Talk:Salvinorin A
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of the WikiProject on Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants, set up to organize and expand entries on Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants as well as related subjects according to chemical type, effects, organic carriers, and cultural/historical uses. Please feel free to participate by editing this article and visiting the project page. |
What a weird looking chemical. --Eequor 00:19, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Salvinorin A Effects and Kappa Agonism
In response to: "Hi Bk0, do you have any special information (personal or published) why Salvinorin A should be different from kappa opioid agonists. Thanks, Cacycle 21:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)"
Kappa agonist drugs in humans are well studied and have predictable opioid effects. That is to say: generalized sedation, mild/moderate analgesia, respiratory depression, etc. Some notable drugs include butorphanol, nalbuphine and buprenorphine. Most of those have mixed action across kappa, delta and (to some extent) mu, but all have kappa activity that is significant enough to be relevant here. Contrast this with the novel and rather dramatic hallucinogenic/entheogenic effects of salvinorin A.
My point is that it is not possible yet to conclude a causal relationship between salvinorin A receptor activity and its subjective psychoactive effects. Furthurmore there has never been a direct causal relationship established between any classic hallucinogen's receptor activity and the corresponding subjective effects (I'm thinking of the tryptamine/ergoloid/phenethylamine family here). It is pure speculation to assume that salvinorin's kappa activity is solely responsible for its psychoactive effects. More research is needed. -- Bk0 22:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You are at least wrong about psychedelics whose effects are clearly mediated by the 5-HT2A receptor. There is compelling scientific evidence and nobody seriously questions this. See PMID 14761703. Cacycle 22:39, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- PMID 12192085 says:
-
- "It is now well established that the activation of KORs induces a large number of behavioral effects that include analgesia, sedation, and perceptual distortions. In the past, studies on the precise role of KORs in humans were hampered by the lack of selective agonists, although studies with compounds such as cyclazocine and ketocyclazocine suggested that KOR agonists were psychotomimetic (28). More recently, human studies with the highly selective KOR agonist enadoline (42) indicated that KOR activation induced visual distortions, feelings of unreality, and depersonalization. These effects of enadoline are reminiscent of those previously reported for Salvinorin A (2, 3). Taken together, these results suggest that the KOR/dynorphinergic system functions to modulate human perception and cognition, as might be inferred from detailed anatomical studies of dynorphin peptide distribution studies (43-45)."
- (28) PMID 10841791
- (42) PMID 11594439
- Therefore it would be a big scientific surprise if salvinorin's hallucinogenic actions would not be caused by kappa activation. Cacycle 16:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] A Dissociative?
I have yet to read anything suggesting that Salvinorin be classified as a Dissociative, and there's no mention of this in the article, but there's still the dissociative drug template used... what gives? --Overand 10:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Entheogenic
The intro of the article refers to salvinorin-A as an "entheogenic" substance. Is this actually a property of the substance, or of the purposes for which people use it? -- Pakaran 06:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- purpose, not a property. i've correced this a lot in many of the phenethylamine articles- it should be there, sure, but should be along the lines of "often used as an entheogen" or something similar, rather than "is an an entheogen", with the possible exceptions of peyote or ayahuasca or other similar plants/compounds with long traditions of entheogenic use. --Heah talk 00:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, arguably, salvia, if not salvinorin, has such a long tradition (and is perhaps used as an entheogen at present more often than, say, marijuana and LSD, which tend to be used for other purposes). My main concern is that saying "entheogenic" in the intro makes it sound like that's an objective category of drugs in the same way that, say, "stimulent" is. -- Pakaran 01:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, i agree completely. As it is about purposes/traditions and not properties, it certainly isn't any sort of objective category of drug- which is why imo if it's there, it should say "often used as" or something like that, rather than saying "salvinorin is an entheogen". Salvia very well may be called an "entheogen", but that's due to tradition and whatnot, as you say. I'm actually going to go check out the "entheogens" category and see what's in there . . . --Heah talk 01:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- From my experience, "entheogen" tends to be used as an alternative term to "hallucinogen" or "psychotomimetic", which are seen (by the writer) as undesirable due to either their inaccuracy (hallucinogens tend not to produce true hallucinations) or negative connotation. Arguably, entheogen offends just as much in the opposite direction, as having positive connotation. I don't know of any correct, truly neutral term to use so we're probably stuck with one of them. --Bk0 (Talk) 17:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, i agree completely. As it is about purposes/traditions and not properties, it certainly isn't any sort of objective category of drug- which is why imo if it's there, it should say "often used as" or something like that, rather than saying "salvinorin is an entheogen". Salvia very well may be called an "entheogen", but that's due to tradition and whatnot, as you say. I'm actually going to go check out the "entheogens" category and see what's in there . . . --Heah talk 01:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, arguably, salvia, if not salvinorin, has such a long tradition (and is perhaps used as an entheogen at present more often than, say, marijuana and LSD, which tend to be used for other purposes). My main concern is that saying "entheogenic" in the intro makes it sound like that's an objective category of drugs in the same way that, say, "stimulent" is. -- Pakaran 01:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Most Potent Naturally occuring drug
I've added "hallucinogenic" to this claim, as saying that Salvinorin A is the most potent naturally occuring drug is not correct, as there are other, more potent naturally occuring drugs out there. For example: Botulin Toxin in more potent as a drug than Salvinorin A. There are other examples.
Even saying that salvinorin A is the most potent naturally occuring hallucinogen to date could be considered dicey, but it is generally accepted as true.
-FD June 29th, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.162.78.130 (talk • contribs) .
The sentence "most potent natural hallucinogen" can be found with citations in the introduction sections of all cited publications. I have replaced "hallucinogen" by "psychoactive" because Salvinorin A is not a classical hallucinogen in the scientific sense. Cacycle 17:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
