This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Designer drug article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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
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)
Would Methadone be considered a "designed drug"?? OlEnglish ( talk) 00:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
A synthetic analogue of a legally restricted or prohibited drug, devised to circumvent drug laws.
Those who participated in this discussion would probably find this blog post interesting: [2] Testem ( talk) 18:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase linksand
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Designer drug article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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
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)
Would Methadone be considered a "designed drug"?? OlEnglish ( talk) 00:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
A synthetic analogue of a legally restricted or prohibited drug, devised to circumvent drug laws.
Those who participated in this discussion would probably find this blog post interesting: [2] Testem ( talk) 18:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase linksand
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)
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)
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)
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)