Talk:Urban legends about drugs

Thanks everyone

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)

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)

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

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)

• Marijuana "Simply does not cause memory loss" Are you kidding, who wrote this article!? Ask any long-term smoker and they will tell you otherwise, I know myself! 80.229.37.68 (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

-Pointing to yourself as an example, declaring something and then acting as if your declaration is science is ridiculous. That you attest marijuana compromised your memory is meaningless. The whole point of that section of the article is specified by the last sentence, which states the No conclusive, scientific studies have confirmed this. I really think you're missing the point of this article. 68.229.51.51 (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

-There are two peer reviewed studies ([[1]] and [[2]] that show evidence of brain damage due to long term marijuana use. There are caveats, but I think that the blanket statement that it does not cause memory loss or any form of cognitive damage is unfounded. (oops, didn't sign in) 142.58.81.239 (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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.[3] 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)

---

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)

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)

---

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)

---

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)

---

The citations are still in really bad shape. Even statements that are referenced often have just an author and year associated with them. That is not good form! 142.58.81.239 (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

...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.

• Try telling that to the TV 80.229.37.68 (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

---

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)

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)

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)

There is no such thing as LSD-23, or LSD-24. LSD-25 is the only LSD. The number just signifies that it was the 25th ergot derivative synthesized by Hoffman. He was playing with ergotamine derivatives and every new chemical he made got a number for lab use. LSD was the 25th. Also, from that website: "Beware of blotters which have a bitter tast or appear to be stained with color. LSD is tasteless and colorless." LSD is not tasteless. It has a slightly metallic taste to it, even with weak blotter. "The mechanism by which LSD alters consciousness is not understood. The fact that only 0.001% of a dose crosses the blood-brain barrier, and it leaves the brain within an hour" again, this is false. If LSD left the brain within an hour, then the effects would disappear within an hour (note that an LSD trip can last anywhere from 7 to 12 or more hours), the mechanism of action is mostly understood and sound theories exist for the yet unproven aspects. There are no sources in this document and being that some of the content is decidedly false, why should any of it be trusted? One sourceless website with more-than-questionable information is not enough to change this information especially when it's so well supported. 24.72.141.149 (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

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 [4] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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

Even if the first claim were true, the second is not. It would be a 50% chance each time, which means that the cumulative risk for two exposures would be 75%. (This kind of claim works like flipping a coin, and I'm sure you've seen a coin turn up heads twice in a row.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry--I already added this legend, with citations. It is based on a retracted study from 2002. Ironically, MDMA is now being considered for use as a treatment for Parkinson's!146.186.189.35 (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep this shit

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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.

This is the funniest section yet! Step on toes and get sprayed! A bit offended?

I bought and sold for a few years and then grew up - why not try it? Can't? Oh well, laugh it off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4crates (talk • contribs) 02:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I'd like to see some of the legends spread by dealers and users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.95.230 (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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): [5] [6] [7] Ssmith619 (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.87.1.204 (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of mescaline legend

While I wish the anon had left a summary, the removal seems to be proper. At the very least it was OR, but in any case, according to PEYOTE & Other Psychoactive Cacti by Adam Gottlieb, "The isolation of mescaline from cacti containing this alkaloid is not difficult to perform... The chemicals required for this process are readily available... The equipment employed is not expensive or particularly complicated or can be constructed very easily from ordinary household items." NJGW (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Retitling article

Wouldn't a better title for this be urban legends about drugs? The current title's use of "drug" as an adjective is very quaint. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

MDMA Overdose and other discrepancies

I removed the 'myth' that it's hard to overdose on MDMA; it is currently unsourced and in direct contradiction with the MDMA Effects article. I see that there are more discrepancies between things that are stated here and on their respective articles; the 'Urban Legends' article seems to be overly positive in comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaximusBrood (talk • contribs) 13:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Is funny

Reading this wikipedia i am too close to believe that exist a good illegal drug.

But truly Drug_rehabilitation is not a myth.

I think this wikipedia miss some urban legends, showing how some "godness" drugs properties are not real. Otherwise is subjetive.

--201.222.157.134 (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)--201.222.157.134 (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

MDMA = Manslaughter?

I've heard several people tell me the reason they called ecstasy or mdma tablets 'manslaughter' is because possession of them carries the equivalent incarceration period/sentencing as if one had committed manslaughter. I was always convinced of the preposterous idea behind this. Is this remotely true in any jurisdiction or precedent? Anyone can shed any light on this or have have any ideas? Wgfcrafty (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed

I had tagged the article as original research, but that was removed. I've gone through and tagged statements variously for needing citations, appearing to be original research, or presenting a POV and not being balanced. There is a tendency towards disparaging anti-drug educators and law enforcement, which while satisfying does not present a NPOV. I also wonder whether all of the sources are reliable; we should be relying more on the medical literature and less on 1960s pro-drug books. The article generally needs much improved sourcing (including using citation templates), less speculation, and tighter writing. Fences and windows (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I went through the first several and they were ridiculously easy to fix. Please use some of your time to fix the rest, as just tagging so much that honestly could stay untagged per wp:UCS and wp:CK is a little annoying. You actually tagged the "brown acid" meme(?!); I'm assuming that's because you can think of any other instance where more than 20 people have heard of a specific different kind of acid. You could also provide refs which back up your doubts, but I have a feeling that those would be far less reliable than anything in the article. NJGW (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Statements need sources, you can't just assume your readers will know about these things. I hadn't heard of the brown acid meme, and not every reader will be immersed in drug culture, so what appears to be common knowledge to you won't be common knowledge to all, especially those outside the US. An article lacking references is one vulnerable to hoaxing, original research and umpteen content disputes. No, I didn't find sources, but that doesn't mean I won't - I do plan to, but it's also the case that those involved in editing the article will have an easier time finding sources than I will from a standing start. My point is not that I believe that all these statements are false, but that they could all be questioned (especially by nefarious anti-drug educators) and all need supporting, otherwise the article gives the impression of being received wisdom. This article is OK, but it could be much better - and good sourcing is key to that. Fences and windows (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The nefarious anti-drug educators was the first and easiest thing I referenced. That was found extensively covered in a journal article, and presumably is the impetus for the very existence of this article. While I definitely agree that sources make a better article, drive by tagging is very annoying, so please spend time today cleaning up the tags... it only takes going back to the main articles or a few google searches. NJGW (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

PCP myths about Big Lurch

There is a section where citation is needed for the section about a rapper cannibalizing one of his fans. I am not sure how to cite things, but here are links for citation.

http://www.rapnewsdirect.com/0-202-257866-00.html

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/14/1050172509082.html http://www.webcitation.org/5gBJVgCco 147AM (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

!!! WARNING !!!

Unless some serious citations can be provided.. I will ravage this article to remove a hell of a lot of uncited crap. I have tagged it - and was seriously considering tagging for speedy deletion!! Cite, or I will start obliterating ;) Dvmedis (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I have just removed 4 or 5 big sections that had no citations at all.. May I please remind everyone that ANYTHING without citations should be challenged and removed with immediate effect! Said sections may only be reinstated with attached sources. This article is unfortunately, a mess.. Dvmedis (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I have just hacked out about another half of the article.. 16 paragraphs without citations in one section? Madness..

In total, inc. today and last night - I have removed 14 sections completely, and removed bits and pieces out of others. Dvmedis (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you try and find citations instead of DELETING EVERYTHING!!! Better yet, try to understand why there is little citation. Because governments ban these substances so that even scientific studies are not allowed. - Floydian (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with Dvmedis, this article does in no way live up to Wikipedia standards. It felt like it was full of straw man arguments and unverified claims and stories. Please find reliable references if you want to keep this article. Cacycle (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Floydian - this is not the way Wikipedia works. Unsourced material has been stuck with 'Citation needed' markers for months and months - this is unacceptable. Wikipedia's own rules state that unsourced material should actually be REMOVED with immediate effect. Wikipedia by design shouldn't even have a 'Citation needed' tag, but it's obviously necessary in some circumstances to stop others writing the same unsourced material the moment it's been written and then deleted by someone else (IMHO). I mean, it would actually help if some of it was credible.. but I genuinely thought some of it was prank-written/vandalism.. (Eg. 'Tripping' on banana peels'..) LOL!

16 paragraphs of unsourced material, and a further FOURTEEN sections of primarily 'junk', written in (sometimes incomprehensible) biased ways should be without a doubt, and unquestionably anihilated on sight. Wiki Rule: Wikipedia is not a soapbox for personal vendettas/agendas. Dvmedis (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually unsourced material should be checked for sources before being deleted, unless it is a biography of a living person. See here. It is clear ffrom your post in my talk page that you also have a bias towards the opposite direction. I did not write this article, nor add content to it, and thus I have no interests in it. My comment's bias was towards the idea of keeping content and trying to verify or disprove it, rather than simply erasing it because it goes against your interests and you couldn't care less about it. I will see if I can source some of the "facts" from here off erowid. By the way, the smoking banana peels is an obvious myth, but it made a lot of gullible people try it out when the story first made its rounds back in the day. - Floydian ^τ _γ 04:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you just oblivious as to how poor this article was (and really still is)? It wasn't just the unsourced information, it was written terribly and in a biased way. It looked like it was put together by a bunch of 14 year olds. To prove a point, I am not anti-drugs: I smoke weed and I use pills; but this article was a sheer joke - even to someone like me who uses drugs recreationally, this article is the biggest load of balls I have seen in a long long time. If it doesn't belong in a bookshelf encyclopedia, it doesn't belong here. Too many people have chips on their shoulders about non-encyclopedic content being deleted on here. Remember the purpose of Wiki... Dvmedis (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, see the following..

Exactly! "unless it can be sourced". In other words, see if it can be source, and then delete aggressively. I also smoke. I have also read most of the vaults of erowid (All the effects, most of the experiences and ask erowid questions). I know how many myths exist and how many live on to this day. I know several myths are based on a once in a million example of bad luck or bad intention. I did not read the article before, and I do not disagree that it probably needed severe editing and lots of reorganizing. What I am trying to say is that things should be cross examined a bit before they are simply tossed in the trash. Many editors in good faith have read information but simply do not have the exact source name or page to credit it, and plenty of that information is easily citable with some quick research. Often it's no further than a quick Google. -- Floydian ^τ _γ 20:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

MDMA overdosing

Perhaps a little sentance on the end of this mentioning that almost all deaths of individuals under the unfluence of mdma is due to hyper... something or another. Drinking too much water without electrolytes. - Floydian (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: SOURCE:

"According to C. Haller, MD from the California Poison Control Center in San Francisco, hyponatremia (although actually rare among users) is one of the most common causes of ecstasy deaths or serious injuries." Erowid on dangers of hypernatremia -- Floydian ^τ _γ 04:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Original research

This article is due to its own title a whole original research: Only if a ref is found for each case considering it an urban legend it can be included in the article. If not it has been some WP editor who has decided that it is a "urban legend" which is a clearly original research: the editor has arrived to its own conclussions. Additionally unless those references are found it is also a non NPOV since saying it's a urban legend already has important consequences such as that it has no scientific base, or has no sense at all; which in most cases is not true. Finally the quality of the refs is very, very, very low (www.marijuana.com????... Take a look at the main page of the site...) I would simply nominate it for deletion: its simply a combination of POV pushing and miscellania article.--Garrondo (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that everything should be cited, and that marijuana.com would be a biased source by name alone. Most of the information I'm seeing at this point should be easily referencable using http://www.erowid.org -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Garrondo You should have seen it before I wiped out three quarters of it.. LOL.. Dvmedis (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I REPEAT MYSELF: Unless a reference where mentions the words "urban legend" or "legend" is found every comment should be deleted as OR (Since non of them would be a "urban legend". An alternative would be to change article name. If no actions are taken I will seek harder measures (Deletion of the article?). Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

To what? Common drug misconceptions? Honestly I think this needs to be merged with some legends which claim a benefit to drug use, but that have been disproven in favour of the negative consequences. Otherwise the whole article really is a POV fork. The title should be changed to reflect that, and that these aren't quote "urban legends", but commonly spouted anti-drug "facts" which have been disproven by more reliable sources (Such as established universities/publications) than government sponsered bodies such as NIDA and the shlew of propoganda websites out there. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

LSD: staring at the sun

When I was a kid I heard that some people on an acid trip had stared too long at the sun and gone blind. Many years later I came across a compendium of New York Times reporting on drugs and society, probably published in the late 1970s. While leafing through it I came across an article about college students who'd done just that. I was very impressed to find it was true - until I turned the page and found a follow up article in which the dean of the college admitted making up the story. I can search the NYT online archives to see if I can find those articles. However I'm not sure that there would be any that describe it as an urban legend, so that part would be my own original research. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  23:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Gee, this is more famous than I thought. "Blinded by the light" on Snopes.   Will Beback  talk  23:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

About the "gateway drug" myth.

Hi, I'd like to point out that there seems to be a logical fallacy in the section about marijuana being a gateway drug. Stating that it has weaned off people addicted to harder drugs does nothing to disprove the statement of marijuana being a gateway drug. In essence, just because these people ended into pot doesn't mean they did not start with it.

Unrelatedly to this, I don't know if this counts as a myth to be put here or not, but is cocaine (and by extension other drugs) actually strong enough as it is portrayed in the ending of Scarface? Shouldn't Tony Montana have died of massive blood loss, notwithstanding any imperviousness to pain caused by his enormous intake, instead of dying by that last gunshot in the back? (Man, is that movie overrated, IMO.) --70.171.22.132 (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Consequently, because someone smoked cannabis prior to taking up a harder drug does not imply that cannabis was the gateway to that harder drug. However, when it comes to most research into the subject, it is implied. Those are assumptions, not research. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Spinal fluid myth

One of the funniest myths about MDMA is that it it drains your spinal fluid and/or damages your spinal cord/column. False, but funny.128.118.51.34 (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverse urban legends

Two "reverse urban legends" that are not only true, but stranger than fiction, were added recently but then deleted. The first was that some of the heroin in the UK and Germany had recently been contaminated with anthrax, leading to 15 deaths so far or something like that. The second is that cocaine is now frequently cut with levamisole, a veterinary de-worming agent that can cause rotting flesh and agranulocytosis, and is a major hazard. Unfortunately, both of these facts are likely to be dismissed as urban legends, when in fact they are real. Should these be included?128.118.51.34 (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Since no one has objected in this discussion, I will bring back the reverse urban legends. It is important for the reader to know the truth.146.186.189.35 (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of mushroom legends

I will restore the legend about mushrooms containing LSD, unless someone objects on this talk page.146.186.189.35 (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I restored this legend. I remember when I was younger, my mother told me this one as if it was true--she seemed to believe it, and I did too at first, until my father told me that it was bogus. LOL!146.186.189.35 (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

New legend added

I recently added a new legend about THC "flashbacks" due to release from fat cells, similar to the LSD legend about retention in spinal fluid. While somewhat more plausible than the LSD legend, it is still quite dubious from a scientific perspective. Any thoughts on this one?146.186.189.35 (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)