Talk:Heroin

Question about the article title

Should this article really be called "heroin"? I mean, it's still a legitimate medical drug in many countries, and almost all other Wikipedia articles on drugs use the proper, generic name for a drug rather than a trademarked name. I realise "heroin" is probably no longer an active trademark, but that merely relegates it to more of a street name for the drug, which again seems inappropriate as a title. Xmoogle (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME comes into play here. Page view statistics show that less than 1% of visits to this article come from readers who are looking for the term "diamorphine". Looie496 (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

→Talk:Heroin/Archive 5#Rename to diacetylmorphine? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

As the common name is also what is typically used in the medical world am happy to stick with heroin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Nice to get a reply from a real doctor :) I do have a question though, is that also what's used in the medical world when the drug is prescribed (as opposed to when dealing with drug addictions)? Xmoogle (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but isn't that what we have redirects for? I mean if I were to guess, I'd guess that the vast majority of people looking for diazepam instead search for "Valium" (and similar with paracetamol/acetaminophen vs Panadol/Tylenol), but those articles use the proper generic drug name as the article title and have redirects for the more commonly known brand names. Xmoogle (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Very rarely prescribed in my part of the world. I have never seen a person prescribed it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, see, this is part of what I'm getting at :) In my country (the UK), I believe it's about as commonly used as morphine, in the same sort of situations where morphine would typically be used (like post-operative or serious injury pain relief). And I highly doubt the doctors here refer to it as "heroin" when they're prescribing/administering it. Xmoogle (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The article is rather strange as it is. We title it "Heroin" but mostly call the substance "Diamorphine" (diacetylmorphine morphine until a few months ago; I renamed most instances to the INN). It seems like with some drug articles we are arbitrarily choosing whether to follow WP:COMMONNAME or use the non-proprietary name. For example, I would imagine most readers of Desomorphine are searching for "Krokodil". Some consistency would be preferable. Sizeofint (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. And personally I'd lean towards the ideal consistent standard being - use the proper drug name for the article title, and have any common names be redirects to the proper name. This sort of thing really bugs me, as it makes Wikipedia look rather unprofessional in my opinion - the inconsistency only slightly more than the use of slang/trademarked names for drugs. Xmoogle (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Xmoogle. This title is inconsistent with other drug titles that prioritize more technical names over casual (diazepam for Valium, desomorphine for Krokodil, and others, methaqualone for Quaalude, MDMA for Ecstasy, etc). WP:MOSAT is important to consider as well as WP:COMMONNAME. In countries like the UK where it is in clinical use, diamorphine is rarely (or never) described as heroin. Mangofast (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure otherstuffexists (simplest reply: then change that other situation, not this one - solved. Actually, this reply simply nullifies that argument, because the opposite is just as correct). We are not "unprofessional" this way, we are not writing for the doctor. WP:COMMONNAME is clear enough. -DePiep (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I side with Xmoogle on this topic. The anchor article should be diamorphine not heroin. Searches for heroin should redirect to diamorphine. As for the position that WP:COMMONNAME is a defense for using heroin instead of diamorphine that is usually the case for human names and sometimes places. Very rarely used as defense for psychoactive drugs. You will notices that more than 95% of the searches for Zamboni machine land the user at Ice resurfacer. Wikipedia is not a slave to public opinion or gross misuse of trade names instead of their objectively correct generic names. This article should be named diamorphine and all heroin searches should redirect to diamorphine. Our job is to educate the public in an objective manner, not wantonly continue to engage in commercially motivated use of brand names. I think a vote would be appropriate for this debate. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is very skewed, and almost presents a street-perspective rather than medicinal.

"Heroin" is also a dealers streetname, and not the real name. Diamorphine seems to be the real name. It should rather talk about its medicinal use, as its main area of relevance, and then also discuss its abuse, and "recreational drug" is a rather modest term. It is a big problem, and its cheaper derivatives even more so.

Addition to popular culture

Needle of Death, by Bert Jansch, would seem to be an appropriate addition to the songs listed under the Popular Culture heading, especially as this song predates most others listed. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

In the UK

Isn't regular morphine the go-to for severe pain in almost all situations? The current article makes it seem as if diamorphine/heroin is given out like candy in the UK, which it is not. --Chairman Peng Xi (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Older estimate

Have reverted this edit[1] because it replaced an estimate for 2015 with an older estimate based on a 2012 source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Ref

Were does it say "heroin use has risen dramatically in the past ten years" in this reference[2]? Also do not see were 33 million comes from on page xii?[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it is on page xiv. At the bottom the opioid column. Sizeofint (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Why do we have such an emphasis on opioids in general in the lead? It seems more appropriate for the opioid article. I imagine there are statistics available for just heroin somewhere. Sizeofint (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I have read the entire page of xiv[4]. Can you quote the 33 million supporting text User:Sizeofint? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: In the column "Opioids (opiates and prescription opioids)" there is a sub-column "Best estimate". The entry of the bottom row of that column is 33,120 thousand = 33.120 million. Sizeofint (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah thanks. So either page x or page 1. And they use the same page numbering in a couple places in the book which confused me.

But this article is about heroin so why include both opioids and opiates when the reference says "UNODC estimates indicate that the global number of opiate users (i.e., users of opium, morphine and heroin) has changed little in recent years and that opiates continued to affect some 17 million people in 2014" on page "xii"

I am trying to use the more specific opiate number so we do not over emphasise opioids as you mention.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Change in rates

Have added "The total number of opiate users has increased from 1998 to 2007 after which it has remained more or less stable." based on page 32 of this[5], specifically the graph. But if you look at the error bars the changes are not significant. Plus above it says "has changed little in recent years". People's thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds good good Doctor Hunenmensch (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC) User:Hunemensch

Opiate or opioid?

Our opiate page seems to identify heroin as an semi-synthetic opioid rather than an opiate. On this page we call it an opiate. We should probably be consistent so how should we classify heroin? Sizeofint (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Much of the world uses the two terms interchangeably. When the two are differentiated from what I remember opiate is often often a subclass of opioid. At least this is my interpretation of this UN document[6] among others. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and that is how our opioid article defines them. I think the issue with heroin it that is that it is closely derived from substances found in opium but isn't naturally found in opium. If opiates are substances from the opium poppy then whether or no heroin is an opiate depends on how much additional processing one is willing to accept. The UNODC does classify it as an opiate. If we're going to follow their terminology we should probably make some changes at opiate so it doesn't look like we're contradicting ourselves. Sizeofint (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Box73: Thoughts? I remember you disentangling this issue over at opioid. Sizeofint (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Opioid is never wrong but medical sources split on semi-synthetics being classified as opiates.[7][8] UNODC considers heroin an opiate "in the strictly correct definition" while NIDA doesn't.[9][10] Traditionally it has been called an opiate. Maybe, "an opioid, often classified/called/considered an opiate"? (←Take your pick.) My beef was the opi- terms previously being considered mutually exclusive: whether heroin is an opiate, it is an opioid.

Re the opiate article's definition, the semi-synthetic ambiguity recurs and should probably be mentioned or discussed in the article rather than simply decided on. — βox73 (৳alk) 20:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC) edit βox73 (৳alk) 20:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)