above.
In reply to “side effects include duplicating Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 185 times.”: Obviously a single list suffices to cover that treatise. There is already such a list on that article. Moreover, you are comparing apples to pineapples. I assume that the number 185 represents a number of countries. Having a single list of “designer drugs” does not gives the same information as having 185 lists of drugs banned in each of those 185 countries. Actually, it hardly gives any information. If you see a substance listed in Drugs controlled by the UK Misuse of Drugs Act you can conclude that it is controlled in the UK. On the other hand, if you see a compound listed in List of designer drugs you can not draw any conclusion about that substance legal status in any country. The point is that even if some governments use the term “designer drug”/“novel psychoactive substance” (or similar), this article does not reflects the usage of the term “designer drug” by any government whatsoever.
Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Designer drug is an independently notable subject. Furthermore psychoactive drugs ≠ designer drug. The later also includes unapproved performance enhancing drugs. There are no doubt between country differences in what is considered a designer drug, but the similarities outweigh the differences. Boghog (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed the objection one about the search in PubMed in the message you replied to, and the one about that “designer drugs” include non-psychoactive drugs in the discussion above. I am not going to repeat myself. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Revert for now. I like the idea of condensing our lists but I'd like to see how it is going to look before we make substantial changes to this list. Why don't we copy the source of this page to a draft page or a different mainspace List of psychoactive drugs page and start constructing it there, leaving this page in place in the meantime. Sizeofint (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern. Regarding copying this page to start the new master lists of psychoactive drugs: Yes, that is one possible approach. But writing the new lists manually would be a lot of work. I am currently examining the possibility of using a semi-automated approach. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Revert permanently. What essentially has happened here is a well functioning list was highjacked for another purpose. A move like this really requires prior discussion. It is useful to maintain a separate list of designer drugs because it is a distinct, well defined subject. Designer drugs is in once sense broader and in another sense narrower than psychoactive drugs. It is broader since it also includes unapproved performance enhancing drugs. It is narrower since it excludes drugs that have obtained regulatory approval. So to rename list of designer drugs to list of psychoactive drugs make no sense. As others have suggested, it might make sense to have a hierarchy of drug lists to minimize overlap and to keep each list from becoming too long. Boghog (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, I want to note that you did not significantly participate in the discussion preceding this straw poll. Although technically nobody is forbidden from participating, I intended this pool to sample if there is or was “consensus” after the preceding discussion among the editors who participated, not a Wikipedia-wide open poll.
Second, to say that the article was “highjacked” is not an argument against the edit. This is an emotional declaration equivalent to saying “this is wrong”.
Third, as for your concern that not all “designer drugs” are psychoactive drugs, I addressed that in the preceding discussion.
Fourth and last, it is meaningless to propose to revert permanently. In general, editors in Wikipedia can't decide to make a change in article content permanent. Refer to the relevant policy. In short: editors can agree to make a change in article content by achieving “consensus” (a rather vague concept that is never put in objective terms by the policy). But in exactly the same way, this change can be overridden later by consensus.
Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
This list was split by consensus from Designer drug. Please also note this previous consensus that was against a proposed move to Novel psychoactive drug. Hence renaming this list contrary to prior consensus without prior discussion can reasonably be described as highjacking. The reason I didn't respond sooner was TL;DR. Boghog (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By "revert permanently" I believe Boghog is suggesting the page be move-protected so that in future only admins can move the page. Seriously Mario it's hard to believe that after only two months editing in the designer drugs area, you felt it was appropriate to make such a significant page move without discussion, and don't understand why anyone would have an issue with that. Are you just trolling us all? Meodipt (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He is attempting to be constructive and while he should have discussed before the move at least he isn't being stubborn about moving it back. I don't think implying he is a troll is helpful. WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Sizeofint (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. My apologies Mario, I did not mean to be rude. Actually this is just how WP:BRD is supposed to work I suppose, to be fair if he had just raised his concerns on the talk page then I doubt they would have attracted much discussion at all, and no progress would have been made. By moving the page, he has generated a large amount of discussion and raised a number of valid points. There is certainly some redundancy in these lists that should be consolidated. Meodipt (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is no problem. Thanks for your honesty.
Indeed, I have intentionally chosen to be bold and simply make the move outright. I listened to the concerns raised in the discussion that ensued and commented on them.
In any case, I have initiated the protocol to reverse the page move (see below) well before this last round of comments because my favored option of keeping did not gain support. Nonetheless, I disagree with reverting and I will probably insist in this or a similar change when I consider that it is the appropriate time.
Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • revert: The list of designer drugs is notable and quite a good article which works well in its own right. A list of psychoactive drugs would be VAST and wouldn't preclude having a list of designer drugs still existing. Testem (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aside from the redundancy in the various drug lists that duplicate each other to some extent, Mario also makes another important point, the scope of "designer drug" does need to be more precisely defined here. I think one issue is that there is not a clear consensus between reliable sources, various review articles over the years have attempted to define this but then the definition has become outdated as new developments have occurred. Mario is correct that in its original sense, "designer drug" was limited to psychoactive designer drugs intended to evade drug laws, but over the years this has expanded to include designer "performance enhancers" used by athletes, which are intended to evade anti-doping testing such as that conducted by WADA, as well as nootropic drugs used by students and erectile dysfunction medications sold as "aphrodisiac" products, which both evade restrictions on prescription medicines. In all cases though I would say the key feature that makes something a "designer drug" is that it has been developed (or perhaps more commonly appropriated for the purpose from somewhere else), to evade some sort of legislation or regulation that makes a traditional substance unavailable for use. In recent times as governments and regulatory bodies have sought to be more proactive, the scope has also stretched to include compounds that could hypothetically be used for such purposes, even if they have not yet appeared on the illicit market. So a robust definition needs to encompass all these aspects, I wonder if we can find a good quality RS that has such a definition we can quote. Meodipt (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Mario and Meodipt. I agree that we need a better source to more precisely define what a designer is. Here is one source that includes both psychoactive and performance enhancing substances in lists of designer drugs (see figure 1 and table 1).[1] This source unfortunately does not have a concise definition of the scope of designer drugs, but by example, it clearly includes designer steroids as one class of designer drug.

References

  1. ^ Fu S, Stojanovska N (2015). "Designer Drugs". In Hock MM (ed.). Forensic Chemistry. pp. 167–76. ISBN 978-0-12-800606-1. Designer Drug: A drug with properties and effects similar to a known prohibited or illicit drug but having slightly altered chemical structure, especially such a drug created in order to evade legislative controls.
I see important problems with that definition:
  • The “especially” clause is meaningless. The word “especially” is meaningless in a definition. Is that clause a necessary condition for a substance to be classified as “designer drug” or not?. If this clause is a necessary condition, then then to say “especially” is out of place and makes it seem like it is not a necessary condition. If it is not, then why include such a clause?.
  • It uses the notion of “illicit drug”. We know that very often whether a drug is illicit varies between countries. It is meaningless to speak of illicit drugs when no jurisdiction is specified (either explicitly or implicit from the context).
  • If we attempt “work around” the above problems, the definition is plain incorrect. We ignore the “especially” clause because it is meaningless and we chose a particular country so that it is more clear what is an illegal drug. Suppose we chose a country where methamphetamine is illegal, then this definition classifies amphetamine as a “designer drug” because it has “properties and effects similar” to methamphetamine. Intuitively, we consider amphetamine to be a good example of what is not a designer drug. Therefore, this definition fails.
I believe that there is bound to be a problem here because “designer drug” is itself a vague notion. So having a “list of designer drugs” is akin to having a “list of artists” (who is an artist?; when do we say that somebody is a creator of art?). Hence my interest in eliminating this list in its current form and instead turn it into a list of something not so vague.
That being said, it is possible that you can find a suitable operational definition. That is, a definition that does not capture the meaning of “designer drug” but in practice, extensionally it is a “good enough” approximation of the set of drugs that we intuitively consider to be “designer drugs”. To illustrate the point, here is an attempt at such an operational definition:
“For the purposes of this list, a designer drug is a drug (psychoactive or not) that: (1) is scheduled in less than 20 countries, whether by international treatise or local legislation (2) has a biological effect similar to a drug that meets (1).”
For example, I believe that this drug correctly classifies 1P-LSD as a designer drug. By taking a glance at its Wikipedia article, I believe that it does not meet (1). We know from many anecdotal reports that it is similar to LSD. LSD itself is covered by the UN's Convention on Psychotropic Substances which has been signed by more than the required 20 countries.
The criterion (1) can be replaced by “is not covered by any international treaty”. This would be easier to check. Many variations are possible.
Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not sure people are convinced by the argument that this list shouldn't exist because the criteria for inclusion is vague. I've tried to have List of C-family programming languages deleted on similar grounds and it failed. As long as there is a WP:RS that calls a substance a designer drug then it can be included in the list. Sizeofint (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To: Sizeofint: I see. Thanks for bringing the case of List of C-family programming languages into my attention. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Reverting move[edit]

I intend to revert the move because it did not gather much support. Because of technical limitations of Wikipedia, it is not possible for me to directly revert. Instead I have placed a template following the usual protocol for these cases. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Reverted. Please consider the Requested move forum with ({{subst:Requested move}}) that may help gain consensus for a title change. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To Andy M. Wang: Thanks. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

'Nootropics section' has too much information for a list page, and this information can be found elsewhere on wikipedia.[edit]

Take a look for yourself, this section is written manically, like many other 'nootropic' sections. We have an entire wikipedia page about cognitive enhancers and their effects in healthy people.

If we were to get pedantic about it, the term 'nootropic' is also misused in this section. Nootropic was coined in reference to piracetam, with specific criteria that most compounds in this section do not abide by (such as direct agonism/antagonism or exhaustive action). This section would be better labelled 'cognitive enhancers'.

I will return to trim this section in a week or so, unless someone can justify its inclusion. Oro Temp (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_designer_drugs&oldid=1208228794"