Talk:Poppers

This article is based on text that was originally at amyl nitrite, and the public domain document http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs/708/ (a work of the U.S. Federal Government with no copyright notice can be assumed to be in the public domain).

Update: The DOJ ain't too hot at maintaining their site, but the source text is now at http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/708/.

Given the source of most of this text, there's probably a lot more NPOV problems than just using the word "abuse" to refer to any recreational use. An obvious example is that we detail all of the possible health problems but go into no detail about the beneficial effects (the kind of euphoria produced, how it helps with sex, etc). Unfortunately, I can't provide that, since I'd never use such a drug as this! -- Toby Bartels 12:27 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree. NPOV is a problem on this page. It appears like those opposed to poppers spend a lot of time here. None the less, you're right. Poppers appear to have benifical effects for people, as well. Someone should list them here. Whatever, no one seems to be getting hurt from their use. At least I don't see anything serious in any of the literature or press for decades. 82.13.21.187 18:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In which countries, if any, is the recreational use of poppers legal? AxelBoldt 21:29 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Beats me. -- Toby Bartels 21:25 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Use is legal in the USA. Sale or importation is illegal, not under the controlled substances law (21 U.S.C. §§ 801-971) but under the consumer product safety law (15 U.S.C. §§ 2057a-2057b). Apparently, alkyl nitrites have commercial or industrial uses, such that listing them as a controlled substance would create problems for some industries. Don't know about other countries. -- Cjmnyc 05:46 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I removed the following

Death from inhalant use can occur after a single use or after prolonged use. Sudden sniffing death (SSD) may result within minutes of inhalant use from irregular heart rhythm leading to heart failure. Other causes of death include asphyxiation, aspiration, or suffocation. A user who is suffering from impaired judgment may also experience fatal injuries from motor vehicle accidents or sudden falls. Nitrites, however, have caused no known deaths and appear to be safer than most other inhalants.

Whoever wrote that poppers cause SSD isn't reading the literature. Poppers are essentially very safe, and there is no indication, anywhere, that they've ever caused a death by inhalation.

According to Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) Medical Examiner data, inhalants were a factor in over 500 deaths in the United States from 1996 to 1999. Medical examiner data provided by DAWN cover only 40 metropolitan areas in the United States; thus, many inhalant-related deaths across the country are not reflected in DAWN data.

But, 'inhalant deaths' are always inhalants like glue, gasoline, type writer correction fluid, and so forth. There's never been a recorded instance of death from sniffing poppers. Anywhere in the world. 82.13.21.187 18:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This part of the government document seems to talk about general inhalants rather than poppers. AxelBoldt 21:42 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Oops, I put it back in; I guess I was misguided by the part Nitrites, however, have caused no known deaths and appear to be safer than most other inhalants. which is not part of the government document but was added by 63.214.217.46. AxelBoldt 21:45 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

But, poppers have never caused a death by inhalation. But if anyone has support for such a thing, please post it here. 82.13.21.187 18:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted "a carry-over from the 1960s, an era where drug use and experimentation were common", on NPOV grounds. I suspect this article may have other NPOV problems as well. -- Cjmnyc 05:31 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This article on poppers has lots of NPOV issues. :0) It seems the people who are opposed to poppers, and therefore anyone using them for pleasure, spend a lot of time posting anti-popper propoganda in this article. Hank WIlson is a classic example. If you google for his name, you'll find he's a major anti-poppers agitator. Hardly an unbiased and neutral source of information. I think most people understand that, and take what he and the orthers say with a grain of salt (as they say in the USA). 82.13.21.187 18:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reference section of the poppers article lists published articles in scientific journals,most peer reviewed, and the PMID number is listed for ready reference. The articles speak for themselves with most being cautionary and focusing on hazards of poppers use. The intent of such a listing is to make consumers aware of these scientific publications, limitations often acknowledged. There is no claim that the list is definitive. Other published articles can be added, including any that include positive benefits of using poppers. Hankwilson 23:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 23:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HankwilsonHankwilson's claim that anyone can post articles or studies that poppers have positive benfits is false. Read the entire discussion page history and you see that when people have tried to do just that, they are harrassed by the likes of Hankwilson and several others. These anti-popper zealots have had people banned whenever they've posted anything posititive about poppers. As for the PMID postings, in the discussion history you can find that someone had gone through some of them and found many to be unrelated, or unsupportive of the anti-popper posters' description of what they were intended to say. Sometimes the poster actually lied about what the PMID listing was about, claiming that it showed negative findings when in fact it did not. Pretty shameful if you ask me. 194.48.136.227 08:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

See Talk:Alkyl nitrites

This seems a good idea to me.

But, there was a guy here a few months ago, a doctor or a scientist (I can't remember which), who suggested keeping them separate. I think his concern was that he wanted to the chemical article to steer clear of the chaos that had been going on in the 'poppers' article.

Now that the clamour has calmed down, maybe the articles could be linked.

I tried to find his postings in the discussion page, but for some reason the page has been removed or at least all the history has dissapeared.

216.54.197.236 22:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake and posted here instead on the page where I should have. I apologize. I agree with Dr. Zak, that these articles should be kept separate. See his explanaiton here Talk:Alkyl nitrites 216.54.197.236 22:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Links section

Dalmation55, others may comment on your other edits/removals, but I've added back the inclusion of the link to All About Poppers which you deleted. It seems an appropriate one. It is not spam. It provides genuine and important background information. Lt. Dan 23:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allaboutpoppers is a manufacturer sponsored website and this calls into question the integrity of the information. This website has been cited in the press did you read:

http://ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=873?

Whether you take Hank Wilsons line or not, I do not, the evidence is quite clear. This is a commercial website, masquerading an an authority, with a hidden agenda. From past reading I also understand that this site has been spamming wikipedia for many years.

Wikipedia's policy is that it desires to accept all the significant viewpoints on an issue, and that instead of simply stating one perspective, articles should try to present all relevant viewpoints without judging them. Its policy does not mean that Wikipedia articles are expected to be 100% objective, since in any dispute all sides believe their view to be "true."

The poppers article is an example of how the Wikipedia community has worked hard to create a credible source of valid information from as many viewpoints as possible -- rather then an article that was written from a single perspective. If you look back through the discussion page, going back to earlier this year especially, you'll find that the current version of the article was established through general consensus.

With regard to the various links in the poppers article, WIkipedia suggests that when deciding whether to add a link, it's important to ask yourself "If I were reading this article, would the link be useful to me?" The website All About Poppers was useful to me, and I would imagine that it's equally useful to others.

Wikipedia also points out that if any websites would be of particular interest to a reader of an article, they should be listed and linked to in an "External links" section. All About Poppers is such a website, and it has appropriately been listed and linked to in the "External links" section of this article.

Per wikipedia an appropriate link is, in general, any site that provides "a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose." All About Poppers seems to be a genuinely unique resource which presents important additional insight about poppers, beyond what the poppers article gives us.

Wherever All About Poppers comes from, there is no proof that it is a "manufacturer sponsored website". But, even if it were, that should not disqualify it if the information it contains is important and relevant to the discussion, especially under the Wikipedia guidelines mentioned above. There are many websites in the poppers article that are 'sponsored' by people with vested interests in their side of the discussion.

When reading the information found on All About Poppers, it's pretty clear that the site is not "a commercial website". And, it does not appear to be "masquerading an an authority"; it presents authoritative information about poppers not found in this article itself. I could find no evidence that the site has been "spamming wikipedia for many years".

I've added All About Poppers back to the "External Links" section and ask that if you still disagree, rather than removing it again, that you discuss it here, first. Lt. Dan 16:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan: Anyone who follows the poppers article knows that efforts to stifle information not negative about poppers is usually the handiwork of the anti-popper 'minions of darkness', who prowl the poppers article watching for anyone who dares to contribute anything neutral about poppers. If you try to post anything that points out that poppers aren't a boogie-man, you're in for threats and shouts, along with admonishments to stop. Just go back and read the history on the discussion pages. The arrogance of these guys is astonishing.

The attempt to smear All About Poppers, and diminish its integrity by pointing out that it was "cited in the press", is way out of line.

First of all, the Bay Area Reporter in San Francisco is nothing more than a gay rag; it's no where near a reputable news organization. Although, even if it was, and it "cited" All About Poppers, what's that supposed to mean? In general, the media in this county is well known for its sensationalism and yellow journalism. The BAR is no exception, and worse in many instances. (I know, I lived in San Francisco for several years.)

Secondly, Hank Wilson, who they apparently relied upon for most, if not all, of the information in their article, is hardly an unbiased person. For god's sake, he's so biased against poppers it's scary. His cozy relationship with the writer of the article is no secret. Having a fear-mongering, anti-popper zealot as your source for a sensationalist anti-popper article is hardly good journalism.

The All About Poppers site is no more a commercial website than the man-in-the-moon. All the stuff you point out about Wikipedia makes sense. The link should stay. It's been in the article for a long time, and vandals should not be allowed to remove it. It's a great way to get additional insight from another perspective. That's how Wikipedia works. Get used to it. HoneyBot29 01:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The All About Poppers site has often been linked from popper selling sites.Interestingly, the content of All About Poppers has changed in the last year. The current focus of that site is to dismiss hazards of poppers use and to debunk the published research to date. Many of those articles predate published research, or ignore it. That site includes opinion pieces dismissing the hazards demonstrated by published research. The opinion pieces are not neutral. There inclusion in "External Links" could be helpful to illustrate the diverse views about poppers and the history of the debate as the research evolves. Also, the reference section until recently was arranged with the most recent articles published first so that there can be a historical review of the research.

These articles should be removed from the reference section because they are not scientific research. If allowed to remain in the reference section, then they should be rearranged according to chronilogical order.    Some of the opinion articles in All About Poppers carry no publication dates, Paul Varnell's article for example, making it difficult to put in a historical framework.

Ad hominem attacks fail to deal with the results and conclusions of the published research.

Recently, Google and Yahoo have both stopped carrying sponsored popper selling sites under search: "poppers". Hankwilson 06:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 06:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honeypot, is the allaboutpoppers website sponsored and connected with Pac West / Great Lakes Products of Indiana or not? Please can someone clarify this issue? This has nothing to do with Hank Wilson or his campaign, it is a matter of a the integrity of the information. The commercial entities mentioned produce "aroma products" and sell them as such, do they not? If it might be established that they also promote the misuse of the product then that would be a grave matter indeed. I would welcome insight on the connection between Pac West / Great Lakes, Joseph F. Miller, and the allaboutpoppers webiste. Perhaps there is none? Let us clear this matter up shall we? If the allaboutpoppers is connected to Pac West we should be told and vice versa. Thanks. Dalmation55

Pac West (Poppers Manufacturer) and allaboutpoppers.com

It seems I may have answered my own question. Hidden in the code on Pac West Distributing Inc's corporate website is this little trick (see below). The links are HIDDEN and can only be seen using special software. Why would Pac West link to allaboutpoppers.com and www.virusmythpoppersmyth.org in such a secretive way? Why not be open about it? This whiffs of something fishy, what do others think?

http://www.pwdbrands.com/never_fake_it.php hides the following CODING from the naked eye:

"http://www.allaboutpoppers.com" target=_blank>RUSH</A> hour!", “Feel the Pleasure!”, PPP™ and "Purity-Power-Potency", are internationally-registered trademarks and/or service marks, or are international copyrights, of their respective owners.

Note: All our nitrite based products are sold as room odorants, liquid incense, liquid aromas, or video head <A class=notewhite href="http://www.junglejuicepoppers.com/" target=_blank>cleaner</A> only. Although research indicates it is generally safe to do so, we do not <A class=notewhite href="http://www.ironhorsepoppers.com/" target=_blank>encourage</A> the misuse of our products as poppers. We are not responsible for the media claims that liquid aromas or poppers are said to be aphrodisiacs or sex drugs, and we do not endorse such claims. Our products do not contain amyl nitrite or butyl nitrite. They contain highly pure isobutyl <A class=notewhite href="http://www.virusmythpoppersmyth.org/paul_varnell/" target=_blank>n</A><A class=notewhite href="http://www.virusmythpoppersmyth.org/mariposa_occasional_paper/" target=_blank>i</A><A class=notewhite href="http://www.virusmythpoppersmyth.org/aids_researchers_disgust_/" target=_blank>t</A><A class=notewhite href="http://www.virusmythpoppersmyth.org/matthew_gutter/" target=_blank>r</A><A class=notewhite href="http://www.virusmythpoppersmyth.org/robert_bauman/" target=_blank>i</A><A class=notewhite href="http://www.virusmythpoppersmyth.org/aids_and_poppers/what_about_the_relationship_between_alkyl_nitrites_and_ks/index.html" target=_blank>te</A>, <A class=notewhite href="http://poppersmyth.typepad.com/aids_and_poppers/" target=_blank>a</A><A class=notewhite href="http://poppersmyth.typepad.com/queer_advertising/" target=_blank>l</A><A class=notewhite href="http://www.virusmythpoppersmyth.org/thomas_lowry/" target=_blank>k</A><A class=notewhite href="http://poppersmyth.typepad.com/tbaidsandpoppers" target=_blank>y</A><A class=notewhite

href="http://poppersmyth.typepad.com/what_are_poppers/" target=_blank>l</A> nitrites, cyclohexyl nitrite or hexyl nitrites only. </BODY> </HTML>

Pac West Inc's interest in promoting these websites requires an explanation I think.

Okay. The two guys who are opposed to poppers say that All About Poppers shouldn't any longer be included in "External Links" because:

1) "Recently, Google and Yahoo have both stopped carrying sponsored popper selling sites under search: "poppers".

2) The All About Poppers site "has often been linked from popper selling sites.", and is linked from a poppers manufacturer's site.

3) "The content of All About Poppers has changed in the last year."

What's the point? Google or Yahoo may have stopped carrying sponsored "popper selling sites" under the search "poppers", but what's that got to do with All About Poppers? It doesn't sell poppers.

I'm not a computer person, but I think it's true that links to a site are out of the control of the site being linked to, and I don't think there is any way for a site to stop any other site from adding a link to them. So it's not All About Poppers' fault other sites link to them. But who cares anyway? Where's the harm?

And also, most websites change over time and site redesign is common practice. That doesn't make them unworthy or discredit what they have to say.

The All About Poppers site is full of lots of background information that's not in the article. If you take the time to read it, like I have (and it takes some time, there's a lot there, and some of it is heavy reading), whether you agree with it or not, you'll see it's valuable information. It should be included and has been added back to the "External Links" section. HoneyBot29 22:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've hashed this all out a million times, though with the random page moves i have no idea where the conversations might be. allaboutpoppers and mirrors of it were removed dozens of times, and as a matter of fact, the person who added it was blocked numerous times for continually adding it. The site is definitely owned by pacwest, as is virusmyth and all the rest; the research has been done by various people. it absolutely does not fall under the WP:EL standards, and that has absolutely nothing to do with logical fallacy, but wikipedia policy. This link, and links to any mirrors or other pacwest fronts, have absolutely no place here. --heah 23:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]