Talk:Designer drug

Untitled

A lot of this article should probably either be merged into Research chemical or deleted. 80.203.115.12 11:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

73.223.198.59 (talk)There is a major problem with the definitions provided - MDMA has been deemed a designer drug in the vernacular. Merck's patent is from 1912. Did Merck somehow have the precognition that the US would pass the CSA in 1970, so already invented an MDA Analog Designer Drug perfect to use to circumvent the law? Designer drug as a drug prohibition label, should be abandoned as the useless, and counter-productive demonizing of chemicals and flagrant abuse of scare tactics rather then sound science and reason. Research chemical, on the other hand, for unscheduled substances, can be deemed appropriate enough, as their use constitutes experimentation through field study and application. While study protocols are abysmal if there any in the first place, at least there isn't an implied deceit to the label of substances themselves.

Designer drug implied value is scheme against law enforcement, which in turn assumes legitimacy of the laws regarding substances. Quite frankly, the U.S. violates its own Constitution through its drug law policies - 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states freedom of the press, and of speech, shall not be abridged. This, through common sense, and Supreme Court holding, includes freedom of thought. If, however, the government may control how you choose to modify your thoughts, then your right to free thought has been abridged. What cannot be done directly is not permitted by proxy or delegation, U.S. v. Stimson, another Supreme Court holding. Taken in context, banning chemicals is not permitted, absent Constitutional Amendment. Accepting current Designer Drug definition re-affirms an unconstitutional framework, and above that is counter-productive to honoring constitutional law in the United States, imposes bias when evaluating chemicals, and is a term that should be either redefined to not include bias and framing for law enforcement scare tactics, or outright abandoned as worthless. 73.223.198.59 (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Malakkar Vohryzek

Yes, this viewpoint should be discussed in the article should we find sufficient sources. It is possible this article could be merged with Research chemical but the fact remains that the term exists and has to be discussed somewhere. However, this article is in bad shape and I don't foresee improvement in any respect in the near future unless someone decides to take it up as a project. Sizeofint (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it was a mistake to merge these two wikipedia entries. Designer drug is an old expression from the early days of MDMA. Currently, there is an explosion of drug development going on in China, mostly cannabinoids, that is unprecedented, and the compounds are being exported all over the world due to a lack of legal restrictions. Ironically, since these drugs affect the basic chemical balance of the brain, the people using these substances are participating in a huge, if somewhat uncontrolled, study of how the human brain works. They have already discovered scores of new useful compounds, although many of these substances duplicate the effects of other drugs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.58.160.6 (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

100% agreed. It was a really dumb choice and from what I saw it seems like it was made mostly for reasons related to politics and semantics. I've talked to and read comments from a lot of people would would agree with this. I could be wrong, but from what I understand the term "research chemical" is very rarely, if at all, used in the actual chemical industry. Seems like "they" just don't want there to be a legitimizing "encyclopedia" entry talking about some of these chemicals under that label. I could be wrong, but it seems like a lot of the talk that preceded this change (the "talk" page from the old "Research Chemical" article) was deleted along with the article. Likewise, the term "designer drug" is used almost exclusively by Law Enforcement and occasionally the media. User created? Yeah, maybe.... democratically voiced? Not a chance. *thumbs down* 24.34.63.39 (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

A lot of the examples are not designer drugs or even research chemicals in the sense that the phrase is most often used. For example, NSI-189 is a drug that is currently in FDA trials for approval as a novel antidepressant. This article should be taken down. The information is not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.240.196.169 (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

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

From the first line of the entry: "A designer drug is a structural or functional analog of a controlled substance that has been designed to mimic the pharmacological effects of the original drug while at the same time, avoid being classified as illegal and/or avoid detection in standard drug tests" NSI-189 is not an analog. If we're going to include any substance that could be sold outside the normal channels, the definition is pointless. I don't have time to go through every substance listed, but they're mostly incorrectly designated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:B081:55F0:3C:20BB:99A9:5143 (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Other examples, like Acetyl-L-Carnitine (ALCAR), N-Acetyl-L-Tyrosine, and Agmatine, are supplements that are not even remotely grey market and can regularly be purchased in brick-and-mortar stores like Whole Foods or GNC and even CVS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.240.196.169 (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Yes, that is correct. However, designer drugs are frequently sold as research chemicals to get around the Analog Act which should probably be discussed in the article. Sizeofint (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Definition too narrow

I find that the scope of the definition should be widened. A designer drug is just a designed drug, right? The purpose of designing drugs can vary greatly. Getting around prohibitionist laws is only one possible reason. Modifying or enhancing the action of established drugs is another one. Increasing their potency or decreasing side effects. Creating tools for mapping brain areas to cognitive functions. And so on. Plus, pure academic interest can be a motivation. That's basically why Shulgin did it I think.

That is what it should mean. That definition encompasses almost all recreational and medicinal drugs.

However if the definition is drugs designed as analogs to avoid drug laws then MDMA, 5-MeO-DMT, GBL, 1,4-Butanediol should all be removed. None of these was created as an analog for another drug. The definition of designer drug should not include drugs that already existed, but were not illegal.

they aren't are designer drugs. i feel 1,4B and GBL shouldn't be there, since they weren't designed in the first place, but were commodity chemicals. i feel 'designer drug' refers to those molecules specifically designed, and built by synthesis, but not only for the purposes of evading drug laws.

Fact is the term designer drug as popularly used is a perjorative loaded term with no meaning. It is a scare word to frighten the ignorant and stupid.

Whereas the term research chemical in reference to psychoactive drugs is very useful as it implies that it is an experimental chemical that we dont know enough about to be sure its reasonably safe. There really should be a research chemical article and all of Shulgins chemicals should be moved there. I totally agree with the above that designer drugs dont exist outside the minds of prohibitionists.

Although 'research chemical' is a term used by vendors to describe substances that ARE chosen because they evade current drug laws. I like the 'novel psychoactive substance' moniker suggested below.

there should definitely be a wikipedia page that is more sympathetic to Shulgin's view. This one reads like it was written by soccer moms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.58.160.6 (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Insightful comments here, this article is in need of quite a bit of work. Testem (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

In fact, the ongoing definition issue with this article inclines me to suggest a page rename to Novel psychoactive substance. Discussion of novel steroids and melaninergics and some others would then have to go elsewhere.

I agree. As the current definition of designer drugs stands, the entire contents of PiHKAL and TiHKAL should be removed from the list, as they were not developed for evasive purposes. Many other drugs listed would share a similar fate.

• Scope of article – "Designer drug" ≠ "Designed drug". The former is colloquial term used to describe drugs that are meant to evade current drug laws. The later is a more formal term used to describe any drug that was invented based on knowledge of the drug target (see drug design). The only real "design" in a "designer drug" is to select a chemical structure that doesn't violate current laws while at the same time mimicking the effects of a known drug. Hence I disagree that the scope of this article should be widened. (In someways, a designer drug shares some similarity to a "patent busting" fast follower drug. The purpose of the former is to evade drug laws. The purpose of the later is to evade patent laws.)
• List inclusion criteria – Agree that any drug that was not developed for evasive purposes should be removed from this article's list.
• Article rename – Per the consensus developed above above, I think this article's current name designer drug is appropriate. Boghog (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

List

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

DMT

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

I agree. Seen as though it's not synthetic and has a very long history of human use, before drug laws even existed, there's no reason it should be on here. I'll remove it. 67.171.10.127 (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)67.171.10.127

Research chemical ≠ Designer drug

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

The term "research chemical" has taken on a new meaning, like it or not. Don't blame me, put "research chemical" into google and see what comes up. This wikipedia entry ignores the phenomenon going on right now, as if designer drugs were something from the 1980s. They have really just taken off in the last year or so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.58.160.6 (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Methadone

Would Methadone be considered a "designed drug"?? OlEnglish (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Kirald alsotelep 6 2A0A:F640:1610:2F61:0:0:0:1 (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

links to drug forums

completely uneccessary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.100.104.81 (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

All of the real information you can get about the effects of these chemicals come from the drugs forums. It may be kind of raw and disorganized, but that's where people can learn about these chemicals. Not on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.58.160.6 (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Awful article

I'm now bored of deleting things from this article which are not designer drugs. It reads like it was written by a newspaper reporter or government minister, i.e. anything which has a vaguely psychoactive property is a "designer drug" including illegal ones like MDMA (which thankfully wasn't listed), prescription medications like diazepam (which was) and industrial solvents like GBL (which were used as a legal loophole but were in no way invented for that purpose).

Better yet, please modify the definition so it describes designer drug as "anything a newspaper or MP decides it is, usually because it has psychoactive properties" or don't spread the FUD. Thanks for your attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.212 (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Article not as bad as I implied, missed the bit about marketing, since drug laws vary widely listing some of these things is a mistake, it should really only contain things which are universally or nearly so legal, so I have removed diazepam (which is clearly not a designer drug, anywhere), phenazepam (because it's a controlled substance in many places) and the other benzodiazepine because it, like diazepam is controlled nearly everywhere. Please don't put these back it would be a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.212 (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Your point is well made and by what you write, bath salts and plant foods which were never designed as drugs have no place in this article. However, please note a redirect from the Wiki article on Bath Salts [1] to this one which contains the legend "This article is about actual bath salts. For the psychoactive drugs inaccurately described as bath salts, see Designer drug#Misleading descriptions."--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've got the wrong end of the stick (as well as the AP unfortunately, but that isn't the first time, see "myth 1" at the end of this for example). The so called "plant foods" and "bath salts" would be absolutely useless as these products and were deliberately designed to function as drugs. I added the bath salts info to this article, and have discussed it on my talk page, and copied it over to the talk page too. Annoyingly, we can't really add anything US specific, until some sources start to discuss about how they aren't bath salts and plant food. SmartSE (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

America-Centric

I've applied two tags to this article, because it is really really really US-Centric.. you'd never know that most other Western countries had exactly the same problems. Please do not remove tags until this is resolved. Dvmedis (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is only really the history section which suffers with this, but it suffers badly. I have removed the article template but the section one remains.

incorrect attribution under History section

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

media wiki bug??

According to the history of this page, ClueBot has reverted a recent vandalism, but the change does not appear on the article. I do not see anything that suggests that the change is under review or is awaiting approval either. This is weird! See this diff. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 01:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Everything looks normal to me. SmartSE (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed page move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 18:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Designer drug → Novel psychoactive drug – Despite the definition of the term "designer drug" being incredibly broad, this article exclusively discusses recreational drugs. NPD has come into common use in academic discussions and does not have the misleading nature or biased connotations of the term designer drug. Testem (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

If WP:COMMONNAME is to be used here then the rename should not go ahead. I do think though that the highly misleading, US centric and vague nature of the term warrants special treatment for this case. Therefore at this stage I think this is the question to consider.

• Comment Designer drug is still used extensively in the literature whereas Novel pyschoactive drug has rarely been used - did you mean to suggest New psychoactive substance instead? That has been widely used in recent publications. Per WP:COMMONNAME I'm inclined to think that we should stick with the current title even if 'designer drug' is slightly misleading, particularly as the article discusses ALD-52 and MDMA which are not novel anymore. Do you know of any academic criticisms of the term 'designer drug'? That might help us choose the best title. (I'll add {{move}} and also ask WT:PHARM for input). SmartSE (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the template, I was sure there was one but couldn't find anything better than the {{movereq}} one which I appear to have used incorrectly!

Comment The search indicates both terms are well used? Novel Psychoactive Drug fits better because the substances are often from very old literature but novel to human use. It also pluralises much more naturally. Regarding MDMA, ALD-52 and others, I think they could remain with the rename. Even formerly novel substances should be covered - it would be a conspicuous omission if mephedrone were not covered here in ten years. Testem (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Both are used, but DD appears to still be considerably more commonly used and we should reflect that rather than lead the way in not using DD. Another issue with the proposed name is that anabolic steroids are included here (and rightly so) but they are not psychoactive. There are a lot of other non-psychoactive RCs that could be added too e.g. GW 501516, enobosarm, FNDC5. SmartSE (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you partly here, since these substances do not appear to be referred to as designer drugs anywhere either. I think the best solution for them would be moving them to another page? Testem (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

That's true for that specific compound which is a research chemical (in the truest sense) and although it has evidently been used in doping has not received a great deal of coverage. This by a doping expert calls those kind of compounds 'emerging drugs'. We could split them to a different article but there are many similarities - produced to skirt regulations, often little is known about their pharmacology/toxicity and they have often been developed for use in research before being used in doping. For these reasons I think they should remain. SmartSE (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The hatnote at the top of the page removes any ambiguity with respect to drug design. Although I would support making Novel psychoactive drug and New psychoactive substances redirects to this page, and adding a sentence to the lead with the phrases in bold, indicating that they are more formal terms, I think that the general public, as opposed to academics, will find the existing page name to be the one under which they will search for this topic. The proposed new name is rather stiff and academic, whereas the public has a deep-based association of recreational drugs that are synthesized for the purpose of recreation with the existing page name. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Boghog (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Disagree I understand that the term "designer drug" is more common in the US but in the UK and Europe it is rarely used, with "legal high", NPD and NPS taking its place.

Perhaps it would be better to retain this page and move some of the less US-centric material to the new page with prominent links between the two? This would also help with the US centricity of the article. Testem (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Disagree Should move the list to NPS/NPD (NPS is more common in literature these days), and leave US politics on this page. Aethyta (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think DD is US centric as it's used in Europe as well and legal high is a misnomer for many of these compounds. @Aethyta: can you provide some evidence to support your claim that "NPS is more common in literature these days"? The links I included above crudely demonstrate that DD has been used more often in the literature since 2010 than NPS. SmartSE (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Try these two: NPS and designer drug without NPS (both since 2010). Aethyta (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I think these searches are better "Designer drug -NPS" and NPS I must concede that as misleading as the term DD is, it is more widely used in literature. I do think it is worth bearing in mind the US centricity of the term though, I would love a hand with revamping this article if you guys have time, especially the introductory sections and definition. Testem (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

To fairly compare the two phrases, one would also need to subtract "designer drug" from "novel psychoactive substances" (84 hits) vs. "novel psychoactive substances" minus "designer drug" (318 hits). This comparison suggests that the use of the phrase "designer drug" is more prevalent than "novel psychoactive substances". "New psychoactive substance" (NPS) is a legal definition used within the European Union. Hence its use could also be considered regionally biased. And as pointed out by SmartSE, the definition of "designer drug" is broader than "new psychoactive substance". The former encompasses anabolic steroids which I think are appropriate to include in article. Finally I agree with Tryptofish that both phrases be included in the lead and a redirect from new psychoactive substance to this article be created. Boghog (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

(I added the other redirect, from Designer steroid. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC))

I live in the US, and I think the distinction between usage in the US and Great Britain or Europe is an interesting one. It may perhaps be useful for the page to discuss, in the text, differences in usage by location. I'm guessing that it may also affect differences in opinion between different editors, based upon personal experience in usage. I can affirm that, in the US, "designer drug" is overwhelmingly the term that would be appropriate per WP:COMMONNAME. Is there a difference in usage between Great Britain and the EU (English versus other languages)? I think that if some of the EU usage stems from a legal term used there, that may carry relatively little significance with respect to familiarity with the term amongst the general public. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Is this particular usage distinction between US and Great Britain/Europe a real one? I note that designer drug is defined in the Oxford Dictionary:

• "definition of designer drug". Oxford Dictionary (British & World English). A synthetic analogue of a legally restricted or prohibited drug, devised to circumvent drug laws.

whereas neither "new psychoactive substance" nor "novel psychoactive drug" has an entry. Furthermore, The Guardian used the following headline for a story:

• "Britain is 'designer drugs' capital of Europe, says EU agency". World news. The Guardian. 2009-11-05.

Finally, the distinction is more than a sematic one. The scope of "designer drug" is wider than "new psychoactive substance" (see below). Boghog (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, as to whether the distinction is a real one, I don't entirely know. What I do know is that "designer drug" is a very commonplace usage in the US, and that "new psychoactive substance" simply is not used as a common phrase in the US. As for Europe, I don't know, but perhaps it's the other way around, or perhaps "designer drug" is common everywhere and the other term is used in a limited way in Europe and not used in the US. And I agree with you very much about scope, which is a further reason not to move this page to the other name. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Here in the UK 'legal high' and 'research chemical' are more common names. NPS has begun to be used by academics and medics fairly recently (I don't recall coming across it ~ 4 years ago when researching mephedrone) but it is not used by the general public. Finding a source for the national differences is probably unlikely though! SmartSE (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful to know. So: it sounds like "designer drug" is the "common name" in the US, but not so much in the UK or EU, and NPS is emerging as an academic term but is the "common name" nowhere. That makes me all the more certain that I oppose the page move. Legal high is a redirect to Legal intoxicant, and Research chemical is already a page, but I'd be fine with adding links to them in the lead here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for linking to Legal intoxicant - I was sure we had an article like that (what a mess it is!). There is a lot of crossover with this article and that and it seems sensible to me to remove all the DDs out of that one and leave the 'natural' ones instead. Just to be clear, I also oppose the rename of this article as I think DD is the best of those available. SmartSE (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Those who participated in this discussion would probably find this blog post interesting: [2] Testem (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Scope of article

Inclusion of steroids

A claim was added that close analogs of known anabolic steroids are rarely described as designer drugs. However a Google Scholar search for "designer steroids" gave 654 hits and "designer anabolic steroids" gave 57 hits. So I think it is fair to include anabolic steroids in this article. Furthermore I do not think it is accurate to say that anabolic steroids are rarely described as designer drugs. There are a number of reliable source to support the use of the phrase "designer steroids". Boghog (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

In short I agree ;) This looks like a good source for showing that novel doping agents have similar issues to novel psychoactives. SmartSE (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear. I did not mean that they weren't called designer, only that designer steroids were not called designer drugs. Though theoretically the two are interchangeable, in practice they are not. The term designer drugs is only used in the media to refer to novel psychoactive drugs, therefore I think the article could reasonably be split if it was desired. Testem (talk) 14:12, 2014-08-09 (UTC)

I have now clarified the statement in the article. Let me know if you think that's better and one of us can remove the dubious template. Cheers, Testem (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Of course an anabolic steroid (with the possible exception of a neuroactive steroid ;-) cannot be considered a new psychoactive substance. I also agree that the phrases "designer steroids" and "designer drugs" are not interchangeable. However I think it is fair to describe a "designer steroid" as a type of "designer drug". Therefore I am still uncomfortable with the wording in current the Designer_drug#Anabolic_steroids section. I also think that we should make clear in the lead that the definition of "designer drug" is broader than "new psychoactive substance" and also includes "designer steroids" as well as other designer performance-enhancing drugs according to the hierarchy below:

• Designer drug
  • new psychoactive substance (designer psychoactive substance)
  • "designer" performance-enhancing drugs
    • "designer" anabolic steroid
    • ...

GW501516 itself could not be considered a designer drug because it was the first substance of its class discovered that had performance enhancing properties and has subsequently been banned, however analogs of GW501516 could be considered designer drugs. Boghog (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I have been bold and modified the lead according to the above proposal. Boghog (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. I've also been bold and made some further tweaks to the lead which I hope improve it. Good point about GW501516, but it is similar in that it used in order to evade detection. SmartSE (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Between us this article has improved by an order of magnitude in both its content and better definition over the last few days. The edits to the lead have greatly improved it in kind, thanks. Testem (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Future scope

This 2011 report by the ACMD defines NPS as:

Psychoactive drugs which are not prohibited by the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs or by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and which people in the UK are seeking for intoxicant use.

Generally legally available, NPS fall, broadly, into four categories:

i) Products with names which give no indication of what they contain;

ii) Named and specific substances which are designed to be similar chemically and/or pharmacologically to known specific controlled, drugs;

iii) Substances related to medicines

iv) Herbal or fungal materials or their extracts

At the moment the article mainly focuses on the second category i.e. designer drugs, but if we include all NPS then NRG-1, Ivory Wave ('bath salts') and Salvia divinorum, ergine. (Natural highs _{there is no article about these}) would also be included. Does that seem like something we should aim for? SmartSE (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this is where things become very challenging for us, since their own definition does not agree well with their term of choice. I think we should aim to cover all of what I would informally call "[recently] grey market" drugs in some form, but it is possible that not all of this coverage will be well suited to fall into the DD article. Already the more comprehensive listing of DDs in has me thinking a List of designer drugs article should be spawned in the future, and equally I think it might be appropriate to touch on some "Herbal or fungal materials or their extracts" in this article but have a separate main article for grey market products of this nature. A lot of things are "substances related to medicines" after all! Testem (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is trickier than I had thought. On further reflection (and upon finding legal intoxicant) I think that it is best to keep this page confined to synthetic compounds even if they do not always exactly DDs. A seperate list might be a good idea, but only if this page becomes too long. SmartSE (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I, too, think that this page should include only synthetic compounds. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiki linked section headings

According to WP:HEAD, Headings should normally not contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked. Readers are used to seeing section heading bolded without color. The combination of bold and coloring is jarring and confuses readers. I personally think wiki links in section headings are ugly and I remove them on sight. Furthermore I think the intention is to split out the list section of this article into a stand alone list. I have yet to see a featured list (that are considered to be the very best in Wikipedia) that contains wikilinks in section headings.

I previously removed the wikilinks for the section headings in this article, but I see these have now been re-introduced. What do other editors think? Boghog (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I see the MOS guidance but I don't understand the reasoning behind it. Personally I feel that adding the link under the title is unnecessary clutter and that having the link in the title keeps things neat. I suppose the {{main}} template could be used if you feel the link in the title is unattractive or confusing but I feel that keeping things nice and compact is useful in an article with lots of content and titles like this. Testem (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. Please see the edit that I just made at the top of the first section of the list, about opioids. It's pretty easy to write a brief topic sentence about each section, and then just move the link out of the header and into the topic sentence. That approach has two virtues: compliance with WP:MOS, and making that part of the page more encyclopedic by becoming at least a little bit less list-like. And, in that regard, I want to say that the list is getting rather out of hand, per WP:EMBED. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Tryptofish. I agree that the length of this list is quickly getting out of hand. I also agree that adding a short sentence to start each section would be preferable. That is what I had started to do but not completed in my previous edits. Finally I wanted to point out another style guide WP:LINKSTYLE which states Section headings should not themselves contain links; instead, a {{main}} or {{seealso}} template should be placed immediately after the heading. Boghog (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

This script might be useful. Boghog (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

You don't need a script to change 10 links, for real! First we should decide how the page should look like. Short sentence that quickly explains each category sounds good to me. Also the goal is to have a good, easy understandable list, and not something fancy looking for style fetishists to appear on a featured list that no one cares about. Aethyta (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I use scripts because I am lazy ;-) But I would agree that it is more important to have a good introductory sentence for each section and no script can do that. Wikipedia style guides are useful in that they encourage consistency between articles and that consistency provides readers with fast visual clues as to meaning. Also per WP:LINKSTYLE: Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links and use a link, but do not make a reader be forced to use that link to understand the sentence. I think this principle is even more critical for sections. Explaining a linked term is not practical in a section heading, but is possible in a section's introductory sentence that contains the link. Boghog (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Working on the intro sentences, with Testem. Aethyta (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks. Boghog (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks from me too. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Spin off list of drugs to list class article

The list of designer drugs has grown quite extensive and now takes up the majority of the article. Should this be separated into a list-class article? Sizeofint (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with whatever you guys decide. The list will probably never stop growing until we finally lose the war on drugs. Aethyta (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Not an unreasonable proposition, worth bearing in mind that the non-list component of this page is not of particularly high quality. I almost think it needs starting from scratch with a goal in mind.Testem (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Post split

So it looks like this has been split then, fair enough. The remaining article is quite poor quality and US-Centric. How do we fix this, or do we rewrite it? What do we want it to contain? Testem (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

We could probably adapt WP:PHARMMOS to our needs here.

• Lead
• Uses
  • Recreational
  • Medical?
• Adverse effects / Side effects (general)
• Interactions (notable ones)
• Pharmacology (maybe talk about general subclasses and the receptors they target)
• History
• Society and culture
• Research

Sizeofint (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Does that work here though, for such a VAST range of compounds? Testem (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The last three would probably work. The others would have to be very general, maybe to the point of not being worth including. I agree this article should have an international scope. Sizeofint (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

DOM

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