This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs articles Pharmacology High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Fentanyl#Illicit use|China White]] Anchor Fentanyl#Illicit use links to a specific web page: Substance abuse. The anchor (#Illicit use) has been deleted by other users before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

A lot of this article should probably either be merged into Research chemical or deleted. 80.203.115.12 11:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

73.223.198.59 (talk)There is a major problem with the definitions provided - MDMA has been deemed a designer drug in the vernacular. Merck's patent is from 1912. Did Merck somehow have the precognition that the US would pass the CSA in 1970, so already invented an MDA Analog Designer Drug perfect to use to circumvent the law? Designer drug as a drug prohibition label, should be abandoned as the useless, and counter-productive demonizing of chemicals and flagrant abuse of scare tactics rather then sound science and reason. Research chemical, on the other hand, for unscheduled substances, can be deemed appropriate enough, as their use constitutes experimentation through field study and application. While study protocols are abysmal if there any in the first place, at least there isn't an implied deceit to the label of substances themselves.

Designer drug implied value is scheme against law enforcement, which in turn assumes legitimacy of the laws regarding substances. Quite frankly, the U.S. violates its own Constitution through its drug law policies - 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states freedom of the press, and of speech, shall not be abridged. This, through common sense, and Supreme Court holding, includes freedom of thought. If, however, the government may control how you choose to modify your thoughts, then your right to free thought has been abridged. What cannot be done directly is not permitted by proxy or delegation, U.S. v. Stimson, another Supreme Court holding. Taken in context, banning chemicals is not permitted, absent Constitutional Amendment. Accepting current Designer Drug definition re-affirms an unconstitutional framework, and above that is counter-productive to honoring constitutional law in the United States, imposes bias when evaluating chemicals, and is a term that should be either redefined to not include bias and framing for law enforcement scare tactics, or outright abandoned as worthless. 73.223.198.59 (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Malakkar Vohryzek[reply]

Yes, this viewpoint should be discussed in the article should we find sufficient sources. It is possible this article could be merged with Research chemical but the fact remains that the term exists and has to be discussed somewhere. However, this article is in bad shape and I don't foresee improvement in any respect in the near future unless someone decides to take it up as a project. Sizeofint (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a mistake to merge these two wikipedia entries. Designer drug is an old expression from the early days of MDMA. Currently, there is an explosion of drug development going on in China, mostly cannabinoids, that is unprecedented, and the compounds are being exported all over the world due to a lack of legal restrictions. Ironically, since these drugs affect the basic chemical balance of the brain, the people using these substances are participating in a huge, if somewhat uncontrolled, study of how the human brain works. They have already discovered scores of new useful compounds, although many of these substances duplicate the effects of other drugs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.58.160.6 (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

100% agreed. It was a really dumb choice and from what I saw it seems like it was made mostly for reasons related to politics and semantics. I've talked to and read comments from a lot of people would would agree with this. I could be wrong, but from what I understand the term "research chemical" is very rarely, if at all, used in the actual chemical industry. Seems like "they" just don't want there to be a legitimizing "encyclopedia" entry talking about some of these chemicals under that label. I could be wrong, but it seems like a lot of the talk that preceded this change (the "talk" page from the old "Research Chemical" article) was deleted along with the article. Likewise, the term "designer drug" is used almost exclusively by Law Enforcement and occasionally the media. User created? Yeah, maybe.... democratically voiced? Not a chance. *thumbs down* 24.34.63.39 (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the examples are not designer drugs or even research chemicals in the sense that the phrase is most often used. For example, NSI-189 is a drug that is currently in FDA trials for approval as a novel antidepressant. This article should be taken down. The information is not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.240.196.169 (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NSI-189 is also being sold on the grey market, as "not for human consumption". Many designer drugs were originally trialed by pharmaceutical companies, for example the hundreds of Pfizer cannabinoids we see around currently. The information is accurate. However, I'll take a look at the substances you mentioned below. Aethyta (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the first line of the entry: "A designer drug is a structural or functional analog of a controlled substance that has been designed to mimic the pharmacological effects of the original drug while at the same time, avoid being classified as illegal and/or avoid detection in standard drug tests" NSI-189 is not an analog. If we're going to include any substance that could be sold outside the normal channels, the definition is pointless. I don't have time to go through every substance listed, but they're mostly incorrectly designated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:B081:55F0:3C:20BB:99A9:5143 (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other examples, like Acetyl-L-Carnitine (ALCAR), N-Acetyl-L-Tyrosine, and Agmatine, are supplements that are not even remotely grey market and can regularly be purchased in brick-and-mortar stores like Whole Foods or GNC and even CVS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.240.196.169 (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Research chemical" ≠ "Designer drug" and I would oppose merging them. The difference is that a research chemical is not intended for human use (with the possible exception of controlled clinical trials) whereas a designer drug (albeit unapproved) is. A key phrase in the lead sentence is "functional analog". While individual research chemicals and designer drugs may be structurally novel, they almost always are functional analogs of other known drugs. It is rare for a chemical to have a novel mechanism of action and even rarer to have a novel mode of action. Chemicals with completely new behavioral or physiological effects are rarer still. The vast majority designer drugs mimic the effects of other known drugs or drug candidates. Can you name a single example of one that isn't? Boghog (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. However, designer drugs are frequently sold as research chemicals to get around the Analog Act which should probably be discussed in the article. Sizeofint (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find that the scope of the definition should be widened. A designer drug is just a designed drug, right? The purpose of designing drugs can vary greatly. Getting around prohibitionist laws is only one possible reason. Modifying or enhancing the action of established drugs is another one. Increasing their potency or decreasing side effects. Creating tools for mapping brain areas to cognitive functions. And so on. Plus, pure academic interest can be a motivation. That's basically why Shulgin did it I think.

That is what it should mean. That definition encompasses almost all recreational and medicinal drugs.

However if the definition is drugs designed as analogs to avoid drug laws then MDMA, 5-MeO-DMT, GBL, 1,4-Butanediol should all be removed. None of these was created as an analog for another drug. The definition of designer drug should not include drugs that already existed, but were not illegal.

they aren't are designer drugs. i feel 1,4B and GBL shouldn't be there, since they weren't designed in the first place, but were commodity chemicals. i feel 'designer drug' refers to those molecules specifically designed, and built by synthesis, but not only for the purposes of evading drug laws.

Fact is the term designer drug as popularly used is a perjorative loaded term with no meaning. It is a scare word to frighten the ignorant and stupid.

Whereas the term research chemical in reference to psychoactive drugs is very useful as it implies that it is an experimental chemical that we dont know enough about to be sure its reasonably safe. There really should be a research chemical article and all of Shulgins chemicals should be moved there. I totally agree with the above that designer drugs dont exist outside the minds of prohibitionists.

Although 'research chemical' is a term used by vendors to describe substances that ARE chosen because they evade current drug laws. I like the 'novel psychoactive substance' moniker suggested below.

there should definitely be a wikipedia page that is more sympathetic to Shulgin's view. This one reads like it was written by soccer moms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.58.160.6 (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Insightful comments here, this article is in need of quite a bit of work. Testem (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the ongoing definition issue with this article inclines me to suggest a page rename to Novel psychoactive substance. Discussion of novel steroids and melaninergics and some others would then have to go elsewhere.

I agree. As the current definition of designer drugs stands, the entire contents of PiHKAL and TiHKAL should be removed from the list, as they were not developed for evasive purposes. Many other drugs listed would share a similar fate.

• Scope of article – "Designer drug" ≠ "Designed drug". The former is colloquial term used to describe drugs that are meant to evade current drug laws. The later is a more formal term used to describe any drug that was invented based on knowledge of the drug target (see drug design). The only real "design" in a "designer drug" is to select a chemical structure that doesn't violate current laws while at the same time mimicking the effects of a known drug. Hence I disagree that the scope of this article should be widened. (In someways, a designer drug shares some similarity to a "patent busting" fast follower drug. The purpose of the former is to evade drug laws. The purpose of the later is to evade patent laws.)
• List inclusion criteria – Agree that any drug that was not developed for evasive purposes should be removed from this article's list.
• Article rename – Per the consensus developed above above, I think this article's current name designer drug is appropriate. Boghog (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the phenylethylamine list would it be appropriate to add some of the other methylenedioxy- compunds such as MDA, MDEA...? cyclosarin 03:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5-MeO-DMT is a natural occuring chemical.--69.117.117.172 05:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Seen as though it's not synthetic and has a very long history of human use, before drug laws even existed, there's no reason it should be on here. I'll remove it. 67.171.10.127 (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)67.171.10.127[reply]

The redirect of (and wikification/interlinking at the RC disambiguation page of) research chemical to the designer drug article was a rather poor choice in my opinion. When I think of research chemicals I think of radiolabelled novel chemicals that haven't yet been distributed for even a chance at abuse, like the class of synthetic phenyltropane stimulants and such that are not found at all on the outside of a lab. When I think of 'designer drugs' I think of the more exotic of recreationally used and abused drugs, usually substituted amphetamines and the like. Would someone be willing to come up with a better link for "research chemical" or create a proper 'research chemical' article? I mean, research chemicals need not even be psychoactive or even related to biology / effects of chemicals on forms of life. Nagelfar (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term "research chemical" has taken on a new meaning, like it or not. Don't blame me, put "research chemical" into google and see what comes up. This wikipedia entry ignores the phenomenon going on right now, as if designer drugs were something from the 1980s. They have really just taken off in the last year or so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.58.160.6 (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would Methadone be considered a "designed drug"?? OlEnglish (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirald alsotelep 6 2A0A:F640:1610:2F61:0:0:0:1 (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

completely uneccessary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.100.104.81 (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the real information you can get about the effects of these chemicals come from the drugs forums. It may be kind of raw and disorganized, but that's where people can learn about these chemicals. Not on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.58.160.6 (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now bored of deleting things from this article which are not designer drugs. It reads like it was written by a newspaper reporter or government minister, i.e. anything which has a vaguely psychoactive property is a "designer drug" including illegal ones like MDMA (which thankfully wasn't listed), prescription medications like diazepam (which was) and industrial solvents like GBL (which were used as a legal loophole but were in no way invented for that purpose).

Better yet, please modify the definition so it describes designer drug as "anything a newspaper or MP decides it is, usually because it has psychoactive properties" or don't spread the FUD. Thanks for your attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.212 (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article not as bad as I implied, missed the bit about marketing, since drug laws vary widely listing some of these things is a mistake, it should really only contain things which are universally or nearly so legal, so I have removed diazepam (which is clearly not a designer drug, anywhere), phenazepam (because it's a controlled substance in many places) and the other benzodiazepine because it, like diazepam is controlled nearly everywhere. Please don't put these back it would be a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.212 (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is well made and by what you write, bath salts and plant foods which were never designed as drugs have no place in this article. However, please note a redirect from the Wiki article on Bath Salts [1] to this one which contains the legend "This article is about actual bath salts. For the psychoactive drugs inaccurately described as bath salts, see Designer drug#Misleading descriptions."--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you've got the wrong end of the stick (as well as the AP unfortunately, but that isn't the first time, see "myth 1" at the end of this for example). The so called "plant foods" and "bath salts" would be absolutely useless as these products and were deliberately designed to function as drugs. I added the bath salts info to this article, and have discussed it on my talk page, and copied it over to the talk page too. Annoyingly, we can't really add anything US specific, until some sources start to discuss about how they aren't bath salts and plant food. SmartSE (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've applied two tags to this article, because it is really really really US-Centric.. you'd never know that most other Western countries had exactly the same problems. Please do not remove tags until this is resolved. Dvmedis (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is only really the history section which suffers with this, but it suffers badly. I have removed the article template but the section one remains.

"The term "designer drug" was first coined by law enforcement in the 1980s..." should be changed to, "The term "designer drug" was first coined by U.C. Davis pharmacology professor Gary Henderson in the early 1980s." As a medical student at U.C. Davis in the 1980's I did research under Dr. Henderson, and I am sure that he coined the term. There are multiple citations to be found on the Internet that confirm this. One of these is a publication by the California Narcotics Officers Association (http://www.cnoa.org/N-05.pdf) Ar15pistol (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the history of this page, ClueBot has reverted a recent vandalism, but the change does not appear on the article. I do not see anything that suggests that the change is under review or is awaiting approval either. This is weird! See this diff. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 01:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Everything looks normal to me. SmartSE (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those who participated in this discussion would probably find this blog post interesting: [2] Testem (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of steroids

A claim was added that close analogs of known anabolic steroids are rarely described as designer drugs. However a Google Scholar search for "designer steroids" gave 654 hits and "designer anabolic steroids" gave 57 hits. So I think it is fair to include anabolic steroids in this article. Furthermore I do not think it is accurate to say that anabolic steroids are rarely described as designer drugs. There are a number of reliable source to support the use of the phrase "designer steroids". Boghog (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In short I agree ;) This looks like a good source for showing that novel doping agents have similar issues to novel psychoactives. SmartSE (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was unclear. I did not mean that they weren't called designer, only that designer steroids were not called designer drugs. Though theoretically the two are interchangeable, in practice they are not. The term designer drugs is only used in the media to refer to novel psychoactive drugs, therefore I think the article could reasonably be split if it was desired. Testem (talk) 14:12, 2014-08-09 (UTC)

I have now clarified the statement in the article. Let me know if you think that's better and one of us can remove the dubious template. Cheers, Testem (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Of course an anabolic steroid (with the possible exception of a neuroactive steroid ;-) cannot be considered a new psychoactive substance. I also agree that the phrases "designer steroids" and "designer drugs" are not interchangeable. However I think it is fair to describe a "designer steroid" as a type of "designer drug". Therefore I am still uncomfortable with the wording in current the Designer_drug#Anabolic_steroids section. I also think that we should make clear in the lead that the definition of "designer drug" is broader than "new psychoactive substance" and also includes "designer steroids" as well as other designer performance-enhancing drugs according to the hierarchy below:

• Designer drug
  • new psychoactive substance (designer psychoactive substance)
  • "designer" performance-enhancing drugs
    • "designer" anabolic steroid
    • ...

GW501516 itself could not be considered a designer drug because it was the first substance of its class discovered that had performance enhancing properties and has subsequently been banned, however analogs of GW501516 could be considered designer drugs. Boghog (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been bold and modified the lead according to the above proposal. Boghog (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I've also been bold and made some further tweaks to the lead which I hope improve it. Good point about GW501516, but it is similar in that it used in order to evade detection. SmartSE (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Between us this article has improved by an order of magnitude in both its content and better definition over the last few days. The edits to the lead have greatly improved it in kind, thanks. Testem (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Future scope

This 2011 report by the ACMD defines NPS as:

Psychoactive drugs which are not prohibited by the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs or by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and which people in the UK are seeking for intoxicant use.

Generally legally available, NPS fall, broadly, into four categories:

i) Products with names which give no indication of what they contain;

ii) Named and specific substances which are designed to be similar chemically and/or pharmacologically to known specific controlled, drugs;

iii) Substances related to medicines

iv) Herbal or fungal materials or their extracts

At the moment the article mainly focuses on the second category i.e. designer drugs, but if we include all NPS then NRG-1, Ivory Wave ('bath salts') and Salvia divinorum, ergine. (Natural highs _{there is no article about these}) would also be included. Does that seem like something we should aim for? SmartSE (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is where things become very challenging for us, since their own definition does not agree well with their term of choice. I think we should aim to cover all of what I would informally call "[recently] grey market" drugs in some form, but it is possible that not all of this coverage will be well suited to fall into the DD article. Already the more comprehensive listing of DDs in has me thinking a List of designer drugs article should be spawned in the future, and equally I think it might be appropriate to touch on some "Herbal or fungal materials or their extracts" in this article but have a separate main article for grey market products of this nature. A lot of things are "substances related to medicines" after all! Testem (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is trickier than I had thought. On further reflection (and upon finding legal intoxicant) I think that it is best to keep this page confined to synthetic compounds even if they do not always exactly DDs. A seperate list might be a good idea, but only if this page becomes too long. SmartSE (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, think that this page should include only synthetic compounds. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:HEAD, Headings should normally not contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked. Readers are used to seeing section heading bolded without color. The combination of bold and coloring is jarring and confuses readers. I personally think wiki links in section headings are ugly and I remove them on sight. Furthermore I think the intention is to split out the list section of this article into a stand alone list. I have yet to see a featured list (that are considered to be the very best in Wikipedia) that contains wikilinks in section headings.

I previously removed the wikilinks for the section headings in this article, but I see these have now been re-introduced. What do other editors think? Boghog (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the MOS guidance but I don't understand the reasoning behind it. Personally I feel that adding the link under the title is unnecessary clutter and that having the link in the title keeps things neat. I suppose the ((main)) template could be used if you feel the link in the title is unattractive or confusing but I feel that keeping things nice and compact is useful in an article with lots of content and titles like this. Testem (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion. Please see the edit that I just made at the top of the first section of the list, about opioids. It's pretty easy to write a brief topic sentence about each section, and then just move the link out of the header and into the topic sentence. That approach has two virtues: compliance with WP:MOS, and making that part of the page more encyclopedic by becoming at least a little bit less list-like. And, in that regard, I want to say that the list is getting rather out of hand, per WP:EMBED. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tryptofish. I agree that the length of this list is quickly getting out of hand. I also agree that adding a short sentence to start each section would be preferable. That is what I had started to do but not completed in my previous edits. Finally I wanted to point out another style guide WP:LINKSTYLE which states Section headings should not themselves contain links; instead, a ((main)) or ((seealso)) template should be placed immediately after the heading. Boghog (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This script might be useful. Boghog (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a script to change 10 links, for real! First we should decide how the page should look like. Short sentence that quickly explains each category sounds good to me. Also the goal is to have a good, easy understandable list, and not something fancy looking for style fetishists to appear on a featured list that no one cares about. Aethyta (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I use scripts because I am lazy ;-) But I would agree that it is more important to have a good introductory sentence for each section and no script can do that. Wikipedia style guides are useful in that they encourage consistency between articles and that consistency provides readers with fast visual clues as to meaning. Also per WP:LINKSTYLE: Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links and use a link, but do not make a reader be forced to use that link to understand the sentence. I think this principle is even more critical for sections. Explaining a linked term is not practical in a section heading, but is possible in a section's introductory sentence that contains the link. Boghog (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Working on the intro sentences, with Testem. Aethyta (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Thanks. Boghog (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me too. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The list of designer drugs has grown quite extensive and now takes up the majority of the article. Should this be separated into a list-class article? Sizeofint (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with whatever you guys decide. The list will probably never stop growing until we finally lose the war on drugs. Aethyta (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not an unreasonable proposition, worth bearing in mind that the non-list component of this page is not of particularly high quality. I almost think it needs starting from scratch with a goal in mind.Testem (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Post split

So it looks like this has been split then, fair enough. The remaining article is quite poor quality and US-Centric. How do we fix this, or do we rewrite it? What do we want it to contain? Testem (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We could probably adapt WP:PHARMMOS to our needs here.

• Lead
• Uses
  • Recreational
  • Medical?
• Adverse effects / Side effects (general)
• Interactions (notable ones)
• Pharmacology (maybe talk about general subclasses and the receptors they target)
• History
• Society and culture
• Research

Sizeofint (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does that work here though, for such a VAST range of compounds? Testem (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The last three would probably work. The others would have to be very general, maybe to the point of not being worth including. I agree this article should have an international scope. Sizeofint (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find some parts of this article contradictory, most notably the initial definition of a 'designer drug', and the following mentioning of DOM in this context. A designer drug is initially defined as: 'structural or functional analog of a controlled substance that has been designed to mimic the pharmacological effects of the original drug, while avoiding classification as illegal and/or detection in standard drug tests'. DOM was not synthesised in order to bypass drug laws nor detection in urine tests, but was synthesised during Shulgin's structure-activity studies of mescaline analogues. I would advise that DOM is not referenced to in this article, unless it is stated that it was not synthesised by Shulgin to bypass drug laws, or the initial definition of a designer drug is changed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdx92129 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]