Talk:Heroin/Archive 2

Movies
Can we make a comment regarding the movie "Pulp Fiction" where they inject adrenaline in the heart, this would be useless and of course dangerous.

The most common way to treat Heroin is the opiate blocking drug naloxone which reverse heroin overdose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.220.139 (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Medical use - UK
I don't have an acct and don't really feel the urge of setting one up today. However, could someone please make the following edits. 1. cite the NHS (uk national health) http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/pregnancy/Pages/Painrelief.aspx article on pain relief in pregnancy. Diamorphine is regularly given to mothers in labour (and not for the article but just for your info there are three reasons. 1. it's good pain relief 2. it delays the chance of c section by request as the mother feels "better" about things, 3. It is reverseable with less side effects). Note, Morphine (which is used in the UK for mid range cronic and post op pain) is not given.

2. There is a bit in the UK medical section, where it suggests that hospitals switched to morphine. It's unsupported by the article published by United Kingdom Harm Reduction Alliance UKHRA - which is a pressure group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.36.35.131 (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And on another topic

3. Also should consider whether citation 43, "Toxic Substances in water" is really a credible citation, given the source is a k12 high school report by a pupil with no onward citation? If this is a quality citation, let me remind you that my son's homework says that oliver cromwell was a very bad man, does that make it a reliable citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.36.35.131 (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

4. Dosage info from the NHS for various opiates, including diamorphine. http://www.yacpalliativecare.com/documents/download70.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.36.35.131 (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversy with the controversy section.
The beginning of the controversy section reads as follows: "It has been claimed that sustained use of heroin for as little as three days can cause withdrawal symptoms to appear if use is stopped, and the myth that "just one shot will hook you for life" has been one of the many sensationalist claims made about the drug. A belief in its overwhelming ability to addict anyone who tries it is one of the main justifications for heroin's continuing prohibition."

There are obviously many perceived negative sides to heroine. I am sure there are plenty of myths and/or misinformation sensationalizing how negative a drug may be. However, I don't understand how anyone can pinpoint a myth as being a main justification for a drug's continued prohibition. It certainly isn't cited in the legal documents as the main reason. The main justification, or most negative side of heroine is opinion, not fact.

That being said, the statement in bold has a clear POV. It cites a myth as the main reason for laws against heroine, thus implying that the reasons for heroine prohibition are not based in reality. Since this conclusion is based on opinion, I suggest this section be rewritten. Aykantspel (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

etymology
Interestingly, the dictionaries give different sources for the name Heroin: Merriam Webster Collegiate attributes it to a trademark of that name from 1898, whereas the Shorter Oxford has: "German, formed as HERO (from its effect on the user's perception of his or her personality)"; Concise Oxford has: "C19: from Ger. Heroin, from L. heros 'hero' (because of its effects on the user's self-esteem)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.72.44 (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * None of those contradict each other. Bayer labs coined the named heroin, basing it on the Greek (not Latin) word 'heros', supposedly because it gave the person taking it a 'heroic' feeling.75.58.184.166 (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I always thought that it came from the German "heroisch", meaning heroic, and a pharmaceutical suffix -in...unfortunately, I can't cite that. 137.85.171.47 (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Side effects lacking citations
death! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.158.46.200 (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No sources are provided for any of the side effects,though for all we know half (mostlikly more) of them could be untrue or extremely rare. This is especially likely given the amount of poor research and misinformation spread by the government about various illegal drugs. To me this almost seems grounds for deletion of that entire side-bar until proper citation can be given. Also, it seems to me that the rarity of the side effects should be noted as well. Thoughts? -- itistoday (Talk) 13:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Seeing as there hasn't been a response for over a week now I've added the relevant tags to the sections; a 'citation needed' to the words "Side Effects" in the box, and a box atop the "Risks of non-medical use" section. -- itistoday (Talk) 18:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I say Bump??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.222.210.4 (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Suicide *or* Physician-Assisted Suicide?
a) I agree with previous note! The causal link between concealability and profitability is too tenuous to be stated as it is; that heroin is potent contributes to its profitability, surely, but that's not the only factor. The strength of the cravings its users have seems equally important -- the example by comparison of LSD (not physically addictive) is a good illustration.

b) As of now, the article says "The drug can be used for suicide or, as in the case of Sigmund Freud, physician-assisted suicide." This makes it sound like physician-assisted suicide is a discrete category outside the universe of "suicide." Would distinguishing rather between "suicide" and "euthanasia" be an appropriate change? Also, a link merely to "Sigmund Freud" doesn't explain Freud's connection to physician-assisted suicide. Did he practice it on patients? Did he ask his own doctor for an overdose?

timbo 17:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Tolerance may be more important for profit than anything. 5mg of pure heroin may get a new user really high, but an addict might need as much as a few hundred milligrams per day to be 'well'. If addicts only needed say 10mg per day, then the demand in weight would be far less and thus be far less profitable for safe. Peoplesunionpro 21:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The sigmund frued reference is also out of place as morphine and not heroin was administered to him.

bad link
Link [2] gives The Page you requested is unavailable. --MikaelRo 23:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Rename to "Diamorphine"
This article was moved from Heroin to Diamorphine without any apparent discussion or consensus so it has been reverted. As far as I can tell, "heroin" is the older and more established name for the drug while "diamorphine" is used primarily (or exclusively) in the UK as a generic prescription name. This would be analagous to having the THC article renamed to "dronabinol". The unscientific google test shows about 200,000 hits for diamorphine and over 17 million for heroin. --Bk0 (Talk) 17:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Diamorphine is the proper name in britain where i am from but since International Nonproprietary Names are supposed to be used it should be Diacetylmorphine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Right Honourable (talk • contribs).
 * No way. WP:COMMONNAME is very clear - use the most commonly used term as the article name.  Diacetylmorphine may be the most commonly used term in British naming institutes but what about the other 99% of the world's population?  Bk0's Google report above is quite clear.  —Wknight94 (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Totally agree w/ wknight. --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  14:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Its diamorphine in the UK, diacetylmorphine is the INN, issued by the World Health Organization, which has English, French, Russian, and Spanish variants of the word. So it is the correct unambigious medical name for most of the world though for WP the article should be at Heroin.GraemeLeggett 16:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, whilst diacetylmorphine is a recognised synonym for heroin/ diamorphine, an INN does not exist for the molecule.193.129.185.28 14:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. If we are to call this Heroin, then there should be Valium and Viagra... but no, instead we have Diazepam and Sildenafil. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.113.123.1 (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, Valium and Viagra (or Diazepam and Sildenafil) are sold under countless brand names around the world. It makes sense to use the generic name. As far as heroin goes, "heroin" *is* the generic name. "Diamorphine" is, to my knowledge, only used in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.15.21 (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If it is to be renamed it would be to "Diacetylmorphine" not 'diamorphine' which is a the British only usage. Besides "diamorphine" sounds too much like "die of morphine" / "die o' morphine" - I was having a conversation about morphine and someone brought up that heroin was diamorphine and they responded that "it is unlikely you'd die of morphine" etc. so it is a little too confusing in spoken language. Whereas saying "diacetylmorphine", well, no one will be confusing you thinking you're saying "die ass til morphine" because that would be a highly odd and peculiar manner of speech that would not be understood in any urban dialect that I am familiar with as having any meaning whatsoever. 4.255.51.153 (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It should not be renamed because of WP:COMMONNAME. Heroin is the most common name by far. Even in the UK most people would refer to it as heroin except for physicians who prescribe it for severe pain.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  01:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree Wikipedia should rename the article to "diacetylmorphine" and not heroin. Diacetylmorphine is its name and thats what it should be called. Tdinatale (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Popular opinion?
Should this article maybe also include a mention of popular opinion about heroin? As far as I see, there is no detail about it having a huge stigma in the highly developed world. Peoplesunionpro 00:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Why should we have a popular opinion? It's a highly addictive, dangerous drug. End of story Tdinatale (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a mess
This article is a rambling mess! It spans pharmacology, medicine, and popular drug culture. The drug culture needs hived off from the pharmacology/medicine into a separate article. Possibly "diamorphine" for the pharmacology and "heroin" for the drug culture? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.127.78.107 (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Agreed. This article could also be edited for grammar. There are quite a few long run on sentances that take up a few lines of text. Bbitu 02:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Why is there a paragraph devoted to one guy's oddball conspiracy theory regarding the CIA and an alleged link to drug syndicates? (uncited of course)? Deleted!

Hey guys...I third this idea. I see its been worked on a bit as far as separation goes, but I plan on going through at least the pharmacology section to fact check, add additional info, and try to section off the subject matter to make sure things are as coherent as possible. This is a very important article, since heroin affects so many lives, and I definately think it needs to be as informative as possible w/o being confusing. I'll post again when I go to make changes, and then I'll ask for feedback on what I did. Peace. Ohnoitsthefuzz (talk) 06:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of the sentence structure is a mess too.

I love this sentence ... "The white crystalline form is commonly the hydrochloride salt diacetylmorphine hydrochloride, though often adulterated thus dulling the sheen and consistency from that to a matte white powder, which however heroin freebase typically is." That is one hell of a terrible sentence. "which however ... typically is"?????? You have got to be kidding me. It reads like a sentence that was continually added to by eleven different people, each of whom was too lazy to just re-write the damn thing. [rob] 75.97.4.153 (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Heroin name question
(copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology) May I ask why the Wiki article is called Heroin instead of Diacetylmorphine, per naming conventions here? If you enter Valium you're redirected to Diazepam; why is the reverse true here? Jeffpw 08:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've wondered about this before, and I think I agree. Diacetylmorphine is the INN.  The counter-argument, of course, would be that "heroin" is much more widely used (there's a brief discussion on the heroin talk page where WP:COMMONNAME is cited).  It's not a current brand name, and would be better likened to aspirin/acetylsalicylic acid than Valium/diazepam, *except* that aspirin, while a genericized trademark like heroin, is now the INN.  The naming conventions aren't set in stone, but I think this is at least worth discussion. --Galaxiaad 20:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Does anyone know of any country outside the UK where heroin still has a licenced medicinal use? (Not harm reduction) If it is not used as a medication elsewhere, I don't think there is much of a rationale for using the INN. Fvasconcellos 22:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't found one explicitly named (but then, I may have to use a foreign word for "cancer" in a Google search). A search for "Diacetylmorphine cancer countries" brings up a US bill that states "diacetylmorphine is successfully used in Great Britain and other countries for relief of pain due to cancer;". Also, this news report claims it was approved in the US for cancer in relatively recent history. The word "heroin" is used in this and this paper discussing its use for cancer care. It appears that both lay and medical use of the word "heroin" is common, and yes, it is more commonly thought of as a drug than a pharmaceutical. Using the word doesn't promote one manufacturer's brand, in the way that Valium does. Colin°Talk 23:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's an interesting commentary re. Ireland; "Heroin for medical use is not available in Ireland though there is nothing in the Misuse of Drugs Acts that prohibits the prescribing of heroin. This is because, in an effort to reduce the availability of heroin, licences are not issued which would allow the drug to be imported into the country.". I think that clarifies the position for many countries. Also, see this for further European history - Alison ☺ 23:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a little off-topic, but there's little medical reason to use diacetylmorphine today. Fentanyl is at least as effective with a much higher therapeutic index. Even oxycodone is probably roughly as effective quantitatively as heroin at relieving pain and is more effective orally. --Bk0 (Talk) 01:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weighing in on this, I'd say the idea that heroin is going to become prescribable in countries where its currently banned is extremely unlikely. Newer opiates (opioids?) are far better painkillers, and don't carry the stigma that heroin does.  (Hydrocodone, oxycodone, and hydromorphone are the standards in US hospitals, and quite effective).  Not that people won't abuse them, given the chance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.15.21 (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So is the rationale for using the chemical name instead of the trade name to avoid promoting a particular brand? if so, I can live with the page name as it stands (although Heroin was a brand name at one point). I was just curious, is all. Jeffpw 23:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the reason is usually that there are many brand names in different countries (and within the same country), but the INN is used everywhere, so it's a good place for the page to be located. Probably the advertising thing too though. --Galaxiaad 00:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think use of INN in lieu of a brand name is primarily to discourage advertising; INNs are internationally unambiguous, and unambiguous article names are in WP's best interest :) Galaxiaad hit the nail on the head—it's a good place for the page to be located. However, given heroin's far wider recreational use, I'm not sure moving the page to "diacetylmorphine" would be a good idea; I can almost read the "what gives" messages on the Talk page already. Any ideas? Fvasconcellos 01:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is also good if the article name matches what people would use in other articles when referring to the drug. Mostly, we prefer the INN name for both the article, and also any references to the article. To rename it diacetylmorphine might give the impression that that is WP's preferred name everywhere. There are only 8 article-space links to diacetylmorphine, 15 to diamorphine, and over 1500 links to heroin! You can be sure most refer to non-medical use. The phrase "diacetylmorphine addict" doesn't even return one full Google page of listings. Colin°Talk 08:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Galaxiaad. Should we copy this to the Heroin talk page?  --Selket Talk 08:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Copied. My only other question is would a redirect from Heroin to diacetylmorphine be appropriate? Jeffpw 09:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you mean diacetylmorphine to heroin? It's already there.  --Selket Talk 09:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No. I get that the most popular name is Heroin. But the anal retentive part of me still thinks the correct name is diacetylmorphine. So I was wondering if the article should actually be titled diacetylmorphine and anyone typing heroin would be redirected to the article. I am happy to bow to consensus; I just want the consensus to say "We know it's technically incorrect  but we're doing it anyway". Jeffpw 09:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Such redirects happen automatically when an article is moved/renamed. Have a look at Requested moves if you want to pursue this. For such a significant article, which has impact outside of just this WikiProject, you'll need a strong consensus for moving it. I suspect you won't get this, regardless of any merits. A wider discussion may do no harm, though. Colin°Talk 10:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Question
Re It is thought that heroin's popularity... comes from its somewhat different perceived effects: What does perceived effects mean? Effects on perception during usage? The effects it is believed to have? Please make this clear. RedRabbit1983 13:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Requiem for a Dream
Why isn't this movie mentioned in the Culture section where it talks about movies about heroin addicts? 4.234.39.21 19:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Does it matter? Unless the movie is culturally significant (it has had a lasting influence on the genre or people's perception of junkies), any reference to the movie in this article is trivia. RedRabbit1983 12:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As it was an award winning film adapted from a book by an award winning novelist, it does seem culturally significant to me. I'll add it in and wikilink to the article about it.


 * Actually, the drug they use is never mentioned and most people assume it to be heroin. One effect of heroin is pupil constriction, in this movie though they clearly show the people's pupils being dilated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

The drug in the movie is clearly heroin. The acute subjective effects and the withdrawal shown are consistent with heroin, and inconsistent with any other abused psychoactive drug. Furthermore, it's referred to as "skag" several times, which is a common street name for heroin. Several drugs are used in the movie, and in one scene it's possible that cocaine is used (hip-hop montage shows a white powder sniffed with a dollar bill), but heroin is the clear focus of the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.166.166 (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Everything in the movie, from the injections, side effects, language, high(s), and withdrawals, point to Heroin. The one thing that does not, is they show pupils being dilated instead of constricted (mistake?). They might have wanted to go the 'general' route with the movie, but as the user before me said, many drugs were used in the movie but the primary focus was clearly Heroin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.51.3.194 (talk) 17:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect pharmacology
I removed a line saying that addiction and tolerance formed because endorphin receptor densities increased under opiate stimulation. This is definitely incorrect. First the mu-opiate(endorphin) receptor is a g-protein mediated receptor which means its pharmacology doesn't follow the standard ionic-channel model of up-regulation and down-regulation of channel densities. Second even if it did follow the classical model receptor densities would decrease, that way it would take more drug to produce a similar effect. The synaptic gap follows the probabilistic rules of brownian motion, meaning more receptors increases the probability that a ligand will bind a given number of receptors and fewer decreases this probability. What matters is the total number of receptors bound not the proportion of receptors bound.

Read this, we should probably even find a way to work this in as a reference. [] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.138.164.152 (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Symptoms of withdrawal or not?
This bit:

"though occasional use may not lead to symptoms of withdrawal. It should be noted that withdrawal symptoms from heroin can be felt after as little as three days of continual use"

is quite contradictory. Youlookadopted 04:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Occasional use may not lead to withdrawal symptoms; however, it can. Certainly someone will not experience heavy withdrawal symptoms after 3 days of continual usage, but rather feelings of anxiety, and the urge to use the drug.
 * --Tins128 18:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Occasional use is different from using it for 3 straight days, there is no contradiction. 24.65.42.159 (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

…In the lab, it takes a couple weeks of 3 shots a day before one gets withdrawal symptoms.…. I've read this elsewhere too. Nagelfar (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The grammar in this section is terrible. The facts are so-so, but the grammar is just awful. When I have some time I will get back and look over some of the pharmacology information as well. (I am a physician w/ a good background in toxicology and drugs of abuse)

Manufacturing section LSD info wrong
"Unlike drugs such as LSD, the production of which requires considerable expertise in chemistry and access to constituents which are now tightly controlled, the refinement of the first three grades of heroin from opium is a relatively simple process requiring only moderate technical expertise and common chemicals." LSD absolutely requires considerable expertise in organic chemistry, if not more so than the production of heroin.
 * The passage you quoted agrees with you, but I can see where that comma trips up readability. It could use some rewording :) --Klork 06:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Street Names
The list of street names is a little ad-nauseum, so why dont we relocate the extensive list to a sub-section of Culture, or something like that, and leave only the short list as seen on erowid.org: Dope; Junk; Smack; H, in the intro. Or the article could do away with the extensive list, and provide links to pages with more names, eg: http://www.intheknowzone.com/heroin/street_names.htm MrPMonday 17:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to put this somewhere on the page, or something like it:

some page --  Turtle  Boy  0  23:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

cocaine causing necrosis
In the current version of the article, under Usage and effects, in the paragraph about speedballs it states that cocaine can cause necrosis. however, this isn't mentioned in the cocaine article. if it is true it should be added to the cocaine article, if it isnt true it should be deleted.124.184.70.211 08:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Cocaine is a potent vasoconstrictor. Injection into an artery, e.g. in the arm, has a highly likelihood of causing ischemia and subsequent necrosis. Similarly, injection into subcutaneous tissue or mucosal application can cause necrosis due to "cutting off" the blood supply.

You can also see necrosis just from injection use of heroin, largely due to contaminants (bacteria, plant matter, etc.) resulting in fibrosis or infection.

Half life?
Every source I've come across states the half-life of heroin to be 2-8 minutes, NOT hours. Is there a source that claims the half-life is 2-3 hours? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.88.214 (talk) 09:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you please cite your sources for 2 - 8 minutes? You're being reverted when you change it because you aren't giving us any references and people are assuming that it is vandalism. So it would be really good if you could give the sources you have which say the half-life is 2 - 8 minutes. Thanks, Sarah 23:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2-8 minutes is clearly wrong. see . - Nunh-huh 07:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, 2-3 hours that is currently in the articles appears to be wrong as well and seems to be confusing it with morphine. There's also this  which says, "Following acute i.v. administration, heroin appears transiently in blood with a half-life of about 3 min. The half-life of heroin exposed to blood or serum in vitro is 9-22 min, indicating that organ metabolism is involved in blood clearance as well." The half-life cited in the article you found might be in vitro. Sarah 07:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect, looking at the article/infobox, that lots of things have been confused. For example, we give data on bioavailability (which relates only to an oral dosage, not intravenous administration), so perhaps dosage forms have been mixed together and the data muddled. (And an in vitro half-life really makes very little sense!). Also probably not being kept separate are plasma half-life vs. duration of action (heroin continues to produce effects after it's been metabolized, so the plasma half-life (the time it takes to produce an active metabolite) has little to do with the duration of the drug's effects. - Nunh-huh 07:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've checked with a few pharmacology people off-WP and they generally agree with around 15-30 minutes, so I think the 3 hours previously here is pretty clearly wrong. I've changed the article to read "up to 30 minutes" and used the article you found as the cite for now, but User:Ryan Postlethwaite is going to try to find us a better source to use as the cite. It would be really good to get some pharmacology people to work on this article because it seems to be a total, confused, mess, which is really unfortunate given it is probably among the more commonly read pharmacology articles. Sarah 01:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a Goodman & Gilman in my basement, and it would be ideal...sadly, I haven't the foggiest idea where it's got to. - Nunh-huh 02:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Both could be right: one isn't considering the fact that heroin is a prodrug. The molecule that is introduced into the body as heroin may exist as heroin for only a short amount of time (minutes), but the constituent metabolite of that same molecule introduced may have a lasting effect for several hours, first in the form of MAM, then morphine & then the metabolites of morphine, etc.... 4.255.49.109 (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

WHICH HALF-LIFE??
Are we talking about distribution half-life, blood (one compartment) clearance, CNS clearance, etc. These are all separate concepts and all can be expressed as a half-life (assuming second order kinetics).

Usage and Effects
This section currently has a tag that says it requires attention from an expert in the subject. What does that exactly mean? Someone with a past or present heroin addiction that can describe the precise ways of usage and the effects perceived? Or does it go around the line of chemistry and biology? Vicius 01:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Chemistry, biology, medicine and even sociologically. We can't publish original research (which is what first-hand accounts would be). But if someone with past experience wishes to work on that or any other section, they are most welcome to, however, they will need to cite reliable sources to verify their edits, rather than simply relying on their own first hand experiences. Sarah 23:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey all, I posted a couple paragraphs above, but I figured I'd put something down here too. I'm a doctor of pharmacy student, and in exchange for robbing me blind so that I can barely afford to eat, my school provides me with a huge amount of information resources. I plan on doing some digging in the coming month, and hopefully revamping some of the pharmacological aspects of this article, as well as contributing info to the culture/recreation use areas from my own experience and clinical evidence I have to support it (I know, no OR, I'll make sure I don't add anything that could be construed as that, and feel free to let me know if any edit I make isn't appropriate...I'm still kinda new to the whole WP thing, so I appreciate the help). Peace. Ohnoitsthefuzz (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Kurt Cobain was listed as a victim of a fatal heroin OD. Removed. (he died from a shotgun blast to the head.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.24.57 (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Regulation in the United States
Why is there no discussion of the regulation in the US in the Regulation section? Cardsplayer4life 22:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Heroin is banned in the United States for any use, including use in the terminally ill and in patients with severe spinal and spinal nerve root damage. These patients are generally consigned to administration of Morphine and its lesser effectiveness and concomitant side effect of chronic severe nausea. For these patients, particularly those for whom sure death and/or a life of severe an unrelenting pain caused by severe widespearead nerve damage, life is probably unnecessarily complicated further by thier being caught in the middle of a drug war which emphasizes panic and fear termed by addiction specialists as "opiate phobia". As one such patient, I can only offer the suggestion that any condition so severe as to cause a patient to despair of life itself as spinal cord damage on multilevels, to deprive any such patient of the means of a quality of life that prevents interminable suffering and suicidality, is itself a crime against the humanity of these patients. So, there is no "regulation" of Heroin in the United States, thanks to the sheer existence of non-patient drug users and the drug war itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.210.18 (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Heroin may not be available, but there are certainly opioid painkillers available in the US that are stronger than morphine (and even stronger than heroin). It's not accurate to say that the last line of defense in pain management is morphine, when Fentanyl, Sufentanyl and hydromorphone are all stronger than morphine and available. 76.180.19.14 (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Error in structure model.
I think I've encountered a minor error in the structure model. The bottom right bond should be double instead of single. Compare to the ball-stick model, and morphine's structure model. Unfortunately I don't have the necessary tools to make a new image, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.224.68.29 (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. Thanks for catching it.  I've switched to an existing image that is correct.  --Ed (Edgar181) 13:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Golden Triangle?
Is it appropriate to label the production section "The Golden Triangle", when production has never been limited to Southeast Asia, and has more recently crossed halfway around the world to Mexico and Columbia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malichai (talk • contribs) 18:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The manufactoring section is quite accurate, but completely lacks of references. And why a complex chemical explanation is in the section "Golden Triangle"? This part may need a clean-up. User:Giupio

Metabolism
In the article, under the "Usage and Effects" section, it states "Once in the brain, heroin is rapidly metabolized into morphine..." and "Taken orally, heroin is totally metabolized in vivo into morphine before crossing the blood-brain barrier..."

So, which is it? Is it possible to get an academic reference here? 64.230.37.202 (talk) 05:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's both actually. Heroin taken orally, as with any drug, is absorbed by the intestine and enters the hepatic portal vein, where it is taken to the liver. Depending on the drug, it may be completely metabolized by liver enzymes, not metabolized at all, or somewhere in between (which is the case with most drugs); this is called first pass metabolism, or just first pass. After it exits the liver, the drug goes up the inferior vena cava through the heart, lungs, etc, and finally to the brain. Once it crosses the BBB, cells in the brain take up heroin, and heroin also binds to surface receptors on the outside of cells. Heroin that enters cells in the brain is metabolized. Almost all cells (I think all of them...) are capable of metabolizing drugs with enzymes in the endoplasmic reticulum, but hepatocytes are better at it because of the P450 and other enzymes present in their ERs. When heroin is injected, it goes through the heart and lungs, then into arterial circulation, where it crosses the BBB and the same thing happens. This however leads to a much higher level of exposure to the drug, creating the rush that so many users seek. Eventually, as the drug continues through the vascular system, it reaches the liver and hepatic metabolism begins. As far as bioavailability goes (just for reference), bioavailability (F) is the total fraction of a dose that is availabile in the systemic circulation, defined by fa (fraction absorbed from the site of administration, eg gut, IM injection site, transdermal site) times ffp (fraction that makes it past first pass, i.e. the fraction that is NOT extracted and broken down). For injection, F is by definition equal to 1, since you're dumping drug right into the circulation. I hope this is helpful, and I apologize for writing so much, I just wanted to provide what info I could. If there are any more questions, lemme know, I'd be happy to answer. Payce! Ohnoitsthefuzz (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Addicitive mechanism and withdrawal effects
The present article text attributes "dependence" and the symptoms of abrupt withdrawal syndrome to reduction in the production of endogenous opioids, i.e. endophins/enkephalins. The is incorrect or at least a seriously flawed explanation. It is not that the body reduces or eliminates production of endorphins, but rather that the body adapts to the much higher levels in blood and brain of opioid (it seeks and reaches homeostasis, one of the body's "prime directives"), and when the external source (heroin, oxycodone, or other) is cut-off after the body has reached homeostasis, it is now again out of balance. Over days or weeks the body again seeks and finds homeostasis, now with the lower, endogenous level of opioid/endorphin. This homeostasis mechanism is what produces tolerance and dependence (the particulars are complex, as they usually are) to opioids as well as many other drugs. Simply the body learns to live and function with a certain level of a substance, and then must re-learn that comfortable level when the substance is withdrawn. It take a very long time for opioid abuse to result in serious reduction in endorphin production, typically a year or more of daily use. Tolerance develops in a week or so, dependence (as characterized by a substantive withdrawal symptomology) a few days to a week behind it and are the clearest indications of the mentioned homeostatis having formed.

Chronic opioid addicts thus have a hard time staying clean because their endocrine systems are not putting out normal endorphin levels and they often have long term mood disorders and suffer a host of aches and pains and sleeplessness. It is possible that in some cases endorphin production may never return to normal, and it can take more than a year (long after classic withdrawal symptoms are gone) in cases where endorphin levels do return to previous levels before heroin abuse began.

This is a fairly good article overall, but like most articles on 'recreational' drugs of abuse there are still a lot of user/addict myths and pseudo-science and mis-understood science peppered thoughout. This type of article should be edited by two people--an experienced user and a trained specialist/scientist, working together.Googlyelmo (talk) 09:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with whats being said here for the most part, but I'd like to add that a significant portion of the pharmacological mechanism of dependence has to do not so much with endogenous opioid peptides, but with dopamine levels from the mesolimbic pathway in the ventral tegmentum. The brain becomes accustomed not so much to the higher level of opioid, but to the higher level of dopamine present. This is supported by the fact that all physically addictive drugs activate the mesolimbic dopamine system in some way, and that drugs that do not (eg LSD, psylocin/cybin) are not physically addicting. I know it seems like I'm mincing words, but its an important concept to include in the discussion of dependence/withdrawal pharmacodynamics. When a person is using opioids for a period of time sufficient to produce physical withdrawal, current research seems to point that the symptomology of W/D is induced by a deficit of dopamine, producing the opposite of the effects of the dopamine release brought on by using opioids (pleasure), which is dysphoria and pain. Research also supports that upon cessation of the drug, the body actually seems to produce higher levels of certain endogenous opioid peptides, specifically very high levels of dynorphins. Dynorphins are agonistic at the kappa opioid receptor, and activation of this receptor produces intense dysphoria, hyperalgesia (literally, lots of pain), and some of the other unpleasant effects of withdrawal. This is by no means the only cause of W/D symptoms, but it seems to play a big role in how much withdrawals SUCK, lol. Like I said above, I'd be happy to contribute addition support to this article, and I invite anyone to feel free to ask me questions, I'll be happy to find the answer. Take care. Ohnoitsthefuzz (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I must colloquially concur with your second paragraph as well Googlyelmo. I've consistently read that "withdrawal symptoms disappear" after 48 to 72 hours or so. Yet having used heroin for a year and a half (6 months daily use or beyond: multiple times a day, from after that year mark); after having quit cold turkey, the worst of the 'phantom pains', unbearable physical pains, didn't begin appearing until after the 5th day (the first three days were the diarrhea and cold sweats with goosebumps and hot flashes, intense, nearly maniacal cravings for the drug, but not physical aches or pains) of which I could barely tolerate, and came at the same time every day for three hours a day in cycles at the times I'd normally be coming down from administration when I had used (those times in the day when I'd begin to usually withdraw from my use and need to readminister). In fact, as I type these words, my 8am intense pains are beginning that I expect to live with, tears in eyes, until noon or more, when they mysteriously vanish completely, (I may even have uncontrolled vomitting near the end of it). I have not read of this kind of post-withdrawal pain cycling; but from talking to friends made in detox, it seems colloqiually known within that circle. Perhaps there is a source mentioning this specific phenomenon and how long it may last for a user of a particular length of time. 98.246.62.216 (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Usage and effects
I have a problem with the opening line "Heroin is used as a recreational drug for its intense euphoria". It seems to me that describing the motivation of individuals as deciding to use Heroin simply because it feels so good despite the long-term consequences is both largely incorrect and oversimplifies the issue. The example I would give is that people barely making ends meet will often spend a great deal of money to continue acquiring the drug. The initial euphoria due to the use of the drug fades fairly quickly, leaving the user with a feeling of peace and apathy that lasts several hours. In other words, the drug changes the person into a needless being, physically but more importantly psychologically. A person who is not having their emotional needs met--a person who feels depressed and trapped--is far more prone to use and continue using Heroin than a person who is happy because to them, the risks are inconsequential to the benefits they experience. So rather than euphoria, it seems that profound stress relief is what grants this chemical its lasting appeal in that the drug can be used repeatedly to maintain a managable state of mind, or in other words, to allow a person to feel closer to normality.

In contrast, a person who has been prescribed large amounts of opiate drugs to deal with severe pain, due to cancer say, may in fact experience much of the rush and pleasurable effects of their medication, but often find it relatively easy to be wiened off their medication once their condition has been treated and has passed. This is provided that they are returning to a relatively normal existence free of extraordinary stress. So put simply, the allure of heroin, accurately described, is that it is dramatically more pleasant than the alternative for those who seek it out.

Kst447 (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with this criticism, people use different drugs for different reasons. It is useless to say that we eat food, exercise, smoke tobacco, use cocaine, scratch an itch, use heroin, use amphetamine, etc., all because of the pleasure produced by those various activities. Anytime someone does something they want to do, they'll be happier as a result. To say that they did the thing to experience euphoria is about as interesting an explanation as saying that they did it because they wanted to. If possible, we should be more specific. I've changed the sentence to say "Heroin is used as a recreational drug for the profound relaxation and intense euphoria it produces, although the latter effect diminishes with increased tolerance." The new phrasing sounds more reasonable to me but maybe it would be better to do away with mention of "euphoria" altogether. If the "euphoria" (which really just seems to mean "happiness", right?) only derives from the relaxation or stress relief, then this should be mentioned. I didn't do that because I don't know enough about the subject. A5 (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is the Chemistry?
I see very little, if no chemistry data whatsoever. Most chemical or drug pages have at least a reaction process that say morphine takes to get to heroin via acetylation; there isn't even a reaction process. The "Production & Trafficking" section covers essentially nothing. I am starting a Chemistry section in this article, more should be added.--Ddhix 2002 (talk) 06:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

slash
uh you should add in the cuture/literature/music section the book slash becuase basically all the book is about slash and getting heroin and how he needs it to write etc and eventually how he gets off it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.66.110 (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

cost
Economic impact and general cost of buying heroin / selling could be useful Sanitycult (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, in australian capital cities, one "standard unit" of heroin is $50. The cost of heroin almost never changes, but rather the purity of these units. Changing the price over such a black market would be near impossible, with dealers further down the distribution chain claim that prices had gone up, when in fact they might be increasing their share.  It's hard to prove decrease purity, compared with increased prices.  What sort of evidence could we use/find to support this? --rakkar (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Television section
What about Isaac Mendez in Heroes? He can only use his superpower when he's high before he figures out how to do it without heroin.75.68.246.87 (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"Glyco-Heroin"
How come it says "Glyco-Heroin" on so many Heroin bottles from the 1800's? Is this a name that should redirect to the heroin article, or is it a different type that should have it's own article or section? 67.5.156.91 (talk) 08:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

According to this page from the SUNY Buffalo Addiction Research Unit, it appears that glyco-heroin is just a mixture of heroin with a little glycerin and sugar to improve the taste. I made a redirect to this article accordingly. St3vo (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Asian heroin numbering system?
How come there is no mention of the widely used heroin numbering system? It is mentioned briefly, but not explained, in the black tar heroin articles at Black tar heroin. From what I understand #4 heroin is the kind found in the United States (both China White from South America and Black Tar from Mexico), and that is heroin hydrochloride. #3 heroin is the kind out of Afganistan and that is the kind found in Europe, which is freebase heroin. Can anybody with knowledge and sourcing add mention of this? 67.5.156.165 (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The entire discussion of china white and numbering is so self-contradictory that it should be removed until it can be corrected. First it's no. 3, then it's no. 4.  First it's pure, then it's cut with caffeine.  NoNonsenseHumJock (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It had nothing to do with caffeine I thought? Rather freebase versus HCl base. 4.242.174.50 (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Musicians
The list of artists who wrote about/used heroin is commendable, but the list could go on for pages. I see that there is a page on the Social effects of rock and roll but this has come to the point where the subject of drug use and artists in general (musicians, painters, writers, designers, etc.) warrants its own article, at the very least a stub. I would do this all myself, but I have never done so. But if anyone has the knowhow then feel free to start and I will give a hand where I am able. Poppyzbrite (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Krecker, human -- but not famous overdose victim ?
Why on earth is Joseph Krecker, son of a suburban Chicago police officer, linked with Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Layne Staley... it seems an attempt to memorialize this unfortunate kid, who if Googled, comes up only in citations of this article.82.239.57.15 (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Miriam, not a wikipedia registered user...

"Famous" as a qualification for identification of an individual who has represented media attention in the drug war, as well as in any sense, seems overplayed by the early collegiate editors of Wikipedia. When youth determines validity, and validity is based purely on degree of popular celebrity by a youth culture raised on television, the result is a skewed approach to the online encyclopedia which falters particularly on this emphasis. Perhaps, Joseph Krecker was the subject of extensive online coverage in the Eastern US as the son of a police officer. Most scientific white papers never recieve any public celebration or renown. This is the problem with the emphasis on popular media celebrity defined by youth editors of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.210.18 (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

LD50
Isn't LD50 usually expressed in mg/kg? What is the baseline for this measurement, kg or 75kg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.49.140 (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed up the reference after seeing your question; if you take a look you'll see it says between 1 and 5 mg/kg. Bazzargh (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Plot from Lancet
Many Wikipedia pages on drugs have the plot, which on this page is labelled "Data from The Lancet shows Heroin to be the most dependence causing and most harmful of 20 drugs." The article from which the plot is taken is not freely available, and even as a member of a university I don't seem to have access to it. If we are going to show a plot which condemns the behavior of a lot of people, can we at least choose it from a source which is open to everybody? That way, those who want to learn more can do so; at present the assertion demands blind faith from most users, which seems unencyclopedic and indeed unscientific. A5 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you click on the image, you can download a pdf version of the paper. If you go to The Lancet, you can read it either as a pdf or html file. Free registration is required. According to The Lancet, they are "the world's leading general medical journal and specialty journals in Oncology, Neurology and Infectious Diseases." The plot condemns no one. Becoming a heroin addict is what condemns them. Knowing that it is so addictive and so harmful, however, could reduce the temptation to try it. I was telling a friend about a former heroin addict, and they stopped me, saying, no, there are no former heroin addicts. Once you are an addict, you are an addict forever. Gandulf (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The chart really doesn't belong in this article. It was not meant to stand as any kind of authority on the harmfulness of heroin. It has zero encyclopedic value outside of its context, which centers squarely on how drugs are categorized. 74.178.245.217 (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It has every right to be in this article.Tdinatale (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why? Please directly address the encyclopedic value and the questionable nature of the data. 74.178.245.217 (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Because the Lancet is a reliable source. The encyclopedic value? It's a graph showing how harmful it is compared to other drugs. I'd say that means something. I'm also not following, what is questionable? Tdinatale (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Jesus. Clearly you didn't even read the article. Whom does the data come from? A vague panel of experts. What was the grading criteria? Presumably there wasn't one. What you should come away with at this point is that the graph wasn't (necessarily) intended to reflect an objective reality. And how could it? Physical harm is represented by some contrived linear measure, which is kind of absurd. If you're still not sold, read the article for yourself and come to your own conclusion. 74.178.245.217 (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I really, really don't understand what you're rambling about. It's a plot about drugs, what don't you understand? They obviously studied the effects of the various drugs, plotted how dangerous it is in terms of physical harm and studied its addiction (dependence). If you're talking about what they actually did to obtain the plots, I'm not sure, but as someone had already mentioned above, you can register at their site and read the report/study. Tdinatale (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, you didn't read the article. Your "input" is invalid. 74.178.245.217 (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The physical harm is based relative to the other drugs! What is so complicated??? Honestly, this isn't rocket science. Tdinatale (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Design a criteria for physical harm in which LSD is more harmful than MDMA. Spoiler: you can't. 74.178.245.217 (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow I just noticed that, also one thing to point out, heroin is relatively non-toxic when used at proper dose, how can this chart say its more harmful than amphetamine which is known to cause things neurotoxicity, even at therapeutic doses? C6541 (T↔C)  05:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd assume they're talking about long-term, recreational uses of each drug. If you consider it that way, yes heroin is by far the most dangerous. And back to your MDMA and LSD physical harm question, I don't know, but like I and someone else said earlier you can go to the site and read the report. Tdinatale (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a report, it's an article. And unlike you, I did fucking read it. Hence my objection. 74.178.245.217 (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to avoid a personal attack, which would be satisfying but I'll spare myself and let you see for yourself. IT CLEARLY SAYS:
 * "We developed and explored the feasibility of the use of a nine-category matrix of harm, with an expert delphic procedure, to assess the harms of a range of illicit drugs in an evidence-based fashion. We also included five legal drugs of misuse (alcohol, khat, solvents, alkyl nitrites, and tobacco) and one that has since been classified (ketamine) for reference."
 * Besides, that short paragraph is the summary, not the actual report (or study... my bad!). So, next time, get a clue, try understanding what they're actually telling you and don't ever swear on Wikipedia again. Have a nice day. Tdinatale (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless, these plots are useless, how do you rate a substance's harm when its variable for every individual? Another thing is that nicotine is far more toxic than cocaine, yet tobacco is listed as less harmful than cocaine. C6541 (T↔C)  20:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You keeping saying 74.178.245.217 (talk) that you’ve read the article in The Lancet. But if you have, why have you not provided any quotations from it indicating how the chart is being misused here in this wikiarticle? The lack of such directly quoted support for your claim is telling. All of which leads one to believe that your objection is perhaps motivated by a personal dislike of what The Lancet article and chart have to say about the addictive traits of heroin. Tdinatale, the usual pattern at The Lancet is for articles to become freely available within a few months of their publication. Thus, you should be able to get a copy and assess it for yourself simply by registering, which is free of charge. Finally, 74.178.245.217 (talk), your posts on this topic are violating WP:CIVILITY and coming close to violating WP:NPA if they have not already. — SpikeToronto (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * C6541, cocaine (snorted) IS more harmful than tobacco- for the love of god you snort a powder up your nose! - This leads to: difficulty breathing and the coughing up of blood among many other negative attributes. Leave it to the pros to judge what's good and not good. SpikeT, I registered but I only read the intro because what I was looking for what right there... Tdinatale (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How can you compare drugs using different routes? This by passes first pass metabolism, also introducing substances into the nose is not very safe agreed, but its not going to make you cough blood, maybe a nose bleed which is not serious. Snorting pure cocaine is probably not too harmful to the nose, its the cuts in "street" cocaine that one would be worried about. By the way cocaine can be ingested orally. And snorting cocaine does not change the fact nicotine has a lower LD50 than cocaine, its far more toxic. C6541 (T↔C)  20:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is honestly getting a bit annoying. Stop arguing for what you want to be true and just accept the fact that the people who write for The Lancet are professionals who know more about what they are writing than you. And most people who use cocaine snort it (yes smoking it would be healthier, but again, it more addicting anyway, so your point about different routes is not any more valid). And, like I said earlier, this is a plot about long term, recreational usage. Furthermore, nicotine is usually smoked in cigarettes, so they're assuming nicotine is in the tobacco, in cigarettes. From this method (smoking), overdosing is MUCH less likely (similar to OD'ing on THC from Cannabis) than snorting a drug directly into the mucus membrane of the nose. Any more questions? Tdinatale (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, why can't you explain without getting all pissed off? C6541 (T↔C)  22:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

doneTdinatale (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the deal with everybody who thinks they know more about medical science than The Lancet does, just because they took an intro anatomy course in high school? I don't get what the fuss is about. The Lancet is a world-renowned, peer-reviewed medical journal. You guys (looking at 74.178.245.217 here) think your trivial and uninformed views weren't considered by the endless psychologists, neurologists, pathologists, and countless other medical professionals who know endlessly more than you about Heroin? "Spoiler:" in England Heroin is used medically, therefore they probably have done way more studies and know way more about it than some junkie who nodded off with a needle in their arm. 72.128.67.81 (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Trivia section and cruft
This really needs to be toned down and purged of information of dubious relevance to this article as a whole per WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA. Heroin is a 'big' subject, and whether it has been the subject of individual songs or scenes within films or television is not really that relevant. The popular culture section should be made into an encyclopedic overview, in paragraphs, and sourced. Am I right?--Les boys (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say you are right.—  Ѕandahl  01:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Read through the article and thought the same thing. I see these comments were written in 2008; it's now 2010 and this hasn't been fixed. Oh well. I think the impact on culture and popular culture is important, but it does need to be written as paragraphs. Also, no mention of heroin and jazz? If no one else wants to tackle it, I can give it a shot in a few days, hopefully.  freshacconci  talk talk  14:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a wikipedia member, but I thought it was a bit ridiculous how many rock musicians were listed and no jazz musicians. Heroin was a major factor in the development of jazz, and many of the most famous jazz musicians were users, like Charlie Parker, Lester Young, and Miles Davis. John Coltrane famously kicked his heroin habit after having a religious experience. I don't know much about the wikipedia process, but this is something that should be mentioned on this page if so many rock musicians are listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.64.158 (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This article needs serious work..
I'm not sure who wrote this article, but it certainly doesnt seem as though they have actually ever used heroin at all. Since it impacts on so many lives, there really should be more practical information.

But then i shouldnt be suprised.. i had to write the page on intravenous drug use and there is still no page for heroin withdrawl / treatments.

I have been using heroin and other IV drugs for about the last 15 years, so i'm pretty qualified to talk about it. The main problem is that hardly anyone who is not a doctor knows what diamorphine is... Urban myths surround heroin, principally because of it's high cost due to prohibition, which leads people into situations where they are unable to save any money, yet alone get enough to eat.

I think it should have been decriminalised a long time ago. There are now effective treatments to get off heroin _if you want to_ the 'problem' of course, is that many people enjoy it and in my experience, it is impossible to stop using heroin unless you really want to yourself... not just because someone tells you it's bad.

Anyway, i'm going to do a fair bit of work on this article tonight, anyone's comments would be appreciated, especially those with a university chemistry degree, as opposed to a self-taught one.

Infernal.magnet (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

New Page Revamp
I dont have time to do the whole thing in one go.. so i'm going to post what i have done here instead and hopefully get some discussion going. I realise there are some spelling errors and lack of citation.

Heroin  (INN: diacetylmorphine, BAN: diamorphine) is a semi-synthetic opioid synthesized from morphine, a derivative of the opium poppy. It is the 3,6-diacetyl ester of morphine (hence diacetylmorphine). This chemical step is easily accomplished with the addition of acetic anhydryde. Pharmacutically pure heroin, the water soluble hydrochloride salt appears as a white power, with a bitter taste similar to paracetamol. However, most heroin sold in the world is brown, which is basic and requires the addition of citric or acetic acid to make it water soluble for injection.

Heroin is not the strongest opiate, despite what some believe. There are fentanyl derivatives that are up to 500 times stronger.

Opiates have a history of human use that goes back to the beginning of recorded time. Before the war on drugs, morphine was regarded as 'God's Own Medicine' because of the relief it gave to suffering soldiers. That is why people still wear poppies to commemorate WW2

I'm going to dispute this: "That is why people still wear poppies to commemorate WW2." It's not due to the fact that the men were using opiates for relief--it was because poppies were growing up on the battlefields and in graveyards in numerous amounts - because they required the nutrients (can't remember exactly which one) that was coming from the bloodshed of the soldiers. I hope you didn't make your statement in the article. There was also a lot of influence from the poem In Flander's Fields by John McRae and others. Jake Sinnott (talk) 03:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong and wrong again: The poppy was chosen to commemorate the dead of World War One because of the great masses of poppies that covered the battlefields, but they sprang up only because the soil had been disturbed, not because there were dead people in the ground. That is how the poppy does its thing - tiny, hard, tough seeds that lie dormant until the soil is disturbed. Churn up hundreds of acres with a massive artillery barrage, or dig thousands of graves, and a few weeks later you get a spectacular effect, which is what John McCrae was alluding to: the Remembrance Day poppy has nothing to do with opiates or nutrients from casualties Moletrouser (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Although the main reason heroin is medically prescribed is for chronic pain associated with such conditons as terminal cancer. Most people self prescribe heroin to relieve psychological pain, which is why there is a marked link between people who have suffered abuse and those who use heroin. Heroin also makes living life under adverse conditions much easier. When you have a heroin habit, the only thing you have to wory about is getting more heroin. To some, that may seem horrible, but to many people it is far preferable than being tormented by problems they cannot solve.

Heroin can be snorted, smoked in tinfoil (a practice referred to as chasing the dragon) or injected, either intravenously, or intramuscularly.

Once in the bloodstream, the acetyl group allows the heroin molecule to pass quickly through the blood-brain barrier, where it is de-aceltyalted back to morphine before bonding to the μ-opioid receptors. This rapid concentration of morphine in the brain creates what is known as a 'rush' of euphoria which is extremely pleasurable.

Heroin causes respiratory depression (although not as great as morphine), tiny pupils (mydriasis?), dry mouth, constipation, and a high tolerance to cold and psysical labour. Over the long term, it typically induces anhedonia, where heroin is the only thing that gives the addict any joy, although this may also be due to the way that society stigmatises heroin users.

Heroin has a half life of about 8 hours, before being excreted as morphine and it's metabolites in the urine. This is why an addict will need at least 3 fixes a day. Interestingly, the LD50 for heroin changes dramatically with tolerace. The world record for heroin use was a pakistani man who took 26 grams of pure heroin a day and showed few ill effects. (i dont have the citation for that, btw) =) I have personally never suffered an overdose and i strongly suspect that many deaths classified as overdoses are in fact suicides, since every addict knows how much heroin they need to use to get high and it is not in the interests of drug dealers to sell much stronger heroin on a local market, because it will cut thier profit margin and kill thier customers.

Addiction:

It is a lie that you can get addicted to heroin in a few days. However, it may appear that way when someone they know starts using heroin and doesnt stop. The thing that is never considered is that they do not wish to stop. Hence a distinction must be drawn between psychological and physical dependance. A common reason for the high rate of relapsing addicts is that they are still psychologically attracted to the solace that heroin provides. Another common feature of heroin use in the western world is intense feelings of self-loathing, combined with the fear that others will discover that they are a junkie. This generally leads people to take more heroin, not less.

From many years of experience, i can categorically state that physical addiction does not set in until the drug has been used continiously for between 2 weeks and a month. However, people can feel addicted sooner if they are using the heroin to cover up a pre-existing psychological problem.

There are also a number of legal drugs that are as, or more addictive than heroin. oxycodone is about as addictive as heroin, especially if injected and methadone can take up to 3 months to withdrawl from.

Tolerance:

Heroin tolerance has been greatly overstated, because of misunderstandings behind it's origin. When any valued item is in short supply, such as food, or water, the natural reaction is for people to gather more because they do not know when they can get it again. This can lead to increased usage, as can social backlash from family and peers. Contrary to popular opinion, most addicts stabilise thier intake at a certain point. (i dont have a citation for that either.. but i know it's out there. )

Withdrawl:

Heroin withdrawl is typically characterised by an intense craving for the drug as well as a violent reversal of, shivers, sweating and lacrimation. Because if the high concentration of opoid receptors in the gut, violent gastrointestinal motility can result in vomiting and diahere (ugh, cant spell that word.)

infernal.magnet

78.60.132.58 (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A lot of this is conjecture. Notability and proper sourcing are what dictate a Wikipedia article as there is no objective measure of informational correctness otherwise. For example "Heroin is not the strongest opiate, despite what some believe." You'd have to cite a source saying enough people believe it is the strongest opiate for that to be a notable belief in popular culture, not "some", and then a source saying it is not. Though that is quite a pointless circular exercise as it appears to be getting at the point of view concern about how the author fears others view heroin rather than neutrally putting forth unbiased information about the subject itself. It is not about the subject at hand but rather that is trying to achieve some ends relative to the actual topic as an unbiased collection of facts. The article is about heroin not how some believe heroin might be viewed and trying to correct that. We aren't trying to counter balance anything on Wikipedia, just give unqualified, direct and referenced sources pertinent only to the substance on the topic at hand. Nagelfar (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

More than simply a morphine prodrug:
I was reading that the 6-acetyl group on the heroin molecule remains attached to the molecule as it attaches to the mu-receptor and so increases its activity in a similar manner to the 6-keto group of hydromorphone and oxymorphone. This would make the effects of heroin more than simply a "prodrug to the systemic delivery of morphine" as the article claims but a more potent acting opioid in and of itself. Nagelfar (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you mean heroin itself is a more potent opioid? Clearly heroin is more than a morphine pro-drug - of course, 6-MAM is important in its own right - but I was under the impression that the 3-acetyl interfered with MOR binding (see Inturrisi et al. 1983), consistent with the low affinity reported in that paper for heroin in 3H-naltrexone binding assays. I'm not all that familiar with the SAR literature, but I'd be interested to see your source if it indicates otherwise. Best, St3vo (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I put this mention here in the discussion page rather than in the article because my information was only from some knowledgeable individuals on a forum elsewhere, rather than from a first party sourcing. Hopefully if there is some study which says as much I had hoped someone who knew and read my mention here could cite it and add the information, as qualified by other findings, accordingly. Nagelfar (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent addition
In removing some common vandalism, I reverted back to a version with some recently added material (see Heroin). The section reads a bit like a PSA (tips on how to spot heroin addiction in your kids, etc.), and I don't really think it belongs, as it is, in the article. However, the addition was made in good faith, and there might be some good information in there, so I didn't want to simply remove it. Could someone who is more involved in this article than I am take a look at this? Alexius Horatius 16:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Parental Help section is terrible

 * 1) REDIRECT Heroin

The parental help section is a real mess and needs to be cleaned up. It's just full of errors, and it's plainly bad writing.

If they inject the heroin along with the air bubble into their veins, it is almost 100% probable that it will go to there heart, and they will be killed, instantly. There are also many types of bacteria that are commonly found on the skin, and are not harmful on the outside of the body. However, if this bacteria gets into the bloodstream during injection it can also go to the heart, and kill them instantly. That's why a doctor will disinfect the skin with an alcohol pad before applying a shot or IV. Block quote

I also don't agree with this bit from the parental help section (not to mention it should be moved), but it sounds incorrect to me, and I plan to look into it. The effects of air embolism aren't as dramatic as explained here.

Actually, a lot of information contained in this section should not be there. This section should be focused more on what signs and symptoms parents should look for, reasons as to why their child may be in contact with the drug, and how they can help.

Jake Sinnott (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone has removed it but for the record, I also agree and I've left the person who wrote it a message. That section was full of errors and some of the material (like the advice to use cigarette butts as filters - cigarette butts contain small glass fibers which can damage the veins and heart if injected into the vein) was downright dangerous. It's large air bubbles that are a problem if injected venously, not small ones as the pressure of the blood generally breaks up small bubbles and absorbs them into the blood stream. But apart from anything else it violates numerous policies and guidelines, particularly no original research, verifiability and reliable sources, since the person claimed they were writing it from their own experience. Any material posted to Wikipedia must be encyclopedic and verifiable to reliable third party sources. Sarah 02:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Images showing the freely mobile acetyl branches of the heroin molecule.
There are multiple two dimensional drawings of the heroin molecule based on the fact that its acetyl chains are freely rotatable: (e.g., & ). I was considering it might be useful for three smaller two-dimensional images, each one third the size of the main two-dimensional depiction, placed horizontally under the larger image in sequence showing the different conformations of the molecule much as the off site linked examples I gave above. Nagelfar (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Science papers that could help to add informational content to this article.
Would anyone coming across such a paper please leave it in this section of the discussion page: I have found one that someone might be able to source and cite, adding worthwhile information to the article- Pharmacological study of acetylated morphine derivatives. Problem is that some are in other languages; this for example is in Hungarian. Nagelfar (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone please delete duplicate link
The article lists "Pupil constriction" and "Miosis" as two different things in part "Usage and effects" -> "Recreational use" (sic!). Please delete the ugly Pupil constriction ("pinpoint pupils") or redirect it to Miosis, since the link points to disambiguation page.

Also, as far as I know, morphine (as a Heroin metabolite) induces *increase* in number of μ-opioid receptors, not decrease. Decreased numbers of receptors would increase sensitivity to morphine, instead of increasing tolerance (which is the case).

My user has been banned by fanatic christian administrator (long time ago) in an attempt to censor all information about "Zeitgeis (the movie)" from wikipedia, so please someone be so kind to fix those errors. The page is still a !@#$%^ mess. 85.160.17.228 (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I was, and am, in a relationship with a heroin (now ex lets hope it sticks) addict. No one really talks about the every day things. I think some people should be educated that those who don't use needles use straws or empty pens (or make shift tubes) and foil to smoke, and how it smells (like putrid bar-b-que sauce) it is a smell like no other and defintly unique. How it takes someone you know,and changes them forever, into the person who smoked heroin,who had pieces of charred foil lying around everywhere, who eventually tried to hide what they were doing, but couldnt really bring himself to care. My whole point is that, yes, the person I am with did shoot a few times, but mostly he smoked, keep and eye out for tiny (pin point is the common definition) pupils, a thick musty smell (I always thought it smelled like bbQ sauce), an over easy going demeanor and of course marks from ash, or foil or a straw/pen lying around (look inside it will probably be coated and scraped later). Im just here to educate you, please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about being with an addict, or even being one yourself ( Hi my name is Kay, I am an addict, I have been sober for four years.) Please I would love to speak to someone with an understanding of what I am going through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KayAnn9 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not the place for non-cited sourcing of information, and the wikipedia discussion page is not for general discussion of the subject outside of how to improve the article that the page is on in an encyclopedic manner... However I agree it might be possible to find a source (a source is needed) that says what the smell of burning (smoked, pyrolyzed) heroin smells like. Only then could it be added. I have anecdotal experience and I used to think it smelt like bacon more than BBQ, but there is a definite similarity. A friend once said it smelt like an aspirin tablet dropped on a hot burner of a counter top, so it may just be a chemical smell of s certain molecule conformation when heated related to aspirin (does it break down into an acetic acid of some sort like heroin has as a constituent part?) I know on the west coast of the U.S., besides the acid acid (e.g. vinegar) smell/taste, a common cut of black tar heroin is brown sugar and molasses, giving the taste of smoked heroin of that sort a sweet, candy, like flavor in addition to the "bacon/BBQ" smell. We need to attest to this in a published source before it can be added, however. 4.255.48.67 (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is about Heroin/diamorphine in its pure form, the characteristic smell of street heroin is partially down to the core adulterants used. Pure diamorphine does have a smell when burned, but slightly different to street heroin. Once again, this is not sourced and eyewitness based. However, I do want to remind the both of you, that there is a distinct difference in the smell of street heroin and that of pure diamorphine with a common scent between the two that is not charcoal/barbecque based at all; the real smell of diamorphine has a slight resemblance to the smell of burning opium, however, far less punky, with a clear additional smell of the presence of an aceitic acidified base. All Afghan heroin exports are adulterated in the country itself before shipment, the Pakistan Anti-Narcotic force published its findings of a recent "First Class Heroin Shipment" designated for further adulteration followed by shipment to the United Kingdom. Their findings showed the Afghan to Pakistan heroin seized contained: (rounded to the nearest whole digit) 40% Heroin (diacetylmorphine), 9% caffeine, 13% phenobarbitone, 6% 6-acetyl codeine, 11% 6-acetyl morphine (not heroin), 15% noscapine and 6% Paracetamol. After the adulteration in Pakistan, the heroin was found to contain 70% of the former in addition to 30% pure paracetamol, other dealers may choose to use different substances and quantities, but adulteration will never cross the 50% mark, and for some family based dealers, the heroin is shipped unadulterated. Shipment from Pakistan to the U.K. is often direct, through air, or often through India. Shipments from Afghanistan to other parts of Europe is often done through Russia and Iran, where similar adulteration takes place, and Shipments of Afghan heroin to the America's and United States is often through Africa, namely Nigeria with the link being Afghanistan>Persian Gulf States(Dubai) or Saudi Arabia>(Nigeria to U.S. direct) or Spain(some to Europe, some to South America redirected to the U.S. mainly through Mexico). Some Nigerian shipments do end up in the U.K. as well, however that is mainly left to the Pakistani dealers. After arrival to the U.K. from Pakistan, the heroin is again adulterated, once again, the common addition is paracetamol, or in the case of heavy adulteration, pharmaceutical phenobarbital or other sleep/depressant agents are used to compensate for the low presence of heroin. Sometimes fructose or other specialized sugars are used too (particularly in Fentanyl or pharmaceutical based heroin), but never normal kitchen sugar as it prohibits/limits foil usage often rendering it as bad heroin. Normally, the addition of bad adulterants such as raw sugar or other agents that prohibit a correct foil burn are done by street level dealers who have little or no knowledge of the characteristics of good heroin. However, this is to remind you, what many people smell or regard as the scent of heroin is not just heroin but a mixture of other chemicals. It would be in the correct reasoning of this article to describe to scent of pure burning diamorphine, which is rare to find, and often sourced from pharmaceutical companies, mainly in the UK. Even Afghan heroin, straight from the Heroin synthesis labs, are relatively impure compared to pharmaceutical batches. But as previously mentioned, the real smell of heroin is a tinge of the burning opium scent mixed with a acetic touch. --93.97.181.187 (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * These purities are for European heroin, US heroin coming from it's south, also being adulterated, being I believe I have read an average of 30% purity (rather than your 40%). The cuts may be much different as well. 98.246.62.216 (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to the gentle lady raising the discussion of the smell of smoked heroin, this seems to have raised discussion of some commonly reported and observed presentation of heroin consumption via smoking. This seems highly feasible to the article overall since it appears that smoking heroin is its most common route of ingestion. However, perhaps High Times magazine or some similar "published" source qualifies as an evidence based approach to an online encyclopedia when "Google" listing doesn't establish sufficiently notable source materials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.210.18 (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move: rename heroin to diacetylmorphine
Heroin is a (now defunct) trade name for diacetylmorphine. The chemical's official (INN) name is diacetylmorphine and not heroin, hence the Heroin article should redirect to Diacetylmorphine and not vice-versa. This chemical is also referred to as diamorphine in the UK. The Diamorphine article should then also redirect to Diacetylmorphine (and not Heroin).

This may be a controversial move. However, I feel that it should be done as it is customary to have trade names for drugs redirect to the INN name, despite the fact that the term 'heroin' is predominant in laypersons' discussions, and even many medical professionals' discussions as well.

Jersey emt (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, double standards is a no no in Wikipedia. All drug/pharmaceutical articles should be synonymous with each other, and respectively, they should all adhere to the standard of calling the drug by its scientific/pharmaceutical name rather than trade, street, brand or marketing names. In this case, heroin serves as the latter, and diamorphine/diacetylmorphine would be more accurate as a title for this article, despite Heroin itself being a more popular tag for diacetylmorphine. --93.97.181.187 (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

How would we choose between Diamorphine and Diacetylmorphine? Avoid choosing by using Diamorphine/diacetylmorphine as the article title? Laurel Bush (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Diamorphine is a term specific to the UK. Diacetylmorphine is the proper INN name.

Jersey emt (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. The street name for an established pharmaceutical should have a redirect page from the street name "Heroin", and Heroin should not be the official title of the article ! This would be like referring to Asprin under a nickname - as the title of the Asprin article. The common "popular" name for a pharmaceutical is a poor substitute and checking its application in an encyclopedia that is edited by professionals in every category may help to clarify an appropriate approach as oppossed to the approach of an "encyclopedia" edited by anyone which is based most often of popular published sources in the commercial media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.210.18 (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal or Clarification of the Long term effects Picture/Graphics
Most of the long term effects, infact all, highlighted within the human based graphic in the aritcle are only associated with the IV mode of administration of heroin outside a professional setting. The collapsed veins, infections and the other long term side effects are infact the result of IV administration and totally unrelated to diamorphine/heroin itself. The same side effects are present in IV cocaine, methamphetamine and MDMA users. In a hospital or other professional settings where IV administration is used, such side effects are avoided, allocating the cause of the aforementioned long term side effects to be that off street IV use or unhygienic/nonprofessional IV use and not of the drug itself. Its highly misleading to claim the side effects of improper administration of a drug to the drug itself. Likewise, for heroin smokers or sniffers, the long term side effects would be bronchial or nasal based respectively. The real long term effects of heroin use, caused by the drug itself, is constipation, bowel problems, chronic mydriasis, alongside addiction, tolerance and behavioral changes such as low temper. Infact, most opiates/opioids, from codeine to heroin, carry little or no detrimental long term effects, hence for why they are favored for chronic pain and long term pain relief over paracetamol or NSAIDs as paracetamol carries a strong risk of liver toxicity and NSAIDs cause stomach problems alongside muscle/tissue breakdown. Can the creator of the graphics either re-emphasize that the long term effects are not that of Heroin but that of improper IV usage alone, or remove the graphic all together. Thanks. --93.97.181.187 (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The contribution above seems to make a very good point Laurel Bush (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Country-specific wording (ONLY UK?)
Is this true of only the UK, as seems to be implied by the article?:
 * Diamorphine is prescribed as a strong analgesic in the United Kingdom ...

Laurel Bush (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is a mess. Just fixed some wording
 * The medical use of diamorphine (in common with other strong opioids such as morphine, fentanyl and oxycodone) is controlled in the United Kingdom by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. In the UK, it is a class A controlled drug.
 * In the UK, it is a class A controlled drug.

is what I've added. Previously it talked about heroin being a "schedule 2 controlled drug" - (american drug laws. UK uses class A/B/C), despite it referencing to the UK Act in the previous sentence. (203.97.97.188 (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

Diamorphine may be prescribed as an analgesic by registered medical practitioners in the UK; it may not be prescribed for the treatment of addiction except by specifically licenced practitioners. I am not aware of any other country where it may legally be prescribed as an analgesic - can anyone provide a definitive list? Moletrouser (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Trimmed music list
i trimmed and retitled the list of songs/musicians. i kept the ones who had used and wrote about it. its still too long. if someone cares, put it in a new article, perhaps titled List of musicians who have used AOD and written about it in their music. heroin as a subject shouldnt be overwhelmed by cultural references.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)