Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A formal Request for Mediation related to this article was filed with the Mediation Committee on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants). Please see the discussion on the case's request page. All users involved in an issue undergoing mediation must agree to the mediation within seven days; please indicate your acceptance or denial of the mediation on the case's request page.

see also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants/categorization for categorization discussions.

Contents 1 Naming / Vote 2 stub and templates 3 LSA 4 Name of WikiProject 5 Capitalisation 6 Aim of the project 7 Replace term "Hallucinogen" with "Psychedelic" 8 Banisteriopsis caapi images 9 leaving, names 10 Hallucinogen project and Metacine.net 11 dxm articles 12 Joining the Project 13 Trip sitter 14 Ecstasy Dispute 15 Drug disambiguation 16 to do list 17 harmal -> syrian rue 18 Project template picture? 19 BZ in Deliriants (anticholinergic hallucinogens) template? 20 Diphenhydramine Hydrochloride as an Anticholinergic Hallucinogen/Psychedelic 21 Template for Tryptamine Carriers? 22 afd of List of notable people who have commented on the LSD experience 23 Verifiability guideline proposal 24 New wikilink-related tasks 25 Category:Hallucinogen_researchers%2C_users%2C_and_proponents 26 Invitation to join an offsite drug wiki 27 Drug culture category? 28 Template category? 29 New Pro-cannabis userbox 30 Proposed move Machine Elves to Machine elf 31 Barnstar for User:Heah 32 Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 33 DEA Photos 34 Marijuana Wiki 35 Proposal to merge Amish clip into Roach clip 36 im back 37 Alcohol and Drugs Society links 38 Bubble hash 39 Featured Article Review for Project MKULTRA 40 Project directory 41 Naming and serial commas 42 image choice 43 Stablepedia 44 Street names 45 Categories for events 46 New Image for the project 47 LSD FAR 48 Wikipedia Day Awards 49 Salvinorin A 50 Article Ratings? 51 Current WikiProject Fungi collaboration article: Amanita muscaria 52 Categorization dispute 52.1 Thoric's sources to defend the current wikipedia terminology 52.2 Jolb's sources in favor of a less stringent use of "psychedelic" 52.3 Jolb's suggestion 52.4 Comments on the above (psychedelics) 53 Tenacious D 54 LSD is no longer featured 55 A little essay on the naming question, as sollicited on Talk:Psychedelics,_dissociatives_and_deliriants 56 Should we start doing an importance scale? 57 Anadenanthera genus

[edit] Naming / Vote

So... I see we've been discussing which name(s) to use for a while now. I haven't been able to ascertain whether we've come to a consensus. If not, why not have a vote and settle things once and for all? So which is it to be:

• Hallucinogens

In my POV this is about as NPOV as we can get - simply stating the fact that they make you hallucinate.

• Psychedelics

May not necessarily cover the entire scope of this project in a literal sense, but my understanding is that to most people 'psychedelic' does include the whole spectrum of substances we're talking about here. I don't think this is a bad title.

• Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants

I like the word "psychedelic", it was the original term (after phanerothyme) coined for this type of drug... The only problem is it doesn't cover the full range of what this project covers, so we add "dissociatives and deliriants", but now it's too long and cumbersome. More importantly, I think "dissociatives" and especially "deliriants" have extremely negative connotations for many people. It may be scientifically accurate, but I don't think it's a very good title.

Deliriant is reserved for the most dangerous and mind-fragmenting substances -- they deserve to raise a red flag. Likewise the "safer" dissociatives are still generally more hazardous than the psychedelics. --Thoric 04:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Entheogens

Here we have pretty heavy religious/mystical overtones... While being something we want to include in this project, I think having it as the full project title puts too much emphasis on it.

• Psychoactives

Covers too much.

• Altergens

Doesn't exist yet.

Now I'm no expert on the subject, but looking at Thoric's chart at Psychoactive drugs gives us a pretty clear idea of the relationship between the four terms... I vote for Hallucinogens. STGM 06:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention all the templates still say {{hallucinogen-_______}} STGM 04:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem/issue with hallucinogens is that only a few substances truly make you hallucinate (the deliriants), and some substances have little or no effects on visual perception (MDMA, THC). I may use the term in my chart, but it is only for lack of a better term, and its use in the chart is mainly as a label for the far edge of a spectrum. --Thoric 04:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Then I think this "lack of a better term" problem is affecting us too. Psychedelics only covers acid and shrooms and such, dissociatives salvia etc... Yet even having an amalgamated name like we do now it still doesn't cover everything. I had no idea MDMA fell within the scope of this project, not based on the project title anyway... What about, say, cocaine? Seems to me like we're just a hop, skip and a jump away from annexing all the "customarily illegal substances" and renaming ourselves Psychotropics or Recreational Drugs or Drugs (Hard and Soft). Sigh, but THESE names are have an even MORE NEGATIVE pov.

If, no matter how hard we try, we can never get a suitable name, then we should agree that the English language simply isn't broad enough to label this project in its entirety; given that, we can switch to a simpler and more neutral title, at least drop "dissociatives and deliriants" which most people have never heard of but which gives them one hell of a scare (in my view, anyway)--STGM 17:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

MDMA is an empathogen... essentially an non-visual psychedelic, but has some mind-manefesting effects. All other stimulants (cocaine, amphetamines, etc) and depressants don't fit in with this group of substances. The current legal term is hallucinogen, but as described above, it doesn't really fit. The previous consensus was that the closest, and most terse title is Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants, for lack of a single word. Ideally what we need is for the scientific community to come up with a single word that encompases those three terms. As of yet that word does not exist... and we can't use psychedelic because then we would have no word to distinguish the classic psychedelics from these other substances. --Thoric 17:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I posted my somewhat lengthy views under a separate heading at the bottom of this page, but the bottom line is that an encyclopedia should probably reflect outside world consensus, especially of the scholarly variety, and not actively push etymological correctness. As far as coming up with a "brave new word", I would like to see one that is so utterly devoid of intrinsic meaning that everybody can stop bickering—but I agree with Thoric that it will have to be invented outside of Wikipedia. "Hard" and "soft" drugs, BTW, have very little meaning outside of (Dutch) drug law, where they are about as arbitrary as "Schedule I" and "Schedule II". Sjeng 18:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] stub and templates

The project template and stub could use a pic. Please edit/discuss these templates as necessary!

imo, we should generally use the already existing drug templates for everything there is one for. Pending discussion, templates for entheogens and plant etc carriers should be created; but first we should determine what new templates might be necessary and/or helpful. --Heah 22:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

We may want to reorganize the general hallucinogens template to encompass more than the tryptamines, lysergamides, and phenethylamines; perhaps this should wait until we have a better worked out categorization system and (if applicable) a more accurate umbrella term. --Heah 22:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Well over a week, and there have been no objections from members of WP:WSS, so feel free to use the template whenever you want! By the way, don't worry too much about an icon for the template at the moment - there are server problems with using icons on heavy-use templates at present, so new stub templates are, for the most part, being made without them. Hopefully that will all be fixed up when the next version of MediaWiki comes in in a month or so. Grutness...wha? 03:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LSA

copied from my talk page (unless otherwise noted), seems like something we should take note of. --Heah 23:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I see that you have done a far amount of work on the hallucinogen-related articles, so I'll ask you this, rather than asking on a article talk page: is 'LSA' lyserigic acid, or lycergic acid amide, or what? the ergine article lists LSA as an AKA (along with lysergic acid amide), but the 'Hallucinogenic lysergamides' box at the bottom of the same article has a link to 'LSA' that points to Lysergic acid. is there an error somewhere, or is it some chemistry jargon that i just don't understand? Lachatdelarue (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

(response i posted on Lachatdelarue's talk page)

i'm pretty sure that's a mistake (my mistake, of course . . . ) LSA in the drug box should link to ergine, which is already there; lysergic acid is not lysergic acid amide. I'm no chemist either, but they aren't the same molecule. for now i've deleted the template link and it's bedtime, but i'll look into it more tomorrow. thanks for bringing this up. --Heah 09:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

LSA stands for Lysergic Acid Amides (plural). Extracts from morning glories (or whatever else you extract from) contain a variety of alkaloids, and is thus a mixture; not just one chemical. The most proper terminology in abbreviation would be LSAs. Ergine (LA-111) is the Lysergic Acid Amide that is most desirable, however.--Ddhix 2002 11:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

So, ergine is a type of Lysergic acid amide? And while we're on the topic, what's with the 'd-' at the beginning (as seen in the box on Lysergic acid)? Lachatdelarue (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The "d" signifies the isomer, different configurations of the same molecule, the same atoms and types of bonds but connecting differently. often they are mirror images or something like that. like Pseudoephedrine, for instance, is an isomer of ephedrine- a slightly different configuration of the same molecule, with drastically different effects. In particular, i beleive the "D" signifies an Enantiomer, with the other isomer marked with "L". --Heah 07:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, 'mirror images' is exactly right. For example, The difference between d-LSA and l-LSA is just like the difference between your right hand and your left hand. In fact the 'd' stands for 'dextro' (which means 'right') and the 'l' stands for 'levo' (which means 'left'). Though quite often one isomer is active whereas the other is not. In fact, while d-LSA is obviously very active in humans, I believe l-LSA has no activity whatsoever (or at least that's the case wtih d-LSD and l-LSD anyway). -- Stereoisomer 20:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This is incorrect. LSA simply stands for d-lysergic acid amide just as LSD stands for d-lysergic acid diethylamide. Ergine, LA-111 and LSA are merely different terms all used to refer to a single molecule -- d-lysergic acid amide. And, while it is true that ergine can be part of a mixture of other ergoline alkaloids (e.g. isolysergic acid amide a.k.a. isoergine) contained in plants such as morning glory, LSA is not an umbrella term for those alkaloids. Granted, this alkaloidal mixture can be loosely referred to as 'lysergic acid amides' (plural), however 'lysergic acid amide' (singular) is still a unique molecule contained within this mixture. Therefore, no, LSA does not refer to a mixture. In addition, it has not been proven that ergine is the 'most desirable' alkaloid either. There has been much evidence over the years that ergine is not the alkaloid primarily responsible for the psychedelic effects produced in humans. This is readily apparent when the experience of consuming the alkaloidal mixture extracted from morning glory is compared to the experience of consuming pure ergine isolated or synthesized in a lab. The experiences are considerably different -- not unlike the significant difference between consuming cannabis (a mixture of cannabinoids) and consuming synthesized THC (a single cannabinoid). Specifically, isolated ergine produces primarily depressant effects compared to the stimulating psychedelic effects produce by morning glory or Hawaiian baby woodrose extractions. -- Stereoisomer 20:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the way it's set up right now, ergoline serves as the umbrella term, with LSA etc underneath it, all as the particular compounds that they are. Which i believe is how it should be set up? --He:ah? 21:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is in response to my previous paragraph, but yes LSA and LSD (among other substances) fall under the classification of ergolines. I didn't mean to disagree with that (but I got rather long-winded so that may have confused things). What I was disagreeing with was the earlier claim that LSA is a group of substances and not just the single substance, d-lysergic acid amide.

[edit] Name of WikiProject

I propose that we remove the "and Related Topics" from the name of this project, so that the name becomes "Hallucinogens and entheogens". The current name is (by my taste) too long. Also, every WikiProject by default should concern itself with topics related to its name, so it is redundant to put "related topics" in the name of the project. By the way, I believe project names should follow the general naming conventions of Wikipedia, which say that only the first word should be capitalised (besides proper names, of course). Aenar 00:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

for some reason i just saw this now. sounds good to me, feel free to go ahead and change it. I also feel it is too long, but wasn't quite sure of what a fitting name would be. --Heah (talk) 05:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalisation

Recently I was editing dimethyltryptamine, and I wasn't sure if "ayahuasca" and "yopo" should begin with an uppercase letter. Looking at the articles ayahuasca and yopo (as well as vilca and probably others) I noticed that these articles are inconsistent in capitalising their subject. Therefore we should decide if these words should be spelled with an uppercase or a lowercase letter so that we can use these words in a consistent way. I think all lowercase is the better choice, but the most important thing for me is consistency (i.e. that we make a decision). Aenar 00:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aim of the project

Hello dear participants of this nice Wikiproject. I was wondering in what way your aims differ from Wikiproject "Drugs", which aims to cover all of pharmacology and therefore has a significant overlap with this WikiProject. Although I am not insisting on a merge, perhaps some cooperation would be nice on psychopharmaca etc. JFW | T@lk 21:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course- this whole thing was originally outlined on the drugs talk page and it was a couple weeks before this was set up. originally it was conceived as a descendent project of drugs, and in many ways is. the difference between the two is that this project seeks to expand beyond pharmacology, spurred on in part by the inability to come to agreement over how to deal with hallucinogens by project drugs. It has a scope expanded beyond that of the drugs project, focusing on cultural, religious, etc factors just as much as pharmacology; it takes into account traditional entheogenic usage, people and organizations associated with hallucinogens, plants and their usage, and so on. Not that the drugs project couldn't encompass traditional religious usage etc, but it generally doesn't deal with things like that. Hallucinogens are a distinct sort of drug, and dealing with them in a way that makes sense demands much more than chemical analysis.

I think that cooperation between the two projects is very important, which is why i originally outlined it all there at the drugs project- in order to allow them to voice their concerns and thoughts before this got started, and to make sure they had a say in this project and that cooperation would ensue. for many things, such as the drug templates, the ones from project drugs are being used. I don't at all think that they should be merged, but cooperation is very important, as they do overlap alot. --Heah (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Replace term "Hallucinogen" with "Psychedelic"

While there are a variety of terms bandied about, from "hallucinogen" (strongly negative) to "entheogen" (strongly positive) expressing particular POVs on the subject, the term "Psychedelic" is relatively neutral and ought to be preferred in all cases in articles dealing with these subjects. I think part of the current problem is that people have tried to broadly characterize many substances under a single heading, including dissociatives, deliriants, etc. These ought to be separately categorized with links as appropriate to help people find them. The term "Hallucinogen" should point/disambiguate to these headings. Whig 05:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

your last sentence is essentially what has been agreed to so far- using hallucinogens as an umbrella term, with the phenethylamines, tryptamines, and lysergamides under the "psychedelic" heading- check out [Wikipedia:WikiProject Hallucinogens, Entheogens, and Related Topics/categorization] and the relevant talk page. A better term than "hallucinogens" would certainly be ideal, but i don't quite think that "psychedelic" fits the bill as it isn't general enough . . . --Heah (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Psychedelic is quite general, and does not have a strongly positive or negative POV associated with it. I'll check the categorization subpage however and we can discuss there. Whig 00:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Psychedelic is quite general, but dissociatives etc are NOT psychedelics. otherwise, go ahead and fix the cats for the phenethylamines, tryptamines, etc. the "researchers" etc and "herbal & fungals" should not, however, be explicitly marked as psychedelic; they should include people working with dissociatives and dissociatives/dilieriants etc- unless we agree to change the current usage of the term psychedelic as far as wikipedia goes. right now we are not using it as a general umbrella term, and imho i don't think we should. Whatever terms we decide on, consistency is very important. I might change back those three cats on the category page tomorrow; i'm down in ecuador at the moment and don't have enough money on me to stay online any longer . . . --Heah (talk) 22:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We may need more than one "umbrella", however, it is known that the "psychedelics" can be dissociative themselves when consumed in high doses, and dissociatives can become deliriant when consumed in even higher doses. DXM is a case study in dose-related differential effects, with documentation of different "plateaus" at different levels of dosing. There is always a problem trying to pigeonhole things into neat categories when set, setting, dose and admixture are not taken into consideration. Whig 01:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

yeah, definitely, which is why this project was set up in the first place. project drugs couldn't come to any sort of agreement over how to deal with this stuff, because by their very nature, "hallucinogens" are virtually impossible to categorize and pigeonhole. they sorta defy any sort of description. of course, as an encyclopedia, we need to figure out some consistant way of dealing with them, perfect or not.

i think i also have never really viewed the term "hallucinogen" as being so . . . uh . . . i've been spending all day, every day learning spanish, and english makes much less sense now . . . i guess "negative" is the word i was looking for. psychedelic has its own negative connotations, abandoned (from what i have read) due to the fear of it being linked to "psychotic" and "psychosis". it isn't really ideal either.

i think that one umbrella term is important, as these drugs are all very similar, with similar effects on the psyche and so on. taking set, setting, dosage etc into account is certainly very important. so what to do? personally i'm not really sure.

--Heah (talk) 22:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What are the parameters for defining a name? If it's wide open, I'd propose altergen - alter (to make different without changing into something else), gen (producer). — FJ | hello 16:51, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

heh, not bad actually. although i think that as an encyclopedia we 're supposed to avoid defining new terms, etc . . . --Heah (talk) 17:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh well. I see what you're saying. It's interesting that the process of building an encyclopedia can flag major terminology issues of this kind, but that the encyclopedia itself cannot actually fix said issues. — FJ | hello 18:50, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

yes, its actually rather annoying . . . though there are certainly ways to skirt this. but defining new terms is probably over the line, unfortunately.--Heah (talk) 15:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hallucinogens, Entheogens, and Related Topics/categorization for info about changes to the cat page. --Heah (talk) 22:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've become quite bothered by the whole "Hallucinogen/Psychedelic" replacement. I'm unsure about how exactly hallucinogen is perceived as strongly negative and psychedelic is perceived as realtively neutral. I remember reading Jonathan Ott discussing the reasons the word entheogen was created; partly because psychedelic has such negative connotations and will forever be linked to 60's pop culture, and its link with psycho-. I have always been in full agreement with this since I read it, and seeing the word psychedelic appear all over Wikipedia is, in my view, a terrible mistake. --Pappa 4 July 2005 14:48 (UTC)

I'd imagine that Jonathan Ott and others with a favorable view of these materials would prefer the term entheogen and indeed, it would be my own preference if my POV were appropriate, but it is not. Hallucinogen carries a very specific negative connotation that the experiences attributed to the use of such materials is strictly hallucinatory, i.e., imaginary, in nature, whereas psychedelic meaning "mind-manifesting" does not load any particular implication as to whether the experience so manifested in the mind is truly imaginary or real. Whig 5 July 2005 05:56 (UTC)

Whig, I respect your view, but strongly disagree. I would not suggest entheogen as a good term here as entheogen refers to a certain type of use and is not applicable to the substances themselves (when discussed in a general sense). I do use the term entheogen regarding both traditional and synthetic substances, but (usually) only in the proper context. In common parlance, hallucinogen means a substance which causes hallucinations/visions, it is well understood by the scientific community, the general public, and the entheogen community. From my POV, I see no negative connotations to the use of this word. I understand why you see it as unsatisfactory (because it implies the visions have no reality and are mere fantasy or delusion), but I do not see this as a problem, as all hallucinations are unreal from an ordinary reality perspective. Also, the term psychedelic, for me, is just wrong. Its link with 60s culture will never be broken, and as such it cannot be taken seriously in any context, whether that be scientific, sacramental or otherwise. In regards to both the scientific and spiritual aspects the use of the word psychedelic lowers the standard and implies recreational use or hippyness. Can you really see a scientific report on The treatment of alcaholism/ADHD/cancer/etc. with psychedelic mushrooms, or a personal development councillor promoting the use of psychedelic mushrooms, or a religious group using psychedelic mushrooms as a sacrament, being taken seriously by anyone? --Pappa 6 July 2005 08:43 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you are saying, pappa; personally i've never seen "hallucinogen" as any more negative than "psychedelic", and the word came into use as a replacement for the negative connotations of psychedelic. but on the other hand, i couldn't see a scientific report on The treatment of alcoholism/ADHD/cancer/etc. with hallucinogenic mushrooms, or a personal development councillor promoting the use of hallucinogenic mushrooms, or a religious group using hallucinogenic mushrooms as a sacrament being taken seriously by anyone either. imho, its the culture, not the word.--Heah (talk) 7 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)

I suppose I'll just have to agree to disagree with the rest of you. I'll just leave it saying that I feel psychedelic to be a very insatisfactory choice, particulary when hallucinogenic is well known, well used and from my POV neutral too. --Pappa 8 July 2005 07:59 (UTC)

you may view it as neutral, but it is incorrect. Psychedelic drugs do not make you hallucinate, that is why the accepted term was changes. -matt

A definition of hallucination, for what it's worth (note that both parts are required):
(1)Being in a completely separate reality that only you can interact with. Like seeing an object that isn't there. The best example is schizophrenics (the movie A Beautiful Mind has some great examples). (2) Believing that everyone else can see the object/reality, and not realizing that the object is due to the drug. So seeing a pink aardvark can be just a visual distortion (a very big one, granted), but running around asking if everyone can see it is a hallucination. Such things are rare when taking psychedelic drugs.
I tend to view hallucinogen as on a level with psychotomimetic ("psychosis-imitating", one of the original terms in academia for such drugs): sure, they're widely accepted, but both carry negative and untrue connotations. And even though psychedelic has the hippy image, its better than schizophrenia or psychosis :-P. --Silvem 09:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not "psychoactive"? Seems fairly simple and neutral... Strange that no one seems to have suggested it yet. STGM 08:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The term "psychoactive" includes but is not limited to hallucinogens. It also includes all stimulants, depressants, antipsychotics and antidepressants. --Thoric 17:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banisteriopsis caapi images

It has been brought to my attention that Image:B caapi dried.jpg and Image:B caapi.jpg require copyright verification, or they will be removed. I must admit that when I originally uploaded them I was rather new and I am now not sure where I obtained the images. Would anyone here be willing to devote a few minutes to chasing down these photos, verifying the status and making the correction? Of course just replacing those two might be appropriate as well. — FJ | hello 02:27, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

i´ll be spending the next month in the jungle and can bring back replacement images, if need be . . . its too bad, i have no idea how to verify copyright info, and i really like that pic that you put up. --Heah (talk) 17:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] leaving, names

so i'm actually finally going to be without internet access for the next month or so, and i just wanted to say that the recent work looks great. perhaps a name change of the umbrella cat and the project is due, in line with the recent main article change? --Heah (talk) 21:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Changed the umbrella cat. I think we need to rework the "herbal and fungal" category, perhaps split them, "Herbal psychoactives" and "Fungal psychoactives"? Btw, have a great trip (er...vacation) and thanks for all the work you've put into this. Whig 23:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hallucinogen project and Metacine.net

I am working with a team of people to start a magazine and deploy a site or set of sites surrounding www.metacine.net. I have grown very fond of Wiki, and am interested in some of the overlaps which exist between some of Metacine's goals and what exists today on Wikipedia. This project is one example. Right now I'm the only Wiki-enthusiast on the Metacine team. I apologize if it is considered bad form to solicit in this way, but I encourage anyone affiliated with this project page to contact me if you have any ideas or input along these lines. — FJ | hello 21:31, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] dxm articles

does anyone else think that Dextromethorphan and Off-label use of dextromethorphan should be one article and not two? i'm not sure why that split is there; none of the other drug articles are split like that, at least to my knowledge. --Heah (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. DXM and off-label use of DXM should be meld toghether, im on it. It Really dosn't make any sense to keep 2 articles about the same substance separated.-MeDP.

Actually, there has been a debate on this subject already. The reason that the articles are split in this particular case is twofold: 1) Unlike other drugs such as methamphetamine, ketamine, cocaine, and others.. the overwhelming majority of DXM users do so for legitimate medical reasons (cough control), and therefore it makes sense to gear the content of the basic article towards the most likely audience, and 2)In this particular case, the information on recreational (i.e. non-medical) usage happens to be far longer and more detailed than similar information on other medically accepted drugs. To merge the two articles would focus the main DXM article about this OTC cough drug excessively towards its recreational usage by a small minority of people.

As it stood, no information about its non-medical (i.e. recreational) usage had not been withheld. Such information was just a link away for those people so inclined to learn about that. But if we include the incredible wealth of information regarding its recreational usage in the main article, we give the impression that the majority of the literature about this medication caters to its usage to hallucinate. In this particular instance, the articles are separate because information about recreational and medical effects are disproportionally important to the masses (the masses are primarily interested in the details of DXM as a cough-suppressant, not as a recreational drug). Please refer to the talk page on DXM for an earlier conversation about this subject.

RJSampson 01:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if some other articles like nutmeg, or Dimenhydrinate need to be split up Lonjers 00:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say yes to any substance where the recreational usage is obviously the less common use of the substance, and where the information available regarding the recreational use of said substance is significant to warrant more than a stub article. Based on the current versions of those two articles, it looks like dimenhydrinate could be split up, but I would say that the nutmeg article currently doesn't contain enough information on recreational use to warrant a separate article. --Thoric 22:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joining the Project

Hello there, I was just wondering about how could I join in this Porject.

I am Highly interested in the subject, and would like to help out expand Wikipedia's Information. I dont know if I can be much use when it comes to getting the information(my main sources for Info. on this specific subject are Wikipedia and Erowid), but I have been regarded a telented writer and, If that dosn't work, I am a native speaker of Spanish and have learnt Italian. Just wondering about any chances of getting involved.Good bye. MeDP.

I just added my name and started editting articles, though I haven't had time to do much yet. I don't know if that's proper form but no one has told me otherwise yet. If you need a place to start I think Trip sitter could use some expansion. Kit 04:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I also would like to join in the project, as I'm very interested in the subject. I've already fleshed out some articles (most notably 2C-G) and will do some more expanding when I have time. I guess since no one objected to Kit's self-add, I'll add myself to the list as well :). --Silvem 09:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome aboard. Self-adding is the way to go. Remember to be bold! Kit 16:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trip sitter

I just finished rewriting and expanding the Trip sitter article. Also, the article now features footnotes. Especially since this is my first article for the Project, I would love your feedback or suggestions here or on Talk:Trip sitter. Kit 03:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

wow. keep up the good work. --Heah (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Great job! Erasurehead 08:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ecstasy Dispute

There appears to be a bit of a dispute ocurring in Talk:Ecstasy (drug). An RfC has been posted to the appropriate page, and when I noticed that I thought someone should post a notice here in case project members wish to get involved. Kit 01:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Drug disambiguation

According to Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, one of the top disambiguation pages being linked to is drugs. I think it would be serving the aims of this project to help clarify the pages that link to drugs by changing them instead to link to recreational drug use, drug of abuse, psychedelic drug, medication, or another more appropriate page. For example, I recently clarified links on Aldous Huxley and Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. You can see the pages that link to drug at Special:Whatlinkshere/Drug.

Unless there is any objection, I will shortly add this to the to-do list on the main project page. Kit 23:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

due to changes in article names (eg hallucinogen -> psychedelics, etc) we also have a lot of pages linking to redirects. that should go on the to-do list as well. --Heah (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] to do list

just made a to-do template, which can be found here: {{hallucinogentasks}} please feel encouraged to edit it for content and aesthetics. --Heah (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks good, well done. I think it should be moved closer to the top of the main project article, and possibly added to some other talk pages (maybe Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants)? Kit 08:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] harmal -> syrian rue

someone moved the syrian rue article to harmal some time back, and at the time i deferred and let it happen rather than create a conflict. but i really think it should be moved back- 9,300 hits for harmal -tell vs 55,000 for "Syrian rue" on google. personally i have never heard it called harmal, and it doesn't seem to be the dominant term. harmal talk is here. --Heah (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It containts harmaline, right? I imagine that is the origin of the term. However I agree, Syrian rue should be the main article. Kit 09:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, simply due to the ratio of hits between the two I believe you have/should have won the argument. Although I haven't heard much about Syrian Rue, I've never heard the term Harmal used for it, though I have heard of Syrian Rue, so the popular term would probably be the most fitting.- Xer0X 12:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I moved it yesterday but User:MPF moved it back. check out the talk page. --Heah (talk) 02:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Project template picture?

Is one still needed? If I were to make one, what should I try to make it look like? Should I make it more on the neater, professional, wikipedia-like side, or very psychedelic, trippy, sort of 60's-ish? --69.251.125.187 21:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think a picture for the template would be neat. Maybe you could do a little of both -- a professional looking icon colored in psychedelic colors. Kit 23:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

What do you think I should make the dimensions? - Xer0X 12:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

yeah, some sort of combination sounds good. i'm not sure how one could make an icon representative of this project without drawing from trippy psychedelia. little mushrooms are nice. don't worry about dimensions; i think aprox 30 px by 30 px is standard, but the size of the pic will be part of the template code, so it can be any size in reality and then it will be displayed however big we want it to be displayed. --Heah (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try to get to work, when I finish I'll ask you guys for a second opinion :) - Xer0X 21:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, This is my first try at one. Please suggest any improvements. I made it so big since you mentioned it could be resized. - Xer0X 21:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

and a resized version: i can't actually see the small one at the moment because i'm running firefox 2 beta and it seems to have some bugs with displaying pictures. but my guess is that the words are too small to see- they probably don't need to be there.

I created

as cropped version for possible use in the template. What do people think? I haven't learned table formatting well enough to make a mockup, but maybe someone else can? Ithink it may need to be shrunk more by wikipedia.

XerOX, thanks for your original. I think a version of the full size picture could perhaps be used on the main project page, but I think it would have to take up less disk space. The one you made is too large in my opinion for use as it stands. Thanks for creating this cool image though, with a bit more compression or tweaking it should be quite useful. Kit 07:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

On further thought, maybe we could use a sort of banner version on the main page? You could crop out the top half of the page and put the text over the half with the images, if that makes sense. Kit 08:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Well no time like the present to learn. How about this:

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.

(This is just a mockup, we can add it to the real template if people agree with it) Kit 18:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I like it. - Xer0X 20:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Since no one objected or proposed something different I have changed the actual template. Kit 02:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BZ in Deliriants (anticholinergic hallucinogens) template?

Should 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate be added to the Deliriants template? I know it's from Atropine but I dont think the atropine page links to it? I dunno, I guess I'm not very good at editing on Wikipedia :*( - Xer0X 13:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, got it :D - Xer0X 22:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diphenhydramine Hydrochloride as an Anticholinergic Hallucinogen/Psychedelic

It seems that this may have been forgotten in the list. I am quite sure (personal experience) that it is a hallucinogen and have found that it is noted at many other sources around the internet and in a few pharmacology resources (adverse side effects... Hearing voices, Hallucinations, etc...) I wouldnt know if it would be right to put it on there but I think it deserves its own. WilliePete 18:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It's there, right in the Deliriants template i think. - Xer0X 20:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok I see it now WilliePete 09:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template for Tryptamine Carriers?

IMHO there should be a template for Psychedelic Tryptamine Carriers. Anyone agree? - Xer0X 22:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

What would go in the template? Kit 03:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Psychedelic tryptamine carriers, which a few of i believe are Psilocybe Semilanceae, P. Cubensis, and a bunch of other Psilocybe mushrooms. - Xer0X 12:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] afd of List of notable people who have commented on the LSD experience

List of notable people who have commented on the LSD experience has been afd'd. the afd entry is here.

[edit] Verifiability guideline proposal

many of these pages are riddled with sections like "famous users" etc, and except for the Mescaline page, there seems to be virtually no effort made to verify any of them. I'd like to propose that all persons in such sections are removed to the talk page until a reference is cited, as is done in the mescaline article. I haven't compiled a list of pages with this sort of a section, but i can. the unverifiability of List_of_notable_people_who_have_commented_on_the_LSD_experience is part of the reason it has been afd'd. --Heah [[User_talk:Heah|(talk)]] 23:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New wikilink-related tasks

While working on drug disambiguation and hallucinogen redirect fixes, I discovered we also need to work on fixing redirects from psychoactive to psychoactive drug. Additionally, some things which link to psychedelic should link to psychedelic drugs or psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants. Kit 15:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Hallucinogen_researchers%2C_users%2C_and_proponents

Hey folks. So the Category:Hallucinogen_researchers,_users,_and_proponents seems to be a rather hodgepodge mix of people. There are a ton of people who do reasearch into psychedelics but who are neither users nor proponents. Similarly there are probably billions of users (if marijuana is included) who are neither researchers or proponents. Few of the people listed are all three, and most of the people listed in that category are definitely not. The title of the category seems to imply that, in order to be a member of that category, you are all three. Could this perhaps be split into two categories:

• Category:Psychedelic researchers
• Category:Psychedelic advocates and proponents

Semiconscious · talk 22:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the resurgence in serious psychedelic research it would be good to have a separate category. It would also help when it comes time to write psychedelic research. Kit 22:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

the project categorization talk page has some stuff on there i've suggested about this, to little response. (maybe people just don't have that on their talk page?) I set up the category originally because it was needed, but only spent about 15 minutes filling it out before Thoric (i believe) objected for essentially the reasons above, so i stopped and it's just kinda been sitting since then. I like your idea semiconscious. Also need some way to categorize organizations. And the research category would be good too, Kit, i've actually been thinking about that a lot lately but haven't been editing much other than random spurts of new page patrolling. --Heah ^talk 23:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Cats have been set up as above, in addition to some others. see the categorization page. Still no category for non-religious/non-research organizations like the Merry Pranksters. Another problem is people like owsley and pickard, who manufactured but didn't quite research or advocate hallucinogens. Perhaps a "legal issues" category should be created? which wouldn't quite solve the problem but it might be useful. --Heah ^talk 01:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation to join an offsite drug wiki

I, along with many members of the forum I moderate, have somewhat recently founded a wiki for all drug-related information. I believe that those of you involved in this project might be very interested in joining our community. Here are the main points:

• website: http://tccwiki.com
• Content to include all things drug and mind related: Including the types of articles on shamanism, culture, neuroscienece, anthropology etc. that you all are working on.
• More than wikipedia because: On top of the encyclopedic articles that you all are working on (indeed, users have copied several entire articles from here) we offer space for "subjective" drug articles (i.e. opinions, guides, tips, tricks, advice), experience reports, and technical guides - as well as our own community portal and a drug-related current events page.
• Goals: To become a central community for the entire internet drug-researching population. I am currently working on getting the word out to the Erowid team, Lycaeum, Bluelight, Shroomery, etc. We are working hard on this project in hopes that it might literally become the "wikipedia of drugs" and more.
• Current state: 220 articles and a well-forumulated organizational structure but still really in the early phase of forming a comprehensive database. We need the help of people like you to develop this into a community of excellence.

It would be fantastic to have assistance from you well-educated and already wiki-savvy people. Most of the organization and project planning has been done entirely by myself so far. I am sure many of you could provide extremely valuable insight into these matters; I am certain you would also make great contributors and administrators on our project.

This is the first invitation I have sent out. The current 300+ users of TCCWiki are all from my forum. I'm consulting this project specifically because we need educated writers familiar with the wiki format to help fill up the many holes that still exist in our core database and organizational structure; and to hopefully help with project management including joining the administrative team.

Thanks for your time. I have consulted the products of this project many times and think you people are doing a wonderful thing. I hope you will take the small amount of time necessary to explore what TCCWiki already has to offer, especially the various project pages, and see if you think this might be something you could get involved with.

I'd be happy to answer any questions and respond to any comments about the site here. If you all feel this is an inapprorpiate use of this space I will certainly respect that as well. Thanks again. --Tccmod 02:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, don't think this is an inappropriate use of the space -- hopefully there can be cross-pollination between your Wiki and our wikiproject with useful resources going both ways. Your contributors should feel free to join up with our project as well, of course.

I signed up for an account there (same name as the one I have here) and was planning on bringing my article Trip sitter to your site. However, I found that the type of footnotes I use in that article are not supported there. What type of footnotes/citations are preferred on TCCWiki pages? Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 20:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your user page on our site we don't have any strict policy about this - yet. You are welcome to simply copy over any templates that you use here at wikipedia. I'm happy to help out with this if it is a problem. The other option would be to simply leave out the footnotes and let the references stand alone, which I don't think would particularly subtract from your article, especially if you added a link back to the original in the references section anyway. --Tccmod 21:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drug culture category?

Since this project covers cultural aspects of drug use, I was wondering whether it might not be appropriate to create a new subcategory, Category:Drug culture or perhaps something more specific? This could encompass slang like psychonaut or bad trip, jargon like entheogens, cultural events like Burning Man and Eeyore's Birthday Party, and that kind of thing. What do others thing? Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 12:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahh I see it exists but is tragically under utilized. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 12:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

And on reflection I think it needs some further subcategories under Category:Drug Culture such as Category:Drug terminology and slang and Category: Drug-related cultural events. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 12:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, i've added some subcats. --Heah ^talk 01:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template category?

Have we considered adding a category to our template, such as the one used by WikiProject films in Template:FilmsWikiProject?Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 14:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

hmm, not a bad idea . . . --Heah ^talk 22:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Done! It shows among other things that we need to tag more articles with our template. :) Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 04:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Pro-cannabis userbox

If you would like to have this on your userpage, just add {{User:Disavian/Userboxes/pro-cannabis}} to your userpage, and the box at right will appear on it. Also, if used in your user space, the page will be listed on Category:Pro-cannabis Wikipedians. If you would like to share it with someone else, type {{User:Disavian/Userboxes/pro-cannabis|stamp|right}}

Also, consider weighing in on the Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll.

Stand up and be counted while you still can,

StrangerInParadise 20:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain the benefit to Wikipedia or cannabis legalization of having this kind of banner on your Userpage? Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 04:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move Machine Elves to Machine elf

See Talk:Machine Elves for my proposal to move Machine Elves to Machine elf. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 04:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar for User:Heah

I am sure you will all agree that Heah is deserving of a Barnstar both for creating this fine project and his numerous contributions to its chosen topic. So I gave him one. :) Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 05:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 20:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DEA Photos

I'm trying to add photos for the research chemical stubs. The DEA's Microgram Bulletins are quite helpful in provide PD images.

Somebody might want to come and help me add more info to the articles as well, please.

Miserlou 19:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marijuana Wiki

Hi there,

I've started a Marijuana wiki (aka The Sticky Wiki) which I think you might be interested in. I'm hoping you can help me get started with this project. Whereas lots of articles about weed get speedy-deleted on Wikipedia, they would be totally cool over at MarijuanaWiki. But really I want the site to be more of a marijuana community than merely an encyclopedia.

To give you an example, I want to have city guides about where to score, find pot-friendly cafes, marijuana events, and what represents a good price in that city. Etc. (You can check out the featured article: "Toronto" to see what I mean). Of course, I want to see articles about the negative health effects and the drug laws in each of the countries. I also want to have grow diaries and marijuana blogs. All in all, basically more communal than encyclopedic.

I am in need of admins/moderators, and people experienced with MediaWiki to help build policy, categories, and templates, etc. If you'd be interested in helping me with this project, the URL is MarijuanaWiki

Thanks for your time and consideration. Hope to see you there!

-- nsandwich 00:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but why not try expanding wikipedia before we go hopping off to other sites? --Neur0X 20:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to merge Amish clip into Roach clip

I've added the merge tags into these articles.
I just wanted to let you all know, because this seems to be your area of interest and expertise. ... ColtsScore 00:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] im back

just letting you guys know, this is Xer0X, i got a new account because some idiot was trying to blackmail me. anyway, i'm back on wp with my new account. --Neur0X 17:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alcohol and Drugs Society links

these are in the ext. links sect. in almost every drug page, thanks to User:Meco. Most of the links have no direct relation, as well as not having a very reliable stance, and it collides with 1.3.9 on WP:External Links. it is a blog site and news site, and is not a significant source of information. meco's contrib page. please remove these if you see them, and if anyone has any other thoughts or thinks im wrong on this feel free to jump in.--Neur0X ^.talk 03:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bubble hash

I'd just like to draw your attention to Bubble hash and Bubblehash, though you would do better to look at the talk page and/or the article history. Some sort of claim to patent is being made at the first article and the second reads just like an ad. --Alf ^melmac 21:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article Review for Project MKULTRA

A featured article review has been begun for Project MKULTRA. See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Project MKULTRA. Andrew Levine 00:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming and serial commas

As per WP:MOS#Serial_commas, using a serial comma in the name of this project would reduce confusion regarding the number and relationship of the three terms. I would support a rename to Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives, and Deliriants. -- Bovineone 03:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] image choice

Hi all - I have a question about the image in this template. It seems to be an Amanita pantherina or an Amanita phalloides - neither of these are hallucinogenic, as far as I know - but are simply poisonous. Maybe it should be changed to a psilocybe? Debivort 18:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Amanita pantherina contains pantherine which is the same as muscimol, the active hallucinogenic compound of Amanita muscaria. --Thoric 02:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Still, do you think this is the most appropriate image? It sure seems like a psilocybe would be more appropriate. I'd be happy to make a new image if that's the concern. Debivort 04:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think a more "appropriate" image would be a little more inclusive... i.e. contain a small grouping of a few items... maybe one from each category, so therefore perhaps a peyote cactus to represent the psychedelics, either an amanita muscaria or salvia divinorum plant to represent the dissociatives, and then a member of the nightshade family to represent the deliriants (i.e. a datura flower or seedpod). I think I could imagine a nice little image having a peyote button on the left, an amanita muscaria in the middle, and a datura "thorn apple" seedpod on the right... but will leave that up to the artist ;) --Thoric 21:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★TWO YEARS OF MESSEDROCKER★ 03:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

[edit] Street names

I don't know if this is the correct place to bring this up, but I think it is right. I am a participant in the chemicals wikiproject, and as such, have many (I try to achieve all) chemical compounds on my watchlist. This includes many drugs. For the compounds that fall under this very wikiproject, I see a list of 'street names' on each. That as such is a good thing, It is valuable information. The trouble is, I see many edits that either add names or remove names, and I guess there is no way of checking these. I have now done a revert on ketamine, where first two names were added, and later two others removed by an anon, without any explanation, for all I know, it might be vandalism. Is there a way to check this hard to verify information? Alterations look very random, and very vandal-prone at the moment (maybe even POV). Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There might be some sort of database that tracks street names (urban dictionary maby) or we could just use the how relevant Google search results for a street name are as a way of tracking what street names are relevant enough to keep around. A simple rule might be if you search the street name on Google and 3 of the top ten results refer to the actual drug include it. I am sure there is a better algorithms for this and it would be difficult to enforce but possibly some kind of general rule would be helpful. If there is a really good database for this that actually tracks usage levels then possibly some one could write a script to enforce and update street names. Ah forgot to sign this. Lonjers 02:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories for events

What would be the proper categries to place on events that cater to subjects, speakers and entertainment related to altered states of consciousness and methods used to attain them, etc, and organizations that sponsor such events? I would like to ask someone to place whatever appropriate categories there are on the Association for Consciousness Exploration, Starwood Festival, and WinterStar Symposium articles. Thanks in advance. Rosencomet 18:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Image for the project

Hi, I previously created the image currently used for the project, and i think that it doesn't quite... get the point across, if one know's what i mean. I've created what is in my opinion a much more fitting image for the project. So I propose to replace the old image with this one. Your thoughts?--Neur0X ^.talk 21:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LSD FAR

LSD has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy (Talk) 20:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salvinorin A

This article is factually inaccurate, according to a letter to the editor. We need quick, quick action now. See the talk page for details. -- Zanimum 19:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Ratings?

I know other projects rate their articles and display a nice chart. Is there any way to do this at least on the articles listed here? --x1987x^(talk) 20:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current WikiProject Fungi collaboration article: Amanita muscaria

WikiProject Fungi has just decided on Amanita muscaria as one of this month's collaboration articles. The goal is to bring it up to Feature Article quality, then submit it for Peer Review and Feature Article candidacy. If anybody here is interested in helping out, feel welcome. Peter G Werner 03:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization dispute

I suppose it was inevitable that some from the DXM community would come to contest a categorization system which distinguishes between a "psychedelic" (i.e. LSD) and a dissociative (i.e. DXM) due to the fact that the term psychedelic has so often been allowed to be inclusive of the dissociatives (including DXM, ketamine and PCP). Unforunately this breaks our categorization system, and leaves us without a term to refer specifically to substances such as LSD, mescaline, psilocybin, etc. One user in particular -- Jolb has been very active on my talk page, suggesting that we toss out our current categorization system as it is "POV", and possibly even "OR" (original research) regardless of supporting references, as he and his friends can provide just as many (if not more) references supporting the use of the term psychedelic to include the dissociatives. I have several times offered for him to discuss this issue here, but he has not as of yet, so until he does, I invite you to check out my talk page, as well as his, and also to keep an eye on the psychoactive drug article, as this is where he is focusing his current attention. Thanks :) --Thoric 06:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll give a little backstory that explains why I think it should be changed: I'd read wikipedia and started using Thoric's terminology (psychedelic meaning a specific class of serotonergic or cannabinoid drugs.) However, in talking to many people, I'd repeatedly been told that my terminology was wrong, and that the term "psychedelic" was not a scientific, neuropharmacologic class of drugs, but rather a term to describe a subjective state of mind caused by mind-manifesting drugs. I did some research, and couldn't find any supporting evidence for the terminology I was using, but I did find two sources that clearly included dissociatives as psychedelic (mind-manifesting) drugs. So I went to wikipedia to see who put that terminology on Wikipedia. I found Thoric and asked him to cite some sources. Let's both cite our sources and see what others have to say.Jolb 18:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarity, one must note the distinction between a psychedelic drug and a psychedelic experience. While many things may contribute to the occurence of a psychedelic experience, including such things as lack of oxygen to the brain, or a blow to the head, this most certainly would not make such things classified as psychedelic drugs, otherwise carbon dioxide and sports injuries would be scheduled by the DEA. So while I am in agreement that "psychedelic experiences" can be obtained from the dissociatives as well as other drugs, I do not agree that we have to include them as such, especially when they already have their own classification, and substances like LSD, mescaline and psilocybin were the original proponents for the term psychedelic. --Thoric 19:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thoric's sources to defend the current wikipedia terminology

• In Pharmacotheon, by Jonathan Ott (ISBN 0-9614234-3-9), on page 103 he notes that "In a 1956 letter to Huxley, Humphrey Osmond proposed the term psychedelic for mescaline and related drugs."

There are such substances as soma, hashish, cohoba, ololiuqui, peyote, the Syrian rue, the caapi vine, the fungus teonanacatl, the two Amanitas, pantherina and muscaria... (Osmond, A Review of the Clinical Effects of Psychotomimetic Agents) Osmond specifically mentioned several drugs that are not related in action to LSD, mescaline, and psilocybin. TardNarc

• In Psychedelics Encyclopedia, by Peter Stafford (ISBN 0-914171-51-8), in the forward written by Dr. Andrew Weil, on page III-10, in the third paragraph he states, "In my view, the true psychedelics are the indoles (LSD, psilocybin, the tryptamines, harmaline, etc) and the phenethylamines (mescaline, MDA, DOM, etc.). These drugs and the plants they come from constitute a distinct pharmacological group, all of which stimulate the central and sympathetic nervous systems and all of which affect serotonin or dopamine pathways (or both) in the brain. These drugs are also distinguished by great medical safety, particularly the indoles. They do not kill, injure or produce any serious physical toxicity even in large overdoses or chronic use over lifetimes."
• On page III-11 (of the same book), about halfway down the page Weil says, "PCP and ketamine are pharmacological curiousities, not related to other recreational drugs. Many users like the "dissociative" states they provide, but few find them truly psychedelic. Their toxicity and abuse potential are significant."

On p. III-24 (of the same book) Dan Joy writes "In the years intervening since the last edition, ketamine hydrochloride has come to be regarded by many of those involved in this area of study as a unique, significant, and bona fide - if somewhat hazardous - psychedelic. Therefore new front matter of additional information about this compound appears in this volume." TardNarc

• Dr. Greenspoon's definition of a psychedelic drug from Psychedelic Drugs Reconsidered, ISBN 0-465-06450, as I've quoted here and is quoted in the psychedelic drug article:

a psychedelic drug is one which has small likelihood of causing physical addiction,

craving, major physiological disturbances, delirium, disorientation, or amnesia,

produces thought, mood, and perceptual changes otherwise rarely experienced except

perhaps in dreams, contemplative and religious exaltation, flashes of vivid

involuntary memory and acute psychoses.

The above definition clearly excludes deliriants, and is far more typical of substances like LSD as opposed to PCP.

• This entry from The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary

Psychedelic

adj.

Of, characterized by, or generating hallucinations, distortions of perception,

altered states of awareness, and occasionally states resembling psychosis.

n.

A drug, such as LSD or mescaline, that produces such effects.

• This definition from biology-online.org:

psychedelic

1. Pertaining to a rather imprecise category of drugs with mainly central nervous

system action, and with effects said to be the expansion or heightening of consciousness,

e.g., LSD, hashish, mescaline.

• A book called Psychedelic Information Theory - Shamanism in the Age of Reason by James Kent has a chapter entitled Psychedelics, Dissociatives, and Deliriants : Different Drugs, Different Dosages, Different Actions -- here is a link to an excerpt [1]

I have contacted James Kent, and requested some of his sources to support his terminology which I will add here.

• An online copy of someone's Neurochemistry term paper which includes the statement, "Interestingly, both the classical psychedelics and the dissociatives, with their opposite effects on the sensorium, can lead to a sensation of oneness with the universe, and the mystical experience."

Clearly psychedelic by itself primarily refers to substances like LSD, psilocybin and mescaline, and can also include THC and MDMA to some extent. When people talk about substances like Ketamine, DXM and PCP, they go out of their way to note that they are dissociatives even if they may also consider them to be psychedelic.

Greenspoon's definition clearly puts the focus on the non-dissociative substances:

a psychedelic drug is one which has small likelihood of causing physical addiction, craving,

long term use of dissociatives such as PCP, ketamine and DXM have been shown to cause addition, whereas psychedelics such as LSD and psilocybin do not

(small likelihood of causing ) major physiological disturbances, delirium, disorientation, or amnesia,

these occurrences are far more common with dissociatives, especially with equipotent dosages

produces thought, mood, and perceptual changes

dissociatives are more likely to nearly (or even completely) cut off perception of the outside world as opposed to changes in perception (although one could argue that disabling perception counts as a "change" in perception).

Stedman's definition also puts the focus onto non-dissociative psychedelics:

Of, characterized by, or generating hallucinations, distortions of perception, altered states of awareness, and occasionally states resembling psychosis

Dissociatives are not characterized by "distortions of perception" or even really by hallucinations or altered states of awareness so much as dissociated (which means dis-joined -- disconnected) from their outward perceptions, and ultimately focused inward, typically drifting from one disconnected region of the mind to another, forgetting who they are, and how they got there. While one can also obtain these states at the peak stages of high doses of psychedelics, this is the only way in which they are similar.

While all these definitions of psychedelic do not necessarily exclude dissociatives completely, they most certainly put the focus onto classic psychedelics such as LSD, psilocybin and mescaline, and as I have noted before, whenever dissociatives are brought into the mix, they are clearly labeled as such. I don't believe that this classification is all that controversial, as I have personally shown this chart to a number of researchers in this area (including Alexander Shulgin, Earth Erowid, Jonathan Ott, Dale Pendell, among others) and none of them considered the psychedelic / dissociative / deliriant classifications to be questionable. --Thoric 22:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jolb's sources in favor of a less stringent use of "psychedelic"

Psychedelic effects of ketamine in healthy volunteers: relationship to steady-state plasma concentrations. [2] Bowdle TA, Radant AD, Cowley DS, Kharasch ED, Strassman RJ, Roy-Byrne PP. Published in Jan. 1998 issue of Anesthesiology: From the abstract:

BACKGROUND: Ketamine has been associated with a unique spectrum of subjective "psychedelic" effects in patients emerging from anesthesia. This study quantified these effects of ketamine and related them to steady-state plasma concentrations. METHODS: Ketamine or saline was administered in a single-blinded crossover protocol to 10 psychiatrically healthy volunteers using computer-assisted continuous infusion. A stepwise series of target plasma concentrations, 0, 50, 100, 150, and 200 ng/ml were maintained for 30 min each. After 20 min at each step, the volunteers completed a visual analog (VAS) rating of 13 symptom scales. Peripheral venous plasma ketamine concentrations were determined after 28 min at each step. One hour after discontinuation of the infusion, a psychological inventory, the hallucinogen rating scale, was completed. RESULTS: The relation of mean ketamine plasma concentrations to the target concentrations was highly linear, with a correlation coefficient of R = 0.997 (P = 0.0027). Ketamine produced dose-related psychedelic effects. The relation between steady-state ketamine plasma concentration and VAS scores was highly linear for all VAS items, with linear regression coefficients ranging from R = 0.93 to 0.99 (P < 0.024 to P < 0.0005). Hallucinogen rating scale scores were similar to those found in a previous study with psychedelic doses of N,N-dimethyltryptamine, an illicit LSD-25-like drug. CONCLUSIONS: Subanesthetic doses of ketamine produce psychedelic effects in healthy volunteers. The relation between steady-state venous plasma ketamine concentrations and effects is highly linear between 50 and 200 ng/ml.

From the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology: Neuropsychopharmacology:The Fifth Generation of Progress by Henry David Abraham, Una D. Mccann, And George A. Ricaurte (these are three VERY respectable people, Henry David Abraham is nearly the top guy in the world) chapter 108 [3] is very in-depth and gives a good defense of it. Here's the introduction:

As defined in this chapter, the term psychedelic drugs includes both classic hallucinogens [i.e., indolalkylamines and phenylalkylamines, such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and mescaline, respectively], "dissociative" drugs [i.e., arylcyclohexamines, such as phencyclidine (PCP) and ketamine], and substituted amphetamine analogues [i.e., phenylpropanolamines, such as 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, ‘‘ecstasy’’)]. The use of psychedelic drugs dates from the dawn of recorded history and continues today. Indeed, in Western culture, their use appears to be on the rise. Despite the longstanding popularity of psychedelic drugs, controlled research evaluating their effects in humans has been surprisingly scant, and data from preclinical studies have been largely limited to the last several decades. This chapter reviews preclinical and clinical research involving indolalkylamines, arylcyclohexamines, and substituted amphetamines, for which LSD, PCP, and MDMA are used as the prototypes, respectively. Significant recent advances are highlighted, and promising areas toward which future research should be directed are identified.

I also asked someone whom I consider an expert about this, and he gave me a SLEW of references. Here's what he said:

Here are some quotations from the 1957 paper by Osmond that introduced the term "psychedelic":

The great William James endured much uncalled-for criticism for suggesting that in some people inhalations of nitrous oxide allowed a psychic disposition that is always potentially present to manifest itself briefly. Has our comparative neglect of these experiences, recognized by James and Bergson as being of great value, rendered psychology stale and savorless?
(Osmond, A Review of the Clinical Effects of Psychotomimetic Agents)

There are such substances as soma, hashish, cohoba, ololiuqui, peyote, the Syrian rue, the caapi vine, the fungus teonanacatl, the two Amanitas, pantherina and muscaria...
(ibid.)

Methedrine, as I have already indicated, prolongs and reactivates the LSD-25 model. According to a drug addict, Benzedrine in large doses, dissolved in black coffee, is very like mescaline in effect.
(ibid.)

Osmond explicitly referred to hashish and the psychoactive amanitas as psychedelics, implicitly indicated that nitrous oxide triggers "psychedelic" experiences, and indicated openness to and interest in similarities between the amphetamines and psychedelics (similarities which have been perceived by more than one commentator). It is clear that at this early date the definition of the term was phenomenological ("mind-manifesting") and not pharmacological ("affecting 5-HT 2a receptors in a manner identical to LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline").

From The Pharmacology of Psychedelic Drugs, by Ralph Metzner (found in Issue 1 of Psychedelic Review, Summer 1963, pp. 69-100):

The term 'psychedelic,' taken from Osmond (1957), is used here to refer to a group of substances whose primary effect on human subjects is the radical alteration of consciousness, perception, and mood. They have been variously called 'psychotomimetic,' 'hallucinogenic,' 'psychotogenic,' 'consciousness-expanding,' or 'mysticomimetic.' No attempt is made here to describe or analyze the subjective psychological effects of these drugs and plants, and the reader may be referred to the excellent reviews by Osmond (1957) and Unger (1963) for this purpose.

Many drugs and still more plants with unknown chemical constitutents are known to alter consciousness, perception, and mood. The amphetamines induce arousal or mood elevation; the barbiturates produce somonolence or narcosis. The more recent tranquilizers and anti-depressants seem to vary on a parallel but more subtle dimension. The present group of substances excludes these as well as the opiates, cocaine and other anaesthetics , and atropine and its derivatives. The 'psychedelic' drugs reviewed here were selected according to the following criteria:

(1) their somatic effects are relatively unimportant, compared to the marked psychic effects;
(2) no cases of addiction or dependence have been reported;
(3) though tolerance develops, there is no abstinence syndrome on withdrawal;
(4) they have been described in the psychiatric literature as 'psychotomimetic';
(5) they have also been described in the psychiatric literature as useful in therapy.

With these criteria in mind a group of about fifteen drugs was selected, which may be classified chemically into the following five categories: (1) phenylethylamine derivatives, of which mescaline is an example; (2) lysergic acid derivatives, of which LSD is an example; (3) tryptamine derivatives, of which psilocybin is an example; (4) piperidyl benzilate esters, of which JB 329 or Ditran is an example; and (5) phencyclidine (Sernyl).

A word about similarities and differences between these drugs. There seems to be general consensus that the drugs in the first three groups are essentially alike in their effects, differing only in duration of action (Unger, 1963; Szara, 1957; Wolbach et al., 1962a). The relationship of these drugs to Ditran and Sernyl is less well understood, but they are alike in producing 'psychotic-like' hallucinatory episodes in which contact is maintained and which may result in reintegration and insight (English, 1962). For the purposes of this paper, they will be assumed to be sufficiently alike to warrant searching for common or parallel pharmacological mechanisms.
(pp. 69-70)

(5) Phencyclidine
Sernyl, which is 1-(1-phenylcyclohexyl) piperidine, originally used as an anesthetic, was reported to be 'psychotomimetic' by Luby et al. (1959) and has also been used in psychotherapy (Davies 1960, 1961). Chemically, it is related to the previous group of piperidyl benzilate esters, but differs in not antagonizing acetylcholine, and in other respects. The main difference in the type of action induced by Sernyl as compared to other hallucinogens is its strong sedative effect (Gershon et al., 1960)."
(p. 76)

Please note that Dr. Metzner, one of the co-authors of The Psychedelic Experience and an internationally recognized authority on psychedelic drugs and altered states of consciousness, has extensive personal experience with psychedelic drugs (this in regard to Thoric's contention that s/he will not listen to authorities who have never taken psychedelics; more on this later).

In a personal conversation with me, Dr. Metzner stated that he based his classification of PCP as a psychedelic on the literature at that time rather than personal experience, and that he would no longer classify PCP as a psychedelic drug, but would extend that classification to ketamine.

A user comparison of DXM inebriation to LSD inebriation, 1967:

TOXIC PSYCHOSIS DUE TO DEXTROMETHORPHAN
A 23 year-old male, a well-known drug addict, recently presented with a toxic psychosis due to taking 20 tablets of "Romilar" (dextromethorphan), which he bought from a chemist. This was characterized by hyperactive behavior, extreme pressure of thought, marked visual and auditory hallucinations, and association of sounds with colours (synaesthesia). This experience was likened to that experienced when he was under the influence of L.S.D.

As this substance is readily available from chemists, it is felt that general practitioners should be aware of similar toxic psychoses which may occur with large doses of this drug.

Angus Dodds, Psychiatrist-in-Charge.
Rozelle Psychiatric Clinic, N.S.W.
E. Revai, Registrar in Psychiatry.
Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney.
(Dodds A, Revai E (1967), Toxic psychosis due to dextromethorphan., Med J Aust 2:231.)

A comparison by doctors of DXM inebriation to mescaline inebriation, 1968:

from abstract:
The case of a 23-yr-old female patient who used dextromethorphan, a synthetic antitussive morphine derivative, for hallucinogenic purposes revealed different elements of an induced psychosis, similar to those described in 1948 by Delay and Gerard in mescaline intoxication: bodily disturbances, strangeness felt vis-a-vis the world and objects, loss of identity and self-regulation with respect to people and things, auditory perception modifications, spatial and temporal estimation, and hallucinatory manifestations, etc."

(Bornstein, S; Czermak, M; Postel, J., Apropos of a case of voluntary medicinal intoxication with dextromethorphan hydrobromide, Annales Medico-Psychologiques, Volume 1, Issue 3, 1968, pages 447-451, Bornstein, S.; Czermak, M.; Postel, J.)

Granted, these don't explicitly use the word "psychedelic," but they're fun historical references. This, from the student magazine Ramparts, 1967, does explicitly use the word "psychedelic":

Lady Day's way wasn't the way of the new generation, Chester Anderson will be quick to tell you, because she was on 'body' drugs. Whatever else body drugs- heroin, opium, barbiturates, alcohol, tranquilizers-may do, they eventually turn you off, and contemporary heads like to be turned on - i.e., senses intensified, stimulated rather than depressed. 'Head' drugs, which do the latter, are both cheaper and easier to get than body drugs, and come in approximately 18 varieties in three different classifications-natural drugs like marijuana, hashish, peyote, morning glory seeds, Hawaiian wood rose seeds, and certain types of Mexican mushrooms; artificial psychedelics like mescaline, LSD, psilocybin and psilocin, and whatever the ingredient is that makes Romilar cough syrup so popular with young heads; and synthetic stimulants which, used in large doses by heads, are known as 'speed' - dexedrine, benzedrine and methedrine.

A reference to DXM as a psychedelic by an underground psychedelic chemist, 1981:

Dextromethorphan, contained in many non-prescription cough medicines, will produce a heavy psychedelic trip, but the nausea characteristic of opiates may constitute a problem.
(p. 165 of Psychedelic Chemistry, Michael Valentine Smith; contained in the chapter "Miscellaneous Psychedelics")

Another reference to PCP as a psychedelic drug, 1967:

A VARIETY of names have been proposed for the group of drugs most popularly called "hallucinogens." Names such as psychotomimetic, psycholytic, psychedelic, schizophrenogenic, cataleptogenic, phantastica, or mysticomimetic have been suggested at one time or another to emphasize a particular aspect of the reactions(8, 24). But, as we shall see later, the type of reaction depends more on the personality and momentary mental set of the subject and on the setting of the experiment than of, the drug itself, so that the noncommittal designation psychodysleptic (meaning distortion of mental functioning), proposed by Delay, seems to be the name of choice (10). The name hallucinogenic, however, is so extensively used that we shall use the two terms interchangeably.

The literature is replete with vivid descriptions of the striking and varied symptoms produced by these drugs(l, 2, 6, 13, 14, 18, 20, 24). These include marked disturbances in sensory perception, lability of emotional experiences, and feelings of depersonalization and derealization. Various characteristics of the primary process thinking, including a dream-like quality of thought, are brought on by these drugs; this aspect of the effect is so prevalent that these drugs are often called "primitivizing agents."
...
From a chemical point of view, we can classify the hallucinogens roughly into three groups(7,13).

The phenylethylamine group might also be called an adrenaline-related group since many of its members show a clear chemical relationship to the sympathomimetic catechols. (See Figure 1.) Mescaline is clearly the major hallucinogen in this group. It is the active ingredient of peyote, the dried tops of the cactus of the Lophophora williamsii used by some Indian tribes in the U. S. and Mexico. The active dose of mescaline is in the 300-500 mg. range.

The other members of this group are either active, like TMA (trimethoxy-amphetamine) or MDA (methylenedioxy-amphetamine), in the same dose range as mescaline, or the activity is shown in animals only (N.N.-dimethylmescaline and 3, 4-dimethoxyphenylethylamine).

The tryptamine group contains most of the known hallucinogens and some of the most active ones. (See Figure 2.) Among the simple derivatives of trvptamine we have a score of compounds with proven hallucinogenic activity. DMT (N.N.-dimethyltryptamine), DET (N.N.-diethyl- tryptamine), DPT (N.N.-dipropyltryptamine), a -MT (dl-a -methyltryptamine), psilocybin, psilocin, and the dimethyl homolog of psilocin have been reported to be active in the 10-50 mg. dose range. The psychodysleptic action of serotonin and bufotenin is not definitely established. DMT and bufotenin are present in the snuff called "cohoba," prepared by Haitian natives from Piptadenia peregrina seeds, while psilocybin is the active substance in the sacred Mexican mushrooms called "teonanacatl" and has been shown to belong to the Psilocybe species.

There are quite a few compounds with proven or suspected hallucinogenic activity which contain the tryptamine structure concealed in a more complex ring structure. (See Figure 3.)

LSD-25 is of course the best known hallucinogen. it is a synthetic product prepared from lysergic acid, the common nucleus of the ergot alkaloids. Its activity bad been discovered in a laboratory accident by A. Hofmann; it proved to be not only the most active hallucinogen (30-100ug. range) but one of the most active drugs ever known.

The other two representatives of the complex tryptamine class shown in the figure are harmine and ibogain. Both of them are of plant origin. Harmine and its hydrogenated derivative, tetrahydroharmine, were found in Banisteria Caapi and Prestonia amazonicum, used by South American Indians in their concoction called "yage," while ibogaine seems to be the active ingredient of the African shrub Tabernanthe iboga, taken by some inhabitants of West Africa and the Congo. The psychodysleptic dosage range for synthetic harmine is between 150-400 mg., while the dosage for ibogaine in man has not yet been esablished.

The third group is a chemically heterogeneous group and its psychological effect in man is distinctly different from that of mescaline or LSD. Among the many pi-peridyl glycollates, the one called "ditran" in doses of 10-20 mg. produces a pattern of somatic and psychological symptoms which is distinctly different from the pattern produced by the typical hallucinogens. The most striking difference is a complete loss of contact with the environment and a considerable amnesia for the hallucinatory period. In contrast, during the effect of LSD or mescaline, the consciousness is mostly clear, and a large portion of the experience is recalled after the effect wears off. (See Figure 4.)

The pattern of psychological reaction to marihuana, in which tetrahydrocannabinol, was shown to be the active ingredient, is also distinguishable from, that of LSD or mescaline. The effective dosage range for the synthetic drug is variously put at 5 mg. to as high as 200 mg.

The effects of the morphine antagonist, N-allylmorphine (nalorphine), are comparable to those of marihuana, and the hallucinogenic dose is 30-75 mg.

The mental symptoms produced by phenycyclidine (sernyl) are body image changes, anaesthesia, and delirium; these are distinctly different from the effects of any other hallucinogen(l, 7, 13). The effective intravenous dose was found to be about 0.1 mg./kg., and the effective oral dose was found to be 10 mg.
(Szara, The Hallucinogenic Drugs-Curse or Blessing?, American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol 123, June 12, 1967, 1513-1518)

So, then, phencyclidine is here referred to as a member of a group of drugs, popularly refered to as 'hallucinogens,' that have also been called 'psychedelics.' There are other academic instances of using all these terms interchangeably. (I will quote them shortly)

BTW, it was Szara who first reported that DMT and DET were active psychedelics in humans, based in part on his own self-experiments. He was also experienced with LSD in experimental settings.

I am unsure as to the extent of his use of other psychedelics.

Reference to PCP as a psychedelic drug by Timothy Leary, originally published in 1968:

The State of Sensory Awareness is produced by any psychedelic drug - LSD, mescaline, psilocybin, MDA, yaje, hashish, Sernyl, DMT..."
(Leary, The Politics of Ecstasy, p. 45, 1998 edition, Ronin publishing)

Sernyl was a trade name for PCP in the 1960s.

Another reference to Sernyl as a psychedelic drug, from 1964:

At present, a definition of psychedelics, acceptable to the majority of qualified experts, does not exist...[t]here seems to be agreement about the 'recognition' of LSD, mescaline and derivatives such as TMA, psilocybin (the chief active ingredient of the magic or sacred mushroom of Mexico) as well as psilocin, dimethyltryptamine (DMT), Ditran (or JB-329), Sernyl (or phencyclidine), DET, peyote buttons, and morning glory seeds. In the "doubtful" category are other substances and compounds, such as harmine, harmaline, adrenolutin, adrenochrome, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide. And the oldest of all consciousness-altering drugs, marihuana (hashish), is in the process of revaluation."
(Bates, Psychedelics and the Law, The Psychedelic Review, volume 1, number 4, 1964)

Information on the historical marketing of PCP in the underground drug culture of the 1960s:

When phencyclidine made its illicit debut in 1965[7?], it was marketed as a mild psychedelic. Dealers described this new drug as a mild psychedelic, 'a little stronger than marihuana,' and sold it in tablet and capsule form. The effects were often unexpected. Since the dosage could not be titrated, users often experienced an adverse reaction. Hence, phencyclidine gained a bad reputation and subsequently was not seen on the streets.
(Lerner et. al., Phencyclidine Use Among Youth; http://www.drugabuse.gov/pdf/monographs/21.pdf)

The above is from a series of monographs published in 1978. In the same series we find:

Widespread use of phencyclidine as a psychedelic agent by the drug subculture in the United States is now generally acknowledged.
(Domino, Neurobiology of Phencyclidine; http://www.drugabuse.gov/pdf/monographs/21.pdf)

BTW, it was Dr. Domino's wife who coined the term "dissociative anesthesia".

From 1972:

Presents a brief history of the clinical and street use of phencyclidine. The physiological effects of the drug are noted to vary widely with dose, from alcohol-like intoxication at low doses to analgesia and anesthesia at large doses. The effects on psychological functioning appear to be progressive disintegration with the S reporting decreasing ability to integrate his experiences and sensations. Ss reported increasing apathy and feelings of isolation. Research comparing the state produced by phencyclidine with that of schizophrenia is noted. Clinical management of phencyclidine intoxication is outlined.
(Reed, Alan; Kane, Andrew W; Phencyclidine (PCP): Another illicit psychedelic drug., Journal of Psychedelic Drugs, 1972 Fall Vol. 5(1) 8-12); note the article title and the name of the journal in which it appears)

From 1976:

Describes the cases of 7 young adults in whom phencyclidine (PCP) produced a psychosis of several weeks' duration. Descriptions of the patients' premorbid personalities resemble descriptions of LSD and marihuana users who experienced prolonged psychiatric difficulty. It is noted that the psychosis produced can often be recognized as a 'hallucinogen' psychosis. Certain features of the PCP psychosis, namely the neurologic abnormalities, dose-related severity of symptoms, and regularity of the length of illness, are not noted with other psychedelic drugs, leading to the conclusion that PCP psychosis is a drug effect rather than a brief functional psychosis precipitated by the disintegrating PCP experience. However, the infrequent occurrence of psychosis in the (apparently) large exposed population still suggests that this is a combination of drug effect and vulnerable, pathologic personality.
(Fauman, Beverly; Aldinger, Glenn; Fauman, Michael; Rosen, Peter, Psychiatric sequelae of phencyclidine abuse., Clinical Toxicology, 1976 Vol 9(4) 529-538; emphasis mine)

Non-academic sources, starting with a 1990 newspaper article:

Police and federal drug agents capped a yearlong probe with the seizure of a gallon of the psychedelic known as PCP, said to be worth at least $30,000, and the arrest of three men in a major drug distribution ring.
(Coakley, Tom, Raids Allegedly Crack Top 'Angel Dust' Ring, Boston Globe, Sep 4 1990; p 48 col 5)

Newsweek, 2002:

Known as angel dust in the 1970s, PCP, or phencyclidine, gave users superhuman strength and a numbing calm. But the addictive, psychedelic drug also made many paranoid, violent and completely out of touch with reality; they leapt off roofs and broke out of handcuffs with their bare hands.
(Smalley. Suzanne; Rosenberg, Debra, 'I Felt Like I Wanted to Hurt People', Newsweek, July 22, 2002)

Of course, as Thoric has already pointed out, there are other references which explicitly differentiate dissociatives and psychedelics, all of which goes to show that different conceptual schemes are possible, that learned commentators can disagree, and that the Wikipedia reference as it currently stands does not accurately reflect the historical range of usage.

Thoric engaged in some interesting selecting quotation from Stafford's Psychedelics Encyclopedia. For starters, the Weil quotation omits this line:

Stafford discusses a number of substances I do not consider psychedelics.
(emphasis mine)

Further on in the book's third edition, in Dan Joy's essay Psychedelic Renaissance, we find:

In the years intervening since the last edition, ketamine hydrochloride has come to be regarded by many of those involved in this area of study as a unique, significant, and bona fide - if somewhat hazardous - psychedelic. Therefore new front matter of additional information about this compound appears in this volume.
(III-24)

Still further, in the section Notes on Ketamine:

[A]nother [user] reports a battle while under the effects of this psychedelic with persistent anal bleeding, the result being a two-month remission of the condition.

Interest in ketamine has recently grown within the psychedelic and alternative spirituality movements as well as in "recreational" contexts ... ketamine has nonetheless earned a reputation as something of a "psychedelic heroin" in spite of its apparent positive potentialities.
(III-55)

It should be granted that the original edition of Stafford's book included both ketamine and PCP in the Contrasting Profiles section, as drugs with some claim to be called psychedelic, though their status was more ambiguous than others Stafford had discussed in his book (which, btw, included marijuana/hashish and the amanitas among other non-LSD-like drugs).

In personal conversation with me, Mr. Stafford referred to DXM as a psychedelic drug.

That's it for now Jolb 18:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jolb's suggestion

It seems clear to me that "psychedelic" is a broad term that refers more to a state of mind than to neuropharmacology. The term was and is most commonly used to describe a visionary state that has more to do with self-knowledge and spiritualty and less to do with neuroreceptors and neurotransmitters. I suggest that we change Wikipedia's current usage of "psychedelic." "Psychedelic" now is used as a classification that includes only serotonergic hallucinogens/empathogens and cannabinoids. I think the term should be switched to something that more aptly fits these classes of drugs. For example. we could possibly use "Serotonergic Hallucinogens" or "Indole Hallucinogens" and "Cannabinoids." More important, however, is that we change the use of "psychedelic," since it's clearly controversial. Jolb 20:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The word psychedelic was created for the purpose of labeling certain drugs by Dr. Humphry Osmond -- specifically mescaline, but also including LSD and psilocybin. Unfortunately he died a few years ago, so we cannot obtain his personal response regarding this issue, but I am certain there are plenty of his peers who would be able to offer a satisfactory response. --Thoric 23:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Notice that there are already citations from Osmond's original 1957 paper (the one in which he coined psychedelic.) He explicitly lists substances that break your definition. Jolb 23:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, he coined the term before introducing it in that paper -- while corresponding with Aldous Huxley about mescaline. Secondly, as quoted from the 1957 paper, the substances he lists which are in addition to (or secondary to) mescaline and LSD are "soma, hashish, cohoba, ololiuqui, peyote, the Syrian rue, the caapi vine, the fungus teonanacatl, the two Amanitas, pantherina and muscaria" -- the only substances in that list which I do not include in the psychedelic umbrella are the muscimol containing Amanitas. As for his reference to the amphetamines, I will agree that the mind-racing aspect of the peak of a higher doses of amphetamines is indeed similar to the mind-racing experience of psychedelics, I certainly do not consider them to be on par as far as the whole-mind experience of true psychedelics. The amphetamine experience is primarily within the logical left-brain -- suppressing the creative right-brain. The psychedelic experience involves the whole brain -- expanded beyond normal waking consciousness. The dissociative experience is limited to a particular region of the brain -- less than that of normal waking consciousness. I seriously believe that not only are you not actually reading and comprehending my arguments, you are also not even reading and comprehending the sources you are citing. In nearly every example you cite, the dissociatives are specifically described as such (dissociatives) and also are listed dead last in the inclusion list, whereas substances like mescaline, LSD and psilocybin are always listed first. --Thoric 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Cohoba breaks the classification as well. Scopolomine and atropene are both anticholergenics. Jolb 02:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Cohoba refers to Anadenanthera peregrina, a tree with DMT containing seeds. Cohoba was the smoked form, and Yopo was the snorted form. --Thoric 03:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the contention that "psychedelic" should be dumped because it is "controversial." Controversy is inescapable in this domain, and will not be solved by fudging the nomenclature. "Psychedelic" is accurate and historically appropriate. While one may hallucinate while on a trip that is not the defining feature of these substances, no more than the rapid heartbeat or dilated pupils. But no one in his right mind would categorize them as "cardiac stimulants." Haiduc 04:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

will not be solved by fudging the nomenclature. Why not? There are numerous more appropriate and less controversial terms. Jolb 05:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

All terms are controversial, this one is also accurate etymologically and meaningful historically. It is also valuable since it comes from within the culture. That's why we call Christians by that name, and not "unbelievers", and Moslems thus and not "pagans." Haiduc 14:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. Terms in chemistry are standardized under the IUCAP and are based on the physical properties of molecules. They're clear and definitive. That's why we use mercury instead of quicksilver or ethanol instead of grain alcohol. Jolb 16:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be very sure of yourself, but it appears you are mistaking opinion for fact. Nomenclature need not be based on chemistry, it can be based on function, usage, history and many other things. You are free to subdivide Psychedelics into categories based on chemical structure if you like, but it seems futile to try to redefine the whole group. And I fail to see the purpose of forcing the use of the term "hallucinogen." It is blatantly POV. It may well turn out that ordinary consciousness is more hallucinatory than the psychedelic state. Your suggestion is premature at best. Haiduc 18:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on the above (psychedelics)

I like this Venn diagram. It is constructed by taking the effects of various classes of drugs, grouping similar drugs together, and applying a name each of these groups. Some of the fine placements are debatable, but not worth running from the mastodons, and I think the overall organization is quite impressive. Now, the term we happen to use to define one group is psychedelics, and the term for another group is dissociatives. On this diagram, at least, these two classes are closely related (they even overlap).

It seems this argument is more over semantics than over drug classification. Let me explain further. There is a difference between a drug having a "psychedelic effect" and a drug being a psychedelic. Both myxobacteria and slime moulds have a "fungus effect" when they form fruiting bodies, but they are not fungi! Even more relevant, Salvia divinorum, DXM, and probably several other drugs, have "deliriant effects", but are not themselves classified as deliriants. A drug such as Cannabis might even be considered an antipsychotic, yet in this diagram, it is placed far from the antipsychotics.

What I'm trying to say is that the broad use of the term is correct, at least as a colloquialism, but the strict use of the term is more correct. We could argue, for example, that psychedelics are actually hallucinogens, and cite the hundreds of articles which describe LSD and psilocybin having hallucinogenic effects, but I think this would fail to convince anyone.

My opinion? Dissociatives and psychedelics should remain separate, and the close link between the two should perhaps be addressed.

− Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, this diagram was developed by Thoric, so there is some bias in the definitions. But I stand by my arguments, which have a high degree of truthiness—straight from the gut! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A rose by any other name...

[edit] Tenacious D

Should Tenacious D be in this? Tenacious D Fans (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LSD is no longer featured

Last month, they had a review of LSD's FA status. It got owned, mainly because it doesn't cite sources as well as it should, and because it has a bit too much spam. We should work on refining the citations to get it back up to FA status. Jolb 03:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A little essay on the naming question, as sollicited on Talk:Psychedelics,_dissociatives_and_deliriants

Hi there! 'Tis me, the guy who attempted to clean up the Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants page a while ago, and was pleasantly surprised that his scribblings were allowed to stand. I decided back then that it was a better idea to polish the style of the article while leaving the categories as they were, but now that it's apparently up for grabs, let me throw in my two cents. (If you think it's too long, feel free to move the whole mess elsewhere. I don't know what the custom is.)

I very much dislike the word "entheogen" as applied to any particular class of drugs. It seems to me that the word is a perfectly good one, but it should be used for any psychoactive substance when used in the context of religious and/or spiritual practice. Thus, when an atheist drops acid with no purpose but having fun, it's not an entheogen, and when a catholic priest sips a tablespoon's worth of sour wine during mass, it is an entheogen. Similarly, tea as used in some Buddhist traditions is an entheogen, whereas tea in most other contexts likely isn't. Any other definition would imply a particular theoretical view about the relation between psychedelics and religion, and while I sympathize with some of the theoretical views that link psychedelics and religion, you shouldn't assume your conclusions. (It has been rumored, by the way, by McKenna at least, that "entheogen" was coined by Wasson partially out of a desire to disassociate himself from the hippies. But I still think it's a fine word when properly used.)

Next is psychotomimetic, which in my view is right out. Shulgin admits to having used it in the titles of papers, but just in order to get papers published. The reason I mention it at all is that it should cause us to assume that any use by a renowned authority of a particular term, especially in mainstream publications, might not coincide with their preference as much as with that of some editor's.

"Psychedelic" gets 6590 citations on scholar.google.com, but only 1630 in "recent articles" (that is since 2002). "Hallucinogen" gets 4040 in total, but 1080 in "recent articles." This roughly suggests that in the scientific literature, there is a historical preference for "psychedelic", but "hallucinogen" has been gaining ground. Most importantly, it suggests that counting citations on scholar.google isn't going to give a very decisive answer, and it definitely isn't going to tell us whether the two are competing words describing the same thing, or words used by the same authors to describe different things.

In favor of "hallucinogens", I would like to cite:

• D.E. Nichols. "Hallucinogens." Pharmacology & Therapeutics (2004) 101:131. [4] (an awesomely comprehensive paper, by the way; the bibliography boggles the mind)
• Griffiths RR, Richards WA, McCann U, Jesse R. "Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance." Psychopharmacology (2006).[5] (this paper was very well received and the first after many years to seriously investigate the spiritual dimension of psychedelics—but it uses the word not once, and sticks to "hallucinogens" studiously".)
• The book "Hallucinogens, a reader" with contributions by Grob, McKenna, Hofmann, Metzner, Strassman, et al.

Shulgin & Shulgin, who we cannot very well suspect of pandering to journal editors or funders given their age and situation, do not like the word. The TIHKAL glossary says:

HALLUCINOGENS, n. A misleading and inaccurate synonym for psychedelic drugs.

Terence McKenna, though, an independent if there ever was one, uses "hallucinogens" all through Food of the Gods.

Summary so far: it's a big mess. Different authors use different words, even ones that I'm pretty sure know each other personally and communicate a lot (like Nichols and Shulgin). But there is one thing that I find no evidence for whatsoever, and that is the view that "hallucinogens" would be commonly used as an umbrella term to include psychedelics, dissociatives, and deliriants. It's an interesting proposal, but it does not reflect any sort of consensus outside of Wikipedia. Furthermore, it leaves the entactogens/empathogens (MDMA) hanging in mid-air, being clearly part of the family, but not quite belonging to any of the three branches.

My advice? Give up on trying to come up with a definitive taxonomy. Have an article on hallucinogens, psychedelics, dissociatives, deliriants, empathogens, and all that, but rate common usage over etymological correctness, however irksome it may feel, and call the thing "hallucinogens." Accept the fact that people's definitions range from "acts on 5HT2A receptors in ways that make rats think they got DOB" to "banned in the US but not addictive" to "feels kinda like acid." Don't spend too much space in the article (it's too long already) on explaining the classification, have a separate article on the psychedelic naming mess, and state in each separate article what classes any given drug is commonly thought to be in. (In other words, stop worrying and learn to love folksonomies.) Sjeng 17:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

While it is agreed that "hallucinogen" is the blanket term used by the legal system for all of these substances, and is also the blanket term used by Terence Mckenna among others as you mention, "hallucinogen" implies characteristics which some substances under this blanket do not scientifically impart (i.e. MDMA). Therefore we named the article after slightly more specific groupings to describe the three main areas of these substances legally labeled as hallucinogens. Essentially the word hallucinogen carries the POV of the DEA. --Thoric 00:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of ways to categorize dissociatives and other drugs without resorting to the terms psychedelic or hallucinogen. For example, 5-HT2A agonists, serotonergics, monoamines, indole-based, and Arylalkylamine-related. Rejecting the arbitrary term psychedelic does not make categorizing these drugs impossible. Also, why are deleriants included under dissociative anesthetics. Deleriants typically do not necessary produce anesthetic or dissociative effects. --86.88.22.127 16:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"Deliriants" are grouped under "dissociatives", not "dissociative anesthetics". Deliriants do produce effects which can be described as dissociative, yet distinctive enough to be of their own category. --Thoric 23:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should we start doing an importance scale?

I was looking at other WikiProjects and many of them seem to use an importance scale, like Template:Importance legend. You think we should do this? Jolb 05:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support the implementation of an importance scale. I think it would keep active users much more in sync as to what this project is trying to accomplish. Old american century 02:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Lonjers 20:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anadenanthera genus

Does anyone support we change the article name of Vilca to Anadenanthera colubrina and the article name of Yopo to Anadenanthera peregrina? I've rarely (if ever) seen the trees referred to as Vilca or Yopo unless someone was directly talking about the snuff. I think the articles should focus on the trees, and then what they are used for instead of talking about what they are used for and then info about the trees... if that makes sense. I'm in the process of outlining a big edit focusing on Bufotenin, Bufo alvarius, Bufo, Yopo and Vilca, and it just doesn't seem right to have the articles titled "Yopo" and Vilca." Any thoughts? — Old american century 22:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, well if you view User:Old american century/To do you can see the changes I plan on making and citations for things. I'm too swamped with work to do the edit, especially trying to discern what information should go where (because it all is very interconnected). If anyone wants to work on the pages, view my User page, I don't plan on taking the information down anytime soon. —Old american century 01:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with the rename of Vilca to Anadenanthera colubrina and rename of Yopo to Anadenanthera peregrina (and of course the appropriate redirections created). --Thoric 19:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)