Talk:Recreational use of dextromethorphan/Archive 1

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.

This is an archive of conversations that occurred at Non-medical use of dextromethorphan before it was merged with Dextromethorphan.

I have seen this 'clean up' message for a while now, and I think that it is safe to take that label off. And please, I know that the urge to post messages while on DXM is strong, but don't! DesiPsycho (not logged in)

Terminology: "Recreational Use" or "Abuse"

A user decided to change the Dextromethorphan terminology from "abuse" to "recreational use," stating that the term "abuse" did not have a neutral point-of-view. I must vehemently object to this for several reasons. First of all, the term "Abuse" covers more ground: People may use DXM for reasons other than recreation: They may be depressed, and find it to be something that helps them escape reality, they may be psychologically addicted and implusively take the drug, they may even take 10 times the indicated dosage due to a horrible cough thinking it will help more, only to find themselves intoxicated. ...or they may be bored and just trying to get "high". The term "abuse" covers ALL of those situations. "Recreational use" only covers the latter.

Here's another problem: The scientific community does not generally use the term "recreational use." Doctors do not generally use that term. The FDA doesn't use that term. International governments do not usually use that term. Schools don't use that term. BUT -- erowid.com does, and high-school/college kids like it better.

Yes, I know "recreational use" sounds better if you're young. And it may well be an accurate term in many instances. I know you all probably like Erowid. Erowid was launched my junior year of college and, being college students, we all liked to read about ways to get f***ed up as I'm sure you all do too. But when you leave college and all that behind, you look back in retrospect and feel just a little silly.

But here's the bottom line: Dextromethorphan was designed with ONE purpose in mind. Its patent has ONE function listed at the patent office. It's job it to control your cough. Therefore, using it for any other purpose that its indicated is, by definition, abusing it (See dictionary.com, definition 2: "Improper use or handling; misuse"). This is not POV, it's simple fact. It doesn't necessarily imply that it's good, or that it's bad. Hell, I abuse my car by redlining the engine. That's not good or bad -- I know she can take it -- but it's using the engine in a method other than that specified by the manufacture.

Dextromethorphan is a salt of the methyl ether dextrorotatory isomer of levorphanol (a potent opioid). We don't know for certain that DXM was the resulting product of a quest for a non-euphoric, non-sedating antitussive, regardless of patents filed. Regardless, DXM appears to be subject to more "abuse" than the substance it replaced -- codeine. In any case, if one purchases something, be it a car, or a drug, they should be free to use it in any way they see fit, as long as it doesn't bring harm to anyone else. It's none of your business if someone else likes drinking bottles of cough syrup (ugh!), unless it's your kid or something, and in that case, it's up to you to make sure your kids don't guzzle cough syrup, not the police, or the pharmacist, or anyone else for that matter -- the parents should make sure their kids know better. --Thoric 20:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Chances are (but not necessarily), if you object to the term "abuse," it's because you're a DXM user and you don't want to think of it as abuse. Reverting it to "recreational use" betrays your biased point-of-view as you are using a less inclusive, less official term than makes DXM's usage for fun sound better. But abuse is more inclusive, more mature, more official, used by more legitimate institutions, and makes Wikipedia look better and relate to a wider audience.

Highly disagree. Parachuting is dangerous.. we might as well call parachuting "sky abuse". "Recreational use" is much more neutral. Rhobite 20:02, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I too disagree. The term "abuse" does have a negative connotation, like it or not. DXM abuse would not include spiritual use as an entheogen. High plateau DXM "trips" can be used spiritually, and therefore your term, "abuse", is incomplete.

Surely if we want a neutral term "non-medical", "non-clinical", or "not for clinically intended uses" are all far more suitable and cover more ground than "recreational use" or "abuse". I don't think it can be debated that "abuse" has negative connatations and would not be a wise way to refer to DXM. I speak as a non-DXM user who would regard it as a somehwat too dagerous trip, but that is NO excuse for drug-war style propagandist terminology.

"Abuse" absolutely has a negative connotation and is certainly a point of view. A chemical is just a chemical. Therapeutic medical benefits are simply that, and nothing more. There is no heavenly mandate to dictate for what purpose a large primate should consume large quantities of a particular network of atoms. A chemical may be used for any purpose anyone sees fit. --Muugokszhiion 05:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. When a chemical is created it doesn't think, "hmm I think that I will be used to suppress coughs." Claiming that because one use is more accepted we have to use a word that implies that the other uses are wrong is ridicules. Also words must be defined by a broad range of people. It doesn't matter that the patent for it says that its for coughs. Its how people use it that defines it. IMHO the "robotrippin" article needs to use non-medical use instead of abuse.

It is my opinion that the term "abuse" has a negative bias. --yawgm8th 05:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no dought 'abuse' has a negative bias... slapping your wife around is abuse and it's negative. Whether or not it should be used to describe taking dextromethorphan for a "high", however, is debatable. It appears to me that taking dextromethorphan in a pure or semi-pure form to achieve a "high" might be rationally considered recreational use while drinking a bottleful or more of syrupy, foul-tasting and ill-smelling cough suppressant for a "high" would be abuse. In any case, I would like to point out that dextromethorphan, regardless of what the patent indicates, does have other lagitimate uses such as treating voice spasms, diabetic neuropathy, parkinson's related dyskinesia, postoperative pain, is being studied for the treatment of certain cancers, and has other non-medical uses in the chemistry field. Roysatx 10:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

General

What does the reference to half-life mean? I thought that only applied to radioactive substances. Does it refer to the amount of time the drug stays in the body, has active physiological or psychological effects or the amount of time it remains effective outside of the body? Tuf-Kat

Biology.

The time required for half the quantity of a drug or other substance deposited in a living organism to be metabolized or eliminated by normal biological processes. Also called biological half-life.
The time required for the radioactivity of material taken in by a living organism to be reduced to half its initial value by a combination of biological elimination processes and radioactive decay.

And I thought it could also refer to the amount of time for a drug in storage to maintain its potency. Apparently not. Koyaanis Qatsi 05:44 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That would be shelf-life, if I'm not mistaken. Roysatx 10:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Damn, who's tripping on DXM right now? Cause I am!!!!

You, sir, are an idiot. 128.205.139.83 23:44, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I just came down from a second plateau trip. Pretty dreamy. I felt like reality didn't exist and everything was just a bunch of dreams. My life, the fantasies in my head, other peoples lives, just a bunch of dreams. Pretty nihilist. --Arm

I'm wondering whether we should mention that e.g. Coricidin is particularly unsafe - is this in a way implying that DXM in general is safe (which it is, actually, compared to the death rates for e.g. alcohol or tobacco)? Are we better off from a liability perspective saying that all drugs are potentially unsafe, but DXM may be worse under XYZ conditions? 128.205.139.83 23:44, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

coricidin is unsafe because of the Chlorpheniramine maleate in it, not because of the DXM, and yes it should be mentioned, because it is a common product to use for this purpose. --Someones life 18:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

http://www.dextromethorphan.ws/dxm-deaths-summary.htm quotes several more than the 2 deaths by DXM mentioned in White's FAQ, and there have been more reported deaths since it was written. ElBenevolente 21:12, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. White stopped updating a long time ago, I think he never specifically references the C4 brand name - and if you want to see how out of date he is, check his list of powder/pure vendors online, I saw 4 fairly obvious omissions. Pakaran . 21:23, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ok, on that page, plus White's 2 (assuming no duplicates) I see a total of 14. Several are suicides by massive overdose (80 30 g pills in one case for a young girl). Compare that to deaths from alcohol/tobacco in one day. I think DXM is fairly safe, but that's POV... Pakaran . 21:25, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Are there any objections to my addition If you choose to use CCC, one recommendation is to start with the labeled dose and never more than double your previous dose, until your desired effects are reached. The point is that this will let people know if they're deficient, or if they have a strong reaction to the antihistamine, without too much risk. I don't know of anyone who had serious problems after following that method. Pakaran . 23:46, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't particularly like this language regarding CCC. CCC has led to a ridiculous number of hospitilizations, even at moderate doses. I would strongly discourage CCC at any dosage. For those desperate for an OTC, non-syrup source, the recently released Robitussin CoughGels are a much better choice, albeit still potentially unsafe. ElBenevolente 19:38, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Ok, personally, I have a friend who took 32 ccc (2 packs) and got to 3rd and had a generally enjoyable few hours. The more I think about it, though, the more I realize that he was lucky. We should probably just say something like "CCC should not be taken above labeled dose by anyone, period." I believe the general problem is high school kids being told "if you take ccc you can get high, me and my friends do it all the time." It's taken because it doesn't cause vomiting, and is (if only somewhat) safer than acetominophen. Pakaran . 02:17, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't dextrometorphan and DXM redirects be the other way round ? Kpjas 07:59, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As a recreational drug, one hears "DXM" or "dex" quite often. Of course, in ingredient labels, it tends to be the full "dextromethorphan HBr." Pakaran . 19:50, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I believe we describe medcinal substances by their generic, international names (with a few exceptions) and other alternative or slang names are supposed to redirect to the proper name. Right? Kpjas 19:08, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How's this title? Pakaran . 19:16, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fine. Kpjas 19:23, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Would it be OK to replace most references to DXM with dextromethorphan, mainly in the context of medicinal use contrasted with recreational use. I understand DXM is an informal term used by abusers ? Kpjas 19:29, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine. There's little precedent - for example we say aspirin not acetylsalicylic acid etc. However, you'll never find the term "dxm" on a product label. That said, almost all recreational (ab)users say dex, dxm or tussin. Pakaran . 19:47, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to challenge that. On two occasions I've seen dextromethorphan listed in the active ingredients as "DXM HBr". I believe in both cases the packaging was small, and thus it was written as such to save space. But the point I'm trying to make is that I do think DXM is an accepted pseudonym rather than simple drug slang. Toolie 10:57, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I once did see "DXM HBr" listed as an active ingredient as well. I believe "DXM" is a fine abbreviation that obviously is understood beyond the recreational community. On another note, I have noticed that in most medical journals dextromethorphan is abbreviated as "DM," but, granted, there have been very few studies on dextromethrophan so this could just be the preference of a small group of individuals rather than the medical community at large. I'd say that "DXM" is perfectly acceptible, and probably even preferable, because it will be understood by the largest audience. --Muugokszhiion 21:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is the article as it stands rather messy and unsystematic? I propose that we reorganize it, first giving a summary/overview of dxm's "legitimate" medical use, then discussing pharmacology, and then, after this context has been established, giving the information about recreational use. - Sara 20:21, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The problem is the same content has been added many places. Pakaran . 20:57, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have taken out the statement "The table spacing also needs fixing" from the header of this article. If someone still sees something wrong with the formatting, please revert.

--Goldbot 03:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lethal vs. toxic dose

A toxic (not lethal) dose of DXM is somewhere above 25mg/kg. However unlikely it sounds, it is quite possible to survive a 2g dose, though it may not be pleasant. --Eequor 18:05, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It also depends on your weight! If you weigh 300 lb, it would be quite a reasonable dose. Pakaran . 00:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Structure

Is the structure on the article page dextromethorphan or levomethorphan? I reverted a recent change, but it looks like it probably is levomethorphan. Can anyone verify? ElBenevolente 15:59, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The actual image is levomethorphan! You can see the stucture on www.sigmaaldrich.com were you can buy the hydrobromide. Levomethorphan has the same absolute configuration as the natural occurring morphine. tom 13:42, 9 Sep 2004 (CET)

Good call. Fixed the image description and added to the description. ElBenevolente 18:42, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is "delerient" a word?

I can't find any instances of it in medical literature. There are matches on Google on various recreational drug related websites. Any objects to me removing this from the adjectives describing chlorpheneramine maleate?

Take a look at deliriant. I'm not sure if "deleriant" is a spelling error or if the word can be spelled both ways. Anyway, I changed the word to anticholinergic in the article. Aenar 13:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

http://www.ibiblio.org/herbmed/eclectic/felter/therapeutic-terms.html

"Deliriant. A drug which may produce delirium."

Note this is from "The Eclectic Materia Medica, Pharmacology and Therapeutics." by Harvey Wickes Felter, M.D., 1922. Deliriant is indeed a valid medical term.--Rfgdxm | Talk 21:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup.

This page is a mess. The page is written in an alarmist tone, makes claims without citing sources, and needs to be Wikified. Ive started the change. Plus I bet that Robitussin bottle image is copyrighted. --Arm 20:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I just finished a massive cleanup, edit, and revision of the entire article. The cleanup tag and "DXM FAQ" disclaimer have both been removed, as they are no longer relevent. I will do more work on the article in the future. --Muugokszhiion 22:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Good work, thanks a lot! it looks much better now. --He:ah? 23:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

merger?

so why in the world is this a seperate article from the main dxm article? in all the other drug articles, i-ve never seen a seperation in articles quite like this. it seems unnecessary, as neither article is incredibly long, and this one could serve to be shortened a wee bit. if no one objects i'm gonna put up merge tags and then merge it in a few days. --Heah (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

It should probably be cleaned up / shortened a lot first, I wouldn't want to merge this as it is, and it was created as a split from the main article (where, incidentally, there's no link to this article). --Tarnas 05:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
It's split because people thought the 2 articles need to be split. See the talk section on the main Dextromethorphan article for the debate. I think the 2 need to be merged but this page needs to be fruther cleaned.

factually incorrect??

The article states: "While DXM has an unpleasent taste (in its pure form or extract, or as cough syrup), it is considered difficult to inject and is toxic to smoke. DXM HBr and the freebase have very high vaporization points."

This information is in direct conflict with what is presented in White's FAQ.

White's FAQ clearly states that DXM HBr may be injected intravenously or intramuscularly (amongst other methods, he also mentions 'skin popping'. He simply states that injection is, in his opinion, unsafe.

It also disputes the toxicity of DXM being smoked or insufflated, stating that while both of these methods are possible, insufflation is dangerous due to potential nasal damage, and smoking is difficult due to DXM freebase vaporization point.

In summary, I have read no reports that injection, insufflation or smoking of DXM HBr/freebase is any more dangerous than any other drug. White's concerns were regarding the safety of these methods alone.

Finally, I think the community needs to know the direction of this article (reintegration into main topic or continuing as a separate topic) before any decent cleanup/expansion can occur

--Ngardiner 01:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

DXM's HBr salt is designed for oral ingestion. Common sense suggests that we err on the side of caution, both when trying these alternative admin routes (injecting, smoking, or insufflating) and when writing about them, or to at least acknowledge the lack of knowledge. But we should not assume that DXM is as safe/predictable as, say, heroin when injected properly or cigarettes when smoked. The experiment just doesn't seem to have been done or to be documented. White and his guesses cannot be the only authority here: that would only be appropriate for a DXM FAQ article. —Tarnas 05:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I may have written that section several years ago based on personal guesswork (which, if it was being actively discouraged then, many users for better or worse tended to ignore). It can probably be removed now. I will say that, while I may have written parts of the present article based on what was at least verging in original research, I did not edit it while, ahem, conducting such research. I would not be surprised if some users have done so, unfortunately. -- Pak aran 00:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It's toxic in a way that probably wont kill you but is still a bad idea kinda way. DXM has a high vaporization point and when burned winds up turning into toxic chemicals. If you try smoking DXM youll most likely wind up inhaling nasty chemicals like nitric oxide. I cant find DXMs hazardous material safety database sheet which could confirm this.

Vaporizing Dextromethorphan seems to be possible but not worth doing. The DXM Zine has a page about smoking DXM[1].

As far as snorting it goes, DXM is very harsh chemically and not easily water soulible. If you snort it youll most likely 1) not get high and 2) burn the hell out of your nasal lining. The Dextroverse has a page on this here but since the forum requires a log in ill just print out what a few posts are.

spud writes: It didnt seem like any of the previous posters actually have any experiance snorting DXM HBr, so ill give an outline of my experience.

1) snorted roughly 100mg of USP-grade DXM HBr (no i will not tell you where it came from)
2) screamed and cried (not boo-hoo my grandma died, i mean HOLY SHIT I CAN FEEL MY FACE BEING EATEN FROM THE NOSE OUT!) for about 2 hours, unable to breathe out of my nose
3) still hurt 2 hours later, very slight buzz, but that coulda been from some sort of adrenaline rush, because it certainly wasnt from the dxm
4) vowed to never try something so stupid ever again
5) shot some vodka, went to sleep (by shot vodka I'm sure hes referring to "drinking a shot" of vodka and not injecting it in case anyone is wondering)

vapor I have snorted DXM HBr. And my experience is similar to yours. (vapor is quoting spuds post)

The only I could see this could work is by DXM dripping down your throat into your stomach. Considering the burn and questionable effectiveness I wouldnt try it.

As far as injecting DXM goes, the only reference I found was a trip report on Erowid from someone who IMed 2000mg of DXM.[2] Of course he also injected 2 grams of DXM so I'm not sure if it was the IM or the extremly lage amount that produced those effects.

William White apparently was not aware of this at the time of writing. If you read his page on the FAQ about smoking and snorting DXM it's mostly just speculation anyway. Also remember that the DXM Faq hasent been updated by him in 10 years so always try to find a second source. --Arm 14:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________________________________

The article states that with hight doses of dxm "music becomes noticeably slower". I found this to be quite odd since it has been my experience with dxm that music seems to be much faster although the "choppiness" I can definately vouch for. Also music tends to not make much sense at all since much of the coherence of music comes from having an imprint on your mind of what came immedeately before. When I'm listening to music on dxm it's as if each part, even each moment seems like an isolated incident with no relation to anything that came before it. Also the thing where your brain can't seem to keep up with your eyes when you turn your head is, I believe refered to as "strobing". Another odd thing I notices was that, while I could still detect smells acurately, there was no judgment of preference. What I mean by this is that, smelling something like a dead animal, which usually disgusts me, I was able to tell exactly what the scent was but was not repulsed in any way by the odor. It's not just with scents either. The whole time I was on it it seemed I was neither happy nor sad, I just was. It usually took me about an hour after injestion to feel any effects whatsoever. I've heard this is because the disassociation effect comes primarily from the drug leaving you brain, or something to that effect.207.157.121.50 02:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey

Every individual reacts differently to psychoactive drugs. May I ask how much or what "plateau" you were on when you experienced these effects? Music for me I cant tell if it is slower or faster. The music is 'altered' but not in a simple speed kind of way. It's like you hear only the backbeat of a song and things like vocals and guitars are pushed into the background. Saying that music is slowed down on DXM is POV. Saying that music is altered is NPOV in my opinion since all that you persieve and think on DXM is altered. Saying that many users say that music is slowed down is a weasel term. --Arm 07:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

think about it this way- it dissasociates all input, so yes, audio would be effected. ----

..

Psudoephedine is also particulary unsafe when included in a product containing dextromethorphan. I can cause nerve dammage because the amount of psudoephedrine exedes even recreational doses if one wants to experience the dissasociative effects of dxm. Acetemenephin is also dangerous since it has been known to cause overdose. The toxins can build up in your liver and go unnoticed for as long as a couple of days.207.157.121.50 02:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey

Yes the article says this, why are you posting this here? I never heard nerve damage but hypertension, dangerously high blood pressure and very high heart rate are common problems in coming high doses of pseudoephedrine with DXM. Thats just the physical effects too. Mental efects are a whole different ballgame. --Arm 07:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Picture

Should this article have a picture of a DXM containing product which also has dangerous additives? It seems like if we have a picture it would be better to have one of the purer DXM products depicted, or just a chemical molecule failing that. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 10:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that would violate NPOV. Some (many) might say taking DXM beyond the recommended dose is dangerous. But showing images of products that are commonly abused by dexheads, well I don't see the problem with it. Except for maybe the copyrights/trademarks of the cough medicine manufacturer. --Arm 13:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The picture of the over-the-counter Robo cough gels is perfect. If we accidentally advertise a DXM product to take, that would be the best option. Back when I was a freshman in college, I took two whole bottles of those things (yes 40 pills) and had an amazing trip.

If I ever used DXM, as a poor-ish student, I would be inclined to use syrups, which are cheaper per dose. Of course I've never done such a thing, because if I had I'd be admitting to abusing a drug on a public website. :) -- Pak aran 18:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"Flying with the red baron"

Unregistered Wikipedians (i.e. IP-address-only visitors) have twice added "Flying with the red baron" as a term for using DXM recreationally. Of the 39 Google hits for that phrase, none relate to DXM use. I believe that it is either regional slang or simply someone's personal slang, but one or two people keep adding it to the article. It is my belief that it does not belong there, but I've removed it before only to have it added again. Is this someone's personal phrase for DXM use, or is this actually accepted terminology? I mean, I know that it's not accepted terminology, but... does it belong here or not? Peoplesyak 09:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It's probably a joke or trolling. --Arm 10:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard it. I think if none of us have heard it, it isn't notable enough to be in the article. Has anyone seen a brand name of "red baron?" I know some products are physically red. -- Pak aran 19:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no brand called "red baron." It's probably just someone's personal phrase. --Muugokszhiion 05:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This could be a real slang name seeing how many of the cough syrups are red so I think it should stay.

No Original Research

According to Wikipedia:No original research and other content policies, all additions to Wikipedia must have sources - that is, they must be previously published by a reputable source. This article is subject to many edits that add nothing more than personal slang, personal opinions, and other original research. So if you're wondering why I'm reverting bogus edits, there's your answer. Peoplesyak 14:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Robotrippin

Definitely merge, it's just a slang term for the same thing. —Keenan Pepper 20:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we should delete the robotrippin article and turn it into a redirect to non-medical use of dextromethorphan. There is no useful information in robotrippin that isn't already better covered in NMUoD. I'm recommending robotrippin for deletion. --Muugokszhiion 17:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but you don't have to put something on AfD if you want to make it a redirect. "If a page can serve as a useful redirect or be merged somewhere, do not list it here. Doing so only clutters AfD." —Keenan Pepper 17:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info; this was my first time using AfD, and I wasn't sure how to use it properly. I'll remove it and address the issue on the Robotrippin talk page instead. --Muugokszhiion 18:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge, as per mr. pepper. No reason for it to exist, on top of the fact that it's a misspelled neologism . . . --He:ah? 23:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see much useful information there. What can be salvaged from the article that would warrant a merge instead of deletion/redirect? --Muugokszhiion 02:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure . . . but if there isn't any useful info, it should still become a redirect, rather than being deleted. If you can't find anything in it that isn't here, don't worry about it. --He:ah? 03:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I extracted the useful bits of information from the article and added them under 'Preparations and their risks', then redirected the article. --Someones life 19:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Skittles

Article says Coricidin is refered to as skittles because of it's color, but the logic I've heard is because the coating on coricidin is very sweet, some say sickeningly so. This should be added.

This is a very low quality article

Though some parts are well written, this article reads much more like a "how to" guide for abuse than an encyclopedia article on the history of a specific substance non-medical usage. The message seems to be focused on detailing safe recreational usage protocol, riddled with weasel words and what appears to be original research. A complete rewrite may be in order. --NEMT 06:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Psychosis?

"Extending the duration of the DXM trip through pre-dosing (taking multiple "booster" doses throughout the day before the main dose) may bring about a separation from reality which has much in common with forms of psychosis: extreme schizophrenic hallucinations, such as hearing voices or music, seeing entities with eyes open, and experiencing a total breakdown of reality. Reliving or viewing of past memories is also common. Dextromethorphan becomes toxic at 10 mg per kg of bodyweight, producing vomiting, fever, and elevated body temperature."

It's unsourced and doesn't have NPOV. If it can't be sourced or wikified, it's needs to be removed. FerventDove 00:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A couple minor things

I think we should remove the in-line citation after the subheader "effects". It's all huge, and I think we should be using in-line citations to reference certain facts. Any objections? Also, one of the in-line external links currently marked 1 takes you to a site you have to register for to read. Also, I think the {{cn}}'s go after the period in a sentence, and have been changing it; correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks to all who have been working hard on this article! delldot | talk 03:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just changed the in-line external links to be consistent with the rest of our citations, so now the ref is #12, called "Story in Sun-Sentinel". delldot | talk 03:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with the removal of that reference in the header. Just find a place to put that reference since it's reliable, terribly thorough, and has a huge amount of valuable information. Citations, even cn's, all go after the period, so I have no objection. The story in the sun sentinel, however, isn't a reference, per se, it's an example. That's why I kept it as an in-line link. Jolb 04:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think an example suffices as a reference. For example if you say something like "There have been reports of drug abuse" and reference one of those reports at a reputable news site, that should count as a reference since it proves the point being made. As for {{cn}}'s I think they go wherever the ref is supposed to go, but I'm really not sure where that is. I usually just put it wherever it happens to look best on a case-by-case basis :) And finally, agreed on the "effects" subheader ref, although I believe someone (maybe you?) already changed it so that the actual reference address is contained elsewhere, making the link pretty short and more workable than before. Equazcion 13:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that the example suffices as a ref. Refs in this format go after the period. Thanks to the person who removed the ref from the subheader! delldot | talk 05:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Bold edit

After reading the AfD on this article I stopped by and tried to clean it up a bit. I merged the two sections on triple C and Olney's lesions into one, tried to standardise the use of "DXM" vs. "dextromethorphan", and changed the tone to sound a bit more encyclopedic. I also pruned a bit of information that sounded spurious, but I'm by no means married to this version so if someone thinks it can be further improved by all means have at 'er! Just please don't revert the whole thing; there are some good changes here along with my inevitable mistakes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flakeloaf (talk • contribs) 21:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't know about your post; some of it is good and other parts are bad. Why did you delete the whole part about the dangers of Coricidin? Coricidin overdoses are most frequently covered in the media, and that information is valuable. Also, you deleted an important ref that was cited in another place, so next time you edit, make sure to check that the references you're using aren't "ref name" ones. Jolb 23:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- The dangers of coricidin were repeated; I removed one instance and kept the other. I did bugger up the ref though, thanks for fixing that. Flakeloaf 23:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Not sure why this was changed"

The sourced statement later in the article claims therapeutic doses are up to 30mg. I had the whole article laid bare in notepad, and when I put it back together that sentence didn't survive; I didn't change it for the sake of making changes. Couch/sofa/chesterfield edits don't benefit anyone.

I said "some preparations of Robitussin" because earlier edits listed versions of Robitussin that aren't the thick syrup to which that sentence referred. Flakeloaf 02:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

William White controversy

I noticed that there is some controversy on the deletion talk page about William White. He IS a real guy. He goes by the nickname of "Bill."

He's a graduate student (a Ph.D. candidate for Neuroscience) at the University of Ohio.

He's the owner of dextroverse.org. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jolb (talk • contribs) 03:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I hope you don't mind, I went ahead and removed the contact info. I'm not sure he would want this up here, and I don't want his email to start getting spam. Another approach to verifying his existence would be to find published works that say as much (which I know you're good at from all the work you've put into this and other articles!). delldot | talk 00:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice

Good work my good sir =) -C6541 (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you (bows). Equazcion •✗/C • 03:44, 26 Mar 2008 (UTC)

A reference, is it true?

The paragraph that reads:

Specifically, the FDA considers the sale of pure dextromethorphan to individuals, or when shipped to residential or post-office boxes, as the sale of a misbranded drug, which is a misdemeanor offense. Often such distributors place disclaimers on their website or product, to the effect of "not for human consumption," in an effort to evade the regulatory authority of the FDA. This has been viewed by authorities as an "attempt to defraud the FDA," which then raises the offense to a felony with three years' maximum imprisonment.

uses the following URL as a reference: http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/research_chems/research_chems_law3.pdf

I read through that and didn't find anywhere that said an "attempt to defraud the FDA" was made and raised an offense to a felony. It didn't say any charges were upgraded to felonies. In fact, the DXM releated charge was for importing DXM into the United States by means of false statements.

Is it true that saying "not for human consumption" is a felony?

I think that the reference indicator should be moved to a point where everything leading up to it is supported by the reference, and only that much.

64.85.254.76 (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the entire statement. I'm not sure where it came from. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:39, 3 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Effects

I don't think it's technically correct to say that dextromethorphan triggers a "false positive" for opiates. It would be more correct to say that dextrmethorphan is cross-reactive with some opiate screening tests. What do you all think? --206.194.127.112 (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Opiates are cross-reactive with opiate tests too, that's what makes the tests work. The effect is the same either way -- a positive result on the test. The question is whether or not the result is a true indicator of opiates, or a false one. In this case it would be false, so we call it a false-positive. I don't see any reason to get more technical than that. The current wording is accurate. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I can surely understand why DXM can trigger a false positive for opiates. It's chemical structure is similar to morphine and other opiates.--Metalhead94 (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Red Baron

Stop adding the slang word red baron, this is not a crediable or widely known slang word C6541 (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Great work

Great work to all the contributors, article is well done. C6541 (talk) 06:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

risks

the risks section gives the impression that risk only result from combinations with other substances, while the article on dextromethorphan lists quite a number of possible side effects from non recreational use and mentions the possibility of addiction. shouldn't this be included here as well?Truetom (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot to be added. The possibility of Olney's lesions is a controversial subject and would be difficult to get good sources for it. While physical addiction seems impossible, anecdotal evidence suggests that some people do manage to get hooked. And there should probably be some mention of behavioral issues, habituation, and the like. 68.218.176.192 (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Psychological dependency is possible with anything.--SquareOuroboros (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

68.218.176.192 said that physical not psychological is impossible C6541 (talk) 08:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Massive Cultural Bias

This article takes the piss... it's extremely biased towards US society's habits. This shit hardly happens anywhere else, AT ALL, and yet the article is still begun with the sentence "DXM... is commonly used for nonmedical purposes"

Commonly used? only in the US 82.36.197.2 (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)