Talk:Zolpidem/Archive 1

Technical level
The article, even as a stub, strikes me as far too technical. I have no formal training in the sciences, but consider myself reasonably well-read and am usually able to understand journal articles. Yet I feel like I can barely -- just barely -- grasp what this article is saying about how the drug actually works.

It seems to me that somebody -- a person with better understanding of pharmacology and biology -- should be able to "dumb" the article down to an intelligible level. A degree in biochemistry shouldn't be required to understand an article on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.65.93 (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2005


 * Hmm...On second thought, I should clarify. I can understand why this information, such as it is, might be of use as a quick reference for an advanced undergrad, or whatever. But I think that an intelligible "translation" should follow, written for the layperson (e.g., me). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.65.93 (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2005


 * I also find the need to have a 'd i umbed down' picture of how this drug works. If it's supposed to help insomniacs how can it cause impulsivity and hallucinations?  Where does GABA come from? Is it manufactured/synthesised in the synapse? If so how does zolpidem work if the body has not produced GABA?  If not how does the body control the volume/strength of GABA? How is it trensmitted if it can't pass the blood/brain barrier? By CSF? By glial tissue? Is there any connection with GABA volume/strength and the circadian cycle? Don Nicol 11:30, 6 Jul 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.153.2.6  (talk) 01:49-50 & :51, 6 July 2007

Metabolism
Don't know if the chart can be changed, but if Zolpidem is metabloized hepatically (i.e. via the liver), then it is more than likely excreted renally (i.e. via kidneys/urine). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Limetom (talk • contribs) 19:03, 14 October 2005

IUPAC name
The IUPAC name for Zolpidem is N,N-dimethyl-2-[4-methyl-8-(4-methylphenyl)-6,9-diazabicyclo[4.3.0]nona-2,4,7,9-tetraen-7-yl]-ethanamide shouldn't this be the one listed?Bartimaeus 02:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Can't mention in the article...but...
It might be worth noting that half an Ambien can cause the mentioned effects under the Abuse heading, but will not put the subject to sleep at all, and thus no fighting is required. (I should know; I've done this a number of times.) Cernen Xanthine Katrena 09:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What about Ambien Zombies?
17 March 2006 - Ambien Zombies are in the news. Need to have a Wikipedia entry on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.45.53 (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2006

Sensations that could lead to abuse
When I took the medication all was well for many weeks, then all of the sudden, I became stubborn and decided it was actually a pleasant sensation to fight off the effects and remain awake. One of the common feelings as the ambien gripped me was the a sensation that can only be described as taut skin or stone skin that made me feel that oh so common side effect of super human. Every time I took it, I would detect a change in my perception of my own shell of skin, and the texture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiwhit01 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 24 March 2006
 * Indeed, I found that it causes some alterations of bodily perceptions - this is the "body high". The visual hallucinations and confusion and euphoria were more fun.
 * Also, I think I should mention that whoever said it causes a 'drug induced psychosis' is WAY off. I've used it hundreds of times and never been paranoid that they were out to get me, just confused. Someone change that, please. 128.250.152.110 04:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Despite the logic of "Ask the man who owns one", recreational drug users are not reliable informants about psychiatry. While paranoid schizophreniais a form of psychosis, the idea that there is no psychosis w/o paranoia is, well, pretty zany. --Jerzy•t 05:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I added the bit about Ambien CR&reg;'s street name. I figure that the name "A-" more than likely comes from the imprints the tablets carry. I recently received a prescription for these, and I found out the 6.25 mg tabs are pink, while the 12.5 mg tabs are blue, with both strengths being imprinted with an A~, which looks similar to an A-. --Drewamer 11:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I just injected 20 mg and had a ten mile run in the dark.  spooky bizarre visuals, but no anxiety, a feeling I was a superhuman sailor and everything was "ritualized" for me to master.   --76.105.183.62 (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Salon.com article
This |article describes a weird effect of Ambien. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.130.9.134 (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2006


 * Dead link. Nothing on google cache or archive.org. Anyone have it saved? 128.250.152.110 04:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Salon.com must have moved the article (pretty silly for a news site to do) because I was able to find it using their search program, but unable to access it with the above citation. Here it be: captbananas 17:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is fully 100% true. My brother totaled his Audi in the middle of the night and woke up being shaken by an EMT. He can't remember ever leaving the apartment, but he left his door wide open. Coolgamer 17:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Associated Patents
The article mentions that there are patents but the specific european/US patents are not linked to or mentioned. Also relevent would be the expiration date of the patent as this would spur introductions of Generic Ambien. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.84.181 (talk) 06:06, 8 May 2006
 * Content specifically relating to Ambien patent 4382938, which is listed on the FDA Orange Book site as expiring on OCT 21,2006, has been added to the article. That patent, is listed for indication "U-74,    METHOD OF PROVIDING HYPNOTIC EFFECT." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.255.159 (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2006

Treatment of "Persistent Vegetative State" patients
Nature today is reporting an "off label" use for this drug which bizzarely enough allows patients normally unresponsive to stimuli after brain injuries (i.e. in a PVS) to temporarily regain consciousness and communication. See http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060522/full/060522-9.html This story is likely to blow up pretty soon, when the "pro-life" people get hold of it and try to stop an incapable patient from having treatment withdrawn. I think SlashDot deserve a stab at it too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.55.73  (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2006


 * Here's another article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,1870279,00.html --BillyTFried 01:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Construed as part of this section bcz (unlike the earlier (June 23) edit that it was placed above) this one was a section edit targeted to the 'Treatment of "Persistent Vegetative State" patients' section. --Jerzy•t 23:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

South African Medical Journal
I added a cite to the South African Medical Journal about its use in PVS, which was the peer-reviewed source for the Guardian and BBC articles. I checked the NEJM article, but it was about a different application. I'll see if it fits into the article.

I wince at a phrase like, "Widespread reproduction of these results would herald a medical revolution in the treatment of PVS." I've seen it before in a lot of drugs that didn't live up to their claims. I usually see this kind of language in drug company press releases, or newspaper articles that copy from those press releases. Would anybody mind if I changed it to something less enthusiastic, or deleted it entirely?

More significantly, what stage of development is it in? Phase I trials, Phase II, Phase III, or approval by the regulatory authorities? Nbauman 13:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I've just edited it, I agree with your wincing. This sort of expression of "high hopes" for a drug are often (usually?) misplaced.  So I agree that some rewording (hacking?) is in order.  Further to the reference you just added, I found the following one on the Web of Knowledge.  It's one of 93 so far this year on Zolpidem, but it's the only one I saw that's about PVS.


 * Clauss R., Nel W. (2006) Drug induced arousal from the permanent vegetative state Neurorehabilitation 21: 23-28


 * It's not from a journal we get here, but the abstract makes it sound like it should be cited in the main article. Have you come across it before?  Cheers, --Plumbago 13:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. For completeness ... --Plumbago 13:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The content of the following box appears to be journal information that Plumbago quoted rather than wrote; in any case, it appears here via the edit they signed immediately above.


 * Abstract:Background: Zolpidem is an omega 1 specific indirect GABA agonist that is used for insomnia, but may have efficacy in brain damage. The long term efficacy of zolpidem in the permanent vegetative state is described in three patients.


 * Method: Two motor vehicle accident patients and one near drowning patient, all of them in the permanent vegetative state for at least three years, were rated according to the Glasgow Coma and Rancho Los Amigos scale before and after zolpidem application. Long term response to daily application of this drug was monitored for 3 - 6 years.


 * Results: All patients were aroused transiently every morning after zolpidem. Glasgow Coma Scale scores ranged from 6 - 9/15 before to 10 - 15/15 after zolpidem. Rancho Los Amigos Cognitive scores ranged from I - II before to V - VII afterward. Drug efficacy did not decrease and there were no long term side effects after 3 - 6 years daily use.


 * Conclusion: Zolpidem appears an effective drug to restore brain function to some patients in the permanent vegetative state.

"Fighting to stay awake"?
The contents of the following box were placed here, at what was then the end of the page (but then within the section 'Treatment of "Persistent Vegetative State" patients') by User:Ohnoitsjamie at 23:54, 23 June 2006, and given the edit summary "(moved from article page)": I would like to add to this. Stilnox Abuse is done more easily than one thinks. There is in fact no 'fighting to stay awake', Its nothing like that. What Stilnox does is it makes you feel great so that you will go to bed and sleep amazingly. And it does that. It works for me beatifully. Strangely, sometimes I take STilnox and I suddenly find that i'm doing very pro-active things which i asumed this would definetetely not make me do. Its a bit opposit of what I expected! I've been doing some really strange things that I would never have done otherwise, like I decided to make a bookcase out of cardboard for ym studies! --165.146.173.164 23:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)--165.146.173.164 23:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)--165.146.173.164 23:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Maybe I'll put on the photo of the bookcase I decided to make to get my studues uner ccomplete control ''The content was indeed removed from Zolpidem, and, in accord with the sigs within it, had been added there a minute earlier by 165.146.173.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · [ logs] · [ abuse log] · block user · [ block log]). --Jerzy•t 23:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC) '''


 * I agree that there is no sleep-promoting effect. There may be a sleep-facilitating effect, but not in the sense that a real "hypnotic" has. What it will do, however, is make you write incoherently, make spelling errors, and do repeated empty edits. Having had the dubious "pleasure" of experiencing brief reactive psychosis, as well as medication-induced psychosis, I would say that zolpidem is not causing psychosis in the true sense of the word. However, it can cause stuff like borderline formal thought disorder along with the vivid multisensory hallucinations, in a dose dependent manner. 80.202.245.183 22:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The multiple sigs do not reflect "repeated empty edits": the page history shows a single edit. It's likely the editor did three pastes of " --~ " without typing anything between them, and then wrote a bit more. --Jerzy•t 23:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate content?
Is it really a good idea for that to be in a medical article? Seems a little bizarre for people that may come on here to look for real info. Monty2 20:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Previously on Zolpidem (or talk:Zolpidem):
 * _ _ At 22:32, 26 July 2006 217.43.196.2 (talk &bull; contribs &bull; info &bull; WHOIS), whose two edits (both in that hour) concern Seth Putnam or his band for which he professed to have chosen "the most offensive, stupid, dumb, etc name possible"; as the final, one-sentence 'graph from the "Recreational use" secn, it linked, unpiped, to our article on the (indeed monumentally offensively named) band, and concerned a suicidal-sounding Ambien dose by Putnam.
 * _ _ At 06:33, 15 August 2006 207.195.243.146  (talk &bull; contribs &bull; info &bull; WHOIS) removed that one-sentence 'graph.
 * _ _ A minute later, they removed another celebrity 'graf (containing no clear indication of recreational usage).
 * _ _ At 15:23, 141.154.202.111 (talk &bull; contribs &bull; info &bull; WHOIS) reverted both deletions, and proceeded with a minor positive change.
 * _ _ At 20:15, Monty2 responded with the contrib above -- but used the offensive band name as sec'n heading!
 * _ _ At 19:03 the next day, User:Catawba (calling it a minor edit) summarized "Applied Wiki profanity policy to section title", in a section-targeted edit, and retitled this secn with "Appropriate content?"
 * _ _ At 14:51 3 days further on (19 August 2006), User:Avalyn removed the 1-sent 'graf again, (quite properly) suggesting it was pertinent to the band-leader's bio but not the drug article.
 * --Jerzy•t 01:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

half-life
It seems the 2-3 hour half life is different from a couple of kinetics studies I have read, which cite it as much higher (6+ hours). I wonder if anyone can clear this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.176.130 (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2006


 * i talk to this guy who has had hallucinations from it now 3 days in a row, he took 10mg 3 days ago —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.133.100 (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, and here's an article about 4 people, each with hallucinations, 3 days in a row, and no known history of sedative use! Do you think there could there be someone going around slipping Zolpidem into people's drinks? < /irony> --Jerzy•t 20:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I must point out that half-life does not equal effects. You can take a medication with a short half-life and notice effects that may or may not have anything t do with the substance itself for any amount of time. I took 40mg about twenty minutes ago, I will feel the effects and note my own odd behavior for a while after. The half-life will be gone in a few hours. However there are issues that would make this experience a bad one.

I use my computer all day, every day, Yet at this point I feel it s not doing the things I wanted, This is certainly better than the mild junk I usually do.

I suggest that an independent review should examine this And I suggest doses appropriate for inducing a situation that would determine the how and for what did the takers experience.

Endorsement
I read it and said "What superb writing! Everything you might want to know on one side of A4."

It may seem only technical but it is amply supplied with links which will take any reader in the direction they can cope with.

JK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.168.219 (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2006
 * For ignorant non-Europeans (i guess i count as one, since about my 1st three readings implied that there was a famous medical research center, so remote as to be -- presumably relative to London -- all the way across the A4 motorway), A4 is a writing-paper spec, slightly roomier than 8½x11. --Jerzy•t 20:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Registration mark (®)
Can somebody explain to me why you use the registration mark (®)?

Lawyers explained to me that for legal reasons, trademark holders are effectively required to use that symbol every time they use a trademark, in a work that's under their control, or otherwise they could lose the trademark, like Aspirin and Formica did. Other people who are not under the trademark holder's control have no obligation or reason to use the symbol. In fact, medical journals and textbooks never use the symbol if they use the JAMA style sheet. It makes it look like you're under the control of the trademark owner.

Do you want it like this, or would you rather delete it? --Nbauman 13:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Beats me. It was in there already when I edited earlier.  I've left it in, but it may just be an artifact of someone cutting and pasting from a drug company website.  Cheers, --Plumbago 13:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link to MOS:TRADE. I think it's clear that we don't use the registration mark. I just checked my Merck Manual and they don't use it either, even for drugs like Adriamycin, which you have to identify because it's used in abbreviations like "CA". The Merck Manual refers to it as "doxorubicin (Adriamycin)". Nbauman 18:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Trial description
"...single-blind, open-label trial..."

These two terms are mutally exclusive. However, I do not have a copy of the text that is referenced. Can anyone who does so please read up on the methods used and adjust it accordingly. --163.1.231.55 19:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It was a single blind trial. Fixed --Bilz0r 01:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

BZ1/BZ2/Omega1 etc...
What is this? 1985? Molecular pharmacology has definitely replaced these largely unhelpful, completely non-functional terms. I suggest that they are removed, BZ1 99% = alpha1gamma2 containing receptors and am editing this page accordingly --Bilz0r 01:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Difference between Ambien (brand name) and Zolpidem (generic)
I heard today from a pt that during their first month of using the generic, they woke up several times during the night and felt heavier in the morning when they woke up. I asked the pharmacist if this was common and she confirmed that some people had been reporting these new effects. If anyone else had heard this as well, would it be helpful to post on the article? I don't have any references, so I was throwing this out there until someone could back it up. Albert109 06:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.drugs.com/forum/featured-drugs/generic-ambien-vs-brand-name-42830.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert109 (talk • contribs)  06:38, 17 June 2007


 * [24 August 2007] I took Zolpidem (5mg) in 2001. After 28 days I was experiencing may of the side effects such as sleeplessness, nightmares, depression, paranoia and strange behaviour (I would get out of lifts two floors above/below the floor I wanted so I could check who was folowing me). It also affected my vision - I developed 'blind spots' but didn't realise it, which led to my pulling out in front of a car. I discussed these symptoms with my doctor and the doseage was increased to 10mg for 28 dyas; by the end of this period I was in trouble with the police and ended up with a criminal conviction which, in hind sight, was due to my altered behaviour whilst taking the drug. I can be contacted on rwrZolpidem at googlemail dot com; this email address will be disabled if I receive too much spam.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwr104 (talk • contribs) 13:45, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

POV issues
After reading the "recreation use and abuse" section I believe that some major editing is in order. The whole section stinks of biases and hearsay. Sections on recreational use and abuse must be written carfully. Terms such as "serious drug abusers", "young people" and any others that single out a particular group without evidence or are open to personal opinion (such as the line between use and abuse as in the case of "serious drug abusers") cannot be used without introducing bias. Aside from this there is the problem of the relaxed conversational tone used in this section. This entire section reads like a conversation between friends rather than an encyclopedia entry. Time permitting I will prune out some of the careless language and bias, however all users must be wary of sloppy and biased writting and help to keep it to a minimum. Foolishben 08:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In actuality, and despite the recent hysteria, Ambien has a very low abuse potential. Of Drug abusing patients presenting to our Urban Tertiary Medical Center Emergency Department, Ambien abuse is rarely an issue. I would estimate that opiate abuse is several hundred times as common a presentation, followed closely by abuse of the benzodiazapenes, Xanax and Ativan. In many people, use of excessive doses of Ambien is associated with nausea and vomiting, making it difficult to abuse, (See PDR or packet insert). RandyK37922, MD, Emergency Physician

RandyK37922 (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

On the Recreational Use/Abuse it should be clarified that Zolpidem after it's coating being removed is insufflatable but any effects are primarily due to the "drip" produced into the mouth and not thought to be due to contact with the nasal membranes as Zolpidem has a low water solubility and therefore absorption throught these mucosal membranes would be minimal. Yet some have reported that insufflation does make Zolpidem's effects appear faster than orally and stronger than orally but the duration of it's effects are decreased.

On another note, it has been found that when more than 10mg (prescribed dose) is taken i.e. 2x Tablets of 10mg that taking the prescribed 10mg the next night had a reduced or no effect.

Some users after removing the coating on the tablet (some don't remove the coating) place the pill under their tongue (Sublingually) to gain a faster onset of effects (some think there is a stronger effect than when taken orally also).

Threre needs to be some further research done on the administration of zolpidem intranasally to establish if it does infact absorb through the mucosal membranes and if so this should be quantifiable, if not then the recreational use sections should state that intranasal use of zolpidem is ineffective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountviewenterprises (talk • contribs) 00:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Permanent declines in memory and cognitive functioning?
Are there any studies that report permanent declines in memory and cognitive functioning after discontinuing use of Zolpidem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.15.157 (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Claim regarding abuse editted
After having read the claim saying abuse of zolpidem has been rising, especially high the Ambian brand with a link to the Erowid experience page of Zolpidem, I've erased the claim saying especially the abuse of the Ambien brand has risen with the link to Erowid which followed it. Erowid is an English site and none of the experiences on Erowid are written in another language than English. Because the only countries in Europe which are English speaking are Great-Brittain and Ireland, and because experience reports in other languages than English are not allowed on Erowid, it appears as if only the North American Ambien brand has risen in terms of abuse. This claim is definately not true, and the link to Erowid's experience page of Zolpidem isn't a reliable source to verify this claim, that's why I deleted both the claim and the link. Stilnoct brand Zolpidem has probaply risen even more in terms of abuse, as it's marketed throughout the whole world under this brand name, except for North America, but it's abuse has risen a lot in all Western Countries in recent years, not only in Europe, but in Japan and Australia as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.11.61 (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Europe and the Tea in China
I didn't change the page, I just thought I'd add my opinion here. I think the erowid link should be put back up. The reasoning for removing it makes no sense...this site would have ZERO content if everything had to be written AND have sources in ALL the languages of the world. Shall we delete the whole site because nothing is translated into Lur? Gurani? Syriac? Algonquin? Klingon? What do the languages of Europe have to do with anything? --67.42.127.21 (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Christina

Carcinogenicity
I have some real problems with the recently added section on carcinogenicity. The way it is written implies a proven causality between zolpidem and a raft of different cancers. The paper (which appears to be un-refereed and written by a long-term critic of sleeping pills) describes a meta-analysis of various studies in which cancers were incidentally reported among patients taking both the drug and the placebo, with the incidence of cancers higher among those on the drug. (It should be noted that zolpidem was only one of several drugs included in the analysis). The author himself points out that there is no proven causality, and that the use of trials which were not designed for this purpose leads to problems in the interpretation. I think reference to this paper should be included in the article, but claims such as zolpidem causes cancer should be deleted. Paul Fisher (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The paper was refereed and peer reviewed. See I agree that it should not say that zolpidem causes cancer as if it is definitively proven. I reworded the opening sentence to say "may cause an increased risk of cancer" which was the conclusion of the author.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  11:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I think your changes are appropriate. Regarding the peer review, the website states "A description of each unit's peer review process accompanies every paper". However, there doesn't seem to be anything accompanying the paper in question. It also looks like the author is also the administrator of the website, so the independence is a little bit in doubt. Anyhow, this is a minor point that I don't want to get into an argument about. Paul Fisher (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No arguments from me. I appreciate you raising these points. I think that they do need to be discussed. I see, perhaps it wasn't peer reviewed. I reduced the size of the reference in question in the article as its peer review status is in doubt and added in a peer reviewed article from the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine above it. At the bottom of the paper in question under acknowledgements it says the following; Dr. Kripke's research is supported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (HL071123, HL07156001, and MH68545) by the Sam and Rose Stein Institute for Research on Aging, and by Scripps Clinic Academic Affairs. I think the paper is still relevant as he does appear to be a serious researcher.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In the news = trivia
Am I the only one who thinks the "in the news" section of this article is not much more than a collection of trivia? Could we get it tidied up? Paul Fisher (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There being no comment on my previous post I intend to remove the whole section Paul Fisher (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

_____

I have been taking/researching zolpidem for years. Does anyone else find it ironic that zolpidem is simultaneously capable of CAUSING vegetative states through retrograde amnesia mixed with the inducement of bizarre behaviors that can lead to amnesic driving AS WELL AS aid those in pre-existing vegetative states? In addition, there appears to be some evidence that long-term zolpidem use may induce depressive states. Is there any evidence that zolpidem (an imidazopyridine) might bind to the imidazoline receptors (which can affect MAOI levels), therefore causing this as well as other mood-related effects? It seems logical that zolpidem's seemingly bizarre effects would not be entirely dependent on its benzodiazepine receptor agonism--- teddy feltlikealifetime@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.160.221 (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Please see this page Ambien CR and the Ambien CR talk page Talk:Ambien_CR. Does anyone have any views? Support or oppose? I support merging the two articles.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  04:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed Excess Drabble About Military Usage
I removed the extra garbage that followed info about ambien being used as a substitute no-go pill, because the information following it was a statement of what the air force uses as go-pills (dexedrine) and what they now use as a replacement for dexedrine (provigil). I removed this info because it's obviously not relevant at all to zolpidem. It was also worded poorly so that didn't help either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.61.44 (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2009

Can't make sense of this "side effect" paragraph
One of the paragraphs in the Side Effects section reads:

''Driving while under the drug's influence is generally considered several orders of magnitude more dangerous than the average drunk driver, due to the diminished motor controls and delusions that may affect the user. It is unclear whether the drug is responsible for the behavior, but a class-action lawsuit was filed against Sanofi-Aventis in March 2006 on behalf of those that reported symptoms.[39] Residual 'hangover' effects such as sleepiness, impaired psychomotor and cognitive after nighttime administration may persist into the next day which may impair the ability of users to drive safely, increase risks of falls and hip fractures.[40]''

That paragraph contains 3 sentences and I'm totally at a loss trying to relate them to each other. What is this paragraph talking about? Is there something screwy here? I'm not sure how to edit it. In particular, the first two sentences don't seem to be related to each other at all; what is "the behavior" mentioned in the second sentence? In context, it does not seem to be related to driving while under the influence of the drug, I don't think. The third sentence, while it does mention driving, seems to be about hangover effects, which also doesn't seem to be related to whatever the first two sentences were referring to. --24.189.101.122 (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I FELT NAUSEA AND VOMITING AFTER 30MG OF ZOLPIDEM,SO HOW'S ZOLPIDEM ANTI-EMETIC?

Downgrading this neglected article
I'm degrading this article from B-Class to Start-Class. The need to replace "now" by "as of March 2007[update]" in "Side effects" (where an event a week old was described) indicates such a lack of attention to quality that it would be unconscionable to let the evaluation stand. --Jerzy•t 14:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The date problem seems relatively minor and you have fixed it yourself. Does an error in one or two sentences in the article justify downgrading the rating for the entire article?  You are implying but not specifying that there are other problems with this article. Please be more specific.  Finally given the depth and breadth of the current version of this article, if there are remaining problems, a "C" rating would seem more appropriate than "start".  Boghog2 (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, i didn't even consider C bcz i somewhere got the impression that Start was the next step down. In any case, my logic is that a rating of B on an article with this kind of 2-year-old error means that the review that awarded the rating is either 2 years out of date, or was inadequate in the first place: The word "now" should never appear in WP for facts that are newer than 2000. ("We now know there is no luminiferous aether" isn't too bad.) But that was the case for the accompanying article, as is obvious to anyone who more than skims the old version of that single sentence and remembers the year 2007 from the same 'graph. I'll be shocked if even the C-Class specs permit ref'd statements of fact to be contradicted by their corresponding refs at the time of review: a misleading article with "depth and breadth" is a worse article than one that lacks them, bcz it its unfounded credibility is greater! (Am i negligent in not saying how much worse the same article becomes if it moves up to B-Class without elimination of the errors?) I'll applaud a new assessment that is based on more than assuming the last was well done and that articles don't deteriorate. (Don't forget, this is WP! BTW, i haven't checked whether the assessment is older or newer than 2007 March.) I guess i'm not interested in contesting whatever you do, as long as your ed-summ in doing so indicates whether you've done a de novo assessment, and, if not, notes the one you're restoring has been contested at Talk:Zolpidem. --Jerzy•t 19:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose the rating criteria could just be inefficiently designed, but i fear this distribution (from the pharm project page, and covering the non-stub-, non-list-rated 3/7 of the assessed articles):
 * FA   5
 * GA 25
 * B 398
 * C   50
 * St 949
 * might (besides suggesting a cause for my ignorance of C-class) reflect a pernicious sense of urgency to escape the scarlet letter C. That could promote objective quality standards getting the kind of inattention that the accompanying article has clearly seen; the standards you seem to be advocating should be expected to perpetuate similar outrages. --Jerzy•t 23:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In the midst of remedying a different form of neglect, i ran across the diffs for a 20:56, 31 May 2007 edit that jumped from unassessed to B-Class. Between the adding of the ref on the "now" sentence and that rating, there had been fifty-some edits from no more than 16 different IP addresses and no more than 13 different registered users. The "now" sentence and the ref were added in the first (and final) four edits of an IP user. Between that and the assessment, 6 editors had made section edits on the section in question:
 * 21:20-22, 14 March 2007 (registered), adding a subsequent 'graph
 * 16:30, 18 March 2007 (registered), correcting an apparent English-illiterate pair of words in the subsequent 'graph
 * 09:18, 22 March 2007 (registered), replacing TM with generic names in the subsequent 'graph
 * 00:30, 27 March 2007 (one-edit-ever IP), vandalizing
 * 21:11, 4 April 2007 (1st edit of an ultimately 3-edit, 6-week registered editor),
 * 12:21, 5 April 2007 (registered), repairing their own typo 3 min. after insert a sentence after the "now" sent.
 * Even if the assessing editor made the investigation i just did, i would think their vigilance level ill served WP: it's unlikely there was any reason to trust "now" editor, and careful reading of the sentence should have overridden any perceived reason. IMO it would be grossly irresponsible to either trust the old assessment, or discount the need for verification that all reference-bearing info for a new assessment improvement.
 * --Jerzy•t 23:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to realise that B articles by definition have flaws which is why they are rated B and not A, GA or featured article. It is only featured articles which are pretty much "flawless" and "complete".-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  05:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The following box-enclosed comment bears a false time stamp, being in fact the final version of 3 edits at 5:41, 5:44, and 5:45, and 5:46, as may be seen in the page history.


 * --Jerzy•t 06:29, 21  & 07:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's the details, which should be at hand for future'' auditors, and searchers for the revisions that are both mislocated and unsigned, on this talk page:


 * I think you need to realise that B articles are meant to by definition have flaws which is why they are rated B and not A, GA or featured article. It is only featured articles which are pretty much "flawless" and "complete".-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  05:44, :45, & :46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I began mulling my response while waiting for refreshes, based on the revision (IIRC, the 5:44) that caused my first edit conflict -- unaware of "the ground [still] moving under me" until probably a bit after 5:58 when i finally got all the windows involved in the ed-conf-disrupted reordering re-juggled and saved. And i think the directness of that first helped me crystallize the problem i see. It seems to me that the A, B, C mid-range assessments invites an expectation (despite GA and FA, and the bottom section) that there's something close to a percentage-correct level for each assessment level -- more or less as if "Mostly Harmless" were a valuable assessment of a planet. On the contrary, quantitative assessments of students are crucial where hundreds or millions of students are competing to qualify for more and less prestigious higher level schools or courses that have to limit their enrollment, but what similar need are our assessments filling? If editors can't progress beyond assessments that amount to estimating percentage of perfection, or percentile, or "It has to be a B, bcz my gut feeling is like my gut feeling when my assignment comes back marked 'B'", then one of first improvements should elimination of A, B, and C. A WP article is like a student assignment at all only in that it concerns knowledge and it is realized as a text. Every page where the assessment system is used like that is a page where the assessments have been turned into crap. Think architecture: there's underlying structure and there's a whole that is a failure if any part of the whole is unsafe or non-functional. You may estimate percent completion if you're skilled, but there's no percent quality to it. And the structure is crucial in another way: there's a hierarchy and a synergy of structural elements; they have to work together and failure in the more fundamental levels of the hierarchy ensures failure of those elements' connections at subordinate levels. If a sentence fails to express a fact, its degree of compliance in spelling or grammar contributes nothing to the quality of the article, because it's going to have to be discarded. (In fact, the hope of patching it offers two pitfalls: the effort to retrofit a new, accurate, meaning while minimizing discarding of the old language is likely to distort the result, and until that task is accomplished, the mis-expressed fact, or the false information, is doing harm instead of benefit to the users. If, as suggested, A and GA and FA are just progressively more complete degrees of goodness, the process is a waste. A B article should be perfect as to completeness, factuality, and verification of factuality. An A should add perfection of grammar and spelling. A GA should in addition be perfect in organization, so the logic flows smoothly, and likely subtopics can be easily selected for attention while ignoring material extraneous to individual needs. An FA should maintain all of those, and be a triumph of rhetoric, polishing the choice of words so the user just reads without effort and without any sense of how much effort has gone into making the function of the words unnoticeable. As i've already said, a mistake in an article is bad, but it's far worse to have a referenced statement that mistates what the reference says. It may be that that fault is easily repaired -- that extensive re-writing is unnecessary -- but such an article is for the time being a piece of crap, because it has not been validly assessed as even harmless; if it's been assessed as at representing its references accurately, clearly the previous assessment is worthless, and it needs reassessement in that aspect. If it was an A (or whatever level is assigned to what i've proposed as A), it probably needs assessement of its grammar and spelling only in the portions that are affected by the fixing of the statement of the problematic fact -- so the progress from Start back to A need not be a tedious slog. But a fault that has been previously missed should cast doubt article-wide as to the assesment of that aspect throughout the article. --Jerzy•t 07:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

light vandalism
Just want to let everyone know that I've deleted an inappropriate section from the page. Next to the symptom of suicidality was written, "[some people...one too many]."

Please keep an eye out for other slight errors in the event I something. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.77.14 (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Netherlands?
Why are The Netherlands mentioned as one of the biggest Zolpidem-using countries? What's the relevancy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.97.139.185 (talk) 07:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

error
"containing the α2 - and α3 - GABAA receptor subunits, and"

there is not a3. only a2 link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reference?-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  23:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding errors in this wiki, I use this drug and noticed two things. I the info I got from the pharmacy it says that this drug belongs to the group of benzodiazepine, so it's not a non benzodiazepine. Also, my doctor told me it has a half life of 10 hours, which is considerably longer than the 2-3 hours mentioned in the article.

I'm not sure about any other errors, but these are important enough for this wiki to be unreliable, especially the non benzodiazepine error. So ask your doctor about this drug instead of relying on this wiki.

I think this one needs a rewrite from an expert.

Ggkla990 (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No, the page is right. The drug's effects barely last for 2-3 hours. It's definitely not a benzo, but it's closely related to them. 120.147.67.15 (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where this oft-repeated mention of a 2-3 hour half-life came from, but the US NIH shows a time profile of zolpidem's plasma concentration which pegs the half-life at 4 hours for male subjects, and an updated version of the product information (http://products.sanofi.us/ambien_cr/ambienCR.html) states that female plasma concentration is "up to 3 times higher" than males from 6-12 hours after dosage, which puts the upper bound of the half-life around 8 hours. I will edit the article accordingly. 70.114.214.88 (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Why so many redundant pictures of the pills?
Ok, maybe someone wants to be able to identify the pills, but do we really need so many copies?--67.169.129.202 (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Large-scale studies of effect on patients in a minimally conscious state
The text states "Large-scale studies are currently being done to see whether it has the same universal effect on all or most patients in a minimally conscious state" and references (ref 27) Dziedzic J, Neurology Reviews, 15(9),September 2007. However, all this reference states regarding zolpidem is that "other potential therapeutic options for patients in a minimally conscious state, such as pharmacologic therapies like Ambien® (zolpidem tartrate) and Paxil® (paroxetine), or a combination of a pharmacologic agent and deep brain stimulation, remain to be investigated as well". Indeed, the reference actually describes a study of the efficacy of deep brain stimulation and can not be cited as documentation for the statement in the entry. I think the line should be marked needs citation, unless a more appropriate reference can be provided. --PloniAlmoni (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I now see that the ReGen web cite cites some evidence from the 4th International Congress on Brain and Behaviour. However, I have no way of verifying if the company's report of the results is accurate. If somepne has access to this paper (or any of the other studies referenced therein), they would be a useful addition to the entry.--PloniAlmoni (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * These newspaper and TV articles might be an alternative source for references: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/health/news/article.cfm?c_id=204&objectid=10738285 and http://today.ninemsn.com.au/homeandfamily/8266681/stilnox-miracle-story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.178.66 (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Has this text been removed completely? I don't know if the abovementioned studies have been completed, but I think there is enough citable evidence of its use in this context that there should be a mention in the article.  Here's an additional source. --71.135.46.149 (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I am a physician and object to the phrasing "recreational" use. When prescription drugs are used in a way other than intended, or when illegal drugs are used at all, it is not "recreation" (which sounds innocent or playful) but a crime. I never use the term "recreational" drug use and I suggest that the term has no role in the context of a supposedly scientific article. Robert Fields, M.D.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.167.195 (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Recreational Use
I've retitled this section to "recreational and illegal use" due to the note about its use in sexual assault, which really shouldn't be included in "recreational use". -12.110.4.50 (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That slang for being high on ambien is nonsense. "Lost"? That is probably just what one group of high school kids who are stealing it from their mom call it. Unlike like getting "dusted" or "wet" on pcp, or "tweaked" on meth, there is not really any widely accepted slang for the ambien high. Also, I moved the note about ambien being used by stimulant abusers for the comedown from "Off-label use" to this section--that is recreational use, not off-label. Off label means what doctors script it for despite it not being FDA approved for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.83.181 (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I Apologize. In attempting to remove the unsupported line about ambien slang, I messed up the citation for the previous line. I do not know how to fix this. Or it says "Cite error" where I deleted the line about being "lost" on ambien. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.83.181 (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Class action lawsuit
Is there any updated information on the class-action lawsuit related to Ambien? This article says that the lawsuit started in 2006. After this many years, there should be some resolution by now (or at least some activity we could update). ChemNerd (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I was researching this, and found the following:

" Ambien® (zolpidem tartrate) Product Litigation In March 2006, a lawsuit seeking class action treatment was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York naming sanofi-aventis’ U.S. subsidiary Sanofi-Synthélabo Inc. as defendant and seeking unspecified damages for harm allegedly caused by claimed product side effects. In May 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order dismissing the class action complaint in its entirety without prejudice. "

Source: http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Sanofi-Aventis_SA_(SNY)/Filing/6-K/2009/F3487616. This excerpt taken from the SNY 6-K filed Jul 29, 2009.

I'm not from a Legal background but I assume that means the lawsuit didn't happen? Perhaps someone who understand you append that section?

Also found this:

"After over a year of investigation and reviewing about 1,000 forms and other data from people nationwide, it was determined that there were too many different factual differences between potential claimants that would prevent a class from being certified by the court. The law requires common injuries and damages between everyone. In this case, everyone had a difference, whether it was their being on other medications or how they took Ambien; it was different enough to determine a class action was not best. Our offices always maintained from the start of this action that our goal was twofold: (1) to make people aware that they could suffer adverse reactions from Ambien that they did not know about and (2)to get stronger warnings about this drug. I accomplished that when I put this issue in the media and on March 14, 2007 the FDA directed the Ambien manufacturer to provide the very warnings this lawsuit demanded. No other office nationwide would at least take that responsibility. We did, and we got a result, and we did not receive any compensation other than accomplishing what we promised." http://www.appellate-brief.com/knowledge/class-actions/ambien

86.134.195.37 (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Fae is wrong. Footnotes #68 has been verified by me. The link associated with it is nonsense, so lose it
I still love you Fae. The Good Doctor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.9.216 (talk) 08:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a non benzodiazepine
I apologize, I added this comment to an existing post. I just signed up and misunderstood.

I use this drug and in the info from the pharmacy it states that it belongs to the group of benzodiazepines. The article says it's a non benzodiazepine. This s a critical difference.

Also, it says the half like is 2-3 hours. My doctor looked it up and it has a half life of 10 hours.

I think this wiki needs a rewrite from an expert.

Ggkla990 (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

-No, from everything I can find it is a non benzodiazepine. Your doctor appears to be wrong. Ayzmo (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

90% excreted?
I notice that Excretion is 56% renal; 34% fecal - which only adds up to 90%. Does the other 10% need to be accounted for, or is there a typo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.143.232 (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Why was the information on Sam Goddard removed?
With the comment "this doesn't belong here", this text was removed: "In the Australian media Stilnox was referred to as the drug used to produce surprising, yet transient, recovery in Sam Goddard, a patient who had suffered brain injury . After a 15 mg dose, Goddard is able to speak for up to an hour, while at other times he is unable to do so." Why doesn't it belong in this article? It's highly relevant and appropriate in my opinion. I vote to have this re-added. Mgwalker (talk) 04:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:MEDRS Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Experimental Use of Zolpidem
Zolpidem used in this manner (Crushed, Diluted and Injected) is ill advised by all medical authorities, Doctors are writing prescriptions for this medication on the basis that the Prescribed Zolpidem be taken orally and on a short term basis.

In regards to experimental use Doctors cannot issue the script... simply because in evidence based medicine they have no authority to issue the script, a Doctor is not going to put "Crush with mortar and pestle, dilute, inject" on a prescription, the liability would be terrible for the doctor, it's extremely risky and no Doctor in his/her right frame of mind would issue the script with the knowledge that the Zolpidem is not taken as directed and instead "abused".

The long term affects are not known from long term use of Zolpidem because it's not a drug that is issued on a long term basis, it's a drug that is trialled for a few weeks in most 1st world countrys. The long term effects of Zolpidem being crushed and injected into the patient intravenously or intramuscularly or subcutaneously are not known, this only strengthens the stringency in Doctors unwillingness to prescribe Zolpidem.

It's also important to remember that not a single pharmaceutical company that manufactures Zolpidem recommends this drug to be taken in this manner, in fact they all advise against long term use and in Australia Zolpidem is one of the only pharmaceutical prescription based medicine that has been given a "Black Box Warning" which is very similar to the FDA warning.

It's still in a very experimental stage and as I said earlier the adverse affects from this are unknown both short and long term.

What is known is that crushing up a pill and diluting it to be used in IV, IM or SC injections of Zolpidem is ill advised by the medical community - no doctor would write a script for an oral tablet if they knew it was being used in this manner. 114.198.4.136 (talk) 08:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Consistency between pharmaceuticals?
It would be a nice addition to have Countries Available, or Name of Drug in Country X, or something like that. I have seen this on some of the pharmaceutical entries, but not all. It's nice to know before traveling that a country doesn't even have your med on its formulary, for instance, in addition to the consistency factor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.144.30 (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Phenibut should be added to the list of GABA-b agonists at the bottom of this page.
See the article on Wikipedia here about Baclofen and it's less-reported but readily available in the US as a supplement steroisomer, Phenibut. This is powerful GABA-b agonist and should be added to the list at the bottom of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilslamer (talk • contribs) 18:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of photo
In this edit an image was deleted. It was an official government photo, freely licensed. Yes, it has a typo in it, but that is not a valid reason for deletion, given that the correct name for the drug is omnipresent in this article. Yes, it's small, but that's not a good reason for deletion either. If a better picture is desired, create it first, before deleting existing ones. --Lexein (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

"recreational use" is too damn big!
The medical section is like 2.5 times shorter then recreational section. That's just not right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.57.210 (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Date rape drug comment
I hid the completely irrelevant and unnecessary comment that alcohol is the most common date rape drug. Imasleepviking ( talk ) 02:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Zolpidem plus alcohol
From my own experience, Zolpidem plus alcohol hugely enhances the possibility of "blackouts" - periods when you appear to be functional, but have absolutely no memory of it afterward. This effect is well known "on the street" and in blogs, but I haven't seen a peer-reviewed study that confirms it, so I didn't amend the main article. Believe me, it's a major problem for the unwary, and, in the USA, the medication comes with a very clear warning of this side effect.67.170.238.175 (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

merging Intermezzo (zolpidem titrate) with Zolpidem page?
In looking at the Intermezzo (zolpidem titrate) page, there is a heading at the top that suggests the page should be merged with Zolpidem since 12/2011. Is this heading outdated, or should it be addressed? Perhaps a note at the top saying something along the lines of "Click Zolpidem if you are looking for information on the general medication category. Intermezzo is a name brand manufactured version of Zolpidem that is both sublingual and at a lower dosage than previously released versions of zolpidem." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arope28 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should be merged. Testem (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Erowid
An IP is challenging the Erowid link we currently have in the external links section on the ground that it "adds nothing" to the article. Being that the Erowid vault contains information such extra details on its legal status, first hand experiences, and pill images, I can only assume the IP editor hasn't thoroughly read the page. It's worth mentioning that Erowid is linked over 1500 times on various psychoactive drug pages and has been discussed numerous times in the past with a general consensus that it's a worthwhile compendium of information, so I also assume the editor isn't familiar with Erowid's history. The IP has made 3 reversions and I have made two, so I'd appreciate if someone else got involved. N o f o rmation Talk  03:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Links on user talk pages, article talk pages, AfD pages, and other similar non-article pages is not "1500 times on various psychoactive drug pages". And please provide us a link to the "general consensus that it's a worthwhile compendium of information". Also please provide us evidence of your claim that the website is "one of the oldest and best resources". And finally, please assume good faith and stop assuming what others have or have not read. The rest of us could just as easily assume you are motivated to spam the website, but that's not a tactic I used in removing the spam. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be a stupid assumption considering in my ~10k edits this is the only time I've ever dealt with Erowid here. Anyway: no thank you, if you're interested you're welcome to find the previous discussions but it's not worth my time as I'm quite sure other editors who watch this page are familiar with Erowid and will support re-adding the link.  And if not, so be it, no skin off of my ass.   N o f o rmation  Talk  03:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I fully support re adding the link. Erowid is a fantastic resource on recreational use. I am surprised that someone with any knowledge of the subject would suggest otherwise. Testem (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"no thank you, if you're interested you're welcome to find the previous discussions but it's not worth my time": Then please don't make claims that you're not willing to back up. I could claim that the moon is made of cheese and add that to Moon, but that doesn't make it true. We are left with the conclusion that your claims have no basis in reality. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're missing my point. I don't have an obligation to demonstrate to your satisfaction that the link belongs.  Rather, I'm confident that other editors, e.g. User:Testem, are already aware of the relevant arguments and will support readding the link.  When I say it's not worth my time, I mean that I believe that whether I convince you or not is of no consequence to whether the link will be readded.  This discussion was a courtesy and a mere formality; I already pointed out three areas on the Erowid page that contain information not in our article (the legal status info alone makes the page sufficient to include per WP:EL) and you ignored them.  Ho hum, perhaps User:MastCell or User:Jmh649 would care to chime in since they are regular editors on medical topics.   N o f o rmation  Talk  02:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No I fully get your point. You're waiting for other editors to provide your evidence that so far you have failed to provide. This discussion is more than a "courtesy and a mere formality"; it is a consensus discussion (please take the time to read WP:CON). And by the way, please refrain from making false warnings on user talk pages, per WP:CIVIL. Ho hum. Thank you. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, I have pointed out three areas of the site that provide information not present in our article and which would be too detailed to provide (e.g. the long list dealing with legal status). When I say that this discussion is a formality and a courtesy, I mean that I'm confident that when other editors glance at the situation they will grasp this without the need for a protracted discussion; clearly you are not familiar with Erowid, but the point is that I know others are. Regarding the warning, you are edit warring and I am required to provide you with a 3RR warning before reporting at WP:3RRN, should that become necessary.  If you revert another editor, it will become necessary.   N o f o rmation  Talk  03:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to point out that the warning on your talk page, was entirely valid. Although you have not reverted anything three times, you are edit warring. Testem (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your edit
 * (Undid revision 594209036 by Testem (talk) No one has made slightest effort to substantiate this is a worthwhile nonspam link. Removing it pending consensus otherwise. 2 opinions are not consensus.)

I clearly substantiated the reasons for the link's inclusion in the article in my edit reversion, and User:Noformation has here. The link contains substantial information about recreational use of zolpidem. You have failed to provide any reason that it might be spam. For starters, erowid is not a vendor site. I am sure that User:Exercisephys will also contribute to a constructive consensus if you are not happy being disagreed with 2:1. Testem (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm... perhaps what thinks is this somehow objectionable because of its recreational use.
 * Actually, Wikipedia is not censored. As long as it provides factual information and not promotional (i.e., serves only to advertize buying a specific brand of zolpidem) it's probably OK. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm... perhaps can't read my mind as he thinks he can. I have never even suggested that I object to information about recreational use, and such wild assumptions are contrary to WP:AGF. Please restrict your comments to the content of the article rather than editors. Thank you. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I responded below. I would like to also point out that the IP is likely from Herndon, VA, a suburb in which many DEA agents and other federal officers live. We've had problems with biased edits by such IPs on the Drug Enforcement Administration article. Exercisephys (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again, STOP IT with the false assumptions. Take one second to actually look at the geolocate for my IP: http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/107.15.200.87. Exercisephys, you absurdly LEAPED to the conclusion that someone who disagrees with you has sinister motives without a shred of evidence. One more of these false attacks and this sadly will expand from a normal consensus discussion to WP:ANI. Thanks to the one or two people here who haven't assumed that all IPs are malicious. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Consensus
Remain - The link to erowid should remain because it contains valuable information about recreational use. There are no advertisements or sales pitches on the site. Testem (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'm more conflicted now that I realize that this is the Zolpidem article and not the Erowid article. I support leaving it for now, but I think we should have a community discussion about this and come to a consensus. (As mentioned above, I find this IP sketchy.) Exercisephys (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * And Excercisephys, what exactly is "sketchy" about the IP other than your wild and false assumption that he is affiliated with the DEA? Or is it just that you simply can't tolerate anyone disagreeing with you? 107.15.200.87 (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * , it's because you came out of nowhere as an anonymous IP and very strongly demanded a specific change that supports anti-drug efforts. After perusing your recent edits (which I should have done previously), it seems like you're rather a compulsive fight-starter. I'm too lazy to find pages aside from this and this, but please learn the proper tone of discourse (calm, open to new information, collaborative), and don't use Wikipedia as an intellectual fight club. Exercisephys (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I fail to grasp your defense of your personal attacks. Arguing that "coming out of nowhere" is a sound basis for utterly absurd and baseless accusations is probably the weakest argument for a personal attack I have ever read. And as if unfounded accusations isn't enough, you continue with the accusations of "compulsive fight-starter". No, Exercisephys, it is you who needs to learn the "proper tone of discourse" and review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. And if my comment isn't enough to convince you to refrain from the false accusations, our next discussion of your behavior will be at WP:ANI. I am finished with this entire discussion, and everyone should have no fear that I will remove the link in question. I am once again reminded, as I sometime have been in the ten years that I have read Wikipedia, how one or two self-appointed wiki-police can effectively destroy a rationale discussion and drive away potentially useful editors. Thanks again to the one or two people who have commented civilly here. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Remove - After repeated requests, no information (and even the "1500 articles" misleading information) to support the merits of including this spam. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Remain - Upon further thought, I think it should remain. Erowid is a valuable and trusted resource with a lot of unique, reliable information Exercisephys (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the support is clear and since 107 has bowed out I will reinstate the link Never mind, already done .  107, if you're not willing to accept the consensus here then I suggest you open a thread at WP:DRN or call for an WP:RFC, though I think it would be a waste of time.    N o f o rmation  Talk  22:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * (off topic) Thanks for your suggestion; I was aware of those alternatives but agree it would be a waste of time. More importantly, I don't care to have any interaction with the vicious, self-appointed wiki-police who fabricate lies and make false reports (not a reference to you Noformation). 107.15.200.87 (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

too many unnecessary pics of the pills
I agree - what is with the love of pics for this drug, isn't the typical example (both name-brand and generic) the long skinny shape? I've looked into published [physical] books that seem to favor the long skinny shape - aren't endless pics of rounded tablets pointless? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.132.128 (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They are kind of pointless but they are relevant and they punctuate the article nicely. They're not excessive as they are, IMHO. Testem (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)