User talk:Thoric

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, my name is Derek Snider (aka Thoric), and this is my discussion page.

Please feel free to discuss anything with me. --Thoric

Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it should be kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous information in the first place.

Voltaire said, "If God created man in his Own image, man certainly returned the favour."

Contents

[edit] Archives

/archive1 /archive2 /archive3 /archive4 /archive5

[edit] Original Psychoactive drug intro

I'm keeping a copy of this original intro here for quick reference, as the current version is far too POV. Perhaps someday I'll work on restoring it, but alas it appears to be a losing battle...

A psychoactive drug or psychotropic substance is a chemical substance that acts primarily upon the central nervous system where it alters brain function, resulting in temporary changes in perception, mood, consciousness and behavior.

These drugs may be used recreationally to purposefully alter one's consciousness (such as coffee, alcohol, cocaine or cannabis), as entheogens for spiritual purposes (such as the mescaline-containing peyote cactus or psilocybin-containing mushrooms), and also as medication (such as the use of narcotics in controlling pain, stimulants to treat narcolepsy and attention disorders, as well as anti-depressants and anti-psychotics for treating neurological and psychiatric illnesses).

Many of these substances (especially the stimulants and depressants) can be habit-forming, causing chemical dependency and may lead to substance abuse. Conversely, others (namely the psychedelics) can help to treat and even cure such addictions.

[edit] Referenced version

A psychoactive drug or psychotropic substance is a chemical substance that acts primarily upon the central nervous system where it alters brain function, resulting in temporary changes in perception, mood, consciousness and behavior.

These drugs may be used recreationally to purposefully alter one's consciousness (such as coffee, alcohol, cocaine or cannabis), as entheogens for spiritual purposes (such as the mescaline-containing peyote cactus or psilocybin-containing mushrooms)[1] for recreation,[2] and for ritual or spiritual purposes.[3], as medication (such as the use of narcotics in controlling pain, and also as psychiatric medication (such as stimulants to treat narcolepsy and attention disorders, as well as anti-depressants and anti-psychotics for treating neurological and psychiatric illnesses).

Many of these substances (especially the stimulants and depressants) can be habit-forming, causing chemical dependency and may lead to substance abuse. Conversely, others (namely the psychedelics) can help to treat and even cure such addictions.[4][5]

An assortment of psychoactive drugs
An assortment of psychoactive drugs

[edit] Link to original concept diagram

Image:Drug_Chart_version_1.0.png

[edit] Psychoactive Drug Chart

Here is a copy of the psychoactive drug chart. A pioneer effort in hyperlinked data organization. Quite popular for a couple of years, it was ganged up on and removed by a roving band of lawful-evil wikipedians who coveted its praise, and sought to destroy it...


Image:PsychoactiveChart.svg




[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)
  • Nice diagram by the way. -- Solipsist 11:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Like I've said over in Talk:Psychoactive_drug, your chart looks pretty accurate to me. I just wanted to say that I think you've done an impressive job, in case that hadn't come across in my previous posts. Semiconscious (talk · home) 20:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I just bumped into your drug chart and came here to congratulate you to your awesome work, only to see that (of course) many others had done so before. To pour some water into the wine, the only drawback is that we don't have an easy way to change charts like this. Maybe you could, for starters, add a recommendation for an editor to Image:BlankDrugChart.png? (assuming you use something better than a text editor to position the text elements) Algae 10:44, 5 February 2006 (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)
  • THIS IS INCREDIBLE! WHO DESIGNED THIS? Colonel Marksman 06:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I like this Venn diagram. It is constructed by taking the effects of various classes of drugs, grouping similar drugs together, and applying a name each of these groups. Some of the fine placements are debatable, but not worth running from the mastodons, and I think the overall organization is quite impressive. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to add to the chorus: your diagram is so cool. --Galaxiaad 08:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Update: I just found the most fantastic thing ever on Wikipedia (bless its digital cotton socks). Check out the single most awesome Venn Diagram you have ever seen. It tells you what psychoactive drugs are (pretty much everything, by the looks of it). Carla, take special note! Print it out and stick it on your fridge! -- Erin, Perth, AU
  • I am with the Florida Office of Drug Control and was really impressed by the diagram/chart "Psychoactive chart" that you created -BP, 27 June 2007

[edit] Psychedelics vs. dissociatives

I have commented on the categorization dispute between you and User:Jolb. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commons

Did you know you could also use Commons in another language, eg. Upload-page... Puck 23:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Psychoactive Drug

Hey Thoric! I'm sure you have it on your watchlist, but I'd just like to let you know that I made some pretty bold edits to Psychoactive drug. I felt that it needed to be expanded, so I added some subsections I felt were missing, and I reorganized it to make it more encyclopedic. I put your chart at the bottom, but I mean absolutely NO offense to you; I did that because I feel that the chart gives the most advanced, technical, esoteric information in the article... Anyway, I think the new organization is better, and I hope that you can help expand the new subsections. Jolb 22:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Mediation

I thought that our dispute when unsettled for too long, so I decided to ask for mediation. I think it might settle it for good. Go to the page that's linked at the top of your talk page and agree to the mediation. Jolb 19:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

'While I agree to mediation, I thought this issue was behind us. It is not the mediation committee's job to resolve the issue, but only to help us resolve it. I fear that your efforts in this matter would be better focused on additions and refinements to articles rather than being a majordomo for the cause of your DXM community peers. The same arguments that they provide to support their views would also label amphetamines as "psychedelic". The end result would be to render the term completely meaningless... is this your intention? May I ask if Robert F. Golaszewski is one of the people behind this effort? --Thoric 19:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)'
I don't think the issue is behind us, Thoric. I was never really convinced by your citations, as I feel all but two are three don't actually support you. My sources are more numerous, more respectable, and much more clear. Plus, I have no intention of using "psychedelic" as a term to describe any specific drugs. I think that it would be better to divorce the term from classifying drugs altogether, since psychedelic experiences have less to do with neurochemistry and more to do with self-knowledge and spirituality. Also, I'm not going to pretend that I know who Golaszewski is... :-P. He has nothing to do with my argument, as far as I know. Jolb 20:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ. I believe my sources far more respectable. Quality is more important than quantity. I also believe that the term "psychedelic drug" has a well established meaning, which you and others are attempting to obscure. I have tried to be curtious and respectful of your contributions, and have complied with all of your requests. How do I know that you are not Golaszewski himself, or that he is this "friend" of yours supplying you with references? --Thoric 20:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Derek, I'm Cliff. This is just like the good old days back in ADP! :) In reference to the idea that "the term 'psychedelic drug' has a well-established meaning, I'd like to quote from one of the definitions you cited against Jolb: "a rather imprecise category of drugs". I cannot fathom how you thought that quoting a source that refers to psychedelics in this manner supports your case that the term "psychedelic" has a precise meaning/application as "LSD-like." BTW, we're afraid that RFG ("Golaszewski") is dead. More later, I'm tired. TardNarc
About your sources being better, we'll let the mediator decide. I'm not Golaszewski... my name is John Hakala... I'm a senior in high school in New Jersey... do you want me to do anything to prove it to you? My friend supplying me with sources apparently already knows you (over the internet)! (I assure you, it was a conincidence. I didn't search him out or anything. We talk on a message board.) His name is Cliff Anderson, and he supposedly had an argument with you about this on Usenet a few years ago. Jolb 20:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] potential webcam interview

Hello Derek,

I'm a television producer for Current TV doing a field piece on Wikipedia. I am interested in possibly interviewing you via webcam regarding the debate over the psychoactive drug entry. I look forward to hearing from you.


Best, Sarah —The preceding unsigned comment was added by North223 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] 100 hp 100 m 100 mv> at 5 look

You are in a maze of twisty passages, all alike.

Hey homey, I saw you had this account and felt compelled to say hi. Best. HausTalk 02:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey wow :) Long time no talk! How the heck are you doing? Whatcha been up to? --Thoric 03:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I'm swell. Ok, let's see if I can do a Readers Digest version. Shortly after leaving your neck of the woods, I gave in to an urge to go to sea, spent 4 years in the Navy and now drive cargo ships for a living.
So, now it's your turn: what's going on with you?
I see RoD is still flourishing -- about 50% of the imms have been there over 10 years or so. That's really astonishing. I was sure I'd developed terminal brain cancer after watching the spam scroll by for only 5 years.
Cheers. HausTalk 13:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article on Matrixism: an Entheogenic Religion

There is an article on a entheogenic new religious movement called Matrixism being created at User:Xoloz/Matrixism. There are numerous sources for this article yet it has because contentious because it deals with the subject of entheogens. Thought you might like to look at it and perhaps contribute. 206.124.144.3 05:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diligence
I, WooyiTalk to me?, hereby award this barnstar to you, Thoric, for your outstanding and diligent contributions to drug-related articles. WooyiTalk to me? 02:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Realms of Despair

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Realms of Despair, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Marasmusine 08:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychactive chart

I am with the Florida Office of Drug Control and was really impressed by the diagram/chart "Psychactive chart" that you created. I am having trouble printing/viewing the diagram with the legend. I am trying to save/view the chart so that in addition to the image, the text and/or links are viewable as well. Is there an attachment or file that you could send so that we could easily print and view the chart and legend? Thanks for your time! -BP bjprokes@yahoo.com

[edit] Psychoactive drug diagram

The problem is that the ontology is flawed. For example, the diagram is incapable of placing a hallucinogenic antipsychotic which is neither a stimulant or a depressant. There are absolutely no references for any of the categorizations. The article for Psilocybin makes no mention of stimulant properties. The article for MDMA makes no mention of antipsychotic properties. I will insist that you add references supporting each drug's categorization. Statements without reliable sources may be removed. I understand that you have probably put hours if not days or weeks of work into the diagram, but presents an ontology which is simply incongruent with reality. BenB4 17:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we should be discussing this on the article's talk page. BenB4 18:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Four out of the five commenters specifically objected to the diagram in the FAC review. I will continue to remove it. If you don't like that I suggest you ask for a WP:RFC. BenB4 00:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I am here to object to the diagram as well, as it takes up too much space on the page and some of the text is overlapping. The diagram is very confusing and difficult to read, and apparently serves only the purpose of looking impressive. Considering the controversy and the way it is being resolved it appears to be original research. If you re-create it from a reliable single source I request that you do so as a single image that can be sized using the thumb attribute. Pulling together multiple sources to create a diagram constitutes research and is not permitted. Oh by the way your editing the cited wikipedia:V article to support your diagram not being removed seems inappropriate - modifying an official policy to present your side of the argument - doesn't that sound like pushing a point of view?199.125.109.133 17:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The diagram is large sized to support all of the links that it contains. If it were a thumbnail it could not contain any readable links. I modified a policy that was in error, and the result was that the policy is now being improved. I simply added a section which quoted Jimbo stating that he didn't intend for people to go around wiping out unsourced content unless it was libel. Doesn't coming along and removing a large piece of content that someone has put years (on wikipedia) of work into, and which has been in place for over two years, and citing some policy which has a quote taken out of context in it seem inappropriate to you? --Thoric 20:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
As I read it your modification to wp:V was thrown out immediately. The ensuing changes made no tangible differences to existing policy. However, when you are being accused of violating a policy is no time to ask for the policy to be changed. I would suggest that you agree that the policy states that the diagram should be removed and stop trying to put it back. After you have addressed all the other issues with the diagram you can ask if anyone wants it back, but don't start an edit war by just putting it back. Get consensus on the diagram first. Wikipedia has a lot of articles and it is easy for inappropriate material to go unnoticed for years. See you are saying yourself that you have put years of work into the diagram, doesn't that sound like original research to you? The links do not need to be readable in the thumb, it is appropriate to just show the thumb of the diagram in the article and if anyone wants to see it they can click on it. Now if they also want to click on the links in the diagram you should be able to do that by using an image map. If you made it a single image it could be printed also. Right now it comes out all trash on my printer - part on one page part on another and with a lot of the text covering up other text. The bottom line though is that it is too busy a diagram to have any value. 199.125.109.34 05:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the WP:V talk page you'll see otherwise, and that this is a problem which has been going on for a long time. Also please read Removal_of_Uncited_Material, a policy in progress based on this exact sort of situation. WP:V only advises immediate removal of unsourced material which is harmful to an article. My chart isn't unsourced, it is only inadequately sourced according to some people. Some people disagree with the placement and/or inclusion of certain substances. Other people think it is great. What we have is a minority who is taking certain policy out of context and using it to remove content they disagree with. As for printing out the diagram, I can provide you with a printable version if you would care to tell me the preferred format (and what size you are going to be printing it in) and I will email it to you. Wikipedia doesn't have support for imagemaps as far as I know, so I had to do it this way. --Thoric 15:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest you make a gif/png image of the diagram and on the description page give a link to a website for the actual diagram. Obviously one person wants a printed copy. I do not, I just wanted to see if it could be printed from wikipedia. It came out badly trashed and about 115 mm wide. 199.125.109.133 19:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: "Coffee is not a drug"

Referring, of course, to this statement:

Examples include caffeine, alcohol, cocaine, LSD, and cannabis.

I replaced 'coffee' in this statement with 'caffeine' because, it doesn't relate to the other drugs listed. Yes, coffee contains caffeine, in the same sense that cannabis contains Delta9-THC. But not all coffee contains caffeine (e.g. decaffeinated varieties). Furthermore, caffeine is present in a wide variety of other beverages, not just coffee, so by including coffee in this list, you're ignoring all of the other things that have caffeine in them. Alcohol is the same way; if we listed 'beer' on this list, what about wine or liquor? So we should probably actually change 'cannabis' in the list to 'Delta9-THC'. But in this case, I think it would be better to list the more commonly used term of the drug in popular culture here, since cannabis is the primary source (and virtually the only major source) of Delta9-THC, even though it has a lot of other substances in it in addition to the major active ingredient. Dr. Cash 20:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychedelics

Hi there... I noticed you said you specialize in psychedelics under Wikiproject Pharmacology, and was hoping to get your opinion on the definition of what constitutes a psychedelic drug. I was heavily involved with the definition used on the psychedelic drug as well as the psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants pages, but have been in discussions/arguments over the past several months with a user (Jolb) regarding use of the term "psychedelic". --Thoric 22:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a question that greatly interests me. As you know, the "psychedelics" vary massively in chemistry and pharmacology and there is no clear way to define what is a psychedelic and what isn't. Indeed, in addition to there being no clear criteria, it is hard to know what would make a substance more or less psychedelic.
In light of this, I'm currently resigned to the wishy-washy notion of defining psychedelics by their effects. Psychedelics have come to be defined socially by those who use them - psychedelic art, thought and experience is easier to define that psychedelic substances. If the (very) subjective psychopharmacological effects resemble "core" psychedelics (such as LSD, psilocybin and DMT) the substance can be said to have a psychedelic character.
So, in my opinion, ketamine, 2C-B and muscimol can be psychedelic drugs whilst cannabis and MDMA probably aren't. I appreciate this is ill-defined and very confused but I've come to the opinion that there is no clear category of psychedelic vs non-psychedelic. This is the best way I can think of to cover the variety of psychedelic experience. Please let me know if you want me to try to clarify or elaborate. Turkeyphant

I am curious if you have read over the dispute history between Jolb and myself. My argument is that we need a classification to distinguish between the stimulating, "mind-expanding", LSD-like drugs, and the sedating, dissociative, ketamine-like drugs. I am currently using "psychedelic" for the former, and "dissociative" for the latter. Unfortunately it seems that there is much controversy over psychedelic, and few people can agree on its meaning, which effectively leaves us without a term for the non-dissociative hallucinogens. --Thoric 19:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Since making this comment, I have very briefly looked over your disagreement. My position is that I agree that a distinction is required. I think many dissociatives have distinctive psychedelic characteristics and deserve to be classified as psychedelics. I cannot see a way round this as a k-hole, for example, is unmistakably psychedelic - often moreso than a mild mushroom or mescaline trip. So clearly there are subsets of psychedelics - dissociative ones such as ketamine and (perhaps) empathogenic psychedelics such as MDA. However, as you appreciate, this leaves a problem when categorising the "true" psychedelics like psilocybin, DMT, LSD and mescaline. They probably cannot really be the psychedelic psychedelics although I don't think this is as much of a problem as it first seems. Perhaps the serotonergic psychedelics? But is salvia a dissociative or "true" psychedelic?

Salvia definitely appears to be a dissociative, but not the NMDA agonist type. Serotonergic psychedelics could work, but it would be nice if we had a single term. BTW, is a k-hole any more "psychedelic" than being in a sensory deprivation tank? --Thoric 15:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'll be able to clear much of this up in my own mind without thinking about it a bit more, I'm afraid. However, for the moment, I'd be inclined to keep the distinction between ketamine/DXM/nitrous-like dissociative substances whilst acknowledging their psychedelic character.
One issue I have with your chart is the use of the word "hallucinogen". I don't really know what you mean by this - in the literature is is often used as a synonym for "psychedelic". Is there no better word that includes empathogens, deliriants and psychedelics? Turkeyphant 12:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

We are considering the use of the term psychotomimetic to replace hallucinogen. What do you think? --Thoric 15:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would be even more strongly opposed to that. There is a very good reason it was dropped a long long time ago - it's misleading and entirely inaccurate. Pretty much everyone who writes on psychedelics (whether books, scientific journals or whatever) rejects that term. Even hallucinogen is better since it's less inaccurate and is more prevalent. What exactly is wrong with psychedelic other than categorisation difficulties? Turkeyphant 19:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with psychedelic is that there are about four different camps: (1) people who believe it should only refer to classic serotonergic psychedelics such as mescaline, LSD and psilocybin (2) people who believe it can also include substances such as MDMA and THC, but not the dissociatives or deliriants (3) people who believe it instead includes other substances that induce visionary states (so not MDMA, but PCP, ketamine, DXM, and possibly even the deliriants) and lastly (4) people who see it as a better term for hallucinogen, as to them it includes not only visionary substances, but enactogens (and THC) as well. These camps are well distributed even among experts. --Thoric 20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I may be wrong but I don't think that's a problem with the term itself - rather, it's an issue of definition in general. I don't see how replacing it with hallucinogen or any other fuzzy synonm will help. Further, I will argue that words such as hallucinogen and psychotomimetic (probably the two most common alternatives) suffer from at least as many problems.
At the moment I'm thinking that perhaps "serotonergic psychedelic" is best for those in camp (1). Camp (2) does not make much sense to me so I don't have any suggestions. I think I fall in camp (3) and perhaps entheogen is a more suitable word for this class of substances as it clears up some confusions. As for position (4), I'm not sure how psychedelic can include THC by the same reasoning that excludes it from hallucinogen.
I apologise because what I'm saying is still quite confused, but I maintain the the letter and intent of the majority of expert writers tends toward equating psychedelic with position (3). Let me know what you think... Turkeyphant 23:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I would say that the majority of experts would take position (3), especially if you ask those who specialize in this area. We would need a survey before coming to any such conclusions. Do note that THC has been known to cause visionary states when ingesting higher doses, as well as having a strong synergy with the classic psychedelics. MDMA also holds a similar connection. As for entheogen, this term is more specific to the intended usage rather than the substance itself. --Thoric 15:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that entheogen is an imperfect solution, but it is certainly preferable to psychotomimetic or hallucinogen (though ill-suited for a medical context). I have been in touch with several people involved in psychedelic research and all have used psychedelic in their communication with me. I'm not sure that "synergy" is sufficient for belonging to the same class and my own research tends to agree with this. THC and MDMA are even further removed from hallucination-causing substances than DMT and LSD... Turkeyphant 14:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My argument isn't that THC and MDMA are particularly visionary, but that they are mind-manifesting (psychedelic means mind-manifesting, not vision-inducing). I see psychedelics as substances which reveal -- open doors so to speak (mind-expanding, making you more aware). This does not have to be visual. It can be cerebral -- make you think, realize things you didn't know you knew. MDMA can most certainly facilitate this for some people. The dissociatives on the other hand, close doors -- dull and cut off your senses such that your focus is narrowed... more deeply within your mind. I see the visionary states induced by these substances more akin to sensory deprivation. True, this state of mind can also reveal the internals of the mind, but it is here that we come back to my previous argument; we already have a term to refer to substances such as DXM, ketamine and PCP -- they are dissociatives. Do they really need claim to psychedelic as well? Encyclopedia Britannica describes psychedelic drugs as, "any of the so-called mind-expanding drugs that are able to induce states of altered perception and thought, frequently with heightened awareness of sensory input but with diminished control over what is being experienced.. This description does not appear to apply to the dissociatives. --Thoric 15:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that psychedelic should be used as intended - meaning "mind-manifesting" and not "visionary". However, I would strongly disagree that THC is particularly visionary even at igh doses. The stoning quality of THC and other synthetic analogues is vastly different to the expanded consciousness of serotonergic psychedelics. Likewise, I feel the mindset induced by MDMA, while cerebral, is not "mind-manifesting" in the same way as LSD is.
It almost seems as though you are confusing visual with visionary. While most psychedelics, often exhibit strong visual activity, there are many that are completely devoid of visual perceptual changed. Indeed, the prototypical mind-manifesting psychedelic effects are entirely mental. The mental effects of ketamine and LSD are similar - those of MDMA and THC are very different. It is upon this basis that I define my use of the word psychedelic. Although dissociatives "close doors" in a perceptual sense, in a mind-manifesting sense they often open doors more than other psychedelic substances. This is why there are also psychedelics. Sensory deprivation is commonly cited as a way to induce "psychedelic" experiences.
As for the Britannica entry (in general I don't think it's a great article, but that's irrelevant), I think that definition (regardless of its errors) backs up the classification I support. Turkeyphant 17:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychedelics (cont.)

Furthermore, please see my edits at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychedelics,_Dissociatives_and_Deliriants&diff=prev&oldid=147444061. Have you read this yet? Turkeyphant 21:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did, though I have to respectfully disagree with yours and Jolb's opinion that the Mescaline/LSD/Psilocybin group is equitably "psychedelic" as Ketamine/PCP/DXM. My position is more aligned with the view that the classic serotonergic psychedelics (Mescaline/LSD/Psilocybin) are consciousness expanding, overwhelm the senses with input, and that the term "psychedelic" best represents drugs that fit that profile. Dissociatives such as Ketamine/PCP/DXM work in a very different way, and rather than overwhelming the senses, they starve them, not quite unlike a sensory deprivation tank experience, and the low-dose dissociative visual effects are somewhat related to the hypnagogic pre-sleep state. Perhaps what we have here is a problem with terminology, but if we are simply looking for a word to imply that these substances induce visionary states, then there already exist plenty of words. Every single definition that you will find of the word "psychedelic" with respect to ingested substances will first focus on the classics Mescaline/LSD/Psilocybin, and only refer to the dissociatives as an afterthought, if at all. I, as well as numerous others, believe that the dissociatives should not be lumped in with this group, if for the only reason that they already have a term to describe their effects -- "dissociative". --Thoric 22:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree - the term "psychedelic" refers to serotonergic substances better. However, this does not mean that dissociatives do not have a substantial psychedelic character too. I think it's a fallacy to not consider ketamine, for example, to be a psychedelic simply because there is another term to describe it. In my opinion, much of the reason some of these chemicals are so interesting is the fact their action varies so much. Turkeyphant 12:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not so much as that I'm saying that the dissociatives do not produce what can be considered to be a psychedelic experience, as much as I'm trying to point out that we require terminology to describe drugs such as LSD which "open the reducing value" so to speak, in contrast to drugs such as Ketamine which cause dissociation. While there may be overlap in the experiences, and the places and states of mind one can attain, the pathways there are markedly different. Those who have experienced both would not confuse one for the other. Perhaps psychedelic is not the most correct term to separate the serotonergics from the dissociatives, but the terminology available is limited. --Thoric 16:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. So what, in your opinion, is wrong with "serotonergic psychedelic"? This term seems to be the best of both worlds to me - it emphasises the difference from dissociatives whilst still acknowledging the psychedelic characteristic. Turkeyphant 16:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week

WikiProject Pharmacology is currently organizing a new Collaboration of the Week program, designed to bring drug and medication related articles up to featured status. We're currently soliciting nominations and/or voting on nominations for the first WP:RxCOTW, to begin on September 5, 2007. Please stop by the Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week page to participate! Thanks! Dr. Cash 17:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week

Aspirin has been selected as this week's Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week! Please help us bring this article up to featured standards during the week. The goal is to nominate this at WP:FAC on September 10, 2007.

Also, please visitWP:RxCOTW to support other articles for the next COTW. Articles that have been nominated thus far include Doxorubicin, Paracetamol (in the lead with 4 support votes so far), Muscle relaxant, Ethanol, and Bufotenin.

In other news:

  • The Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology main page has been updated and overhauled, to make it easier to find things, as well as to highlight other goals and announcements for the project.
  • Fvasconcellos notes that discussion is ongoing regarding the current wording of MEDMOS on including dosage information in drug articles. All input is welcome.

Dr. Cash 00:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Pharmacology Update

Here's a brief update in some of the recent developments of WikiProject Pharmacology!

  • Aspirin has just completed its two week run as the first Collaboration of the Week! Many thanks to those editors that contributed; the article got a lot of good work accomplished, and in particular, much work was done in fixing up the history section. It's still not quite "done" yet (is a wikipedia article really ever done?), but after two weeks I think it's more important to push onwards with the development of the new collaboration of the week program. I will be fixing up Aspirin in the next few days and possibly nominating it for either GA or FA status.
  • Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing or dispensing medical advice amongst users. Specifically, talk pages of articles should only be used to discuss improving the actual article in question. To help alleviate this situation, the template {{talkheader}} may be added to the top of talk pages, reminding users of the purpose of such pages. Additionally, unsigned comments and comments by anonymous users that are inappropriate may be removed from talk pages without being considered vandalism.

You are receiving this message because you are listed as one of the participants of WikiProject Pharmacology.

Dr. Cash 04:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Pharmacology Update

Here are a few updates in the realm of WikiProject Pharmacology:

  • The Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week has been changed to Collaboration of the Month, based on current participation levels. It is also more likely that articles collaborated on for one month are more likely to achieve featured quality than articles worked on for only a week or two.

[edit] How did Jenkem get its name?

U were commenting on it back in May whereas every 1 is posting about it now. I'd like to know the name origin. Who thought of it and how? Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.111.6 (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SMAUG port to Nintendo DS

Hey dude! I googled balzhur on a whim and tripped over this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq26XPfc-XQ . I you look closely you can tell it's a SMAUG derivative. Thought you might find it interesting. Cheers. HausTalk 01:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Thoric!

[edit] Higher resolution image

I am interested in acquiring a higher resolution of the psychoactive drug image. I was wondering if you personally had a copy of this image or know where i could find one. Thanks! Adelaide —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youthhasfuture (talk • contribs) 20:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

While the original full sized image was larger, it was unfortunately quite blurry, so it not actually of higher quality than the one here. --Thoric (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thank you

thanks so much for getting back to me derek! I am really bummed about the news that the quality of the image isn't much better on the original. Could I still get the source name so i can see for myself if I can use it for my painting? Thanks! AYouthhasfuture (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

hi derek! still waiting on the source of the psychoactive drug image. let me know as soon as you can! thanks again. Adelaide —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youthhasfuture (talk • contribs) 00:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)