Talk:Urban legends about drugs

I Just wanted to thank everyone who worked on this article, it was very enjoyable indeed. --83.181.65.253 16:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoyable... right... I'm actually amazed this article is still existant. It has no real encyclopedic value and is poorly written and contains little solid information. Who's to say these rumors are even rumors? This article is just amazingly poor quality.--Ḍʐṃṣžи ♥ 22:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then help fix itC6541 (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in Cannabis section

Most people who have used marijuana with any regularity for a period of time will admit that it will cause "amotivational syndrome". In other words it is likely to make you listless and lazy. It is the reason why many people quit. They have interests and ambitions and have to decide whether getting stoned is getting in the way of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.87.1.204 (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecstasy adulteration

The section on ecstasy is woefully lacking: see http://www.ecstasydata.org/ and http://www.pillreports.com/

LSD Info

shouldnt this information be on the lsd page(or at least linked) since there is already a section for this on there? You wrote the content, so before I do anything, I wanted to ask you.--Jpittman 03:44, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes - I had linked it originally - perhaps someone killed it - I will go back and make sure it's there. --207.31.248.155 16:06, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is indeed in the LSD article, where i put it - under "related topics" --66.228.91.155 16:07, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Will someone put info about myth that "LSD affects DNA mutation's" and other jibberish that media produced back in the 1970`s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.135.171 (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carcinogenes in tobacco and cannabis

"the amount of carcinogins in cannabis smoke is actually less than tobacco smoke, due to the lack of nicotine" ... this is nonsense ?!? At least cite something, this is drivil.

While I can't agree with this user's spelling, I also dispute the accuracy of that statement in the article. Lack of nicotine, as far as I know, does not make cannabis less carcinogenic, only less addictive. If this is to remain in the article, it needs at least one reputable source to back it up. --Joel7687 11:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicotine is a vasoconstrictor, which exacerbates some of the lung damage, but most damage- with the cancer- is from the radioactive metals in the ferts Big Tobacco used. Regarding all this, see Health issues and the effects of cannabis#Smoking. -SM 02:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone find the recent article in which they showed that THC has anti-tumor properties? I'd like to post a link to this. Although the smoke itself contains carcinogens, the THC itself has something of a reverse effect.

This what you're looking for? http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2006/10/30/smoking-marijuana-does-not-cause-cancer/::::

ok uuuhh as far as this ridiculous claim than there is no lsd spinal retention, ever heard of a spinal tap? or perhaps even a flashback? it is true that as soon as lsd is introduced to a liquid it begins to break down, and lsd is indeed passed through the system fairly quickly. however a trace amount {that is tracable} is left in the spine, however small, it is there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.54.196 (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

source? ^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.241.181 (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using a bong or water pipe removes tars from the smoke

This is not entirely true, while water will remove some of the tars from the smoke, it will also filter out some of the THC, so you'll actually have to smoke more to produce an equivelant high.

Sure about that? If I remember correctly THC is not water-soluble. The bong water contains only very little THC.

THC is indeed water-soluble, but only very slightly. Some THC will end up in the water, but not enough to make a big difference. I imagine if you used whole milk for bongwater, a lot more THC would be absorbed ;-) --Muugokszhiion 02:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding all this, see Health issues and the effects of cannabis#Smoking. -SM 02:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Would some of the vaporized THC/tar not condense in the colder water of the bong (even if THC isn't water-soluble? Only the vapor on the very outskirts of the bubble that touches the water would be affected though, so I imagine the effect is rather negligible unless the bubbles are very very small. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.201.70 (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic mescaline

What exactly is the mescaline urban legend referring to? Mescaline can and has been synthesized plenty of times; is it just trying to say that synthetic mescaline has rarely been distributed on the street? This should be made clear, as someone with psychedelic chemist connections could conceivably obtain pure synthetic mescaline.

I think that paragraph meant that mescaline was never artificially synthesized in large amounts. I'm guessing because mescaline has very low potency (as opposed to LSD) and it would be more worthwhile to the chemist to synthesize some other drug. Arm 02:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph doesnt mention anything about synthesizing anything. It says there are no large amounts of mescaline extracted from peyote/san pedro, which i would heavily disagree. Id like to see sources cited, because with the knoledge of san pedro going up, the amount of mesc on the "scene" has went up, but thats independant research ;) -matt

Cite Your Sources

Can we get some sources sited for these claims? Erowid, the Straight Dope, Snopes, etc. are ok but ide prefer a more authorative source like scientific papers.

Legally Psychotic http://www.snopes.com/legal/lsdcrazy.asp

Using a bong or water pipe removes tars from the smoke http://www.growkind.com/vaporizer-study.html

Strychnine in LSD http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_myth5.shtml

For any drug users who are worried that their product might be contaiminated with deadly poisons, if they smoke they should worry more about the nicotine in their cigarettes then some distant threat like strychnine. Nicotine actually has higher toxicity than strychnine.[1] Plus strychnine is a pretty rare chemical nowadays. A more realistic threat would be LSD hits "cut" with high levels of nicotine.

I'm not sure if these are the best sources so I'm leaving them here for someone to continue. Arm 03:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the facts on this page are not cited, and too easily disputed. Unless facts are cited, I recommend the use of the not verified template on the top of this article. Although, I'd hate to use it as it would make this article even more controversal. So start citing! - Kickboy 21:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Too many statements to the effect that various negative effects told by anti-drug educators are "bullshit" with no cites to back them up doesn't exactly contribute to a NPOV.EllenT 15:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there should be more citation, although I don’t see anything glaring with inaccuracy. I'll look for some specific sources … if anyone wishes to help with the mining effort some might include (perhaps on par with Erowid,) http://www.lycaeum.org/ and the preferable http://www.who.int/ ._-zro 01:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This website has a wealth of knowledge: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lsd/lsdmenu.htm . I would hate to see this article deleted simply because I would see it as a "win" by the status quo...it may be far from perfect, and it needs some cleaning up, but free speech should mean that it can stick around so that can happen.AAngelGoddess 06:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "Meme" (word and concept)

I take issue with the frequent use of "meme" in this article. Better-defined, and better-known terms exist (e.g., "urban legend"), and the veracity of the concept is still doubted by a large number of scientists and lay readers alike.

A brief explanation of how Urban Legends figure into Memetic theory would be fine, and perhaps helpful, but the use of "meme" without qualification cannot be supported.

Agree! Readers shouldn't have to look up a term to understand its meaning while reading an encyclopedia entry. At least a link to Memetics article, but I'm not sure how helpful that would be without explanation of the purported connection to the theory.EllenT 16:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO U (=D) Don't give an Ameriflag 00:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wholly agree that this should be reworded. Prior to reading this article, I had been under the impression that "meme" meant "stupid Internet phenomenon", which seems to be the common usage at present. Heather 18:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well that only because some phenomenon somehow fits the meme nomenclatura, it shouldn't be forced on the topic. Those things have clearly been _urban legends_ and _widespread misconceptions that get reinforced now and then_ _long_ before the use of the meme nomenclatura got fashionable. It has a whiff of lazyness for me if everything gets called "memetic". It's like an article about books that begins with "device like a web page with paper and without electricity". 85.179.196.71 07:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced references to "meme" with "legend", "urban legend" and "myth". I agree with the comments here. Memes are a disputed concept with a meaning that seems to shift everyday. The only common acceptance of the term seems to be in internet phenomena (see the page on this). In corporating a section on urban legends into the page on memes seems to be a better idea than filling this page with references to memes. I schneider 15:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup tag

The marijuana section needs some work - it's wholly without wikilinks, and it reads more like a turf fight between law enforcement and drug users than an encyclopedia article. We need some cited sources, not anecdotes, personal opinion, and preferably no propaganda... -- stillnotelf has a talk page 06:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it done, fair Wikicitizen. --Camille E. (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Camille E.[reply]

Anybody told this when in school health class? (re: marijuana)

I specifically remember one day where my health teacher in Jr. High or High School (or a police officer comming in to guest lecture) told us that there is a small portion of people who smoke marijuana who have an instantly fatal reaction to it and die. He/she brought up an example of one boy who died. Of course now I know that's complete bullshit, but as a kid it made me think twice. Does anybody else have a similar situation that they can recount?

Tardicus 11:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing your from the USA? They tell us all kinds of crap in the UK too, lots of exaggeration etc. Government propaganda man wants to stamp out things and this article is well on the way to providing the truth.

I'm no expert on the subject, but last I heard no one has ever died as a direct result of cannabis. (That is, if you get stoned and hit by a car we'll say that it doesn't count.)

Correct, see Health issues and the effects of cannabis#Lethal dose. BTW, re there is a small portion of people who smoke marijuana who have an instantly fatal reaction to it and die, THAT is complete crap. -SM 02:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Cannabis Doesn't Cause Psychiatric Problems

The article claims no scientific link between cannabis and psychiatric problems, but I was under the impression that some research had been conducted, and had shown greater prevalence of some mental disorders, and also enhanced susceptibility to drug addiction. I cannot locate the research at present, am looking. I also read one case study in which a male teenager was afflicted with severe psychosis and psychiatric disturbances after smoking Skunk with a high THC content; I will attemept to locate these studies. My main concern is the way in which the article presents the risk of psychiatric disorder as zero. 82.6.55.244 04:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...depends on wich scientific papers you believe dose'nt it.

See Health issues and the effects of cannabis -SM 02:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed "cause" to "exacerbate" mental problems on the page. It can worsen existing conditions, or trigger conditions such as schizophrenia to which an individual already had a genetic predisposition, but it doesn't cause problems out of the blue.

Anything addressing potential links between psychological issues and drug use should be careful to cite well. The potential is high for studies and their conclusions to be incomplete, so we'll want direct access to any relevant reports. Thornrag 21:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

I have removed the following statements from the "Different Types of LSD" section, and tagged it as disputed:

This is not true. See this.
This section is false. There are such compounds as LSD-23,LSD-24, and LSD-25.

Please modify the article to give correct information, rather than just writing "this isn't true". TheMadBaron 14:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's murky water to tread when speaking of psychiatric effects of cannabis simply because there are several studies and it's virtually impossible,(unless you have time to google and slog through all of them) to document all the research. Plus, there is always conflicting data, so then who do you cite?AAngelGoddess 07:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LSD and Pychosis

"no links between LSD use and psychosis have been suggested by studies."

While I totally agree with the spirit of this paragraph (which essentially says that the "legally psychotic" meme is bullshit), the statement that no link exists between LSD use and psychosis is clearly not accurate. LSD is referred to as a "psychomimetic" drug, which means the short-term effects of LSD produce a sort of temporary psychosis. Anyone who has taken LSD (myself included) or observed someone under the effects of LSD can attest to this phenomenon of temporary psychosis. Here's [2] an example of a primary literature paper that refers to LSD as a psychomimetic drug. So, you can't reasonably say there is "no link" between LSD and psychosis.

For accuracy, I think this sentence should be changed to something like: "no link between LSD use and long-lasting clinical psychosis have been demonstrated".

While I agree with the suggested new line above; the notion that LSD (or other psychedelics) are truely psychomimetic has been discarded. Tripping is similar to psychosis in that it is a state of consciousness radically different from the norm, but the specifics of these altered states of consciousness are radically different. This is addressed in a variety of literature, to give an example, http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/guides/handbook_lsd25.shtml

Also of interest is this experiment in which LSD was successfully used to treat psychosis: http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v07n3/07318fis.html

Legally psychotic implies that the government would have something to do with confirming this myth. Either a well constructed lie or government propaganda.Enmc (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually current ongoing research in Switzerland using LSD and MDMA in psychotherapy and cluster headache patients: http://www.maps.org/research/cluster/psilo-lsd/#swlsd Therefore, it logically follows that it must have at least short term pychological effects. I, as another LSD user, can attest that I am not a psychotic serial killer, but still, the all encompasing statements made in the article, since it is and encyclopedic entry, need to be further researched and documented as personal experience is simply not enough.AAngelGoddess 07:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The myth I heard regarding LSD and psychosis is much more reasonable, and possibly not a myth. What I had heard was that there was legal precedent for using a defence of temporary insanity against charges that arose while the perpetrator was on seven or more hits of LSD. This myth is more reasonable in my opinion because its existence relies not on facts (that LSD causes psychosis) but what a lawyer was able to convince a jury of (that his client was temporarily insane due to LSD use). I have no idea if this is true, however.Fofe510 (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the PCP "superhuman" strength myth

I'm not sure where the impression that the Rodney King incident is the "real" source of the PCP strength myth. I have been well aware of this myth well before Rodney King was ever known to the public. Though I can only attest to my own experiences, I have heard this myth since the early 80's, usually described with some bizarre story of a suspect high on PCP who thinks they are invincible, then proceeds to do something incredible, like take a power drill to their head or breaks out of handcuffs with shear force. Most of these experiences or stories came from early drug prevention programs aimed at children (DARE and it's many local predecessors). And at that, the logical fallacy that an urban myth existed before an incident, but once a real life counterpart happened, that became the source of the urban ledgend just doesn't work out. 68.106.5.220 02:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)The Nazz I also recall hearing this long before Rodney King became a publicly known figure. I recall stories about people breaking out of handcuffs and other feats of great strength. Several mentioned that they actually took damage from this, but failed to realize it, for example some said that while a woman snapped the handcuff chain, she broke her own wrist doing so, and failed to notice until the PCP wore off. The urban legend might have had some effect on the officers' treatment of Rodney King, however it is certainly not the source of the myth. Any reason not to remove this from the main article, or to revise it to an effect of the myth instead of the source of the myth? Another mutant 09:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urban legends about methamphetamine

Hey does anyone have evidence that either proves/disproves this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.213.65.6 (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I live in one of the major Meth capitals of the U.S. and have never heard this myth oddly enough. but the biggest myth around here is that if you smoke meth from the dull side of the aluminum foil you will get alzeimers and brain damage, like the meth isn't already damaging your brain as it is!

another that seems to go around here (another or same of those major meth capitals of the U.S.) is that meth that turns blue when smoked is planted by the DEA in order to track distribution lines. I've heard this one numerous times over my 16 years of meth use. 68.2.46.144 (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First hit for free

Just had to mention that the one and only time I tried crack, was when I was trying to buy weed from a friend of mine, and I got interested in the fact the he also sold coke and crack. He let me try it out, since I had never done it, for free. However, he became a friend of mine and would've easily let me smoke it with him for free again, even offering to let me have a rock that somebody fronted him and he wasn't in the mood for. 209.247.22.155 05:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parkinson's

In high school, my biology teacher said (on several occasions) that using LSD once gave you a 50% chance of getting Parkinson's Disease. She also claimed that using it twice gave you a 100% chance of getting it. Is this total bullshit, or is there any truth there? 12.218.145.112 05:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure this is total bullshit...otherwise there would be a helluva lot of babyboomers with Parkinson'sAAngelGoddess 07:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this shit

In my crusade against drug lies, this is my main ally.

Damn. Homsarrunner 15:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see

you enjoy your pot so much, but this is one of the most biased articles I have ever seen. If marijuana isn't addictive, where is your proof? I've never met a stoner who wasn't an unkempt, lazy, hedonistic idiot. There isn't ONE citation, either. Or did the man come and remove them? --Green Hill 06:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a mature tone you're using. There is no strong evidence either way on the addictiveness of marijuana (though several studies have argued for both sides) and your experience of 'stoners' is not a scientific study. There is also a discussion of the lack of citations here on the talk page. I schneider 15:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its very likely that a good portion of the people you know smoke pot. Its just that the only people stupid enough to tell someone as judgmental as you are are the unkempt, lazy, hedonistic idiots. Brentt 05:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I imagine Green Hill isn't bright enough to distinguish cause and effect? That because people are lazy hedonistic idiots, they smoke pot, not because they smoke pot they turn into lazy hedonistic idiots?? And no I don't smoke pot, I'm just not prejudiced against those that do. Or indeed prejudiced against lazy hedonistic idiots for that matter... Biscit 10:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, How biased of yourself. I want to see one of you anti-drug pushers actually tell the truth for a change. If you'd actually get out of that tunnel vision state of mind, and stop projecting your stupidity at others, you'd see, not all pot smokers aren't lazy hedonisitic idiots. I am, quite obviously, smarter than you, an I smoke pot. Seriously, get off your pedestal with that ignorant bollocks. --CylonSix 02:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laziness comes way before the dope, so get your dope straight -C6541 (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to get your shit in line. I know several people who smoke pot and lead successful lives, have families, hold well-paying jobs, etc. I'm one of them and comments like yours negatively stereotype thousands of people. If someone is a lazy hedonistic idiot, they are to begin with. Get in line dude.

Bias?

Typical, because this article is not biased and does not reinforce prejudices, people try and label it as biased! Biscit 09:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sensing bias towards this article. Other than that I fail to see the point in this thread.--Ḍʐṃṣžи ♥ 22:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, this article is biased against the supposed slanderous "anti-drug" talk of the 60s. It'd be a little more convincing if it a) used sources, b) cut down on the colloquialisms, and c) eliminated some of the embarrassingly juvenile elements. SirGrotius 16:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LSD and RCs

RCs (Research Chemicals) are not nearly as potent as LSD, and the section on LSD refers to this, but only after a lengthy discussion on phenethylamine chemistry and RCs in particular. Since somebody would literally need to take several milligrams of an RC to even reach a threshold dose (LSD threshold doses are ~50 micrograms). I suggest the section on RC chemistry in LSD be cut down to slightly more than "Some LSD blotters may in reality be research chemicals [with link], but this is unlikely since the dosage would have to be in the dozens of tabs."75.169.214.45 (talk) 02:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it... "it may be that... , but it's probably not." Well, if you've got a source, go for it. NJGW (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Def true, 2C chemicles and others need mg to reach effects while LSD is ug. LSD is the most potent man made psychadelic while salvia is the most potent natural. -C6541 (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heroin overdose myth

This seems like a big one that's missing – the myth that pure heroin is easy to overdose on. In reality, an addict needs huge amounts over their usual dose of pure heroin in order to overdose. This same fact holds with all opiates – it's much easier to kill yourself with a bottle of ibuprofen than with a bottle of painkillers. Some links (one from Consumer Reports, one from the medical journal Addiction, and one from Stanton Peele): [3] [4] [5] Ssmith619 (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Ibuprofen is a painkiller. You statement is equivalent to "It is much easier to overdose on a bottle of whiskey than a bottle of liquor.

I don't believe it is hard to overdose on heroin as plenty of people do who were not rich or had the supplies of a dealer.