Talk:Methylone

Chemicals Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Methylone.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

drug discrimination

there is an error regarding drug discrimination: you wrote that methylone does substitute neither for amphetamine nor for DOM. But it has an ED50 of 2.36mg/kg in rats trained to discriminate amphetamine from vehicle. The fact about no substitution for DOM is correct. It was the N-unsubstituted analogue (MDA analogue) which did not fully substitute in amphetamine trained rats (partial stimulus of a maximum of 58%). See Cason et al., Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 1997, 58, 1109-16.

Moved Methylone to Methylenedioxymethcathinone

In case anyone was wondering why I did this; Methylone is the generic given name for MDMC (methylenedioxymethcathinone). MDMC should redirect to this just as MDMA redirects to Methylenedioxymethamphetamine. Although methylone is a very proper generic name for this substance, methylenedioxymethcathinone is the proper way to address it - in relation to other articles.--Ddhix 2002 14:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it is worth noting that Shulgin actually mentions another, completely different substance called MDMC, so this compound is frequently known as MDMCat. Perhaps we should change the redirect or put a disambiguation page. 128.250.152.110 02:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shulgin was talking about methylenedioxymethcathinone. He called it Methylone. It's the same thing. You are wrong--Ddhix 2002 05:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, YOU are wrong. Shulgin first made and named methylone long after he had already assigned the name MDMC to another creation of his, 3,4-ethylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine. Since the MDMC name is in published works and databases like CAS, we can't really change that easily, much as we might like to. MDMC is a completely different chemical from methylone. In articles by Shulgin, Dal Cason and others, the abbreviation for methylone is MDMCat, but that name hasnt really caught on since it sounds kind of unwieldy. I have corrected the MDMC issues in this article. Murple 17:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive the May 4th poster is referring to how in PIHKAL, which seems to the highest source of information for Shulgins' naming, there is a MDMC listed (at least on the erowid version). The the chemical he referred to as MDMC though is 3,4-ETHYLENEDIOXY-N-METHYLAMPHETAMINE, which is also referenced as EDMA, a name which seems more appropriate to me. Clearly, Methylone should link to Methylenedioxymethcathinone. MDMC clearly has been used to describe two different chemicals, though, so a disambiguation page may even be in order.

I happen to agree with the previous unsigned comment, and when a page for Ethylene DMA is needed, then a disambiguation will be there... But as is, all the MDxx type articles are in desparate need of help (including mdma !), some only barly past stub status, and MDMA really should be of GA if not better status. --69.170.226.246 02:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "MDMC" should have a disambiguation page, and this article should in no way use MDMC as an abbreviation for 3,4-methylenedioxymethcathinone. just use MDMCat instead.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.113.88.56 (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the creator of this page check your facts before contributing ill information. Shulgin calls MDMC, also known as EDMA, 3,4-ethylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine. Check PIHKAL #110 if you don't believe any of us. http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/pihkal/pihkal110.shtml Providing incorrect information does nothing for anyone & is why people don't trust Wiki in the first place. I edited your page, because of a factiual error. Don't complain how your right when facts & resources prove you wrong.

Methylone is not a Class A drug in the uk.

What the headline says, I'm almost certain that no beta-ketone phenethylamines are illegal, and there is no reference in the article to where it says that MDMCAT is illegal, so I will change it. --Mark PEA 15:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MDMA, MDMC, MDA, amphetamine comparisions etc.

One anonymous user removed the part of the article comparing MDA and amphetamine claiming it was false, when it wasn't. So to stop a revert war, I've drawn a picture illustrating the comparison between amphetamine and MDA, methamphetamine and MDMA & methcathinone and MDMC. I would add it to the article but there doesn't seem to be any space, the whole article needs a clean up with sections, references, etc. --Mark PEA 12:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a complete mess. It should be less about recreational use, and more about the chemical itself. This means... no experience reports, please. And no more random junk about legal status thrown all over the place. It should be under one section only, "Legal status". Really though, I'm not suprised that the psychedelic phenethylamine articles are such a mess. These articles are primarily edited by people who use these substances, and presumably the articles are really messy because these people can't think straight. Maybe this is complete speculation... but... probably not. Just... Please don't edit when under the influence! Fuzzform 23:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MDMA resemblance

PLEASE CORRECT the following error:

there is an error regarding drug discrimination: you wrote that methylone does substitute neither for amphetamine nor for DOM. But it has an ED50 of 2.36mg/kg in rats trained to discriminate amphetamine from vehicle. The fact about no substitution for DOM is correct. It was the N-unsubstituted analogue (MDA analogue) which did not fully substitute in amphetamine trained rats (partial stimulus of a maximum of 58%). See Cason et al., Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 1997, 58, 1109-16: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9408221?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.161.97.70 (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bath salts. methylone fatality

According to this article http://www2.tbo.com/news/news/2011/jun/01/3/bath-salts-blamed-in-tampa-mans-death-ar-234286/ Methylone, (sold in "bath salts" in the US) has been determined to be the cause of a fatality. I don't know how to convey this in the article. Should it be? Just looking for any advice. TimL (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No patent?

Although the introduction stated that methylone was patented, the citation is only a patent application. I could find no record of a granted U.S. patent, and no reference to a granted patent in other countries, although I did not search each country one individually. If anyone can find a record of a granted patent, please make the appropriate edit and citation. 68.206.242.105 (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacodynamics

The Pharmacodynamics section does not correctly reflect the cited references. Clearly, some Molly-head has cobbled it together based on his/her limited understanding of the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.1.207.4 (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]