Talk:Colorado River Toad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants, an attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage of hallucinogens. Feel free to participate by editing this article or by visiting the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Toxin Discussion

The main article states:

The toad's primary defense system is glands that produce a mild poison[1], appearing as tiny lumps on the skin that are often called "warts". These parotoid glands also produce the 5-MeO-DMT [2] and bufotenin for which the toad is known; both of these chemicals belong to the family of hallucinogenic tryptamines. The presence of these substances in the skin and poison of the toad produces psychoactive effects when smoked.

In "A Natural History of the Sonoran Desert", 2000, University of California Press, page 537, it reads, "Sonoran Desert toads have extremely potent, defensive toxins that are released from several glands (primarily the paratoids) in the skin. Animals that harass this species generally are intoxicated through the mouth, nose or eyes. Dog owners should be cautious: the toxins are strong enough to kill full grown dogs that pick up or mouth the toads."

The reference for the first sentence of the article's existing paragraph (the California Academy of Sciences) doesn't mention the Sonoran Toad at all - it mentions the Poison Dart frog and it's 'mild venom'. I am going to change the article, remove the existing reference, and add the reference I have in hand. I welcome any arguments or comments. Tanthalas39 (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's give this page an upgrade

Hey, added some information to the Colorado River Toad page based on the references you provided; see what you think. Some questions that have arisen in my mind:
  • The media reference you gave (and I cited) stating the illegality of the toad is from the Kansas City area... do the same laws apply here in Arizona? Is the drug (and/or toad itself) federally illegal?
  • We cited the AZF&G laws about the possession, sale, etc... the toad isn't found just in AZ, do the same basic law principles apply in other states?
Some research for us to do, I guess. Tanthalas39 (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Possession of the toad can be perfectly legal in one situation, and totally illegal in another. What makes the difference is INTENT. In Arizona, you may possess up to ten B. alvarius quite legally if you found them in the wild and you have a valid AZ fishing license. Maybe you're just a hobbyist and you don't even know about the psychoactive properties. Your possession of the toad is harmless and no one thinks twice about it. Of course, for many people, these toads live in their back yards, so what then is possession and intent? Now, if someone uses and/or deals lots of different drugs and the police bust in and also find our toad, the police are also going to charge the person with possession of a Schedule I substance because the cops will say the toad is one more drug, just like they did recently in Kansas.

There's an ornamental cactus that you can buy at Home Depot and it contains mescaline. Now many people grow these in their yards and they're not breaking any laws. But if you cut and prepare this cactus in order to extract the mescaline: that is illegal. Just like you can have our toad and it's fine, but if you milk it and the authorities find out, you're busted.

So when we talk about the legal status of the toad on the page, we need to be very careful about the language that we use. Perhaps it is best to simply state that the venom contains 5-MeO-DMT and a Schedule I substance; bufotenine. Then maybe we could say, while possession of the toad is not a crime in of itself, (in AZ you may legally bag up to ten toads with a fishing license,) if it can be shown that one is in possession of this toad with the intent to milk and smoke it's venom, this could constitute a criminal violation.

Now if you're in possession of the toad outside of any of the three States in which it is known to have existed (AZ, CA, NM), you have broken the Fish and Game laws of those States because none of them technically allow you to remove wildlife. However, surrounding States aren't going to enforce each other's Fish and Game Laws, and this is why Bouncing Bear Botanicals is able to sell our toad. The laws are weak and not worth enforcing. When people are busted with this toad it is almost always as a by product of other illegal activity, and the toad gets thrown in for good measure. The person is charged with possession of a Schedule I substance, not with breaking Fish and Game laws.

What I find really ironic is that while bufotenine is certainly psychoactive when the venom is smoked, it's actually the 5-MeO-DMT that does most of the magic in your brain. And 5-MeO, of course, is not scheduled. Wirykuta (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Nice recent edits. I did some formatting and rearranged the references to be more standard, and also removed the personal information about the kid that was arrested (this info is in the reference, I don't really think it's appropriate to put it on this article). I left a comment on your talk page regarding your edits; you just might want to think about leaving edit summaries and making more use of the preview edits button so you don't do a bazillion small edits - it makes the history page sort of a mess. Like I said on your talk page, just a thought. Of course, the page is severely unbalanced now - most of the information and almost all the references are about the hallucinogenic properties / law / etc and almost none about its habitat, etc. Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Points well taken...

I guess I was rushing a bit and got a little sloppy.

More natural history information would certainly be in order. The absolute authority has always been Fouquette, M.J., Jr. 1970. Bufo alvarius. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles, edited by William J. Riemer, American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, 93.1-93.4.

However, the information provided here is more recent and brilliantly presented: http://amphibiaweb.org/cgi/amphib_query?where-genus=Bufo&where-species=alvarius&account=lannoo

Not sure how to get it any better than that!

Two more things (technicalities):

1) This toad is never found in streams. I forget who said it first, but it's been repeated often. It's not true. They are drawn to ponds and temporary pools to breed, but not flowing water.

2) The law in CA that makes possession of the B. alvarius illegal is:

California Administrative Code Title 14, § 40(a):

TITLE 14. NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION 1. FISH AND GAME COMMISSION -DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME SUBDIVISION 1. FISH, AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES CHAPTER 5. NATIVE REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS 40. General Provisions Relating to Native Reptiles and Amphibians. (a) General Prohibition It is unlawful to capture, collect, intentionally kill or injure, possess, purchase, propagate, sell, transport, import or export any native reptile or amphibian, or part thereof...

The problem is I don't know how to cite it where we have cites #7 and #8.

I can't link to it because it doesn't have a static link. You start here: http://www.fgc.ca.gov/html/regs.html and select "California Code of Regulations (Including Title 14)" and start drilling down from there with the "List of CCR Titles". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wirykuta (talk • contribs) 02:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)