Talk:Etizolam

'abuse'?
a lot of these drug articles label drug use for pleasure as 'abuse'. that seems to be a matter of opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarksmom (talk • contribs) 21:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

→→→Very sensible comment. One person's abuse is another's relief. Cannabis is a classic "abused substance" which relieves painful symptoms of MS. Why do people get so hung up? CUZ IT'S DA LAW DAMNIT AND UNCLE SAM KNOWS BEST AND NO SIR I WILL NOT GIVE UP MY PISTOL IT'S MY RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF.

gun abuse ≥ drug abuse anyway (sorry for the digression).

Oh, same goes for euthanasia where a gun could be used to provide relief. Sorry if insensitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.242.118 (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Half-Life
From, the half life of etizolam was calculated to be 3.4 hours with a standard deviation of 0.3 hours (active metabolite was 8.2 hours with a standard deviation of 2.1 hours). Further in the paper (nearing the conclusion), it is stated that "[...] the kinetics of etizolam are similar to other theinodiazepines [...] very short mean eleminiation half-life (3-5 h)". I would assume 3-5 hours is a more reasonable estimate, but would it be better to state the half life as 3.4 ± 1 hour (~3 times the std. deviation)?

Digi22 (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Discrepancy in wiki document
In top-right table, half-life is 6.2 hours. In the body of article, 3.5 hours.

Selectivity
I have added a 'dubious' tag to the statement that "Similar to other benzodiazepines, etizolam binds unselectively to benzodiazepine receptor subtypes." First of all, this sentence seems to suggest that etizolam is a benzodiazepine. Secondly, I see no justification in the referenced article for the statement that etizolam is non-selective with regards to receptor subtypes (in fact, there may be indirect evidence for the contrary, with a degree of α2-selectivity being a reasonable candidate.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjerrk (talk • contribs) 10:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

--98.24.12.181 (talk) 06:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Etizolam is -not- a Benzodiazepine
Quite a few bits of information relating to Benzodiazepines in this article. Etizolam is related, but is not Benzodiazepine.

Agreed. I think that is a good way to reference it - it is quite close and does bind to the same receptor, but from a pharmacological standpoint they are not the same.


 * It looks like there's some confusion in the law enforcement communities. According to the Connecticut Post, a man was charged with possession of a controlled substance for it: "He had in his possession Etizolam, a benzodiazepine that police said is not authorized for use in the United States, according to the report."


 * Is it relevant to mention this arrest in the legal status section? —C.Fred (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Fracasso C, Confalonieri S, Garattini S, Caccia S (1991). "Single and multiple dose pharmacokinetics of etizolam in healthy subjects". Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 40 (2): 181–5..

I think it could be rewritten "As a Thienodizepine, bearing similarity to Benzodiazepines, etizolam binds unselectively to benzodiazepine receptor subtypes."

---It is a Thienodiazepine, 1mg of Etizolam would equate to 10mg of Diazepam. They have similar action but it would be like calling a Barb a Benz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:A06A:4800:4D27:7198:CB79:1BD1 (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Substance controls in various countries
I edited "United Kingdom (U.K) - Not controlled as of August 2014.{citation needed|date=August 2014}"

How is this relevant to the article in its current form?

Fact is for me that I think we need to be straightforward with the facts, avoid astroturfers, until in the UK (and other places) things (may) change. Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.124.3.172 (talk) 09:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I updated the Australia section, removing all the previous text, as I visited my doctor yesterday and she had no record of the medication in the system she uses to write prescriptions. She was also unable to find the medication on the Therapeutic Goods Administration website. After doing some searching of my own, I only found reference to it in articles regarding counterfeit benzodiazepines coming into Australia, some of which were known to contain Etizolam. These articles, including one from NSW Health, stated that "Etizolam is not used medically in Australia". It is therefore a safe conclusion that the previous information was incorrect. --Pickles8 (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Molecular structure
There is something of an edit war going on here over which 3D model of the molecule to use. I won't get into the details of the dispute right now, but for reference, the crystal structure of etizolam has been reported in the literature. You can access the paper at [http://dx.doi.org/10.2116/analsci.15.407 N. Marubayashi et al., ''Anal. Sci. 1999, 15'', 407-408]. --Ben (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess I should say that I'm not saying that's wrong, no doubt it's right when you focus on the extreme details.. but will someone please explain why Springer (a very well known publisher of educational texts) uses the exact same style as mine in the Landholt-Bornstein database here if it's so very inappropriate? I'm sure everyone weighing in is far more qualified and bears far superior credentials than they do:

http://www.springermaterials.com/docs/substance/MJRKAJZYCIWMFSIA.html#

here's one of mine for reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Etizolamstick3d.png

Lazord00d (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The two structures under discussion are File:Etizolamstick3d.png and this. As Lazord00d notes, the stick model has the disadvantage of inaccurately depicting the resonant bonds around the aromatic ring, which the space filling model addresses. My !vote is for the space filling model. Along with Ben, two other editors expressed a similar opinion in an analogous discussion at Talk:MDMA. VQuakr (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Consensus will be difficult, as there has been some support for ball & stick as well since the space-filling model covers up a lot.. not only structure but large portions of atoms. It's impossible to have them all be 100% visible obviously. Also, regarding bond lengths, any difference in length between bonds on my models is not visible to anyone without an extremely finely graduated measuring device to assist them. My models appear to be identical in form to that on Springers site. You're saying that they're not good enough for an advanced chemist, which may be true depending on the chemist.. but what percentage of readers will meet that criteria? Very small whatever the number. If Springer feels these types of molecules are sufficient then so do I. It is possible to argue for or against any of the models here on Wikipedia, as they are not actual molecues, rather they are human built models. They all have different advantages and disadvantages. After considering these things for some time I decided that the 3d ball and stick with double-bonds as shown in the 2d formula (regardless of the fact that there are some deeper factors involved) will best help the majority of readers.


 * Lazord00d (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In principle I agree that ball and stick is better than space filling at helping laypersons picture the structure of simple molecules. Unfortunately the models you have created do not correctly portray the aromatic rings, and an incorrect ball and stick model is worse than nothing (and certainly worse than a correct space filling model). As noted elsewhere Springer is just using the JSMol plugin without any expert analysis or review, so the fact that their images are also incorrect is not a relevant factor here. VQuakr (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * How do you know there is no expert analysis before they build the database? That's 100% pure conjecture, which = 100% pure bullshit. I cited a well-known source which is all that is required of me by Wikipedia. Claims that my source is incorrect are just claims made by some people who have zero credentials next to that source. People who, even though they have zero credibility that I've seen, still feel qualified to make judgments against my content. Lol.. It is what it is :-) Told ya straws aren't very strong when you grasp at them desperately like that ;-)


 * Lazord00d (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You stated on Commons that you understood that the models were incorrect. Are you reneging on that? The website you linked is demonstrably just the JSMol plugin; your claiming that it constitutes a reliable source does not make it so. VQuakr (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

We *could* go back and forth like this all night you know :-) it only reinforces my belief that you and your buddies here have a personal issue with me and not an interest in content validity at all. Luckily for you I'm a LOT of fun and have found a few free minutes this week at work... Icited a source that contains data identical to mine, and it's a chemical database specifically meant to provide information on compounds and their structure, supported by a very well-known name in education. So it's obviously hopelessly unreliable and incorrect. Sure.. OK.. Please continue with this sensible discourse! :-) I have no idea how the idea of keeping this encyclopedia clean and easily understood is that foreign to you. Disclosing the details down to the finest is not required for learning at all levels.

As far as I'm concerned, unless it can be proven beyond all shadow of doubt that this specific, exact type of model is truly "less accepted" by people around the world of all walks of life (that's our demographic, Wikipedia's public) and will by their use lead readers astray in their pursuit of knowledge of chemistry and science, then the images should remain right where they are.

Lazord00d (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a comment from the admin that protected the page: As you both seem to agree that the ball and stick model is easier to understand for people like me, with no background from chemistry, why not focus on making the existing ball and stick model as accurate as possible? Surely that has to be the easiest way to stop this EW? Bjelleklang -  talk 12:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I am not sure if Lazord00d is willing to. --Leyo 13:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You're not sure if I'm willing to? Did you even once bring the possibility up with me? Why would I be interested in cooperating with someone who has hunted me from our first words and steadfastly refused to support their position? This isn't about fixing what I created, as long as the content here isn't created and/or dictated by "Leyo & company" then it's crap. Isn't that right Leyo? I mean thus far I'm the ONLY person who has provided backing for my position.. but still Leyo persists.. And Leyo vandalizes my images with UNFOUNDED deletion requests. He has been asked numerous times to provide citation and he refuses or cannot one of the two. I'm telling you it's not about accuracy or any of that. This is about who is making the images and the fact that I won't be pushed around. Lazord00d (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To address your criticism above: Springer chose a provider that may be one of the best for machine generating 3D structures of molecules. Inevitably they are not as accurate as structures that are created knowledge-based by chemists. PubChem as a related example is a great database, but contains several inaccurate structures (mostly 2D). --Leyo 22:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing that Leyo, I'm shocked even pleasantly surprised by the tone! Unfortunately I'm still not sold on all of it, stating that machine generated molecules are "not as accurate" as the ones made by Chemists would require some sort of proof as well, at least for me to buy in. Also, even if there are very slight differences between molecules drawn by Chemists and the ones drawn by machine, is it really such a great difference as to have all this noise about it? Idk.. bit of a strech imo. Seems the noise GREATLY outdoes the actual problem. To me that's another of many clues that this started off more personal than scientific. Lazord00d (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Try to follow User:Benjah-bmm27/MakingMolecules and you will be surprised on how quickly the “noise” will decline. ;-) --Leyo 08:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I'll bet. How does that not amount to hounding me to comply with rules that aren't necessarily the only correct way to create models? How about this: I kinda like the idea of not ever contributing any useful content to Wikipedia again. That option works best for me thanks.. sad too. I started a business years ago related to my username, and now we are one of the largest in our field which is very small and exclusive to begin with. I definitely have knowledge to share across a broad range of topics but Wikipedia truly seems more about who likes which person's personal characteristics than whether factual data is present. I have zero interest in complying with people just to make them feel "in control". If I was easily pushed around do you think the company as a whole would have been successful? lol.. I appreciate your reply Leyo but still it falls short. :-/ Lazord00d (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On the contrary it appears that you are not willing to consider "factual data" regarding your inaccurate and redundant models. Testem (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that your contributions related to laser would be valuable. --Leyo 20:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't doubt it either ;-). Lazord00d (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 January 2015
Replacing image of molecule (the image in question was already deleted on Commons, but the uploader refuses to say no).

Please remove this line:

| image2= Etizolamstick3d.png

And insert these two lines:

| image2 = Etizolam molecule ball.png | alt2 = Ball-and-stick model of the etizolam molecule

Jynto (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Really? You came along and undid cited edits of mine, replacing them with uncited work of yours claiming all the while it's not personal. It's been personal from you this whole time, you're just proving it with your uncited "revenge" reverts (which I'm fairly certain could be considered vandalism) along with the others. If this page requires protection it's from the likes of you not me. To quote directly from WP:Consensus:


 *  "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever."  Lazord00d (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and declined the edit request; since there has been no substantial discussion on this page in days and the request did not point to any consensus elsewhere it seems unlikely that any admin would add this disputed content back in through the lock. I suggest either establishing a consensus one way or the other at a centralized location such as here, or using a dispute resolution method such as RfC to get additional input. VQuakr (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Etizolam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090317092123/http://www.benthamdirect.org/pages/content.php?CDM%2F2008%2F00000009%2F00000008%2F0009F.SGM to http://www.benthamdirect.org/pages/content.php?CDM%2F2008%2F00000009%2F00000008%2F0009F.SGM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)