Talk:Psychoactive drug

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Psychoactive drug has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Psychoactive drug is part of WikiProject Pharmacology, a project to improve all Pharmacology-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other pharmacology articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.


I'm not sure this is the ideal place to put this, but anyway... Considering the huge number of different "drug-culture" and "drug-related" pages on WikiPedia, would it not be a good idea to create a navigation template linking them all together? Like Template:Linguistics or Template:LGBT, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. Anyone have any suggestions / want to help? STGM 07:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This article ought to be deleted and the information contained therein ought to be put in Category:Psychoactive drugs. - Centrx 03:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] cannabis/marihuana/hashish

by request, and personal experience, i think cannabis should be replaced by marihuana/pot, and hashish should be added along with thc in the chart. Hashish it not an anti-psychotic in any way, but can quickly become the opposite. (89.8.51.44)

Cannabis is the correct botanical name for the plant, while marihuana/marijuana is a slang term that was purposefully adopted to label the drug as something only used by Mexican immigrants during a time when the overall American populace held a strong negative view of Mexican immigrants stealing their jobs (around the time of the Great Depression). "Pot" is also a slang term. Hashish is a specific preparation. If we were to have both cannabis and hashish on the chart, then why not have beer and wine along with alcohol, and crack, cocaine and coca where cocaine currently is? The only reason I put cannabis, THC and CBD separately on the chart is because CBD can have an anti-psychotic effect, THC can have a hallucinogenic effect, and (most) cannabis has significant quantities of both. Because there is more THC than CBD in cannabis, it is placed lower on the chart to indicate that it produces much more of a hallucinogenic effect than an anti-psychotic effect. --Thoric 16:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been replacing esp marijuana but any slang term with the generic cannabis wherever I can on wikipedia. This is the name of the articles Cannabis and Cannabis (drug) and would thus oppose very strongly any use of words other than cannabis except when, for instance, we are describing hashish in particular

Can someone explain how cannibus is a stimulant and a depressant, i have seen people (and felt) both ways under the influence of canibus, but under the medical term, does it slow or speed up the CNS

It does not operate directly upon the CNS, and while there are CB1 receptors in the CNS, and the depressant-like effects tend to be more common, cannabis does not appear to directly stimulate or depress the CNS. It could be that there are not enough of these receptors within the CNS to allow the cannabinoids to cause a dangerous effect on CNS activity (i.e. causing enough CNS depression to shut down such critical functions as breathing). --Thoric 00:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accolades

To whomever made the drug chart. It is fantastic and cleared up a lot of confusion for me. Before the chart drugs were a tangled mess in my head. This did a great job of clarifying things for me, quickly and easily, can this be nominated for a Wikipedia award or something. TimL 14:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Why, thank-you very much :) Stillnotelf awarded me a Graphic Designer's Barnstar for the design, but if you mean that this chart should be recognized by Wikipedia, there is always the Wikipedia Featured Picture Candidates page where you could nominate the chart (likely under Drawings and diagrams). --Thoric 16:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm I think there is a problem with that though as it is an image with text overlaid. The image itself is just the background. Not sure how to proceed. TimL 19:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I uploaded a 300px image based on a screen capture so it shows the links (still readable too). Hopefully this will straighten things out ;) --Thoric 17:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Drug chart

I added in my drug chart here... with hopes it will be improved upon ;)

Items I'm unsure if I've placed correctly:

  • Cannabis -- should this be in the psychedelic section?
  • Should the cholinergics be shifted left into the blue?
  • Ibogaine -- psychedelic, dissociative, or both?
  • Which dissociatives should or should not be considered to also be depressants?
  • Does adrenaline/epineprine belong in here?

--Thoric 20:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alcohol works as a stimulant in low doses (causing a "buzz") and only as a depressant in higher doses. I think this should be displayed in the chart somehow. If you want evidence I can supply it for you as there are many sources that reflect this. Also, you've probably experienced this yourself, if you're a drinking man, as that accounts for the "social lubrication" or "social buzz" that "social drinking" provides.

If I may interject, I personally think of ethanol as being purely a depressant. The "social lubricant" effect is likely due to disinhibition, i.e. depression of these "social inhibitons" that we all have to some extent or other. Benzodiazepines, which are usually classiffied as pure CNS depressants, are also known to exhibit this effect. Just my $0.02 --Seven of Nine 05:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I know you worked hard on the chart, but its format as a sort of ven diagram is really innapropriate. Grouping in that way with the overlaps is too subjective. Too many of the substances can be argued to be in more then the overlapping categories.

The groupings are the same as in medical texts (sedative hypnotics, narcotic analgesics, psychomotor stimulants, dissociative anesthetics, etc, etc), so I don't see how they are "subjective". Certainly many drugs have multiple effects, but most drugs fall into a primary category. If the medical community labels a certain drug a certain way, then how would organizing these drugs and categories into a chart be anything but helpful to the layperson who doesn't know the difference between cocaine and heroin? Please explain and be more specific. --Thoric 15:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Don't think this diagram will be that helpful. I am a medical student and the chart really confused me. Looks like partly overlapping boxes? If that is so, the middle part with the cholinergics wouldn't make sense. And looks like you place the SSRI's under the antipsychotics??? I think the variety of drugs involved is too complex to fit in such a diagram. I think this diagram should be removed.
How about improved rather than removed? This chart is to help the lay-person, not a medical student... but I'm concerned to why you'd be confused by it... Is subtractive color mixing too complicated for you? There are 3 (+1) overlapping boxes, blue for stimulants, red for depressants, green for "halluncinogens" and pink for antipsychotics. The overlapping areas include areas with shared tendencies. Do you think the middle part with the cholinergics should be more to the left? Then say so! Don't just say that it wouldn't make sense -- say why. There's a nice blank spot for them in the blue zone immediate to the left of where they are now. All the substances overlapped by the pink tint (and also including the cholinergic section -- i.e. nicotine) have some mood stabilizing properties. Most people who take anti-psychotics are also on SSRI's and some people who have mood disorders are put on antipsychotics rather than SSRI's. Psychotic behavior is more usually caused from excess dopamine rather than excess serotonin. And how about signing up for an account and adding some constructive criticism? --Thoric 4 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)

How about improved rather than removed? This chart is to help the lay-person, not a medical student...
I don't think they will become much wiser, when even people that are not new to the subject are confused by the chart.
Is subtractive color mixing too complicated for you? There are 3 (+1) overlapping boxes, blue for stimulants, red for depressants, green for "halluncinogens" and pink for antipsychotics.
To me it looks like 4 partly-overlapping boxes, in which case the middle part of the image should be white and have nothing in it. But from what you tell I understand it is one blue/red box and overlapping green and pink boxes???
Most people who take anti-psychotics are also on SSRI's
Only when they also have depressive symptoms, which a lot of them have, not to treat psychosis or schizophrenia.
some people who have mood disorders are put on antipsychotics rather than SSRI's.
Interesting... do you have evidence for this or more information? I only know of antipsychotics being used as a temporary treatment for acute mania, but usually lithium is preferred over them.
Psychotic behavior is more usually caused from excess dopamine
This is only a hypothesis and has as far as I know never been proven so far. See Dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia
And how about signing up for an account
Hope you are happy now that I haved logged in... didn't know I had to log in whenever I post critisism. --WS 5 July 2005 14:15 (UTC)


Drug Chart
Drug Chart

Yes, I am happy now that you logged in. The middle part of the chart is white... and it has cannabis in it because it sort of doesn't really fall into any of the categories directly... it's not a CNS depressant or a stimulant, yet for some people it causes relaxation, and for others a "high". It doesn't really cause typical "psychedelic" effects either, although can cause entheogenic experiences in very high doses, and has synergistic effects with hallucinogens. The anti-psychotic section is new, and I am not sure that it is correct, although I think it's not too far off. As I stated further back, I hope to improve on it. Please take a look at my original graphical chart from which I based the color square table diagram, as it is a little more clear (though you can see I've since moved things around a wee bit). --Thoric 5 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)

[edit] Salvinorin A

Definitely needs to be in the overlapping area between psychedelic and dissociatives.Erasurehead 16:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read my comment below on DXM. --Thoric 17:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ketamine

Probably needs to be in the overlapping area between psychedelic and dissociatives.Erasurehead 16:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read my comment below on DXM. --Thoric 17:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LSA

Should be in the psychedelics, maybe next to LSD --TheJamerson

As far as I am aware of, LSA is not hallucinogenic at all, so it doesn't belong here. It is a more a depressant, but not notable enough to get included. Any reported hallucinogenic effects of ololiuhqui are clearly caused by something else. If that's not adequately reflected in the LSA article then that article should be changed accordingly. Cacycle 12:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
LSA is a psychedelic depressant, if that wasn't mentioned then it should be changed. Check my source Erowid Morning Glories --TheJamerson

Erowid mentions LSA as causing psychedelic hallucinogenic effects, and if I'm not mistaken, that's our most reliable psychoactive substance information source. If I'm not mistaken, isn't LSA a milder form of LSD? 4.234.39.196 17:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ibogaine

My references don't mention a dissociative effect of ibogaine. Erasurehead 16:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muscarine

This is just a small point regarding the chart. I noticed that Muscarine is on there, and Muscarine exerts no effect on the CNS - if I'm not mistaken, that means it isn't classified as a Psychoactive drug. I won't remove it because I'm not certain, but maybe anyone who is more versed in Pharmacology can adjust the chart? Thanks --Panentheon 26 August 2005 17:26 (UTC)

I've seen muscarine classified as a (CNS) stimulant in some places, but maybe those were misclassifications? Some references state that it has difficulty passing through the blood-brain barrier. As there are muscarinic receptors in the brain, muscarine would have an effect if some did pass through the blood-brain barrier. Maybe there is another chemical substance that would better replace muscarine in the chart? --Thoric 17:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DXM

I noticed someone (67.169.38.235) added DXM to the psychedelic side. While some consider DXM to be a "psychedelic", it still belongs in the dissociative section. Please read both the psychedelic drug and dissociative drug pages for clarification to how substances under both categories can have similar effects. --Thoric 06:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually DXM more correctly belongs to both categories so I moved it thusly. See Erowid's DXM Vault and Non-medical use of Dextromethorphan. The reason for placing it in the psychedelic category at all is primarily because of its action on serotonin receptors--see psychedelic drug. --Amor_Fati 16:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Erowid's classification of a both dissociative and psychedelic is misleading. The "psychedelic" effects of DXM are from its dissociative effects. PCP has similar effects, and is also incorrectly labeled as a "dissociative psychedelic" on the wikipedia page. Those pages should all be corrected. This chart separates the distinction between a hallucinogen (for lack of a better broad term) which has a psychedelic (for lack a of better term) effect, by which we mean a consciousness expanding drug, from the dissociatives which actually have an opposing effect -- consciousness narrowing / fragmenting. Ironically both kinds of drugs can result in similar subjective effects. There is also a third subcategory -- the deliriants, which is the far extreme end of dissociation whereby the conscious and subconscious are scrambled to the point of switching roles, putting one lost in a waking sleep. If anything, substances such as DXM and PCP lie between the psychedelics and the deliriants, although they are placed in the realm of the depressants due to their CNS depressant effects -- which is very important, so that people are aware that any substance in the depressant realm carries the danger of CNS depressant overdose (meaning that if you take too much, your breathing may be depressed to the point of asphyxiation. --Thoric 16:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Why, I don't see any reason to relate dissociatives with deliriants. Care to elaborate? Though deliriants sometimes have a somewhat dissociative effect. Thoughts become completely nonsensical, and the user sees things from the subconscious, consciously. However, dissociatives don't, to my knowledge, have deliriant effects. The hallucinations from dissociatives, from my understanding, would be considered more psychedelic instead of delirious or delusional. 4.234.39.196 17:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The deliriant effects would most definitely be described as "dissociative"... it is only that deliriants produce a markedly different sort of dissociation than the dissociative anesthetics do, and therefore merit their own distinctive subcategory. On the chart they are even in a completely different color. Of note, if you read some Erowid experience reports on PCP, you will notice a slight trend of overlap with deliriant experiences. --Thoric 20:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it only the Chlorpheniramine Maleate in Triple C's that cause deliriant effects, as is described in the non-medical use of Dextromethorphan article, or does DXM itself also do this? 4.234.39.196 18:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Dissociatives do share some characteristics with deliriants, but chlorpheniramine will most certainly increase the deliriant effects (and also makes for a dangerous, potentially fatal drug combination in high dosages). --Thoric 20:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cannabis

While I think the Venn diagram is excellent, I'm a little concerned about Cannabis. On inspection, it looks like cannabis simply fits all three of the major categories, but when I first saw it I thought it was a POV statment and/or subliminal message in favor of smoking marijuana. I don't see an obvious fix, but you might want to keep that in mind if you can think of a way to fix it in some future edit. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 01:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I could left-align it so it will be closer to the psychedelics section... but I'm really not sure where it belongs most. I did recently lower it down deeper into the "hallucinogens" section such that it was in line with MDMA. Maybe it should be deeper down? More to the left? Any suggestions? --Thoric 03:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps giving it a section title will make it less stark? "Multiple Effects" in the same style as the other 4 major categories? Artistically it's ugly less desireable and logically it's superfluous, but it makes diagram less "centered" on cannabis, which reduces the visual impact. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 04:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Hashish and cannabis sativa aren't strong but certainly are psychedelics. If you included MDMA into this cathegory than cannabis should also be included. Besides, drug culture recognises it as psychedelic. P.S. LSD is far more powerful than psilocybin - in terms of how much micrograms you need to produce psychedelic effects. Sorry for bad English ;) Kras; 9:18, 17 December 2005 (GMT+1)
It's on the cusp at the moment, but I could move it in a little deeper. Chemically MDMA is a much closer relative to the psychedelics than THC. As for LSD and psilocybin, their placement is such because LSD is a closer relative to mescaline than psilocybin is, and psilocybin is a closer relative to DMT than LSD is. --Thoric 15:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Psychoactive Drugs, Generally

I'd like to adress something I've noticed on nearly all pages that concern psychoactive substances. There seems to be a lot of scientific talk on these pages, and this page is the worst. I find this problematic because the scientific approach is only one viewpoint. Take a look at a website like Erowid.org, and you'll notice a very nice combination of both a scientific view and a personal/spiritual view of these peculiar substances. Presenting readers with just one side of the story is pretty unfair, I'd think, as the other side might be even more interesting for some readers or researchers that come here to find information. Things you could include would be the cultural and religious use of some of these substances, as well as the way they have been adopted by modern culture. Another downside of the scientific approach lays in the fact that DMT is mentioned as a psychoactive substance, but the Amazonian Ayahuasca, a combination of Banisteriopsis Caapi and Psychotria Viridus, (which is the chemical combination of DMT and Harmine/Harmaline, which is a MAO-inhibitor) is not mentioned anywhere on the page. Still, this brew is in itself a psychoactive substance, and worth mentioning: there is actually already a wikipedia page for it. I can speak all I like but I believe this story will be enough for you to get my point. Let's summarize it all by asking the person that made this whole chart (which I think can be a good idea, but is pretty chaotic in itself) if he ever used any of the substances he is talking about so much, or if he just read about them in medical/chemical literature? - Roald Blijleven (I apologize sincerely for not having a user and questioning your integrity anyway...and for maybe not knowing exactly how to work with the Wiki yet) - 25-11-'05

First of all, you are welcome to contribute to this and other articles. To address your concern, most pages end up a little dry (like all encyclopedias) as they tend to contain the agreed upon consensus between opposing views. This particular page is somewhat new and a work in progress, although it isn't meant to discuss the individual drugs mentioned as so much as to be a sort of index page directing you to specific pages about these drugs.
As for spiritual aspects, the entheogen page is the page you are looking for. I guess this article could have a direct reference there, but since the entheogens are primarily those in the "hallucinogen" (psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants) category, it wasn't clear if it made sense to directly associate the two.
I created the chart, and I've tried at least 17 or 18 of the substances listed on it. My preference is for the psychedelics, and have definitely had spiritual experiences. In fact, they inspired me to create this chart (the original graphical one linked to from this talk page) to go along with a book on psychoactive drugs I am working on. --Thoric 16:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Diethyl Ether

I noticed that Diethyl Ether is in the Depressants category near Alcohol and Chlorophorm. This surprizes me, because I'm pretty sure that Diethyl Ether was a hallucinogen. I'm no expert, so I'd rather trust someone else to research this. Check out Diethyl Ether. Jolb 19:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The ether article only mentions recreational use akin to alcohol (actually as an alternative to alcohol). Descriptions from Erowid's Experience Vault primarily describe the experience as intoxicating (as in being very drunk) and euphoric. --Thoric 16:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Read more in the Erowid vaults. [1], [2], [3], and my personal favorite, [4]Jolb 21:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Strange experiences can come from heavy use of pretty much any substance, check out some of the alcohol experiences [5], [6], [7]. People have hallucinations when huffing gasoline, and other solvents like butane ([8]). I wouldn't say this qualifies every chemical solvent as a hallucinogen. Ether could possibly be shifted down the hypnotics circle along with other gaseous substances that have dissociative properties into the dissociative (yellow) section... but most of the non-benzo sedative-hypnotics has dissociative anesthetic properties, which can put a person into a dream-like state. The current lines of division on the chart place items within the red depressant area which are more likely to cause death due to overdose versus items within the yellow area. The opioids are also able to induce dreamy dissociative states as well as hallucinations, but again are kept within the red area. --Thoric 02:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drug names on chart

I noticed that people have been replacing the drug names on the chart with the proper generic names, but wouldn't it be best to use the most recognized names for the drugs? --Thoric 21:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, those names were the ones used in the United States for the products, elsewhere in the world they are called differently. They are also called different names in the U.S. for different purposes (bupropion as Zyban for smoking cessation, Wellbutrin as an antidepressant). Wikipedia policy is to use the INN names for all drugs anyway, so I think the changes are appropriate. Tmrobertson 18:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nitrous oxide

Gustavb -- nitrous oxide was already in the dissociative section -- the whole right side of the bottom (hallucinogen) section is dissociative. PCP, Ketamine and DXM were grouped together because they have the same method of action. N2O has a different method of action. I'm not sure all four should be grouped. --Thoric 17:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, ok, but it isn't very clear, and it is not consistent throughout the table. For example, nicotine is not a SSRI, but if the upper middle column would be read in the same as the lower right, one could get that impression. Maybe the heading should be emphasized even more to show that it spans all the content in the column. I will revert my changes, however, as you're right about the method of action. --Gustavb 20:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree it's not too obvious (hence why it is stated in the legend). I can maybe make it more clear by adjusting the colors some more. BTW, nicotine synergistically enhances the action of SSRIs ;) --Thoric 21:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice the legend, it makes it much clearer. Regarding nictoine and SSRIs, you learn something new every day :) --Gustavb 23:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rearranging

I've adjusted the chart a little... let me know if you think it makes more sense. Ideally I'd like similar drugs to be as close together as possible. --Thoric 22:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's an improvement, especially the ordering by potency in the dissociatives group and that you added inhalants. I still have some concerns regardning consistency and scope (i.e. what should be included and what shouldn't).
In the table some drugs are named as plants, some as their most active alkaloid, and others as both. For example "Cannabis" vs. THC (or cannabinoids), "Khat" vs. cathinone and cathine, but on the other hand, "Salvinorin" vs. Salvia divinorum, "Nicotine" vs Tobacco. (Both "Opium" and two of its most active alkaloids, "Morphine" and "Codeine", are listed.) -- I'm not stating that it's wrong, I just would like to know what the naming and inclusion policy is.
This is partly due to changes that were made by another person from the common North American names for the drugs to the proper generic chemical names. My intention was to use the most commonly known names for the drugs, but unfortunately that differs from place to place. So yes, Khat should be cathinone, and "Cannabis" should be THC. Maybe we should make two (or three) versions of the chart, and links between them?
Regarding the scope, I think we should aim for including as many different kind of psychoactives (in terms of action and usage) as possible in each group, this without listing too similiar substances, and without missing the most common ones. To give an example, some opiod with long duration (e.g. methadone) could be listed under "Narcotic Analgesics", as the others have relative short duration. And what about Tricyclic antidepressant and MAOIs in the stimulants' group?
The point of the chart is to give some visual insight to the average layperson as to how commonly known drugs relate to other commonly known drugs. For this reason we should try to ensure that priority is given to the most commonly known drugs. Certainly methadone should be added, and anything relevant should be added (within reason)
The more I think about this table, the harder it seems to make it perfect :) --Gustavb 03:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately a table is much harder to work with than a set of circles (see my original chart graphic linked above) --Thoric 16:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Nicotine

It seems Nicotine is not under the sections ANTIPSYCHOTICS, STIMULANTS, DEPRESSANTS, or HALLUCINOGENS? What is Nicotine classified as? Or is it in a group of its own? Are Cholinergics in a group of their own?

Nictotine is currently in the "Cholinergics" subsection of the overlapping of the Stimulants and Depressants sections. The magenta (purple) section is the overlap of the blue (stimlants) section and the red (depressants) section. It exhibits qualities of both. If you google: nicotine depressant (no quotes), you will find many reference to it exhibiting both qualities. [9] [10] [11] [12] -- basically nicotine is a stimulant in small quantities, and a depressant in larger quantities. Actually, many depressants exhibit this behavior (stimulant effects in low doses). Nicotine is also synergistic with the antipsychotics, and have some minor antipsychotic effects of its own. --Thoric 01:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New chart (in progress)

I've finally figured out how to make the chart properly using a graphic and overlaying the links on top with absolute positioning. Please check out my new chart so far, and let me know if you think it is far superior to the current one. Yes, I know it's not done yet, but it's a lot of work to position everything ;) --Thoric 04:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the new one, the circle going through cannabis eliminates my concern from above. You might want to tone back the blue further from link blue, and perhaps move psychomotor stimulants down so that the words aren't split between a white and blue background. Circles make for a much better Venn diagram than squares. Great job! -- stillnotelf has a talk page 00:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Done and done. (Plus some other rearranging). How does it look? :) --Thoric 02:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it's perfect! I especially like what you did with sympathomimetic amines...who needs circles when you can use a cam? -- stillnotelf has a talk page 04:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks :) It took me a couple days to figure out what to do about the sympathomimetic amines... I tried various elipses and eventually made a sort of egg shape ;) --Thoric 05:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cannabis

So is Cannabis classified as a Hallucinogens or in a class of is it in a class of its because it can produce the effects of Stimulants, Depressants, and Hallucinogents? Is more closer to one than others?--Zachorious 05:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Legally it is classified as a hallucinogen, and in the chart it is located in the middle, falling under all three classes, meaning that yes, it is a hallucinogen, but also includes the properties of both stimulants and depressants. --Thoric 00:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
THC is a hallucinogen - auditory and visual hallucinations are a common trend in many users over many different levels of doses. Paranoia stems from seeing or hearing people/events that don't really exist as a threat. --Nutschig 12:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Said hallucinations are only documented to occur in very high doses of oral consumption, or sometimes in people who are particularly sensitive to the effects. The same could be said about nearly any drug that is not normally considered in any way, shape or form to be hallucinogenic in regular usage. The same could be said about nicotine, as for some people high doses of nicotine are visionary. Of course these nicotine doses are at very toxic levels. Anyone who claims to have experienced significant visual distortions from THC on par with those of classic psychedelics (i.e. LSD, psilocybin, mescaline) from smoking a joint is most certainly embellishing a great deal, or their joint was laced with PCP ;) --Thoric 14:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


Im a marijuana smoker and ive never seen something that wasnt there, or colours or any type of trip.


Well, quite a few people on here are likely marijuana smokers. There are quite a few Erowid experiences that describe unexplainable intense trips from marijuana. This is known to occur. Not to mention that oral consumption can undoubtedly cause hallucinations when enough is eaten. 4.234.39.196 17:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Psychotic Drugs

Anti-psychotics and anti-depressants do not belong in a chart or article lumped in with LSD, cocaine, etc. These drugs have little in common, especially as it relates to therapeutic value and addiction. Anti-psychotics and anti-depressants are not addictive or habit forming. There is an apparent attempt here to put every "drug" into a single article even if it has only a remote affect on brain activity or no therapeutic value. "Psychotropic" medication is a term commonly used by the medical field to describe legal and effective anti-psychotic drugs. It is not interchangable with "psycho-active." --24.55.228.56 17:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, they are in their own section. Second, some have very similar method of action. Third, anti-depressants and anti-psychotics can be habit forming. Forth, there are other drugs on this chart that are less habit forming than anti-depressants. Fifth, and most importantly, this page is of all common psychoactive drugs, hence the title of this article. The chart is a careful arrangement of all these common drugs and how they relate to each other. Your personal political views on which drugs have "therapeutic value" and which do not have no place here. For your information, drugs such as LSD and cocaine have a much longer and richer therapeutic history than all the antipsychotics and antidepressants combined. --Thoric 20:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is Bupropion considered an antipsychotic? It raises dopamine and norepinephrine levels, producing a stimulative affect, while antipsychotics sedate.

Bupropion is in the overlap of stimulant and antipsychotic, (as opposed to a pure antipsychotic). The other drugs on this chart with an antipsychotic-overlap include such substances as prozac and valium. Essentially all of the antipsychotic-overlap drugs exhibit an anti-depressant (and/or anti-anxiety) sort of effect, whether they are stimulating, sedating or a mix of both. Antipsychotics and antidepressants (and sometimes anti-anxiety drugs) are often prescribed for similar conditions, and also often in combination with each other. --Thoric 15:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chart dispute

1-2-3-4 . . . The chart is nonsense and an example of original research that has no place in an encyclopedia. Thoric, you created the chart, so your interest in defending it is self-evident. Unless I see a compelling reason to keep an unsourced diagram, your creation will be removed from this article. You may then place it on your refrigerator and proudly show it to friends who visit you.--65.87.105.2 21:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is what wiki says about original diagrams: Images that constitute original research . . . are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader.Wikipedia:No original research Your diagram falls within this category and needs to be removed. Sooooorry.--65.87.105.2 22:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The image is not original research. It is a diagram that shows the established relationships of the drugs listed. If the author has created new classifications of drugs, that would be original research. --jackohare 22:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
If the relationships are as well established as you indicate, there should be no problem with finding a legitimate diagram from an external source, like a peer reviewed scientific journal or pharmacy text book. An original diagram by Thoric has no place in a wikipedia article. Please re-read the wiki policy.Wikipedia:No original research Much thanks!--65.87.105.2 22:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Er... that would most likely be a copyvio. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? --jackohare 00:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how the chart can be construed as original research any more than a table or other graphic illustration. Contibutors frequently create images, diagrams, etc. to illustrate wikipedia articles. See Wikipedia:Graphics tutorials for example. It certainly doesn't reach the standard of a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." Edgar181 23:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If you can't get permission for a copyrighted diagram and it is not fair use, then, you are correct, it would be a copyright violation. Legitimate scientific diagrams that don't violate copyright are difficult to come by. Good luck in searching for one. But if you can't get copyright permission, you just can't make up your own diagram with your own unsourced interpretations of the interelationships between drugs. That is called original research and it is not allowed in wikipedia. Wikipedia:No original research P.S. Please show me a similar original image or diagram on wikipedia. --65.87.105.2 01:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW - The initial reaction to the drug chart on this discussion page was right on target. See above. The self-described med student/editor wrote, "I know you worked hard on the chart, but its format as a sort of ven diagram is really innapropriate. Grouping in that way with the overlaps is too subjective. Too many of the substances can be argued to be in more then the overlapping categories." He added, "Don't think this diagram will be that helpful. I am a medical student and the chart really confused me. Looks like partly overlapping boxes? If that is so, the middle part with the cholinergics wouldn't make sense. And looks like you place the SSRI's under the antipsychotics??? I think the variety of drugs involved is too complex to fit in such a diagram. I think this diagram should be removed." --65.87.105.2 01:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It may be your personal POV that the chart should be removed (and I have absolutely no idea why you have taken this so personally), but if other people believe the chart should stay, then you have to respect that decision. The groupings on the chart are based on scientific classification. I can cite references if you like, and cite published sources that I have in my possession as well. [13] [14] [15] [16]. --Thoric 21:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC) (P.S. The ealier criticism were to a square-box table rendition of the chart)
When it was partially overlapping boxes it was confusing. But that is not the case anymore. So you point to outdated criticism. TimL 17:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The drug classifications the original chart started with were based on those from Drugs and Behavior: An Introduction to Behavioral Pharmacology (5th Edition), William A. McKim, Prentice Hall; 5th edition (July 9, 2002), (Paperback; 400 pages), ISBN 0130481181. I own the 4th edition as well as the 5th edition. I'll have to get back to you on exact page numbers, but a quick flip through the index will show the common pharmacological groupings which are also links on the chart. The group headings on the chart link to existing Wikipedia articles. --Thoric 22:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I have reviewed those links and they absolutely do not show the interaractive groupings displayed in the chart. Show me a source that says SSRI's are depressants, stimulants, and anti-psychotics. Where on earth are you getting that from?! Just give me one legit source that says SSRIs belong in all three categories. I will be waiting.--65.87.105.2 22:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Obviously you do not understand the concept of subtractive mixing, nor combined effects. Anything in the chart which is situated in an overlapping color section is not necessarily under both sections (or all three), but instead belong to the section within which they are subheaded. The SSRI's are anti-depressants (and hence not depressants), and they are generally not stimulants. This is why they are located in the overlapping "no mans land" between stimulants and depressants. They are also not antipsychotics as they are not purely in the antipsychotics section either. They are SSRI's as labeled. Now, they can exhibit effects of all three of those categories. For people who are depressed, antidepressants will have a stimulating effect. SSRIs also can exhibit mood stablizing side effects. If you'd just care to do one iota of research of your own, you will find out that SSRI's such as paroxetine are prescribed for conditions such as anxiety disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder. These are minor psychotic disorders, and antipsychotics such as quetiapine are also prescribed for anxiety disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder. --Thoric 23:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
You have 4 main shaded spheres labeled 1. depressants, 2. stimulants, 3. anti-psychotics, and 4. hallucinagens. You have placed SSRI's in a region where depressants, stimulants, and anti-psychotics overlap. Of course we both know that no textbook describes SSRI's in all 3 categories. So you now write that SSRI's show effects of all three categories. Who says? Where are you getting that? If this is so well known, why don't the editors of the SSRI article know this? BTW - I notice that you have placed cannabis in the center of your chart so that every other drug revolves around it. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. --65.87.105.2 23:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Three main shaded spheres (Depressants, Simulants and Hallucinogens) with a fourth elipse of antipsychotics. As for the SSRI effects, I described them above, and you only have to look as far as the Wikipedia articles I wiki-linked for you to see a list of those effects. The SSRI article clearly describes SSRIs being prescribed for minor psychotic disorders - "anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and eating disorders".
Cannabis' primary constituent is THC, which is legally classified as a hallucinogen, but compared to drugs such as LSD and PCP, it barely qualifies. For some people it produces mild dissociation, for others mild stimulation, and for many, it is relaxing and sedating, yet it is not a CNS depressant, nor a CNS stimulant. It is placed in the ultimate "no mans land" in the center of the chart because it doesn't belong anywhere else. It may be ironic that it is both in the center of the chart, and is also the drug which receives the most political attention, but is certainly isn't my drug of choice. While I am anti-prohibitionist, I am not a cannabis user. Cannabidiol, the second major constituant of cannabis has recently been discovered to be an effective antipsychotic, and it is rightly located in the lower middle of the antipsychotics section. --Thoric 23:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC) (Also -- stop dragging this argument into the voting discussion. I've moved the lengthy comments to the talk page of the voting section. The voting section is for voting. Your "strongly oppose" is already there, but if you want a big long discussion/argument, keep it to a TALK page, such as this one, or the one I provided for you there.)
As you know, items on the talk page page are not transferred to the main Featured picture candidates by the bot. You are attempting to censor dissenting opinions and prevent other voters from seeing the negative comments. Your motives are transparent. You are not fooling anyone.--65.87.105.2 00:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
As you should know, the voting page is for voting, not for ranting. Rants are to be taken to talk pages. You are purposely cluttering up the voting page with your ranting. It has no place in that article whatsoever. The discussion belongs here. I didn't censor any votes or any of the negative comments within them. BTW, why do you refuse to sign in with an account? --Thoric 00:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You are assuming that Thoric's diagram can be cited to some authority. The NIH chart is excellent and should be substituted for Thoric's creation. You will note that no anti-psychotics appear in the NIH chart. Also, at NIH, marijuana is listed under the "Cannabinoids" category, not under the Depressants, Hallucinogens, and Stimulants as it is here. Thoric apparently thinks that he knows more about cannabis than the NIH researchers. --24.55.228.56 22:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not a substitution. It is an ugly table -- a list, not a nice visual chart. Encyclopedia Britannica says that, "Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active ingredient of cannabis, or marijuana, obtained from the leaves and tops of the hemp plant (Cannabis sativa), is also sometimes classified as a hallucinogen", the CSA classifies marijuana as a hallucinogen [17]. So why does it not belong partly in the "hallucinogen" section? --Thoric 22:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Both of you are mininterpreting the intentions of the NIDA chart link. That is intending only as a beginning; an example of a source one should use to cite the data contained within the chart. I think Thoric's chart has much merit, however his sources are not well-documented. Cannabis is indeed classified as a stimulant (increases heart rate), depressant (causes lethargy), and even as a hallucinogen (usually at higher doses) by most researchers of drugs of abuse. The NIDA distinction of "cannabinoid" refers only to the source of the drug (as marijuana and hashish are both derived from the cannibis plant). The point of Thoric's chart seems to be more of a classification by effect; given the topic of the article (psychoactive effects of drugs on the human), this layout seems entirely appropriate. Semiconscious (talk · home) 00:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
You may also wish to reference erowid.org. Believe it or not, they're a well-respected, accurate resource for drug information. Check out this page here [18]. Semiconscious (talk · home) 00:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank-you for your support. I am certainly learning the importance of keeping track of references. One can never assume that what believes to be common knowledge will not be heartily disputed ;) --Thoric 18:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the chart is very informative and would consider it a pity if it would be removed from the article. However, I suggest to switch colors of Stimulants and Depressants, as blue is traditionally considered a calming, red a stimulating color. David Andel 15:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote for chart as a featured picture

The psychoactive drug chart was nominated as a featured picture candidate. Please check out Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/DrugChart and place your vote :) --Thoric 18:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I already voted to Strongly Oppose. It is an example of subjective original research that is prohibited from wiki articles. And shame on you for trying to toot your own horn rather than create an encyclopedic article.--65.87.105.2 22:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I didn't self-nominate, I was only defending the chart, which you for some strange reason seem intent on vandalising. I have spent a great deal of time researching the subject from respectable published researchers, and have also consulted a few experts to make sure that anything wasn't way off base and ensure that the categorization was correct based on established scientific knowledge. None of the placements on the chart are subjective. --Thoric 23:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- and your vote was deleted because you weren't logged in. I nominated it because I have long sought to wrap my head around the relationships between the various psychoactive drugs, there are so many, and they deserve a good chart. This is it. TimL 17:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I just want to say great job on the chart, easily the best such diagram I have ever seen and I don't think most of the criticism makes any sense. I think overall it's an amazingly good, well constructed graphic to show how drugs relate to one another. I do wish you would show more of the opiates (it seems weird for hydrocodone and oxycodone to be missing on a chart like this while more abstract, obscure, esoteric drugs like muscarine and theophyline are mentioned) but I guess that may just be a spatial issue more than anything else. I also think salvinorin-A should somehow be represented as having psychedelic, dissociative and deleriant properties, as anyone who's experienced it could probably attest. Another minor question is I'm not sure why psilocybin is considered a stimulant on the chart, and likewise, why ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are near the fringe of hallucinogens (cocaine, amphetamines and ritalin are probably more likely to have psychedelic-type effects, no?). Other than those very minor things, great job on the chart, just wanted to provide some positive input in light of all the bashing that seems to be going on here!

I agree that oxycodone should be added... just more of a matter of getting around to it. I suppose salvinorin could be moved to the immediate left of the deleriant, but I felt it to be more between the deliriants and the dissociatives (btw, deliriants are also dissociatives). Items in the "psychedelic" section (i.e. psilocybin) are the more pure/classic psychedelics. These drugs are overlapped with stimulants as they most certainly keep you awake... I certainly can't sleep on them ;) Ephedrine and pseudoephedrine may be close to psychedelics on the chart, but they are in the purely stimulant section, denoting them as non-hallucinogenic. I would not say that the stronger stimulants (cocaine, amphetamines) would have psychedelic effects... in fact I would say the opposite. I might consider that the opiates belong closer to the dissociatives, as they do have a dissociative effect. --Thoric 15:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Evidence that the Drug Chart is prohibited subjective original research

If the drug chart is "correct based on established scientific knowledge," why is it constantly changing? The original chart did not include anti-psychotics as related to the 3 other categories. Image:Drug Chart version 1.0.png. Is the current chart scientific, but not the previous charts? Will the current chart be dismissed as unscientific when a new one comes out? If the relationships are as clear and as widely accepted as Thoric claims, the chart should not be constantly changing. The most recent chart legend states "Pink hue: The so called 'antipsychotics'. A new and controversial addition to the chart." Why is it controversial? Are there experts that would never include them in your chart? (I can answer that one: YES.) The chart is created from the mind of Thoric and it represents original research which is prohibited in wikipedia.Wikipedia:No original research --24.55.228.56 20:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not constantly changing. If you look at the original chart I created in 2003 after reading W. McKim's book, and compare it to the current chart almost three years later, you will see that it has changed very little. The major changes only involve additions, colorization and minor adjustments. --Thoric 19:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm affraid I share 24's worries about the chart. Original research applies to images. Thoric suggests it is a synthesis of papers he has read. That is original research, isn't it? JFW | T@lk 02:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
It would be OR if he'd written the papers. Everything cited on Wikipedia is a "synthesis of papers" we have read, amongst other sources. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 05:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Until the relevant sources are cited, this is indeed in violation of WP:CITE, and if sources are not provided despite repeated requests one starts wondering if it is not original research. Your analogy is strange: everything cited on Wikipedia has a source by definition, which cannot be said about Thoric's interesting but fairly speculative drug chart. JFW | T@lk 16:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
The headings and groupings are pharmacological. I have cited some sources if you'd care to read the rest of the talk page, as I said above The drug classifications the original chart started with were based on those from Drugs and Behavior: An Introduction to Behavioral Pharmacology (5th Edition), William A. McKim, Prentice Hall; 5th edition (July 9, 2002), (Paperback; 400 pages), ISBN 0130481181. This book is used as a text in a University level course. This chart represents the pharmacological heirarchy of drug classification. As for the NOR comment, did you even read the article you are referencing? Specifically with respect to original images? "Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from the NOR policy. Wikipedia editors have always been encouraged to take photos or draw pictures." Not that the chart is original research, but even if it were considered such, it lies in a grey area. --Thoric 18:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed you added the McKim reference. Does that work actually have one of those Venn diagrams? Or does it simply rely on its classification? JFW | T@lk 23:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
The chart relies on the classifications in that work, which are standard pharmaceutical classifications. That does not mean that a Venn diagram based on standard classifications breaks the NOR policy. --Thoric 14:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
As for images being NOR, a photo or drawing is artwork. This, however, is a diagram containing hard data. I fail to see how it can be exempt from NOR. JFW | T@lk 23:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Because the hard data is based on published scientific/medical groupings. If you feel that some items are incorrectly positioned, please let me know. --Thoric 15:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ombudsman's edit summary

I removed the drug chart (twice actually) and was reverted by Ombudsman both times. The second time Ombudsman wrote this interesting edit summary[19]:

rv: technical concerns noted; however, your objective apparently is to suppress entirely valid content, a telling hallmark of Western medicine's barbaric legacy toward natural healing practices

This chart has absolutely nothing to do with "natural healing practices". I've clashed with this user before, which may explain why he feels it necessary to betray his bias against me, namely that I'm a barbarian. I take strong exception at this tone, and will report further inflammatory edit summaries at WP:AN/I with a request for sanctions. JFW | T@lk 16:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You've also clashed with me. Maybe your attacks against the chart reveal you bias against me? You are siding with an anonymous user against several other editors. This chart has been in place for over eight months. I'm sure you have looked at it within that time, and now feel confident to remove it in its entirety rather than discuss it properly on the talk page. --Thoric 19:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I have not clashed with you directly, at least not for a long time. I actually expressed my doubts about the chart months ago, but forgive me for not finding the correct diff here and now. I am fully allowed to side with an anonymous user and to make a removal when I feel there are significant issues being raised that need to be addressed before this chart can be reinserted. The only bias I have against you is that you have inserted a nice piece of work that completely lacks the sources it was based on. It is a simple request, and if you take your own work seriously it should be a piece of cake for you to provide the source material in question. JFW | T@lk 23:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I did put the reference to my primary source for the original version of the chart, and will have to add some more references to additional sources for futher additions and corrections, but for the most part I really don't see the classifications as all that controversial, and your neuroscientist friend didn't point out anything particularly out of whack either. I really don't think the chart should be removed until I provide a list of a dozen different resources, but I will get as many as possible for you as soon as possible. --Thoric 05:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
With the sources in place I don't see why it should be removed. JFW | T@lk 09:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Also note that the classifications are also in line with those found in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Drugs#Templates. --Thoric 14:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Apart from any hostile tone, it is interesting that Ombudsman views the chart as bucking "Western medicine" and promoting "natural healing practices." After all, when confronted with criticism, Thoric, the creator of the diagram, has claimed it is a neutral diagram that is "correct based on established scientific knowledge." But even Thoric notes that the anti-psychotic part is "controversial," the chart is constantly changing and has been altered substantially since the first version, and now an editor says he supports it because it demonstrates an extreme POV. When I saw "natural healing practices," it certainly made me wonder again about cannabis being in the center of the chart so that every other drug revolves around it. The chart is original research POV and needs to go.--24.55.228.56 17:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The anti-psychotic part is controversial, mainly because there are a large number of doctors (esp. psychologists) who believe that anti-psychotics are poor medicine attempting to pharmacologically control disorders which have little to do with physical brain function, and all to do with psychological issues that can be fixed through therapy. It's also controvesial because people such as 24.55.228.56 don't like to see the "medications" they are on grouped along with what they consider to be "street drugs". --Thoric 18:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
P.S. I think the natural healing/western medicine battle has roots with the fact that "western medicine" took folk medicine, extracted the active alkaloids and marketed them while calling the folk medicine bunk (from which they extracted the drugs don't forget). This chart helps make things clear, and those who like to pull the wool over your eyes don't like that sort of thing.
AND THE POV BEHIND THE DIAGRAM APPEARS! THANK YOU!! I rest my case, your honor.--24.55.228.56 19:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
What POV? You're making less and less sense every day. Not taking your medication while on holiday? --Thoric 19:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that 24's response is not very helpful. Thoric, as I stated above: I will fully support the chart once the relevant sources are provided. I took the liberty of asking Semiconscious (talk • contribs), a neuroscientist and member of WikiProject Neuroscience, who agrees the content of the chart is correct in principle[20]. Ombudsman misrepresented my position as being anti-natural healing while my only real concern it whether it complies with WP:CITE and WP:NOR. I couldn't care less whether an alkaloid is from your garden shed or big pharma, as long as the categorisation can be backed up by serious research. JFW | T@lk 23:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


The removal of good and neccessary content is the real issue here. Regarding Ombudsman's edit summary, that was probably too much commentary and opinion for an edit summary, but I certainly wouldn't call it a "personal attack." He simply said that JFF's action in removing the chart seemed to be reflect a viewpoint which he disagreed with. Now about the chart itself, I don't see how anyone could consider it original research. A "new synthesis" is only OR for opinions and analysis - not for facts. All in depth Wikipedia articles are a new synthesis of facts from different sources. And tables and charts are no different from prose in that regard - it's meerly a different presentation style. The chart does a great service to Wikipedia readers, and its removal was completely inappropriate. If you object to a specific listing on that chart then go ahead and raise that in talk and/or put a {{cite}} tag by it, but don't take down the whole thing! I can't see anything wrong with the chart, and apparently your expert friend agrees. And regarding the alleged lack of citations, I see several books listed at the bottom of the article which you can go to your local library and check to verify. Some web-references for the categorizations would be nice, but that's not required. At any rate, I certainly don't see any orginal research or lack of citation issues that would warrant the removal of such an integral part of the article. And perhaps Ombudsman editorialized a bit much in the edit summary for the revert, but that issue seems quite minor comapred to JFW's inappropriate removal of content. Blackcats 04:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, someone coming to Ombudsman's defense given that this user appears to be allergic to talk pages. But Ombudsman has showed his true colours a while ago, so I'm not really in need of explanations or justifications.
A removal for valid reasons is quickly reverted, while an offensive edit summary remains in the history. Several users had raised the problem of original research, and as you can see on my userpage I may remove uncited information if sources are not presented upon request. JFW | T@lk 09:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quality of article and diagram

In its current form the diagram is highly misleading. It is in no way possible to arrange all psychoactive drugs in only three different dimensions. Every class of drugs has its very own and distinct effects and its very own mechanism of action. Chosing the current three "main qualities" of psychoactive drugs is indeed highly POV and disputable. Thoric clearly takes the arrangement too serious and tries to integrate too many different and unrelated classes into a way too simple scheme.

A simple version of the diagram could indeed be helpful as an overview and a quick entry into the complex field of different types of drugs. But the graphical appearance must not suggest more accuracy than the oversimplified scheme actually has.

Also the labeling of the main axes should be as general as possible and not identical to existing and distinct compound classes.

In its current form the diagram as well as the text of the article are not acceptable as a Wikipedia article and have to be improved and extended. Cacycle 11:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the simplification is an important issue with the chart. Psychoactive drugs can't simply be squeezed into three or four dimensions. Again, if the principles behind the chart can be traced to a source I don't see a problem (if that source is reputable enough). JFW | T@lk 13:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I think they can be, based upon the existing well defined classical drug hierarchies. A quick look at any drug classification scheme will list most psychoactives as either a stimulant, depressant, hallucinogen or antipsychotic. With few exceptions, most psychoactives can be plotted along two axis — a spectrum from stimulant to depressant, and a spectrum from hallucinogen to antipsychotic. Certainly this is a generalization, but that is the primary intention of this chart — to show the general relationships between common psychoactive drugs. The articles that are wiki-linked from the chart are supposed to contain the real detail. --Thoric 18:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the Venn diagram alot. It gives you an idea of the relationships between the different substances and examples of many subcategories and its also an original and I think more interesting and concise way of classification. This is something different, which is what I love about wikipedia - it might not always be super-accurate but there's often something you wouldn't find in a textbook, be it a little fact or diagram or whatever. There may be issues with it, but provided there's a disclaimer and changes continue to be made I don't see why the rather boring step of removing it should be taken. Wikipedia's featured articles/pictures should not only be those with their facts right or well presented, but also those that are original. This diagram deserves to be featured. Good effort 144.132.246.24 13:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SSRIs

I have found a reference labeling antidepressants such as fluoxetine as stimulants (along with amphetamines, bupropion, cocaine, caffeine and nicotine). It's on page 110 of Susanne P. Schad-Somers, Ph.D. (1990). "The Biology of Cell Communication", On Mood Swings: The Psychobiology of Elation and Depression. Plenum Press, 273. ISBN 0306435624. . It is possible that SSRIs belong in the same section (but to the right of) the aminoketones (which means shifting the aminoketones slightly to the left, (and possibly the TCAs belong where the SSRIs are currently located, although they have anticholinergic effects, which means they wouldn't make sense being so near the cholinergics). Would this be more accurate? I really didn't think that the SSRIs were really stimulants (hence their current location). --Thoric 18:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Which drugs on the chart do people object to the classification of?...

I may have missed something, but it seems that for all the general complaining that I'm reading about the chart, nobody is actually naming specific drugs that they think are mis-classified. For example, is there someone here who thinks that morphine is not a narcotic and a depressant? Or that LSD is not a psychedelic hallucinogen which also has stimulant properties? Or that cocaine is not a stimulant that's a sympathomimetic amine that's a psychomotor stimulant? I'm not a pharmacist, so I don't have the same expertise as many certainly do, but as a lay person who's reasonably knowledgable about these things, everything in the chart seems accurate. If people have specific issues with it, then I think it would be a lot more productive for them to list specific drugs that they think are not properly classified. If there's just a general concern that the chart gives too simplified of an impression, then the chart can be modified to note that it's simply a basic overview. I'm thinking that most people will use the chart as just that - a basic overview of how various drugs fit into the different categories and sub-categories. Someone writing a masters thesis in advanced pharmacology is probably not gonna be looking to a Wikipedia diagram for the sort of highly-detailed information they need with all the subtelties discussed. Blackcats 20:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You are kidding right? I challenged the creator to show me a text that says SSRIs are anti-psychotics AND depressants AND stimulants. And not 3 texts that need to be synthesized. He couldn't do it Every textbook I have seen displays the classification of drugs in simple chart with horizontal and vertical boxes. There is a reason for that. They are not all interrelated, with most drugs sitting in multiple categories. If the creator wants his creation published here, he needs to first get it published in a peer reviewed journal. Once we see it accepted by the medical community, we can then cite it in wiki and it won't be original research. I will be waiting. --24.55.228.56 13:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You removed the chart again. I personally think that the sources the author has provided may not be sufficient to explain all categorisations, and that the system used in the chart may be too innovative to escape WP:NOR. Still, the problems are too minor to remove the chart completely, and I suggest you start a request for comments. JFW | T@lk 13:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside Comments

So I emailed a professor of pharmaceutical chemistry and colleague down at the University of Southern California about this chart. He took a look at it, and here is he email response:

Yes, I agree the chart looks OK. The groups more or less mirror the receptors that underlie the actions (which is good). 5-HT agonists (LSD, psilocyn) are separated from 5-HT reuptake inhibitors but they both activate the same receptors. From an effect point of view this separation is correct. LSD probably initiates its hallucinogenic action by activating 5-HT2a receptors. The SSRIs increase 5-HT in the synapse so many receptors are involved in the overall action.
The legend says that THC exhibits effects of all three sections. However, it should be noted that its action is mediated by a completely separate class of receptors.

That last comment regarding THC is (probably) referring to the fact that THC has an effect on cannabinoid receptors. If anything, I would argue that this chart should also include nicotine as well, which also works on its own unique, nicotinic receptors. Semiconscious (talk · home) 19:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This chart does include nicotine grouped with Betel nut and muscarine. THC is fairly segregated, but I have no problem with the legend noting special distinction. --Thoric 22:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the main problem is the placement of SSRIs, other than that the chart seems quite appropriate, although simplified to it's limits. Can't really decide is there original research in it. Where on the chart would you place mood stabilizers like lithium carbonate, sodium valproate and lamotrigine, that are used to treat bipolar disorder? --85.76.249.83 17:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I had an idea of a cathegory for (mostly) serotonergic drugs, that would include drugs like SSRIs, l-tryptophan, 5-htp, trazodone and mdma. A bit controversial maybe, and might link ecstasy with legal drugs in minds of some. But worth consideration. --85.76.249.83 22:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, what are you proposing? --Thoric 22:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
A professor of pharmaceutical chemistry has some some input for this article? Great! Hopefully he has written a book with a chart in it so we can cite to it. Unfortunately, the chart here is an amateur hour original creation that has no place in an encyclopedia.--24.55.228.56 00:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Good article, good chart. Keep it in. --Dumbo1 00:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A question from someone with no expertise whatsoever!

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this page, Wikipedia is enlightening as always. I have a question, and I have no doubt that the collected expertise of everyone here can help. I need to know why you think that something like cannabis is considered to be psychoactive, and something like an apple or a glass of water is not. Surely the consumption of, say, an apple has a temporary effect on brain state/function, and has an effect on mood, perception etc., even if this effect is negligible? Or is it qualitatively different? Any help in understanding this would be greatly appreciated!

I've seen a piece of toast used as an example of a "drug" by pharmacologist on those grounds. An apple might have an effect, but I don't think a glass of water would (unless you were dehydrated to start with). However, while it is an amusing hypothetical example, including pretty much any carbohydrate or whatever would seriously reduce the utility of the category. If pretty much every food etc. was grouped under psychoactive, and if close to 100% of the population were "high", then it would have no use as a descriptor (ie, it doesn't add any meaningful information). Limegreen 02:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
A psychoactive substance is anything that causes thought or perception to deviate from the norm. From a scientific point of view, this is difficult to define because we can't define "normal" consciousness. Hell, we can't even define consciousness. However, most people have an intuitive grasp of what this means for themselves and can project this feeling on to others. When you're drunk, you're not "normal". When you're stoned you're not "normal". When you're tripping you're definitely not "normal", etc. It's somewhat fuzzy, and somewhat subjective, but people are working on fixing that right now. Semiconscious · talk 07:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm having, er, flashbacks to an introductory lecture. From what I recollect, there were 3 grounds for defining a drug: 1) functional 2) legal 3) therapeutic/abusive utility. Meeting 1 criteria *might* be sufficient, but generally speaking, most things considered "drugs" has to meet at least two. So toast might meet 1, but caffeine would hit 1 & 3, paroxetine 1,2,&3, cocaine, 1,2,&3 etc. (NB: This framework doesn't just apply to psychoactive drugs) Limegreen 21:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subtractive Mixing

Thoric: Obviously you do not understand the concept of subtractive mixing, nor combined effects. Anything in the chart which is situated in an overlapping color section is not necessarily under both sections (or all three), but instead belong to the section within which they are subheaded. The SSRI's are anti-depressants (and hence not depressants), and they are generally not stimulants. This is why they are located in the overlapping "no mans land" between stimulants and depressants.

Tangentially related to the debate over this article, I wonder if part of the confusion relates to the use of subtractive mixing to indicate that a drug is not a member of either group. However, in more traditional Venn diagrams, if something is in both circles, it's a member of both groups. Although if you read the sub-text you'd discover this, I think its misleading until you really study it. Part of the disagreement between Thoric and 24 seems to stem from this, suggesting that it is somewhat ambiguous. Limegreen 03:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
That above text contradicts the text on the front page (has it changed?). Either way, I'm confused. And I think it's going to confuse others. Limegreen 03:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to add another sort of a diagram to avoid confusion. Some more pharmaceuticals that might have a place on the chart: stimulants like dextroamphetamine and methylphenidate, MAOIs/anti-depressants; l-deprenyl, moclobemide and peganum harmala and ergoloid mesylates (a nootropic). It's quite difficult to add these so that the chart remains logical and stays within the rules. --85.76.249.83 00:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Dextroamphetamine is just an amphetamine, and methyphenidate is already on the chart. There is room to add more substances to the chart without making a new chart, but the point of this chart is to show the relationships between the most common psychoactives. This page isn't meant to be a list of every single psychoactive drug in existence. --Thoric 16:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent chart changes by 82.168.41.103

While additions and changes are welcome to the chart, I have spent a great deal of work in organizing the current layout. I would like to ask that you respect my request to discuss the changes here on the talk page first, before moving things around -- it is quite likely that things are they way they are for a reason. Items in the chart are grouped and organized in priority of classification, effect, relation of molecular structure and potency. Some items are located in specific spots relative to overlapping of effect, or close relation to certain chemical families. For example, DXM is purposely located in the cusp of disociatives and narcotics due to the fact that DXM is a stereoisomer of levomethorphan (an opioid), making DXM technically a close relative of the opioid family even though it has no effect on opioid receptors. Methylphenidate is in the amphetamine family, and cathinone is essentially a naturally occuring amphetamine. Cocaine was placed at the bottom of this list because it is not an amphetamine, is very short acting, and appears to share more CNS effects with methylphenidate. THC is the "psychedelic" part of cannabis (which also contains CBD, which has antipsychotic effects). --Thoric 17:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

82.168.41.103:

CBD does not contain any antipsychotic effects: "Cannabidiol, also known as CBD, is a non-psychoactive cannabinoid found in the hemp plant Cannabis sativa. CBD is not psychoactive, and appears to reduce the euphoric effect of THC"

Yes, but that definition is outdated. The antipsychotic effects were documented over ten years ago PubMed:Antipsychotic effect of cannabidiol. Also see Cannabidiol: The Wonder Drug of the 21st Century?, and also Clinical Studies and Case Reports. If CBD is not psychoactive, then how could it possibly counteract the euphoric effects of THC? --Thoric 17:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Bupropion does induce hallucinations and therefore cannot be classified in the "anti-psychotic" section

Bupropion only induces hallucinations at doses far above the recommended dosage, and only in some people. At proper (low) doses it has been used to treat patients with bipolar and schizoaffective disorders. --Thoric 17:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

(Bupropion) is even an Phenethylamine.

So are the amphetamines, so are ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. --Thoric 17:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone might want to edit the Cannabidiol & Cannabinoids#Miscellaneous articles to make them clear that it DOES have whatever psychoactive effects it has - currently these pages and that page disagree - it's very confusing. I don't know what the effects are so I leave it to a better-prepared editor. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 06:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

Have added book by Ronald Siegel, partly because he is an academic on this subject and because it compliments the what is already in the section A brief history of drug use . However, was forced to notice citations are still using an old foot note method, which contains a bug and makes referring to the same footnote more than once more difficult. The bug stops the auto numbering from working in this article, (maybe by the use of another template at the beginning). Since the new footnote method can not be used interchangeably with the old format, I didn't what to add a comment in wiki code to the ref section without a comment here in talk in case it confused the other editors. However the following comment added to the ref section would alert new editor to the new tagging system:

/<!--See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags-->

<references/>

But all the existing tags would have to be changed.--Aspro 12:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A new chart

I think this classification is an excellent idea by Thoric, but I also believe there are some issues, already stated, with the idea that all psychoactive drugs can be simplified into 3 or 4 categories. I don't believe a venn diagram is a data structure that was designed with expandability in mind, and perhaps this chart would be more useful and less ambiguous if it were in a web or flow chart structure? 64.114.88.154 20:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

These issues have already been addressed... on more than one occasion. The categories in question are ones provided by science and medicine. I did not make them up on my own. While they may not be to a few people's liking, a large number of people are happy with this chart. It provides a clear overview to the average person on how different psychoactives relate to each other. If you have a design for a superior, yet equally simple layout, please go ahead and show it to us (on this talk page, or a link to a subpage, or to a link to a subpage of your user page). --Thoric 14:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy of psychoactive drugs

I noticed a huge gap in this article: nothing about the philosophy of psychoactive drugs. So I thought I'd start to fill it. Of course, your help is needed to improve what I have written. Most is generally accepted as true, but other parts could use some references. Korky Day 06:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opium-->Opioid

I suggest replacing opium with opioid in the Venn diagram. In contrast to all other items, opium is a heterogenous mixture of several alcaloids. Opioid is more relevant. --Drguttorm 08:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

An "opioid" is a generic term, not a specific drug. The "Narcotic anlagesics" heading already links to opioids. Opium is an opioid, as is codeine, morphine, heroin, etc, etc. BTW, the only reason that "amphetamines" is in there generically, is because there isn't really room to list them all in that section. --Thoric 18:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ulysses

It should be emphasized that ever since Ulysses forcibly removed his intoxicted oarmen from the forgetful Island of Lotus Eaters, the graeco-european culture considers mind-modification substances the utmost evil and entirely banned. The consumption of psychoactive drugs is a root denial of the CIVILIZATION as we understand it.

Drugs consumption is associated with barbarism and aboriginal wildness (zulu negro, redskins, asians etc.) whom all were throughly defeated by the material might of our graeco-caucasian civilization. The electricity, computers and Internet that make wikipedia any possible were all invented and realized by the non-drugged white civilization, therefore it is unacceptable to tolerate and euphemise psychoactive drug use on wikipedia. You have to choose between tech civilization and drugs, because tech civilization is the heritage of Ulysses, not the rastas! 195.70.32.136 09:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting comment(s), but you should note that drug use has been a staple of civilization for all of recorded history, and most certainly for many millenia prior. Nothing is going to change this as can be seen from our modern dependence not only on a large pharmacopeia of pills, but also on copius amounts of coffee, tea, chocolate and alcohol.
As far as modern technology, much has been inspired from drug use, in fact a large amount of the technology boom in the late 60s and early 70s have roots in psychedelic drugs such as LSD --Thoric 02:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is being copied to Talk:Entheogen where I am sure it will be welcomed. __meco 12:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Molecular relationships & more

Right now, on the chart (which is very good, btw), cocaine and atropine are very far removed from each other. While I'm quite aware that the subjective effects of the two drugs are quite different, is there any way their close molecular relationship (both being tropanes) can somehow be indicated? Tmrobertson 13:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to put some thought to that. I don't believe cocaine shares any pharmacological properties with most other tropanes, and it is those relationships which the chart is primarily focused upon as far as layout and grouping. Perhaps this could be indicated by color-coding the text links? --Thoric 23:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should SSRIs take a step to the left?

I'm wondering if the SSRIs should occupy the same general section of the chart as bupropion (and bump bupropion and diethylpropion further to the left of that section). Several publications label them as stimulants, and they have a low toxicity ratio. I've modified the chart on my talk page so that you can see what things would look like shifted around. I also feel that this may alleviate some of the controversy over the current placement of the SSRIs. (BTW, I can also add a little circle around them). --Thoric 17:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that all stimulants exhibit some sort of "anti-depressant" effect (including caffeine, but) especially the psychomotor stimulants (i.e. amphetamines), so therefore I believe the above mentioned shift may be the most correct action, making the lavender colored area where stimulants and antipsychotics overlap to be designated for drugs specifically classed as antidepressants (although now that area leaves little room for future additions). It may just be that we need to extend the antipsychotic elipse into a full sized circle, meeting with the "hallucinogens" circle. Then comes the question as to whether the two should overlap (antipsychotics and hallucinogens). One argument for an overlap would be that cannabis naturally contains THC (the "hallucinogen") as well as CBD (the "antipsychotic"), such that cannabis could exist within the overlap of all four circles. If I'm going to make changes to the background image, I might as well do it only once. Please provide some feedback on this :) --Thoric 18:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intersection of four circles of the same size?

I did the work (still rough) to see how a four-full-circle intersection would look/work. This change introduces a few more overlap scenarios, but they could prove useful. I really hope to get some feedback to whether I should replace the current chart with this one here: New Chart. Please take a look and let me know. --Thoric 14:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

After over two weeks, and only feedback from one wikipedian, I decided to go ahead with the new chart. I hope you like it ;) --Thoric 18:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How Can A Drug Be A Stimulant And Depressant At The Same Time??

For example Nicotine and Cannabis are both a stimulant and depressant. But aren't the two sort of opposites? A stimulant speeds activity in the nervous system while a depressant slows down activity in the nervous system. How can a drug speed up and slow down the nervous system at the same time? Do they go to specific parts of the body? Zachorious 13:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Nicotine is classified as both (although more often as a stimulant), here are some references: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. It appears that dosage is a factor. --Thoric 15:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So at different dosages, they can turn into a stimulant or depressent (for the drugs that overlap)? So for example marijuana may start out as a depressent but with more doses it becomes a hallucinogen? But still, if for example at certain dosages nicotine can become both a stimulant and depressant, how can they be so at the same time? Don't they cancel each other out? BTW, I'll read your articles too. Zachorious 16:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It does appear in some cases, certain drugs can exhibit both a depressant and a stimulant effect simultaneously. The reasons may be complex, such as having a "physical stimulant" effect such as raising the heart rate, yet at the same time having a "subjective depressant" effect by making you feel relaxed. It is possible that the brain tries to compensate where it can for certain effects, but some of these areas are still unclear. As for marijuana specifically, it is in an odd position as even with a wide range of dosage, the difference in physical effects are small, which is primarily responsible for its legal classification as "hallucinogen" even though actual hallucinations are rare anywhere near normal recreational dosages. In general, scientists like to be able to administer a drug to lab animals, and measure a physical dose-response curve. For example, with a stimulant, they keep increasing the dosage and noting such physical changes such as heart rate and blood pressure until the animal dies from a seizure. Likewise with a depressant, they keep increasing the dosage while monitoring heart rate and respiration until the animal dies from respiratory failure. With most hallucinogens, there is little physical change with dosage increase, and with some substances death does not occur until the dosage is ridiculously high (i.e. as high as where an injection of a placebo may cause death). The dose-response curve of heart rate, blood pressure and respiration may provide very little useful information, and only through complex behavior monitoring may any somewhat useful information be gleaned. In most cases, human experimentation is required, and thus raises ethical issues. --Thoric 17:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Many, if not most psychoactive drugs have different action when the dosage is changed. This is one of the reasons why a chart like this is quite difficult to make. --85.76.249.83 01:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Very true. The placement of most of the psychoactives on this chart are based upon a "standard dose", whatever that may be. Some items have been located based on dosages above the normal prescribed dosage (i.e. DXM, dimenhydrinate, diphenhydramine, etc) due to recreational use at these dosages. --Thoric 06:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The categories here are more of what the psychoactives technically are. But the categories of medicine on the chart are a bit controversial in my opinion. For example, SSRIs don't have much of an effect if a single dose is taken. They can help someone to sleep if they've had problems sleeping because of depression, and later sort of normalize your mood if the anti-depressant effect is achieved. There are two views when it comes to anti-depressant action on a person who isn't depressed. Some say they have an effect, and others (most of the time doctors and so on) who say that they don't have an effect of any kind. However I don't see them as stimulants. Tetra or Tricyclics may have a tiring effect when someone starts taking the medicine, but later when the drug is being taken daily it diminishes. Same goes for anti-psychotics. If you have citations for these classifications, the chart's alright. --85.76.249.83 12:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I do have references to SSRI's being classified as stimulants. The primary classification of a drug comes from its initial effects upon the central nervous system. Secondary is the long term effect of daily "medicinal" use. Some of these secondary effects are brought about from the body counteracting the primary drug effects. Others are the result of these chemicals causing the depletion of other brain chemicals. Many long term consequential effects are unknown. About the only thing well known about most of these drugs are their primary initial effects, and even then, much is unclear. I'll post more references next week. --Thoric 03:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about nootropics?

For example hydergine is missing on the chart... arent nootropics considered psychoactive? --ha-core 16:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Although hydergine is an ergot alkaloid (which would make it chemically closely related to LSD), I see nothing in its article indicating it has psychoactive properties the way these are described in Psychoactive drug. Furthermore I think nootropics focuses on other neurological reactions than the reactions that are descibed here. __meco 10:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cannabis

Excellent page and Venn diagram - was wondering whether cannabis really fits into all four major groups however. While it can certainly act as a hallucinogen and depressant (and probably as a stimulant), is there much justification for it being included as an antipsychotic? The only fact I'm aware of bearing on this is the ability of some suffering for psychotic conditions to self-medicate using cannabis; this is somewhat controversial, however, and (superficially, at least) cannabis seems to be associated with an induction of psychotic-like activity (eg paranoia). Any thoughts? --JonAyling 22:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the cannabidiol (CBD) constituent that gives cannabis a touch of antipsychotic edge. As most marijuana sold on the streets is bred for high THC content, it wouldn't be of much benefit in that respect, and in fact would likely make things worse due to the THC. Pure CBD has been successfully used as an antipsychotic. --Thoric 00:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems like Cannabis and THC are psychedelics and apart of this group. Is this considered an accurate classification? Or is Cannabis and THC something else or something on its own? Zachorious 13:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. Cannabis certainly has mind-manefesting properties, but most don't consider them on par with classic psychedelics. It produces a variety of effects, none of which are overly extreme regardless of dosage. This is not to say that none have felt overwhelmed by the effects, but again these are rarely on par with those of other substances. --Thoric 16:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. One thing is for sure, I almost never see hallucinations when using cannabis. The only time I do see some is when I stare at light which can produce many strange images (is there any explanation why only staring at light brings out hallucinations?). But wow, I have had a lot of intense experiences, I can only imagine how much more powerful something like LSD is. BTW, doesn't cannabis enhance or amplify parts of the brain like the psychedelics? It certainly doesn't kill brain cells and I would have thought cannabis does a bit of expanding. I have had many revelations with it and discovered many things. So what actually defines a psychedelic then? Zachorious 16:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly cannabis shares properties with the psychedelics, but is really the tip of the iceberg as far as psychedelics go. A classic psychedelic experience can involve moreso the epitome of revelation -- deep understanding and full mind -> being -> universe awareness/connection. It is dosage dependent of course. A low dose of LSD has the mind-expanding potential of a high dose of cannabis, but with much less of the incapacitation. LSD has distinctive stimulant-like properties, and can really get your mind racing, but unlike the amphetamines, psychedelics enhance the connection between all parts of the brain and really put you in touch with your unconscious mind. As you can imagine, this can be quite overwhelming, especially when there is a lot of repressed issues/emotions/memories to be unleashed. --Thoric 03:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

So which is closer to the classic psychedelics, marijuana or MDMA? While marijuana maybe considered the weakest of the psychedelics (if at all) MDMA is a different kind of substance altogether. It seems a lot more like the psychomotor stimulants in that it mainly provides euphoria and speeds up your ability to react so to speak. It doesn't seem like it has the same mind-expansion abilities that even marijuana has, but then again I have never tried MDMA. It however seems more like an ultimate euphoria drug more than anything "spiritual" like the others can provide. Understand what I'm saying? Zachorious 04:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

MDMA has the effect of being entactogenic and empathogenic, a distinct property which might be called mind-altering. It also produces marked visual disturbances and what is definitely a hallucinogenic effect, oneirophrenia (however, this is not a regular effect). The reference to spirituality, I believe, hinges more on the drug's effect of inducing a frame of mind and an emotional comfort level that is conducive to spiritual encounters with other people. __meco 07:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if I would say that MDMA was closer to being a classic psychedelic than cannabis. If you look at the chart, you will see that I have placed both MDMA and cannabis (and also THC) into their own subsections. MDMA is close chemically to mescaline, but not close enough to be in the same subgroup. MDMA is also the tip of the iceberg as far as psychedelics go, but that does not mean that it hasn't had its share of life changing experiences. To muddle that up is the unfortunate fact that a great deal of "ecstacy" sold on the street contains a good deal of methamphetamine, and often little if any actual MDMA. --Thoric 16:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you say that the MDMA experience is nowhere near as powerful as LSD? Or is it just as powerful in a different way? Also, How does the euphoria of LSD compare to the euphoria of MDMA? What about the comparison of revelation, deep understanding, full mind, universal connection, ect. between LSD and MDMA? Zachorious 23:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comparing MDMA and LSD would be like comparing a hike on a nature trail to climbing a mountain. Certainly the nature trail is a nice retreat from city life, you get to see some nature to the side of the groomed path, and perhaps meet some like-minded people, but both the risks and rewards are minimal, and it requires little in the way of preparation. Compare that to mountain climbing where you are making a full day commitment with a good deal of preparation and certainly a lot of risks along the way, but the rewards make it worth the effort. (Or so I've heard, as I haven't gone mountain climbing myself as of yet). --Thoric 16:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

So what would you compare cannabis to then (in comparison to the metaphor you used to MDMA)? Which is more intense, marijuana or MDMA? I've read that there is greater euphoria from MDMA and it may produce a more extreme experience. But cannabis seems to be more of a true hallucinogen psychedelic. Zachorious 21:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In comparison to what I said above with respect to MDMA and LSD, I would say that cannabis would be more like sitting around a campfire, drinking with friends. It's a fun and relaxing social activity, which may be subject to laughs, good conversation, goofing around, saying and/or doing embarassing things, doesn't involve much stress of physical activity. It allows time for contemplation while watching the fire, but again doesn't require all that much preparation or commitment, and doesn't include all the rewards and adventure of mountain climbing. As for hallucinogenic activity, many would argue that neither MDMA nor cannabis provide much in the way of distortion of perception. Along the same vein, there are some who would disagree with calling LSD a hallucinogen either. As for the euphoria, that is somewhat subjective. Certainly MDMA can produce a state with very low anxiety, and both cannabis and LSD can greatly enhance anxiety, so it's easy to see how less anxiety is more euphoric than more anxiety, but it isn't the key component of any of those drugs. --Thoric 23:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

MDMA is all emotional tripping, while Cannabis tends to get more philosophical and based on thoughts rather than emotions though it does bring euphoria as well, yet it also has the possibility and probability to be less deep, depending on the person. 4.234.39.196 17:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amanita Muscaria

Where is this on the chart? Zachorious 16:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It is there under muscimol (and ibotenic acid. Also see muscarine which is a minor constituent, but can be responsible for some key peripheral parasympathetic effects (perspiration, salivation, lacrimation, sometimes nausea and dizziness). --Thoric 03:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] drug rehabilitation

Not mentioned once in the article?! not even in the links until i added it -- very strange. Even more considering this was even nominated as a featured article... --Espoo 15:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Drug addiction and substance abuse already had links... btw, the drug rehab article didn't wikilink back :P --Thoric 15:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fatal Overdose For Cacti/Mescaline

What is the fatal overdose for cacti/mescaline? How many times the normal dosage is needed to OD? Is the San Pedro Cactus/Mescaline as non-toxic as weed, shrooms and acid? Zachorious 17:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on equal quantities of the active alkaloid, mescaline is less toxic than psilocybin. Based on equipotent dosages mescaline is much more toxic. In more plain terms the ratio of high dose versus death of psilocybin is about 1:250. The ratio of high dose versus death of mescaline is about 1:30. Therefore mescaline is about eight times as toxic as psilocybin when speaking of equipotent dosages. Do note this is only considering these specific alkaloids. Plant material may contain any number of less studied and unknown alkaloids, that perhaps have toxic effects of their own. Based on a "normal dosage" of about 400mg for mescaline, you should have nothing to fear from taking a double, or even triple dose, but it is not recommended. While there have been reports of people taking upwards of 20 times the standard dose (i.e. 8 grams) and surviving without any known ill effects, everyone is different. When analyzing LD50 values, keep in mind these are for small lab animals (rabbits, mice, rats), and may not be the same for humans. Also remember that LD50 means that 50% of the animals died at this dosage. While it provides a good guideline for determining toxicity, you may also want to consider the LD10 and LD90 dosages. --Thoric 17:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychoactive drug chart

THIS IS INCREDIBLE! WHO DESIGNED THIS? Colonel Marksman 06:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

user:Thoric did and I also want to thank him for this elucidating chart, it really helped me when I began learning the subject. Let The Sunshine In 20:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muscarine -- again

While the muscarine page states that it does not pass the blood brain barrier, other sources indicate that it does (although with some difficulty), and receptors certainly exist there. Apparently pilocarpine also can pass the blood brain barrier, so I suppose it should also be added to that section. Both muscarine and pilocarpine are said to, "Cross BBB to cause arousal, excitation, headache, and tremors". --Thoric 21:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to the Psychoactive drug chart?

Is there any particular reason why the chart was deleted? It was a great illustration of the subtypes of psychoactive drugs. Shvender Hoot 14:12, 3 January 2007 (EST)

When was it deleted? I don't see it removed within recent history... --Thoric 16:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
When I visited the page yesterday, it was gone. Once I had posted the above message, it was back again. Shvender Hoot 13:22, 4 January 2007 (EST)

[edit] Ergine/LSA

Where is this on the chart? If it isn't there it should be inserted. Zachorious 08:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hallucinogens

I feel that the Hallucinogens bubble is completely inappropriate. It is based not on scientific facts like neuropharmacology, but on subjective effects. I therefore think that the bottom bubble is POV and may even qualify as original research.

For example, in all of the websites you cited, not one of them defines a "psychedelic" sub-class of hallucinogens. Psychedelic is a colloquial term to describe a state of mind, not a scientific term to describe a class of drugs. Dissociatives are arguably psychedelic, no less psychedelic than serotonergic drugs. A recent medical study [26] even describes the dissociative anesthetic Ketamine (an NMDA receptor antagonist) as a psychedelic.

Therefore, I think that this bottom bubble should be cleaned up and reorganized not according to subjective effects but according to neuropharmacology. "Psychedelics" should clearly be changed with "serotonergic hallucinogens," and serotonin receptor agonists should be differentiated from serotonin releasers. Drugs within "Dissociatives" should be classified likewise, with N2O, ketamine, PCP, DXM classified as NMDA receptor antagonists, Salvinorin and Ibogaine classified as kappa-opioid receptor agonists (note: Ibogaine also antagonizes NMDA receptors), and deliriants classified as anticholinergics (especially since there is a class of drugs above called cholinergics...) These classifications are based less on POV and more on hard neuroscience. Jolb 03:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The purpose of this chart is to provide a general overview of psychoactive substances based on common medical classifications such that it makes things more clear to the layperson. More detailed neuro-chemistry related information can be found on the specific drug page entries. Also, the term "psychedelic" is not a colloquial term, but in fact a term coined by a scientist to describe the effects of mescaline (and LSD). Meaning drift over the past 60 years has expanded it to include other similar substances, and is therefore the reason why it encompasses a larger area, but only those which are clearly not dissociatives. Lastly, deliriant is an accepted scientific term with a much more specific meaning than anticholinergic which could refer to a great number of pharmaceuticals. Also the word "deliriant" is much smaller, and fits into the space much more nicely. --Thoric 23:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


This discussion has seemed to move to Thoric's user talk, and I would like to see some second opinions on this.

[edit] Atomoxetine

According to the article on atomoxetine it seems more likely that it fits under none of these catagories instead of all of them. Either that article needs to be changed or atomoxetine moved or removed.I amnotted 07:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read the article? Here's a quote from it -- "The most common side effect in adults is drowsiness. This can be counteracted in some patients by measures as simple as a cup of coffee, or breathing exercises, while others become exhausted after a short while after taking the pills, and can sleep for up to 10+ hours. Some patients tend to feel lightheaded, dizzy, or "buzzed" as a minor side effect along with the drowsiness. To diminish these side effects, which can interfere with daytime work, study, etc., dosing time is sometimes changed to just before bed; as Strattera is long-acting, it does not "wear off" overnight. Mild hallucinations can be experienced under high doses (300mg)." -- I don't know about you, but the side effects sound a little wee bit like THC, and there are even trip reports on Erowid: [27] [28]. I placed it in the most appropriate place... and actually it could possibly be even closer to the psychedelics due to the visual effects (perhaps a little bit down and to the right). --Thoric 18:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
You cannot categorize substances this way; like I mentioned earlier, the effects vary depending on the dosage. Alcohol may act as a stimulant on a low dose. Mirtazapine causes visuals on a high dose, but that doesn't make it a psychedelic of any sorts. Similar things could be written on all of the substances on the chart. What we need is pharmacological categories and not something based on a few user experiences. --85.76.245.168 17:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I second that. They should be classified by their action on receptors in the brain. I also cited why the classification of psychedelic is incorrect (discussion at Thoric's Talk.) Jolb 19:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
First of all, you can group substances with similar action under the same blanket category regardless of method of action. This has been done for centuries, and is still done today. Caffeine, cocaine, methamphetamine, ephedrine and nicotine are all considered to be stimulants, yet have very different methods of action. Both cocaine and atropine are tropanes, but I would certainly not place them close together on this chart. The atomoxetine article may lump it with substances such as bupropion, but it exhibits significantly different effects. The chart on this page takes into account both a drug's therapeutic dosage, as well as its recreational dosage. Location priority is given to the major category within which it best fits, and the secondly in relation to other substances within that category. This chart has evolved over several years with a great deal of care and research put into the best possible locations. It has been reviewed by several experts in the field, and by far the greatest number of complaints come from people who have no clue what they are talking about. Lastly, I repeat that the primary function of this chart is to bring a quick visual understanding of the relation of different psychoactive substances to the average layperson. The people who take these substances via prescription or otherwise. This chart is not for neuropharmacologists even though most would approve of this chart. BTW, Jolb, I also cited why the classification of psychedelic is correct. If you and others truly hate this chart so much, then feel free to create from scratch a new one on a sub-page, and then bring motion to form a vote on which chart is preferred. --Thoric 20:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't hate the chart, actually I find it quite appropriate, but there's always room for improvement. Also, we don't want any pseudo-science style data in Wikipedia do we? Sometimes it seems that the locations for few of the substances on the chart are based on little tidbits read from here and there. I also do that sort of studying, but try to avoid making too many conclusions of it. It may be outdated or even bogus. --85.76.245.168 12:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ways psychoactive drugs affect the brain

This section is TERRIBLE. For one, it should be classified not by method of action on each receptor but by each receptor and its action on it. For example: instead of somthing like this

Agonists:
LSD (serotonin)
alcohol (GABA)

we should replace it with a classification like this

Serotonergic drugs
Agonists
(LSD, psolocybin)
Reuptake inhibitors
(Prozac, Zoloft)

Plus, there are somethings that are COMPLETELY wrong. PCP is NOT a glutamate antagonist... It's an NMDA receptor antagonist. I'll start working on it, but I'm far from an expert on this stuff, so I'll need help. Jolb 05:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to edit this, so I'll put what was in the old section, for future reference:

Ways psychoactive drugs affect the brain

  1. Prevent The Action Potential From Starting
    • Lidocaine, TTX (they bind to voltage-gated sodium channels, so no action potential begins even when a generator potential passes threshold)
  2. Neurotransmitter Synthesis
    • Increase - L-Dopa, tryptophan, choline (precursors)
    • Decrease - PCPA (inhibits synthesis of 5HT)
    • Causes increased sensitivity to the five senses, due to an increasing number of signals being sent to the brain.
  3. Neurotransmitter Packaging
  4. Neurotransmitter Release
  5. Agonists - Mimic the original neurotransmitters and activate the receptors
  6. Antagonists - Bind to the receptor sites and block activation
  7. Prevent ACh Breakdown
  8. Prevent Reuptake

- based on information taught in NSC 201, Vanderbilt University [citation needed]

[edit] Oganization

I grouped the chart and my new classification together, and grouped history and philosophy together. That makes sense, right? I just feel like starting the article with a bunch of charts isn't very wiki-ish... Do any of you think we should put history and philosophy above the chart and the classification? Jolb 18:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization dispite

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

[edit] New Chart

I learned how to make a table and I added this one that makes the classification of drugs by neurotransmitter much more visually appealing. Do you like it? Jolb 21:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

While I like the neurotransmitter chart, I do not think it should replace the existing chart. There is no reason we cannot have both. --Thoric 22:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean that at all! The Venn diagram is great. I was just replacing the stupid one I'd made before with a bunch of indents. Jolb 22:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, gotcha :) The tablized version is much easier to read. --Thoric 22:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Picture

Another note, would it be the time to change or remove the Assortment of psychoactive drugs -picture? I don't find it on a par with the set quality standards. --85.76.245.168 10:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific in your critique, and perhaps offer suggestions towards an improved photo? (i.e. too grainy, too many items, too few items, etc) --Thoric 16:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I like the picture, but maybe it is a little fuzzy. Also, it just seems a little scattered... something a bit more organized would be nice. Maybe taking several pictures would also be a little prettier. I suspect, however, that the author of the original comment is upset that it's mostly illegal psychoactives when there are many possible legal psychoactives that could be photographed as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jolb (talk • contribs) 19:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
I would not say they are mostly illegal. There are seven pharmaceuticals, six illegal substances (albeit only four of them are uniquely illegal -- there are two different forms of cocaine, and two different forms of cannabis), and four non-illegal, non-medical psychoactives. I would say it is a decent balance, except that a lot of substances are missing. It is a little fuzzy. --Thoric 20:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expand

I feel that this article is a bit lacking... It needs a better discussion of the effects of different psychoactives, their uses, and more info on neurochemistry. Jolb 15:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I made a start on expanding the article. I reorganized the sections and added the subsections that I felt were missing. The new subsections are addiction, current uses, and effects of drugs. They're still lacking, but all those sub-sections should be expanded to make this a more complete article. Jolb 22:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Psychedelics

moved from user talk:LetTheSunshineIn
Psychedelic are not addictive because they do not stimulate the dopaminergic system (and really you can't find anybody who is addicted to acid). the word pleasurable is a bit vague and misleading. Movies are not addictive in the same way that psychedelics are not addictive because eventhough they are enjoyable they do not produce pleasure, in contrast to sex and cocaine. saying that all drugs can cause psychological addiction and is very misleading if not political. If psychedelics would stimulate the dopaminergic system the concept of a bad trip would be inplausible (you never heard of anyone having a bad trip on cocaine or meth, have you?). Let The Sunshine In 17:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, and I think if you read the two sources I cited, you'd agree with my view. Psychedelics are psychologically addictive, not physically addictive, and there ARE people addicted to psychedelics (I could refer you to some, if you want.) They're addicted in the same way people are addicted to sex, gambling, masturbating, video games, exercising, television, and anything else people enjoy. All these things stimulate the brain's dopaminergic reward system. Flying kites stimulates the dopaminergic reward system. Psychedelics are less psychologically addictive than other drugs that aren't physically addictive (like marijuana) because of the bad trip; psychedelics can inspire visions that aren't pleasurable. Jolb 19:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. psychological addiction = psychological withdrawal symptoms, i.e. cravings, irratability, depression etc.
If you include minor indirect dopamine releaes, then yes, everything is this world may be addictive, but this isn't addiction. LSD exerts its effects by seretonin receptors agonism, not by dopaminergic stimulation. LSD is not pleasurable, it may be, but it isn't by definition. however, it is enlightening, and this is the reason people use it (for the record, I have never tried LSD); You can compare it to watching a movie: watching a movie isn't pleasurable by definition - you may watch a crapy movie, with Paris Hilton, and you may watch stanley Kubrick. If you claim that LSD is addictive, you should also claim in the article about kites that they are addictive. The fact that there is some extremely minor potential for addiction doesn't make something addictive. Like I said before psychological addiction = psychological withdrawal symptoms. Let The Sunshine In 19:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
So what do you say about sex addiction or gambling addiction or even marijuana addiction? Jolb 19:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
All have psycological withdrawal symptoms. for the first two the most obvious withdrawal symptom is craving, and for the latter there is a spectrum of mild withdrawal symptoms after heavy chronic use (irratability, anorexia, insomnia etc). Let The Sunshine In 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
LSD exhibits those withdrawal effects, too. Jolb 19:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
No it doesn't. moreover, people can't take LSD (and other classic psychedelics) on a daily basis due to tachyphylaxis. Let The Sunshine In 19:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I got around to researching some citations.

  • Evidence for a hallucinogen dependence syndrome developing soon after onset of hallucinogen use during adolescence.
Stone AL, Storr CL, Anthony JC.
University of Washington School of Nursing, Department of Psychosocial and Community Health, Seattle, USA.
This study uses latent class methods and multiple regression to shed light on hypothesized hallucinogen dependence syndromes experienced by young people who have recently initiated hallucinogen use. It explores possible variation in risk. The study sample, identified within public-use data files of the 1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA), consists of 1186 recent-onset hallucinogen users, defined as having initiated hallucinogen use within 24 months of assessment (median elapsed time since onset of use -12 to 13 months). The recent-onset users in this sample were age 12 to 21 at the time of assessment and were between the ages of 10 and 21 at the time of their first hallucinogen use. The NHSDA included items to assess seven clinical features often associated with hallucinogen dependence, which were used in latent class modelling. Latent class analysis, in conjunction with prior theory, supports a three-class solution, with 2% of recent-onset users in a class that resembles a hallucinogen dependence syndrome, whereas 88% expressed few or no clinical features of dependence. The remaining 10% may reflect users who are at risk for dependence or in an early stage of dependence. Results from latent class regressions indicate that susceptibility to rapid transition from first hallucinogen use to onset of this hallucinogen dependence syndrome might be influenced by hallucinogenic compounds taken (for example, estimated relative risk, RR = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.6, 7.6 for users of MDMA versus users of LSD). Excess risk of rapid transition did not appear to depend upon age, sex, or race/ethnicity.
PMID: 17019896 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

(bolds mine)


  • Who is becoming hallucinogen dependent soon after hallucinogen use starts?
Stone AL, O'Brien MS, De La Torre A, Anthony JC.
University of Washington, School of Nursing, Department of Psychosocial and Community Health, Seattle, WA 98195, United States.
This study, based upon epidemiological survey data from the United States (U.S.) National Household Surveys on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) from 2000 to 2001, presents new estimates for the risk of developing a hallucinogen dependence syndrome within 24 months after first use of any hallucinogen (median elapsed time approximately 12 months). Subgroup variations in risk of becoming hallucinogen dependent also are explored. Estimates are derived from the NHSDA representative samples of non-institutionalized U.S. residents ages 12 and older (n=114,241). A total of 2035 respondents had used hallucinogens for the first time within 24 months prior to assessment. An estimated 2-3% of these recent-onset hallucinogen users had become dependent on hallucinogens, according to the NHSDA DSM-IV computerized diagnostic algorithm. Controlling for sociodemographic and other drug use covariates, very early first use of hallucinogens (age 10-11 years) is associated with increased risk of hallucinogen dependence (p<0.01). Excess risk of developing hallucinogen dependence was found in association with recent-onset use of mescaline; excess risk also was found for recent-onset users of ecstasy and of PCP. This study's evidence is consistent with prior evidence on a tangible but quite infrequent dependence syndrome soon after the start of hallucinogen use; it offers leads that can be confirmed or disconfirmed in future investigations.
PMID: 16987612 [PubMed - in process]

(bolds mine)

I realize that PCP is a different breed of psychedelic, but mescaline is closely related to LSD.


  • Order of onset of substance abuse and depression in a sample of depressed outpatients.
Abraham HD, Fava M.
Department of Psychiatry, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Drug abuse has been thought to cause depression, or to serve as a form of self-medication for depression. Our objective was to examine whether specific types of drug abuse preceded or followed the onset of depression. A retrospective, blinded case-controlled assessment of the drug and depressive history of depressed outpatients was conducted. Three hundred seventy-five patients with major depressive disorder were evaluated for comorbid drug dependence using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R (SCID). They were selected from the psychiatric outpatient department of a metropolitan teaching hospital and grouped into homogeneous classes of drug dependence including alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, amphetamine, LSD, hypnosedative, opiate, and polysubstance use. We determined the percent of depressed patients with each specific type of drug abuse, their age of onset of depression and onset of specific drug abuse, and the mean number of lifetime depressive episodes for each patient. We found that alcohol dependence followed the onset of first life depression by 4.7 years (P = .02, two-tailed). Among polydrug-dependent patients, each drug abused followed the onset of depression, except for LSD, which coincided with the onset of depression. Among polydrug users, cocaine dependence occurred 6.8 years after the first major depressive episode (P = .007) and alcohol dependence 4.5 years after the onset of depression (P = .007). Opiate and sedative users had the least number of lifetime depressive episodes (3.7), and LSD and cocaine users had the greatest number (12.2). We conclude that alcohol and cocaine use in this sample of depressed outpatients conformed to a pattern of self-medication.
PMID: 9924877 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

(bolds mine)

If you still don't believe me, I'd be happy to refer some psychedelic addicts here to give you a testimonial. Jolb 04:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Some people can become addicted to anything. This is not evidence for the addictiveness of a substance. When placed on a scale of relative addictiveness, classic psychedelics (LSD, mescaline, psilocybin, etc) are at the very bottom -- the least addictive psychoactives known to man. Please examine this scale Relative Addictiveness of Various Substances. --Thoric 05:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I'd be happy if someone were to add in information about the addictiveness of different drugs. Psychedelics are most definitely not very addictive, but anything can be addictive. If you want to insert something that makes this more clear in the Addiction the section, feel free. The section definitely needs expanding. Jolb 05:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
In addition to Thoric's link, I find this one very useful. [29] It was published in the New York Times, and the danger rankings down at the bottom are very interesting. Jolb 05:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Thoric, I wouldn't say that psychedelics are the least addictive psychoactives. I bet there's some psychactive that just induces utter agony. For example, Naloxone induces opioid withdrawal. That couldn't possibly be more addictive than LSD. Jolb 05:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Well then you could say it is the least addictive drug of abuse. Let The Sunshine In 10:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Good, I like this edit. Have you read over the two articles I left as references? I think that it would be appropriate to source your statement with that second source I left (the one about the Nosology, lol). Agreed? Jolb 16:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe that naloxone only induces pain in people for which opioids (including natural endorphins) are blocking. Naloxone given to someone not in pain should not cause any significant effect. Conversely, giving a strong dose of LSD to someone naive of its effects has the potential to induce several hours of horror -- a potential which remains even with those with a great deal of psychedelic experience. --Thoric 16:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right. (Pubmed: 7996451.) However, I'm sure there must be some psychoactives that only induce pain. What about neurotoxins? They're technically psychoactive. Take for example Latrotoxin. Jolb 17:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Narcotics... And the drug chart

Okay, so what I'm getting from this is that hydrocodone is more potent than heroin and oxycodone? I don't think so. I'm not sure if this is being misinterpreted, if it is a mistake on the drug chart, or maybe even something else. The 'rule' for the depressents in the chart is that they increase in potency towards the lower right, and hydrocodone is much lower, and spaced much farther to the right than both heroin and oxycodone. So... clarification on this? Anyone? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.36.207 (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Depressants in the chart generally increase in potency towards the lower right. Placement within items closely grouped are subject to aesthetic constraints as well. If you have a suggestion for rearrangement that works better, please let me know. --Thoric 21:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay then. No suggestions, I guess it's fine. But now I need to make sure: Morphine is more powerful than oxycodone, which in turn is more powerful than hydrocodone, right?

Technically, when taken orally, they are all roughly equal in pain-killing potency, but slightly different in effects. Of the three, oxycodone is the least sedating, and thought to possibly have the highest abuse potential when available in pure formations (i.e. not mixed with acetaminophen). --Thoric 22:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not correct. When taken parenterally, they are all equal in potency. when taken orally, morphine has a sixth of its potency and hydro and oxycodone have third of their potency, i.e., when taken orally, oxycodone and hydrocodone are twice as potent as morphine. Let The Sunshine In 12:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Don’t you mean the other way around? If morphine is 12 times as potent as codeine, and one 30mg codeine pill is equal to one 5mg hydrocodone pill, then that would mean that one 2.5mg morphine pill is equal to one 5mg hydrocodone pill. Therefore, wouldn’t morphine be twice as potent as hydrocodone?

Maybe you're right. I know that oxycodone is more effective orally then morphine. Let The Sunshine In 19:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you know?

I know that 30mg of codeine (plus 325mg acetaminophen and 30mg of caffeine -- i.e. what's in a single Tylenol #3) is no where near as effective in controlling pain as 5mg of oxycodone (plus 325mg acetaminophen -- i.e. what's in a single Percocet). Percocet is most definitely a significant step up from Tylenol #3. As for the drowsiness factor... the 30mg of codeine (even with the 30mg of caffeine) would be make you more sleepy than the 5mg of oxycodone. Basically codeine is far more effective at making you sleep than controlling your pain -- and if your desire is to sleep (yet you are in pain), codeine is not good enough at killing the pain to let you get to sleep. --Thoric 23:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say oxycodone, I said hydrocodone. But you could be right anyways. However, I still haven't really gotten a clear answer on the morphine>oxycodone issue.

Almost like I said before, when taken parenterally (e.g. intraveneously) they have the same potency, when taken orally morphine has 6th of its potency and oxycodone have half of his potency, i.e. orally, oxycodone is 3 times as potent as morphine. [30] Let The Sunshine In 12:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Filmography

Hi, just a question: why isn't there a "filmography" (and "bibliography") section in this article? Is it in another article? I was thinking about films such as The naked lunch, Fear and loathing in Las Vegas, Trainspotting, Human traffic, Requiem for a dream, etc. Can I create a section here? Ajor 15:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean like psychoactive drugs in popular culture? Let The Sunshine In 16:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we could create a complete article about drugs in popular culture. Moreover, we can also create a "bibliography" and a "fimography" section in the article psychoactive drug with the principal films and books which are talking about drugs, documentaries and fictions. What do you think about that? Ajor 23:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I know there are articles about Heroin in popular culture, and Psychedelics in popular culture, maybe there are others as well.. It is quite an feat to write such an article.. Let The Sunshine In 23:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

Suggestions

  • Expand "Current uses"
  • More refs for "Legality and ethics" as well as giving a more worldwide view of the subject eg alcohol in the Muslim religion and khat use in Africa.
  • More on pharmacology and classes of drug, you don't explain why drugs have stimulant or depressive effects on the brain.
  • Article is overall slanted towards recreational drugs and does not deal in depth with medical uses. Try discussing antidepressants and antipsychotics, their history and usage.

TimVickers 04:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


Yay! It's a good article!Jolb 15:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/s/y/Talk%7EPsychoactive_drug_4773.html"