Talk:Misconceptions about drugs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Popular Culture  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of popular culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Sociology  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Pharmacology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Crime  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Law Enforcement  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
WikiProject Mythology (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


liquid MDMA[edit]

hey, sorry, not exactly a wikipedian, but I feel like I have something to contribute - one thing I hear from my friends who do club drugs is about this supposed "Liquid Ecstasy" or "liquid MDMA" and how its the purest form or whatever. Then I looked it up and found what they are referring to is GHB, which is sometimes sold as such. this is on the GHB article I believe. I feel like it belongs here, so people know what they are actually buying — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Misnamed article?[edit]

I was under the impression that an "urban legend" is a specific type of untrue story. This article seems to have become extended to all types of untrue ideas about drugs. Marijuana being a gateway drug, for example, is definitely not an urban legend, whether true or false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a rather fine line between "urban legend" and "misconception". Also, urban legends need not be wholly false either.Ajax151 (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, the vast majority of so-called 'illegal drugs' are used very legally as prescribed medicines, by terms of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001
Even heroin, under the name 'diamorphine', is so used
'Illegal drugs' creates a very false sense of what the drugs really are and do - but does serve the interests of those who want to maintain a 'war on drugs'
'Controlled drugs' is better - although drugs not usually referred to as 'illegal' (eg, in the UK, alcohol and drugs controlled by the Medicines Act 1968, but not by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971) are also subject to statutory controls
'Controlled drugs' is the expression commonly used in UK medical literature
Laurel Bush (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Illegal intoxicants would be better
So would illegal drug use, because use for unlicensed reasons, especially intoxication, or production, supply, and possession for such use, is what is illegal
The drug itself may be perfectly legal if produced, supplied, and possessed under licence, especially medical licence
That the vast majoprity of illegal intoxicants are also licensed as medicines seems to be, however, a fact which law enforcement authorities want us to be genrally unaware of
Laurel Bush (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The same is probably true everywhere. In the US a "scheduled drug" are the medicines which the DEA has an interest in. They are a relatively small subset of prescription drugs. You can buy Viagra overseas and the DEA wont care because it's not scheduled, even though it is a prescription drug. This article is about illegal intoxicants. They are subset of scheduled drugs, which include many drugs which wouldn't be desirable as an intoxicant by anyone and some chemicals which are not drugs but precursors to controlled drugs. In the U.S. Schedule 1 consists of substances which are not legally prescribed, such as lsd, mdma. They can only be used in research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:D800:107:1D8E:952:B37C:30EB (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this title is incorrect. It either needs to be renamed to "Misconceptions about controlled drugs" or this page should include alcohol. There are plenty of myths surrounding alcohol but they do not appear on this page. It is one of the worst drugs and has a number of misconceptions that outdo any of the less serious drugs like heroin or cocaine. --Hypernator (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Early use of marijuana has been linked to schizophrenia development[edit]

There is some evidence that schizophrenia, or psychosis's may be triggered by a combination between certain genes and people using marijuana at a young age. Specifically with this COMT gene. It seems like this might be mentioned in the brain damage section or have a section to itself. I know the idea of this article is to show false stories, but in the event that some aspect of a legend or something similar to it can be verified I think it should be mentioned. I will wait a couple of days for feedback and then add this section. thanks. Below is a citation to the research that supports this.

↑ Avshalom Caspi, Terrie E. Moffitt, Mary Cannon, Joseph McClay, Robin Murray, HonaLee Harrington, Alan Taylor, Louise Arseneault, Ben Williams, Antony Braithwaite, Richie Poulton, and Ian W. Craig (2005). Moderation of the Effect of Adolescent-Onset Cannabis Use on Adult Psychosis by a Functional Polymorphism in the catechol-O-Methyltransferase Gene:Longitudinal Evidence of a Gene X Environment Interaction. Society of Biological Psychiatry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see the need to add this to the urban legends page. However, if you must, please bear in mind that it is far from clear that the relationship is causal, and be sure to note that. The relationship is highly complex in any case, and plenty of doubt remains. Evidence against causality can be found from the following links:$file/TR.121.PDF

Of course, the MSM tends to ignore such counter-evidence, and exaggerate the results of the studies in favor of the causality hypothesis. The media in several countries has turned this into a sort of "Reefer Madness Redux" if you will. In that sense, it kind of qualifies for inclusion in this page, but only if the counter-evidence is presented objectively. Otherwise, no.Ajax151 (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, the supposed interaction between the COMT gene and cannabis remains controversial, as a more recent study failed to replicate these findings. As usual, the devil is in the details:

In addition, one thing I've noticed about the studies that are in favor the causality hypothesis (and I've read several of them) is that the vast majority of them have either Drs. Robin Murray and/or Jim van Os somewhere in the list of authors (though often not the first authors). Anyone else ever notice that? Hmmmmm.Ajax151 (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone[edit]

I Just wanted to thank everyone who worked on this article, it was very enjoyable indeed. -- 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)

i thought it was very helpful. you are an idiot. that was being as nice s possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Bias in Cannabis section[edit]

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 (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've smoked cannabis (marijauna is a horrible, racist term) for a very, very long time, and I disagree. I find that it's use makes me, if anything, more motivated and active. Though regardless, in both our cases, this is original research (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 26 February 2013 (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! (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. (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) (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Your links are dead. Just thought you should know.Ajax151 (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ecstasy adulteration[edit]

The section on ecstasy is woefully lacking: see and

LSD Info[edit]

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. -- 16:06, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is indeed in the LSD article, where i put it - under "related topics" -- 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 (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Carcinogenes in tobacco and cannabis[edit]

"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?

Here is another news article about marijuana not causing cancer. It should allow someone to trace back to the original research. I might do this, but not right now. I believe that the conclusion was that even though marijuana does in fact have carcinogens, but use, even heavy use, did not seem to correlate with higher rates of cancer. Smoking pot did not confer any protection to people who also smoked cigarettes. The speculation was that old cells in the lungs, the ones that are going to become cancers, were somehow killed or neutralized by something in the marijuana, but more research needs to be done to figure why exactly pot doesn't cause lung cancer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a study back in 2002 by the British Lung Foundation which (among other things) concluded that smoking 3-4 joints a day produced the same risk of bronchitis and the same damage to the bronchial mucosa as smoking 20+ tobacco cigarettes a day. They also mention that the THC level in a joint increased by a factor of 15 in between "the 1960s" and the time of the study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this article is sourced and used in the Cannabis (drug) article: "A 2012 literature review by the British Lung Foundation identified cannabis smoke as a carcinogen and also found awareness of the danger was low compared with the high awareness of the dangers of smoking tobacco particularly among younger users.". The article here claims cannabis is not a carcinogen of any kind, and yet this is a study by the BLF claiming otherwise. It's hardly something well established enough to claim as a 'misconception'. I suggest we remove or alter the section regarding this --Sgtlion (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

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 (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The article states, "There are studies that show no actual increased risk of cancer from smoking marijuana, even when duration of use is expanded over several years.[39]" The ref to support this is a newspaper article referring to a published paper. Why not cite the published paper itself? And the wording of this statement suggests this to be the facts of the matter. For balance, one should also say, "There are articles which indicate a strong positive correlation between long term cannabis smoking and lung cancer." For example, see the 40-year cohort study abstract at, which followed over 49,000 Swedish military conscripts from 1969-2009, and concluded that there was a statistically significant two-fold risk increase for cancer among heavy users, even after controlling for tobacco and alcohol use, respiratory disease and socio-economic status. The way the above quotation is expressed leads me to perceive bias in presentation of this article. Ptilinopus (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Using a bong or water pipe removes tars from the smoke[edit]

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 (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Synthetic mescaline[edit]

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[edit]

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

Using a bong or water pipe removes tars from the smoke

Strychnine in LSD

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,) and the preferable ._-zro 01:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This website has a wealth of knowledge: . I would hate to see this article deleted simply because I would see it as a "win" by the status 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! (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of "Meme" (word and concept)[edit]

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". 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[edit]

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)[edit]

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[edit]

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. 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.

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)


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. (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

LSD and Pychosis[edit]

"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,

Also of interest is this experiment in which LSD was successfully used to treat psychosis:

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: 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[edit]

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. 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[edit]

Hey does anyone have evidence that either proves/disproves this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (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. (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of "meth capitals"...The idea that some (usually lower income, "redneck") town located close to the person talking about it is the Meth Capital of the World also seems to be an urban legend. Tons of places are called "meth capitals" (just google it), and there usually is no statistical basis for this assertion. If there is a statistical basis, it's debatable (; Missouri was declared a "meth capital" based on # of meth labs busted. # of busts speaks more to efficacy of law enforcement than amount of meth produced or used in an area. (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

First hit for free[edit]

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. 05:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


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? 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! (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep this shit[edit]

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

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

Nice to see[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 02:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


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 (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

LSD and RCs[edit]

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." (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)
There are a few RCs it could be, like Bromo-Dragonfly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Heroin overdose myth[edit]

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 (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

But a majority of these non-rich/dealing people who overdosed on heroin had combined it with benzodiazapines or alcohol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment. Mention of Naloxone might do well here too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivamoque (talkcontribs) 10:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Removal of mescaline legend[edit]

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)

It would be worth having a section on Mescaline. The primary urban legend seems to be that microdots or blotters may contain mescaline. My understanding is that these are too small to contain an effective dose of mescaline, and that mescaline is extremely rare on the street. I suspect that mescaline is most often extracted (rather than synthesized), but would agree with the removed text that this is not done on a significant commercial scale. If people are getting genuine mescaline it's most likely from somebody they know who extracted it themselves. (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Retitling article[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 13:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Is funny[edit]

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.

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

MDMA = Manslaughter?[edit]

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)

It's partially true in certain states with particularly harsh sentencing laws (i.e. In New York State possession of more than 8oz of a controlled substance is an A-I felony (15 years - life) but at that level there is generally a presumption (reflected in the sentencing laws) that the perpetrator is distributing. AP (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed[edit]

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[edit]

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. 147AM (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

!!! WARNING !!![edit]

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..

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

Jimmy Wales [1]
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)

I like the quote box above, but it contains a citation that apparently doesn't exist and was entered incorrectly (the "date retreived" should be the date you actually retrieved the reference; it should not just be copied ad infinitum). Perhaps you can fix the citation? (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

MDMA overdosing[edit]

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)


"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[edit]

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 ( 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 would be a biased source by name alone. Most of the information I'm seeing at this point should be easily referencable using -- 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[edit]

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)

Medical literature says otherwise[edit]

After checking the sources ( and the medical literature there seems to be some contradiction, i.e. this case report (, Solar retinopathy from sun-gazing under the influence of LSD. There are more medical reports, see the article and its references. It seems that is not a 100% right in this case. Panoramix303 (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

About the "gateway drug" myth.[edit]

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.) -- (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[edit]

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. (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverse urban legends[edit]

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? (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. (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of mushroom legends[edit]

I will restore the legend about mushrooms containing LSD, unless someone objects on this talk page. (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! (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

New legend added[edit]

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? (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Another cigarettes myth.....[edit]

Unsourced and from a user, whose only other contribution was a vandalism some 12 months previously. But maybe I'm wrong, so I paste it here for you to give a look. "Another myth concerning manufacturers of cigarettes and cannabis exists about Lucky Strikes. It is said that one in every million cigarettes in a packet of lucky strikes contains cannabis. This is completely unfounded and no evidence exists to back it up." --Dia^ (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Did a quick search and this does appear to be a common urban legend ( Most of the search results are forums,, urban dictionary and other unreliable sources. I'll put the myth back up with snopes as a reference, if anyone finds a better one, add it... What an odd concept, needing reliable sources for proof that any given legend is passed through unreliable means like talking email etc.. Also, there does seem to somewhat of a pro-marijuana/psychedelic bias on this page that needs rewording- I would have fixed it myself if I hadn't found this page so interesting, not wanting to interrupt the reading. Don't get me wrong, I'm 110% for weed, psychedelics and other harmless drugs, but there are some pro-(w/e drug) wording and sentences in there that don't add substance to the given myth. Lerikson (talk) 03:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible source for the "LSD user puts baby in oven" story?[edit]

This idea was mentioned in John Brunner's late-'60s novel The Sheep Look Up (in connection with that novel's classified military psychoactive, of course). Could this be the source? Or did Brunner get the idea from the urban legend? — Korax1214 (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Poppy seeds[edit]

The section on poppy seeds is somewhat lacking: poppy seeds can be seen as opiates, depending on the jurisdiction - for example see —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This section claims that this myth "contains a grain of truth"- which is a misstatement. Poppy seeds CAN and DO cause positive tests for opiates. First of all, it needs to be pointed out that there are opiates other than morphine as implied by this article. I am a chemist with advanced degrees and was always skeptical of the claim that poppy seeds can cause false tests. But as a student trying to earn extra money, I was kicked out of a medical study because I had tested positive for opiates. I had been completely free of any opiates, except for the half box of poppy seed crackers I had eaten a few hours before the test. This section needs to be removed. Lastly, Why is Mythbusters considered a valid source? Its a crappy TV program with no review (even though it proves the "myth" is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The sentence "There is, however, no way to distinguish between poppy seeds and any other kind of opiate" is incorrect. While 6-MAM is unique to diamorphine/heroin, poppy seeds would only serve to be indistinguishable to morphine or possibly codeine. Heroin, morphine, and codeine are all metabolized into morphine. 6-MAM rules out heroin, and GC/MS testing can decide whether it was codeine or morphine based on the ratio of the metabolites. Most other opioids don't have the same metabolites. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC).

"Holes in the brain"[edit]

The statement that no known psychoactive substance could cause 'holes in the brain' is somewhat misleading. Of course, the definition for a hole can vary: some require a cavity to exist, others might be content with lesions or other forms of brain corruption. Personally, I find the damage of alcoholic encephalopathy ("wet brain syndrome") to fill my definition for sufficient corruption to call it "holes in the brain". This form of alcoholism causes atrophy of certain parts of the brain and nervous system, in essence the physical wasting away of the parts. Also, the unproven Olney's lesions in humans caused by excessive ketamine usage leave implication that physical holes could actually exist in humans too. Similarly, other anesthetic agents considered neurotoxic could actually cause such symptoms, but are administered with substances to counteract these side effects.

On a different note, the whole statement doesn't serve an important role in the paragraph to begin with, nor is it well backed up by the reference provided.

The whole section and its siblings (MDMA causes Parkinson's disease, MDMA drains spinal fluid) needs restructuring and expansion within the wiki guidelines. (DFade (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC))

PET (positron emission tomography)show distinctly there are indeed "holes" or "gaps" caused by MDMA and other drugs of abuse. Images show a progression of a normal brain and then the same brain under the effects of the substances over time and there are distinct and obvious changes, holes, gaps etc. which can not be anything else. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by HC-MHC (talkcontribs) 19:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

That source is here. It is PET imaging of only a few subjects and doesn't discuss lesions at all. We need a secondary source for such content - a review - stating it explicitly and stating that it is general. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

MDMA impurity/Mushroom Bleeding[edit]

"Much street MDMA is actually deliberately impure (as opposed to being mis-sold as pure, though that sometimes happens as well). While opinions vary on the allegation that ecstasy (MDMA) is often found on the street in an impure form, it is based on the fact that the majority of ecstasy pills tested in laboratories[86] contain a mixture of several compounds" and "It is believed these 'impurities' are actually added to enhance effect"

I can't really tell what's being argued here, but it sounds odd. Is the legend that MDMA is "deliberately" impure, i.e., that impurities are "added to enhance effect"? That sounds slightly plausible as a being an extremely stupid legend, but they way I read this, it almost sounds like the opposite is intended. I.e., the myth is that dealers are cutting MDMA with cheaper compounds to make more money, when they are actually doing it to enhance effects, or that it's a myth ("opinions vary on the allegation"/"based on the fact") that MDMA is cut at all.

The truth seems pretty clear; most MDMA is adulterated, although sold as being pure, and dealers may sometimes use a psychoactive compound as the adulterant rather than something completely inactive like baby laxative. But what is the purported legend? Adulterated MDMA is better because the adulterants enhance effects, and the adulteration is openly acknowledge by dealers? Adulterated MDMA is better, but not acknowledged as adulterated? MDMA is never adulterated? If it's not openly marketed as being adulterated, surely it's "mis-sold as pure", not "deliberately impure".

Now that I think about it a little more, this is the heroin in MDMA thing, isn't it? OK, so the legend is that MDMA is often adulterated with other psychoactives. "Deliberately" impure is still the wrong phrasing though. Again, that implies that dealers are openly advertising their MDMA as being cut with heroin. That doesn't happen. Users buy purportedly pure MDMA and decide that "smacky" subjective effects mean it must have been cut with heroin (ignoring the economics of cutting one illegal drug with another illegal drug). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

On another note: "One possible explanation for the origin of this myth is confusion with the psychoactive Amanita muscaria mushroom, which partially derives its psychoactive properties from the neurotoxicity of the Ibotenic acid it contains.[119] This mushroom is very different from psilocybin mushrooms, the latter being primarily of the genus Psilocybe and whose mechanism of action is unrelated to that of the former."

The source cited (Erowid) doesn't claim that the neurotoxicity of ibotenic acid produces psychoactive effects. In fact, they claim that ibotenic acid is not responsible for the majority of the effects of Amanita. They do mention that it can be neurotoxic when injected intercranially, but say nothing about oral ingestion. Neurotoxicity being a cause of psychoactivity seems to be a pretty common urban legend about drugs (i.e., nitrous gets you high because it kills brain cells). This "possible explanation" seems completely bogus. (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Bad acid[edit]

The article states that "Bad LSD" is a myth

"While contamination is a concern in many illegal drugs, the extremely high potency of LSD relative to other drugs means that LSD doses are tiny, making it difficult to introduce a significant amount of a dangerous contaminant in a normal dose, at least when sold as blotter paper.

Analogs of LSD have little to no effect, even at high doses.[2] Thus even these analogs are not a form of "bad acid"."

However, real life experiences tells me differently. Both me and many people i have discussed the matter with agree on the point that some batches of acid gives different effects than other. While some batches tend to give a more bright and vivid trip, others give a more "dark" and "mysterious" trip. LSD is LSD, sure, but im pretty sure that different methods of synthesizing gives products with different effects. Kind of like how different types of alcoholic bevereges tend to give slightly different effects even though it's all alhocol. Even with certain medicines such as benzodiazepines or "z-drugs" there is different effects in different brands even though they are legally manufactured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

With psychedelics it's quite possible to take two doses identical in chemical structure and experience significantly different effects due to a combination of mindset, setting and precise quantity of the dose. Even if this weren't the case personal anecdotes don't make for good data and fall under the WP:OR guideline. AP (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Bad LSD section contains wrong information[edit]

First, blotter can hold a fair bit of material, certainly enough to contain some contaminants and certainly compounds that are not LSD. The old article on erowid that supported this claim is no longer present and replaced by which addresses the issue. At the very least, "While contamination is a concern in many illegal drugs, the extremely high potency of LSD relative to other drugs means that LSD doses are tiny, making it difficult to introduce a significant amount of a dangerous contaminant in a normal dose, at least when sold as blotter paper," has no supporting evidence and will be removed. Second, "Analogs of LSD have little to no effect, even at high doses" is flatly false. First there are the lysergamides some of which share the same potency of LSD, and some of which have very similar effects and high and low doses. Second, analogs according to the US drug act constitute drugs with similar effects, one being DOB,5-dimethoxy-4-bromoamphetamine which is known to be sold on blotter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Embalming fluid/PCP missmatch[edit]

The section on PCP confounds the notion that PCP and Emb. fluid are the same thing (myth) with the actual practice of dipping cigarettes in emb. fluid and smoking them: called sherms among other things. I do not know if this practice was discovered because of the PCP/emb. fluid myth (although i highly doubt it) but i do know it is an intoxicant in its own right (when smoked with tob. or mar.) and not just an erroneously applied slang term. Not sure how to fix this but i found this report about research into this topic here: It will download a pdf. 3iz9 (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I'm amazed that any amount of tax money went to such a poorly devised study. They obviously took the slang term "embalming fluid" literally, and then proceeding to buy "embalming fluid" off the streets, receiving PCP believing it was formaldehyde. They then tested it, finding PCP in it, claiming that their "embalming fluid" tested positive for PCP. Just another example of Government incompetence in action. yonnie (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Urban legends vs. misconceptions[edit]

The recent title change was probably not the best choice. Not everything listed is false, so they are not all "misconceptions". A better title would be "List of urban legends and misconceptions about illegal drugs". Just my $0.02.Ajax151 (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, although I think it would take a lot to try and change the title again.Beefcake6412 (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Also agreed based on what I have seen so far. It might be worth trying though. It could get this article some love and attention, which it appears to need. Zell Faze (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Smoking or chasing cannabis with tobacco increases the high[edit]

I do know that tobacco contains MAOI's and this would explain the effect one experiences when 'chasing a doob' with a cig. Monoamine_oxidase_inhibitor Mika'el (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

But it seems difficult to quantitate that tobacco increases the high, is it not possible that it just changes it?Beefcake6412 (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed: Amanita and "brain bleeding"[edit]

I removed this paragraph from the section on psilocybin and "brain bleeding":

"One possible explanation for the origin of this myth is confusion with the psychoactive Amanita muscaria mushroom, which partially derives its psychoactive properties from the neurotoxicity of the Ibotenic acid it contains.[3] This mushroom is very different from psilocybin mushrooms, the latter being primarily of the genus Psilocybe and whose mechanism of action is unrelated to that of the former."

1. The cited ref does not say that Amanitas or ibotenic acid had anything to do with the "brain bleeding" myth. 2. Although neurotoxic, ibotenic acid does not seem to cause bleeding. Tova Hella (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

'Citation Needed' Provided in related THC article[edit]

"Though an (albeit very rare) allergic reaction to cannabis is impossible to completely rule out, there has never been a single proven death that can be unambiguously linked to the direct effects of cannabis alone.[citation needed] Thus, this legend is indeterminate but unlikely to be true."

Citation: ^ Walker, J.Michael; Huang, Susan M (2002). "Cannabinoid analgesia". Pharmacology & Therapeutics 95 (2): 127–35. DOI:10.1016/S0163-7258(02)00252-8. "…to date, there are no deaths known to have resulted from overdose of cannabis. (p. 128)"

From the article Tetrahydrocannabinol Toxicity section. Would amend but not proficient at wiki editing and don't want to mess with anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Would have fixed, but the text isn't in the article anymore it seems. Zell Faze (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Marijuana killed Bruce Lee[edit]

The Marijuana killed Bruce Lee section has got a couple of problems. First off, it's got a citation to "Thomas 1994, p. 228", but no text by "Thomas" is listed anywhere in the references. The reference was originally inserted when the section was written on 31 July 2010 using incorrect syntax (<ref name="Thomas 1994 p=228"/>), and there were no texts listed in the references by "Thomas" when the edit was made. Four hours later a bot reformatted the citation to <ref name="Thomas 1994 p=228">{{harvnb|Thomas|1994|p=228}}</ref>, but there were still no texts by "Thomas" in the citations. This is still the case, meaning the text is essentially unreferenced. So I've added a [citation needed] tag, and have contacted the contributing editor to see if they can provide the original source (though they have not been active since May).

Second problem is the sentence "Though an (albeit very rare) allergic reaction to cannabis is impossible to completely rule out, there has never been a single proven death that can be unambiguously linked to the direct effects of cannabis alone." The second part of this sentence is highly dubious. The citation given when this information was added was to the website of Cannabis activist Jack Herer — hardly an impartial source of information. The citation has been removed since, but the point is that, while extremely rare, deaths have been attributed to Cannabis, both by coroners [8] [9] and in the Centre for Disease Control's Compressed Mortality database [10]. While some may argue that Cannabis as the cause of death is ambiguous in these cases, it's not the place of Wikipedia editors to do original research, nor can the opinion of editors be written as fact. A coroner declaring Cannabis as the cause of death is very clear, and even if a reliable source disagreed with this, both sides of the issue should be discussed (as per WP:NPOV). Meanwhile, I've tagged the statement with [dubious – discuss] until a reliable source can be given verifying this statement. Otherwise it may need to be removed. The idea that no one has died from Cannabis seems to be a misconception in itself, and could possibly be given its own section in the article. TimofKingsland (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Admittedly Brian C. Bennett (your source marked 10) is probably not the most un-biased source either, but he has picked apart that CDC data a little further [11] and found that, at least for the year he was able to examine, marijuana use seems to have been listed as the cause of death for deaths directly caused by other things in which marijuana may have played a part, which may be splitting hairs but does seem to give the leeway to claim that marijuana wasn't a direct cause in those deaths. AP (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
First off, you're right — Bennett's website is not the most unbiased source. But looking at his research, he's probably right in my opinion — a lot of those deaths probably weren't caused directly by cannabis. In fact, even if someone's stoned and has an accident, it's not clear that they wouldn't have had the accident if they were sober, and so even indirect cannabis deaths are probably overstated. However, the other sources I mentioned seem pretty clear cut. It's a big claim to leave unsourced when coroners are saying the direct opposite. If a coroner ruled that a BB gun had killed someone, it wouldn't be appropriate to say that "there has never been a single proven death that can be unambiguously linked to the direct effects of a BB gun alone". The same logic applies to cannabis. TimofKingsland (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I added better citiations to the unsourced claim. As for the deaths being ambiguous, that is merely stating the obvious and is not original research. Deaths from a BB gun, for example, are far more clear cut than deaths allegedly caused by cannabis, and the coroners' reports did NOT conclusively prove cannabis was the actual cause, just that no other known cause was found in those mysterious deaths. Indeed, one of the cases (the 17 year old) could not rule out past use of other drugs, but cannabis was the only substance he was known to use in the past. The key words in the disputed sentence of the Wiki article are "proven", "unambiguous", "direct", and "alone", and none of the links you provided meet all four of these criteria. Thus, I vote to keep it in the article.Ajax151 (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I also fixed the citation in the first problem (regarding Dr. Wu), by using a different source. Sorry about that.Ajax151 (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
This comes down to verifiability and neutral point of view though. The sources that have been given for the statement are self-published sources with a clear agenda, and they all rely on data from last century, well before these coroners made their findings. The sources on the coroners say "A man (...) is believed to have (...) [died] directly from cannabis poisoning." "His death [was] registered as having been caused by cannabis toxicity" [12] & "Hadrian died as a result of the direct toxic effects on the heart that the use of cannabis had" "his body was left [with] a legacy of using cannabis in the past, which directly led to his death" [13]. What reliable source do you have that questions these findings? Because if a reliable source doesn't question it, doing so yourself by comparing it with other knowledge you have about cannabis's dangers is original synthesis, and picking apart their findings based on perceived flaws is original research. If we could find a reliable source supporting the lack of proof of direct cannabis deaths, I'd be happy with some kind of compromise along the lines of "A review published in the British Journal of New England Lancets stated that cannabis has never been proven to be directly responsible for anyone's death, however coroners have concluded that cannabis has been directly responsible for deaths in at least two cases." Meanwhile, what would it take for you to accept that a death from cannabis was "proven", "unambiguous", "direct", and "alone"? TimofKingsland (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Since the article has been successfully rewritten, my arguments are now basically moot. But I must say that the two coroner's reports are rather sketchy at best. I am not aware of any source that questions these specific reports, but the evidence that cannabis directly caused these deaths is rather weak. For the 17 year old, they could not rule out past use of other substances, and there is really no hard scientific evidence (in the medical literature) that cannabis alone causes long-term heart damage that persists after abstinence. For the 36 year old, while he was an ultra-heavy user (6 joints/day for 11 years), it is pretty daft to blame it on cannabis solely because no other known cause could be found. In both cases the coroners seem to be grasping at straws, and it was very interesting indeed how the latter case occurred just before cannabis was set to be decriminalized (i.e. reclassified) in the UK. Just my 2 cents.Ajax151 (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I've rewritten this section with references to reliable sources. All references that were given in the previous version were to self-published sources, and there was quite a bit of unreferenced material. I've taken out the bit about cannabis not killing anyone until it a reliable source is cited (though there is a quote from Dr. Wu saying "I've never known anyone to die simply from taking it"). If anyone has any problems with the new version, I'd be happy to discuss them. TimofKingsland (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with the new version. Good job.Ajax151 (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

LSD causes genetic mutations and anti-drug propaganda[edit]

In school years ago we were shown videos of babies that were supposedly mutated due to parental LSD use. In retrospect I believe they were actually thalidomide babies. If someone remembers that and the name of the video it might make a good addition to the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Why I removed[edit]

It is fairly obvious that many of articles on Erowid are compiled by someone either through original research or through reliable references, but there is no attribution. With tags like "Compiled by LG & Erowid" reliability is extremely questionable. I understand they sometimes re-host some articles which are not free to circumvent purchase or subscription. Such links are not allowed. There had been a discussion of use of this source as a source and the consensus is that we don't allow it. See this discussion Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"Curb Chain, you appear to be confused about what Erowid is and how it is used. There are numerous reliable sources attributed to their respected authors. Are you confusing the Erowid archives with the user generated part of the site? Essentially, Erowid is a tertiary source, like an encyclopedia." -- Viriditas and "I also suspect that he is basing his judgement on the "Mind and Spirit" part of the project, and overgeneralizing. I've taken a look at that section and have to agree with him that it is of poor quality compared to the drug-related section I am more familiar with." -- Dominus Vobisdu
I agree with both of these sentiments. It really depends on the section of erowid that you are looking at as to whether or not it could be considered a reliable source. Take for example this article. Much of what is published in their magazine Erowid Extracts is quite reliable. It is only certain sections of the site, those dealing with personal experiences like the Mind and Spirit and the Archives sections that are unreliable. Zell Faze (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Origin of cigarette flipping[edit]

IV drug users often use part of the filter of a cigarette to filter their mix. This cigarette was then placed back into the packet upside down to hide the fact that the filter had been torn. Also the reason it may have been named a lucky cigarette is that the user had got lucky and scored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

LSD Water[edit]

Is a good citation for LSD Water?

A disclaimer at the bottom of every page on that site says the following: "All information on this site is, to the best of our knowledge, false. If any significant true information has slipped through, we apologize. Contents © 2005–2012 so don't go spreading our lies without permission." (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Name and scope of the article[edit]

"Illegal drugs" as a term is too ethnocentric and chronosentric to use in encyclopedia since illegality is defined by place and time in history and it's inconsistent even contemporarily since many countries have already decriminalised use and small amounts of posession of illegal drugs and Urugay will soon make cannabis a governement controlled industry. The term "illegal drugs" is getting inconsistent fast so it should be replaced with something more universal like "psychoactive drugs". Also why limit the scope of the article to so called illegal drugs when it would we educational to deal also with misconseptions about alcohol[14] and tobacco. --Custoo (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Designer drugs also pose a problem with the title since they may not be yet illegal or might be illegal in one country but not in another one. My personal opinion is that as new substabces they are even more susceptible to misconseption because study in to their effects in humans has hardly begun while media gets a field day on any negative event involing them without waiting for toxicology reports.

On the issue of the title of this article I would also like to refer to recent decission to remove category Illegal drugs on similar arguments.--Custoo (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Jimmy Wales (2006-05-16). ""Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"". WikiEN-l electronic mailing list archive. Retrieved 2006-06-11. 
  2. ^ Volknow, N.D. et al 2001. Journal of Neuroscience 21.9414-18
  3. ^ "Amanitas". Erowid. 2009-04-21. Retrieved 2010-07-27.