Talk:Research chemical/Archive 1

This page has been set up as a REDIRECT to designer drug after much discussion. The term 'research chemical' as it applies to tryptamines and phenethylamines is highly disputed, and was coined as a method of avoiding legal attention, and is no longer appropriate. There are arguments against the term 'designer drug' as well, but it is the least ambiguous of the two. The relevant data from this page has been moved to designer drug, so no loss of information has occured, and the designer drug page makes reference to the 'research chemical' term with appropriate context.

If you are looking to create an article about 'research chemicals' in reference to psychedelics, please continue to designer drugs. If you are looking to create an article about 'research chemicals' in reference to items one might purchase from Sigma Aldrich for use in a lab, then feel welcome to do so. I just ask that you include a disambiguation link at the top of the page like this:

This term may also refer to psychedelics such as tryptamines and phenethylamines, for more information on this usage, continue to designer drug.

Hit my talk page if you have questions about this decision. The previous discussion of the issue has been left in place below, and I ask that it be allowed to remain to explain this decision. Also note that I'm removing this page from the factual dispute project, because the dispute has been resolved. Phidauex 16:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Chop! ... Delete?

Wow, that was a pretty big edit by Murple. But I think I agree with it... in fact I would probably say this page should be deleted. After removing all of the contentless, badly written POV stuff, it is a bit like having an entry for "red socks" (a term used to describe socks that are red). Possibly some of the deleted material could improved and merged into phenethylamine or tryptamine (and link to Operation Web Tryp. Any discussion before I put up a vote for deletion? -- Rkundalini 02:22, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've replaced it on the general principle that it's better to have an article about red socks than a stub about them. Also, the term "research chemical", while technically a very broad term, is usually used to refer to the various tryptamines listed. If you have some other content for another meaning of the phrase, by all means post it and balance the article out. But please don't chop someone's toil and labor off the face of the wiki without a second thought. DryGrain 16:27, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok I'll go along with ya ... I've tried to tighten it up a bit. -- Rkundalini 00:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I disagree - I think it was a decent article. I want to revert. Unless I hear otherwise I am going to do so (as soon as I figure out how to do it.) --AStanhope 21:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Article Reverted

This article was too good to let go. It's POV was appropriately neutral. It was informative and it provided a great deal of jumping off points to specific "red sock-like" articles. --AStanhope 22:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm it looks like Murple cut & paste the article into Designer drug, then editied Research chemical into nothing. Murple, is this what actually happened? I think what should actually have been done, is Research chemical should have been renamed to Designer drug to preserve the editing history information & talk page, and Research chemical should be made into a simple redirect to it. I suggest it be re-done this way. If too much extra editing has been done post cut&paste, then just cut & paste from DD back into RC prior to doing the renaming. Comments? -- Rkundalini 04:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The two articles have slightly different content atm - the designer drug article appears to be more comprehensive. --AStanhope 05:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Research Chems. are not Designer Drugs

Putting content for research chems. in an article about designer drugs would be misleading. These are two seperate issues. Designer drugs, as stated on that page, are designed to get around laws. The research chems on this page were created in the pursuit of science.

Also, I'm changing the link for alphamethyltryptamine from AMT to Alphamethyltryptamine.

That's freaking retarded

The name "research chemical" as used in this article existed for one reason and one reason only, as a (failed) legal loophole for people to sell drugs over the internet without it falling under the analogue drug laws of the USA. If you ask any pharmacologist what these things are, they are going to call them experimental psychedelics or designer drugs. If you ask any chemist what "research chemical" means, they are absolutely not going to use the definition in this article.

It is a common term on erowid.org

Research chemicals is a common term used in the described sense on erowid.org and not only used by criminal. Even if it would be used only by criminals, it is importend to cover it and make this clear. Deletion is not a solution!!!

Whatever

Yeah, guess who wrote the "research chemical" FAQ on Erowid... that would be me. So... I know a thing or two about how the term is used on Erowid. The term had a purpose for a short time in covering the asses of companies and people selling the stuff and trying to avoid jail. Guess what, they went to jail. The term has NO validity beyond websites who sold these chemicals trying to avoid the intent clause of the analogue laws, and since that ruse didn't work, the term has no more relevance to drugs. These chemicals are and always have been experimental designer drugs. "Research chemical" is a meaningless term in pharmacology. The term has a valid meaning in chemistry and that term has nothing at all to do with how you're using it here. It is wrong in both an academic and moral sense to now go and hijack this term in Wikipedia when this article should be about what 99.999999999% of the people in the world define as "research chemicals." It is also stupid on a pharmacological level to use this term, as you seem to be implying that these chemicals are different in some fundamental level from other designer/experimental drugs. They are not. You mentioned that there is some sort of difference between designer drugs and "research chemicals"... no, there isn't! The only difference between something like 4-AcO-MIPT or 2C-B ("research chemicals") and MMDA-2 or 2C-B (experimental drug which are scheduled) is that the first were sold with a disclaimer saying "its for like research wink wink dont accidentally consume it because its poisonous or something and you might trip balls wink wink" while the others are scheduled drugs. Other than marketing tactics which did not succeed in their goal of keeping the vendors out of jail... can you name ANY fundamental difference between a "research chemical" (in the sense you use it) and any other experimental drug? They all can get researched. There's plenty of academic research into 2C-B, for example, but I've yet to see any papers on 4-AcO-MIPT. Seriously, think about what you're saying about these definitions. You have to admit they're silly. This article is ethically and scientifically wrong and it needs to go away. Its misleading to experimental drug users as well, as they may think the whole "its legal because its for research" schtik may actually protect them from prosecution. It wont, as proven by the people now in jail for trying that approach. This information belongs in the right place. The right place is not under "research chemicals." Deletion is most certainly the proper solution. The term "research chemical" as you use it existed ONLY as a ploy by chemical sellers hoping to avoid the intent clause of the analogue laws, and it didn't work as shown by the Operation Web Tryp raids. This article should go into designer drug article (which is more detailed and up to date anyway) and should be replaced with an article on REAL research chemicals.

I'm Redirecting to Designer Drugs... Opposition?

This article has been hashed around quite a bit. The content has been reasonably moved into designer drugs. I don't like the term 'research chemical', and I don't like 'designer drug', but we currently have two articles with the same content (plus designer drug's additional info about the coinage of the term). Instead of just outright deleting, I suggest a redirect, for those still looking for info about these chemicals under the name 'research chemicals'. It seems like people are done discussing this one (last discussion three months ago), so I'm just going to do it in a few days unless we can get some compelling reasons not to. Phidauex 03:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm mostly for that move... As one of the people who wrote the research chemical FAQ on Erowid, and as someone who's been following and reporting on the "research chemical scene" I really do not like the way the term has been misused. The term's original purpose was simply as a way to avoid the intent clause of the analogue laws. That didn't work, as the DEA just went and busted people anyway and ended up with convictions. In the drug world, the term has NO meaning outside of a failed legal defense tactic. People who are using it in that way are grossly misusing terminology. The term "designer drug" isn't my favorite thing either, but it's actually accepted by the main scientific community and has a long established meaning. It's also got a better article with more information, and also, more people are likely to look under "designer drug" than "research chemical" for this info, as the term "research chemical" in the sense used in this article is only used by a subset of drug using internet geeks. However, rather than making "research chemical" a redirect, I think it ought to be a disambiguation page. The term "research chemical" does have meaning to the rest of the world, being chemicals used for research, such as products you might find in the Sigma-Aldrich catalog. I propose that "research chemical" be made a disambiguation page which has a link to the designer drug article. Either way, this article needs to go away. Murple 06:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like we are on the same page about this. I wish there were a commonly used term for those chemicals that isn't law enforcement jargon, but it seems to be the best we've got. I'm happy to set it up as a disambiguation page, but my worry is that it will serve as a 'one click redirect' for a long time. The fact that no one has yet posed a serious intent to repurpose the 'research chemical' page may mean that no one will create additional pages, and it will remain a disambiguation with one link. But I suppose I can give the wikiworld the benefit of the doubt. :) I'll give it a little while longer to see if anyone else comments on it, then I'll turn research chemical into a disambiguation page. Phidauex 01:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

After reading over the manual of style for disambiguation pages, I'm beginning to think that a disambiguation page isn't appropriate for this situation, since as it stands, there is no risk of confusion, because there is only a single page with the reasonable title "Research chemical". A disambiguation with one link isn't good style. I'm going to go ahead with the original plan, and turn it into a redirect to designer drug, and leave a note at the top of this discussion page inviting anyone who wishes to create an article about 'real' research chemicals to do so, and to simply include the simplified disambiguation sentence of "This term may also refer to Designer Drugs" at the top of the article, as seen in a few other articles where there are only two terms that is are at risk of confusion. Let me know if you still prefer the disambiguation page, and we can tweak it if necessary. Thanks for your input on this! Phidauex 16:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)