Talk:Methylenedioxypyrovalerone/Archive 1

Legality & The Analog Act

--- The people below who are saying that MDPV is not controlled under the US analogue act are incredibly ignorant. Referencing "case law" regarding AMT vs. DMT is more than a little silly. Given the Government's success in building analogue act cases in the past decade, relying on such old case law is nonsensical. Yes, it is most similar to pyrovalerone. Unfortunately the law doesn't say that the scheduled substance it is most similar to must be in Schedule I or II. MDPV is definitely similar enough to MDMA to be considered an analogue. There's not a qualified chemist in the world who would say that it isn't. If you are arrested for MDPV possession, and you refuse to make a plea, you will be forced to hire a professional chemist or pharmacologist in order to dispute the experts that the government will use. It's not as if you can walk up there and say "this is my interpretation" because your interpretation doesn't mean anything unless you are a trained chemist or pharmacologist. Feel free to discuss this with the professionals who frequent Blacklight.me (there are probably professionals at the other forums, but they are far less concentrated). You're going to get the same answer every time. MDPV contains 100% of the MDMA skeleton, with 7 additional carbon-hydrogen or oxygen groups. Considering that MDMA is a stimulant, and MDPV's stimulant effect is substantially similar or stronger than MDMA, it's definitely going to be considered an analogue. Or the government can argue it's a methcathinone analogue, or a methamphetamine analogue, and guess what? They're going to win every time.

Wikipedia using uncited amateur interpretations of complicated law is amazingly unprofessional. What is the purpose of using inaccurate information? It's not like you will be able to use what Wikipedia has to say as a defense. Spreading this sort of false, amateurish information does a horrible disservice to the entire community.

MDPV is apparently legal in the US, as it's an analogue of a schedule 5 controlled substance and thus does not fall under he Federal Analog Act. However, I can't figure out how to re-word the first sentence under "legality" so it reads nicely... just wanted to mention this so someone with better English skills that mine might want to have a go. 24.16.64.228

I softened the statement from the chemical being "highly addictive" to match that there are anecdotal reports of addiction potential with higher doses. Very little is known about "research chemicals," and it's hasty to say that it's definitely addictive without laboratory trials.

• ^^ Sounds like a plan, although I'd harden that up slightly -- there are anecdotal reports of *addiction*, not addiction potential. But I'll leave it alone meself... it's sort of irrelevant anyway as long as MDPV remains unobtainium as it is right now. jkl_sem

I have corrected the part about Germany. It is not illegal! The linked source was only an expert commission (Auschuss) that has no legislative power but can only make recommendations which have to be adopted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.53.210.36 (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It even says that plainly in the text: "Mit diesen Ausschussempfehlungen (=recommendations) wird den - in jedem Einzelfall erforderlichen - Entscheidungen der Bundesregierung nicht vorgegriffen. Änderungen der Anlagen des Betäubungsmittelgesetzes erfolgen durch Rechtsverordnungen der Bundesregierung, die der Zustimmung des Bundesrates bedürfen."

Clearly the person who edited that did not speak German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.53.210.36 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Short term effects - negative

Hi: I'm not sure if this is the place to write this but I just wanted to add some information regarding the effects of this substance on humans.

First of all - It is extremely dangerous. Anyone considering ingesting this substance should be extremely cautious. The first point here is dosage. Before I continue I should add that all this information is gleaned not from some scientific study, credible expert in pharmacology or other of similar descent - but purely from my own experience. Now. Dosage. When one weighs this substance up against your average gram of perhaps, speed, or mephedrone - there could be up to 10 doses, perhaps more achieved from that gram. Personally I might get about.. 3-5 depending on other influencing factors. Its safe to say that from a single gram of MDPV I could get 30-40 does EASILY. This substance is EXTREMELY POTENT.

I have just taken this substance for the first time and my experience was very pleasant, speedy, and euphoric. I consumed far more than the recomended dosage(2g in 12 hours) and eventually (the next day) found myself in a cocain-like frenzy to keep consuming it. The substance itself surprised me with its potency and i have highly recommend it to anybody who would listen. Also, I felt psycological effects up to 36 hours after consumption. Seroquil helped with the comedown and put me right to sleep, but when I woke 14 hours later I found that my eyes were still darting and I felt funny the rest of that day. All in all it is good and cheap and I will probably do it again.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.42.166 (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 

The effects also last an incredibly long time. Up to yet definitely not limited to 3-5 hours per dose depending on the person.

Further more - equally as dangerous are the short term side effects and the come down. Not only does this substance completely eradicate any sense of appetite - but it literally makes it impossible for one to comprehend how a person could eat food. The thought in its self is.. ugh. Disgusting. Obviously due to this - you wont be eating - for a LONG time. Nor will you be sleeping. Even once the effects of this drug - and I freely refer to it as a drug - have long worn off, it is almost impossible to sleep.

Once you start coming down, you immediately seem to start experiencing withdrawal symptoms. Headaches, stomach aches, extreme irritability, slight psychosis, inability to think clearly and communicate properly. All of these symptoms absolutely evaporate once you redose.

Which brings to warn you - If you keep redosing - you will be staying awake for what will be a previously incomprehensible amount of time. I went 6 straight days without a wink of sleep, then suffered a panic attack, followed by a nearly fatal stroke, and then went into DMT - which is exactly how I know that this experience was near fatal.

I'm not looking for recognition here. I'm not trying to sound like some kind of invincible drug hero. I just feel very strongly that I should post this information where other people can read it - because I wish I had read it beforehand.

First of all the written text above is complete bullshit, because its NOT the fault of the drug. All this happend because this substance was used by a irresponsible, stupid person.

It's also major BS to compare MDPV to speed or mephedrone. Furthermore the recommended amount for this substance is maybe 5-10 MILLIGRAMS, so you could get a couple a hundred doses out of a gram. Kind of an incredible drug moron. I had to write in such a manner, because of people like that, drugs are having such a bad media coverage! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.208.80.23 (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll second the statement above, this fool is not giving a true reflection of the substance he has made me compelled to leave a comment on Wiki for the first time. It’s your choice to stay up for 6 days and that fine but don’t leave misleading reviews when you’ve clearly not taken the drug sensibly, i’m not medically trained but I think you'll find it was sleep depravation would be causing these symptoms anxiety and psychosis (that’ll be your body shutting down). In my opinion its best snorted in 15 – 20mg per 2 ½ 3 hrs (You tend to build a tolerance up pretty quickly though) I find it comes into its own on the 2nd day/night of taking it unlike many stimulants that are having little effect other than keeping up awake. It is an amphetamine like comedown which isn’t the best but I find a valium takes edge off it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneTee (talk • contribs) 05:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article. Also please don't use a bunch of spaces to separate things. It messes up the formatting. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Analog Act

Why hasn't the bit about it being "likely to be considered a Controlled Substance Analog" been taken out yet? Even if it isn't an analog of a Sch. V substance (haven't researched that), it has more than 3 substitutions on the MDMA backbone and by the case law of that case involving AMT as a DMT analog it'd be safely out of DEA jurisdiction, no?

• ^^^ I'd like to know that myself, I seem to recall editing the article to state that it does NOT fit the U.S. analog act (due to being an analog of a Sched. V controlled substance - I *have* researched that). But if someone is so determined to make it look illegal, far be it from me to interfere - maybe they have an ulterior motive? If the person who changed it back to "controlled" is reading this, pls contact me and explain - thanks in advance. jkl_sem (talk)

Edit: Also, the article contradicts itself, first mentioning how dissimilar MDPV is from MDMA and methamphetamine, then saying it has a close resemblance to scheduled chemicals. We really need to clear this up soon.

If I recall correctly, the Controlled Substance Analog Act dictates that an illegal analog need be an analog of a Schedule I or II substance. MDPV resembles closely a Schedule V substance, but far more distantly MDMA or meth-amp.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.85.40 (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 

    Until this issue has been tried in criminal court (which should not come to pass so long as education, awareness, and safety continue to be implemented in sufficient quantity to keep up with this compound's increasing popularity), we can only guess as to how the law will be interpreted. As seen in the past, the most likely outcome is prosecution, where possible, of the owners/operators of the companies responsible for the sale of the product(s) in question. In these circumstances, cases were not presented against purchasers/receivers of the chemical(s), as such an operation would prove to be rather costly. It should also be noted that such companies advertised their products as "legal drugs", and endorsement making their operation subject to the CSA Enforcement Act, a more recent and broader law affecting items "intended for human consumption".  

Ksrucinski 21:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Popularity

Seems MDPV is enjoying a resurgence on the RC market. Anyone know what its current popularity looks like? I wouldn't be surprised if this substance takes the RC market by storm, as its effects can be both enjoyable and tend toward the habitual. Any facts/opinions? jkl_sem (talk)

I know at least 2 people who take it regularly (I'm an ordinary university student with no drug connections). Apparently a big contributing factor regarding habitual use is the low cost. Unlike (arguably) similar drugs like cocaine, you can get enough MDPV for about a months continuous use for ~100 dollars.Ptrwoen (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I know for fact that it is widely unpopular in internet-based drug forums. It is considered to have too much of a comedown and negative side effects, so it so far remained a niche. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuuhkuuh (talk • contribs) 21:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Please understand that I will not be providing a source for this claim, as that would inadvertently provide a source for mdpv as well. I see no way around this.
When an American-based company lost their credit card processing in February of 2011, several days later they claimed to be receiving "over 600 emails" every day. This would be just one supplier however, and I cannot speculate as to what percentage of the American-market's demand they were satisfying. Please be aware that this is merely what they claimed; the number may have been exaggerated, or entirely fictitious. Additionally, it is impossible to know whether these 600 daily emails were from unique email addresses only, or, considering the nature of stimulants in general, were in fact only 100 people, emailing them 6 times a day each. So, although this information is wide open to interpretation, I provide it to you with the hope that it will aid you in your research nonetheless.
DrBurningBunny (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, well I 100% agree with the short story experience the person above me had, and I to wish I had never been introduced to the legal drug they call (Bathsalts) but I was and I to experienced all of the above but... and this is a BIG BUT... I passed those stages and had to due to how addictive the substance is I got hooked the first time I used it, and had to there for train myself to Sleep, and Eat while being high from it! I dont know how I managed to to do it and Im in no way braging but Its possible if need be! I dont think anyone should try that risky step that I did to get passed the negatives because of how fatel and dangerous the drug really is, but Im just here to say you can mentally control your actions, moods and cravings even when under its strong influence! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.147.244 (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Bluelight forum referencing

I see referencing to forum posts on Bluelight, now I guess it's fine to say "some say bla bla [cite bluelight]", but I'm certain that this defies the WP:NOR rule, so it should be removed. --Mark PEA (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that it's technically not allowed, but for substances that have little documented human use, forums are probably one of the best, if not only, options for citation.Apophenic (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In a similar vein, I read the Erowid and Drugs-forum posts which were cited as cases of reported liver and kidney pain. In the Erowid report there was nothing about either, and the drugs-forum post referred to someone (actually someones "monkey") who had "vague pain in its left side (may be kidney related)." I think this information should simply be removed: if someone wants vague anecdotal reports they can go to Erowid or drugs-forum, but Wikipedia is expected to be more authoritative than this. For now I've just edited the article a little to more accurately represent the citations. Ptrwoen (talk) 09:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

While I agree, sourcing Bluelight makes me cringe, its the only source we have and the information that is provides is better than no information at all (see Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules) unless of course the information is wildly inaccurate. Although the information under the 'appearance' section is not incorrect, the wording is inexact; MDPV is hygroscopic, not hydrophilic (agitation is required to dissolve the salt in water at room temperature), and is clumpy, not crumbly (its seems electrostatically attracted to itself, it would be easier to work with if it was indeed crumbly). Although I understand this evidence is anecdotal as well, and I'm not providing a source, I assure you it is highly accurate and I'm a formally educated biochemistry major, and can be considered an expert on the subject as I have personally worked with the material in my lab. Thusly, I will be making these adjustments anyway (see Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules) when I add the chemistry and pharmacology sections, as discussed in another section of this talk page. (No, not in the same edit.) Please see User:DrBurningBunny/MDPV to preview my contributions I will be adding shortly.

DrBurningBunny (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Analogues in the legality section

I changed the wording of the sentence about analogues, since technically 4-methyl-alpha-pyrrolidinopropiophenone is not pyrovalerone, as it originally implied. Apophenic (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"...is a psychoactive drug with stimulant and aphrodisiac properties..."

By "aphrodisiac" does the author mean date rape drug? I mean maybe that's jumping to conclusions (because I only just got here by navigating from the Nootropics entry). But, I'm having a hard time imagining how else it could function as an aphrodisiac. It's not like it causes the user to emit excess pheromones. Is it? If it's a personal dis-inhibitor, I can see how it could be perceived as an aphrodisiac by the user. But, that's not really what aphrodisiac means. 68.55.199.40 (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's because it causes the user to emit excess pheromones. It's also been shown to enhance ovipositor sensitivity.Trueno Peinado (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(I think the above answerer is joking ;))

No, MDPV is not a depressant ("date rape drug").

It's not particularly disinhibiting either IMO. I'd say that it positively facilitates complex erotic thought.

Suboptimal Username (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think whoever added the effects description has ever taken MDPV. There is zero euphoria involved. I have edited the section to reflect that all stimulants are not all exactly the same —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.112.42 (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

From my experience, MDPV does indeed significantly increase enjoyment of sexual stimulation, although in and of itself I wouldn't say it's an aphrodisiac. And I'll agree with the reports of little to no euphoria - unless you're taking a massive dose at once (which is not a good idea to begin with!), it's pretty much a non-factor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.44.51 (talk) 07:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Any scientific research?

Please mention any new scientific studies about MDPV here, so that they can be incorporated into the article. I'll start with the ones which are already in the article.

Suboptimal Username (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Law

Hey I really don't think the statement that MDPV is generally 'legal' in most countries but substances with a similar structure arent is not really relevant, at least in the legal section. It should rather be mentioned in the general section.

"Other drugs with a similar chemical structure include α-pyrrolidinopropiophenone (α-PPP), which has a shorter alkyl chain and no ring substitution, pyrovalerone, which has a 4'-methylgroup instead of a methylenedioxy ring, as well as analogues with between 3 and 6 carbons on the alkyl chain.[8] These compounds have been reported as stimulants of abuse mainly in Germany and other European countries since the early 2000s, but they have remained generally vaguely known and rarely used illicitly or encountered by law enforcement.[9]

[edit] "

Im gonna delete it for now, as it dont see the relevance to this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuuhkuuh (talk • contribs) 21:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not yet illegal ( BTMG ) in Germany. The Bfarm as a commission of experts just recommended to make it illegal to the german administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.182.26.228 (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding sections Metabolism, Chemistry and proposed section restructuring.

Greeting Wikipedians, this will be my first MAJOR contribution.

After a few months of independent research and review of scientific literature (in contrast to my professional research obligations), I am prepared to add two (2) new sections; One that I believe should be titled Metabolism, and one I believe should be titled Chemistry. All information and claims to be presented will be supported with references to scientific journal publications or the 1969-approved patent. You can see the content of my proposed additions at my userpage MDPV @ User:DrBurningBunny/MDPV.

The only major problem I'm having is where to put the new sections, so as to comply with the organizational standards Wikipedia strives for.

The current TOC is generated as such:

• 1 Pharmacology
• 2 Appearance
• 3 Effects
• 4 Legality
• 5 References
• 6 External links

The pharmacologist section illogically appears before appearance and other introductory sections, and the only pharmacological information mentioned is in potency compared to methylphenidate and when contrasting mdpv to the structure of mdma, where it states that the actual observed effect is not analogous to mdma, but rather of a purely stimulant and euphoric nature, such as methamphetamine. I do not dispute those claims, but wish to bring up that the section titled pharmacology, includes mdpv's use, history or intended use upon invention, and mdpv's structure. Thusly, I propose the pharmacology section be renamed to Use and the article be laid out as such:

• Use (which should contain the history aswell, of which there is little, unless you want to include recent history as a section titled history and superior to this one)
• Appearance
• Effects
• Metabolism (or perhaps Pharmacology? )
• Chemistry (I can integrate mention of structure into my contribution)
• Legality
• References
• External links

It may not be perfect, but it allows for inclusion of my contributions without breaking the article's flow and brings the article more inline with wiki's standards. Also, i notice other minor relocation of information that could benefit from this structure. Thoughts? Suggestions?

See: User:DrBurningBunny/MDPV.

METABOLISM - Sources will cite pubmed. There are several documents elucidating the metabolism in rats, with one in particular that speculates on where the human metabolism would differ, and is supported by mass spectrography of the urine. I would paraphrase in my own words, what happens in the first pass, second pass, which organ is involved in which step and what are the various metabolites/compounds in the resulting urine. I might later add speculate about possible implications of the methyl catechol found, I can find references supporting my claims.

CHEMISTRY - Sources will cite the original 1969 patent and a pubmed doc for methylmethcathinone, of which it's synthesis can be adapted. I'm simply going to give a quick rundown of what the patent suggests vs current methods. It will be short and nonspecific, because wiki is not the forum for synthetic routes. I would describe the procedure as such: "Starting with piperonal one could perform a Grignard alkylation after which you would have to reoxidize the alcohol back into a ketone before bromination which allows for amination of pyrollidine."

Thoughts? Suggestions?
(DrBurningBunny (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC))

Changes have been implemented, Feel free to leave comments on my talk page, Enjoy!

DrBurningBunny (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"dangerous but legal"

This is a clarification on the last edit which I did not make but checked into. I am referring to this edit, which changed the word "illegal" to the word "legal" in the first paragraph of the article. At first glance I thought this edit was either erroneous or vandalism because there has been quite a bit of debate over the legality of this substance and because the edit was made by an ip address with no signature. Notice that the change from illegal to legal was within the context of a quotation and therefore not subject to debate as long as the original source was quoted correctly. The original source was reference #5, which is a website link to a news article from Louisiana. Please note that under the heading "Related" at the top left there is a bulleted list. The last bullet point on that list is correctly qouted as "Could Nine, dangerous but legal drug". Therefore, regardless of which side of the legality debate you fall on, the most recent revision corrects the quoted reference and therefore should be aloud to stand. Pafford MB 20:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paffordmd72 (talk • contribs)

Treatment

I replaced the treatment section that was blanked by this previous editor. I agree that the section needs further editing but I do not agree it is appropriate for deletion. The section references information from the poison control hotline which I know to be accurate. In addition, the information is pertinent because it provides first line treatment information appropriate for anyone with exposure. I am currently planning an update to the treatment section which will nail it down with more solid references and broader information. For the time being I do not think it is appropriate to blank the section.Paffordmd72 (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Copy-paste not OK

Removed apparent copy-paste addition about "Spanaway, Washington soldier who killed his wife" (lead para not part of source); retained lead para and cited The Olympian webpage the text was sourced to. Recommend author paraphrase/abstract the text; extended descriptions of what may be attributed to use of the substance which is the subject of the article aren't really appropriate. On the other hand, author's lead para plus the citation allows interested parties to follow-up without CopyVios. Twang (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

White Height Chaser

'White Height Chaser' is hinted at as being MDPV on the website bathsalt4us. The results of analysis are still pending, but a cursory glance of the sample reveals physical properties dissimilar from that of known MDPV HCl. I'll post the findings here when I get the time.

DrBurningBunny (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay...

Results of analysis: Table Salt. Iodized table salt to be more precise. Reagent tests confirmed the preliminary microscopic analysis.

DrBurningBunny (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

That's like in the movie Cheech and Chong Up In Smoke where the girl was snorting Ajax or whatever. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

HOW TO SAFELY CONSUME MDPV

1.stay hydrated water,gator-aid 2. bumps, dont do .5 to 1g at a time at most do a .2 and work your way up. 3. Keep your cool, know your limits. 4.Dont stay up for more than a night on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheeko196991 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

@2.: Assuming you're talking about single doses of pure MDPV, 0.2g is a massive overdose. As the article points out, a typical dose is on the order of 5mg to 10mg (0.005g to 0.010g).

I'd agree with your other points.

I know this isn't a forum for general discussion, but I think correcting physically dangerous ambiguities takes precedence.

Suboptimal Username (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)