This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Ok i have changed this article into something approaching a decent encyclopedia entry. Most topics have been covered but always more can be added! 07:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Meodipt

Like others have expressed before, I also have issues with this article. For one thing it makes the statement that inhalants can cause brain damage, liver damage, etc. "Things you drink" can cause you harm too, but that is a pretty broad statement to be flinging around about anything you might drink. No differentiation at all between them.

In addition, I posted a link here that linked to the history of how glue sniffing got started. Now, you would think that the story of how it got started would be of interest on the page about glue sniffing. After all, it is a tremendously interesting story. It seems that there was no glue sniffing in the US until 1959 and then, by 1960, kids were being arrested by the thousands for glue sniffing. So what happened in 1959?

Now wouldn't you think that would be important to an understanding of the subject. I thought it was.

Apparently, no one at Wikipedia has a clue what the history is. Furthermore, when I posted the link it immediately got deleted. Why? Because it was "spammming". Huh?

Is anyone here even aware of that history?

For that matter, do any of the editors on these articles even have any real background in the subject? The reason I ask is that they are making edits on things posted by people that -- to put it mildly -- have far more credentials in the subject than they do. (Not only that, but they delete links as "spam" even though those same links have been on Wikipedia since it started. I had kinda thought that the purpose of an encyclopedia was to get knowledgeable people to contribute to the articles.

Can we at least get a consensus here that before editors go editing something they ought to have some minimal knowledge of the subject area? Or is that way off base? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfman97 ( talk • contribs)

I notice that this entry describes specifically dangerous inhalants. What about medical inhalants, prescribed by doctors to treat medical conditions? Is there a more common name for medicinal inhalanats? If so, we can create another entry. If not, we can begin to add a second definition to this entry. RK

Medicinal inhalanats? You mean like Medical marijuana?

-- no, like salbutamol - although it does get abused with minimal ill effect. Snarfevs

--I doubt salbutamol has much abuse potential.

Back in school I saw fellow students stuffing around with asthma puffers a lot. Bronchodilation would assist them in hyperventilating which was apparently fun. Snarfevs 13:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

--That sounds even more retarded than inhaling computer duster. Arm 17:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Haha. Funny. I agree, that is retarded. Work hard, Play hard, Drink harder 14:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Though I cannot get my head around the particular breed of boredom that would possess someone to huff compressed air propellant... Snarfevs 11:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

--According to this CNN article [1], it looks like people are doing things even more stupid than abusing asthma medicine. Arm 13:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW, it isn't known that all the mentioned "dangerous inhalants" are actually much more dangerous than "medical inhalants". People who work in the factories that produce these chemicals end up inhaling quite a lot of fumes over the years. If these chemicals were that dangerous, they wouldn't be in such widespread use. Of more concern is why people resort to inhaling chemical solvents -- the answer to that is because they didn't have access to anything better (i.e. real drugs), and/or didn't want to risk getting caught with an illegal substance. -- Thoric 19:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

If these chemicals were that dangerous, they wouldn't be in such widespread use. Asbestos, anyone? And that was known or heavily suspected to be dangerous for years before any serious measures were taken. I'm not implying that's the case here as well, but clearly this sort of reasoning is completely spurious. Things can very well have devastating long-term effects that are not picked up on even when they have manifested themselves. What's more, you presumably do not know (as I don't) what measures are taken to prevent any harmful exposure in factories, but you can be sure they're there.

Given the fact that medical inhalants have at least been subject to rigorous testing processes to confirm they do not, say, cause instant brain damage, it's not at all far-fetched to presume non-medical inhalants are inherently more dangerous, if only because the dangers are (typically) not fully known.

Lungs are meant to inhale air. Anything else is a potential health risk. 82.92.119.11 18:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed the point I was making... if you have a chemical solvent that people have been working with for many years without serious health problems -- i.e. inhalation of low quantities daily over a period of ten years, you would likely be surprised that some teenager inhaling a higher concentration a few times would incur permanent brain damage. If the substance in question was this toxic, it would no longer be readily available to the general public. Certainly long term abuse of solvent inhalants have been associated with permanent brain damage, but long term abuse of medical inhalants also result in health problems. Again, it isn't my intention to claim the safety of inhalants, as they are indeed not safe, primarily because they tend to cause problems due to lack of oxygen reaching the brain. My intention was to point out that our focus shouldn't be, "Hey! All these idiots are abusing dangerous chemicals and suffering brain damage as a consequence", but instead, "Hey! Why are these people abusing these dangerous chemicals?" If you had the choice of your teenager smoking a little marijuana, or huffing gasoline from a gas can, which would you choose? The teenagers are huffing because safer alternatives are unavailable. Instead of fighting the drugs (marijuana, shrooms, lsd, cocaine, etc), we should focus completely on giving people healthy alternatives to drugs, and make sure if they're going to use drugs, that they do so responsibly. -- Thoric 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Something I've always wondered is why is it always gold paint? Is it more potent? Is it easier to find? Or do people use it only because it seems like everyboby else does? Perhaps this should be explained in the article.

Without a doubt that picture of the guy arrested after huffing spray paint is funny but is it really worthy of wikipedias bandwidth? Ask yourself, does it add anything useful to Wikipedias Inhalant article? Didn't think so. I would list it on the image deletion but I want to wait for other points of view. -- Arm 07:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest a replacement photo of a collection of some of the chemicals mentioned. -- Thoric 19:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Right now it looks like an Uncyclopedia page.

The mugshot is most applicable to Huffing. But that currently redirects to here. Should I break it out into its own page? Ewlyahoocom 21:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I say leave the picture. Some people don't realize that people actually spray paint up their noses. I recall one specific discussion I had with a cousin who thought huffers prepare some sort of drug from paint/aerosol cans, not actually inhaling directly from the can. I corrected him, but if we leave the picture up I won't have to in the future. 72.40.101.236 23:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I say get rid of it. It looks gross - I could barely read the page without wanting to heave. -- 80.42.219.211 15:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I would get rid of this part for sure:

"In the United States the extent of the inhalant problem among children and adolescents was, at first, virtually unrecognized by the general public. However, an event in early 1999 called national attention to this severe problem."

I'm guessing the person who wrote this is quite young and this was the first he heard of it, because it has been well known for decades. When Lenny Bruce did his schtick about sniffing glue on television in the 50s, it was obscure enough that the network wasn't even aware of the reference (which would have been forbidden if they knew). Since the 60s and particularly 70s however, it has even been incorporated in to school's drug education programs and could hardly be described as "virtually unrecognized." It was also known well enough to have otherwise innocent products banned for sale to minors. From my anecdotal evidence, everyone I knew knew about it before 1999, even my old, un-hip, "out of it" parents. Oh, and it was featured on an episode of "Quincy" in the 70s, for what that is worth.

It was requested above that information about medical inhalants, such as those used to treat asthma, be added to the article -- Beland 17:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I have concerns this article may not be entirely NPOV. While tmk there is little contention from anyone that ingestion of volatile solvents can be harmful, I feel the article goes a bit too far. My criticisms are as follow:

[-] Every single one of the external links is to anti-drug websites such as NIDA, the National Inhalant Prevention Coalition, Inhalants.DrugAbuse.gov, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Seems these could be balanced with some organizations that do not have an clear agenda to prevent inhalant use. Erowid/Lycaeum?

[-] There is no section on the effects of inhalants as there is with other drug-related articles on wikipedia. e.g. anaesthetic, dissociative, intoxicating effects, with some substances "pixalated" vision, or "static" appearing in the field of view, so on. The closest thing here to a mention of effects is "Use of inhalants can cause brain, nerve, liver and other damage to the body. It can also result in sudden death by cardiac arrest". Neither is there any discussion on mechanism of action, or an explanation of WHY inhalants are bad for you.

[-] Several seemingly POV anti-drug messages in the text. Examples:

"the extent of the inhalant problem...was, at first, virtually unrecognized by the general
public. However, an event in early 1999 called national attention to this severe problem.",

"they are increasingly popular with young people and are, for many, one of the first substances
abused" -- this one is not directly POV, but implies that future substances which may be used
are automatically abused, which implies the POV that all drug use is abuse,

"there has been an increased awareness of the threat of inhalant abuse" -- surely this is POV.
casting of a drug as a "growing nationwide threat to our children" is a classic anti-drug
argument.

"The practice of inhaling such substances is sometimes colloquially referred to as huffing,
sniffing or chroming; or, more formally, solvent abuse" -- is "solvent abuse" REALLY the formal
name for this practice? Is the formal name for smoking pot "marijuana abuse"? It certainly is
called "solvent abuse" by some. It's also a more formal term as it is not a slang term like
"huffing"-- however this seems a little POV because it seems to imply that this is the actual
official name for the practice, as it would be used by scientists and such.

[-] The phrase "Former Howard Stern Show cast member John Melendez would inhale the compressed air found in whipped cream cans – they were popularly known as 'whippits.'" -- the gas in whipped cream cans is N2O, not "compressed air". N2O is a psychoactive gas which is inhaled for effect, so it is indeed an inhalant-- but it is not harmful and has recognized medical uses. The reference to this substance as "compressed air" and not nitrous oxide in between the other pop culture references about sniffing glue seems to lump it in with volatile solvents. The only commonality between N2O and the "inhalants" which are the main focus of this article is that both are inhaled.

[-] I agree with those in the discussion above who believed the mug shot photo was inappropriate and a picture of the substances in question would be better for this article. The photo is pointless to the description of the substances. Further I have concerns that it and it's caption serves to push the idea that "inhalants are bad". To me it seems to say "you use inhalants, you could end up like this". I'm also concerned that use of his photo in this way is disrespectful to the individual portrayed. 72.40.101.236 has a point in saying that it's worthwhile to mention that some people spray paint up their nose. However this could just as well be accomplished by saying "some people spray paint up their nose". There is already a methods of use section where this would fit nicely. Also the picture is less effective than the statement because showing a photo of a guy with paint on his face does not prove that he was spraying it in his nose. He could have, for example, sprayed copious amounts in a paper bag, and ending up getting some of it smeared on his face (perhaps when it kicked in).

[-] On a non-NPOV-oriented point, "Once inhaled, the extensive capillary surface of the lungs allows rapid absorption of the substance, and blood levels peak rapidly. Entry into the brain is so fast that the effects of inhalation can resemble the intensity of effects produced by intravenous injection of other psychoactive drugs.". Does anyone have a reference for this? I don't see any reason why onset would be any faster when inhaling an already-psychoactive gas than when smoking (which is inhaling a vapor/aerosol). And everything I have heard indicates that it takes several seconds of huffing and multiple lungfuls before anything happens. It also states that the intensity of the effects is comparable to intravenous drugs, which I assume refers to substances such as heroin or cocaine. Is that really true? Spray paint is as intense a rush as heroin?

Lastly, I know that some will probably think that some of the things I've mentioned here are going a bit far. I don't want anyone to think I'm a nazi who jumps on anyone who says anything that could be construed as anti-drug. So please no one misconstrue my statements as trying to argue that inhaling butane is a good idea. I don't think there's any question that most inhalants (specifically the solvent based ones) can be quite harmful to the brain and CNS, particurly if used heavily or abused. However making that clear need not be the sole purpose of this article.

If anyone wants to add to or improve this article, you might want to check out some of Erowid's articles on this, at http://de1.erowid.org/chemicals/inhalants/index.html or http://de1.erowid.org/psychoactives/policy/policy_writing6.html The 2nd link, by Consumer reports, gives a history of inhalants in the US. -- Xyzzyplugh 19:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've commented out the gold huffing picture as it seemed more worthy of uncyclopedia than wikipedia. If somone really wants to include it (but please just find a better one), at least there should be a mention of gold paint sniffing in the article. Piet 09:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Inhalents is something that i have heard about from some of my friends, I know that they are participating in these acts of inahling substances. There focus seems to be mainly on inhaling "Keyboard air duster". I had a few questions. Will they ever be able to stop? Are there any death stories on inhaling? How can this product kill you? What does it do to your body? How long do you have to be doing "keyboard duster" for it to really effect your body? How can i help my friends to stop doing it? -AH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.33.98 ( talk)

I myself have no specifics, but inhaling toxic fumes can lead to death and often does. I'm not sure where you live, but check out your yellow pages or just google and you'll probably be able to find a drug prevention organisation you could ring and get info and maybe some advice on how to deal with your friends. Good luck. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 16:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

On June 9th my son David Manlove was inhaling the the propellant from a can of Computer Duster purchased at a local Kroger store in Indianapolis Indiana to get high. He had read on the internet that inhaling computer duster and then jumping into a swimming pool would intensify the rush. He decide to try this at a friends pool and after several times while he was under the water he suffered sudden sniffing death syndrome (SSD), a deadly side effect of inhalant abuse and particularly computer duster. SSD causes cardiac arrest and David drowned...he was 16. Kim Manlove

The Petrol sniffing in Australia article is self-evidently not written from a global perspective, and I don't think the subject matter is sufficiently broad or diverse to warrant separate "Petrol sniffing in Country X" articles. Perhaps there's a case for a "Petrol sniffing" article distinct from "Inhalant" covering this particular variety of solvent abuse, but I think that, at the moment, the "Inhalant" article can be used to cover it. Tevildo 02:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The statutory two weeks have come and gone, and I've completed the merge. I've created a new "Patterns of Usage" section and split it up by country, and changed to the standard templates for citations; the article text is basically unchanged otherwise. Tevildo 03:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This entire article suffers from a distinctly poor standard of English. While an obvious effort has been made to use the most seemingly academic vocabulary, little attention has been paid to grammar or coherency. I'll give it a little whack in a bit. -- JamesTheNumberless 11:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This article seems either misinformed or NPOV. I really don't think discussion of diethyl ether belongs in an article specifically about inhalants/volatile solvent abuse/huffing, and nitrous oxide certianly doesn't. Use of anasthetics, whether medical or otherwise (even if ether has fallen out of use) doesn't belong in the same category as huffing gasoline or spray paint. This should be an encyclopedia, not a DARE commercial.

Sorry mate, doctors and researchers on inhalant abuse DO consider all of the inhaled products in one category called inhalants. Check out this article from the reference section of the article: Inhalant abuse. Canadian Paediatric Society (January 2005). Retrieved on 2006-12-27. It lists solvents (found in glue, gasoline, etc) AND aerosol products and gas propellants. As you may know, nitrous oxide is the propellant in whipped cream cans. Nazamo 13:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Putting solvents in the same category as nitrous oxide doesn't seem right. Nitrous oxide is a drug with a recognised medical use that has specific effects on the brain and nervous system. Solvents are completely different substances, with completely different effects, and can cause serious brain damage within a few uses. The only thing they have in common is the route of administration. Ditto for amyl nitrite. That's like putting tylenol and prozac in the same category because they are both pills.

More to the point, if the article title was oral medication it would be completely appropriate to treat tylenol and prozac on the same page. All inhalents raise the prospect of lung damage just as all oral medications raise the prospect of intestinal damage. I agree some focal points work better than others, and inhalents is somewhat problematic, but just because it's easier to position authoritative text on overdose under suicide, doesn't mean that oral medication wouldn't treat suicide by overdose as affiliated subject matter. MaxEnt 07:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

However, since they all have their own, seperate pages, I don't see a problem with having an "inhalents" page. -- 70.81.251.32 12:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I had to delete this from the article:

South East Asia and Africa

- Dung sniffing has been noted as a problem in several countries in South East Asia such as Thailand and Malaysia among poor and homeless people. Animal or human dung is placed into a plastic bag or tin and left out in the sun where it starts to decompose, releasing methane gas, which has narcotic properties. Police were unsure of what action could be taken, given that dung is not illegal and would be problematic to restrict supplies.

- Dung sniffing has also been seen in some African countries (see Jenkem). Glue sniffing is also a problem in these countries, with dung sniffing generally being a last resort by people too poor to afford glue.

The citation URL was http://www.prn2.usm.my/mainsite/bulletin/nst/2000/nst16.html

Go to the main domain, and it becomes obvious that is NOT a legitimate source. There isn't even a New Sunday Times Malaysia. Why didn't anyone else catch this? It's been up for a while.

Actually this does seem to be legitimate, it has been a problem in Africa for 10 years according to the BBC who are generally held to be a reputable source! Meodipt 11:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, methane does not have narcotic properties and the URL cited is dead.-- 84.92.184.12 17:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a very poor article. There are barely any citations and it implies that if you do this your going to die. I only wanted to know about solvent abuse how it is known as "glue sniffing" as i had homework for school on drugs! i was very dissapointed when wikipedia didn't have an article about this topic.

Well, constructive criticism is always welcome on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is a free project, so the answer to why doesn't this article exist, or why isn't this article better is always Why don't you take the time to improve Wikipedia yourself, rather than criticizing hardworking volunteer editors?. Well, that's my $0.20 centavos. As for factual accuracy, I agree that the article needs more citations, and clarification between dangerous (carcinogenic, organ-damaging, etc..) inhalants and harmless ones (air?), but what facts, exactly, are being disputed? Personally, I don't like seeing the Factual Accuracy template on an article without a clearly defined complaint. - Eric 07:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone ahead and tried to make some bold changes to make this article more NPOV, and to distinguish MEDICAL and PSYCHOACTIVE inhalant use. How about a consensus vote to remove the TotallyDisputed tag and, if need be, replace it with specific-section disputes? - Eric 08:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Remove: I'll start with my vote. Eric 08:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Remove: per Eric. PStrait ( talk) 08:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Kids Huff Freon to Get High from KFVS. I'm just dumping the link here. __ meco 21:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There should be a section on involuntary substance abuse to give advice to those who have always had a lower tolerance to the chemicals that are commonly used in schools and work places but also huffed. Something to tell people that it is not normal if they walk into one classroom and start feeling drowsie and then walk into another classroom and perk up. Something to tell people that it is not normal to feel dazed when one comes home from work or school but alert and wide awake at 10 p.m. There should be advice for those who, after years of trying to put up with "bad air quality" find that they can't handle even mild exposures without getting really sick.

Please add "wanting to earn a paycheck" to the list of reasons why people willingly inhale solvents. Please add list of advice as to how to cope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.58.47 ( talk) 02:05, August 2, 2007 (UTC)

There is a clip of an articulate female social worker at the end of one of the special features on the DVD of Bus 174 who claims to have tried glue herself at some point and found that it functions as a highly effective appetite suppressant, but this article presently contains no information on the use of glue by street children as an appetite suppressant when they haven't managed to eat. MaxEnt 06:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Under the "see also" section it mentions "kitten huffing". Clicking on this link takes you to the "uncyclopedia" page on wikipedia. Does someone want to remove this? Tsarnick 02:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Tsarnick