perhaps it makes this point even clearer when one remembers that ketamine could be also referred to as n-methyl-norketamine
That just takes it to moronic lengths and doesn't prove anything aside from the fact that (A-B)+B = A. Fallacious reasoning.
Such (moronic) naming refers to one compound, and one compound only. That's why no one (with intelligence) would refer to it in such a way. N-E-NorKet MUST be referred to as such because otherwise you create potentially dangerous ambiguity.
no - and this is a further reason that I am against insisting on the cumbersome correct nomenclature, it is misleading to this wrong conclusion.
Wow... this is just getting retarded. It's a fucking analogue of both of them. And what relevance does this have to the naming of the compound? You could call it Ethetamine or anything and have a perfectly usable non-ambiguous trivial name. Either call it what is or come up with something new. Don't advocate for people's lives at risk because your ability to understand a truly simple naming process is impaired.
Honestly, this is like asking for the RC industry to get even more murky.
I can't believe that someone would admit to find the use of "nor" complicated, [proof that I'm capable of self censoring]
The whole reason for using the correct nomenclature is to account for the fact that the naming you're advocating refers to an entirely different compound. Here are just a few reasons not to use the moronic nomenclature you're advocating:
1. IT REFERS TO AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT DRUG. If your naming system results in people being unable to tell the difference between two different drugs it is DANGEROUS.
2. WHAT DO WE NOW REFER TO THE REAL N-ETHYL-KETAMINE? Is that NEK-2? N-Ethyl-Ketamine version 2.0?
3. USING THIS MORONIC SYSTEM, AN RC VENDOR MAY PLACE AN ORDER FOR N-ETHYL-KETAMINE and actually receive N-Ethyl-Ketamine. You know, NEK-2 or N-Ethyl-Ketamine ver 2.0. I know, your system is supposed to be simpler right. Perhaps NEK-2 is actually toxic. Now people are dying. Perhaps it turns out to be much weaker (as it probably is) someone switches from high doses of that to high doses of NEK ver 1.0 without realizing it (because without pictures and analysis there's no way to actually tell) and they're talking to God face to face, in the undesired way.
The real, accepted nomenclature does not cause people to believe that it's an analogue of a metabolite or the more common drug. That's just people not understanding chemistry. That same misunderstanding occurs within all sorts of compounds for which there are no naming disputes (this isn't a dispute really- there's only one right answer. there's also a dumb answer, that's undeniable, but there's only one right one).
in ethylketamine, the n-methyl group of regular ketamine has been replaced with an n-ethyl group, whereas norketamine has no n-substitution at all. so the n-alkyl substitution has been lengthened in the step from ketamine to ethylketamine, so in a certain sense ethylketamine is further away from norketamine than ketamine itself. when one orders according to the length of the side chain, one gets the following series:
Yeah... so what? it's almost certainly closer in terms of pharmacology as well. That's irrelevant in naming the compound. Perhaps we should rename Dextromethorphan because people might get confused and think it's an opiate?
