Talk:Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of the WikiProject on Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants, set up to organize and expand entries on Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants as well as related subjects according to chemical type, effects, organic carriers, and cultural/historical uses. Please feel free to participate by editing this article and visiting the project page.

Contents 1 NPOV dispute (old) 2 Non-recreational use 3 Merge from Hallucinogens 4 "Current use" 5 Source for death penalty 6 Hallucinagenic mindstates often evoked by REM 7 Deleted material 8 Dissociatives 9 NPOV dispute 10 Psychedelics 10.1 Serotonergic Psychedelics? 11 Dissociatives 12 Deliriants 13 Intro draft 14 Comments on Haiduc draft 15 Much left to do in restructuring article 16 Title of page 17 Brain damage 18 Stub Sorting 19 Causing mental illness 20 Neurotransmitters as free radicals (causing mental illness) 21 ...continued 22 cont. 23 still cont. 24 Article approaching "good" status 25 thanks 26 ????? 27 NPOV, Second Paragraph 28 Requested Move 29 Adding LSD to drinks (last paragraph of Legal Status) 30 third paragraph horrors 31 I did some rewriting. 32 move title 33 Categorization dispite 34 Crazy POV statements (or a philosophical faux pas?) 35 Terminology

[edit] NPOV dispute (old)

Before responding to this discussion, see the newer NPOV dispute section further below.

I am sorry for coming late to the discussion, but I must say that it seems an error to remain stuck with "hallucinogen" as a working term. It IS pejorative, it is misleading, and worst of all, it feeds into drug war propaganda. It is as if we were trying to write a balanced article on same-sex love and decided that we had to use the terms "sodomy" and "sodomite." --Haiduc 22:57, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ok, but the problems with entheogen and psychedelic are just as bad, if not worse. "Hallucinogenic drug" is the term most commonly used in the closest thing there is to neutral publications on the subject, i.e. the scientific literature. This is usually even the case in scientific articles with apparently approving tones. What would you propose as an alternative? Rkundalini 11:37, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why do you say that those two options are just as bad?--Haiduc 02:47, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There is a bit of discussion in each of those entries as to why the terms have been criticized. Basically, "entheogen" has not-necessarily-appropriate associations with god and religion, while "psychedelic", although originally fine, acquired a lot of irrelevant baggage and misuse in the 60s. Personally I advocate reclaiming the use of the word psychedelic so I guess I would agree with you if you wanted to replace "hallucinogenic drug" with this term, but others may disagree due to the inappropriate meanings it has acquired. Also, what about scopolamine-like things, dissociatives, Salvia divinorum, and other hallucinogens that are arguably not psychedelics in the classic sense of the word? Rkundalini 15:16, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Interesting, your take on "entheogen." As an atheist, I should have picked up on that a long time ago. Frankly I do like "psychedelic," I like the etymology and I like the historical connotations. I also think that "psychoactive" and "psychotropic" are valid choices and can stand in as synonyms. "Hallucinogen" on the other hand is both a misnomer and misleading, diverting the attention away from what is really a halluccination. As for the substances you have mentioned, I do not know enough about them to pass judgement, and I would encourage retaining the term for those substances whose effects do fall within that category. The true psychedelics do not, or, if they do, so do alcohol, cocaine and opium.--Haiduc 02:24, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hallucinogens, psychedelics, and entheogens are not synonymous. I believe that there should be different articles on all three, which there are, and when overlap occurs, the information should be placed under hallucinogen. Both of the other articles link to Hallucinogen so that should not be a major problem. On the whole I do not have many qualms with this article, but I would propose that "dissociative hallucinogens" should not be refered to as such. An encounter of this category in most literature that I have read would indicate that it would be better known as "dissociative anaesthetics". The drugs in this category, (Nitrous Oxide, Ketamine, PCP, and DXM, + more) may be known by some for their hallucinogen-like status, and should not be removed, but they should be recategorized and a note should be put that their hallucinogenic properties are questionable. They are as related to hallucinogens as alcohol or cocaine, and since those are not mentioned (even though there might be reason for them to be mentioned in a similar context), there is no reason to categorize the disassociative analgesics as hallucinogens. Heroin has created plenty of hallucinations, but is not categorized as a hallucinogenic drug because it better fits another category. The same goes for these 'dissociatives'. One idea would be to list all the drugs that fit under the more technical categorization of hallucinogenic drug first, and then on a seperate list, place all drugs that have the quality of being hallucinogenic. Please post your thoughts. Thank You. Flying Hamster 21:56, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As an addendum to my previous post, I will post this link. ATCCS. This is the official categorization system of the WikiProject on Drugs, as can be seen here. This is the standard that is being used (although unfortunately not strictly followed) for the organization of drugs on Wikipedia. There is no particular category of drug in this system that refers to hallucinogenic drugs. They are instead organized much more specifically. I would suggest that an emphasis be placed on the hallucination as being a quality of a drug, not its category. Flying Hamster 22:58, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please see my reply at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Drugs/Categorization --Rkundalini 06:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Non-recreational use

Deleted from the main page in reference to calling the use of hallucinogens for recreational use:

It is not really appropriate to name the use that way, but unfortunately many people do. It is not recommended to perceive this class of drugs as "recreational".

Why not? It may be your value judgement that using them for recreation is {unwise/sinful/not much fun anyway}, but to me at least, both the general public and medical professionals class drugs taken (whether wisely or not) for fun as recreational drug use, so why shouldn't we reflect that usage?

Additionally, we are not here to advocate or discourage drug use, per se. Our goal is to present as accurate and comprehensive information about drugs as we can. If they cause your brain to rot, your sexual organs to drop off, and cause you to start voting for the Eastern European contestants in the Eurovision Song Contest, that should speak for itself. --Robert Merkel

---

I agree with that. However, we should care to the facts that:

1. only a minority of the general public as well as of medical professionals have personal experience with hallucinogens.

2. Most other drugs taken for fun have tiny personal (non-medical) benefits expect of that fun. Hallucinogens, however, can have a deep impact on ones personal life, even when taken only once.

3. These influences upon ones personal life are far less predictable than just a quality of a vanishing drug effect

So in sum, hallucinogens have high risks in exactly the recreational use, the often thoughtless use for a short fun, much more than other drugs used for that reason. On the other hand, fun certainly is not their highest benefit, because unlike most other classes of drugs their real value shows up long after their direct effect wear off. -- DA

So make these points explicitly (though perhaps you should take care to seperate personal experience from consensus researched opinion). I still don't see why we shouldn't call it recreational use - shooting up heroin, or petrol sniffing aren't exactly clever things to do, but that's what they are however ill-advised.

Injecting heroin is not really unsafe.

Halluconogenic drugs don't have high risks. You have more chance of coming to harm from alcohol consumption.

[edit] Merge from Hallucinogens

This text was at Hallucinogens and should be integrated into this article:

An hallucinogen is a non-addictive narcotic substance that produce in humans altered sense-perceptions or states of consciousness. There are a great variety of plants and fungi with hallucinogenic properties, as well as synthetic hallucinogens.

Almost all hallucinogens contain nitrogen and are classified as alkaloids; plant hallucinogens often have chemical structures similar to those of human hormones involved in brain biochemistry.

As with all toxins, whether the effect is medicinal, narcotic, or poisonous depends on the dosage.

Whether the use of hallucinogens is unregulated, regulated, or prohibited, and whether hallucinogens are used for recreational, medicinal, or spiritual purposes, varies from culture to culture.

Among the most well-known hallucinogenic plants and fungi are:

• Fly Agaric (Amanita muscaria)
• Petyote (Lophophora williamsii)
• Deadly Nightshade (Atropa)
• Henbane (Hyoscyamus)
• Mandrake (Mandragora)
• Marihuana (Cannabis)
• Ergot (Claviceps)
• Thorn Apple (Datora)
• Iboga (Tabernanthe)
• Ayahuasca (Banisteriopsis)
• Floripondio (Brugmansia)
• Peyote (Lophophora)
• Various mushrooms (Conocybe, Panaeolus, Psilocybe, Stropharia)
• San Pedro (Trichocereus)
• Badoh Negro (Ipomoea)
• Ololiuqui (Turbina)
• Epená (Virola)

See Richard Evans Schultes and Albert Hoffman, Plants of the Gods

[edit] "Current use"

I have moved this here from my User Talk page:

Hello, Why do you claim that the items listed under "Current Use" are "blatantly false???" It is a fact that most users are adolescents. It is a fact that therapeutic use continues "sub rosa." and it is a blatant fact that scientific research continues as well, though hamstrung by political considerations. I am keeping my opinions out of this. Are you?--Haiduc 14:16, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please provide some evidence that most users are adolescents, rather than countering my statements by repeating yourself. The more blatant "common sense" factoid would be that most users are of college age and shortly thereafter, between 18-26, which is not the age of adolescence. More importantly, however, without credible evidence, this is mostly speculation. While its use in college might be obvious, its use at an older age might be more hidden rather than less common, all the more reason that evidence of sound methodology should be presented.

As for the other parts of that section, I was not asserting that they were false but rather that the information of those parts are already contained elsewhere in the article, and that the statements could not quite stand on their own. If you think this information is not elsewhere in the article, please integrate it in the appropriate parts or create a section that can stand whole and founded and is not redundant. - Centrx 23:11, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please take a look at http://www.aic.gov.au/research/drugs/stats/youth/hallucinogen-1996.html as one example. Also www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/166607.pdf though the data is not as clear-cut. The trend appears to be a steep curve throughout adolescence, flattening out as one enters adulthood. As for the age of adolescence, that is a separate issue but the "adolescing" process in the west has been stretched out, and for our purposes we could safely use 21 as an arbitrary age of adulthood. In what regards the other aspects of current use, i.e. the continuing scientific and therapeutic work, a second, careful reading of the article yielded nothing that would give anyone the impression that all such work had not come to a halt with the beginning of the prohibition. Yensen, Strassman, Lotsof, the Europeans, there is a lot of ferment in the field that needs to be pointed out. The stuff I put up was a skeleton to be fleshed out "au fur et à mesure" that time is available. Regards, --Haiduc 21:44, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

These studies do not confirm anything in favor of your position. They are both based on questions of "use ever", which is not an indication of the prevalence of present use in certain age ranges. The Australian study only indicates a certain percentage of use ever by people age 12-17 and does not compare it at all with use of people older. Indeed, the page states the chart shows that "hallucinogen use increased with age for both sexes", which, if this page was premised on anything meaningful to this discussion, could be extrapolated to say that use would be more prevalent at an older age. Yet, this page is not meaningful to this discussion, so nevermind. As for the second document, nearly all of it also based on "use ever" and the only fact I could find relevant to this discussion, states that "thirty-four percent of college and university officials reported that hallucinogen use...is increasing on their campuses" and that "campus sources identified hallucinogen users today as mainstream students". The most useful data in the PDF is "Exhibit 5", from which can be concluded that most users of hallucinogens used it for the first time between the ages of 18-25. However, none of the chart indicates frequency or prevalence of use, the ~5% of people have used hallucinogens between the ages of 12-17 may have only used it once and not again, or a few times in the span of several years whereas, for instance, the college users might use hallucinogens several times a year. Also, because this is an old report, it does not mean anything for older users. Clearly, at least 15% of the present 35+ people have "used ever", because the 26-34 people of 1995 (15.2%) are now the 35+ people of today, which is an example of why this chart doesn't mean anything for prevalence of use. Such an 8% increase in the "use ever" for 35+ people over the last 9 years would not be an indication of an increase in use by people age 35+, because that percentage increase is from their use in the past, over 9 years ago.

Re: therapeutic use: the article links to psychedelic psychotherapy, which is where this information belongs. You might make a summary section in this article, that has a "Main article: psychedelic psychotherapy" link at the top. An example of this is in article Linux and numerous others.

As for the age of adolescence, if the word is so malleable and different between different countries and within different countries (for, although the formal definition might fit, the use of the word to mean that is not common in the U.S.), then it should not be used at all. If there is sufficient evidence, then it should be of specific age ranges. - Centrx 19:57, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Source for death penalty

Moved from article. Sources, like these, do not belong in the article. Rather, they should be here for verification and research purposes.

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

- Centrx 20:31, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hallucinagenic mindstates often evoked by REM

It should be noted that human deep sleep dreaming is considered a hallucinatory mindstate arguably evoked by rapid eye movement (REM). There is evidence that unrelenting REM deprivation, by any means not limited to serotonergic drugs, is causative in establishing "waking REM" in many human test subjects within approximatelly 12 days. Individuals experiencing REM-induced hallucinatory mindstates while awake may simply see flashes of light or experience hallucinatory psychosis. Retinal CIS & Retinal TRANS isomer conversion appears to play a crucial role in modulating the continuous signal to the brain during normal human visual perception by alteration of a single carbon atom bond. These isomers appear also to play a crucial role in REM-induced hallucinatory mindstates including deep dreaming and mixed wake/sleep mindstates.

[edit] Deleted material

What is happening with the mass of material deleted from this article today? If a good explanation is not forthcoming, it should be restored. Haiduc 22:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dissociatives

Should not the deliriants, muscimol, antihistamines, etc all be sub-headings under the dissociative heading? --Thoric 16:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I would say yes, although they haven't been recategorized yet. perhaps i'll do that now . . . --Heah (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute

Quoting from the article:

Of all the terms created, "hallucinogen", meaning roughly "generating delusions and false notions"

Given that there exists some difference of opinion on whether all so-called "hallucinogens" generate delusions or genuine "entheogenic" experiences, some more neutral term ought to be used, with the hallucinogen label placed into proper context rather than used directly. Whig 05:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately no such term exists at this time besides hallucinogen. The word psychedelic does not apply to deliriants, and although some may claim that some of the dissociatives should be considered psychedelics, that would leave us without a term to describe the substances currently categorized as psychedelics (I supposed we could have pure psychedelics and dissociative psychedelics, but that just adds more complication). Entheogen can refer to almost any drug as long as it has a traditional spiritual use (including possibly wine and tobacco). What we need is a completely different scientific term... but what? Technically psychedelic meaning "mind-manifesting" would be an appropriate term, but I already explained one problem with that (the other problem being its strong ties to art, music and 60's counterculture). Ideally we need a linguist to propose a new term that means "consciousness altering". Anyone good with Latin or Greek? ;) Actually, after a bit of thought... if an antipsychotic is a drug used to treat psychotic episodes (btw, antipsychotic drugs tend to work as an antidote to some psychedelics), maybe the term we are looking for is psychotic (drug). I've found references to the term psychotogen and psychotogenic used to describe the effects of PCP and Ketamine... but again, we need the term to literally mean a substance which alters consciousness to a degree such that one is able to view reality from a different point of view. In the meantime we're stuck with hallucinogen as it is the term accepted by both psychiatry (i.e. the American psychiatric diagnostic manual) and legal scheduling (Controlled Substances Act). --Thoric 20:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To claim that we're stuck with "hallucinogen" because it is in use by certain scientists and by certain legal texts is akin to claiming that, in talking about same-sex love, we are stuck with "sodomy." The suggestion that we follow the "psycho-" (as in "psychotomimetic," already tried early on) root is worse. "Psychedelic" is perfectly usable, and if there is some confusion attached to it, well, there is a lot more confusion attached to "hallucinogen." Are we going to project western constructs here on all the native peoples who use these substances to access other mind states and claim that they are "hallucinating." That itself would be some kind of hallucination. Which is precisely the problem with using this unfortunate and misleading term. If we are to err, I suggest we err on the side of accuracy and neutrality, and from an etymological point of view, "mind manifesting" is a lot more precise, descriptive and non-judgemental than "delusional." Haiduc 23:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We're not stuck with "hallucinogenic", we just need an alternative, and psychedelic already has too much meaning attached to it, and as I mentioned, drugs like Ketamine and PCP or deliriants like datura and deadly nightshade are not considered to be "psychedelic". I'm on yuor side... I agree we need a better term... I just don't agree that psychedelic is an adequate blanket term for everything that is currently considered a hallucinogen. How about 'psychotropic? --Thoric 19:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I used to not mind "psychotropic," but I have come to believe that it is too general. After all, is not alcohol a psychotropic too, and coffee, and sedatives? The LSD aticle has an interesting solution, it does not just use one term, but combines "hallucinogen" and "psychedelic" as they both describe an aspect of the drug. So, how about "Hallucinogens and Psychedelics"? We should not try to shove all these drugs under a single label, and, short of inventing a new term (which we are not empowered to do here) I cannot escape the conclusion the "psychedelic" is the best of a compromised or inaccurate bunch. The problem here is that we are fighting cultural confusion but our weapons must also come from that sphere of confusion. Haiduc 04:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then we might as well make the title, "Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants", as we need to differentiate between the dissociative drugs (PCP, DXM, Ketamine, nitrous oxide, amanita muscaria, salvia D.) the psychedelics (LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, etc) and the deliriants (atropine and scopolamine alkaloid containing plants, antihistamines, etc). --Thoric 17:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. We would have to have an intro that ties them all together and then distinguishes the three categories from each other, and then have three mini-articles on each of the sub-topics. Would you mind roughing it out, as I do not have much familiarity with the second or the third categories? Haiduc 02:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I want to add my strong support to this proposal, and propose moving the current article as suggested. Whig 03:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you consider cannabis a psychedelic? What about MDMA? What we need is word to refer to the same (or similar) substances that entheogen refers to ;) Ah well... here goes... --Thoric 21:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Was not MDMA placed with "empathogens?" As for cannabis, not really. I think we should use the restricted meaning of the term, else we'll be including wine and tobacco pretty soon. Haiduc 11:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Empathogens are a subsection under psychedelics, so maybe they apply to some degree, but not in the traditional sense. The same sort of goes for THC, as at high doses it can apparently cause psychedelic effects, and it certainly has a synergistic effect with the classic psychedelics, and almost has a stronger social connection to the "psychedelic era" than LSD. --Thoric 14:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Psychedelics

The psychedelic (mind manifesting) drugs are classified as those whose primary action is that of enhancing or amplifying the thought processes of the brain typically through the disabling of filters which block or suppress unimportant or undesired signals to the conscious mind from other parts of the brain, including but not limited to the senses, emotions, memories and the unconscious (or subconscious) mind. This effect is sometimes referred to as mind expanding, or consciousness expanding as your conscious mind becomes aware of (or sometimes assaulted by) things normally inaccessable to it. At high levels this can become very overwhelming, and can result in achieving a dissociative state.

Classic psychedelics include LSD (acid), psilocybin (magic mushrooms), mescaline (peyote), LSA (morning glory seeds) and also Ayahuasca. Some of the synthetic "club drugs" such as MDMA (ecstasy), 2C-B (nexus), DOM (STP) and 5-MeO-DIPT (Foxy Methoxy) which have much more specific action to particular aspects of the psyche are also classed as psychedelics, as well as cannabis (marijuana).

Some psychedelics (namely LSD, psilocybin and cannabis) are extremely non-toxic, making it nearly impossible to physically overdose.

[edit] Serotonergic Psychedelics?

Perhaps there should be a link to the Serotonergic psychedelics article in the 'Psychedelics' category? Not sure if said article is up to the standards, it could probably use some attention, but since you're sorting these entries in effect by method of action, this seems to make sense to me. Overand 05:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dissociatives

A dissociative is a drug which reduces (or blocks) signals to the conscious mind from other parts of the brain, typically (but not necessarily, or limited to) the physical senses. Such a state of sensory deprivation can facilitate self exploration, hallucinations, and dreamlike states of mind which may resemble some psychedelic mindstates. Essentially similar states of mind can be reached via contrasting paths -- psychedelic or dissociative. That said, the entire experience, risks and benefits are markedly different.

The primary dissociatives are similar in action to PCP (angel dust) and include Ketamine (special K -- not the cereal), and DXM (the active ingredient in cough syrup). Also included are nitrous oxide, salvia divinorum, and muscimol from the amanita muscaria (fly agaric) mushroom.

Many dissociatives also have CNS depressant effects, thereby carrying similar risks as opioids to slowing breathing or heart rate to levels resulting in death (when using very high doses).

[edit] Deliriants

The deliriants (or anticholinergics) are a special class of dissociative which are antagonists for the acetylcholine receptors (unlike muscimol which is an agonist of this receptor). Deliriants are considered to be true hallucinogens as users will have conversations with people who aren't there, or become angry with a 'person' mimicking their actions, not realizing it is their own reflection in a mirror (which could be dangerous if they became aggressive towards a glass mirror). Where the cholinergics like amanita muscaria have effects akin to lucid dreaming (where you are consciously aware of your dreaming), the anticholinergics have effects akin to sleepwalking (where you don't remember things you did).

Included in this group are such plants as deadly nightshade, mandrake, henbane and datura, as well as a number of pharmaceutical drugs when taken in very high doses such as the antihistamine diphenhydramine (Benadryl) and the antiemetic dimenhydrinate (Dramamine or Gravol).

In addition to the danger of being far more "out of it" than with other drugs, and retaining a truly fragmented dissociation from regular consciousness without being immobilized (imagine sleepwalking on drugs while having a bad nightmare), the anticholinergics are toxic, can cause death due to overdose, and also include plenty of uncomfortable side effects including an intense drying effect where sweat, saliva, mucus and urination are prevented, as well as a pronounced dilation of the pupils which can last for several days resulting in sensitivity to light, blury vision and inability to read.

[edit] Intro draft

Certain drugs can alter sensory perceptions, elicit alternate states of consciousness, or cause hallucinations. This group of pharmacological agents which primarily change the subjective qualities of perception, thought or emotion can be subdivided into three broad categories, psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants.

All of these agents act as neurotransmitter mimics, often as agonists or antagonists at neurotransmitter receptors. Their effects are clearly different from stimulants like cocaine or amphetamines, although hallucinogens do often increase alertness or activity.

The broad term "hallucinogen" is often used as a synonym for these substances, especially in the current scientific literature. [to be continued] Haiduc 11:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Haiduc draft

I really like the work that Haiduc has put into this, and I think we should adopt his language as a starting point for refactoring the current article. Whig 15:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I did the drafts for the psychedelic, dissociative, deliriant sections (check history) ;) --Thoric 17:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Much left to do in restructuring article

Now we need to clean up the rest of the article, since it references "hallucinogens" all through it, and also tidy up the pharmacology stuff. Should specifics about the major sections be left for individual pages? There are already pages for dissociative drug and deliriant (which unfortunately don't contain all that much info). The psychedelic page contains general information and directs people to the Hallucinogenic drug page for drug details... but instead we should take them to a psychedelic drug page instead to keep this as more of a general quasi-disambiguation page. --Thoric 18:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've copied a lot of info over to the (new) psychedelic drug, dissociative drug and deliriant pages. What needs to be done now is to make sure I didn't miss anything, and then to remove the some of the duplicate info from this article. I'm not certain if Myristicin and Cryogenine/Vertine fit best under one of the three main sections (psychedelics, dissociatives or deliriants)... as there are some claims that Cryogenine/Vertine has anticholinergic action, but both seem to be quasi-dissociatives of some sort. --Thoric 20:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Myristicin" is similar in effect to cannabis, albeit more stoning and with a longer duration of effect. Technically we don't actually know that myristicin is the active constituent in nutmeg but this is believed to be the case. Elemecin is also considered to be possible and in any case there are other compounds present that may impart an effect. I don't know that experiments have been performed with myristicin apart from nutmeg, so really this one should be moved to Nutmeg (drug) or something. In any case, not dissociative/deliriant. Maybe we need another category for "stoning" effects but psychedelic works for this if it does for cannabis. Whig 21:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, btw, sorry for misattributing to Haiduc, your work was quite excellent Thoric, and I didn't check the history but saw the signature at the bottom and assumed that the work was his. Whig 21:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No problem .. and thanks :) I've cleaned up some things a little, but lots left still to do... I've done all I can for today ;) --Thoric 23:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Title of page

Right now, the article title is capitalised, contains commas etc to fit with the WikiProject title. There are problems with the naming conventions: is there no overarching term? "Psychoactive drugs" good enough? JFW | T@lk 6 July 2005 22:43 (UTC)

This title has been the result of a long discussion. See above. Haiduc 7 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)

Unfortunately the only broad term is hallucinogen, which doesn't really apply to the psychedelics and empathogens. Psychoactive drugs encompasses far too many substances... methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, alcohol, valium, etc. Psychedelic doesn't really include the dissociatives (DXM, PCP, Ketamine) or the deliriants (datura, henbane, deadly nightshade, etc). Entheogen refers more to the intended/traditional/spiritual use of the substance than the chemical makeup, so essentially there isn't a proper encyclopedic term to refer to the group of substances which are legally classified as "hallucinogens". --Thoric 7 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)

Aren't all psychoactive drugs used recreatively by at least some people? Benzos and antidepressants, for example? JFW | T@lk 7 July 2005 06:37 (UTC)

Yes, and that would seem to be a strong argument against your suggestion of using 'psychoactive drugs' as the title of this article, which excludes those substances you cite as examples. (It could be worse; I am reading a book that says that not very long ago, nearly all such substances were classified as "psychomimetics" — that is, mimickers of psychosis!) — mjb 7 July 2005 06:46 (UTC)

[edit] Brain damage

From the revision current as of this writing:

"No connection has been made between psychedelic drugs and brain damage; however, high doses over time of some dissociatives and deliriants have been shown to cause Olney's lesions in animals, and have been suspected to occur in humans."

I seem to recall reading somewhere that chronic MDMA abuse produces lesions (perhaps only confirmed in animals).

A google search ({http://www.google.ca/search?q=mdma+lesion&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official}) turns up reports of lesions in animals.--69.196.212.30 14:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stub Sorting

I don't agree with the categorisation of certain articles.

For instance:

• Golden Virginia
• Rollie

Those are just article stubs I created, but I disagree with the idea of tobacco being listed as a psychedelic! I wish my tobacco was psychedelic - though it is just plain not. It's misleading at best. I suggest that these categorisations for certain articles be removed or a new category created. Celardore 20:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is tobacco/nicotine categorized as a psychedelic? Entheogen, yes due to aboriginal spiritual use, psychoactive, yes due to its stimulant effects, but psychedelic, no. --Thoric 22:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Causing mental illness

I had not heard of psychedelics causing free radical related brain damage. Can we get a citation on this? --Thoric 00:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The concept of psychedelics damaging DNA was refuted long ago. DNA naturally degrades over time as we age. There is no concrete evidence that psychedelics accelerate this. --Thoric 16:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I modified this section to indicate that free radical concerns are only true of psychedelics with amphetamine-like actions (releasing neurotransmitters). I believe this sort of MDMA-like toxicity is what the statement is intended to refer to. However, the section still needs references to this and an actual discussion of the possibility that hallucinogens may increase risk of mental illness. --Mattbagg 15:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Anything which increases metabolism (including, but certainly not limited to stimulant-type drugs) technically accelerates aging, and therefore increases the rate of DNA damage, among other age related illnesses. Anything which causes stress (including exercise, sex, eating, stimulants, worrying, anxiety) increases metabolism. Fortunately the human body counteracts this to some degree by trying to force some much needed relaxation and recuperation following the stressful event. In the case of psychedelics, there is generally a strong and rapid (but temporary) tolerance curve that prevents the effectiveness of repeated dosages. The problem with amphetamines (especially methamphetamine with its long duration) is that the body has little in its arsenal to counteract the effects, and the result is a great deal of stress on the body, and the ability to delay (or even circumvent) the natural recuperation process -- the candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long. --Thoric 14:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I must object to what this part of the article is suggesting. Fist of all, not to start complaining again about the definition of hallucinogen/psychedelic, MDMA is an empathogen or entactogen and not a hallucinogen. Second of all MDMA is relatively unique in its mode of action. Amphetamine like psychedelics do NOT cause release of neurotransmitters. They are as well 5TM_2A receptor agonist. I would argue that there are more amphetamine like psychedelics acting like this than there are acting on neutransmitor release. The DOX and TMA-X families being quite big and maybe even the 2-CX family should be considered an amphetamine like psychedelic considering the fact that they are phenethylamines (same family as amphetamine) and quite similar in structure. By this I don’t meat that we should ignore MDMA, and its dangers, but we should differentiate between amphetamine like psychedelics and MDMA. Secondly i don’t see any mention of mental illness under the section "Psychedelics and mental illnesses in long-term users". Why isn’t there any mention of psychedelics being a catalytic factor for triggering acute psychosis or latent schizophrenia, with the mention of course of the fact that any cataclysmic life event could be a triggering factor. I think this article is misleading when it implies that hallucinogens may cause Parkinson's disease, senility, schizophrenia, and Alzheimer's. This statement applies only to very few of the ”hallucinogens”(yes I mean MDMA) and NOT to most hallucinogens. Just to make this clear: there is no evidence that LSD, psilocybin etc cause the above mentioned diseases and implying with fancy words about free radicals that they do is WRONG and unscientific (or rather pseudoscientific). The way that part about free radicals is writen, being long and elaborate, could make the reader forget that we are talking about a FRACTION of the total psychedelics and therefore give the illusion (no pun intended) that all psychedelics cause free radicals. --Tatahereiam 14:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neurotransmitters as free radicals (causing mental illness)

Thoric,

I tried posting this earlier, but I can't seem to find it online now. Just in case you didn't see it, here it is again:

Sources Well, looking over it again i'm second guessing whether this makes sense, but I'm pretty sure it does. Tell me what you think, most of my sources were from previous wikipedia sites on the individual topics. Here they are in full:

"...psychedelics can radically change various neurotransmitter levels..."

      This is an interpretation of the statement, "All of these agents act as neurotransmitter mimics, often as agonists or 
      antagonists at neurotransmitter receptors," from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogens, because agonizing or
      antagonizing neurotransmitter receptors radically alters neurotransmitter levels.

"...they may be directly responsible for various mental illnesses in long-term users,"

      This is what I'm trying to prove.

"excess release of neurotransmitters results in excess release of their paired free radicals (2 H+ atoms are released for each seretonin, norepinephrine, dopamine, histamine, or acetycholine release)."

      This part I'm re-thinking.  Under "Pharmacological classes of hallucinogens" at 
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogens, empathogens and entactogens are considered to be serotonin releasers.  The 
      synaptic vessecles are what release neurotransmitters like serotonin.  On 
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synaptic_vessicle, it says that norepinephrine, dopamine, histamine, serotonin and 
      acetylcholine realease all have an inward movement of "neurotransmitter+."  Since I'm pretty sure neurotransmitters 
      normally don't have un-paired electrons, with the exception of acetecholine, neurotransmitter+ would indicate that the 
      neurotransmitter molecule had an unpaired electron.  "Free Radicals" are defined as "atomic or molecular species with 
      unpaired electrons on an otherwise open shell configuration". on "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_radical.  
      So neurtransmitter+ would be a free radical, no?  I guess I might want to rephrase the sentence to not include the part
      about 2 H+ atoms because that kind of confuses things, perhaps you could edit it to sound a little more like I 
      explained here?  Maybe something like, "excess release of neurotransmitters results in the exces release of free 
      radicals, because some neurotransmitters released from the synaptic vessecle are themselve's free radicals."

"Because of their known correlation with cell damage, it has been postulated that free radicals are involved in many types of mental illnesses, including: Parkinson's disease, senility, schizophrenia, and Alzheimer's."

      There is already a direct link to this on the page, but here it is again: 
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_radicals#Free_radicals_in_biology.

"In summary, the increase in free-radicals associated with long-term drug use may be more than the healthy amount for a typical person's body to handle"

      Certain drugs, like LSD, have a high affinity for certain receptor cites and can push neurotransmitters to levels far
      exceeding normal, non-drug induced life.  Here is a pic from wikipedia:  
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LSDaffinities.GIF.

"Therefore, certain parts of the brain and body (including DNA) may be degraded permanently over time."

      This is also from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_radicals#Free_radicals_in_biology, which talks about free radicals,
      ageing, and DNA.  Interestingly enough, "free radicals contribute to alcohol-induced liver damage, perhaps 
      more than alcohol itself," and, "Radicals in cigarette smoke have been implicated in inactivation of alpha 1-
      antitrypsin in the lung. This process promotes the development of emphysema."  So although "illegal" drugs have not
      been tested for a link to free radicals, alcohol and tobacco have.

Although, I would like to make the distinction that this is merely a theory made from linking different data together in a logical pattern of sequencing from supporting evidence. I don't think anyone has actually tested the long-term effects of hallucingoens being linked to the increase in neurotransmitter levels.

169.233.30.31 00:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ...continued

I tried to clean it up a bit, but I'm still not satisfied with the end result. What do you think?

The stuff here on the talk page is a little hard to follow, but my question to you is -- how do psychedelics specifically cause the issues you mention over and beyond any other psychoactive? If psychedelics cause less physical harm than alcohol, why should it be emphasized here, and not on the alcohol page? The same arguments you mention above could be used against many medications, and even foods such as chocolate. Personally I would argue that some psychedelics have not been proven to have significant negative long term effects. The doctor who first synthesized LSD over 60 years ago (Albert Hofmann) is still alive and of sound mind at age 100. Of course we don't know how many times he used LSD beyond the few occasions that are documented. --Thoric 22:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cont.

Ok, so, according to the synaptic vessicle wiki, when neurotransmitters are released from the synaptic vessicles they are released as free radicals (neurotransmitter+). Now, free radicals are a necessary part of life, however, there seems to be a link between free radicals and the various neurological diseases mentioned in my article. My arguement is that drugs that cause a larger than normal release of neurotransmitters from the synaptic vessecles, like phenethylamines, empathogens/entactogens, and possibly tryptamines and lysergamides, are concurrently causing a larger than normal release of free radicals (remember, neurotransmitter+ is a free radical), and therefore may also be linked to the various neurological diseases associated with free radicals. Looking at the situation from a completely neutral standpoint, the most unbiased prediction we can make is that if phenethylamines, entactogens, and tryptamines do cause an increase in the body's free radical levels, it is probably only "unhealthy" in individuals predisposed to the neurological disorders mentioned. That is to say taking massive amounts of psychedelics will not necessarily cause neurological disorders for all people, but only those predisposed to them. This is a good explanation for why schizophrenia seems to be accelerated in people predisposed to the disorder who take psychedelic drugs. --169.233.30.31 04:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree that "taking massive amounts of psychedelics" is certainly not healthy for anyone, and I would also agree that psychedelics may be more likely to push someone with (or predisposed to) schizophrenia "over the edge" than other drugs and/or natural situations as they can generate highly stressful, mindbending experiences, but think that this field of study would best suit its own article, as there seem to be a growing number of studies trying to associate cannabis use with mental illness (although, it should indeed be noted that alcohol abuse has been known to trigger early onset of schizophrenia as much as any other drug). There is currently an article drug-induced psychosis, but it redirects to amphetamine psychosis, there is also an article entitled hallucinogen persisting perception disorder (HPPD), but neither of these are directly related to what we are discussing. See also the causes of psychiatric disorder article which only briefly mentions drug use.

I do think this is an area worth researching and as I mentioned, should have its own article, (which can certainly start out as a stub article). I would suggest an article title such as Drug-related mental illness, and have a section for each major drug group -- stimulants (i.e. cocaine, (meth)amphetamine), depressants (including sedatives and alcohol), cannabis should have its own section, and hallucinogens can also have their own section. --Thoric 13:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] still cont.

sounds good. we already have information for a few categories: amphetamine psychosis, onsley's lessions, and now neurotransmitters acting as free radicals. i think the neurotransmitter article would benefit from using another edit or two, though, to make it as neutral as possible. i.e. the fact that there have been NO studies (that I know of) on this specific matter and that it is merely correlational. example:

1. fact: certain seretogenic drugs release a larger than normal amount of seretonin from the synaptic vessecles.

2. fact: these neurotransmitters have a positive charge, which means they have an unpaired electron.

3. fact: molecules that have unpaired electrons are known as "free radicals"

4. fact: free-radicals have been linked to certain mental illnesses, mainly alzheimers, schizophrenia, and Parkinson's Disease.

So, by the laws of correlation, it is quite possible that certain drugs aid in the progression of mental illness due to the fact that they are free-radicals when released from the synaptic vessecle.

The second "fact" is not true, positively charged amines (as well as H+ and carbocations) are not free radicals and they do not have unpaired electrons. Please stop posting crude theories, this page is for discussing the article. Cacycle 01:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i agree. studies have not been able to find any correlation between schizophrenia etc and psychedelic use, and until they do, we're not making that connection here. (and the study has nothing to do with linking free radicals and psychedelics or diseases either, it has to do with controlled studies examining rates of mental illness among a control population and among psychedelic users, studies that have always failed to find a correlation. --heah 01:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article approaching "good" status

I believe that this article is approaching the status of a "good" article. Unfortunately it is sorely lacking in citing sources (most of which is text that I wrote, so I guess I have to do some attributing). I think that with some references and minor cleanup, we can request the article be peer reviewed for qualifying as a "good" article (at least). --Thoric 15:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

True. One problem i've seen alot (i corrected most on this page but if i didnt catch it please fix it) is that people are using Psychoactive drug and Psychedelic drug incorrectly. Psychoactive drugs are a very general category, whereas Psychedelics refer more to non-addictive drugs and hallucinogens such as LSD or Psilocin. --Neur0X 20:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Your "correction" was in err. Please re-read the original paragraph you "corrected". It was not using the terms incorrectly. This article is not specifically limited to psychedelic drugs, but also includes dissociatives and deliriants -- a grouping also referred to legally as hallucinogens. The leading paragraph was describing that these drugs differ from other non-hallucinogenic psychoactive drugs. --Thoric 21:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

Good work on the article, it reads a lot smoother and makes a lot more sense now. Thanks for the edit.

-Dr.Bane

Dr. Bane 18:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ?????

Why is this article not only misspelled by capitalized in violation of MoS? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

vandalism. I thought i had fixed it all, but for some reason the talk page didn't move, and i accidently moved it back to a capitalized version of "Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants". It should all be fixed now, give me a heads up if it isn't. --heah 01:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV, Second Paragraph

While this article is well-researched, it also shows a bias of being a bit "pro drug-culture". I don't believe Wikipedia should start trying to tell people a word that is consistantly used by the scientific community is the "wrong" term, especially since I've never seen any argument in any scientific journal stating either Hallucinogen is the "wrong" term and "psychedelic" is a correct term. At the very least I would like Wikipedia to consider examining this article and perhaps restoring the term "Hallucinogen" proper to the directory.

You'd think such bold statements would be backed up with a persona, rather than anonymous accusations. Hallucinogen has repeated been labeled as an inappropriate term by the scientific community, and there are quite a number of references published by people well respected in the scientific community stating such, and if you really had any clue whatsoever what you were talking about, you would know that the term "psychedelic" originated from the scientific community, and not "pro-drug culture". --Thoric 17:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Care to make Citations? The original posting makes a lot of sense, and the second paragraph appears to be "weasel words". I can see how people would detect a group bias, based on the "wiki project" with the Mushroom surrounded by rainbow colors. Don't get me wrong, I dislike the propaganda that anti-drug people have portrayed sometimes, but considering how much argument has gone on regarding the term "psychedelic" in these talk pages, I'm not sure it suits as a replacement term. The term Hallucinogenic still is defined in both Scientific and Legal literature, so it is still a valid reference and the definition should be defined as such, not sent to another article. Perhaps some of the NPOV specialists should come in. I wouldn't want either the DEA perspective or Erowid perspective to create a bias in the article.

Please read this and this above. I'm not sure what needs to be said here, this has been discussed several times already. this and the WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants talk page in general also cover this. the current terminology was selected as being as npov as possible. --heah 02:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think my major objection, other than the awkward title for this topic, is this sentence. "The term [hallucinogen] is attracting increasing criticism, however, for being ethnocentric, dependent upon too broad a definition of hallucination, and implying that certain symptoms that are actually only associated with some substances are applicable to all of them." Can any of you cite sources for this? If you can't, it's either original research or a weasel word. Are there verifiable sources that the term "hallucinogen" is being replaced by "psychedelic", in the medical and scientific community? For instance, does Albert Hoffman now call LSD a psychedelic instead of a hallucinogen, and critize the use of the latter term? Do psychologists and psychiatric associations do this? Is law enforcement or government reclassifying the term? That's kind of what I think should be examined.

Also, Having an article consisting of three seperate types of drugs is somewhat awkward--the term hallucinogen effectively is a superset defining all three. I don't think a Wikipedia article should judge the term used to describe something. Wikipedia has articles on words and terms considered offensive to some without resorting to redirects or retitles. The first note above talks about the term "being prejorative". That might be true, but Wikipedia should not be the tool to change the language. By those terms, you would redirect "sodomy" to "anal sex" or "nigger" to "African American". It would be wrong in those cases, it's likely wrong here.

I guess all I'm asking is for maybe a more neutral set of eyes to see if this is acceptable or not. Perhaps somebody handling the chemistry, biology, medical, or pharma projects, if they exist.

but "nigger" is not about "african americans", and "sodomy" is not about "anal sex"! Unless you're suggesting that we make an article called "hallucinogen" about hallucinogen being a pejorative term, i don't see your point. Secondly, stating that the proper standards for judgment is the scientific community or the law enforcement community is, in itself, a violation of the NPOV policy, which is not about being objective, and is not a majority pov policy. it is a neutral point of view policy. The current title was chosen as using the most neutral terminolgy that we could find. third--cites will be forthcoming for that sentence. like i said, give it a little while . . . --heah 03:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of 'hallucinogen' being a wrong or prejorative term, as well as I've read multiple books which use hallucinogen as a simple term to describe a drug as having Open or Closed Eye Visuals or in general perceptive and sensory disruptions. http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/journals/psychoactives_journal2.shtml gives a rather helpful bit of input, maybe it could be used/cited as a reference? I really think that simply butchering this article with various templates is going to help. Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding the situation, and if so then someone would be so kind to give me a more specific explanation?--Neur0X ^.talk 04:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm suggesting we use the most common name instead of an awkward label. I was responding to the topic way above that stated that the word hallucinogen should not be used. The term is still the most commonly used version of the word, and if you review the naming convention guidelines, it makes the most sense to continue to use it. The standards of judgement should be the general public. Until I've seen this article, I have never seen any argument stating that this term was "prejudicial" , and I think it's an extremely minority viewpoint. At the very least, that second paragraph really needs some sources if you want to justify the name change.

I think we should take a look at these guidelines.

Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#How_to_make_a_choice_among_controversial_names

198.80.153.10 16:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that the article name should be hallucinogen. The current name is monstrous without any need. The term "hallucinogen" is widely used in the (scientific) literature and is definitely not a pejorative term. Cacycle 03:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Move

It was requested that this article be renamed but the procedure outlined at WP:RM#How to request a page move did not appear to be followed, and consensus could not be determined. Please request a move again with proper procedure if there is still a desire for the page to be moved. Thank you for time! -- tariqabjotu 04:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding LSD to drinks (last paragraph of Legal Status)

The notion that LSD can be added to drinks is highly questionable. If you look at the LSD article where it describes its chemical properties, it states, "Furthermore, chlorine destroys LSD molecules on contact; even though chlorinated tap water typically contains only a slight amount of chlorine, because a typical LSD solution only contains an infinitesimal amount of LSD, dissolving LSD in tap water is likely to completely eliminate the substance.[8]" So I think it should be maintained that the situation described in this article is highly variable.

The feasibility of "slipping LSD into a drink" has little to do with that being used as a scare tactic. The vast majority of what the government says or has said about various illegal drugs has been based on nonsense. That said, not all drinks contain significant quantities of tap water, and there have been plenty of instances whereby drinks, and entire bowls of punch have been dosed with LSD. --Thoric 16:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Shulgin writes, in TIHKAL book II section 26: "Oh yes, and often overlooked, there may be only an infinitesimal amount of chlorine in treated tap water, but then there is only an infinitesimal amount of LSD in a typical LSD solution. And since chlorine will destroy LSD on contact, the dissolving of LSD in tap water is not appropriate." I think what he is trying to say here is not that tap water destroys LSD on contact, but that pure (gaseous) chlorine destroys LSD on contact, and thus tap water is a bad storage medium for LSD at least in the long run if it contains even a little chlorine. A misreading of Shulgin's statement, or similar statements by others, is probably what gave rise to the idea that dissolving LSD in drinks for a short time before consumption would be a big deal. Also, there is indeed next to no chlorine in most commercially available soft drinks and juices, so presumably orange juice would not kill the LSD dissolved in it as fast as tap water would. (Note that chloride is not a problem!) Stories involving LSD dissolved in liquids that have been much repeated in print include the use by the merry pranksters of orange juice, kool-aid, venison stew and suchlike, but I cannot right now recall any authors that I'd think of as outright credible who have said much explicitly about this...Sjeng 00:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] third paragraph horrors

The third paragraph needs serious editing.

It is helpful that the paragraph recognizes that "hallucinations of various kinds are only one of many effects produced" by the (overbroad) array of substances referred to by this article.

However, there are basic errors. For example: it has long been recognized, by virtually every student who has studied the topic, that pharmacology has a relatively small role in the content of 'hallucinogenic experience.' Thus, the statement that "The nature of the hallucinations produced is dependent on the specific compound" is misleading. While certain kinds of visual effects, such as "tracers" or afterimages are quite common, these do not qualify as "hallucinations."

This brings up another problem. Following the link to "hallucination," one quickly learns the basic distiction between "hallucinations" and "illusions" in the literature. And in fact, "hallucinations" in the sense given in the link ("a sensory perception experienced in the absence of an external stimulus") are extremely rare with the vast majority of the drugs covered by this article. The paragraph therefore introduces a major confusion in a prominent spot in the article.

(As others have suggested, probably "deliriants" and "dissociatives" should have their own articles, as their modes of action and effects are so different from the so-called "classic hallucinogens," and the supposed common thread of "causing hallucinations" so untenable, that they should be considered separately.)

The third sentence of the paragraph also needs to be revised. As Cheryl Pellerin discovered in researching her 1998 book, "Trips: How Hallucinogens Work in Your Brain," leading neuroscientists don't (didn't then) really know how they produce their more interesting effects, except that it has something to do with modulation of certain neurotransmitters. Thus, the air of authority with which the sentence declares that "psychedelics reduce the filters in the brain causing sensory overload which is often manifested in visual and audial distortion" produces an empty sensation of explanation. This old "reducing valve" theory, adapted to hallucinogens (if memory serves) by Aldous Huxley from Henri Bergson's more general theory of mind, is literary speculation, and hardly the authoritative scientific explanation it pretends to be here. "Distortion" is also an unfortunate choice of words, since it would seem to preclude the intensification of apperception that can sometimes occur.

Please, people, reconsider splitting this article so that a really useful treatment of drugs like DMT, LSD, psilocybin, etc. can be undertaken. Such a treatment needs to include critical examination (i.e., history) of the tendency to group these substances together and to want to make of them a natural category. There is a lot of good material here, but also some serious problems.

--Mdmeyer 04:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You obviously didn't take too good a read over this article, as you would plainly see that this is a summary article with links to three separate sub-articles (one for Psychedelics, one for Dissociatives and one for Deliriants). The "reducing valve" theory is still one of the best primary descriptions of the psychedelic experience. No amount of science about the specifics of which neurotransmitters are effected and speculation about how that may have an effect on consciousness is going to do much good as even to date, modern brain chemistry cannot explain consciousness itself. Subjective descriptions are still exceedingly valuable in documenting that which chemistry cannot properly explain. Of course we can document the details of what science has most recently found within the psychedelic drug article, and some of that has already been done. The most up to date studies on psychedelics have basically helped identify the regions of the brain that regulate habituation and a sense of novelty. --Thoric 16:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I did read the page, and saw the links to the separate articles. The problem is that the page is effectively titled "hallucinogens" (since it redirects searches for this term), and what you're calling psychedelics should not be grouped with substances like nightshade and datura. What do these drugs have in common with LSD, DMT, psilocybin?

They have been grouped as such by large government bodies, and by the legal system. This article actually seeks to set the record straight, and if that is not quite clear, then maybe this article needs some adjustment and clarity. The only thing that deliriants (datura) have in common with psychedelics (LSD) is that both can cause a strong altered perception of reality, and hence have inherent associated risks. In that respect they do have more in common with each other than say with cocaine or heroin. --Thoric 20:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Here, the basis for the grouping seems to be the notion of "hallucination," the broader first sentence notwithstanding. And psychedelics rarely cause hallucinations. This has important implications, since people who lack personal experience with them will be encouraged by this article to continue grouping all these substances together, thinking that mushrooms cause people to misperceive physical reality, and so on.

Again, please re-read the first few paragraphs of the article. This article seeks to divide those which are currently labeled as "hallucinogens" into three distinct groups -- psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants. --Thoric 20:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I repeat my criticism that the second sentence of the third paragraph ("The nature of the hallucinations produced is dependent on the specific compound.") is misleading because it completely neglects the role of the so-called "set and setting," and because it strongly implies that psychedelics, as well as the other drugs referred to, cause hallucinations as a main feature of their action. This is false.

Agreed, and the third paragraph should be altered to emphasize this properly... although it should be noted that some people have certainly experienced hallucinations from psychedelics at high dosages. --Thoric 20:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no problem with literary speculation, nor with descriptions of subjective experience. But here these are masqueraded as authoritative explanations of 'how hallucinogens work,' rather than (correctly) identified as notions with particular histories and specific contextual niches. If the 'reducing valve' is "one of the best" theories, what are the others? The language here doesn't admit of other ideas. --Mdmeyer 04:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Again I don't think you even read the article. The first three paragraphs explain how "hallucinogen" isn't a very good term to group these substances, yet this is still the legal classification. The third paragraph specifically states (or was supposed to state) that very few of these substances cause actual hallucinations, and briefly summarizes the differences between the three categories. I, as well as many others believe the summaries of each subcategory presented here to be among the most accurate to date, and that they can be stated with some authority as they reflect a summary of decades of research by numerous researchers. I don't see how you feel that these are simply "notions" any more than the entire body of psychology is. In fact the realm of the effects of psychoactives on consciousness belongs far more to psychology than to neurochemistry. Far too much is lost to reduce the wonder of the human brain simply to a few glands excreting chemicals. It is entirely for this reason that neurochemistry has accomplished very little in this area. --Thoric 20:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I did some rewriting.

It seems that this page has suffered from the sort of the rambling style that is inevitable with lots of small edits, even though most of the information in it is correct. I rewrote some of the sections that I thought were most obviously devoid of a guiding framework in the hope of adding a bit more structure to them. I think this is necessary if we are to produce something that is a truly accessible introduction to somebody who is entirely uninformed about the subject, and not just a warehouse of random facts. Feel free to mess with it, though. Sjeng 00:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] move title

why not move this page to the title, "Hallucinogens?" That title carries the same meaning, but is significantly more succinct. The article for New York City, for example, is not named, "Manhattan, Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Use the force (talk • contribs) 21:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

The original title was Hallucinogens. It was renamed to a more specific title due to the fact that "hallucinogens" is not an apt description of all of these substances, and perhaps not even an apt description for some of them. Essentially the title "hallucinogens" is legal POV. Most experts in the field would not consider MDMA or cannabis to have a primary effect of causing halluncinations. --Thoric 06:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization dispite

Thoric and I have an ongoing debate as to the definition of "psychedelic." We've done research and cited sources so that other people can come and a consensus can be reached as to whether the definition of "psychedelic" is too stringent. Please participate in this discussion. Jolb 17:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crazy POV statements (or a philosophical faux pas?)

Where did all these crazy POV statements appear from, and why has nobody noticed? We can't just label Osmond's views as preposterous without citing someone specific having that opinion. Clean this crap up or I will just revert the relevant sections to how they were before. --Thoric 07:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are referring to this:

The word "psychedelic" was coined by Humphrey Osmond and has the rather mysterious but at least somewhat value-neutral meaning of of "mind manifesting". Its use is often associated with the notion, preposterous in contemporary mainstream culture, that the psychedelic experience might be desirable or even beneficial.

The phrase explains concisely why the word "psychedelic" is considered suspect by the establishment. In effect, it summarizes the following argument: (1) In mainstream culture, the idea that the psychedelic experience might be desirable or beneficial is considered preposterous; (2) The word "psychedelic" is often associated with the view that the psychedelic experience is desirable or beneficial; (3) This is why the word "psychedelic" is often considered suspect. I'm not saying at all that Osmond's views are preposterous, objectively, but that they are preposterous in mainstream culture. To me, this is shorthand for saying that they are considered preposterous in mainstream culture.

My writing style may be cryptic, and I edit Wikipedia partially because I want to practice writing, so I'm glad that I got some feedback. In particular, I realized that what I wrote has an other possible interpretation, namely that the view referred to is, rightly, objectively, preposterous in mainstream culture, yet possibly acceptible in other cultures. I did not catch that error, because that interpretation only makes sense to a cultural relativist, which I decidedly am not. I so often read books that assume away the option of cultural relativism on the first page that I just didn't think of it. So yes, I guess my edit reflects my non-cultural-relativist POV, but not a "crazy" POV by any means. Just the POV of somebody who thinks that there is such a thing as truth that transcends culture, and therefore the only meaning of "A is preposterous in culture B" must be that it is widely considered as such. Sorry. Sjeng 17:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking back it seems I was a little harsh and hasty. I was assuming that you were putting your POV into the article thst Osmond's views were preposterous. As I misunderstood this, others will as well, so we definitely need to correct that... Sorry for snapping ;) --Thoric 00:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

I have found two interesting articles about the nomenclature of these drugs: Neurophile: Question of terminology, Blinkbits: hallucinogens. Perhaps it would be appropriate to use the term psychodysleptics? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)