Talk:Jenkem

Lulz

This is all a big joke on the media by totse, only one kid did it, it's not the new drug that's sweeping the nation.

All the photos in those news reports are from that one kid, the conservative media is just eating it up for better ratings.

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2066683&page=2 The kid admits it was a hoax. Besides, if he actually did it he'd be dying of sepsis by now. (PotatoSamurai 09:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC))

In addition, the words "Leroy Jenkems" at the bottom of the sherriff's report should give a red alert that this is all an elaborate internet hoax. And yes, the folk at /b/ and other such microcosms of the internets are definitely powerful enough to pull this off. If you need any further reassurance, read the sheriff's report and then look up who "Leroy Jenkins" is... 149.152.63.180 23:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The above messages have been censored by TOTSE officials for the safety of the people. --Thelostcup 01:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Method of action

I would qualify this substance as an inhalant, akin to inhaling gasoline fumes. If you read Erowid trip reports on gasoline (under inhalants) you will find similar stories. See [1] and [2]. If you also read reports from other gases (butane, propane, etc), the reports are also similar. --Thoric 23:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you not consider an indole-related psychoactive compound as a likely agent? __meco 19:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have a chemical analysis of this "jenkem" substance and isolating the molecule responsible for the effects, we cannot know that it is an indole compound. Indole is a solid which can degrade into methane and carbon dioxide -- both of which, when inhaled (displacing oxygen) will produce the effects which you describe, as will numerous other gases. Did you read the Erowid trip reports on gasoline, butane and propane? --Thoric 19:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I vote for inhalant as well since it seems likely methane is the main thing causing their trip. --24.151.119.117 20:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

We know that jenkem is fermented sewage, so I don't understand your hesitation at acknowledging the very real possibility that an indole component, which we know must be present (at least from the onset of fermentation), may be the psychoactive agent. There are of course lots of questions that must be answered, however, discarding a psychoactive indole alkaloid as the possible causal agent on equal terms with methane, which as you have documented also constitutes a contender, I find curious, if that is how you perceive these two asserted alternatives. __meco 21:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

We know that sewage gas contains methane and carbon dioxide. We do not know that "jenkem" contains anything else without sufficient analysis. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the effects are due to unknown hypothesized indole-related constituents. Furthermore, out of a great number of indole-related substances, very few have psychoactive effects. Finally, both methane and carbon dioxide are known to be able to alter consciousness in line with reports and commentary from interviewing jenkem users. Before we can state with any authority that jenkem contains indole-related hallucinogens, we must have supporting evidence. --Thoric 22:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There has never been suggested that any such authoritative statement should be made. The point of discussion is whether it's appropriate not to mention the possibility that an indole-compound might be the (or "a") hallucinogenic agent on par with methane and carbon dioxide. __meco 08:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I may have misunderstood. Yes, it is acceptable to mention such as long as we can cite a reference for it. --Thoric 21:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Psychoactive Methane?

I don't think the claim that Methane facilitates psychedelic experiences is valid or the citation provided relevant; methane is a non toxic asphyxiant and the amount needed to cause significant oxygen deprivation is higher than what can be achieved from huffing from a plastic bottle. --84.92.184.12 01:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the citation which you removed? Until we get a complete chemical analysis of jenkem, the closest match from inhalation of a potentially similar mixture of gases (methane, carbon dioxide, and possibly ethanol) is the citation I added. Until you have a better claim, and have something to back it up, this is the best explanation available. I suggest you do some more research on the inhalation of various gases, and the resulting effects. --Thoric 15:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have and the fact of the matter is that methane does not 'facilitate psychedelic experiences' any more than any other gas. Your citation states that a reduction in oxygen can cause an hypnotic state which 'may' cause hallucination. Any sort of psychedelic experience from asphyxia is abnormal regardless and Jenkem users appear to be getting a consistent effect.--84.92.184.12 23:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Psychedelic experiences from inhaling substances is very well documented. Please see the inhalant article. Please also see Erowid reports on inhaling gases -- it does not have to be a large amount. People who inhale Jenkem choose it secondary to sniffing gasoline. If you have some expertise on Jenkem use, please provide some citations of your own, but please do not remove valid citations from this article. --Thoric 20:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That's about as meaningless as saying psychedelic experiences from taking pills is well documented, then trying to claim asprin causes hallucinations. Unlike solvents and other commonly abused inhalants, methane is not physiologically active. I have provided a citation (the MSDS) which shows this to be the case.--84.92.184.12 21:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Original research

While methane and carbon dioxide are known products of the chemical processes involved when sewage is fermented, no information bar speculations exist as to the identity of the psychoactive agent or agents within the compound. However, Methane is biologically inactive and essentially non-toxic . Human feces itself is known to contain several indole alkaloids, and while some well-known psychedelic drugs are in fact indoles, it is not known if any of the indoles present in human feces have psychoactive properties, nor whether these could become part of the gaseous substance that is known as jenkem.

As it stands, the above is original research because it's original synthesis of background information, rather than reporting published theories on what jenkem might be. 86.140.108.192 13:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A link to be monitored

Council of Conservative Citizens has opened a thread on Jenkem. __meco 01:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Nyce! Wish it had more infos. Cheers -Doctorfluffy 22:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this doesn't seem to be a discussion thread. However, I have created a "Google Alert" on "Jenkem" and several forums are discussing this issue, mostly in shock and disgust, or snidely racist as for instance the white supremacist forum of Stormfront (Jenkem thread). __meco 07:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Cruft" removed

• Nath, MadhuBala From Tragedy Towards Hope: Men, Women and the AIDS Epidemic 2001 p.8 (ISBN 0850926769)
• Jenkem forum page at the Alcohol and Drugs History Society web.
• Case of documented Western usage of Jenkem (a discussion thread at the TOTSE Better Living Through Chemistry forum.)

The above was removed in this edit by User:Chaser with the edit commentary: "clearing out cruft". __meco 07:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"Jenkem is now a popular drug in American Schools"

An alleged confidential alert from a County Sheriff’s Office in Naples, Florida asserts that Jenkem has now gained widespread popularity in American schools (this section's headline being a direct quote from the intercepted letter). I suppose this means imminent big media coverage if the letter is authentic. __meco 13:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I love jenkem and hope that's real, but I tend not to trust random forum posts. I've trolled a lot and that's exactly like something I would do. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 20:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, some media outlet is probably going to check on the veracity of this. We'll have to wait and see what comes of this, if anything. __meco 10:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

First mainstream media reports

Although not specific, this forum post states that the Jenkem phenomenon has been the topic of US radio mention. __meco 08:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

recycling category?

Made me laugh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.199.45 (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It has been (and probably still is) controversial, however, unusual as it may be, I believe a valid argument will conclude that Jenkem should be perceived as a recycling phenomenon also. __meco 09:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That's totally absurd. A "recycling phenomenon" would require an intent to reuse for the sake thereof. If the use of jenkem is going to be considered recycling, then picking up a stray brick and smashing someone over the head with it is also recycling. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be reusing.. not recycling. - :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.103.216.66 (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a totally cultural bias and a POV definition. There is no intent part inherent in the denotation of recycling, although in your culture the connotation may be such. __meco 10:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then picking up a stray brick and using it to assault someone is also "recycling." Oh, btw, this is the English Wikipedia and English definitions apply, not magical evolving definitions, UN definitions, or special NGO definitions. English. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 11:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not the logical conclusion based on what I write. I assert that your definition is proprietary, biased to suit your opinion of what recycling ought to mean. Wiktionary's definition for this word is "The practice of sorting and collecting waste materials for new use." Nothing there which is inconsistent with categorizing the use of Jenkem as recycling. __meco 12:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually yes, it is, because it's an analogy. Also, the definition you supplied still implies deliberate action via usage of the word "practice," which denotes cognizant action, not happenstance. Using your overly permissive interpretation, when Palestinians use bits of rubble from their destroyed homes as projectiles to hurl at the Israelis, they are sorting and collecting waste materials for new use -- they are "recycling" according to you. Insert the phrase, "the practice," and it is abundantly clear that they are not in fact making a concerted effort to reuse waste materials. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 13:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

An analogy it may be. From there on to your conclusion however is fallacious reasoning: Firstly, asserting that the conclusion is true "because it's an analogy" as fallacious. Secondly, you have introduced a private condition into the definition of recycling, i.e. that there must be a "concerted effort to reuse waste materials." This condition exists only in your private defintion as far as I can ascertain. There should be no ambiguity to the fact that sewage is a waste product. Neither should any doubt exist as to the transformation of this product into a new product, a psychoactive drug. This connection being a novelty as Jenkem in its uniqueness is a novelty should not disqualify it from being tested against the spirit and literal definition(s) of recycling. __meco 16:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If the conclusion from the analogy is fallacious and/or untrue, it's only because the conclusion from the analog is fallacious - otherwise it wouldn't be a good analogy. You're essentially arguing against yourself with this point. Secondly, intent is not a "private condition," but an essential part of the definition of recycling. As an analogy, committing suicide by throwing one's self off of a building is not base jumping without a parachute; the action is the same, but the intent is different (vastly in this example). Similarly, "murder" and "manslaughter" are different despite the denominator of someone being killed. Getting back to the specific concept, all descriptions of waste management and waste hierarchy refer to deliberate actions that are a means to manage the waste itself by either reconstituting it entirely, or creating something from it that mitigates the "loss" involved from creating the waste. With Jenkem, there is no reconstitution, nor is there any mitigating creation -- there are still feces and urine in the container once the Jenkem is produced, and the gases created are not used in a way that benefit the premise of waste management, meaning they do not lessen further waste creation or create a source of energy that is congruent with said premise. If one was to deliberately use human waste in a way that either prevented further human waste, or mitigated the creation of human waste by say, using Jenkem gas as a biofuel, then perhaps the term "recycling" could be used, but note that in the article Biogas the word "recycling" is not used once, nor is it listed under "See also." --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 20:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Your understanding of what it implies that two phenomena are analogous is incomplete. Analogies can be established on more than one axis. Simply because one can point to an analogous relation between two phenomena makes no basis for any conclusion on its own that the two should be treated the same in any one respect. Also you are putting up a straw man by arguing that intent is not a private condition. I wrote that concerted effort is your private condition. Either you address this or accept that you are in error. Your throwing out red herrings by presenting unrelated and far-fetched examples is not conducive to bringing home your argument either. __meco 20:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Analogies aren't the crux of my argument, nor need they be. 2. When one makes a concerted effort to recycle, one is aware they are recycling and has the intent to recycle. Continue to argue over semantics if you must. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 20:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I will respond to your arguments as they present themselves, part of them being based on fallacious implications of established analogy. Now that that is out of the way (?) you seem to have hitched yourself on a phrase in the introductory paragraph of the Recycling article which reads: Recycling is a key concept of modern waste management and is the third component of the waste hierarchy. Notice that this statement is not exhaustive and that what can be labeled as recycling can not be limited to that which is contained by "modern waste management" or indeed the "waste hierarchy." Your argument would be valid if that statement had read reversely, "Modern waste management and the third component of the waste hierarchy are key concepts of recycling." __meco 21:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Limited? The concepts of "waste management" and "waste hierarchy" are far broader than mere recycling, a subcatagory, yet the production of Jenkem still does not fall within their scope! Just as I argue that Jenkem production is not recycling, I would argue that it is not part of "waste management" either. Do you need a Venn diagram? If it's not waste management, then it's certainly not recycling. If it's recycling, then it's a part of waste management. I've already established how it isn't waste management, ergo, it couldn't possibly be recycling. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I wrote "modern waste management" and coupled it with the "waste hierarchy." That means we have entered a specific conceptual model. These are of course much wider than recycling, however, since they are terms of the particular frame of dealing with waste in a modern society you cannot assert that anything with which these systems do not occupy themselves, is precluded from being considered "recycling." That is usurping a general term into a limited frame of reference. My turn to apply analogies. Some narrow-minded religious teacher preaching 'God is love,' and at the same time monopolizing the term love for use by the followers of his creed. You are likewise advocating that the term recycling is "owned" by one limitedly framed paradigm. __meco 23:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent)"God" is wholly intangible whereas "recycling" is replicable and observable...and has a set definition. False analogy. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Again I am observing that your understanding of analogy is missing. "Intangible" versus "replicable and observable" is a wholly irrelevant digression that neither corroborates nor invalidates whether my example can be seen as an applicable analogy. Also, it was love, not God which was the operative term in my example. Obviously I shall refrain from using any more analogies. __meco 00:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"God" is still an analog of your analogy, but is not analogous to a waste management paradigm; love supposedly being analogous to "recycling." --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That means we have entered a specific conceptual model. And the conceptual model "waste management" is as broad as possible and yet it still does not encompass anything that resembles what is done with Jenkem. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

your are misquoting: It's "modern waste management", not "waste management." The second is "as broad as possible," the first one isn't. We're dealing with the first one. I totally disagree with your assertion that waste management must necessarily be understood within the frame of mind which excludes Jenkem. What it appears to me that you are doing is to attempt to usurp the term recycling into the certified terminology of an industrial trade paradigm. __meco 00:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Whichever term is broader is the term I want to use. I'm comfortable doing that because I know Jenkem does not fall under either. If you don't like the choices, I suggest you abandon your mystical, Loki paradigm and find a verifiable paradigm. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What's a Loki paradigm? How is it mystical to adhere to the word definition? That aside, why should i find a "verifiable paradigm?" What does that have to do with what we are addressing? __meco 02:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Arguing that feces coated Punji sticks are a product of recycling is quite mystical in my opinion. I use the term "feces coated Punji sticks" interchangeably with "Jenkem" because they are so closely related as far as they can be considered recycling. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 03:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

you cannot assert that anything with which these systems do not occupy themselves, is precluded from being considered "recycling." If the terms have set definitions, and we are using logic, then yes, I can. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You still have to present any definitions that support your position. __meco 00:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You have yet to coherently explain how Jenkem is "recycling." Your argument consists of "it is." As for definitions, I've wikilinked them, and so have you. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You have wikilinked waste management, waste hierarchy and biogas. Please provide a definition for recycling that supports your reasoning. The Wiktionary definition certainly doesn't. __meco 02:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm referring to the wiktionary definition which is usable, but lacking: The practice of sorting and collecting waste materials for new use. "Practice" meaning 2. The ongoing pursuit of a craft or profession, particularly in medicine or the fine arts. 4. A customary action, habit, or behavior; a manner or routine. Unless you are going to appeal to Loki for another mystical definition, "practice" implies a cognizant act to achieve an end. When someone creates Jenkem, they aren't "practicing" the act of recycling; one must be aware of it to do it. This is independent of the premise that maintains that Jenkem creation is not recycling based on what recycling is supposed to achieve. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You are likewise advocating that the term recycling is "owned" by one limitedly framed paradigm. The paradigm can be whatever it wants to be. It can expand; it can contract. Not only does Jenkem not fit under the broadest possible paradigm that can be verified, but it doesn't even satisfy the most singular definition. I've attacked the premise that "Jenkem is recycling" on both the definitional and paradigmatic flanks, and I need only hold one position to defeat the premise - you need both. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You have presented the most oxymoronic and disjointed line of argument I have encountered in a very long time (I'm sure). I cannot see that you have attacked anything but straw men which entered this dialogue with you. __meco 00:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really. At face value, Jenkem production is not an act of recycling and the burden is on you to explain how it is. This has yet to be done. All descriptions of waste management, waste hierarchy, and any other verifiable paradigm you care to refer to, refer to deliberate actions that are a means to manage the waste itself by either reconstituting it entirely, or creating something from it that mitigates the "loss" involved from creating the waste. With Jenkem, there is no reconstitution, nor is there any mitigating creation -- there are still feces and urine in the container once the Jenkem is produced, and the gases created are not used in a way that benefit the premise of waste management, modern waste management, or any other verifiable paradigm, meaning they do not lessen further waste creation or create a source of energy that is congruent with said premise. If one was to deliberately use human waste in a way that either prevented further human waste, or mitigated the creation of human waste by say, using Jenkem gas as a biofuel, then perhaps the term "recycling" could be used, but note that in the article Biogas the word "recycling" is not used once, nor is it listed under "See also." --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

At face value Jenkem is a highly unusual product to consider in any context. That does not mean it isn't a) a dissociative psychoactive drug, b) an inhalant, and c) a recycled product. Your claiming that a sound argument for Jenkem being a recycled product hasn't been presented is false. This is what I wrote previously: "There should be no ambiguity to the fact that sewage is a waste product. Neither should any doubt exist as to the transformation of this product into a new product, a psychoactive drug." Again you are presenting recycling within the context of modern waste management as the only permissible context for using the term recycling. You are in fact attempting to pin down an axiom that isn't there at all. You assert that since the Jenkem phenomenon does not "benefit the premise of waste management" it cannot be recycling. That is a non-sequitur, and even if it were relevant it wouldn't be true since Jenkem is used as a substitute for other psychoactive substances and thus does benefit the aim of reducing waste creation, however little. But again, that is irrelevant. You are demanding that recycling is recycling if and only if it is done in the context of a comprehensive environmental strategy. I assert that recycling is recycling if it adheres to the definition of recycling. __meco 02:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither should any doubt exist as to the transformation of this product into a new product, a psychoactive drug. The vast, vast, vast amount of atomic mass still remains as urine and feces; there is hardly a "transformation." Considering the length to which I've gone to illustrate how Jenkem is not recycling, your single sentence explanation is less than satisfactory. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

During the Vietnam war, viet cong were known to coat Punji sticks with human feces to induce infection in the victim. If you maintain that Jenkem production is recycling, then I expect you to maintain that Punji sticks coated with feces is recycling. The two are nearly perfectly analogous:

• both undertakings use feces
• the state of the feces is not altered, nor is there any intent to do so
• the waste qualities are not mitigated, nor is there any intent to do so
• the end product is harmful, and does not mitigate the initial waste in any way (if anything, the Punji sticks have more practical value)
• both undertakings fail to fall within any verifiable waste management paradigm

  Have fun pushing that argument. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hoax

Is this just one great big hoax? I'm highly sceptical. In this day and age it's quite possible for fakery to circulate widely online. And even if someone says "I tried this, it did absolutely nothing", the hoaxers just come back with "well you must have got it wrong". M0ffx 01:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The information in this article is verifiable by reliable sources. Do you have a better reason for adding the hoax tag than "this seems fake to me"? Doctorfluffy 03:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The information in this article was completely made up by a member of &totse named Pickwick. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syphon8 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The article clearly lists all its references in the references section. It's unlikely the BBC was fooled in 1999 into reporting on hoax forum posting from 2007. Doctorfluffy 04:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The entirety of &T was backed up this year and migrated to new forum software, that post was actually made years ago.

This is a Hoax. Either you guys are in on it or your incredibly gullible http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1105072jenkem1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.7.99 (talk) 15:48, November 6, 2007 (UTC)

The article clearly lists all its references in the references section. It's unlikely the BBC was fooled in 1999 into reporting on hoax forum posting from 2007. Doctorfluffy 04:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a serious matter that needs to be taken seriously - the only really verifiable info is the use in Zambia. Otherwise, regarding use in the USA the article cites "rumors," "anecdotal sources" and "still unconfirmed media reports." I smell a moral panic.

We should insert something along these lines into the article:

Since only rumors have been reported, it is entirely possible that the use of Jenkem in the USA is a hoax thought up by people who read about its use in Zambia. Such a hoax, coupled with "drug alerts," could really just be an attempt at creating a sensationalized moral panic 160.39.129.60 22:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the situation. I do not think, however, that we could add such a cautionary reflection upon the situation without attributing it to an external source as that would be editorial speculations that we shouldn't get ourselves into. __meco 23:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's more likely the BBC was fooled by a contemporary source in 1999, which then started the 2007 forum posting hoax. I think at least the possibility of a hoax should be mentioned in the article. --Tchoutoye 01:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not just the BBC news report. There's the initial IPS report from 1995 and also the 2004 Mail & Guardian report. All three of these reports were filed by correspondents on site in Lusaka. __meco 01:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The "Trip Report" mentioned is a hoax

The kid that supposedly did this and made a trip report on totse.com later claimed that he actually never did it and that the pictures he took of the substance was fake. He mixed together some beer, water, and nutella to make it look like fecal matter in a jar. I think mention of this "widely cited trip report" should be removed since it is now a confirmed hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GemeniUltra (talk • contribs) 15:29, November 6, 2007 (UTC)