Talk:Stimulant

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stimulant article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1

Psychology Start‑class

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Pharmacology C‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Inclusion of Cold Symptom Relief Vasodilators?

I really use WP very rarely, so I'm hoping someone will incorporate it if the majority approve. There's a bit of a gray area here, for drugs such as L-methamphetamine (racemic methamphetamine's stereoisomer, though apparently it's significantly weaker) and Propylhexedrine. These are medications used in OTC inhalants for cold symptom relief(in the USA, at least - I've read that, for the most part, they're either prohibited/prescription/etc. in...the UK and Australia, if I remember right). They are not meant to be orally ingested - but it appears that people do so anyway (I read some anecdotal accounts of these being among the most frequently shoplifted drug store items). They are seemingly dangerous and poorly regulated, and I don't want to make abuse of OTC drugs attractive to anyone - but that doesn't change that these drugs are stimulants. Since they're not marketed to be used that way, I don't know what you guys want to do - but I'd assume that someone could "catch a buzz," as it were, even from just inhaling the drugs.

(An interesting note - the Propylhexadrine, marketed in the US as Benzedrex, was not always the vasodilator used in that product. Propylhexedrine replaced "Benzadrine" in the 1970's, if I remember right. What was Benzadrine? Racemic Methamphetamine - yeah, the "active ingredient" in Crystal Meth. It seems that, throughout history, there's always been SOME potent psychoactive available at the pharmacy. Wild.)

Thanks, cheers, etc. "Yes...It's Raining" 02:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I got no reply, I figured I needed to be bold, so I added in a Propylhexadrine blurb. Pardon me if you don't think it particularly bold, but I've been lurking and reading WP for probably ten years, editing mostly talk pages for 5, and haven't before added more than a sentence or a correction! Anyhow, I'm going to see if L-Methamphetamine is distinct enough from Methamphetamine to warrant its inclusion, and, if so, will add it at a later date. If anyone wants to correct my edit, give me any suggestions, etc., please feel free. Thanks, cheers, etc. "Yes...It's Raining" 20:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caffeine problems

I have removed some unsourced information, reworded much of the article, and broken it into two sections. The unsourced information was both detrimental and does not make logical sense. The claim was made that caffeine can cause hyperactivity even after metabolism. I also reworded the article because of the informal writing style, and repeatition. Lastly I broke it into two sections. One for general information the other for effects of overuse. I chose to break it into two sections because information pertaining to overuse was already present. And I did not wish to remove it. Because overuse/overdose can is important information for any substance ingested it is my opinion that this subsection should be added for every stimulent summery. 68.167.252.68 05:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! You should register an account, your edit was good. Keep in mind there are main articles for each substance (including caffeine) elsewhere, so I wouldn't worry too much about getting this article precisely correct. In the end, it should be a summary of what is presented more comprehensively in the actual caffeine article. Robotsintrouble 20:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ecstacy as a hallucinogen

I've edited the relevant section to clear up the error - MDMA is not a hallucinogenic, however it is often mixed with other drugs (MDA etc.) which are.

MDMA can cause hallucinations in high doses.

Is there no objective definition of a hallucinogen?? Why is there any argument about this? I was under the impression that hallucinogens is, as defined by wikipedia: "The general group of pharmacological agents commonly known as hallucinogens can be divided into three broad categories: psychedelics, dissociatives, and deliriants. These classes of psychoactive drugs have in common that they can cause subjective changes in perception, thought, emotion and consciousness. Unlike other psychoactive drugs, such as stimulants and opioids, the hallucinogens do not merely amplify familiar states of mind, but rather induce experiences that are qualitatively different from those of ordinary consciousness. These experiences are often compared to non-ordinary forms of consciousness such as trance, meditation, conversion experiences, and dreams."

This definition sounds completely accurate. I do not see why calling MDMA a hallucinogen is a mistake... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.96.200 (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coca-Cola vs Coffee Caffeine

Removed "One can of Cola = 4 cups of coffee" statement as it is outright wrong.

Aging

What accounts for the more rapid aging that appears to be experienced by meth users (Newsweek had some before and after pictures awhile back &ndash see image 3 of 12 at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8758891/)? Could that also occur with chronic users of other stimulants, such as methylphenidate and caffeine? 24.54.208.177 23:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is unknown whether or not the use of stimulant drugs accelerates the effects of aging. I haven't seen a single study on the subject, either, which may be because aging itself is not yet well understood. "Aging" could be considered an abstract concept that is difficult, if not impossible at this stage in research, to quanitify biologically. Also note that methamphetamine addicts are often subject to many other health-compromising activities, agents, and behaviors, such as sleep deprivation, malnourishment, shared infected needles, the impurities found in street drugs, and more, all of which have serious negative consequences on health and perhaps may intrinsically accelerate aging. --Muugokszhiion 04:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a connection between stress, metabolism and aging. Stress can increase metabolism, higher than normal stress levels as well as higher than normal metabolism levels can increase aging. Stimulants increase metabolism and can also increase stress levels, contributing to acceleration of aging. --Thoric 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents; if the use of methamphetamine leads to extensive loss eating and sleeping over several consecutive days, then the lack of these two necessities alone would cause rapid deterioration of the body. Barkleylee (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno about accelerated aging, but the junkies/dealer that lived in the apartment adjacent to me a few years ago did look absolutely terrible. I dunno if aging isn't just being confused with overall unhealthy appearance, hair loss tooth loss skin deterioration and jaundice. But as said earlier poor sleep habits and malnouritiomeant as well as the physical tole the drug takes on ones body is quite sever and would lead one to believe that the abuser has aged considerably, based upon appearances alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeonos (talk • contribs) 06:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other Stimulating Antidepressants

There are other examples of antidepressants that produce stimulation. While this side effect fades with continual use, in the beginning it can so stimulating that it's uncomfortable. (*Caviat: this is partially my own experience, and I'm unusually susceptible to the effects of caffeine.) I suspect that there are others, as well. --67.172.170.146 02:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSRIs (prozac, etc) can certainly produce stimulation, and are considered to be stimulants in some circles of pharmacology. --Thoric 20:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glucose?

Could some clarification be given on the status of glucose? (I assume that it is not a stimulant, but many people believe that it is.) -- Beland 06:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a stimulant. Glucose spikes the blood sugar and provides energy, which can make someone peppy/hyper and seem like they're on stims, but it really isn't the same thing at all, chemically. --Blacken 05:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does MDMA belong on this page?

The stimulant effects of MDMA are small for most users, certainly compared to related chemicals such as Ephedrine and the other, non-empathogenic Amphetamines. The desired psychological effect of MDMA use has little in common with classical psychostimulant effects. Should MDMA really have a section here? 24.255.11.232 03:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but the line about it "often" containing a whole host of other drugs is wholely wrong, as repeated scientific samples (as opposed to media hysteria) has shown. Nick Cooper 11:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MDMA is a powerful amphetamine-based stimulant that definitely belongs on the simulant page. -Muugokszhiion 23:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamineis the name of this chemical. Note that the word amphetamine is attached to the end of the name of this compound. All members of the amphetamine family are stimulants. MDMA is a member of the amphetamine family. This means that MDMA is a stimulant and should be classified as such. Furthermore, to avoid misinformation it should be classified as an amphetamine, and not be listed separately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.136.223 (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cocaine is not more potent than Amphetamine

I strongly disagree os the sentence "This dependence can lead a user to turn to stronger stimulants such as cocaine".

Since it has no citation I suggest the whole sentence is removed! Noten 15:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bias for caffiene

I noticed that caffiene is the only item to carry the term "overuse." This suggests that caffine is the only substance that can be taken in moderation without harm. I propose to either include the side-effects in the same manner as the other substances, or to add an "overuse" section to each individual item on the list. OWiseWun 09:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)OWISEWUN[reply]

Please see this comment. -Muugokszhiion 23:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natural?

"Caffeine is a drug that is found naturally in tea, chocolate, coffee, many soft drinks particularly energy drinks, and cocoa."

Its found naturally in many soft drinks? Yes, I've noticed that when I go pick the cans at the soft drinks trees I have growing in my backyard.........

Kent —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.141.89.53 (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC). Fixed[reply]

Reference from Methylphenidate: 'Hyperactivity Paradox Resolved?'

Removed this ref from Methylphenidate, as the drugs tested didn't include that drug:

<ref>{{cite web |url=http://psychiatry.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/1999/301/1 |title=Hyperactivity Paradox Resolved? |accessdate=2006-11-11 |work=Journal Watch }}</ref>

It doesn't look like it's referenced here, but it might be an interesting thing to add in somewhere.--Eloil 22:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Abuse"

Why did someone go through every stimulant listed and add an "abuse" section? This would seem highly motivated by bias and opinion and it really doesn't belong in this article. I would support removal of every abuse section from the stimulant page. Such a section is much more appropriate in the respective main article, not a stub paragraph listing briefly what the drug is and where it's from. -Muugokszhiion 23:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented all Abuse sections pending their removal and redirection to their main articles. If you are interested, please take the respective sections and move them to the appropriate place outside this article. -Muugokszhiion 17:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stimulant Box

In the box with all the stimulants could we catergorise them, like the antidepressant box so amphetamine type drugs like ritalin and other drugs which inhibit Dopamine and Noradrenaline (norepinephrine) are together

"popular culture" section

…was just created. Setting aside what seems to be wikipedia's general dislike for these kinds of things, this particular page seems like it would be an unmaintainable and endless list. Stimulant use is widespread, there are many types of stimulants, and there's nothing really notable about someone drinking a cup of tea or smoking a cigarette in a movie. DMacks 21:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Even if it was restricted to films, even the most obvious inclusions would bloat the page to an unmanagable level. Nick Cooper 12:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation needed

"Upper" now hard-wired redirects to stimulants, even though this term is often used in firearms talk (e.g. the Heckler & Koch 416 is a new upper for the standard M-16/M-4 carbine, which replaces the unreliable hot impingment system with a cool-running gas piston assembly.) 82.131.210.162 (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upper is now a disambiguation page. I have no idea what other meanings there might be that should be linked (vs just mentioned)--is this "upper" part of a gun specifically indicated in any of the diagrams on various firearms pages? DMacks (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

arecoline

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This comes from Talk:Psychostimulant. WnC? 17:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(...)and arecoline, the most widely used psychostimulant. - what is the source for this? This is highly, VERY HIGHLY unlikely.—Preceding unsigned comment added by83.168.75.25 (talk • contribs)

Actually, Areca nut (often known as Betel nut), is used by huge numbers across Asia. I'll add a few sources to verify the "most widely used psychostimulant" claim. — Scientizzle 22:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Other compounds

I suggest including 'other compounds' dealing around other compounds than caffeine, but found in similar low-calorie beverages (eg herbal tea's). Examples are siberian ginseng (which is btw used by professional athletes). Also I suggest a link from energizer (disambugation) and another note for "in popular culture": In Navy NCIS, one of the employees is called "Energizer Abby", as she drinks so much caffeine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.143.173 (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into stimulant. -- WnC? 17:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stimulant and psychostimulant seem to be mostly interchangeable; therefore, I think it might be appropriate to merge them, especially as psychostimulant doesn't really have any contents to speak of. WnC? 11:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this merge. I think that the contents of psychostimulant should be moved into the lead of this stimulant article as it is currently only one line.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have one question though (which is also why I made a proposal rather than were bold): is there any distinction between the words psychostimulant and stimulant that needs to be preserved (e.g., psychostimulant has a specific meaning as defined by regulations or organisations like WHO)? Or are they always entirely interchangeable? (The definition differs a bit, for psychostimulant the article states locomotor activity, and stimulant uses wakefulness/alertness as definition.) WnC? 13:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. This stimulants article is describing stimulants which effect the CNS so are describing psychostimulants. You can have gastrointestinal stimulants eg drugs for constipation etc but psychostimulants are stimulants which act primarily on the CNS. I would just be bold and merge the two articles. It is such a small article I can't see any major problems. You could double check on the wiki pharmacology project to see if our assumptions are incorrect.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A late bit of input

I haven't been around much recently, so I failed to notice this merge discussion prior to the actual merge popping up in my watchlist. I don't necessarily oppose the merger, but I thought I could offer some clarity on the terminology. Stimulants are drugs that increase the activity of various parts of the mervous system. Psychostimulants are a subset of stimulants, which have stimulant activities and additionally induce cognitive & emotional effects possibly including alertness, feelings of well-being, fatigue relief, hallucination, and/or euphoria. There exist many examples of compound that act as stimulants without strong psychological effects (i.e., drugs that only really act on the autonomic nervous system), but the delineation can get kind of fuzzy. In the medical literature, "psychostimulant" is almost exclusively used for those drugs that induce the arousal, cognitive, and well-being effects with a corresponding liability for abuse/dependence. This can be further confusing when colloquial use readily uses the terms interchangeably. In the end, I think the merge is probably a good idea, but this article could actually use more information about stimulants that aren't associated with the mental effects. The definition here has a farily decent & short overview of the variety. If I can find time (and I may not be able to, sadly), I'll try to find some sources on the non-psycho stimulants. Cheers, — Scientizzle 19:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the discrepancy on the page. Currently, it asserts that psychostimulant is another word for stimulant, which is almost dangerous in it's fallacy. According to some research I did for a psych class a few years back, the primary difference between a stimulant (caffeine) and a psychostimulant (amphetamine) is that a psychostimulant causes a measurable improvement in fine and general motor control (as measured in lab mice). I was going to make the change just now, but I don't seem to have the necessary reference materials on hand at the moment. If anyone does, please make the necessary changes by all means, meanwhile I'll be trying to dig out the references from my research and update the page as soon as I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarrin (talk • contribs) 02:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho, the fictional

I'm trying to research into what the fictional drug "Psycho" from the fallout series could possibly be, from a scientific standpoint. In-game the drug affects your characters damage resistance (Probably like pain tolerance) agility (probably representing an intense hyperactive spike) decreases your intelligence drastically and has really bad withdrawal symptoms after a single use. it's supposed to be a "military Psycho-stimulant" delivered IV through a mixed two cartridge syringe. I want to put some scientific reason behind the article on Psycho[1] in the vault, and find some basis for the drug, so far the only thing close I found was D-IX. I know this isn't urgent for this article specifically but if someone could point me in the right direction or offer some good speculation or what have you that would help make a great contribution to The Vault.'''Aryeonos''' (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benzylpiperazine

Benzylpiperazine (BZP) (and similar piperazine derivates) should be added as another type of stimulans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.1.240 (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sympathetic Nervous System

Most, if not all, stimulants activate the sympathetic nervous system, but I searched for the word sympathetic and found nothing.Grouphug (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee vs tea

The coffee picture says that coffee is the primary source of caffeine, but considering that tea (notably green tea) is by far the most common drink on earth, that's your primary source of caffeine actually. The world doesn't range from America to Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.242.211.23 (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same concern (interestingly, without perceiving it as a regional bias) was raised a while ago on the Caffeine talk-page. That article now says "Common sources of caffeine are coffee, tea, and (to a lesser extent) chocolate derived from cocoa beans." Even the same image is used, with a caption that says that coffee is a common source, not the most common. I changed the caption in the article here to match that one. DMacks (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stimulants versus medicin.

Drugs are drugs and not drugs.

Bunching antidepressants and other proscription substances together with illegal drugs of various sorts don't help much. Especially as you put a very viable MEDICINE such as Ritalin as the introducing picture... It's a medicine, not a drug. And it most definitely isn't a stimulant. Or do you call penicillin a stimulant to? As you actually get "up" from it. Ie get "up and out of your sick bed"...

Bunching medicine with drugs like this only help pushers. It certainly doesn't help a parent with ADHD, trying to explain the difference between his good use of Ritalin and a teenage son's friends use of amphetamine etc. I know, I've been there, done that. And lost. Lost two sons to the drugs. So don't even try to to come back at me on this.

Ok, this was biased. Still true, bad medicine to mix drugs and drugs. Especially if they could be interpreted as if related. But then, really, add penicillin in here to...

--109.58.210.151 (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)ErkMa[reply]

You seem to have some mistaken notions regarding the various compounds under discussion on this page. Any compound that can produce an alteration in a living organism's physiology may be reasonably called a "drug"; please see the drug article for explanation of the various medical and colloquial uses of the term.

As for stimulants, this class of drugs is defined by having neurophysiological effects producing, generally, increased behavioral and cardiac activity. There are many illicit drugs (e.g., cocaine, MDMA, methamphetamine) that are stimulants. Caffeine and nicotine are widely-consumed stimulants with modest-to-zero regulation and social stigma, depending on your region of the world. Many useful prescription drugs are also stimulants.

Finally, methylphenidate, the active ingredient in Ritalin, is a psychostimulant. It happens to have some rather well-validated therapeutic uses, particularly in the treatment of ADHD and narcolepsy (d-amphetamine is also used in this manner: Adderall). However, methylphenidate actually has a mechanism of action in the brain very similar to cocaine and it is abused by some because of this (more info here). The key to therapeutic use of methylphenidate or amphetamines are in proper diagnosis of a condition that can benefit from such treatment, proper dosing and administration of the drugs, and vigilant monitoring of the response to the drugs--very different from recreational use of these and related compounds.

Penicillin is a drug because it has physiological effects on living organisms, including bacteria and humans. It's not a stimulant, as it has no known CNS- or cardiac-activating properties. I disagree with your statement that "Bunching medicine with [illicit] drugs like this only help pushers" as there is a lot of gray area involved in this topic, including overlapping mechanisms of drug action, abuse of therapeutic medicines, and past/present/future therapeutic uses of drugs presently considered illicit. — Scientizzle 14:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Division of phenethylamine section

This section is getting awfully large representing, as it does, 90% of psychostimulants. Within this class are clear sub-groups such as morpolines, oxazoline, diarylethylamines. I suggest that people begin using sub-groups as it is unwieldy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.243.179 (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arecoline

I also thing arecoline should be added to the listing in this article. --Diogenes2000 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Stimulant

Thank you, silly robot, but I saved those already.

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Stimulant's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Malenka_2009":

From Methylphenidate: Malenka RC, Nestler EJ, Hyman SE (2009). "Chapter 13: Higher Cognitive Function and Behavioral Control". In Sydor A, Brown RY (ed.). Molecular Neuropharmacology: A Foundation for Clinical Neuroscience (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Medical. p. 318. ISBN 9780071481274. Therapeutic (relatively low) doses of psychostimulants, such as methylphenidate and amphetamine, improve performance on working memory tasks both in individuals with ADHD and in normal subjects. Positron emission tomography (PET) demonstrates that methylphenidate decreases regional cerebral blood flow in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and posterior parietal cortex while improving performance of a spacial working memory task. This suggests that cortical networks that normally process spatial working memory become more efficient in response to the drug. Both methylphenidate and amphetamines act by triggering the release of dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin, actions mediated via the plasma membrane transporters of these neurotransmitters and via the shared vesicular monoamine transporter (Chapter 6). Based on animal studies with micro-iontophoretic application of selective D1 dopamine receptor agonists (such as the partial agonist SKF38393 or the full agonist SKF81297) and antagonist (such as SCH23390), and clinical evidence in humans with ADHD, it is now believed that dopamine and norepinephrine, but not serotonin, produce the beneficial effects of stimulants on working memory. At abused (relatively high) doses, stimulants can interfere with working memory and cognitive control, as will be discussed below. It is important to recognize, however, that stimulants act not only on working memory function, but also on general levels of arousal and, within the nucleus accumbens, improve the saliency of tasks. Thus, stimulants improve performance on effortful but tedious tasks, probably acting at different sites in the brain through indirect stimulation of dopamine and norepinephrine receptors.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
From Amphetamine: Malenka RC, Nestler EJ, Hyman SE (2009). "Chapter 13: Higher Cognitive Function and Behavioral Control". In Sydor A, Brown RY (ed.). Molecular Neuropharmacology: A Foundation for Clinical Neuroscience (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Medical. p. 318. ISBN 9780071481274. Therapeutic (relatively low) doses of psychostimulants, such as methylphenidate and amphetamine, improve performance on working memory tasks both in individuals with ADHD and in normal subjects...it is now believed that dopamine and norepinephrine, but not serotonin, produce the beneficial effects of stimulants on working memory. At abused (relatively high) doses, stimulants can interfere with working memory and cognitive control, as will be discussed below. It is important to recognize, however, that stimulants act not only on working memory function, but also on general levels of arousal and, within the nucleus accumbens, improve the saliency of tasks. Thus, stimulants improve performance on effortful but tedious tasks...through indirect stimulation of dopamine and norepinephrine receptors.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Reference named "Miller":

From Amphetamine: Miller GM (2011). "The emerging role of trace amine-associated receptor 1 in the functional regulation of monoamine transporters and dopaminergic activity". J. Neurochem. 116 (2): 164–176. doi:10.1111/j.1471-4159.2010.07109.x. PMC 3005101. PMID 21073468. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
From Methylphenidate: Miller GM (2011). "The emerging role of trace amine-associated receptor 1 in the functional regulation of monoamine transporters and dopaminergic activity". J. Neurochem. 116 (2): 164–76. doi:10.1111/j.1471-4159.2010.07109.x. PMC 3005101. PMID 21073468. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Reference named "Cochrane":

From Methamphetamine: Shoptaw SJ, Kao U, Ling W (2009). "Treatment for amphetamine psychosis (Review)". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
From Amphetamine: Shoptaw SJ, Kao U, Ling W (2009). Shoptaw SJ, Ali R (ed.). "Treatment for amphetamine psychosis". Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. (1): 2–8. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003026.pub3. PMID 19160215. A minority of individuals who use amphetamines develop full-blown psychosis requiring care at emergency departments or psychiatric hospitals. In such cases, symptoms of amphetamine psychosis commonly include paranoid and persecutory delusions as well as auditory and visual hallucinations in the presence of extreme agitation. More common (about 18%) is for frequent amphetamine users to report psychotic symptoms that are sub-clinical and that do not require high-intensity intervention...
About 5-15% of the users who develop an amphetamine psychosis fail to recover completely (Hofmann 1983)...
Findings from one trial indicate use of antipsychotic medications effectively resolves symptoms of acute amphetamine psychosis.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ampakines vs. Eugeroics: what's the difference?

Nevermind... did my research

I know a lot but I don't know everything. And I can't quite place if and how these two are related, and if one is a subset of another, etc. Is anyone else confused by this (or have answers)? Is this a square/rectangle sort of thing? I read both pages but still am not entirely clear on this — despite what 174.112.21.159 (talk · contribs) said when he/she removed the tag, "...they are not the same and are indeed very different" — they look a lot the same to me.

I tried putting a "duplication" tag on one of them, but in good faith it was removed, apparently not understanding I wanted clarification about using the same term twice. Excerpts here so ya'll know what I'm talking about:

Ampakines

Recently, there have been improvements in the area of stimulant pharmacology, producing a class of chemicals known as ampakines, or eugeroics, (good arousal)...

Eugeroics

A wakefulness-promoting agent (eugeroic) is a type of psychoactive drug which improves wakefulness and alertness, and reduces tiredness, drowsiness, and the need for sleep...

Notice I bolded eugeroics twice, for emphasis. So why does the lead sentence of ampakines here use the phrase "or eugeroic"? That sounds like an equality to me, i.e., a direct statement that they are synonymous (which 174.112.21.159 said they're not).

meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updated 2 sections

You've made some pretty good progress with all your work on this article, ‎Meteor sandwich yum. I thought it'd best to distribute the amphetamine citations to the appropriate sentences. I also imported the new methamphetamine lead - I attempted to copy the style you used on the page when I did so. Feel free to change anything, and keep up the good work! Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the positive feedback

Looks great, by the way! meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ADHD section stimulants

The drug Propylhexadrine is accidentally listed as an ADHD drug. It is not used, nor approved by the FDA for such use. A quick peek at the wikipedia page confirms this by its' absence - it is a weight loss drug. It may belong on the stimulant page: just not under ADHD. I'm leaving this to you experts, as I've exhausted my knowledge in this post. :-D Thanks. Ukrpickaxe (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. A quick check says you're completely right &mdash my mistake, actually.

To anyone interested, I plan to re-write the section anyway. Stand-alone lists are sort of frowned-upon; and I mean to make this into prose. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]