Talk:Poppers

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 29 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ktashkulov. Peer reviewers: Jweaver8, Milest303, Hasan Swain.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EnunciationOfTruth.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

(Sorry for my english) It is write : Today, reformulated poppers containing isobutyl nitrite are sold under brand names such as RUSH,[1][4] Locker Room,[1][4] Snappers,[1][48] and Liquid Gold.[1] So on the webstite of Liquid Gold, it is write that Isobutyl is cancerous, and prohibited since 2007. http://www.liquidgoldaromas.co.uk/contact.php This is the directive Eu: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ%3AL%3A2006%3A033%3A0028%3A0081%3Aen%3APDF I have read a mail on a forum from RAM (Jungle juice brand), it was write that new formula is only ISOPROPYL, no ISOBUTYL. http://www.junglejuice.org/Aromas/aromas/JUNGLE-JUICE-25ml--57/ But on this website from RUSH it is write ISOBUTYL : http://www.rush-poppers.org/ If I understand it is a resellers, the makers is PWD, I think is it a error because law, and on the forum it is write ISOPROPYL too : http://www.rush-poppers.org/rush-forum/10130.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarkia777 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Differences between Isopropyl Nitrite and Isobutyl Nitrite: Chemical Differences: Isopropyl nitrite (C₃H₇NO₂) is an ester of nitrous acid and isopropyl alcohol. It has a slightly lower molar mass and a simpler chemical structure. Isobutyl nitrite (C₄H₉NO₂) is also an ester of nitrous acid, but with isobutyl alcohol. It possesses a higher molar mass and a somewhat more complex chemical structure. Health Differences: Isopropyl nitrite is generally considered less potent and less toxic compared to isobutyl nitrite. It has less intense side effects and is therefore often seen as a safer alternative. Isobutyl nitrite is stronger but comes with a higher risk of health-related side effects. It is classified as carcinogenic and has been banned in many countries, including within the EU, due to these risks. Sources: https://www.bag.admin.ch/dam/bag/de/dokumente/chem/themen-a-z/factsheet-poppers.pdf.download.pdf/Poppers%20factsheet%2020230829%20-%20DE.pdf https://mrpoppers.de/was-sind-poppers-ein-umfassender-leitfaden/ https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/ajp.135.10.1216 These differences explain why isopropyl nitrite is preferred in the EU and other regions, while isobutyl nitrite is increasingly being banned due to its health risks. Analiakhan (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

This article tell that ISOPROPYL is less strenght than ISOBUTYL : http://www.poppershop.eu/fr/faq.html#VIII.1 --Anarkia777 (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

RAM product answer me this mail about new formula : Hi, the "new" formula (since 2008) is isopropyl nitrite; the old one was isobutyl but that is now banned in the EU. Order at: www.junglejuice.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarkia777 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Reply

I have continued my research for have poppers in EU, and I have find Isobutyl, and Amyl, Rush make poppers with 3 molecule, and sell it dependly of country, for EU Rush sell Isopropyl, because other is prohibited, and for other country they sell ISOBUTYL and AMYL. A other brand Canadian JUNGKE JUICE make poppers with ISOBUTYL. FOr conclusions in EU seller sell only ISOPROPYL (prohibited since 2007), and other country can sell 2 other molecule (ISOBUTYL ans AMYL), and 2 other molecule but I don't know it.... --Anarkia777 (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

This article has two sections titled Legality which contain nearly identical information. I attempted to rectify this by removing one of the sections, but the entry was restored and I was given a (presumably automated) warning about removing information. My suggestion is that someone with the ability to edit this and make it stick do so, unless it is Wikipedia's policy to include multiple sections with the same information and title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.9.128 (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

An editor who may have a COI with this subject has twice removed well sourced content noting the risks associated with this type of drug. [1] As the article stands now, it misrepresents a single study categorizing drug safety as the only source on the health risks noted in the opening paragraphs. This is outrageous. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

As the editor in question, I reverted those changes on the grounds that they seem to differ from consensus on this article, and since they were made to the article lead, substantially changed the article tone. As such, I'd like to see consensus established for these changes on this talk page before such edits are made.

I personally believe the changes were not in line with Wikipedia policy, on the grounds that the given citations relied on very limited sources, and that the edit gave undue weight to issues already discussed in the article's Health issues section.

--me_and (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The citations were to AIDS Health Weekly, numerous scientific studies, the views of medical doctors who are experts in this field, and were reported in reliable secondary sources. If you object to those sources maybe you should take them to the appropriate noticeboard. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't see a problem with the sources; the problem with your last addition was that you cut-and-pasted large chunks of text from the sources. My understanding from reading through some .edu sources is that short terms risks are mostly related to lack of inhibition resulting in poor judgement, but long-term use risks are much more serious (damage to nervous system, etc). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Support removal of FSN's contributions. If you look at the sources added to the lead (particularly problematic since, as noted, the lead follows the body) to support the changes [2] (sources 8-13) they are popular sources, many behind paywalls. Which ones are "scientific"? I didn't see any but I did look quickly. Irrespective, I do see a problem with the sources, particularly since they contradict the actual studies. This is a drug/medical article, the emphasis should be on pubmed-indexed journals which consistently find that poppers are relatively safe, but are associated with HIV infection and AIDS - because of their mutual connection with risky sex. It's noted that there was a possible association, but the research showed it was correlational, not causative. The AIDS-poppers link has been explored and it's not directly related. FSN knows this, it has been discussed on his talk page, so it's blatant POV-pushing at this point. This one is particularly egregious, with no indication that it is reliable or anything but a partisan site.

I don't know where the COI and advert claims are coming from - just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean there is a COI and I'd really like to see some evidence of this before even thinking about taking it seriously. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can anyone think of a better name for the "AIDS" section? The current one implies there is a direct relationship, when it's correlational. Perhaps "correlation with HIV infection"? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sure, or "Association with AIDS epidemic". Or the entire section could be folded into the "Health issues" section, without its own subheading. MastCell ^Talk 17:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I like the idea for a separate heading, for the very reason we're even having this conversation - it was a topic of intense interest, it's a false idea that's been bandied about for many years, and it allows direct linking to a section that quickly and thoroughly disarticulates it. I don't mind "Association with AIDS epidemic", I'll paste that in for now and see what happens. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

A deceased editor of this article was a big campaigner off the AIDS and Poppers link. I suspect that there will be a lot less resistance to toning down the language than there used to be.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

LiteratureGeek may have the best answer here, should this article, being medical-ish, be in line with MEDMOS? Is it already? I've got an official source for the poppers/viagra indication (PMID 11365402), shouldn't it go in a separate contraindications section?

I might be jumping the gun, lazily I haven't reviewed MEDMOS to see if it's already lined up. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

There isn't a huge amount of research on poppers or its chemical names on pubmed, so it may be difficult to get a fully comprehensive medical article but if contraindications, interactions can be found and sourced then I think adding in medical sections would be benefitial.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

It would be tricky to follow WP:MEDMOS, because the term "poppers" applies specifically to recreational rather than pharmaceutical uses. Nitrates do have actual recognized indications (most typically in the form of nitroglycerin or nitroprusside for angina or hypertensive emergency), but poppers don't. I think that whatever format we follow for other recreational drugs makes sense here. MastCell ^Talk 20:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Given this page's propensity to long, outdated conversations, does anyone have any objection to me setting up an auto-archive? --me_and (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

As a technical issue, you would need to ensure that all the sections have a valid date. It would probably also be a good idea to set up an appropriate archiving header pointing to the archives. I have no object to the set up, but I'm not really active, here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm archiving manually; if it's so not busy that people rarely end up clogging the talk page (starting comment was from November, 2008) there's not much point in setting up Misza. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

WLU, I'm not sure I'm parsing that comment correctly. Are you saying there's no point setting up the auto-archive as the talk-page is not sufficiently active?

Thanks for clearing up the content that was clogging the place up so far, anyway. I can understand that! --me_and (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yup, that's it. If you set up an auto-archive, this would be a blank talk page 90% of the time you visited simply because new discussions are not frequent. This gets bursts of activity rather than the kind of sustained, long-term, intensive activity you see for Misza to be turned on (in my opinion anyway). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the parameters for Misza, it does leave conversations on the talk page to avoid it being "completely harvested"; it defaults to leaving at least five conversations on a talk page to avoid it getting completely blank. Given that, would you still rather I not set up Misza? --me_and (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Huh, I didn't know that. I guess that's why my talk page never gets down to zero conversations. And here I thought Misza was buggy!

It sounds like you really want to set it up, and I really don't have that much objection. I don't think it's necessary, but there's not really an absolute reason to reject it. Go ahead if you really want :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not at all! I generally think getting computers to do automatable tasks is a Good Thing™, but if you/anyone else would rather it didn't run, I won't bother.

If I'm entirely honest, I wanted to set it up as I'd just discovered it and wanted to play with a new toy. I've now satisfied that itch on my own user talk page, so if you don't think it's necessary, I'll stop campaigning :) --me_and (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Meh, I can't argue about either point - computers do dumb, repetitive things quite well and you have to screw up Misza's configs a couple times before figuring out how to do it right. Talk:William Dembski still needs a good purging if you wanted to practice there. I think it' be wasted on this talk page after the manual archive, but I'm sure there's others on wiki that could use it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

"Initially poppers were considered as a hypothesis for the then-burgeoning AIDS epidemic, and the idea has persisted in large part due to the activities of AIDS denialists as a pseudoscientific rationalization for the presence of AIDS in homosexual males.[39]"

The cited page links to the following article: Does drug use cause AIDS?, published in Nature in 1993. But in fact shows that every incidence of AIDS occurred among the cohort of popper users which were all homosexuals (no heterosexual popper users were in the cohort). This entire wiki article should a) cite better, non-secondary sources and b) not rely on dubious secondary sources especially when the articles THEY cite do NOT refute (nor confirm) the idea that poppers may in fact cause AIDS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.119.205 (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Another one, number 42: "In the analyses using lagged exposures, KS risk was associated with use of poppers 3–5 years prior [hazard ratio (HR)3 years prior=1.27, 95% CI (0.97–1.67), HR5 years prior=1.46 (1.01–2.13)]."

The article states: though a study of the use of poppers by HIV positive men found no association between the two.[42] NOT TRUE!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.119.205 (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

The 1993 Lancet study "HIV-1 AND THE AETIOLOGY OF AIDS" (citation 44) - now that is a good one!

Er, Chao et al. (PMID 19108691) clearly states in its abstract: "These findings do not support a biological association between use of these substances [including poppers] and KS development in HIV- and HHV-8-coinfected homosexual men." Our text could be clearer, and I've tried to clarify it, but the study authors very clearly argued that their findings do not support a biological link between poppers and KS. MastCell ^Talk 18:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Given that Chao et al. is not an experiment at all, whereas the animal studies are direct experiments, it would by much more logical to state the the animal studies demonstrate a biological link (rather than merely "suggest an association") while the statistical study cannot, at all, confirm or deny a biological link between anything. Instead, it can only "not support a biological association." 96.253.119.205 (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

This from the article - "A study that followed 715 gay men for eight and a half years published in the Lancet in 1993 rejected any causal relationship between AIDS and poppers.[45] Although the study did conclude an association between the use of poppers in the gay culture and contracting the HIV virus, it also concluded an association between anal sex and contracting the HIV virus." This can't be worded right?? Poppers may cause you to get an HIV infection but it doesn't cause AIDS - I am sorry but I thought HIV caused AIDS. I would think anything that caused you to get HIV would - ah who cares - Can someone explain if this is okay? or is the science tooo deep for us regular folks.159.105.81.31 (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

The article rejects a causal link between poppers and AIDS, but notes a statistical correlation (see correlation is not causation). Popper use is a marker for other high-risk activities, like unprotected anal sex, that do transmit HIV and thus can lead to the development of AIDS. That doesn't mean that poppers cause AIDS. There's a 100% statistical correlation between opening your car door and subsequently starting your car, but that doesn't mean that opening your car door starts the engine.

To be specific, the prevalence of popper use was apparently 88% in the HIV-positive group and 56% in the HIV-negative group. So popper use is statistically associated (perhaps - no p value is given) with HIV seropositivity, which makes sense since it's a marker of other high-risk behaviors. But 56% of the HIV-seronegative group used poppers, and none of them developed any opportunistic infections, which is evidence against any potent immunosuppressive effect of poppers. On the other hand, opportunistic infections developed only in the HIV-positive patients, which (combined with the extensive body of knowledge of the biology of HIV infection) is convincing evidence in support of the fact that HIV causes AIDS. MastCell ^Talk 16:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Looks like the statistics argument can go both ways - have to see the data for the whole study and that would probably be inconclusive. ( ie poppers may be a marker for high risk ... or high risk may be a marker for poppers.) Still have to wait to see if the 56% are just tougher.159.105.81.31 (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I explained it clearly. Popper use is correlated with high-risk behaviors like unprotected anal sex. The correlation isn't directional - one could just as easily say that unprotected anal sex is correlated with popper use. The point is that they cluster together statistically. If poppers caused (or were necessary for) AIDS/immunosuppression, then one would expect some of the HIV-negative popper users to develop opportunistic infections. None of them did. That's pretty strong evidence against a causal role of poppers, and strong evidence in support of a causal role for HIV.

In and of itself, it doesn't "prove" that HIV causes AIDS, or that poppers don't. Causality generally isn't proven by a single study - that's a canard fabricated (or promoted out of ignorance) by AIDS denialists. Incorporating this one epidemiologic study with the thousands of other pieces of published science on HIV, from the level of basic virology to population-level epidemiology, proves the case. A general tactic of AIDS denialists is to attack individual studies (usually on ignorant or scientifically illiterate grounds) rather than address the sum of available evidence. But I digress. MastCell ^Talk 22:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is the data for the study published anywhere? Frequency of use, etc, lenght of use, etc.... For any and/or all studies pertaining to this. 159.105.81.31 (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

You should be able to get the full text of the article at any library. If you want the raw data itself, you probably need to contact the study authors, or the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, which conducted the research. MastCell ^Talk 19:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Actually it is almost impossible to find any of the "studies" anywhere. Here is the conclusion from footnote 40 however: Conclusion "We have shown in this brief review that although the systemic clearance of inhalant nitrites is rapid, its toxicological effects are not transient. Significant alterations in the expression of several cancer- and angiogenesis-related genes were observed in mouse liver after both acute and repeated in vivo exposure. In particular, VEGF mRNA and protein expression were significantly up-regulated. The tumor weight and volume of a VEGF-responsive tumor were significantly increased with repeated nitrite exposure. These results, summarized in Fig. 2, showed that the toxicity of inhalant nitrites might in part be mediated through alteration in the angiogenesis cascades" - it appears footnote 40 seems to think that poppers ain't good for mice's livers. Genetic problems in an animal study. Most of the footnotes reference the article - what's that supposed to give us for info? Like the footnotes that go somwhere other than wiki though - thanks for them. My suggestion for a better article would be to stop self-referencing the article as a reliable source, a link to the real "study" or its location would be more helpful.159.105.81.31 (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

http://poppers.cfsites.org/custom.php?pageid=8068 - this link summarizes several studies done relevant to poppers/AIDS/HIV/cancer. On their own poppers appear to be stimulators of cancer growth. More frequent use - what I wanted to know - multiples anything bad happening to you( per one study - ie if you want increase your chance of getting HIV, try a popper - if you want to encourage cancer, try a popper). This research has been available for some tin=me and appears to be continuing to this day, by real labs putting out real reports.159.105.81.31 (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC) The reason for the association between the use of poppers and HIV infection is that poppers relax smooth muscle which includes the cells lining the rectum. This means that poppers facilitate receptive anal intercourse which is a high-risk behavior. A mediational model would show the association between popper use and HIV infection mediated by receptive anal intercourse. I hope this helps the discussion.Citations include Mirvish & Haverkos, 1987; Ostrow, 1986; Fisher, DeLapp, Roggenbuck, & Brause 1992Afdgf (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)afdgfReply

I just took out the phrase "the head rush and euphoria are the result of increased heart rate" from the "aphrodisiac" section, which I think may have been an innocent error by a non-medical contributor. This isn't true (all three are caused by other effects of the drug such as vasodilation), and furthermore the reference to the Merck manual did not include any such claim. Finally the sentence itself is sort of out of place and doesn't contribute to the section (even if true, which it isn't). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.2.17.185 (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

"It was reported that this group reduced usage following the AIDS epidemic, while the drug-users had not."

This statement could not be sourced, except as a statement appearing in WP and mirror sites. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

"We hypothesize that in homosexual AIDS patients KS is caused by prolonged and repeated exposure to semen,nitrites or both agents which,under normal circumstances,in non-AIDS patients, are either absent or largely excluded from contact with endothelial targets in the vascular or lymphatic system. Both these agents are potent oxidising agents in biological systems (26,27) and indeed oxidation is essential for many of their biological properties and effects. For example,sperm maturation (and thus fertilisation) is a process which requires the oxidation of sperm nuclear sulphydryl groups to disulphides (28). All cells exhibit a thiol cycle and this cycle is a principal determinant of many cellular functions including mitotic rate (26). Thus nitrites and sperm, like all carcinogens and mitogens,by their oxidative nature may induce perturbation of the thiol cycle,and this effect may underlie the ample epidemiological evidence that semen and nitrites are alone the two factors highly correlated with the appearance of KS in homosexuals (29,30)." From The Perth Group — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.225.200.133 (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

This statement was taken from "Kaposi's Sarcoma and HIV". Medical Hypotheses. 39: 22–29. 1992. Retrieved 29 June 2016. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help) As it is clearly an hypothesis article, and has been cited only 34 times in 25 years, and appears to be associated with Duesberg (see [3]), I judge it unsuitable for WP. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

what is missing here as that there is a direct correlation between the use of amyl nitrites (poppers) and AIDS "epidemic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.225.200.133 (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Done in part, such that text is now better than it was. While I found no aphrodisiac section at the start of my work today, there was a section regarding a link between popper use and Karposi's sarcoma. I edited this the text, to make clear that any direct association was unproven in the provided sources, but that the correlation between drug use and increasing risky sexual behaviour was supported by the literature (with its corresponding correlation with increasing risk of STD). That new citation appears, with a long quote, so that it can be examined. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

This edit looks suspicious to me, as it completely reverses the messaging in the health effects section without any change to the sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poppers&diff=588078169&oldid=588077608 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.170.2 (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Done Addressed this and further issues with today's edits. He was right, but went about it in a lazy, and inappropriate way (attributing a right conclusion to a wrong source). Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

http://forum.xumuk.ru/index.php?showtopic=152660 http://sakrutov-grisha.livejournal.com/619.html 2001:4C28:4000:721:185:26:182:36 (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Not done Articles are self-published, contain Wikipedia content, and/or are only available in Russian, and so are not suitable sources for the encyclopedia. However, the apparent concern of this editor for "harm", and the matter of chemistry, were addressed (hopefully, in accord with this editors interests). Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I did some major editing of the article, to address a tendency toward adding statements without citations, and a propensity to make the page an erowid-type article of use for potential experimenters (rather than an encyclopedic article).

Important changes are fully cataloged in the Edit summaries, and include:

• introduction of Pharm Phys section, so that the known impacts on physiology, based on alkyl nitrite pharmacology, can be summarized,
• collecting, and making clear the fatalities and injuries that have been associated with use of these agents (which earlier were subsumed/hidden under administration),
• restructuring of the Health effects section, including moving administration to use, and adding subsectioning appropriate to remaining material, and
• noting throughout, when material was unsourced, or poorly sourced, and where sources were unforgivably incomplete.

As well, I found a source in the LGBT online literature that was up-to-date, and made clear that formulations of the title subject change, and that these changes have impact on health aspects of their use.

Finally, I added content to the lede (summarizing the health material in the main body), and moved/removed material in the lede that was unsourced and not in the main body. (This was conservative, but bold.)

In doing these things, I addressed some concerns appearing above in Talk, as noted.

Please discuss here any concerns, and I will respond. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

The following unsourced statements that appeared in a prior version of the article are moved here, as they lack any sourcing whatsoever. Please add them back to the article, only with high quality secondary sourcing, appropriate to the encyclopedia:

Please do not return either statement without sourcing, and checking that source as to the accuracy of the content. (In my experience, editors choosing not to source, are also apt to misstate source content.) Any concerns, please discuss here, and I will respond. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Do any poppers even have this in them any more? Is there any data on whats actually in each brand? --Simon19801 (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, Wikipedia is not a user's guide. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Trying to correct the article as its wrong (as alot of articles are) AmyleNitrite is NOT IN ANY OF THEM and has not been for years! I thought it would better if the article was correct and didnt list WRONG contents, and would be better if it listed the actual contents!--Simon19801 (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

If you can find a source for that, feel free to make the change. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

This article is so full of speculation, opinion and devoid of references, that it would be better served by being completely nuked than continuing to spread (potentially dangerous) unsourced or mis- information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.73.43 (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I can't find statistics in the article about the use of "poppers" in sexual assaults, like the one that Bette Midler relates happened to her. She has said repeatedly since about 1991-ish that she was forced into the bathroom of her home by two men who then snapped a couple of poppers under her nose and assaulted her. If these things can be used in this manner, then I'm sure that Midler isn't the only one to have been subjected to such a violation. Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

The article states "The French chemist Antoine Jérôme Balard synthesized amyl nitrite in 1844." yet Balard died in 1876. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_J%C3%A9r%C3%B4me_Balard, also http://www.nndb.com/people/586/000114244/.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.70.151.128 (talk • contribs) 21:06, November 30, 2018 (UTC)

1802 born

1844 synthesized amyl nitrate

1876 died

What is the problem? - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

"In the US, amyl nitrite was originally marketed as a prescription drug in 1937 and remained so until 1960, when the Food and Drug Administration removed the prescription requirement due to its safety record. This requirement was reinstated in 1969, after observation of an increase in recreational use.

"Other alkyl nitrites were outlawed in the US by Congress through the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. The law includes an exception for commercial purpose, defined as any use other than for the production of consumer products containing volatile alkyl nitrites meant for inhaling or otherwise introducing volatile alkyl nitrites into the human body for euphoric or physical effects.[53] The law came into effect in 1990.

"Substances containing alkyl nitrites other than amyl nitrite are available at many retailers[citation needed] – typically sex shops and stores that sell recreational-drug paraphernalia – and may be purchased legally."

The second and third paragraphs seem to contradict each other.... 71.235.184.247 (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

There is no contradiction. Alkyl nitrites are legal for commercial products other than inhalers. Those sold legally are packaged/labeled as if they are intended for various other uses. To market or sell them as inhalants would be openly illegal. I'm sure the fine, upstanding companies selling "tape deck head cleaners" would be SHOCKED to learn that people were using their product for anything else.

Q-tips are not intended to clean out your ears. Fortune tellers, psychics and such are illegal unless they display a sign saying it's for "entertainment purposes only". The place that couldn't get a liquor license sold really crappy pizzas that came with a free pitcher of beer. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I am pleased to announce that Australia's TGA board has rendered a final decision on the legality of Poppers in Australia. As I am insufficiently equipped to make edits myself, I have simply posted this direct link to the TGA's decision for any editor that wishes to peruse and edit as they please.

Final decision(s) for matter(s) referred to the March 2019 Joint ACMS-ACCS meeting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.133.142 (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

@PalmSpringsCub: @Tony Inman: Let's all keep in mind that we need to build consensus here. This is the place for that discussion. Personally, I think undue weight is placed on these popperbating videos. Sure, they exist, but are they singlehandedly responsible for the resurgence of popper use in the 21st century? Ehhhh. There being no surveys I can find relating to why and where people use poppers, I don't see how we can delete the mention of this practice either. But we shouldn't give it undue weight. Poppers have a utilitarian aspect: that they help some people relax to facilitate anal sex. That utility has never gone away, and to say that it's primary market is being supplanted by those that use poppers while masturbating is a bit of a big claim. Thoughts? TheSavageNorwegian 22:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Thesavagenorwegian: In regards to its utilitarian aspect, there has been mentions of how poppers can affect on a psychological level as the person who synthesized this (Sir Thomas Lauder Brunton) called it an aphordisiac due to lowered inhibitions. It is the physical effect of poppers that add to the psychological changes - historically, it is used not just in sexual contexts but also in non-sexual contexts of disco/raves. If we look at the wikipage of Amyl Nitrite^[1] in which poppers are created with, one of the physiological effects is synesthesia and dissociation^[2], which is important to consider when looking at the context of these videos.

The point of the addition isn't on the increased poppers usage but rather, it's presence in media itself only recently has this been studied on a formal, academic level (John Mercer's publications that looks at it from a social study lens, productive leisure and contextualizing this practice to a identity group).

The study goes beyond just looking at this as just "porn" but rather, focuses on how poppers are used in conjunction with scripting these works. If it was just strictly amateur porn compilations, it shouldn't belong in this wiki - but it's the fact that the consistent presence of poppers across these videos that is done in a scripted matter, with formal and rhetorical ‘conventions’ that manifest themselves to the public, in combinations with specific music and imagery that is tied to minority groups/interests that is relevant. These works have been around for years within small groups but span through several different, diverse interests and it was only recently that it was formally looked at on an academic level - why and how these works come to be and relates this to other formal studies related to mass media and vernacular creativity^[3] (a critical, historicised perspective on user-led content production that takes cultural politics into account) that is often seen in today's networked digital spaces.^[4]

The original title itself wasn't "resurgence of poppers use" nor did I ever claim that the primary market is supplemented by those who use poppers while masturbating, but rather we're looking at its presence through media when I titled it "21st-century resurgence through New Media in queer subculture" through forms of mass media. So maybe it's not the word resurgence that should be used as that has a specific implication but rather just "presence". If we were talking about increased usage within individuals (which to add, even that kind of formal data gathering itself is rare and the reason why the long/short term effects of poppers is barely documented because it is such a niche area), that would be something else, but this is specific to the presence of poppers within a specific context (just like how poppers have had their own footprint in rave/club culture).PalmSpringsCub (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

There doesn't seem much to discuss. Contentious material added repeatedly by a single purpose account? Consensus should be reached before adding contentious material - not to decide whether to revert it. The source being relied upon, 1) isn't RS (and if you think it is, by all means, take it to RS forum for debate.) and 2) doesn't actually back up the claims being made. That's why I removed it and will continue to do so provided there's no improvement in the source validity or citation evidence for the claims. To effect consensus, by all means, explain why you think adding this material improves the article, and explain how the source is RS and explain how the source backs up the claims you are making. Tonyinman (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Also, reading through the entire talk page - I draw your attention to this coment from 2010 by WLU "should this article, being medical-ish, be in line with MEDMOS?" - which I agree with. The article should be facutal - it's about a chemical originally designed for angina. It shouldn't be a repository for uncited cultural opinion. Tonyinman (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

as @Thesavagenorwegian: mentioned, please focus on the actual discussion of the content, @Tonyinman: - simply just dismissing/ignoring the points I've made doesn't count. Less focus on targeted attacks and instead focus on the discussion. You still haven't addressed the points made (and you keep talking about the source not being reliable - again, please reread my points above that lists an actual, published academic source from John Mercer - Birmingham School of Media as the primary source of that section) and I would like to see what others say. Additionally, @Thesavagenorwegian:, I've noticed that @Tonyinman: purposefully made conflicting edits to make undos difficult by editing that specific section several times before taking it out completely. Is this allowed? Seems like an abuse of a technicality instead of going through due process as you told us.

@Thesavagenorwegian: gave us the opportunity to have a discussion but you're omitting the process and just constantly pushing your edits through. PalmSpringsCub (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

The edit summaries are very clear. As previously stated, please go through the Talk page to gain consensus before adding contentious and poorly sourced material. Tonyinman (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Also, PalmSpringsCub is relying on a material inaccuracy to source his claims - that his source is the work of a Professor John Mercer. Except, it isn't. On closer inspection, the source is written by an unnamed undergraduate studying "porn studies" and the document has been uploaded to an open access, non peer-reviewed forum. It appeared in a journal of undergraduate essays uploaded by "John Mercer". It wasn't written by him. It is unclear whether it was ever published other than on this online platform. It has no ascertainable or provable academic or peer regarded merit and therefore amounts to WP:OR and has no place in this article (or any other on WP). Tonyinman (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

in Canada BC, I'm unaware of it's used in other areas, a popper refers to a combination of marijuana and tobacco, usually packed Into a bowl to smoke through a Bong/other smoking devices 199.247.240.114 (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply