This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Admittedly this is "original research" but I just put some nitracaine up my nose and can confirm that yes, it certainly has stimulant properies - but "local anaesthetic" - my ass! IT BURNS LIKE HELL! Since no references are cited to back up the local anaesthetic claim I can only assume it was put into the article on the basis that the writer just took a wild guess that based on its name it must be some kind of legal cocaine substitute and must therefore possess more or less the same pharmacological profile. My "original research" on stimulant drugs gives me the opinion that insufflated methylphenidate is far more similar to cocaine in subjective effect, but that Nitracaine (other than being a stimulant) is a different thing altogether from Caffeine, Cocaine, or any amphetamine or substituted phenethylamine I have ever done "original research" on. However, being a primary source with no external reference I did not edit the article itself because writing "Nitracaine burns like fuck unlike Charlie which numbs your face off if it's half-decent" is no more valid than writing "tastes like shit compared to chocolate" in the article on Beetroot. 89.240.18.235 (talk) 04:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
